Significance of state discourses and policies in shaping Malay families

Name: Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik / A0110600JTutorial Group: E1

Question 2:

Explore how significant are state

discourses and policies in shaping Malay

families

Raedi Haizer Bin Sidik

A0110600J

Tutorial Group: E1


Word Count: 3000


Introduction

According to the state, families are the “basic unit” for

societies (Ramdas, 2013, p. 109) and may potentially break down

if left to the individual to make choices and decisions (Public

Education Committee on Family, 2002). The effects of such break

downs reverberate across societies (ibid). The potential for such

reverberative effects has often been mobilised by the state to

justify their involvement in the production of the normal Malay

family. As such, this production can be seen as a state project,

rather than a private affair.

While Teo’s (2006) study on Malay families in Singapore

concluded that much of state discourses and policies have

resulted in “failures” and that effects have been largely

“latent”, secondary research reveals that much of these

conclusions were drawn without taking into consideration the

impact lag, or the time taken for changes to take effect after

its implementation. As a caveat, this paper does not make

references to ethnographies of Malay families in Malaysia and

Indonesia, and the conclusion on the significance of state


discourses and policies will be largely based on Singapore as a

case study. This is due to two reasons. Firstly, statistics on

Singapore Malay families are largely accessible. Secondly, by

focusing more on one particular country, a more thorough analysis

can made. “[D]iscourses have a distinctive spatial character”; it

is “not universal but [is instead] contextual” (Cresswell, 2009,

p. 213). Thus, I will argue that state discourses and policies

lack significance in shaping Malay families, insofar as Singapore

is concerned. The first section of this paper serves to

deconstruct the term ‘Malay family’. This section will also

delve into potential issues in this deconstruction and how a

single definition tends to gloss over variations in family forms.

Thereafter, the second section will analyse the significance of

state discourses and policies in defining the ‘Malay family’.


Deconstructing the ‘Malay family’

Before exploring the significance of state discourses and

policies in shaping Malay families, it is essential to first

deconstruct the term ‘Malay family’ (subsequently abbreviated as

‘family’). While I acknowledge that there are a plethora of Malay

family forms, for the purpose of this paper, the ‘family’ will be

defined narrowly rather than inclusively. Such narrow

conceptualisations would allow for the understanding on how

‘normalcy’ is constructed by the state and how this notion of

‘normality’ is challenged by other interpretations of what

constitutes a Malay family (see Purushotam, 1993). In doing so,

other diverse family forms will inevitably be introduced in this

paper.

The term ‘Malay’ can be conceptualised as a community that

comprises of “people of varied South-East Asian origins, the

biggest groups being from the Malay Peninsula and from Java” (Li,

1989, p. 7). While not all Malays are Muslims, this paper will

primarily focus on ethnographies of the Malay Muslim community to

gain insights on the Malay family. Taking on this definition,


families are therefore formed based on Malay marriages, largely

influenced by Islamic practices. Marriage is treated “primarily

as a contract” and is generally a prerequisite before

cohabitation (Djamour, 1959, p. 66).

The marriage of a heterosexual couple is perceived to be the

norm, likewise for the presence of children in a marriage. In the

‘family’, men often take up an instrumental role as breadwinners

(Todd and Fisher, 1988) and are often at the peripheries of the

households so as to fulfil this role (van Reenan, 2000). Women,

on the other hand, perform a more expressive role; taking care of

domestic needs and care-giving (Todd and Fisher, 1988). At this

current juncture, it can be seen that the term ‘family’ is

fundamentally similar to that of the Anglo-centric nuclear family

model (Hing, 2004; see also Ramdas, 2013). This notion of the

‘family’ is taken for granted; often unquestioned and thus

accepted as a “commonsensical” and “natural” trajectory of life

(Purushotam, 1993). Such perceived normalcy is problematic for

two reasons.


Firstly, attaching normality to the ‘family’ glosses over

the dynamism of the family, implying a sort of static permanence

in the state and meaning of the family. Rather, families can be

seen as responsive institutions; actively interacting with the

wider socioeconomic environment and is thus not a “static

habitus” (Hing, 2004, p. 375). Secondly, it is erroneous to

assume that the ‘family’ is universal (Harris, 2008) and as such

is often the subject of discursive abuse (Hing, 2004). When

loosely used, such labels and presumptions obscures the plethora

of family forms that exist (Harris, 2008) and in doing so,

results in a self-other dualism (Sibley, 2009). The “othering” of

an individual or group “reflects a power asymmetry and involves

negative stereotyping” (ibid, p. 85). In the case of the family,

the “self” is taken to be the ‘family’ (Malay family) while the

“other” refers to other family forms that diverge from this

ideal, for example single-parent families or childless couples.

Such labelling results in the implicit assumption that the

‘family’ is the norm and those that do not conform to this ideal

are deemed deviant, imperfect or even broken (Harris, 2008;

Sibley, 2009). Much discourse has also identified these


alternative families as ‘dysfunctional’, thereby appropriating

the need to ‘correct’ these non-conforming family forms (The

Community Leaders’ Forum 2007 Report). At this juncture, it can

be seen that much of the shaping of Malay families have been

attributed to the use of state discourses in appropriating and

justifying state interventions and policy implementations.


Discourse and biopolitics

Discourse refers to “an organi[s]ed spoken or written text

about a particular subject” (Cresswell, 2009, p. 211). Foucault’s

work aimed to show how semantic and other elements are “combined

to shape and delineate particular kinds of objects and knowledge”

(ibid). Discourse is thus “not merely a passive form of

communication” (Todd and Fisher, 1988, p. 9) but rather about how

new regimes of truth are constructed by a constellation of words,

practices institutions, and infrastructures (Cresswell, 2009).

Discourse thus serves as a medium through which particular social

realities are produced. Not to be confused with ‘ideology’, the

difference between these two terms lies in the fact that

discourse produces the truth while ideologies simply contain some

notion of truth (ibid). Discourse thus shapes the meaning of what

it means to be a family and the way people think about the

family, rather than the creation of actual Malay family

relationships. In shaping the meaning of what it means to be a

Malay family, discourse therefore brings this concept of the

‘family’ into being.


To connect discourse and the disciplining of bodies into

particular regimes of ‘truth’, it is only important to introduce

the concept of “biopower” (Newland, 2001). Biopower refers to the

governance of the population which centres around the

reproductive capacity of the human body (ibid). In other words,

biopower refers to the power over life. The government sees

themselves as social engineers insofar as the economic well-being

of the state is concerned. In state discourses, it has often

been said that the family may potentially break down when left to

the individual to manage on his or her own (Public Education

Committee on Family, 2002). In so doing, such statements

therefore serve to legitimise the involvement of the state and

the deployment of institutional tools in governing reproductive

bodies. Through discourses, an otherwise private affair of

family-building has been turned into a public matter that

requires state intervention.

The ‘family’ as a state project

The ‘working mother’ discourse


The increasing numbers of female workforce participation

(Figure 1) is very much a result of the state’s strong push for

women to contribute in its labour market. More women aged 25

years and above are entering the workforce in 2013 as compared to

in 2003.

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70 & Over

0102030405060708090

100

Figure 1Age-Sex Specific Resident Labour Force Participation Rate, 2003 - 2013 (June)Source: Adapted from Ministry of Manpower

(2013)

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

More specifically, there has been an increase in the number

of economically active married women aged fifteen years and

above, from 420 900 women in 2003 to 578 600 women in 2013

(Figure 2).


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013400420440460480500520540560580600

Figure 2Economically Active Married Women Aged Fifteen Years And Over, 2003-2013 (June) (in

Thousands)Source: Adapted from Ministry of Manpower

(2013)

To this extent, mothering in Singapore has been influenced

by policies relating to female labour force participation as well

as the ‘family’ (Suriani, 2004; 2011). Much discourse has also

centred on ‘working mothers’ and how women are seen to be

‘underutilised’, and served to naturalise the interconnection of

a good mother and a good worker; where “a woman can be a better

mother if she is also a good worker” (The Straits Times, 26

February 1984; cited in Suriani, 2004). The need for more female

participation in the waged labour force stems from rapid

industrialisation that began shortly after Singapore’s


independence in 1965 (Suriani, 2004; 2011). It was during this

period of rapid industrialisation that the state realised the

shortage of labour, causing the state to turn its attention

towards women who, at that instance, were generally not

economically active. The usage of the term ‘working mother’ in

state discourses wer intended to naturalise women’s involvement

as both a breadwinner and a caregiver. While Figure 1 and Figure

2 reveal that there has been a steady increase in married women’s

involvement in the paid workforce, it should be noted that these

statistics reflect the general female population and are not

ethnically or racially specific.

Looking more specifically into the context of Malay

families, there are still persistent “cultural perceptions of

Malays regarding the roles of women and men in the family”

(Suriani, 2011, p. 91). For example, women still see to their

care-giving duties even if they are employed, whereas men see to

breadwinning. While men do provide some form of assistance in

seeing to domestic chores, the extent to which this is done

depends on their availability. In addition to that, not all women

subscribe to the notion of the ‘working mother’ and may end up


withdrawing from the workforce should their husbands be stable

enough to support the family as the sole breadwinner

(Nurhaizatul, 2009). Alternatively, there may also be Malay women

who do not withdraw from the workforce. However, they may not

conform to the ‘working mother’ ideology insofar as child births

are concerned. This is in part due to the lack of a choice to

withdraw from waged labour; the sole breadwinner is insufficient

for the family to live comfortably (ibid). This last point

indicates that the reason for Malay women’s increased

participation in the labour force may not be attributed to state

discourses and policies, but is instead tied to rising standards

of living (Suriani, 2011). As such, while the increase in labour

force participation rate of married women (Figure 1 and Figure 2)

seem to be attributed to the state discourses and policies, this

increase is instead tied to the changing socioeconomic

environment that necessitates women’s participation so as to meet

this increase in standards of living.


The ‘problem’ of low total fertility rate

“…Singapore has to be a home where people want to get married, want to have

children, want to bring up the next generation. But alas, we are having too few babies.”

- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally 2012

This excerpt from Prime Minister Lee’s (subsequently

abbreviated as PM Lee) 2012 National Day Rally highlights the

matter of low total fertility rate (TFR), and he states further

that “we have a problem” (emphasis added). The use of the term

“we” thereby turns this matter of TFR from a private family

affair to one that requires government attention; legitimising

the state’s involvement in ‘correcting’ this ‘problem’. By

normalising marriage and childbearing in the context of the

‘family’, well-educated and single women – what more the

intersection of the two – are singled out as the source of the

problem of low fertility and delayed marriage (Teo, 2010). While

Figure 3 seems to provide a counter-argument to Teo’s (2006)

conclusion on how state policies are largely “failure[s]” insofar

as fertility rate is concerned, it can be derived from Figure 3

that Teo did not take into account the impact lag, or the time


taken for changes to take effect after policies have been

implemented. While the fall in TFR from 1.94 in 2007 to 1.63 in

2011 concurs with Teo’s (2006) research, the increase in TFR from

1.64 in 2011 to 1.69 in 2012 does not. However, one should not be

too quick to point out the significance of state discourses and

policies in accounting for this increase.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121.55

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

Figure 3Total Fertility Rate for the MalaysSource: Department of Statistics (2013)

Tota

l Fe

rtil

ity

Rate

Two reasons account for this. Firstly, Malay families,

according to one respondent, “have a strong network of family

caregivers” (Tan, 2013). This is also evident in the works of


Suriani (2002; 2004), highlighting the presence of a “close -knit

community” that consists of “[g]randmothers, aunts and even

neighbours [who] are willing to take care of the children if the

mothers have to work” (Tan, 2013). This suggests that while the

rise in TFR between 2011 and 2012 coincided with the

implementation of state policies and the construction of

discursive spaces, this rise is instead attributed to the

presence of close-knit relations of the Malay community in

Singapore. In the absence of alternative caregivers, Malay

mothers make certain considerations in childcare arrangements

(Figure 4). The next best possible consideration in the absence

of alternative caregivers would be to send the child to a

childcare centre. However, two issues were raised. The first

issue pertains to the cost of childcare centres (Suriani, 2004).

While there is a high availability of childcare centres, majority

are privately-owned and are therefore unaffordable to many. The

next issue pertains to the child not meeting the minimum age of 2

years (ibid). In the light of these two issues, women might

withdraw from the workforce altogether or delay child-births to

after the family becomes stable enough for her to withdraw from


paid labour. The potential for delayed child-births also comes as

a possible explanation to the lag in the increase in TFR between

2011 and 2012.

Secondly, the rise in TFR could be more grounded in

religiosity rather than the involvement of the state. The same

respondent (Tan, 2013) also mentioned that Malay families regard

“children as a ‘blessing from God’” and that most Malay families

still had children despite the presence of policies that

discouraged them from having more. To this extent, the

significance of having children lies not in state discourses and

policies, but is instead ingrained in the fundamentals of Islamic

practices and cultural family values.

Introduction of child into family

Are women willing to leave workforce?

Yes

Are parents or in-laws available to care for the child?

Yes

No

Why?Parents/in-laws may be too old or sick

May still workingPassed away

Not living within close proximity

No

Are childcare centres a viable option?

Yes

Why?Child not of minimal age (2 years)

Childcare centres are inaccessible or not within close proximityToo expensive; majority privately owned and unaffordable

No

Hire maidsAttends to childcare needs

Attends to household needs, freeing time for mother to spend time with child(ren)Maids as a last resort, a “necessity and not a luxury” (The Straits Times, November 21 1997)

Figure 4Considerations in Childcare ArrangementsSource: Adapted from Suriani (2002)


Will you BTO (build-to-order) with me?

Much of public discourse pokes fun at the association of

marriage and buying a flat, teasing that a proposal can be made

by asking the significant other to build-to-order (BTO) with him


or her. Even in the name of fun, there is much truth to this.

Government policies in Singapore promote heteronormativity, or

the understanding that heterosexuality is both normal and

natural, and the notion of the ‘family’ as a stable financial

unit (Ramdas, 2013; Teo, 2006). It is prescribed that a family

nucleus consisting of a married heterosexual couple and a

sufficient amount of Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings are

prerequisites to the purchasing of the house (Teo, 2006). As

such, it can be said that the construction of a particular

housing landscape has much to do with the state’s efforts in

inscribing the hegemony of heterosexual marriage and

heteronormative family ideals (Ramdas, 2013). State discourse and

policies therefore (re)construct the meaning of the ‘family’ to

one which comprises of a financially stable social unit that

consists of a married heterosexual couple. Teo (2006) highlights

that this normalisation resulted in the production of what she

identified to be “latent effects”; the development of an

‘understanding’ that marriage and house ownership are

interconnected.


In the 2012 National Day Rally, PM Lee mentioned that there

should be “some consideration[s] to giving couples with young

kids priority when they book HDB flats [sic]”. This is in tandem

with the house ownership policy and is aimed at addressing

concerns relating to the intent of Malay couples to own their own

houses (Li, 1989). While this interconnection between house

ownership and marriage can be said to be attributed to state

discourses and policies, the potential for a bottom-up influence

should not be disregarded. There exists a dialectical

relationship between the state and the ‘family’; the intent of

nuclear Malay families to own houses of their own may also

influence the state into allocating more housing units to them.

As such, while the state has a high capacity to engage in social

engineering (Teo, 2010) considering their control over

institutional tools like public housing, drawing conclusions on

the significance of state policies and discourses in shaping

Malay families may not be an easy feat.


‘New’ Malay fatherhood

The construction of the meaning of the ‘family’ through the

(re)production of fatherhood is still relatively new in

discursive sense and as such lacks conclusive results. Even so,

this phenomenon is worth mentioning; a potential subject for

future research to look into. While a “hysterici[s]ation of

women’s bodies” (Newland, 2001) situates women’s bodies as

centres of reproduction and therefore the centre of state

discourse and policies, there has been much shift in the focus of

family-planning; from women to men of late (see Suriani, 2010).

Drawing on feedback received from the general public, PM Lee

mentioned in the 2012 National Day Rally that the ‘problem’ lies

not in women working too long hours but rather the lack of the

involvement of the father in the nurturing of the child. With

more dual-income families, the state thus sees a need for fathers

to be more involved in the upbringing of their children

(ChannelNews Asia, 2013). This is also consistent with media

coverage and has been reflected in newspaper headlines, as

compiled in Table 1. Highly criticised as a government mouthpiece

(Tan, 2010), The Straits Times can thus be said to be a powerful


“tool for the government to get its message across” (ibid, p.

249); to discursively construct the meaning of the ‘family’.


Date Headlines12 Jan 1980 Sharing domestic chores ‘can ease burden on wives’24 Nov 1983 From mum to dad: Help do the chores2 Oct 1984 It’s about time the men did something…17 Jan 1989 Call to help the working mum in other ways, the public2 Oct 1996 Stressed out? It’s worst for working women3 Sept 2004 Bringing up baby: Why dads can’t be left out19 Aug 2008 PM Lee recalls his nappy-changing days20 Aug 2008 More tax breaks, parental leave to boost Singapore’s birth rate20 Aug 2008 The men don’t get it. Why?

Table 1 Compilation of Headlines from Various Issues of

The Straits Times.Source: Adapted from Suriani (2010)

As highlighted in PM Lee’s 2012 National Day Rally and Table

1, the meaning of ‘fatherhood’ is continuously being

(re)constructed by state discourses and policies. One such way in

which this meaning is (re)constructed is through the setting up

of the “Better Fathering Index”. An initiative of non-profit

organisation Centre for Fathering (CFF), the “Better Fathering

Index” (ChannelNews Asia, 2013) is aimed at producing a criterion

through which ‘good fatherhood’ can be quantified. In so doing,

fathering no longer becomes a natural act and the implementation

of a benchmark turns it into a process that requires training and

guidance. A this current juncture, it can be said that while


paternal involvement in the family is important, the existing

view is that of childcare being the responsibility of women

(Suriani, 2010). This is apparent as “[p]aternity leave [still]

remains three days upon the birth of the child” (ibid, p. 12).

Conclusion

In sum, this paper has explored how the state may shape

Malay families through discourses and policies. As explored in

the paper, the “ideali[s]ed family is conveyed so thoroughly

through so many different channels, people come to think of the

state as a monolithic whole” (Teo, 2010, p. 352). In other words,

the state operates through governmentality; information and

perceptions are dispersed. The way in which state discourses and

policies operate to shape Malay families is not limited to the

abovementioned context. Other scenarios that are relevant but not

explored include the construction of the ‘dysfunctional’ family

and how it requires ‘correction’ by state intervention. Also, the

(re)construction of the meaning of fatherhood is a subject that

has a lot of potential for future research, especially since it


is a relatively new ‘issue’ that is brought into being through

discourse.

With reference to the above scenarios, it can be concluded

that the state does not have much significance in shaping the

Malay families, insofar as Singapore is concerned. While

statistics show state discourses and policies appear to have much

significance in shaping Malay families, this paper revealed that

much was attributed to socioeconomic circumstances necessitating

change and cultural influences instead. Cresswell (2009) goes on

the mention that state statistics is in itself a medium through

which state discourse operates. Categories of population are

brought into being (or made invisible or inexistent) and in so

doing, constructs what Malay families mean. As such, while I

concur with Teo (2006) that much of state discourse and policies

have either been “failures” or produced “latent effects” and

therefore not as significant in shaping Malay families, the

significance of state discourses and policies lie in their

ability to be used as a lens, through which the meaning of the

family can be understood.



References

ChannelNews Asia (2013) “"Better Fathering Index" to measure

dad’s role in raising children”, 1st August, from

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/better-fathering-index-

to-measure-dad%E2%80%99s-role-in-raising-children, last

accessed: 6th April 2014.

Cresswell, T. (2009) “Discourse”, In Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.),

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier ,

pp. 211-214.

Djamour, J. (1959) Malay Kinship and Marriage in Singapore, London:

Athlone Press.

Deparment of Statistics (2013) Population trends 2013, Singapore:

Department of Statistics.

Harris, S.R. (2008) “What is family diversity? Objective and

interpretive approaches”, Journal of family issues, 29: 11: 1407-

1425.

Hing, A.Y. (2004) “Ideology and changing family arrangements in

Singapore”, Journal of comparative family studies, 35: 3: 375-392.

Li, T. (1989) Malays in Singapore: Culture, economy, and ideology.Singapore: Oxford University Press.

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/better-fathering-index-to-measure-dad%E2%80%99s-role-in-raising-children

http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/better-fathering-index-to-measure-dad%E2%80%99s-role-in-raising-children


Ministry of Manpower (2013) Labour force in Singapore 2013, Singapore:Ministry of Manpower.

Newland, L. (2001) “The Deployment of the Prosperous Family:

Family Planning in West Java”, In NWSA Journal 13: 3: 22-48.

Nurhaizatul, J.J. (2009) “The marital and maternal body”,

Perempuan, Isteri dan …: Embodied Agency and the Malay Woman of

Contemporary Singapore, Master of Social Science Thesis,

Department of Sociology. Singapore: National University of

Singapore.

Public Education Committee on Family (2002) Family Matters – Report of

the Public Education Committee on Family, Singapore: Public

Education Committee on Family.

PuruShotam, N. (1993) “The Normal Family: A Study of Ideological

Reformulations Concerning the Family in Singapore”, Paper

presented at the Third Malaysia-Singapore Forum, 1- 4

November 1993, NUS, Singapore.

Ramdas, K. (2013) “Contesting landscapes of familyhood:

Singlehood, the AWARE saga and the Pink Dot celebrations”,

In Ho, E.L.E, Woon, C.H. and Ramdas, K. (eds.), Changing landscapes of

Singapore: Old tensions, new discoveries, Singapore: NUS Press.


Sibley, D. (2009) “Self-other”, In Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.),

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Oxford: Elsevier, 85–

88.

Suriani S. (2002) “Studies on Malay families and households in

Singapore – A Critical Assessment”, Department of Malay

Studies, NUS Seminar Papers No.35.

Suriani, S. (2004) “Expressing “motherhood” – notions and

experiences of employed Malay women in Singapore”, Paper

presented at International Workshop on Working and

Mothering: Asian Women Negotiating Work Challenges and Family

Commitments. Singapore, ARI, NUS 29th – 30th January 2004.

Suriani, S. (2010) “Being a father in Malay Societies”, Paper

presented at the International Conference on Fatherhood in

the 21st Century Asia: Research, Interventions and Policies,

ARI, NUS 17 – 18 June 2010.

Suriani,S. (2011). “Gender Relations in Singapore Malay Dual-

income Households: (Un) Changing perceptions and Practices”,

Islam and Civilisational Renewal, 3: 1: 90-115.

Tan, J. (2012) “Why are Malays having more babies?”, Yahoo!

Newsroom, 16th August, from https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-are-malays-having-more-babies-.html


are-malays-having-more-babies-.html, last accessed: 6th

April 2014.

Tan, T.H. (2010) “Singapore’s print media policy: A national

success?”, In Chung, T. (ed.), Management of success: Singapore revisited,

Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.

Teo, Y.Y. (2006) “Producing Singaporeans: Family Policies and

their ‘Latent’ Effects”, In ARI Working Paper No.77, Singapore:

Asia Research Institute, NUS.

Teo, Y.Y. (2010) “Shaping the Singapore family, producing the

State and Society”, Economy and Society, 39: 3: 337-359.

The Community Leaders’ Forum Report (2007) Action Plan for Strengthening

Malay/Muslim Families, Singapore: The Community Leaders’ Forum.

Todd, A.D. and Fisher, S. (1988) Gender and discourse: The power of talk,

New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

van Reenen, J. (2000) “The Salty Mouth of a Senior Woman – Gender

and the House in Minangkabau”, In Koning, J. (et. al, eds.), Women and

Households in Indonesia – Cultural Notions and Social Practices, Richmond,

Surrey: Curzon Press.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/why-are-malays-having-more-babies-.html

Date post:	31-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nus
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Significance of state discourses and policies in shaping Malay families

Documents