indians

Thursday March 22

Will Indians remain just sweepers and guards?
P Ramasamy

1:42pm, Thu: Of late, a series of incidents in the country have revealed the vulnerability of the Indian community. Today it has become a common practice to talk of Indians as a minority, weak in terms of their political and economic status, a community afflicted with all kinds of problems, a community prone to engage in most violent forms of conduct and others.

If there is an incident, there is tendency on the part of the Indian middle-class and other ethnic groups to put the blame on Indians in general. For instance, in the Petaling Jaya Selatan episode, an impression was given the racial strife were caused by some irresponsible Indian gang members.

In brief, there is growing tendency to view Indians as a problematic community in the country afflicted with all kinds of political, economic and social ills. A community waiting to be rescued from the clutches of evil by political parties, the government and other welfare-orientated organisations.

Of course, there is growing amnesia on the part of many to disregard the immense contribution of this particular community in making Malaysia what it is. Brought from India as semi-slaves in the beginning of the last century, they cleared the forest, hills and other physical impediments so that modern infrastructure could be built.

Plantations would not have been the mainstay of the Malaysian economy until the 1960s and 1970s had it not been for the contribution - sweat and blood - of Indian labourers. Thousands perished in building this country to what it is today. After more than hundred years of their existence, Indians remain poor, neglected, patronised and marginalised in a country that was build by them and others.

More than this, they have been subjected to worst forms of discrimination, shunned and pushed to the edge of the mainstream society. Paradoxically, they are considered a burden to the nation.

Impossible dream

Given the viciousness of racial politics perpetrated by the present ruling regime, Indians by themselves stand no chance to compete and struggle to better themselves. Lacking the historical experience of capital accumulation like the Chinese and unable to obtain governmental assistance like Malays, Indians are basically afloat in a quagmire without the benefit of an alternative leadership.

A leadership that will provide the community with a new political vision, a vision that will take them from the present doldrums so that one day they could emerge proud and dignified. The racial game of Malay hegemony has caused irreparable damage to the human existence of Indians, particularly those who belong to the working class category.

Racial ideology and the everyday practices of racism have virtually made it impossible for Indians to lead decent lives in the country. Denial of decent jobs, licenses, contracts and others have prevented Indians from emerging as a dynamic group. Today, working class Indians can only aspire to become coolies in the private sector, drivers for the rich, security guards, office boys, errand boys, sweepers and others.

Upward mobility in the Malaysian racist society is an impossible dream for thousands and thousands of Indians in the working class categories both in plantations and in urban areas.

No human being would want to put up with injustice and discrimination for long. Indians are no exception, there is a definite limit to where they can be pushed and bullied. They want no special preference, but existence free from injustice, discrimination and cruelty.

Indians have no hostility towards other races, but would want the latter to respect their nationality rights and vice versa. However, they would not want to put up with present situation of extreme racism for too long. Too much time has been wasted in depending on certain political parties within the government for their salvation.

Inalienable rights

There is growing realisation that an independent political course has to be charted for their future in this country. In the near foreseeable future, Indians will have no choice but to fight for their rights and for their rightful place in the Malaysian society. Whether there are political parties in the opposition that will provide Indians with this new vision, leadership and sense of purpose is difficult to gauge at the moment. If the opposition is genuinely interested in taking up the cause of Indians, then a serious attempt should be made to address their nationality rights.

What is particularly significant today is for the emergence of an alternative leadership for Indians, a leadership that will have to be led by Indians with vision to resurrect the status of the community.

A leadership that will take up the struggle of Indians so that they would emerge as a significant national group in the country fully endowed with their inalienable rights as citizens, free from discrimination, enjoying full rights like other citizens, right to their mother-tongue education, full access to jobs, education and others.

In short, an alternative organisation for Indians should start by championing the nationality rights which among other things will seek to dismantle the sources of present racism and injustice in the country.

------------------------------------------------------
P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.

Saturday March 31

Indians left in the lurch
Elanjelian Venugopal

12:23pm, Sat: Malaysians are pragmatic people. We aren’t given to venting anger by starting ethnic clashes. Race relations in Malaysia are good and harmonious. The system works, we are told. But then, how can we explain the clashes in Petaling Jaya Selatan, which stick out like a sore thumb?

Oh that! It’s an isolated incident, caused by poverty. Possible. But, probably it isn’t so; and I believe it has demolished a myth. A myth about the New Economic Policy (NEP) (now the National Development Policy).

NEP was launched with grand hopes. It was intended to create a new Malaysian society that transcended ethnic, cultural and socio-economic differences. A united Malaysia, in other words, where (paraphrasing former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas) ethnic communities not merely co-existed, but actually intermingled harmoniously without the danger of having to repeat an incident like May 13, 1969.

The hope is still alive, but after the recent clashes, the means prescribed by the NEP fall under suspicion.

The origins

The discontent between ethnic groups in Malaysia is centred on economic disparity, created during the British rule. The method of production then, was organised along two distinct, but parallel types:

- activities using Western technologies and organisation systems; and - activities employing less efficient traditional methods which evolved locally.

While the immigrant communities from China and India were exposed to the former, the Malays invariably continued with their traditional way of lifestyle. Isolated from the modern economy, the Malays fell behind, and by 1957, the disparity between the ethnic groups grew to a glaring scale.

Given the disparity, a compromise, or safeguard, was inevitable; hence the bumiputra special position, which essentially confers several guarantees with regards to land, admission to public offices, scholarships, bursaries or other forms of aid for educational purposes, and issuing of permits or licences for operation of certain businesses. As we know, that didn’t prove sufficient to contain mounting discontent.

Nearly 12 years into independent existence, Malaysia saw its foundations shaken to the core. The ‘bargain’, seen by then as a ‘sell-out’, gave way. What resulted was May 13.

The challenge

In the wake of such a traumatic experience, it was obvious that a new course had to be charted. The nation was in need to be reunited and rebuilt. The Rukun Negara came out in 1970, whereas the NEP followed a year after. A new contract, or a special measure, replaced the old.

The new measure aimed to create a nation ‘based on equal justice and fairer share of the fruits of economic development for all Malaysians, irrespective of race or religion’.

To this end, the constitution was amended to help the bumiputra further. Some now consider NEP as irrevocably flawed. If not for the racial nature of the special measures, they argue, our nation would have been far better; stronger, dynamic and confident - not unlike Singapore.

Perhaps, NEP - the albatross - has structurally sealed racism in our psyche.

But I beg to differ. I believe it’s self-evident that all people have equal rights and dignity. However, owing to what John Rawls calls, ‘The cumulative effect of prior distribution of natural assets - that is, natural talents and abilities - and such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune’, we seldom find such equality in reality.

And racism and racial prejudice, almost invariably, built their foundations on these ‘cumulative effects of prior distribution’ and aggravated the situation. Hence, the need for special measures.

Even the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted in 1965) provides, ‘Special measures taken for securing adequate advancement of certain ethnic groups shall not be deemed racial discrimination’.

Not continued

But there’s a rub, however, which I believe, our government, to our collective detriment, has forgotten.

The Convention also provides that those special measures will not be deemed racial discrimination only if, ‘... such measures do not lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and are not continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved’.

The question then is - are the special measures introduced by the NEP threatening to create separate rights? Sadly, yes. (Ask Suqiu, or those who threatened to burn the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, if in doubt.)

And secondly, are the special measures being continued after the achievement of its objectives? Depends. In the case of Indian-Malaysians, the answer is an obvious yes.

Some say the bumiputra still need the special measures and the justification for this is that they have not attained the 30 percent mark. Is that so?

It depends to whom the question is addressed. According to official statistics, the figure rose from 1.5 percent in 1969 to 22.2 percent in 1990. By 1998, it decreased to 19.4 percent. If so, then the 30 percent target has not been reached (see Figure 1 - Ownership of share capital, 1969 -1998).

However, Prof K S Jomo, thinks otherwise. In 1990, he suggested, “Bumiputra percentage does not include shares owned by those who use nominee companies and other such devices obscuring the identity of the owner”.

Now, consider the Indian-Malaysians. In 1970, they owned 1.1 percent of the capital share. Thirty years later, their share of ownership has edged to a mere 1.5 percent. Is that an indication the Indians are well positioned economically, better than the Malays? I think not. If this is so, what is the rationale behind this continued neglect?

Why should the plight of the Indian-Malaysians be ignored?

Two tasks

NEP hoped to create national unity by accomplishing two tasks. Firstly, it wanted to eradicate poverty. In general, the policy was a success. In 1971, the poverty incidence stood at 49.3 percent; now it is 5.5 percent. Secondly, it aimed to restructure the Malaysian society to eliminate the identification of ethnicity with economic function.

Again, this was a broad success. The three main ethnic groups may still be monopolising their ‘traditional’ economic activities, but Malaysia has evolved into a complex society, diluting significantly the possibility of stereotyping.

But wait! Where is the promised national unity and why do ethnic groups still clash? I feel that racism and racial prejudice are still rife, not only in poor areas, but everywhere, in universities, workplaces and marketplaces. The special measures used by the NEP, is akin to using racism to fight racism. To be effective, the measures must encourage a greater interaction between diverse groups.

This is seldom the case in Malaysia. Quota systems and special measures have only created ethnic enclaves - mental and physical. Malaysians are tolerant, but we remain indifferent to the concerns of other ethnic groups.

“Great deal of learning occurs informally,” observed Justice Powell in a landmark case. “It occurs through interactions among students who have a wide variety of interests, talents, and perspectives and who are able, directly or indirectly, to learn from their differences and to stimulate one another to re-examine even their most deeply held assumptions about themselves and their world.”

In Malaysia, I doubt our policymakers give two hoots to diversity. Life, for them, goes on in the monochromatic world of assimilation. Next, the job market is riddled with racism and racialism as well. Public sector jobs are generally reserved for the bumiputra. In the private sector, employers generally prefer members of their own ethnicity.

Curiously, there are no laws which protect employees from racial discrimination. If so, how could racial discrimination (overt or covert) be prevented?

Finally, the Indian-Malaysians, supposedly better placed economically vis-à-vis the Malays, are now becoming the new objects of prejudice or contempt. As a class, they now suffer from what is known as, ‘traditional indicia of suspectness’, having been relegated to a position of political powerlessness. Yet the purposeful unequal treatment against them continues unabated.

New approach

We have spent the last 30 years restructuring our social reality. But, the promotion of diversity, and of quality interactions across the racial divide, has been overlooked.

Most Malaysians merely co-exist. They seldom intermingle, as Tun Salleh Abas felt we should. In living spaces we occupy contiguous plots, but within the mind, we remain as distant as ever, enslaved by a ‘quota mentality’ - only our ethnic communities matter, within which we compete. Encumbered with such mentality, many seldom make an effort to cross that line into the ‘enemy’s’ mental territory.

This must change. Diversity must be embraced. Hammering everyone into a particular mould will not create a better citizenry. Glorifying the differences, and appreciating the uniqueness, would.

That, alas, can only happen when we end racial discrimination, as it is practiced now. In its place, we have to erect institutions, like a race relations commission, that will tear down social structures and procedures with ‘built-in-headwinds’. Only then could the ghosts of May 13 and Petaling Jaya Selatan be put to rest.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELANJELIAN VENUGOPAL is a graduate student at the School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. This essay is part of a seminar paper on the topic of affirmative action that he wrote last year.

Saturday April 7

OPP3's tasty morsel to fatten the Indian elite
P Ramasamy

12:12pm, Sat: Malaysia is one country where the government never seems to learn from past mistakes. On the contrary, past mistakes are often repeated in new forms so as to prove that the government has never been wrong.

More significantly, one gets the impression that development plans and policies are more intended to satisfy the lust of a few capitalists rather for the improvement of the well-being of Malaysians in general.

The recent introduction of the Third Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3) in parliament by the prime minister is in a way no different from other previous perspective plans. It merely endorses earlier government objectives without recognising some of the dangerous pitfalls of such objectives.

The manner of the plan’s introduction without giving the opposition enough time to read smacks of government arrogance and disrespect for the elected representatives in the parliament.

The contents of the development for the next 10 years is but a regurgitation of capitalist solutions that are biased in favour of the rich and those who have closer connections with the governmental elite.

Foreign scapegoats

Since many of the old objectives have never been met in the country, there has been no attempt on the part of the government to explain their failure in earlier years. But instead, quite characteristic of the present government, failures of earlier developmental objectives have been blamed on outside forces. Who are these outside forces and how they spoiled our chances remains a mystery.

We are back to square one now. Objectives hatched in the heat of the New Economic Policy (NEP) have been re-introduced to meet the developmental goals of the next 10 years. Among these objectives, the creation of the 30 percent equity for the bumiputra stands out like a sore thumb.

The basic argument of the government for that particular objective of the NEP, and later the National Development Plan (NDP), not being met is because of the pernicious role of outside forces. Of course, as we are fully aware, no mention is made to examine the internal forces and the role of the government as to why this particular objective failed.

Was it because of the politics of certain political parties, or was it because the government never really intended to create a real entrepreneurial class of bumiputra in the first place. Or was it because some crony capitalists, by developing a close nexus with the governmental elite, waylaid the plan?

Capitalist catapult

Despite the hue and cry over the nature of our affirmative action policies, the government seems unfazed. Unlike other countries where affirmative action programmes are meant to assist the poor and needy, in Malaysia these programmes are meant for individuals and groups who aspire to become capitalists.

Perhaps, this is the reason why the government is continuing to push Malays to take more business and entrepreneurial roles so that they could be constituted within the Malay capitalist class.

Indians who have been largely ignored in development plans in the past were given some recognition recently when it was stated the government would allocate a target of three percent for Indian capital acquisition.

Again, whether this form of affirmative action for the Indian community will help ordinary Indians caught in the vicious circle of working class existence remains to be seen.

It is really remarkable and yet so sad that it took the government 43 years of existence to recognise that the Indian community needs help. But, tragically, the solution has been sought in purely capitalist terms.

By setting a three percent target for Indian capital acquisition, the government is committing the same folly it did to Malays. There is feeling in high circles that this three percent allocation will somehow magically transform the plight of Indians in the country.

Cronyism revisited

This target is merely meant to appease a small section of the Indian business elite by providing them an affirmative action quota. A handful of Indian economic elite will benefit, but the plight of Indians in the country will remain unchanged for the worse.

Again, like in the case of the Malays, affirmative action for the Indian community is not for the needy and the exploited but for the Indian elite with connections. Another example of cronyism!

Recognition of Indians in the present developmental trajectory is merely symbolic. More specifically, the community as whole and its problems are not recognised but only the need of some Indians for capitalist acquisition.

Beyond this, the present development plan that was ambitiously and arrogantly presented in parliament has nothing in substance for the working class in the country. It does not even pay a lip service to resolve the everyday problems faced by the majority of Malaysians irrespective of their ethnic origins.

Strange belief

There is a strange belief prevalent among the top governmental elite that development policies by taking care of the elite, can take care of the masses.

The most tragic aspect of Malaysian development policies are its racial character. In the past and present, all development policies are predicated on the basis to fulfill ethnic demands and quotas. Without the rejection of racism in our development plans, the government can make no headway in providing its citizens with a sufficient stake in the system.

As long as some ethnic groups feel and think that they are less equal to others, development policies will have no effect in bringing about peace and goodwill among citizens.
------------------------------------------------
P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.

A neglected minority
By V. Suryanarayan

THE COMMUNAL clashes between ethnic Indians and Malays in early March, which took a toll of six lives and left a number of people wounded, have sent shock waves throughout Malaysia. It was the worst ethnic riot since the communal holocaust in May 1969. The ethnic tensions in Malaysia are mainly due to Sino-Malay rivalry and the role of the Indians was considered peripheral. But the Indian involvement this time -five of the six killed were Indians, the other was of Indonesian origin - is a sharp reminder that in Malaysia's progress towards prosperity, the Indians had been left behind. The Chinese are firmly entrenched in trade, commerce and industry; and the status of the Malays had been steadily improving due to the energetic drive of the Government since the New Economic Policy was launched in the early 1970s. By all available indicators, the Indians are lagging behind. Compounding the tragic situation, many Indians in the urban areas are not only getting marginalised, but also lumpenised.

The ethnic clashes in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur underline the deep divisions in Malaysian society. It has also put a question mark on the future of Malaysia in the years to come. Malay unity - which provided unprecedented political stability to the country during the last five decades - suffered serious reverses when the followers of the jailed former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim, started their own party. The majority, which Dr. Mahathir Mohammed got in the last parliamentary elections was mainly due to non-Malay support. The economic progress has also slowed down consequent to the worst economic crisis in the region.

According to the media, the trouble began in one of the squatter villages near Petaling Jaya.The spark for communal violence was provided when differences arose between Malays and Indians, the former celebrating a marriage and the latter preparing for a funeral. A temporary shed, outside the venue of the wedding, was damaged by a drunken motorcyclist, who fled in the direction of the Indian areas. The rumour-mongers had a field day. Malay-Indian clashes ensued, armed gangs roamed the streets, leaving death and destruction behind, until the security forces restored law and order. The violence underscored the fragile nature of communal relations in Malaysia. In an unprecedented move, nearly 200 Indian activists demonstrated outside parliament demanding ``harmony without racism'' and also ``justice and development'' for the Indian community.

The Malaysian Indians, who number 1.8 million (8.0 per cent of the total population of 22.0 million), are not a homogenous group. They are divided on the basis of language, religion and place of origin. The overwhelming majority are Tamils 80.0 per cent; followed by North Indians, mainly Sikhs, 7.7 per cent; Malayalis 4.7 per cent; Telugus 3.4 per cent; Sri Lankan Tamils 2.7 per cent; Pakistanis, including Bangladeshis, 1.1 per cent, and the others 0.4 per cent. As far as religion is concerned, Hindus number 81.2 per cent, Christians 8.4 per cent, Muslims 6.7 per cent, Sikhs 3.1 per cent, Buddhists 0.5 per cent and others 0.1 per cent.

These cultural differences, no doubt, are divisive factors; but, on the positive side, it must be pointed out, that over the years, they have developed an ``Indian identity'' over and above their primordial loyalties. The policy of the Malaysian Government to club them together as ``Indians'', both for political and administrative purposes, has further given a fillip to this process. Since 1955, when the inter-communal alliance came to power, the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) had been the representative organisation of the Indians in the Government.

A notable feature of the Indian community had been its changing socio-economic profile. In 1970, 47 per cent of the Indians were engaged in agriculture, 74 per cent of whom were in the plantations. With rapid economic expansion and diversification of the economy, the plantations have been converted for other purposes, including construction of luxury homes. The uprooted Indians were only paid a pittance as compensation; they naturally migrated to urban areas and joined the squatter population. A few years ago, Mr. Samy Velu, president of the Malaysian Indian Congress, deplored the plight of thousands of estate workers ``living in squalor in dozens of long-houses and squatter settlements all over Selangor''.

Aliran, monthly journal of the well-known Malaysian Reform Movement, have provided statistical details, which make disturbing reading. For example, 40 per cent of the serious crimes in Malaysia are committed by Indians; there are 38 Indian- based gangs with 1,500 active members; during the last three years, there had been 100 per cent increase in Indian gangsters; Indians record the highest number of those detained under Emergency Regulations and banished to Simpang Renggam Prison. In the field of social woes, it is the same story. In Kuala Lumpur, 15 per cent of the squatters are Indians; they have the highest suicide rate; 41 per cent of the beggars and vagrants are Indians; 20 per cent of the child abusers are Indians and so also 14 per cent of juvenile delinquents.

Taking the ownership of national wealth, Indians are in the worst position. In 1970, Indians held only 1.0 per cent of the share capital in the limited companies, while the Chinese controlled 22.5 per cent; Malays 1.5 per cent and foreigners 60.7 per cent. At the turn of the century, Indians owned only 1.5 per cent, compared to 19.4 per cent for Malays and 38.5 per cent for Chinese.

This dismal position is directly related to poor educational attainments. The importance of education in a developing country need hardly be highlighted. It is a means for upward social and economic mobility; an avenue of modernisation, an instrument to enrich cultural life and, above all, in the Malaysian context, a means of national unity and integration. Though the Malaysian Government has expanded educational facilities in a big way since the attainment of independence, the fruits of education have not yet percolated to the most disadvantaged sections of Indian population. The Tamil medium primary schools are in a pathetic state. A single teacher handling multiple classes; ill-equipped schools, with many teachers having no commitment, and high drop- out rates are some of the drawbacks. Family life is characterised by alcoholism, violence against women and addiction to television. They do not provide a congenial environment for education.

Finally, the question should be legitimately asked: to what extent has the MIC succeeded in its primary objective of safeguarding and promoting the interests of the Indian community? An Indian observer of the Malaysian scene comes to a dismal conclusion. Factional struggle and disunity had been the major curse of the Indian community. Since its inception in 1946, fight for power, petty politicking and mudslinging had been the major attributes of the MIC. The rivalry between Devaser and Sambandan; Sambandan and Manickavasagam; Manickavasagam and Samy Velu and among Samy Velu, Padmanabhan and Subramaniam - it brings no laurels either to the MIC or to the Indian community. What is more, self-help measures initiated by Mr. Samy Velu to uplift the community, with lot of fanfare, have not led to desired results.

The Indian community in Malaysia is at the crossroads today. If the present situation is allowed to drift, it will do serious damage to the future of the community. If the present hardships are to be overcome, the Indian community must sink its differences and work as a team. The smallness of the Indian community and its present vulnerable position makes such a team effort all the more imperative. The Malaysian Government must also consider the problems of the Indian community, especially in the estate sector and among the urban squatters, with greater sympathy and understanding. The Government should ensure that the Indians at least obtain a share equal to their proportion of population.

(The writer is former Director, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras.)