Transcript Realising People’s Potential Inclusion, opportunity and

5th DIVERSITY MATTERS
a Commonwealth forum on cultural diversity, 19-20 Nov 2008
Realising People’s Potential
Inclusion, opportunity and social
capital
Presentation by Prof. Lim Teck Ghee,
UCSI University
Focus of Presentation
• Larger theme: understanding, working with
and managing diasporas in the
Commonwealth
• What happens when communities are
excluded or mismanaged or misunderstood?
• Case of excluded diasporas in parts of
Commonwealth needs to be part of
discourse
• Case study of marginalized Indians in
Malaysia
Malaysian Indians: A Heterogenous
Community
• Have been in Malaysia since 1786 with
establishment of Penang
• Indian labour migration continued until 1930s
and was mainly South Indian, predominantly,
Tamil
• Non-labour migrants (literate) brought in from
Ceylon and North India to man colonial adm and
technical services
• Also a class of free migrants – merchants, petty
traders, lawyers, doctors, money lenders
Indians in Malaysia
• The situation is muddled further by a lack
of transparency in disclosure of data
justified on grounds of ethnic sensitivity.
Nevertheless, as Thillainathan (2008, 324)
points out, even an analysis of the limited
data available shows that the relative
performance of the Indian community has
deteriorated across a number of key
indicators over a 35-year period from 1970
to 2005
Table 1: Distribution of Indian Labour, 1966
Employment
Number of
workers
Percentage
Plantations
Mines
137,150
5,290
67.8
2.6
Rural total
Government
and
quasigovernment
Transport
Manufacturing
--
70.4
142,440
48,850
7,360
3,600
24.2
3.6
1.8
59,810
29.6
Urban total
Total number of
Indians
employed
202,250
100.00
Source: Ponniah 1970, 59.
Economic Marginalization of
Indians
• In 2006, 7.2% of Malaysians were
employed in government services. Only
2.8% of Malaysian Indians of total MI
employed are to be now found in govt
services.
• In 2007, there were an estimated 3 million
foreign workers or about 15 % of total
work force
WHO ARE HINDRAF
• The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) is an ad hoc
coalition of 30 Indian Malaysian-based nongovernmental organizations (NGO) formed in December
2005 following the controversial burial of soldier M.
Moorthy as a Muslim despite his widow’s protest that her
husband was a practicing Hindu till the time of his death.
Later, Hindraf began to articulate on various issues
affecting the Indian Malaysian community and drew
support largely from working class and under class
Tamils, who are increasing frustrated over their socioeconomic backwardness and government neglect.
Key Points on HINDRAF
• Focused in long experience of neglect and
marginalization of Malaysian Indians
• Unresponsive political system despite
participation in ruling party
• Blocked avenues of communication and
expression
• Religious catalyst
HINDRAF Campaign for Justice
• According to Uthayakumar, the movement’s
Legal Adviser, HINDRAF had “written over 1,000
letters over the past 10 years to the PM, chief
ministers, mayors, the attorney-general, IGP
(about) all the atrocities (done) to Indians (but)
they just don’t (give) a damn. They don’t even
bother replying save for a few letters
acknowledging they have received our letters,
thank you very much, full stop. That’s the first
and last we hear from them.” See
“Uthayakumar: I am no racist”, Malaysiakini, 5
December 2007.
HINDRAF Campaign: Chronology
•
•
•
On 31 August movement filed a civil suit against the Sec of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs claiming compensation for alleged
“pain, suffering, humiliation, discrimination and continuous
colonialism” suffered by the Indian community in Malaysia as a result
of the colonial government’s failure to protect the rights of the
minority community during the independence negotiations.
On 11 Nov HINDRA memo pointed to state sponsored “atrocities”
perpetrated against the Indian community of Tamil origin and other
forms of “state-sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in
public university intakes, Indian (Tamil) schools, skill training
institutes, civil service and private sector job opportunities, business
and license opportunities and in almost all other aspects of daily life”.
On 25 November, HINDRAF organized a rally to deliver a memorandum
to Queen Elizabeth II. The memorandum which the organizers sought
to convey through the British High Commission related on a class
action suit brought by HINDRAF against the British Government for
bringing in Indians into Malaysia as indentured labor.
Zaid Ibrahim on HINDRAF
•
•
He told some 50 professionals in a public discussion on election
issues that “in leadership I think, hubris and arrogance have no place.
This is the government of the people. We have to listen, even to the
most ridiculous demands”.[1] He further argued that, although he did
not agree fully with HINDRAF’s demands, the government had indeed
failed to address issues such as the series of religion-related
controversies involving converts, demolition of temples and the
perceived Islamisation policy. Pointing to what has been one of the
main lines of attack used by the Government in demonizing HINDRAF
– the movement’s use of extreme language in the memorandum to
describe the plight of the Indians – Zaid pointed out that “(Y)ou have
exaggerations like ‘ethnic cleansing’ (being made) - they perhaps don’t
know what they are talking about when they say this, but in terms of
ethnicity and religious marginalization, yes, they do feel that”. He
concluded that if the HINDRAF protest was viewed only as “ethnicdriven”, then the real causes would not be acknowledged.
[1] “Zaid: Protests are the Malayan Way” , Malaysiakini, 5 December 2007.
“Discrimination from Womb to
Tomb” : S. Paranjothy
• S. Paranjothy – the Gerakan Youth Deputy Chief - criticized the
Government for its policies towards the Indian community.[1]
Disputing media reports which had put the number of HINDRAF rally
participants at 4,000, Paranjothy stated that 30,000 Indians took part
to express their “frustrations and anger” because the community has
been “marginalised, oppressed and ignored”. Pointing out that
Indians form the most neglected group in economic terms, he
lambasted the Government for treating them “as fourth-class
citizens” and pointedly stated that “(w)here the Indians predominate
over their fellow Malaysians is mostly in prison, violent crimes,
gangsterism, suicide and social ills [as]Government policies have
failed to improve (their situation).”
•
[1] See “Gerskan rep: UMNO incites racial sentiments”,
Malaysiakini, 23 December 2007.
Paranjothy (continued)
• National unity would be elusive as long as political
parties and politicians continue their communal approach
towards politics. “Politicians always feel (they) must fight
for (their) own party. Since we have mostly ethnic
parties, they are fighting for their ethnic group. It is
difficult to achieve any kind of consensus.”
• He stressed that the 14 BN component parties must
consolidate into a single party in order to “end racial
manipulation in politics”. “In a multiracial party, if a
politician wants to succeed, he would need to prove his
ability and win support from all races, not just his own,”
he explained.
HINDRAF Aftermath: Opinion in
early Jan 2008
• The larger ripple effects will probably not be discernible until the
results of the country’s elections – expected as early as March 2008
- are tallied and its impact on Indian and other voters in the country
assessed. The political ramifications of the BN losing the Indian vote
in the coming elections are not likely to be calamitous in view of the
BN’s stranglehold on most Malay majority areas and the nature of
rural-urban weighting in the national electoral system which
guarantees a disproportionate importance to rural voters compared
with their urban counterpart.
• At the same time, the opposition parties are well aware that although
there is no single parliamentary or state assembly constituency in
Malaysia where the Indian voters constitute the majority of the
electorate and could singly decide the MP or State Assembly
representative, Indian voters represent over ten per cent of the
electorate in 62 Parliamentary constituencies and 138 State
Assembly constituencies and they will play an important factor in
determining the electoral outcome in these areas.
Integrated Diasporas: What are the
Stumbling Blocks?
• Narrow nation building perspective: national
language, national culture, national costume, etc
• State policies based on differentiation between
“immigrants” and Malays/Bumiputras
• UMNO focus on “Bangsa, agama dan negara”
• Growth of ethnic group markers and ethnic
consciousness arising from Barisan Nasional
policies and politics
Lessons from HINDRAF
• Need for policy formulation based on
independent and neutral analysis and
empirical data
• Need for participation, transparency and
accountability in public policy
implementation
• Need for free and independent media
• Need for higher standards of governance
and greater tolerance of dissent
World Bank/IDA Findings
Resilient and Competitive Economies are marked
by
•
•
•
•
•
•
high social cohesion and low conflict
inclusion of all social groups
access and equality of opportunity
rule of law and vibrant democratic institutions
Neutral and race blind bureaucracies
open societies
Less Competitive and Resilient
Societies are marked by
•
•
•
•
exclusion of groups and communities
oppressive and authoritarian systems
inequity/inequality
partisan, corrupt and inefficient
bureaucracy
• closed society
Conflict Avoidance
• Learn from lessons of past but do not be imprisoned by
paradigms of past
• Social rights should not be delayed/reduced because of
perceived economic disparities
• Need to match rhetoric with action in practicing tolerance
and fairness
• Engage in positive tolerance
• Practice/ internalize fairness as a prerequisite to
development of a modern pluralistic society