HRP’s P.Uthayakumar is “racist”– a fact or ploy?

Part I
According Uthayakumar, the Malaysians Indians, 70 % of whom he estimates to be in the poor and hardcore poor categories and another 25 % in the lower middle and middle income categories, unaided by UMNO government ridden with racism and religious bigotry, are left to fend for themselves. Even the change, much anticipated and hoped for, post 2008 election in the opposition ruled states is a great let down.

Failing to answer any of P. Uthayakumar’s claims that the opposition alliance has failed to deliver its election promises to Indians and is practicing the same “racial politics” practiced by UMNO, favouring the majority Malays and Chinese, the opposition alliance seemed to have employed a rhetorical strategy, labeling him a “racist” in an attempt that seems to neutralise and discredit his claims.

Charges of racism
In this modern day politics, no one wants to be accused of racism or to be called racist. If it is Uthayakumar who is playing the “race card”, logically being a small party representing the poor minority community, and having not aligned himself with either the ruling coalition or the opposition alliance, what does he stand to gain really, politically?

In such a case, Uthayakumar’s emphatic repudiation of the opposition’s “racist” label as an attempt to counter his dissent on the opposition’s racial politics cannot be dismissed as a “Indian this, Indians that” mindset. Unless proven otherwise, it could be, as he claims, the opposition alliance that is covering up for the shortcomings in its “multiracial” politics.

Definitions of racism
Oxford dictionary defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualitiesspecific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races” and “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” and “racial prejudice or discrimination”.

Indian Perkasa
Based on the definitions above, those accusing Uthayakumar a “racist” need to explain which part of his struggle qualifies him to be a “racist”? In his struggle as a human rights activist and advocate over twenty years against UMNO’s racism, he has not even once claimed that Indians are of a superior race. Rather his claim has always been that the Indians are victims of such racism and race supremacism.  Neither has he in his struggle, discriminated ‘others’ on the belief that his own race is superior to ‘other’ races? HRP/Hindraf is often called the Indian Perkasa, equated to the UMNO’s Perkasa. Has Uthayakumar ever claimed that Indians are the masters of this land or theirs is the supreme race in the country like Ibrahim Ali claims “Ketuanan Melayu”? Beyond that, with the support of poor Indians, minorities at that, with all the social disadvantages in the country, he is in no position to discriminate or exercise prejudice against ‘others’? As such, to equate HRP/Hindraf’s struggle to that of Perkasa is a shallow parody of the truth.

If Uthayakumar is indeed a racist, where is the proof, and if no, why the racial rhetoric?

Racial discourse by dominant groups
Perhaps understanding the game and power of racial discourse by the dominant groups in racial politics world over might help to shed some light on why a human rights activist and advocate like Uthayakumar is being shrewdly labeled a “racist” by his political opponents.

Racial discourses shape mental models. It is a form of propaganda (Fields 1990: 110-112) in which social actors employ rhetorical strategies in order to make ‘claims’ and promote a particular interpretation of a social issue. Successful “claims making” enable practitioners to mobilize supporters, attract adherence and neutralise or discredit political opponents. Racial discourse is an attempt to influence others’ perception and a convenient tool to gain political advantages.

Racial discourse of dominant groups work very well to legitimize and reproduce dominance by minimizing claims of inequality and marginalization of subordinate groups and makes dominant group understanding normative for a larger society (Doane, 2006).

Racial discourse is inextricably intertwined with issues of power. Dominant groups enjoy disproportionate access to vehicles of transmission for discourse, including among others, government (e.g. opposition alliance with four states) and media (van Djik, 1997).

The global conundrum of racial politics
In the light of the global conundrum of racial politics, Uthayakumar’s claim that the minority Indians suffer the worst form of racism in Malaysia is not hard to comprehend. Racism on minorities exists in many countries around the world. Grosfoguel (1997) argued that poverty, unemployment and low wages are significant among people of African and Caribbean descent in Europe than among the “native Whites.” In fact, poverty, unemployment and low wages have been so rampant among the racially underrepresented groups of Europe that certain countries have experienced unprecedented social protest. In November 2005, exasperated by racism and police brutality, the youth of Caribbean, North and sub-Saharan African descent expressed their frustration by rioting throughout the artificially segregated Parisian suburbs, which offer little to no prospects (Schneider, 2008). Hindraf’s 25 November 2007 phenomenal rally comes to mind.

HRP/Hindraf’s 18-point demand, including issues related to Tamil schools, higher education, job and business opportunities, seek equality and nondiscrimination. This is provided for in the Federal Constitution. 
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution provides for equality before the law. 
Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides for no discrimination by reason of race or religion in any educational institution receiving government financial assistance.

Uthayakumar’s struggle for equality and nondiscrimination considered “racism” by both BN and PR leaders is puzzling as developed countries are moving towards equality and nondiscrimination in their policies. Nondiscrimination now stands as the key fundamental right in Europe and has been the object of many legislative acts, transposed from the European to national levels (Howard, 2005). From a political point of view “discrimination” has now become the new lens through which European policy makers who seek to promote equality and justice in plural societies view the fight against inequalities (Koppelman, 1996). As a result, the legal apparatus to address discrimination has been enhanced (de Schutter, 2006). This development has made, among others, possible for the vulnerable population, to gain protection and recognition, and in some cases obtain compensation because they have been the victims of unequal treatment based on their race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability (Amiraux and Guiraudon, 2010).

Obama’s call to transcend race and his successful bid to the presidency as well as the Bolivian indigenous Evo Morales’ and African Mandela’s presidencies are all efforts taken by the western world to end racism and inequality in their countries. 

It seems then that Uthayakumar’s struggle for justice and equality for the long marginalized minority Indians, for whom nobody else is willing to speak, is in line with the current global political trend of nondiscrimination and equality in plural societies.

Charges of racism and the use of the label “racist” especially by the dominant group can bring detrimental damage and serve as the best rhetorical weapon to kill the opponent.  Any such serious claim of racism should be rebutted and proved with factual evidence.

So far, Uthayakumar seems to have proven his claim that Pakatan Rakyat is playing racial politics sidestepping the Indians, with many factual evidences (some of which will be discussed in my following article) in his website (www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com).

Nonetheless, the same can’t be said about the opposition alliance which, on the one hand, is suspiciously silent on his claims, and on the other, virulently attack him as “racist”





Iraiputran

Interlok: Umno’s subjudicationist and racist agenda against the Indian poor

Umno’s insistence on retaining Interlok after all the public outcry and allowing only 19 out of 106 proposed amendments is akin to proposing the editing of Satanic Verses and lifting its ban in Malaysia.
 

What is the motive for still being adamant on retaining this book if not for Umno’s racist and supremacist agenda in continuing to subjudicate especially the Indian poor?

It is in direct contravention of Articles 8 and 12 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees equality before the law and that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth.

We are unable to accept the book whose original version had the racially insulting and derogatory and degressive “paria” word, “dark skinned Indians”, “memamah sireh seperti kambing”, etc. as the racist basis and thereafter retaining the remaining parts in the book for example replacing “paria” with “golongan yang sama”.

The Umno education minister by accepting a mere 20% or 19 out of the 106 amendments proposed by the Interlok panel makes a mockery of the said independent panel. The three Indian representatives were, as usual, ultimately made use of to endorse Umno’s racism.

The lesson yet again learnt from this is that the Indian elite should in future refrain from accepting such “Indian mandore” positions.

We once again call for Interlok to be replaced by the Nov 25, 2007 Hindraf Rally novel by P Uthayakumar (see www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com).

It analyses amongst others the real racial and religious harmony and co-existence that existed even immediately after independence 54 years ago, and which has today regretfully ceased to exist, and the gross acts of Umno racism that led to Nov 25 Indian poor popular uprising.

Also in the hope that the present Form Five Malay, Muslim students in particular, as the future leaders would be able to better understand and hopefully undo the gross injustices meted out to especially the Malaysian Indian poor.

Irrespective, HRP and Hindraf will continue with our struggle beyond Interlok which is really Umno racism on a day to basis meted out against the Indian poor.

Our latest firm and uncompromising stand against Umno racism and religious supremacy is evidenced by the 53 Hindraf Makkal Sakthi human rights defenders being maliciously prosecuted within one week of this month alone.

They are the only human rights activists in the world to have ever been prosecuted for merely being a member of a human rights NGO. Over 300 were arrested on Feb 27, Hindraf rally alone (123 or 109 plus the 14 candle light vigillers officially acknowledged by police).

By P Uthayakumar

Pro tem secretary general

Human Rights Party

PRESS STATEMENT- HINDRAF RESPONSE TO MUHIDIN YASSIN

PRESS STATEMENT

The audacity of the Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin to purportedly close the INTERLOK issue with the support from their toothless allies goes to show the impunity that the UMNO fascist government reigns  with an iron fist against the sensitivity and feelings of the minorities.

In essence, the Deputy Premier encourages such segregation of its citizenry by imbibing such sardonic literature into the school curriculum for the juveniles.

Such blatant lies that is being disseminated by UMNO media tools such as the Utusan Malaysia and Malay Mail is a clear indication on the political direction of UMNO to maintain their status quo in creating the Master and Slave methodology between the Malay supremacies and fanatics towards the minorities.

All reasoning, logic and concern that had been brought forward by various non partisan and non political organizations have been totally ignored and shot down to ensure that artificial concept of “Ketuanan Melayu” over the minorities is entrenched in the juvenile stages of the youngsters similar to the civil service with the BTN ideology. 

By planting, seeding and enhancing racism through juveniles amongst Malaysians, the UMNO government is steadfast in enhancing its radical, unreasonable “Ketuanan Melayu” nationalism political ideology through public policies for its Malay supremacy and fascist mindset to continue in perpetuity.

There is nothing much to be expected from the toothless allies of UMNO who waits for the bones thrown to them but rather the public who need to rise against such outright and blatant disregard for the feelings of the minorities whose ancestors had broken their bones to ensure that Malaysia is today what it is because of their sacrifice and contribution to ensure that their future generations amongst the majority will prosper in tandem rather than being hijacked by a racist and fascist UMNO agenda.

INTERLOK is not a closed chapter, but a chapter that needs every Malaysian to look into their conscience and question for their peers why do we need racism and fascism amongst us for the benefit of such moronic like the UMNO elites and their stooges.

INTERLOK is a bludgeoning hammer into the aspiration of our forefathers and more particularly into our pride and dignity.

We, at HINDRAF are not going to allow this “Interlok” to be closed but will work with the public to continue to pressure for this literature to be withdrawn ultimately.  

“Rights not Mercy”

Thank you

P. Waytha Moorthy

Chairman

HINDRAF

by S. Jayathas

HRP

The Indian dilemma and Hindraf

Many moons have passed since the Hindraf mass gathering in Kuala Lumpur in 2007 which led to a sea change in Indian voting pattern from predominantly Barisan Nasional to the opposition in 2008.

The increased perception among Indian voters of their economic marginalization helped to energize a political tsunami although it would be wrong to say that Hindraf created the tsunami.

The tsunami was actually created by Malaysians of all races - not just Indians - who sought change.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Since their release from ISA, the five Hindraf leaders had a falling out and only two have remained to lay claim as inheritors of the Hindraf movement. They are the self-proclaimed Chairman, Waythamoorty and his brother Uthayakumar.

Two political offshoots of Hindraf have bloomed – the Malaysian Makkal Sakthi Party led by Hindraf’s ex-chief co-ordinator and the Human Rights Party led by Uthayakumar.

The MMSP appears to be a non-starter as widespread suspicion that the party made a deal with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to expedite its registration proved to be toxic.

For HRP, whose registration has not been approved, it is still early days yet but Uthayakumar’s leadership will assure that it and not MMSP will inherit the fame and reputation associated with Hindraf.

From ally to enemy
The intervening months after the 12th general election has seen more than just organizational changes and political offshoots from Hindraf, it has also seen a stark reversal of the movement’s relationship with Pakatan Rakyat. It is said that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies but the breakdown of Hindraf’s relationship with PR has been particularly swift and complete. From a staunch ally it has turned into a fierce attacker of PR.

The root of the problem could be Uthayakumar’s genuine concern that PR has not done enough for Indians or his latent political ambition or both. But the fertile ground from which sprang the shoots of hostility is certainly Hindraf’s inability to widen its scope from a strictly mono-ethnic agenda to a more multi-racial one.

But charges that the young PR state governments had failed to look after Indians or had even marginalized them are unfair. The powers of state governments are extremely limited with all powers to form policies and almost all institutions for social advancement under Federal control. They do not even have any reasonable tax base and only have autonomy over land matters. The state governments certainly have no power to marginalize any race.

Despite this handicap, progress has been made in Indian representation in the state legislature and protection of minority rights to places of worship among other things.

But to Hindraf, PR can never do enough for Indians as their philosophy of special affirmative action for Indian is at odds with PR’s philosophy of uplifting the poor and marginalized of all races equally.

Fishing in the same pond
This dissatisfaction with PR led Uthayakumar to form his Human Rights Party to champion Indians as a supposedly “third force”. From the beginning it is clear that HRM will have a strictly mono-ethnic Indian agenda although its name does not reflect this.

Uthayakumar has no voice for the human rights of non-Indians like Teoh Beng Hock or any stateless persons of non-Indian origin.

Once the Hindraf based political party was launched, its alienation with PR was complete. It is clear that HRM has to fish for Indian votes in the same pond as PR, namely the anti-BN crowd. This competition for the same vote bank leads naturally to an acrimonious relationship fueled by a realization that Hindraf is losing its hold on the Indian community.

The final break came on the heels of the Kg. Buah Pala affair, which proved to be a godsend for Hindraf. Although there was nothing racial about a group of villagers fighting with a developer for the rights to stay on their traditional land, the whole affair was turned into an ugly racial issue by Hindraf.

It was portrayed as injustice inflicted on Indians by a Chinese-based DAP government although the Penang government was neither wholly DAP nor Chinese and the race of the villagers was irrelevant to the outcome.

The use of racial politics to gain votes by manipulating the ethnic emotion of the Indians is the same divide and rule tactic employed by BN. It can be effective but comes with disastrous side effects of creating a polarized society from which BN benefits.

Indian problem and solution
Hindraf’s response to the Indian problem lacks vision as a holistic long term solution is required, not piecemeal action demanded in an emotional way.

The key to bringing poor and marginalized Indians into the mainstream of development lies in uplifting all marginalized people by affirmative action based on need, not race.

Multi-racial politics to solve economic deprivation issues in a colour-blind way is the only viable solution as each race fighting for itself leads to the predictable outcome of the weakest race being marginalized as has been proven for the past 52 years of BN rule.

This can only be achieved through political change at the Federal level. As Umno’s political power hinges on leveraging a polarized society based on Malay supremacy this means its economic treatment of all races can never be equal.

Instead of helping PR effect a political change, Hindraf is now at odds with PR and attempts to draw away Indian votes will benefit BN.

Due to unfavourable demography, HRM can never expect to succeed as a third force based on Indian votes. At best it will just be a spoiler which benefits BN but more likely it is on the path to irrelevance.

The way forward is not more racial jingoism which leads directly to BN’s racial trap but multi-racial politics to blunt BN’s political stranglehold.

Unless Hindraf and HRM can drop its mono-ethnic politics and embrace multi-culturalism, it will become a footnote in history or an unintended ally of BN to help it maintain political power.

Kevin Gan- Malaysian Mirror