UMNO’s Institutionalized racism – a curse we all need to rid this nation of.

                                           

Racism as defined by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V Hamilton in their seminal book “ Black Power” in 1967 is still very applicable 40 odd years on and here in Malaysia. Their definition of racism is “ the predication of decisions and policies on considerations of race for the purpose of subordinating a racial group and maintaining control over that group.” Racism they go on to add is both overt and covert. Acts by individuals they call individual racism is overt and acts committed collectively, they call institutionalized racism is less overt, and in most instances covert.

The first type , individual racism is the sort we see in the likes of utterances of the School Heads, Senior BTN officials and the Mufti of Perlis and the most recent case of a former police PIBG head taking 6 Indian students to the police station who were interrogated for 10 long hours because they rejected the racist book “Interlok”. This type of racism can be easily captured by reports, by the phone or other cameras and displayed in the youtube, in blogs and such other devices and generally it is brought out by acts of commission. There is generally more public condemnation of this type of racism.

The second type, institutional racism is less overt, is subtle, but systematic and many orders of magnitude more pervasive. It is less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. This second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in society and is far less recognizable and it generally receives little public condemnation.

When scores of Indian youth are killed in custody, there is little uproar, for after all they are the scum of society. When there is widespread statelessness among the Indian poor, too bad these stupid people do not know how to take care of themselves, that is their damned fault. When in desperation Indian individuals and families perish in suicides there is public sympathy and derision at the same time for the dead but not the acknowledgement of the impact the system has had on them. When the primary schools that Indian children go to are in shambles, well they have a choice to go the national schools don’t they. This is after all the natural order of things..is it not, so argue the beneficiaries of the racist system.

Institutionalized racism manifests itself in oppression of multiple forms within every sphere of social relations – economic exploitation, political subordination, cultural devaluation, psychological violation,verbal abuse, police harassment, etc. These operate so normally and naturally and are so much part of the existing institutions of our society that the common people are barely conscious of their operation. Casual racial prejudices have over time transformed into a systematized and codified ideology and practice of racial subordination.

Najib, however in his UMNO general assembly speech on the 15^th of October 2009 said, “If Malays are truly racist as alleged we would not have compromised on the cultures of other ethnic groups being practiced here……..We would also not have allowed vernacular schools to be established, …..The true meaning of racism would be like apartheid as previously practiced by South Africa..”.

So, Najib the leader of the beneficiaries of the system denies the existence of anyhting like institutionalized racism?

To answer this let us take Najib’s suggestion and compare with what existed in the Apartheid regime of South Africa which no one will argue was not a prime example of institutionalized racism.

Here are some key features of South Africa’s Apartheid (Apartness) system:

1) A central feature of the Apartheid rule was the categorization of all the South African People into Whites, Coloreds, Indian and Blacks – their Bangsa. Everything else was built on this categorization.


2) Using this racial categorization it decided where each category of people lived, who they married, who they had sex with, where they worked and how they moved about.


3) The Group Areas Act of 1950 partitioned the country into areas allocated to different racial groups. Bantu Authorities Act of 1951 created separate government structures for blacks and was the first piece of legislation established to support the government’s plan of separate development in the Bantustans


4) They segregated education, medical care, and other public services on the basis of this racial categorisation .


5) They all had to carry Identity cards which indicated their “Bangsa” so to speak.


6) They had the apartheid laws – The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949, Immorality Act of 1950, The Population Registration Act of 1950 and so on. And they had laws of repression. Laws such as Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, The Public Safety Act of 1953 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1953, The Riotous Assembly Act, The Terrorism Act to name a few of the notorious ones.


7) To oversee the apartheid implementation, the bureaucracy expanded, and, by 1977, there were more than half a million white state employees.


Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in those areas designated as “white South Africa” without a permit.


9) Each of the 4 categories of South Africans had their own education system.


Now let us look at comparative situations in the Malaysian rgime:

1) A central feature of our system is also our categorization into Bumiputras, Chinese, Indians and Others from birth to death.Everywhere we go we have to declare Bangsa, Ugama – at birth, at school registration, in all the applications we make, at marriage, at death and in many many more situations.

2) Large areas of most cities and towns are segregated not by law, but by practice and without the need for such segregation laws. Clear example is in Penang the Island is mainly populated by Chinese, and the Malays mostly prefer to live on the Mainland. In Shah Alam it is mainly Malays. In Seremban it is mainly Chinese in locations like Seremban Garden, and Malays in Ampangan or Paroi areas. In Kuching you have South and North Kuching for the Chinese and the Malays. In practice but not in law.

3) In several housing areas State Consent is required if one wants to sell the property especially if it is in a predominantly Malay area. It is quicker to get consent for inter Bumiputra sale than it is for a sale across the Bumiputra /Non-Bumiputra divide. Again in practice but not in law.


4) Malaysia has repressive laws like the Internal Security Act to put away who UMNO considers to be trouble makers without having to go through the court processes, the Official Secrets Act to blot out all decisions made by the UMNO controlled Administration from public view, The Printing Presses and Publications Act to control the print media from publishing too much anti UMNO news, The Seditions Act to shut people up from speaking up againts UMNO policies – to name a few of the repressive laws that helps maintain the current regime.


5) The bureaucracy is entirely made up of largely one ethnic group , Bumiputras – eight hundred thousands of them, all implementing UMNO Policy. The Police force is almost entirely Malay, the armed forces are almost entirely Malay. The judicial system is almost entirely Malay. The public Universitieis are almost entirely Malay. The GLC managements are entirely Malay. Again in practice but not in law.


6) Most Government and Government linked businesses are off limits to non- Bumiputras. There is a complete system of screening vendors that limits vendors to almost entirely Bumiputras.


7) Business licences are largely awarded to Bumiputras or must have mandatory minimum Bumiputra participation – Bank Licences, Educational Institutions Licences, Permits in the Transportation businesses and so many more.


8 ) Participation in all government development schemes are entirely for Bumiputras – MARA, FELDA, FELCRA, RISDA, PERDA, KESEDAR, KEJORA to name a few. In practice but not in law.


9) Educational opportunities in Public Educational Institutions are grossly in favour of Bumiputras.


10) Cross religious relationships between Non muslim Malaysians and Muslim Malaysians is a complicated affair, especially if a problem develops along the way.

If we consider these two sets of situations it is apparent that there are significant number of similarities between the apartheid system and the Malaysian system created, developed, finetuned by UMNO from 1957 to 2011. The key difference seems to be the lack of ambiguity in the South African expression in all its laws. In Malaysia a lot of the racism is in practice not in the law. To any right thinking person it is so obvious, the racism that underlies our daily life. Therefore it is really audacious for Najib to say UMNO is not racist – the party that is responsible for this terrible state of affairs. He is in a terrible state of denial still..

Allowing the practice of cultures of the Indians or the Chinese in Malaysia or allowing Chinese Medium and Tamil Medium schools in Malaysia, or of allowing the use of Chinese and Indian names does not in any way define the character of the regime in Malaysia. Allowing all this actually now becomes convenient argument for UMNO to take everything else away, it seems. It is the structure of the economic political system that defines the character of our system. And it is blatantly racist.

I do not say the Malay people are racists. I am saying that UMNO, the political party is. It is indeed a blue blooded racist party – the entire cause for the racism that is so rampant in Malaysia.

Racism is “the domination of one ethnic group over other ethnic groups on the basis of some claimed superiority”. In South Africa – White Supremacy, In Hitler’s Germany – the Superiority of the German race, In the British Empire – the Civilizing Burden of the White Man, in Malaysia, Ketuanan Melayu or Malay Supremacy.

Do we need to say more.

Let us all wake up and in solidarity fight this curse of institutionalized racism. We have no choice if we all Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Dusuns, Muruts, Dayaks want a vibrant prosperous and robust nation in Malaysia.





Naragan
HRP.com

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

Uthaya may be re-arrested.....

Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leader P. Uthayakumar today reiterated his stand not to return to the Kamunting Detention Camp despite being served a notice instructing him to return in two days time.

Speaking to his supporters after performing prayers in Batu Caves here, Uthayakumar said he is not bound to the conditions set by the Home Ministry upon his release from detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and therefore need not reply to the notice.

“I am a free man. Article 5 of the Federal Constitution says that no person may be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

“I did not pen down my signature to the conditions set upon my release. When they told me of the conditions, I shut my ears so I could not hear,” he told the crowd in Tamil.
The release of all the Hindraf leaders including Uthayakumar, were conditional. Among the conditions is the prohibition to speak at public gatherings.

Uthayakumar however said on his release that he did not agree to the conditions and would rather stay under detention than being released with conditions. He was subsequently released without signing the conditions.

Unlike Uthayakumar, the other Hindraf leaders had all agreed to the conditions placed on their release.

Last Friday, Uthayakumar was served with a notice asking him to return to Kamunting to appear before the detention camp’s advisory board.

It is learnt that the notice indicated the government’s intention of revoking his early release. This could be due to his refusal to obey the conditions set for his release.

Meanwhile, Uthayakumar said the movement’s leaders will be meeting next week to discuss its future plans. He however did not reveal the details of the meeting.

The Malaysian Insider has learned that Pakatan Rakyat parties like PKR have approached Uthayakumar and invited him to join them but the latter said he needs time to think about it.

Apart from this, Uthayakumar also blasted Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia concept as hypocritical.

“He wants a one Malaysia but practices a two system,” he said accusing the double standard practised by a Malay-dominated government when it comes to safeguarding the welfare of the Indian minority.




The Malaysian Insider