Written by Dr V.S. Paraman
Nyam Kee Han may be young in age but the comment made by this activist of the ‘Sahabat Rakyat’ human rights group is mature. He had said: “Any real reform agenda could never be successful by ignoring, neglecting and sidelining a selection of marginalised citizens…”.
If only the many experienced governments had listened to the concerns of their marginalised and disgruntled groups, and practised policies of inclusion, they could have been avoided the high cost to lives and threat to internal security.
Below are examples albeit the list is not exhaustive:
Irish Republican Army and the British government
The dispute, which began as a struggle for home rule, was drawn out over many years. After it descended into an armed conflict and spread into England, extensive damage was inflicted on the UK economic structure and security. Although loathed by British public and politicians, the IRA enjoyed financial and moral support from the American Irish community. The then Prime Minister Tony Blair eventually brought the IRA to the discussion table to reach a settlement. Today, the Irish parliament includes elected ex-IRA members.
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Turkish government
The PKK was a workers union outfit, which began as protectors of improvised ethnic Kurds in Turkey. When the authorities used violence to arrest, intimidate and harass the Kurds for pursuing their ethnic interests, the PKK started an armed campaign to counter the actions of the authorities. The European Union had tried to broker a peace deal but to no success. Although there is some improvement; the Kurds remain marginalised. The EU has used Turkey’s breach of human rights to forestall its entry into the union.
African National Congress and the former apartheid government
The appalling sufferings of the blacks during the white South African rule are well known. Malaysia staged an anti-apartheid concert to support worldwide campaign to free Nelson Mandela, who had run an armed struggle against the racist, ruling government. Following global condemnation of the white government’s apartheid policy, Nelson Mandela was invited to join the reconciliatory council to rebuild the country. Free after 25 years imprisonment, Mandela became the first president from the ANC of South Africa.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government
FARC grew from a small peasant organisation to its present unprecedented military strength, in part facilitated by its taxation of illicit drug production. FACR is a product of a lack of government response to the severe hardship faced by peasant farmers. On 27 August 2012, the Colombian government engaged in exploratory talks with FARC to end the internal conflict.
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) and the Spanish government
ETA is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organisation formed in 1959 with an aim to gaining independence for the greater Basque country. On 5 September 2010, ETA declared a new ceasefire and in the following month, the group announced a cession of its armed activity. In November 2012, ETA announced that it would disband its armed wing – a decision welcomed by the government.
Taliban and the Afghanistan government; Somali warlords and the transitional government in Somalia
In these two countries, the examples relate to majority clan warlords who engaged in armed activities to gain military power. After overthrowing their legitimate governments, the Afghan and Somalian warring militia groups had seized land rights from unarmed minority groups. After many years of violent conflicts which totally destroyed the infrastructure in their countries, transitional governments are only now installed to return stability.
Where does Hindraf sit?
Hindraf’s campaign for real freedom sits in line with two other groups that ran a non-violence campaign against its oppressors: the Indian National Congress led by Mahatma Gandhi against the British Empire and the black civil rights group led by Dr Martin Luther King Jr against racial discrimination exercised in southern states of America.
In the first instance, the British government had ridiculed, humiliated and imprisoned Mohandas Gandhi several times to break his resolve for India’s independence from the British.
Gandhi’s practise in truth and non-violence secured him a moral victory over the colonizers. The British was significantly condemned by the international community for being prepared to use violence against an unarmed and non-violent group. Gandhi’s passive resistance had succeeded to buckle a great empire and won India her independence.
In the US, Dr King and his supporters used Gandhi’s non-violence approach to reform the practice of racism. They withstood insults, violent attacks, threats and intimidation, loss of lives, humiliation, arbitrary arrests and detention in order to end racism in the US.
The above victories are significant because the people there were prepared to brave physical violence in pursuit of real reform.
Makkal Shakti in Malaysia
Whether one supports Hindraf or not, we must acknowledge the movement’s invaluable contribution to the birth of a true public and collective democracy. Malaysian political consciousness was awakened by Hindraf’s outcry for justice.
Makkal Shakti caught fire in Malaysia when in November 2007 a little known Hindraf organized a very large protest to signify the Indian community’s dissatisfaction with regard to their living standards and treatment in Malaysia.
Hindraf’s daring stance is historic in Malaysia because the group and its supporters were fearless in their public display of solidarity against a brutal government. They did this in the face of harsh reprisals from the government. Its many prominent activists and supporters had suffered bouts of imprisonment, detention and violence as well as slapped with multiple court charges.
But many remain steadfast in the struggle to further their cause.
Their resolve, hardened by an oppressive and racist government, won them a moral victory.
What ‘ubah’?
Opposition politicians and the opposition-supporting public alike are desperate for reform in Malaysia.
In their desperation for ‘change’, many fail to appreciate the young Nyam Kee Han’s view that any real reform cannot be “…successful by ignoring, neglecting and sidelining a selection of marginalised citizens.” Both novice and experienced politicians have a tendency to demonise victims to deflect from their own failings and responsibilities.
Senior politicians take the position that Hindraf’s campaign should be put on the backburner because its agenda is “racist”. They like to add that poverty and/or statelessness exist in the Malay and Chinese communities too.
It is not that these politicians dispute the merit of the Indian complaints. They are just saying that the suffering of the Indians is no greater and no worse than that of the Malays and Chinese.
In other words, such remarks can be loosely translated as “Take a number and sit down because there are others before you Indians”.
What is the truth of the situation?
Let’s examine the favourite argument by Hindraf detractors that there are other ethnic groups who have poor people too.
Since our Independence in 1957, Umno has prioritized care for the welfare of Malays and you have to admit that they’ve done so quite capably.
If you insist on arguing that there poor Malays, then you should at the same time ask why the Malays are still poor after 53 years of NEP assistance. And the next question is where does this put the other non-Malay communities who have had no NEP assistance whatsoever for 53 years?
The opposition is deafeningly silent on the future of the NEP vis-à-vis the Malay ‘special position’ as highlighted recently bu Dr Kua Kia Soong.
As for the Chinese opposition, they have thundered that the NEP has failed and there exists Chinese poor too whom the affirmative action programme has not helped.
Do these Chinese opposition supporters expect Hindraf to take up the cudgels for the poor and disadvantaged Chinese in the name of colour blindness and the “beyond race” dogma?
Since the Chinese are a bigger minority and better organized and more well-to-do, isn’t the onus on the Chinese to “fight for all the poor (including Indians) regardless of race”?
And therefore, instead of criticizing Hindraf for not rising above a “race-based” focus, how about these Chinese critics show us that “they fight for all the poor irrespective of race”? Can they show that they’ve ever fought for the Indian poor?
Nyam Kee Han may be young in age but the comment made by this activist of the ‘Sahabat Rakyat’ human rights group is mature. He had said: “Any real reform agenda could never be successful by ignoring, neglecting and sidelining a selection of marginalised citizens…”.If only the many experienced governments had listened to the concerns of their marginalised and disgruntled groups, and practised policies of inclusion, they could have been avoided the high cost to lives and threat to internal security.
Below are examples albeit the list is not exhaustive:
Irish Republican Army and the British government
The dispute, which began as a struggle for home rule, was drawn out over many years. After it descended into an armed conflict and spread into England, extensive damage was inflicted on the UK economic structure and security. Although loathed by British public and politicians, the IRA enjoyed financial and moral support from the American Irish community. The then Prime Minister Tony Blair eventually brought the IRA to the discussion table to reach a settlement. Today, the Irish parliament includes elected ex-IRA members.
Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Turkish government
The PKK was a workers union outfit, which began as protectors of improvised ethnic Kurds in Turkey. When the authorities used violence to arrest, intimidate and harass the Kurds for pursuing their ethnic interests, the PKK started an armed campaign to counter the actions of the authorities. The European Union had tried to broker a peace deal but to no success. Although there is some improvement; the Kurds remain marginalised. The EU has used Turkey’s breach of human rights to forestall its entry into the union.
African National Congress and the former apartheid government
The appalling sufferings of the blacks during the white South African rule are well known. Malaysia staged an anti-apartheid concert to support worldwide campaign to free Nelson Mandela, who had run an armed struggle against the racist, ruling government. Following global condemnation of the white government’s apartheid policy, Nelson Mandela was invited to join the reconciliatory council to rebuild the country. Free after 25 years imprisonment, Mandela became the first president from the ANC of South Africa.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the government
FARC grew from a small peasant organisation to its present unprecedented military strength, in part facilitated by its taxation of illicit drug production. FACR is a product of a lack of government response to the severe hardship faced by peasant farmers. On 27 August 2012, the Colombian government engaged in exploratory talks with FARC to end the internal conflict.
Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) and the Spanish government
ETA is an armed Basque nationalist and separatist organisation formed in 1959 with an aim to gaining independence for the greater Basque country. On 5 September 2010, ETA declared a new ceasefire and in the following month, the group announced a cession of its armed activity. In November 2012, ETA announced that it would disband its armed wing – a decision welcomed by the government.
Taliban and the Afghanistan government; Somali warlords and the transitional government in Somalia
In these two countries, the examples relate to majority clan warlords who engaged in armed activities to gain military power. After overthrowing their legitimate governments, the Afghan and Somalian warring militia groups had seized land rights from unarmed minority groups. After many years of violent conflicts which totally destroyed the infrastructure in their countries, transitional governments are only now installed to return stability.
Where does Hindraf sit?
Hindraf’s campaign for real freedom sits in line with two other groups that ran a non-violence campaign against its oppressors: the Indian National Congress led by Mahatma Gandhi against the British Empire and the black civil rights group led by Dr Martin Luther King Jr against racial discrimination exercised in southern states of America.
In the first instance, the British government had ridiculed, humiliated and imprisoned Mohandas Gandhi several times to break his resolve for India’s independence from the British.
Gandhi’s practise in truth and non-violence secured him a moral victory over the colonizers. The British was significantly condemned by the international community for being prepared to use violence against an unarmed and non-violent group. Gandhi’s passive resistance had succeeded to buckle a great empire and won India her independence.
In the US, Dr King and his supporters used Gandhi’s non-violence approach to reform the practice of racism. They withstood insults, violent attacks, threats and intimidation, loss of lives, humiliation, arbitrary arrests and detention in order to end racism in the US.
The above victories are significant because the people there were prepared to brave physical violence in pursuit of real reform.
Makkal Shakti in Malaysia
Whether one supports Hindraf or not, we must acknowledge the movement’s invaluable contribution to the birth of a true public and collective democracy. Malaysian political consciousness was awakened by Hindraf’s outcry for justice.
Makkal Shakti caught fire in Malaysia when in November 2007 a little known Hindraf organized a very large protest to signify the Indian community’s dissatisfaction with regard to their living standards and treatment in Malaysia.
Hindraf’s daring stance is historic in Malaysia because the group and its supporters were fearless in their public display of solidarity against a brutal government. They did this in the face of harsh reprisals from the government. Its many prominent activists and supporters had suffered bouts of imprisonment, detention and violence as well as slapped with multiple court charges.
But many remain steadfast in the struggle to further their cause.
Their resolve, hardened by an oppressive and racist government, won them a moral victory.
What ‘ubah’?
Opposition politicians and the opposition-supporting public alike are desperate for reform in Malaysia.
In their desperation for ‘change’, many fail to appreciate the young Nyam Kee Han’s view that any real reform cannot be “…successful by ignoring, neglecting and sidelining a selection of marginalised citizens.” Both novice and experienced politicians have a tendency to demonise victims to deflect from their own failings and responsibilities.
Senior politicians take the position that Hindraf’s campaign should be put on the backburner because its agenda is “racist”. They like to add that poverty and/or statelessness exist in the Malay and Chinese communities too.
It is not that these politicians dispute the merit of the Indian complaints. They are just saying that the suffering of the Indians is no greater and no worse than that of the Malays and Chinese.
In other words, such remarks can be loosely translated as “Take a number and sit down because there are others before you Indians”.
What is the truth of the situation?
Let’s examine the favourite argument by Hindraf detractors that there are other ethnic groups who have poor people too.
Since our Independence in 1957, Umno has prioritized care for the welfare of Malays and you have to admit that they’ve done so quite capably.
If you insist on arguing that there poor Malays, then you should at the same time ask why the Malays are still poor after 53 years of NEP assistance. And the next question is where does this put the other non-Malay communities who have had no NEP assistance whatsoever for 53 years?
The opposition is deafeningly silent on the future of the NEP vis-à-vis the Malay ‘special position’ as highlighted recently bu Dr Kua Kia Soong.
As for the Chinese opposition, they have thundered that the NEP has failed and there exists Chinese poor too whom the affirmative action programme has not helped.
Do these Chinese opposition supporters expect Hindraf to take up the cudgels for the poor and disadvantaged Chinese in the name of colour blindness and the “beyond race” dogma?
Since the Chinese are a bigger minority and better organized and more well-to-do, isn’t the onus on the Chinese to “fight for all the poor (including Indians) regardless of race”?
And therefore, instead of criticizing Hindraf for not rising above a “race-based” focus, how about these Chinese critics show us that “they fight for all the poor irrespective of race”? Can they show that they’ve ever fought for the Indian poor?
No comments:
Post a Comment