Malaysian apartheid that practices discrimination against non-Malays

Is Rafidah Aziz angry or ashamed with Sri Lankan-born poet for telling the truth of a Malaysian apartheid that practices discrimination against non-Malays by barring them from high posts such as Vice-Chancellors of public universities to prohibition from securing government contracts?

Is International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz angry or ashamed with Sri Lankan-born poet Sharanya Manivannan for telling the truth of a Malaysian apartheid that practices discrimination against non-Malays by barring them from high posts such as Vice-Chancellors in public universities to prohibition from securing government contracts?

As in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. Clearly Rafidah is using anger to hide her shame that this poet, writer and actress who spent 17 years in Malaysia simply spoke the truth.In the article, “The Malaysian Apartheid” which appeared in the 4 December 2007 edition of ‘The New Indian Express’, Sharanya was eloquent in describing the state-sanctioned division in Malaysia,

“…The entire bureaucratic system of Malaysia privileges the Malay above all of these groups.

Historically, Indians of Malaysian origin have been at the lowest rungs of the race/class ladder because of how they migrated there in the first place, usually in the servitude of the British Empire.

Post-colonial Malaysia did not only keep the divide-and-conquer system intact, it augmented it, making race essentially the be-all and end-all of everything.

And yes, the Indian minority does have it worst — socially, economically and politically.

But under a political system that thrives on division and uses the threat of discord as a means of ensuring silent acquiescence, everybody suffers.

To different degrees, admittedly, and a few, maybe not at all. But by and large, living in a society that judges, rewards and punishes on purely race-based motives takes its toll.

To live conscious of inequality makes one a participant, willing or not, victim or not.”

But Sharanya was also equally critical of Hindraf writing that,

“…So for Hindraf, the organisation behind the rally of thousands seen on TV screens all over the world last week, to portray the issue as a Tamil Hindu one not only detracts from the big picture, but further polarises communities.

For them to also sue Britain and demand compensation amounting to a total of USD$14 trillion is regressive.

The point of decolonisation is to free oneself from the shackles of foreign rule.

Pinning the blame on the former coloniser instead of admitting that the problem is internal and has persisted for fifty years after independence because of internal factors is just evading the heart of the problem.”

While a mass demonstration of that sort and scale of drama could help change Malaysia for the better, I do not think that the manner of execution and the lack of follow-up will help anything at all, except perhaps the preexisting status quo and commonly held stereotypes that Indians are violent, emotionally volatile and deserving of mockery.

The plight of Malaysians under their deliberately divisive government is both real and needs urgent rectification, and it would be a shame for the sudden international awareness and ire raised to go to waste because of a lack of vision.”

Unlike Rafidah Aziz who is known for her histrionics when faced with criticism, especially corruption allegations for approving tens of millions of ringgit in shares to her son-in-law, Sharanya was trenchant, measured and balanced in her assessment on both Hindraf and the government’s role on the ills besetting Malaysia.

How can there not be apartheid in Malaysia when a non-Malay born here whose ancestors have been in Malaysia for hundreds of years is not a bumi and suffer inferior status as citizen when compared to a person like Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Mohd Khir Toyo, whose Indonesian-born father migrated to Malaysia?

Lim Guan Eng