Who is a Racist?

The article entitled ‘Racist Uthayakumar; a BN agent’ received an unprecedented volume of bloggers who expressed different ends of view. Given the serious issue in the article; I have decided to write on whether the label ‘racist’ befits Mr. Uthayakumar.

I am a lawyer of many years standing. I am also a judicial officer and my area of jurisdiction relates to Asylum, Human Rights Law; an area of law regulated by the 1951 Refugee Convention and European Convention of Human Rights 1950 as well as the many Protocols, Directives and Regulations linked to those UN Conventions. I have met Mr. Uthayakumar and Mr. Waythamoorthy on a number of occasions. I do not suffer fools gladly and when I am in discussion on issues relating to human right, I always maintain a balanced view including when I discuss such matters with the brothers named above. To decide whether Mr. Uthayakumar is a ‘racist’ or whether his words can amount to ‘racism’; I have explored the following issues. I begin with: Is Hindraf-Makkal Shakti (H-MS) and Human Rights Party (HRP) necessary?

Published material on Hindraf-Makkal Shakti (H-MS) and Human Rights Party (HRP) indicates that the purpose behind the formation of H-MS (NGO) arose from the need to address many serious social issues occurring within their own community. The movement gained popularity purely on a need for such a group to channel its grievances despite there being established Indian base groups. Even if so, it is obvious that the generally large support base due to their experiences of witnessing destruction of temples, lack of compensation for loss of homes, deaths in police cells, abject poverty, lack of identification papers – that the community must have distrusted the existing Indian groups to raise and address those concerns. Therefore it is a re- challenging of their grievances through a new channel when the established system failed to serve the needs of a particular group (a term will explain later).

The confirmed background material on Mr. Uthayakumar and Mr. Waythamoorthy also indicated that they have been involved with such social related issues going back to 2004 or even earlier. That’s not to say many other lawyers or NGOs would not have dealt with the same type of work and handled them in their own way. The brothers’ account is that as they gained new clients; the more grave and disturbing the problem seemed to be within the Indian community. It would be right to say that the ‘ills’ of the Indian community is not uncommon to other communities in Malaysia.

However, the next question to ask is: Why did the brothers bring forth the community issues in the manner that they did?

There is nothing to suggest nor have they ever claimed that they have a higher sense of sobriety than most. Therefore could it be that they care (not suggesting any more than the next) about the human miseries they witnessed that to their own personal intolerance of such abuse; and probably this is where most would defer with the brothers; decided to take a public stand when most of us would shy away from such open risk. Of course, I acknowledge that a small cluster of people would have worked diligently to expose the work and champion the movement.

My next question: Why do the brothers speak only for a selected group?

I have pondered over this question and my answer to those who criticize their ‘racist’ approach is simple when one applies basic logic to it. H-MS & HRP give credence to the sufferings of the marginalized Indian minority; thus, the dynamics or the make up of the group can help understand the approach of H-MS/HRP.

Early research studies show that Indian migrants came to Malaysia in different waves: one of which were indentured labourers who cleared jungle areas; planted, tendered and eventually worked on the estates/plantations for their employers. The treatment of the workers depended on the owners of the estates/plantations. It is an accepted fact that most of the plantations began with Indian labourers who were encouraged to settle and build their community such as basic primary schools; temples and living quarters in the plantations. It is not general but there is evidence to show that children of the first settlers were encouraged to remain and work on the estates they lived. Thus, creating a second generation of indentured labourers. Reliable information also confirms that many such labourers of either third or fourth generations remained on estate plantations until the estates were sold off to private owners who saw no use for such labourers. Many of who faced eviction, flowed into towns with only basic or no formal education; no employment skills apart from tapping rubber tress and no survival skills to live in an urban area.

Language spoken by the marginalized Indian group is another key to understanding the approach of H-MS/HRP. Imagine the scenario: you are of a particular social or ethnic group; you only speak your mother tongue, you are unaware of your rights but the problem you face is either a threat or a loss of your livelihood or home and all you know is that the problem which like a bad toothache has to be dealt with.

Therefore: What would you do first? If your have a limited language ability who would you approach?

Those of us who have modern urban survival skills with well-rounded education could probably deal with the ‘who, what, and where’. However, if you are vulnerable, insecure, not articulate in mainstream languages, have no or little money or means. What would you do? Usually by this stage, it would be difficult to think and behave rationally. The following are examples of familiar accounts I hear from asylum applicants – that if they have enough money, they would hire agents to facilitate their entry into a host country where at final stage, an agent would take them to the necessary department to lodge their asylum application but if the claimant can only afford the passage from his country to the border of a host country; the individual would be dropped off at a motorway and left wandering aimlessly until they are met by highway patrol officers who would arrest them and arrange for a Home Department Officer to interview them; other potential claimants with even less resources usually get dropped off near a built up area, hang about at stations or bus stops used by large number of people until they can pick out one of their own to ask for help.

The last form of explanation though seemingly incredible at first, carries weight when you try walking through a crowd and depending upon your racial background deliberately look for your own type. I can tell you it works! It is like looking for a particular car model and once your eyes are tuned to the model, it becomes easy to pick out the model. It is both human nature and a commonsense survival trait for a ‘sufferer’/asylum claimant to look for his/her ‘own kind’ for assistance for the notion that there is strength and safety in numbers of their own group. Or the community would set up a support base. Good examples are like the ‘Kongsi’ or Associations, which are formed to give those with a particular clan name to feel part of the community; the traditional Chinese jetties on the island of Palau Pinang serve the same purpose. Ethnic groups arriving in a new country usually live in transitional areas, which includes their ethnic background to feel part of the group and enclaves, exist in plain sight in many western countries. In Serbia, the UN created an enclave called Kosovo to safeguard ethnic Albanians from majority Serbians. Ethnic minorities Somalis maintain a precarious balance of personal safety in their own enclaves in Somalia against fear of attacks by the majority clans. Many have fled their country for the problems mentioned. Therefore, association by race is neither racist nor a phenomenon.

The next question: Why is it important to support one of your own in dire situations?

I can suggest a few reasons: the ‘sufferer’ in an unfamiliar circumstance looks for familiarity to establish some kind of relationship. This in turn is to draw empathy from the other person who once having established they are of mutual background, is likely to speak the same language – mode of communication – mother of all necessity – because without which you will be unable to put across your problems and get help. Therefore, it is human nature to approach or reach out to your own kind for help/to help and I am aware that in the case of Somalis, Not for Profit organizations exist to trace lost relatives (investigation carried out by word of mouth) and also to obtain confirmation of their nationality and ethnicity (each ethnic group with its own office) and again all the enquiries are conducted in person with offices that exists where Somalis have fled to and even at times sending word to people back in Somalia. Thus, one’s own community is a useful source of support for contact and information.

Similarly, the marginalized Indian group which predominately only speak Tamil due to their early isolated settlement with limited education are more likely than not to seek representatives who share their traits. There is therefore nothing inherently racist about a marginalized group, which seeks help from others who speak their language as who else can understand their problems? Once, the marginalized Indians developed trust upon their representatives; they begin to rely on them to further their cause on other issues related to them. It has to be stated that both Mr. Uthayakumar and Mr. Waythamoorthy had obliged the group at a great risk to their own personal safety and professional sacrifice.

So, in truth, like any race based group any where in the world – such as Moses against the Egyptian Kings, the Christians against the Romans, the Scots against the English Queen, the Red Indians against the Colonials; the American Blacks against the southern White American racist Supremacist; native South American Indians, the ethnic Muslim Albanians against the Christian Serbs, the black South Africans against the White South African regime, the Hutus against the Tutsis, the Indians against the British Empire, the Australian Aborigines against the White Australian government or the Maoris against the white government – all of them were or are minority groups that had championed their own causes. The UN encourages small groups to speak up so that their voices can be heard.

The reasons as stated earlier are obvious; it’s the similarities in the group that pull them together and motivates the group to move forward – why? – because when their very basic survival is being threatened and when a human being reaches this level, he tends to reach out to his own kind as it gives the person a sense of uniformity, and belonging. Therefore, to have a group represented by someone from their own group is neither unprecedented nor racist.

Question: Definition of a ‘racist’ or ‘racism’

A racist is a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others. Racism is a belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others.

Question: What is it that H-MS and HRP say to brand themselves as ‘racist’?

The groups through their websites expose historical as well as current policies, and their ongoing campaign to re dress the wrongs being suffered by the ethnic Indian group. The organizations argue that the government State/Federal policies continue to marginalize the group that they represent. The main focus for the groups are on decided Policies and merely highlighting one’s disadvantaged status or unequal treatment at the hands of the State, is not being a ‘racist’. Although bloggers state that they no longer wish to hear about race base issues; none deny that the abuses compliant by the H-MS/HRP against the group and indeed many comment that it is similar in all three races. That being so, why are there not many more ordinary people coming forth to lend support to such a cause. I note that in Malaysia there are hundreds of NGOs, which represent rights of separate groups; as well as some others that retaliate against each other. Indeed, the labeling H-MS/HRP as racist goes against the above definition and everything I know on asylum and human rights work.

I can assure the reader that the issues raised by the groups are serious cause for concern; not because it happens to a particular racial group but that the incidents complaint by the group or the blatant abuses of basic human rights are being perpetrated by State agents who are rarely brought to charge and no form of re-address is offered to either victims or their relatives. The picture we see in Malaysia is typical of chronic abuses of basic human rights of civilians by the State. As a Judge, I find a State’s unfettered power to detain its citizen without review and the use of torture on its citizen whilst in custody as heinous crime against humanity and gross violations of basic human rights as enshrined by the United Nations Conventions

Finally, is Mr. Uthayakumar ‘loathed or loved’ for the message he highlights or is it simply the manner in which he delivers or executes his messages that he is ‘loathed or loved’? I have already shown that the label of racist does not befit Mr. Uthayakumar and moreover, to dismiss him as a ‘racist’ is simplifying the grave issues and ignoring a real problem within a sector of the community. We can choose to ignore the brothers but the group they represent is real. They are present and counted. They will be heard either through the brothers or another channel. It’s a group so awake that they will keep on until their voice is acknowledged.

To a fairer and caring society, we have to accept that the voices of the marginalized groups deserve protection, as there is a clear danger for these groups to be labeled as ‘racist’.