The Made-In-Malaysia Dilemma: HINDRAF and the Racially Divisive Politics of the UMNO-led Government

From " The Other Malaysia " Blog. Read here full article by Dr. Farish Noor .

Quote:

"... No amount of spin can alter the fact that the Hindraf demonstration was a symptom of what has gone wrong in this country.

If Hindraf is to be accused of communitarianism and exclusivism in its politics, then we need only to look at the mould from which it emerged: a cauldron of racialised, divisive and exclusive politics that clearly bears the made-in-Malaysia stamp, a symptom of the ills of our times and the failure of the state.

This is Malaysia: the same country that has been run and governed by the same tired and worn-out coalition of ideologically bankrupt right-wing communitarian race and religious-based parties for half a century. ..."
-Farish A. Noor

Excerpts: Read here for more

by

Dr. Farish A. Noor

The proverbial chickens have come home to roost.

Some of those who walk the corridors of power in Malaysia have gotten a little flustered and hot behind the ears, following the less-than-welcomed but to-be-expected reaction from some Indian politicians and political parties in neighbouring India.

Are we really surprised by the global reaction?

Should we be surprised if this spins into a regional, if not international issue that brings into the fray representative groups of the Indian global diaspora?

Numerous blogs and articles available on-line (have raised ) that the language used in the Hindraf memorandum was somewhat inflammatory and not exactly calculated to endear the group to the other communities of Malaysia.

One is struck by how, yet again, a simplistic oppositional dichotomy of ‘Us’ against ‘Them’ was used to galvanise support and mobilise people on the street, on the basis of a singular theme:

... that the ‘Indians of Malaysia’ are ‘under threat’ from a host of factors that range from Malay supremacy to radical Islamisation.

One could, however, argue that there are deeper issues at stake and these should not be re-interpreted and twisted at will to present the matter in ethnic light with racial overtones.

The fact remains that the community in question – Malaysians of South Asian origin – remain among the poorest and least represented in fields like education, the civil service, private sector, media and even advertising.

It is the economic marginalisation of the community, made worse by structural imbalances in the system and compounded by the divisive communitarian politics of Malaysia, that has made their lot a particularly sorry one.

Many prominent writers and activists who reside in cyberspace have stated their reasons for NOT supporting Hindraf or attending their rally.

Most of them have stated that they did not wish to endorse any campaign that further divides Malaysian society along sectarian religio-racial lines, and we can only concur with their opinion on the matter.

No, Malaysia doesn’t need more racist politics of this sort, even if it is couched on a vocabulary of collective victimhood.

But let us all note one thing at least:

We should NOT really be surprised if the leaders and supporters of Hindraf had done so.

This is Malaysia, remember: the same multi-cultural country that has been run and governed by the same tired and worn-out coalition of ideologically bankrupt right-wing communitarian race and religious-based parties for half a century.

Those fellow Malaysians who marched on Sunday are the children of a nation-building project that has failed utterly and miserably, and they merely reflect the racialised mindset of so many Malaysian politicians today who are no better.

So while we may disagree with the tone and tenor of Hindraf’s communitarian political-speak, let us not miss the wood for the trees.

1. Hindraf did NOT invent racialised communitarian politics in Malaysia.
   
   It was the component of the Barisan Nasional parties that did, and continue to do so.
   
   
2. Hindraf did NOT begin a new trend of race and religious-based political association and collectivism in Malaysia.
   
   It was the older race and religious-based parties and movements like UMNO, PAS and ABIM that did, and continue to do so.
   
   
3. Hindraf did NOT invent the language of racial and religious identification in Malaysia.
   
   These terms were already hoisted on them and the minority communities of Malaysia by the state, the mainstream media and the conservative reactionary forces in this country long ago.
   
   It was the politicians, political analysts, media commentators and communitarian activists who referred, for instance, to the Hindu temples of Malaysia as ‘Indian temples’; and who continue to refer to Malaysians of South Asian origin as ‘Indians’ or the ‘Indian community’.

Those temples that were bulldozed were NOT ‘Indian temples’ but Malaysian temples, built on Malaysian soil, frequented by Malaysians, paid for by Malaysians and they were part of the Malaysian landscape.

There are no ‘Indian Temples’ in Malaysia. Indian temples exist in India and if you don’t believe me then fly to India and check them out yourself.

Likewise the only ‘Indians’ in Malaysia are the tourists, expats and workers who come from India and happen to be Indian nationals bearing Indian passports.

Those Hindus who marched in the streets of Kuala Lumpur on Sunday happen to be Malaysians like you.

The gallery of amateurs who make up today’s government may bemoan the fact that significant sections of the Malaysian public have lost all confidence and trust in the system that they have helped to create.

No amount of spin can alter the fact that the Hindraf demo was a symptom of what has gone wrong in this country.

If Hindraf is to be accused of communitarianism and exclusivism in its politics, then we need only to look at the mould from which it emerged: a cauldron of racialised, divisive and exclusive politics that clearly bears the made-in-Malaysia stamp, a symptom of the ills of our times and the failure of the state.