7. Empathy, not Sympathy

By KJ John in Malaysiakini

The Hindraf rally and its claims being circulated abroad have come as a bolt of lightning to the government, with the prime minister being visibly upset with some of the accusations. He believes these are a pack of lies, but there is never smoke without a fire.

The fact that the Hindraf march involved about 30,000 people should cause even greater concern to all observers. Maybe we need to learn to listen. Even MIC has not totally dismissed it although its head continues to speak the language of denial.

With the full round of emotions having been expressed, even the PM has now begun to state that he will listen; that he has ‘big ears’. More editorials and mainstream writers are also beginning to address the symbolic but significant nature of the protest. Even the outspoken Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz has stated that the PM should hold a meeting, albeit unconditional, with Hindraf leaders.

What then really is this particular poor Indian problem, especially the issues highlighted by Hindraf, without necessarily getting sidetracked with the words and phrases used in their document of hope? To me, such excessive and emotive language is normal; often used by groups who feel marginalised and down-trodden. And, maybe even more, if the spokespersons are self-appointed representatives who have a real feel for the cause and issues.

Take it that we are only seeing the tip of the real iceberg. We had better try to understand the whole iceberg. Such actions are often based on a psychology of feeling deprived and being treated like the underdog. They do not really need any of our sympathy, but rather our empathy.

It does not matter to them if the PM, in his personal capacity, has given money to repair temples in his constituency. What matters is whether the system of administration, at all levels, treats each and every one of them as legitimate and rightful citizens full of national and human dignity. That is where we may all have failed; as long as the rest of us citizens are able to talk about their issues without feeling any real concern, as if this is only an academic exercise.

To me it is all about their sense and loss of community dignity; as downtrodden and marginalised poor Indians mainly of the Tamil origin and who largely belonged to the plantation labour force. Today, with Malaysians owning most of the plantations, the new workforce has effectively transferred to the use of newer foreign labour who are cheaper to maintain.

This may be why Indian Malaysian anger is now directed at the British Crown and their agents. Were they in fact responsible for the wrongful transfer, or was it trafficking, of such indentured labour? Let us therefore really try to begin to understand and appreciate the psychology of this bottom 30 percent marginalised category of society which often feels like it is second-class citizens in their own country, even after 50 years.

Unless we really take the time to understand, we may miss out on their real concerns - many other equally marginalised Malaysians may also be in the same psychological boat. Therefore, it may be prudent for us, as urbanites and middle-class citizens who feel everything is all right to review the situation, so we can empathise with our brethren.

Chaotic transition

Let me speculate and enumerate the single core issue that may have brought so many out on the streets on Nov 25. It may a classic case of the lack of a social identity and a circumstantial denial of their individual and personal dignity. I see two relevant explanations for their possible anger and disappointment.

For various reasons related to our massive industrialisation and developmental successes, the plantation industry has become no more the protected comfort terrain of workers. Under the British and the older ownership infrastructure, they had homes, schools and places of worship which were secluded and protected. Therefore, although poor and simple, they had a sense of belonging and a sense of community.

When such infrastructure was sold, for urbanisation and for housing development or for industrial development, no one has guaranteed this community their traditional way of life. In short they have no social safety net or welfare department to oversee the transition to an urban setting and modern living. Even if they have the financial capacity, I believe that their traditional cultural and community lifestyle is not sustainable in fractured new urban settings.

The transition has taken place in a chaotic and unstructured way, at a time when the workers were getting older and were often unable to financially sustain their lives. Many such groups have argued and pleaded their case via the newspapers, but perhaps we have not listened enough.

When displaced from an environment of comfort and if one cannot argue the case in Malay with the relevant government departments, one would feel lost. Yes, it is fair to say that they should be able to speak and write Malay after 50 years; but let us remember that they were educated in Tamil and only up to primary level. Also adequately documented is that, with some exceptions, the majority of them drop out of the national school system after Form Three.

Long-term deafness

Are my concerns valid? Do we know the number of estates broken up for housing and industrial development? Are these people victims of circumstances beyond their control? Are they really troublemakers? Have they ever marched like this before? Why not? Do we even know the extent of the real marginalised and poor Indian problem? Can any authority say categorically that they understand and appreciate this problem? Have not memoranda been put up umpteen times before?

In fact, I remember one instance when I was involved in developing the above hypothesis about 15 years ago. I believe the input went into the 7th Malaysian Plan process. Even more recently, the CPPS via its 9th Plan submission had an explicit chapter entitled ‘The case of low-income Malaysian Indians’. Now, my question is if anybody read and understood the real issues being highlighted. Or, can we be honest enough to say that Umno’s agenda within the 9th Plan was viewed as far more urgent and the CPPS submission was discredited as being emotional?

Let me conclude with large paragraphs of a letter Dr Lim Teck Ghee of CPPS/Asli wrote to Malaysiakini: “There is plenty of blame to go around with regard to the marginalisation of rural Indians. A momentous opportunity to put this right was lost between the 60s and 80s when the Felda schemes selected settlers almost entirely from one ethnic group. Note that the original Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act of 1960 governing the development of scheme areas does not specify any ethnic preference in settler recruitment, merely requiring settlers to be Malaysian citizens. Also, Felda’s own policy guidelines permit it to recruit 30 percent of any scheme population from non-Malays for schemes that are located outside Malay reservation areas.

“Yet, despite sizable numbers of needy and deserving non-Malay rural poor, especially Indians, little effort had been given by the government to recruiting non-Malay settlers in its land development schemes. In 1980, the World Bank lent its voice to concerns over the ethnic bias in settler selection by pointing out that if the government was serious ‘about increasing the non-Malay share in agriculture, some increase in the non-Malay share of settlers was warranted’.

It was especially concerned about Indian estate workers who faced increasing under-employment following the estates’ conversion from rubber to oil palm and who in normal circumstances ‘would be good candidates for land development schemes’ (see Lim Teck Ghee and Richard Dorall, ‘Contract Farming in Malaysia’ in D Glover and Lim Teck Ghee, eds. Contract Farming in Southeast Asia: Three Country Studies, Kuala Lumpur, 1992).

“Many years ago, the British colonial government in Malaya was accused of treating the Indians like oranges, sucked up and spat out as pips; today, our own government must be asked to explain why there seems to be little change in policy towards rural Indians.”

Lim wrote this in May 2007. Did anyone listen then? Why has it been so difficult to assign a team in the EPU to look into the real problems of marginalised and poor Indians, based on even the CPPS submission? Why has it been so difficult to come up with a blueprint for the development and emancipation of poor Indians in Malaysia?

The PM and all of the cabinet does not have to get worked up over the Hindraf protest. Take it as just that: a protest by poor Indian Malaysians and their supporters. In American philosophy, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Hear the squeaks and don’t get upset with the process. They did what they did, because they believed that no one has been listening.

Let is convince them that the government is in fact listening. Come on Malaysia; we can empathise with this problem, if we choose to listen.

Read it all here.


I am suggesting to the MIC to set up several HOTLINE phones and also a HOTLINE for emails and a dedicated website so that all can read the problems submitted.