Introduction by CPI
On June 30, 2010 the Kuala Lumpur High Court ordered the government and police to pay RM1.4 million to Suzana Mohamad Aris, whose husband, Mohamad Anuar Sharip, allegedly was beaten to death while in police custody in 1999. – Human rights report, US State Dept
Suzana was represented by P. Uthayakumar who had taken up her case more than a decade ago (Harakah, June 14, 2000).
Uthaya’s very first High Court case involved a coconut trader Ho Kwai See who died in police custody in August 2003. – Asian Human Rights Commission report; Uthaya is pictured far right with the brother of the deceased. 
Much earlier, in 1994, Uthaya defended Abdul Wahap bin Lakmit Hamzah in another case to do with police. In fact, Uthaya was among the earliest Malaysians to shout ‘Reformasi’ in September 1998 when a small crowd of about 50 gathered outside Anwar Ibrahim’s residence and the then deputy prime minister himself led the battle cry.
Renowned political cartoonist Zunar recalled that when he was arrested for taking part in the protests back then, it was Uthaya who represented him.
“He was my lawyer who seriously fought for me. Back in those days (1999), you seldom get lawyers willing to do so, unlike today. That’s why in terms of human rights, Uthaya has done a very good job representing every race.”
It is not only Zunar who is puzzled by the ‘racist’ accusation levelled at Uthaya. A letter to the editor (below) sent us by Iraiputtiran also wonders the same.
**********************
Evaluating the charges of racism against Uthaya
By Iraiputtiran
According P. Uthayakumar, Malaysians Indians – 70 percent of whom he estimates to be in the poor and hardcore poor categories and another 25 percent in the lower middle and middle income categories – are left to fend for themselves. Even the opposition-ruled states, where change is much anticipated and hoped for in the wake of the 2008 general election, have been a great letdown.
Failing to answer any of Uthayakumar’s claims that the opposition alliance (favouring the majority Malays and Chinese) has failed to deliver its election promises to Indians and is practicing the same ‘racial politics’ of Umno, they employed a rhetorical strategy by labelling him a ‘racist’ in their attempt to neutralise and discredit his claims.
In our modern day politics, no one wants to be accused of racism or to be called racist. If it is Uthaya who is playing the ‘race card’, what does he stand to gain really, politically? After all, his stance is only logical what with Hindraf-HRP being a small party representing a poor, minority community, and having not aligned himself with either the ruling coalition or the opposition alliance.
The opposition’s ‘racist’ label on him could merely be an attempt to counter his dissent as well as covering up for the shortcomings in their own ‘multiracial’ politics.
In what way Indian Perkasa?
Oxford dictionary defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races” and “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”.The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” and “racial prejudice or discrimination”.
Those accusing Uthaya to be a ‘racist’ need to explain which part of his struggle qualifies him as one based on the definitions above.
In his struggle as a human rights activist and advocate for over 20 years, he has not even once claimed that Indians are of a superior race. Rather his claim has always been that the Indians are victims of such racism and race supremism.
Neither has he in his struggle discriminated ‘others’ on the belief that his own race is superior to other races.
Yet HRP/Hindraf is often called the Indian Perkasa. Has Uthaya ever claimed that Indians are the masters of this land or that theirs is the supreme race in the country like how Ibrahim Ali claims Ketuanan Melayu?
The reality is Uthaya is in no position to discriminate or exercise prejudice against others given that his support comes from poor Indians, minorities at that, with all the social disadvantages. As such, to equate the HRP/Hindraf struggle to that of Perkasa is a shallow parody of the truth.
If Uthaya is indeed a racist, where is the proof and if no, why the racial rhetoric?
Shrewd and convenient tactic by opposition
Perhaps understanding the game and power of racial discourse by dominant groups elsewhere might help to shed some light on why a human rights activist like Uthayakumar is being shrewdly labelled a ‘racist’ by his political opponents.
Racial discourses shape mental models. It is a form of propaganda (Fields 1990: 110-112) in which social actors employ rhetorical strategies in order to make ‘claims’ and promote a particular interpretation of a social issue. Successful ‘claims making’ enable practitioners to mobilize supporters, attract adherence and neutralise or discredit political opponents. Racial discourse is an attempt to influence perception and a convenient tool to gain political advantages.
Racial discourse of dominant groups work very well to legitimize and reproduce dominance by minimizing claims of inequality and marginalization of subordinate groups. It makes dominant group understanding normative for the larger society (Doane, 2006).
Racial discourse is inextricably intertwined with issues of power. Dominant groups enjoy disproportionate access to vehicles of transmission for discourse, including among others, government media (van Dijk, 1997). [With four states presently under their control, the Pakatan electoral pact enjoys a similar privilege vis-à-vis an individual target of their attacks such as Uthaya.]
In the light of the global conundrum of racial politics, Uthayakumar’s claim that the minority Indians suffer the worst form of racism in Malaysia is not hard to comprehend. Racism against minorities exists in many countries around the world.
Grosfoguel (1997) argued that poverty, unemployment and low wages are significant among people of African and Caribbean descent in Europe compared with the ‘native’ whites.
In fact, poverty, unemployment and low wages have been so rampant among the racially underrepresented groups of Europe that certain countries experienced unprecedented social protest. In November 2005, exasperated by racism and police brutality, the youth of Caribbean, North and sub-Saharan African descent expressed their frustration by rioting throughout the artificially segregated Parisian suburbs, which offer little to no prospects (Schneider, 2008). The Hindraf phenomenal rally on Nov 25, 2007 similarly comes to mind.
Non-discrimination in plural societies
HRP/Hindraf’s 18-point demand, including issues related to Tamil schools, higher education, jobs and business opportunities, seek equality and non-discrimination. This is provided for in the Federal Constitution’s Article 8 on equality before the law. Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides for no discrimination by reason of race or religion in any educational institution receiving government financial assistance.
That Uthayakumar’s struggle for equality and non-discrimination is considered ‘racism’ by both the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat leaders is puzzling as developed countries are moving towards equality and non-discrimination in their policies.
Non-discrimination now stands as the key fundamental right in Europe and has been the object of many legislative acts, transposed from the European to national levels (Howard, 2005). From a political point of view ‘discrimination’ has now become the new lens through which European policymakers who seek to promote equality and justice in plural societies view the fight against inequalities (Koppelman, 1996). As a result, the legal apparatus to address discrimination has been enhanced (de Schutter, 2006).
This development has, among others, made it possible for the vulnerable population to gain protection and recognition, and in some cases obtain compensation because they have been the victims of unequal treatment based on their race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability (Amiraux and Guiraudon, 2010).
M’sia lagging behind global trend
Barack Obama’s call to transcend race and his successful bid for the American presidency as well as the presidencies of Evo Morales (a Bolivian native) and South African Nelson Mandela are all efforts taken by the rest of the world to end racism and inequality in their countries.
It seems then that Uthaya’s struggle for justice and equality for the long marginalized minority Indians – for whom nobody else is willing to speak – is in line with the current global political trend of non-discrimination and equality in plural societies.
Charges of racism and the use of the label ‘racist’ especially by the dominant group is damaging and unfortunately serves as the best rhetorical weapon to kill the opponent. Any such serious claim of racism should be rebutted and proved with factual evidence.
So far, Uthayakumar seems to have proven his claim that Pakatan Rakyat is playing racial politics sidestepping the Indians, with many factual evidences some of which will be discussed in my following article in his website.
Nonetheless, the same can’t be said about the opposition alliance which, on the one hand, is suspiciously silent on his claims, and on the other, virulently attack him as ‘racist’.
Citations:
Amiraux, Valérie and Guiraudon, Virginie. “Discrimination in Comparative Perspective: Policies and Practices,” American Behavioral Scientist August 2010 vol. 53 no.12, pp.1691-1714
Doane, Ahsley. 2006. “What is Racism? Racial Discourse and Racial Politics,” Critical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 2-3
de Schutter, Olivier. “Three Models of Equality and European Anti-Discrimination Law,” Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 57, no.1 (2006), p.9
Fields, Barbara. 1990. “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America,” New Left Review 181:95-118
Grosfoguel, Ramón. “Cultural Racism and Colonial Caribbean Migrants in Core Zones of the Capitalist World-Economy.” Review: Fernand Braudel Center vol. XXII: 4 1999, pp.409-434
Howard, Erica. “Anti Race Discrimination Measures in Europe: An Attack on Two Fronts.” European Law Journal Volume 11, Issue 4, pp.468-486, 2005
Schneider, Cathy Lisa. “Police Power and Race Riots in Paris”. Politics & Society March 2008 36: 133-159
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1997. “Discourse as Interaction in Society.” pp.1-37 in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2, London: Sage Publications.
