Lessons on race relations

ARCHIVES 2009

By MT Webmaster On Jun 27, 2009

This is a sign of maturity of how we in Malaysia should learn to handle discord. We should not be too sensitive and averse to criticisms and we should also avoid labelling people as "unpatriotic" just because they express valid criticisms or grouses.

by K.K. Tan, The Star

PROFESSOR Dr Aneez Esmail from Britain wears many hats. As a former Asian refugee from Uganda, he became an accomplished racial equality campaigner, medical trade unionist, medical practitioner, lecturer (teaches senior medical students) and a researcher on public health and race. He has also advised the British court system and government on public health issues. His official title is professor of medicine and head of equality & diversity at the University of Manchester.

In his current position, Aneez ensures better access and opportunities for enrolment and promotion at his university not only to ethnic minorities but also to women and Caucasians from poor social backgrounds in Manchester. He provides a shining role model of what a world-class higher education institution should be doing – providing research, education and health services with social responsibility.

Aneez was in Kuala Lumpur last week, taking part in the Astro Awani talk show, addressing a large public forum and participating in a closed-door dialogue with academicians, business people, media, NGOs and other civil society leaders about race relations in Britain. My two earlier articles about Aneez in this newspaper attracted the attention of Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria from the Institute of Ethnic Studies, UKM, or Kita, who was keen to tap his knowledge and experiences in race relations.

With the support of its founding director Prof Datuk Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Kita became the main organiser for his visit and it subsequently secured the partnership of 10 other organisations, including the Department of National Unity and Integration of the Prime Minister’s Department and the British High Commission.

So what can we learn from Aneez’s visit? This is my assessment of the talks and meetings during his four-day visit.

» Lesson 1. You can openly criticise the shortcomings or failings of your own country and still be patriotic. During his talks, Aneez criticised the British system, especially its past actions but he also gave credit when it was due such as the improved race relations in Britain today and the introduction of legislation to deal with negative discrimination. He made it clear he was grateful for Britain which allowed him to stay (and to become a citizen) after he and his family were expelled from Uganda in 1973. The British High Commissioner, Boyd McCleary, remarked that he had no problem with Aneez’s criticisms about British society. The envoy even praised the "quality" of Aneez’s comments and his passion for helping people who were socially disadvantaged.

» Lesson 2. To deal with racial disharmony, we need to be more open and honest but sensitive and respectful. Sweeping the issue under the carpet does not solve it; if anything it would only allow the problem to fester and grow until it explodes. Britain made significant progress in race relations due to a large extent to its transparency in handling such an issue. The problem for Malaysia appears to be both a structural (race-based political system) and cultural (our Asian value to be reserved and inhibited from speaking out openly). It would take much effort, time and the political will of our leaders to address this problem. We should encourage more people to speak out and express their views honestly and respectfully so that we can better understand such feelings as a first step towards addressing them.

» Lessons 3. Like in Britain, we would need to make a strong "business" case for racial equality and unity much like the case about women’s rights. We need to impress upon policy makers and the public that meritocracy drives economic development (performance, competitiveness, productivity and wealth creation), stamps the brain drain and improves the quality of life for all races. It would also encourage groups which are assisted by affirmative action to be more self-reliant and capable in future.

» Lesson 4. Everywhere in the world, to promote unity, we need to move away from a single identity of ourselves to multi-identities. Each of us is more than just our race or religion or culture on its own. Studies on a global basis have shown that moving towards a single identity is often the cause of social conflict or war. In Aneez’s case, he is more than just a Briton or an Asian or a Muslim. As humans, we have more in common than our differences and this is a guiding principle we must use to strive for racial unity. Sociological studies have also shown that the more social inequality in a country, the greater the incidence of racial unrest, crime and other social problems. Therefore, racial harmony can be better achieved if we improve social equality as a whole.

» Lesson 5. We need to conduct more research and surveys in order to have sufficient data and facts about ethnicities and social backgrounds, including the real feelings of all races at the ground level. Without credible and relevant data, it would difficult to make a case for any policy changes required for improving race relations.

» Lesson 6. Affirmative (or positive-discrimination) action and quotas may be necessary to address severe social inequalities but only for a limited timeframe. Such actions and policies on a long-term basis should be based solely on income so that only the poor or socially disadvantaged benefit from them. The example in the United States given by Aneez is apt here. If not for the civil rights laws and the affirmative policies introduced in the sixties to help African-Americans, Barack Obama would not have made it to be a top lawyer and to occupy the White House. But Obama also stated recently that perhaps such policies should be reviewed and he felt his children, for example, should no longer benefit from affirmative action and the children of a poor white American should be given such help instead.

» Lesson 7. The need, if any, for race relations’ (or an anti-discrimination) legislation in Malaysia should be understood properly. Aneez shared why in the British context, the Race Relations Act of 1976 and the amendments of 2001 have greatly ensured better equality and fairness for all. If we feel we need a similar law to give the "man on the street" an avenue to seek justice when the system fails or mistreats him/her, it should be a broad-based and inclusive one covering other socially disadvantaged groups as well such as women and disabled people. An important point to note is that legislation does not change the attitude or viewpoints of many people; only their behaviour. You cannot force people to like another race or ethnicity but with a good law, you can change their behaviour or actions to ensure fairer implementation of policies and approach. Education about racial harmony is a long-term process, in the meantime, well thought-out legislation can minimise the injustice suffered by any aggrieved party as a result of any bad implementation by certain officials acting on their whims and fancies. Abuse of legislation, which happens to any law, is not a good reason for not having it at all.

The writer is the CEO of a think-tank and strategic consultancy firm based in Kuala Lumpur. He can be contacted at [email protected]