Race Issues
By batsman
If it were purely race issues that concern us, the matter can be very simply settled. Unfortunately, race issues are intricately bound up with economic and cultural issues as well. These cause immeasurable complications. (I have not even mentioned the religious complications and consequences of political immaturity yet). As such we often debate at very different frequencies without even realizing it, each concerned with his own pet peeves without understanding the different frequency that the other is broadcasting at.
Take RPK’s debate with Uthayakumar and friends. This is the impression I get from reading both sides of the argument.
RPK seems to be more concerned with the economic marginalization which inevitably leads to social and political marginalization. To RPK, the poor are poor regardless of whatever race they belong to. RPK’s main concern is that a very large part of our population is not fully employed in the nation’s economic and social development. This seems to be a complete waste since only a very small part of the population is gainfully employed in profitable highly skilled or managerial work and who are economically rewarded with vastly greater renumeration. More than this RPK seems to be concerned that people who have power and authority have cornered the economic cake and fattening themselves at the expense of those citizens who have been neglected and left out of the loop. I assume these include those who are corrupt and abuse their power and authority without contributing anything constructive.
RPK’s argument struggles against the inevitable logic that leads to the poor becoming poorer and the rich becoming richer. The rich have their own rationale and will naturally believe that their projects and activities which after all are the most profitable deserve the greatest amount of investments, concentration and development. Since race and culture is part of the mixture, the inevitable results also include racial marginalization and polarization, with attendant negative effects on culture. Malaysia will end up as a nation where the rich will hold on to power at whatever cost including racial, religious and cultural bigotry, murder and perversion of justice and truth. Malaysia will turn into a failed state if not already one, where citizens are more fearful and suspicious of each other than of foreigners. The foundations of the Malaysian state will become one of internal suppression and external sycophancy. All races will indulge in this and it will make the notion of Malaysia as a united nation a big joke.
The impression I get from Uthayakumar and friends’ arguments is that they are more concerned with the genetic and cultural sides of the racial problem. They do not seem to see themselves as genetically or culturally inferior. Therefore when poor persons of their race and culture are discriminated against, the implication is that because of the genetic and cultural connection, they are discriminated against as well. But they do not accept that they are genetically and cultural inferior. In fact, I suspect strongly that they feel very much superior.
I do not know which castes Uthayakumar and friends are from, but obviously they are not inferiors nor brought up as inferiors, but if their race as a whole is discriminated against, that would affect them too. This is what I seem to read from the arguments. Don’t ask me for the scientific proof. These are just the impressions I get. I get the feeling that Uthayakumar and friends feel pulled down by their racial origins and their constructive potential suppressed because of their racial origins. Of course this can easily and logically be applied to all members of their race as well, so I see their fight as a truthful and honest one. They are honestly concerned that their community and culture will be sidelined, marginalized and denigrated as inferior.
In my opinion, both sides of the debate have their weaknesses.
In RPK’s arguments, the problem is the pure massiveness of it. Not only are a large part of the population poor and marginalized, the implication is that they are ill exposed and easily deluded and seduced by bribes combined with lies and half-truths. They can therefore be easily tricked into voting against their own long term interests. In RPK’s arguments, the political immaturity of the people themselves seem to be the problem. This of course leads to doubts amongst activists and the weaker links in the chain and the result is betrayal by leaders who can no longer stick to their principles.
In Uthayakumar and friends’ arguments, it is the opposite. The elitist nature of their stand seems to put the leaders at the most vulnerable as long as they are promised a place among the nation’s elites – whichever side makes this offer. The followers will be pulled along as a natural consequence.
In my opinion, it is good if people can see where the other party is coming from so that they can at least talk on the same frequency some of the time. Of course what I have summarized is made as simple as possible without the complexities that come naturally with human situations. I apologise if such a rough and simple summary has cut off too much and become too brutally black and white.
