English Language Blog Entry

The PAD and Its Real Ideals: What It Really Wants

2008-09-03T22:56:00.018+08:00

PAD and its real ideals: What it really wants

In Plato's words, the imbalance between the rich and the poor is the most fatal ailment to all republics. 3000 years later, this theory or even prediction in Plato’s Republic did come true. Thailand, one of South East Asia’s biggest democracies, had truly faced the test of its time by meeting its Achilles’ heel, something democracies hate and Marxists love---The problem of Class Divide. And well, things do get a bit messy when this problem strikes a semi-royalist nation that had been plagued with corruption, coups, class divides for more than a century.

“Down with Thaksin”, “Down with Samak”, “Hail the King”, “Samak, get out!” As these calls blast throughout the streets in Bangkok, as these protestors gather in the name of King Bhumibol, as the political crisis in Thailand worsens, as the military braced itself for yet another coup, the People’s Alliance for Democracy seemed uninterested in the welfare of the nation, but rather this misnamed supporter of Democracy seemed more interested in destructing a country, removing a democratically elected government from power, destroying the economy of the nation.

All these months, we see how the PAD condemn the PPP coalition, we see how Sondhi Limthongkul, with his artful rhetorical skills, appeal to the mass public; we see how the pro and anti government forces clash with each other. But to think about it, had the PAD been justified in its actions? What is the PAD really hoping to achieve at the end of the day? What do they want?And this is the question Samak’s government tried to answer, but sadly, failed to do so.

Proponents to the PAD had constantly justified their advocacy for Samak’s resignation and the dissolving of the House based on 4 major factors: Firstly, High Treason, where Samak’s government is accused of les majesté by allegedly attempting to change Thailand into a Republic. Secondly, Proxy of a fugitive, where they accuse Samak to be a puppet of the premier-turned-fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra, Thirdly, undemocratic charges where they accuse the PPP of rampant vote-buying in the North. Lastly, illegitimate and ignorant voters, where the PAD argued that the PPP’s mandate was exploited from politically naïve civilians in the North, and thus their rule is illegitimate. Based on these 4 factors, the PAD, made up of a Buddhist Advocate, a Journalist, a former General, made themselves comfortable by barging into the State TV Station, and camping in the Government House.

Simple and straightforward as the PAD’s ideals may seem to be, I however strongly oppose the justifications of the PAD’s actions and believe that these charges brought up by PAD such as les majesté, vote-buying and corruption allegations were all but a pretext to the actual problem in which Thailand had been facing for the past 60 years or so, the issue of class-divide, the issue of alienation and the issue of power-struggle.

What the PAD really wants, is the restoration of power back to Bangkok’s traditional elite, what the PAD really wants, is the alienation of the rural North from the centre elites, what the PAD really wants, is to ruin democracy, safeguarding the power of the bureaucrats, military and the middle-classes for eternity. The PAD in this case, is nothing more than a wolf-in-the-sheep’s clothing, whose ultimate purpose is not to denounce the corrupted government, but rather, to use the pretext of “Corruption”, to force a second coup d’état, returning power to the traditional elites, the military, the bureaucrats and the middle-class, allowing them to rule the nation, further limiting the powers of the rural North.

New as it may seem to us, this problem of class conflict between the middle class and the lower class, however, is no stranger to Thailand’s unique political climate where the North was historically seen as a contrasting antithesis to the capitalist policies in centre Thailand, more specifically, Bangkok, where the elites and the bourgeoisies reside. This hostile relationship between the North and the Capital further exacerbated into different forms of political crises especially in the past 6 years, where former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra controversial universal healthcare policies, rebates, free education for the poor as well as a variety of populist policies, had angered the middle and upper class elites, who saw Thaksin as a major threat to their power, business and influence over the North. Truth be told, Thaksin’s regime might have ended in the 2006 coup, but what remained was his legacy, and this legacy was furthered by the PPP who campaigned themselves as proxies of Thaksin, promising the same populist policies. Fearing a repeat of Thaksin’s regime, the PAD, predominantly made up of middle-class and upper-class elites, protested against Samak, hoping to antagonize and trigger a second coup, returning the power to the military, and the bureaucrats, the traditional middle-upper class elites in the country.

This is henceforth the answer to Samak's problem as well as the underlying cause for the current PAD “uprising” against Samak’s government, and this true problem of alienation and class-divide, was what that triggered the PAD’s formation in a desperate bid to restore power to Thailand’s traditional middle-upper classes elites. And it is precisely this problem, which Samak and his coalition partners have failed to recognize, explaining their inapt in solving this problem that had drained national prestige, national resources and national sovereignty. While proponents for the PAD had constantly justified their “rebellions” and “street protests” with the notion of “protecting” the Siamese Kingdom from Thaksin and Samak’s evil plans of turning the nation into a Republic, as well as their unfound allegations of Northern voters being “Stupid” and “Politically ignorant”, these “factors” are ultimately all but some clever shades of delusions, masterfully drawn out to conceal the real vested interests of Chamlong Srimuang and Sondhi Limthongkul. These masterminds behind the PAD uprising are skilful puppeteers waiting for an opportunity to launch a second coup, ruining Thailand’s democracy once and for all, and ultimately bringing the power over the nation back to the traditional ruling elite.

As the world braces itself for a prolonged economic recession, these advocators for democracy seemed to be only interested in a paradigm shift in her nation’s own democracy, hoping in a restoration of power back to the once almighty middle and upper class elites. And if the PAD does succeed, Thailand's long established democracy, by the Asian standards of pluralistic politics, will seriously be in grave danger.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Thai democracy is dead, long live democracy.

CxChua

TIME Excerpt

2008-09-03T22:55:00.002+08:00

It’s an unlikely command center. But a single piece of blue tarp laid behind loops of razor wire and stacks of tires serves as the makeshift headquarters of the anti-government alliance that has thrown Thai politics into anarchy. Sitting cross-legged on the sheeting, Sondhi Limthongkul, the co-leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), explains why thousands of protesters have occupied Bangkok's Government House, Thailand's seat of power, for more than a week to call for the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej. "It's taken for granted in the West that democracy is the best system," says Sondhi, a media mogul by day. "But all we are getting in Thailand is the same vicious circle of corrupt, power-hungry leaders. This system is not working."

So on Aug. 26, Sondhi and his followers decided, instead, to take over Samak's offices, hoping that extreme trespassing would supplant the power of the ballot box. At first, the mood at the besieged compound was celebratory, with the Alliance supplying plenty of free food and drinks — and even veteran rock stars coming to entertain the crowds. But early on Sept. 2, the atmosphere took a sudden turn when a deadly street battle erupted between the PAD and a counter-protest group that supports the embattled Prime Minister. Dozens were injured as mobs attacked each other with whatever weapons were on hand — bamboo sticks, guns, even the odd golf club. At least one protester lost his life in the melee. Later that day, Samak declared a state of emergency, which authorizes the military to assume control of security in the capital and theoretically outlaws any public gathering of more than five people.

The decree, though, failed to deter many camped out at Government House, who accuse Samak of acting as a proxy for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed in a 2006 military coup and now faces corruption charges. "We are ready to fight," vowed Jantana Klinchan, a sandwich vendor from central Thailand, as she swayed to a folk song calling for political change. "We are not scared to defend ourselves." That kind of brinksmanship may be just what the PAD wants. Its leaders decry the electoral system in Thailand, alleging that vote-buying in poor rural areas largely discredits any poll results. (Indeed, Samak's People Power Party is facing possible dissolution by the courts because of an electoral-fraud conviction of its former deputy leader.) "If democracy brings Samak, then I dont want it," says Wijeau Noinoo, a finance executive from the southern city of Trang who was relaxing on the terrace of Government House. "We have to figure out another way."

But finding that alternative path — especially if it means prolonging the sit-in throwing Bangkok off balance — risks stoking more violence. And it's not clear who members of PAD, which is not a political party itself, want to lead the country after Samak. Although many of those barricaded at Government House support the opposition Democrat Party, their numbers lagged behind the PPP's in last year's polls. Even Sondhi isn't willing to name a single person whom he believes could successfully lead the country. "We know we have to change," he says, "but we don't know how exactly to do it yet." In the meantime, Sondhi is of the act-first-and-negotiate-later school of politics. It's a stance that gives him a rock-and-roll rebel aura at PAD assemblies, but his attitude surely plays less favorably among foreign investors and tourists, on whose pocketbooks Thailand's economy depends.

Nevertheless, PAD supporters say they will hold their ground until Samak is out. "The first thing is to get rid of the government," says Surapol Chinakulprasert, a 48-year-old second-hand goods trader clapping along as PAD leaders rallied their troops from a giant stage set up in the garden of Government House. "Then we can figure everything else out."

The paradoxes of democracy and stability

2008-05-30T21:09:00.057+08:00

Ask any Asians around and they will tell you "2008 is a bad year". In just 6 months, we have experienced countless calls for democratization in Asia, where Activists demanded democracy in China and Myanmar. With democracy being seen as a necessary goal for all countries to achieve, all these seem to indicate that Francis Fukuyama's prediction of democracy being the ultimate end of history is going to come through after all. But the question here is "Does democracy even warrants stability in the first place?" "Is democracy that necessary after all?" Here, I chose the less Euro-centric view and thus oppose the motion.

The notion of democracy being “ruled by the people” is something proponents tend to argue for, where democracy, by relying on the "voting and choice" of people, empowers the public to choose their ideal political party. As such, for a government to be voted in, it requires the support of the public and the consensual agreement among the majority of the society, such that the democratic government not only legitimately rules over the land, but also legitimately rules over the hearts of the public. Democracy, as such, guarantees that only the most popular political party gets voted in, and with this premise, we do not see any reason for any societal revolutions whatsoever.

Further, given that the democratically elected government is vested with the mandate from the majority of the public into power and that their policies are catered to the majority of the population, it is henceforth highly unlikely for social turmoil, revolutions, riots, protests to be present since the nature of democracy seems to guarantee that the majority of the society supports the government.

Thus, the crux to maintaining societal peace and stability is thereby premised on the basis that it is necessary for the government to earn the mandate and the support from the majority of the society, as well as to cater to the needs of the majority of the population. These are all guaranteed under democracy which ensures that only the most popular political party will rule and will necessarily cater to the needs of the majority of the population, of which prevents any possibility of societal instability. Singapore, for example, illustrates this perfectly: Though Singapore may be considered Socialist by many, the reason why she is consistently ranked one of the most stable countries in the world (1) was that the PAP regime had legitimized their rule with democracy. By simply ‘manipulating’ democracy at their own will and introducing incentives (2), PAP had succeeded in appealing to the needs of the majority of the Singapore citizens, earning their popular vote and ultimately their mandate, legitimizing PAP’s rule over the country.

Evidently, Democracy had granted Singapore this mandate of the people, such that with the “support of the majority population”, it is of no wonder why Singapore’s society is generally stable.

The second factor where proponents will agree to is that democracy ensures stability in the political arena as each democratic country necessarily comes with a constitution (3), a set of norms for a democratic government to follow and also to prevent any major changes to the political status quo.

Democracy necessarily comes with a strong constitution, where a unifying consensus among the people and the legislative has to be reached in order to change a constitution, which is generally omnipotent and hardly subjected to change given that a super-majority of 2/3 of the parliament is needed to approve a certain change to the constitution. Democracy prevents this from happening too often where the nature of men being polymorphic and the minute chances of achieving a unifying consensus among the public over a political view, makes it inevitable for a strong opposition party to be present in the government. The presence of an opposition will thereby prevent the ruling party from reaching the 2/3 majority needed to radically alter the constitution. USA for example, had made only 26 amendments to the constitution since the 1800s where the Pennsylvanian Constitution was first enacted, safeguarding the political status quo even after 3 centuries. This echoes Francis Fukuyama (4) who stated in his “The end of History”, that with the end of World War 2, all countries will move towards democracy, the ultimate end-point of Men’s history. Fukuyama’s view is also premised on the basis of a strong Constitution such that the nature of democracy and constitution will prevent any major political upheavals in the political arena, maintaining the status quo of stability.

Now, moving on to the downside of democracy, we see that while proponents had repeatedly emphasized on the idea of "Rule by the people" which democracy promises, it is sad to note that this principle will not stand in today’s context, and had instead "degraded" into what’s commonly known now as the "tyranny of the majority".

Human nature and democracy have to be blamed for this, in that when democracy is implemented, it tends to sideline and isolate the minorities such that the government’s policies will only be catering to the majority of the population, neglecting the minority of the population at the same time though. Men, being power-hungry by nature, will then exploit this very nature of democracy such that the majority of the society, in their attempts to be “powerful” in the country, used this power of the majority to push for policies favoring only the majority of the population, while at the same time, necessarily sidelining the minorities. This is thereby what we called the “Tyranny of the Majority” (5) .The notion of the Tyranny of the Majority had also caused much problems to the society, as seen from the LTTE Crisis in Sri Lanka where the Sinhalese-dominated-government, in a bid to establish the Sinhalese supremacy in Sri Lanka, created policies catered predominantly to the Sinhalese, hoping to suppress and dominate the Tamils, which subsequently led to social and political instability, where the Tamil minorities revolt in response to the government's actions.

Truth be told, Democracy does guarantee the mandate from the majority of the population, but it does not guarantee that the minority group will not revolt or terrorize the state, as it tends to marginalize the minorities (6). As illustrated, the exploitation of democracy by Men had degraded democracy to nothing more than tyranny of the majority resulting in serious socio-political disorder. But, is this the stability democracy seeks to achieve for in the first place? (7) No!

Democracy relies on yet another assumption as well, where it assumes that the voters are educated and are able to reason out what are good political parties and what policies are beneficial to the country. This is the problem of democracy, such that in countries where voters are ignorant over the constitution and the policies of political parties and are easily swayed by charismatic oratory, they have a high tendency of voting blindly, without considering the implications of these policies after being implemented in the society, and many a time, resulting in the country landing on the wrong hands. Hitler’s example illustrated this point perfectly where his charisma earned him the popular vote need to control the Reichstag, and with the mandate from the voters, he massacred the Hebrews, rendering social and political instability, ultimately bringing the downfall of Nazi Germany.

Further, in the case of Argentina where both Eva Peron’s (8) charisma and the popularity of Juan Peron managed to sway the voters into loving and voting for them, giving them the mandate to dominate Argentinean politics for over 50 years. Their controversial rule, however, brought about political instability, where two different coups were orchestrated by the junta during the Peron Regime. (9)

These two examples had clearly articulated the pitfalls of democracy. By placing the great responsibility of “Ruling the country” on the people, it is premised on the assumption that the voters are able to reason out and differentiate between the good and bad political parties, but we see that this often not the case where in less developed countries, (10) conscientious stupidity and ignorance of these people over voting processes had clearly destroyed the validity of democracy creating stability in the society. It is with this where we say that Democracy is thereby a big mistake when implemented as it is ultimately a mere quantitative representation of interests instead of a qualitative representation of interests by the public; without the premise of well-educated public voters, we see no hope of democracy creating stability within the society.

Thus, I disagree with this motion, in that we need to understand that ultimately, democracy will not work as after all, it is based on too many assumptions, of which many nations are unable to work accordingly. Democracy can deliver its promise only on the assumption that Men have no vested interests when voting and that Men are qualified to vote and reason. But as seen from various examples, we now know that it is evident that countries will not be able to fully comply with these high standards of democracy. Given that Humans are greedy, selfish, power-hungry by nature, it is impossible for them to vote without any vested interests at all. Ultimately, democracy is a system that can only be validated on philosophical standings, but will necessarily fail to produce the results in a realistic situation as brought up earlier.

The crises of LTTE, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, have clearly shot down the clichéd democracy view of “Rule by the people”, and replace it with a more appropriate “Tyranny by the majority”. We see how democracy can render instability to a society; we see how voters without formal education can vote the wrong party with the wrong policies into power, ultimately misleading the country. These examples are more than enough to prove that democracy ultimately exists as mere philosophical ponderings by Men and will never be fulfilled.

While our Western Counterparts can rattle on and on about the idea of “Ruled by the People” and the notion of stability etc, we have to realize that these are all empty promises that works only on theory and when put into action, it cannot produce the same kind of promises it made.

So perhaps, H L Mencken was right when he blasted democracy as a popular fallacy, “Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven”.

Sad to say, empty promises really don’t count.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

(1) In a recent Time Survey, Singapore was ranked 33^rd out of more than 200 countries surveyed, as being one the most stable countries in the world.

(2) Economic stimulus packages, Upgrading of HDB Estates, billion dollar economic incentives are just some of the political tactics played by the PAP government to appeal to the majority of the population, thereby earning their mandate

(3) Although each country has the right to draft out their own constitution, most democratic countries generally follow a universal norm, which their constitutions will be based on.

(4) Francis Fukuyama in his “The End of History” asserted that the end of WW2 brings an end to the once multi-polar world such that countries will slowly move towards democracy. This democratization process is something linear and non-reversible and is the ultimate end of Men’s progress.

(5) This can be reiterated by Thomas Jefferson who interestingly claimed that democracy is a case where"51% of the people are right and the other 49% of the people are wrong" , highlighting the quantitative nature of democracy instead of the more preferred qualitative one.

(6) Minorities here refer to a small percentage of the population who has a different political view from the majority of the population and/or are ethically/religiously outnumbered people, who tend to lose out due to marginalization from the government and the lack of a say in the government.

(7) As stated by Agnes Repplier “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements”, indeed, we see that democracy’s ideas on “rule by the people” will work theoretically, but sadly we now know that nothing was and will be accomplished when applied realistically.

(8) This lady, commonly known as Evita, was so influential and charismatic such that she dominated Argentina’s politics and was loved by the people. The Song “Don’t cry for me, Argentina” was a ballad written in memory of her. This goes to show the extent of influence she had on the population with her charismatic oratory.

(9) Under the Perons, thousands of political dissidents were killed for opposing their controversial rule.

(10) It is interesting to note that even voters in the model for democracy, USA, are still unable to vote without any vested interests of white men supremacy, where Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire was largely attributed to the majority Whites being unable to vote without having any vested interests of race supremacy.

References:
1. Jalal Barzanji, Eawar Advantages. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from Advantages Web site: http://www.dengekan.com/papulakan/2005/8/ewarJalalBarznjei24.htm
2.Watson, Patrick, & Barber, Benjamin (1988). The struggle for democracy.Canada: Canadian Catalouging in Publication Data.
3.Mill, John (1859). John Stuart Mill's essay on liberty. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from On Liberty Web site: www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

Social Commentary

2008-03-06T19:48:00.029+08:00

Are Communal Policies in any Society a must?

With regard to a TIME Magazine article published 3 months ago, I believe we should see that this whole issue of HINDRAF in Malaysia which caused a big “hoo-hah” in the regional community of SEA had constantly revolved around the theme of Communal policies, not as an independent factor in itself, but rather we should cast light on this whole event in a way that we see it as an effect of the Communal policies in Malaysia, as ultimately, the HINDRAF Rally is a smaller subset of the large umbrella of Communal policies, of which encompassed the main theme we are exploring in this social commentary.

Now, by looking at the notion presented in the Article, it had implicitly asserted that communal policies are the fundamental causes for the current low standards of livings for the Indians, and ultimately set the trigger factor for the start of the HINDRAF Rally.

With reference to the context of Australia, whose employment of these forms of policies decades ago acted against the indigenous people living in Australia where all the economic, social, political policies employed by Australia in the mid 20th century were only favoring the White Australians, discriminating against the welfare of the Indigenous people, we do see that these discriminatory policies from the Australian government over a period of 30 years had only allow the Whites in the society to advance at an exponential rate while the aborigines were in a stasis state, as without the support of the government, it is near impossible for the aborigines to advance economically, socially and politically on their own. This resulted in the Whites and aborigines being segregated from one another, causing Men to be distinctively alienated from one another, and thus setting the underlying basis for further implications down the road where the underprivileged will soon through peaceful or violent ways, address their grievances.[1]

Here, we can see that the context of Australia draws many parallels towards our case study on Hindraf today, in that Malaysia also employed the same style of communal policies that worked in favour for the Malays of which they were given many economic incentives when working and only they get to enjoy the many economic, social and political benefits over other ethnic groups, and this, which HINDRAF claimed caused the income inequality gap between the Malays and the Indians to rise significantly as the years past, and this is the fundamental reason why Indians in Malaysia remained as one of the least affluent community even till today.

We do see that the implications of the selective nature of communal policies do fall in line with the main idea of the ideas of the author of TIME article who asserted that “Indians are historically underprivileged compared to other ethnic groups and have long felt discriminated against, particularly by a Malays-first affirmative action policy instituted after independence in 1957”. This is a strong reflection[2] of which communal policies will lead on to the inequalities of different co-existing communities in the societies, in that segregations of the societies are existent, alienating different groups of people in the society, and this incentivized the need for the underprivileged population to through different ways and means, solve the problems in the society, either peacefully or violently.

The implications of these communal policies don’t stop as that, in that the underprivileged communities, usually through violent means, will cause disruptions in the society economically, politically and socially. The HINDRAF Rally for example, is in fact a “dormant volcano erupting”, releasing its grievances, hatred and anger built up over a period of years. Till now, the favoritism in the economic policies to Malay had lasted for more than 50 years and the HINDRAF Rally allowed the marginalized Indians to release all 50 years of their grievances under UMNO’s communal policies.

Though I am no staunch critic on any Communal policies as stated in the disclaimer, I personally believe that the implications of the communal policies as seen in the HINDRAF Rally should not be taken lightly for it is ultimately a representation of the people’s anger with the government and a change has to be brought forward to solve this situation. Now, in this article, the writer had managed to touch briefly on the possible negative implications of the HINDRAF Rally such as the possible political instability in the Federal government of Malaysia where the ruling party may fear losing its 2/3 majority in the government needed to fully control the government and manipulate the political situation, as what the TIME article had stated, the writer agreed with analysts that the political dimension in Malaysia will definitely be met with instability and tight competition, of which will upset the political situation there leading to instability in the government.

By drawing comparisons between Sri Lanka’s on-going conflict[3] between the Singhalese and the Tamils, we do see that the implications of Malaysia’s communal policies are not as serious as that of Sri Lanka presently, but we must not forget that it is already a symbol that the people are angry and want changes to the communal policies now, and the government should seriously take into considerations of the long term impacts on the society as if they refused to solve the current crisis, there will be a high probability for these small protests now to eventually erupt into a full-scale conflict between the Indians and the Malays, just like the current conflict between the Tamils and the Singhalese, which will of course, post much more problems than it is now.

Though the article had not placed great emphasis on the future implications that might develop later, I personally believe that they should tackle the problem when it is still easy as this segregation of classes in the society will always remain as a ticking time bomb until the problem is solved. Though the possible implications of these communal policies, as suggested by the author, is still insignificant now in that UMNO will still retain the control of Malaysia, I do hope that UMNO can still reformat its communal policies.

After all, losing a few seats in parliament is still way better than the long-term, everlasting impacts that will ultimately cause the country to be engulfed in possible conflicts and civil wars between the majority ethnic group and the minority groups in the long run.

----------------------------
[1] . It was due to this serious lack of sufficient education policies, health-care, economic incentives and policies to aid the Aborigines in coping with the globalizing world that resulted in only 39% of the Indigenous students could continue their education up to high school as compared to the 75% of the White Australians, the average incomes in the Aborigines annual income being only 60% of an average White Australian annual income etc.

[2] Here, I will like to bring forth the speech of Murugesan, one of the 5 leaders of Hindraf, where he argued against the current federal constitution of Malaysia and spoke in defense of HINDRAF, “Our community is backward, our schools are dilapidated. We are the last in the line for jobs, scholarships, health benefits”. Here he asserted that Malaysia’ communal policies that favoured the Malays had undoubtedly caused the Indians’ current low-standing position in the society as they were often left out in Malaysia’s economic developments, increase standards-of-living, allow modernization of the society, and all these constituted to Indians being underprivileged than other ethnic groups as ultimately, they were hardly included in the country’s economic improvement plans, causing deep segregation in the society between the wealthy, affluent and increased standards of living Malays and the poor, low-class Indians in the society, falling in line with the article’s original view that it was ultimately the communal policies that were the fundamental causes of the current low standards of the Indians in Malaysia. This is a strong reflection of which communal policies which will lead on to the inequalities of different co-existing communities in the societies, in that segregations of the societies are existent, alienating different groups of people in the society, and this incentivized the need for the underprivileged population to through different ways and means, solve the problems in the society, either peacefully or violently.

[3] The Sri Lankan government enforced communal policies that are much worse than that of Malaysia through its policies like the Official Language Act of abolishing the usage of Tamil in the society, much more discriminatory economic policies that clearly favour the Singhalese much more than the Tamils, the burning of the Tamil Library (which signifies the roots and traditions of the Tamils) that had led to the current “civil war” between the LTTE and the Government.

References

1. Kuppusamy , Baradan. "Facing Malaysia's racial issues." TIME 25 November 2007 4 March 2008 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687973,00.html

2.Siasoco, Ricco Villannueva Aboriginal Australia History and culture of Australia's indigenous peoples. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aboriginal1.html

3. Sri Lanka. (2008, March 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:27, March 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka&oldid=196298853

4. Indigenous Australians. (2008, March 5). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07:28, March 7, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Australians&oldid=196088499

5. Noor, Farish A. (2007 29 November). Hindraf, Communitarianism and the made-in Malaysia Dilema. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from The other Malaysia Web site: http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/132/52/

Reference Article

2008-03-06T15:25:00.005+08:00

Time Magazine

An excerpt from the Nov 26 Times Article by Baradan Kuppusamy
Facing Malaysia's Racial Issues

[1. It may have been one of Malaysia's most surreal demonstrations ever. On Sunday, an estimated 20,000 ethnic Indians brought Kuala Lumpur to a standstill for nearly six hours in the name of Queen Elizabeth II. They gathered in the thousands near the Malaysian capital's iconic Petronas Towers, waving giant posters with enlarged images apparently downloaded from the Internet, depicting the British monarch in full royal regalia, or in her Sunday best inspecting flowers in Kensington. One banner read in English and Tamil: THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND — THE SYMBOL OF JUSTICE, WE STILL HAVE HOPE ON YOU. Alongside the pictures of the queen, many protestors also hung images of Mahatma Gandhi around their necks to symbolize the non-violent nature of their march. The foreign tourists who hadn't already been driven out of the square by the crowds gawked and started taking photographs.

2. The demonstrators — mostly ethnic Tamils, the descendants of 19th-cetury indentured laborers brought to Malaysia from South India by British colonists — had planned to march on the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur's Ampang diplomatic enclave to submit a two-page memorandum urging the Queen of England to help them in a legal case brought against the British government. The class action suit, filed in London in August by the Malaysia-based Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) demands that the British government pay some $4 trillion in damages to atone for what the group calls the "150 years of exploitation" of ethnic Indians by their former colonial masters. Hindraf had organized Sunday's march to the High Commission in order to urge the Queen to appoint Queen's Counsel to argue their case, as the group cannot afford to pay the legal fees.

3. It's a worry many ethnic Indians share. Making up some 8% of Malaysia's population (Malays make up about 60 percent, ethnic Chinese about 25 percent), Indians are historically underprivileged compared to other ethnic groups and have long felt discriminated against, particularly by a Malays-first affirmative action policy instituted after independence in 1957. "Our community is backward, our schools are dilapidated. We are the last in the line for jobs, scholarships, health benefits," says opposition lawmaker Kulasegaran Murugesan, an ethnic Tamil. Hindraf, modeled after right-wing Hindu nationalist groups in India, is winning support by demanding an increased share of Malaysia's wealth. "For over a decade we have been appealing to the government for help to alleviate our poverty but all our appeals had fell on deaf ears," says Uthayakumar Ponnusamy, Hindraf's legal adviser. "The British brought us here, exploited us for 150 years and left us to the mercy of a Malay Muslim government. They should compensate us now." ]

Disclaimer ( 21st Feb. 2008)

2008-02-21T11:27:00.001+08:00

Disclaimer 08'

This blog is merely a reflection of an individual perspective over a particular event/ any individual.
It is in no way a representation of a universalized view over any event.
This "diary" aims to target, pinpoint as well as to provide perspectives over the Current Affairs.
To be updated on a "termly" basis.