poobalan.com

If readers remember, Home Minister Syed Hamid, when announcing the banning of HINDRAF, rattled off some statistics that purportedly shows Indians are better off, thus negating the claims made by HINDRAF.Obviously we can see the holes in his arguments, so one wonders who he was trying to convince.

Further to that, the letter below is reproduced (source: Malaysiakini). It was written by a “H Lee”, a postgraduate student in economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He highlights one problem - lack of statistics (especially reliable ones by third parties) can only make us estimate or assume some of the possibilities or reasons.

Perhaps, few years back, Syed Hamid could have hoodwinked the public, but now people are more aware. With whatever available information at hand, concerned citizens try to provide alternatives, better analysis, and counter opinions. Let’s read how H Lee analyses the statistics on Indians given by Syed Hamid:

So Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar – in a decision, as he puts it, of self-sacrifice for the sake of protecting society – has banned Hindraf.Similar home ministerial valour must have been present when he chose to detain Raja Petra, Teresa Kok, Tan Hoon Cheng and hundreds of others under the ISA.

Many Malaysians have expressed their outrage at the latest cruel and callous act of repression against a civil group which has highlighted the continuing plight of marginalised Malaysian Indians.

I would like to examine an aspect: the assertion that Malaysian Indians are not marginalised and are actually doing better than Bumiputera Malaysians, and thus, they have no grounds to feel aggrieved, let alone angry. This is a cynical and specious claim.

We should first take note of the often ignored fact that the Malaysian Indian community is diverse, stratified and complex. Like any other.

Some are rich, some are part of the middle class, some are poor; some are posited in the mainstream, some are at the margins – and some are beyond the margins, trapped in urban squalor. The imperative question is whether the concerns of the Indian poor are being addressed by our government’s attitudes and policies.

But the ruling regime would rather treat groups as monolithic blobs, then go about brandishing statistics to preempt debate - and stamp the lowly back into their place.

And so, in dismissing Hindraf’s cause, Syed Hamid invoked the reality of high proportions of Indians among registered legal professionals (21.4 percent) and among doctors (18.4 percent), and the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera household incomes, of… 1.20. That’s right, according to 2007 household income survey data, Indian households on average have 20 percent more income than Bumiputera households.

Is there something wrong with these figures? Why has the message of Hindraf resonated when official data paint opposing images of social mobility and nice averages?

There is no need to question the numbers, but every need to handle them responsibly, within context and in recognition of their limited scope. These bits of information provide no basis to conclude that all of the community is doing well and should therefore shut up and get on with their happy lives.

In fact, we do have evidence that Malaysians Indians are struggling as much as others to earn a decent living.

Averaging numbers

Of course there are many Indian lawyers and doctors – who’s not cognisant of that? But there are far more Indian labourers, factory workers, and others at the low reaches of the labour market.

It is highly probable that the household income of the Indian community is propped up by the high earnings of professionals and managers.

Meagre family incomes of displaced agricultural workers and urban elementary workers get shrouded in the process of averaging the incomes of all Indian families.

Consider some changes that have taken place in the past decade or so.

In 1995, 17.7 percent of employed Indians worked as agricultural labor, while 8.7 percent were in professional and technical occupations.

By 2005, only 4.9 percent of employed Indians were agricultural workers, but 20.1 percent worked as professionals and technicians.

Albeit rather cursorily, we gain some impression here of developments at two ends of the socio-economic hierarchy: the continuous urbanisation of a low-skilled former plantation workforce; a steadily growing presence in highly qualified jobs providing middle class living standards.

In what sort of jobs are most Indians working? Within communities, Indians registered the highest proportion of persons classified as production workers.

In 2005, 45.8 percent of employed Indians fell in this category, compared to 33.8 percent Chinese and 34.1 percent Bumiputera.

Due to the unfree state of information in this land, the most we can do with officially disclosed statistics is make deductions and inferences such as these.

We are still left with a knowledge gap.

However, a study by Branko Milanovic, a World Bank researcher and renowned scholar of global inequality, helps fill the void¹.

He analysed Malaysia’s household income data of 1997. This is from the national survey that the Statistics Department conducts twice in five years, from which all the inequality measurements we know are calculated.

One difference with the official accounts is that Milanovic focussed on individual earnings (wages, salaries and bonuses) instead of household income (the sum of household members’ earnings, property income and remittances). His findings are therefore more reflective of the earnings capacity of Malaysians in the labour market.

The housewife factor

The study analyses inequality more generally, but in the process finds something very striking: in 1997, the ratio of Indian to Bumiputera individual earnings was 0.98.

The official figure for Indian: Bumiputera household income was 1.41. In other words, the average earnings of individual Indians was basically the same as the average earnings of individual Bumiputera, even though average household incomes were quite unequal.

How might this be possible?

In terms of the gap between individual earnings inequality and household income inequality, we could postulate that combined earnings of Indians, especially in households with both spouses in professional jobs, raised their income to levels significantly higher than Bumiputera households.

This is a guess, and that’s as far as we can go with available data.

What’s not a guess is this objective report that average individual earnings of Indians and Bumiputeras were equal in 1997.

In 2007, with an Indian-to-Bumiputera household income ratio of 1.20, what might the inter-group earnings ratio look like? We don’t know, but it is more than likely that the ratio is less than 1.20.

It is possible that earnings are on average close to equal, or that Indian earnings are less than Bumiputera earnings.

Consider recent data on the distribution of employed persons by occupation.

In 2005, with 45.8 percent of the total employed Indians engaged as production workers and 4.9 percent as agricultural workers, it is plausible that average individual earnings are on par with the average among employed Bumiputera, of whom 34.1 percent are production workers and 15.2 percent are agricultural workers.

These two low-paying occupational groups account for about 50 percent of employed persons of both race groups.

Again, we won’t have a clear picture unless we have access to data and can engage in constructive discussion.

Hindraf has grounds

We have a clear enough picture, however, to affirm the plight of marginalised Indian households, whose tough circumstances in labour markets and poor living conditions are a shameful reality that cannot be garbed in middle-class statistics.

Hindraf has grounds for grievance – yes, even in the official data, if only we would take a more balanced and critical look.

And we could better understand this whole inequality thing, and devise fairer and more effective policies, if the ruling regime would release more information to our - um - knowledge society.

Resistance towards extending the same policies to members of the Indian community as currently provided to Bumiputera is partly predicated on official household income statistics.

But they give us an oversimplified and selective glimpse to a complex of problems.

It is high time to reevaluate the way we assess income and earnings and to aim assistance at the people who need or merit it most.

¹ Branko Milanovic (2006) “Inequality and Determinants of Earnings in Malaysia, 1984-97″, in the Asian Economic Journal, 20(2).

Popularity: 1% [?]

Well, looks like the dragnet is expanding. Now, all NGO’s who are “involved” in HINDRAF activities would face the law as well. That means Police Watch Malaysia I guess - the precursor to HINDRAF. If I’m not mistaken, HINDRAF itself is a coalition of 20 over NGOs. That means all those NGOs have to be banned as well. How about those who support HINDRAF’s purpose/activities - like Gerakan, MIC members, MHS, PAS, PKR, DAP, Bar Council, Suharam, GCC, HSS, etc.? Semua kena tangkap ka?

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar today warned that any non-governmental organisation found to be involved in Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) activities would face the law.

He said this was because Hindraf was declared illegal by the government on Oct 15 for its militant activities, and that its actions contravened Section 5 (1) of the Societies Act 1996 and were a threat to public order, peace, civility and moral values.

“It doesn’t matter what name they use, action will be taken…it’s not an action against Indians or Hindus. This is action against groups that associate themselves with militancy and have extremist views,” he told reporters at the ministry’s Aidilfitri open house, here.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Popularity: 1% [?]

I have to start with the story of the day - Police beat closed down in Jalan Haji Taib because….brace yourselves….it was in a location considered UNSAFE! This is the response from none other than the embarrassment called Syed Hamid whom clowning antics have us up in arms. I seriously wonder if he actually goes through what is given to him before allowing it to be published. I wonder how many MPs are cursing their luck for having him amongst them. Same goes for his constituents in Kota Tinggi (if I’m not mistaken).

In a written reply to Dr Lo’ Lo’ Mohamad Ghazali (PAS-Titiwangsa), Syed Hamid said the beat base was located in a dirty area where there was a possibility of being exposed to contagious diseases.

The presence of criminals also posed a threat to the safety of police officers, he said.

Lo’ Lo’ had asked why the beat base on Jalan Haji Taib was closed considering the high number of vice-related activities in the area, as well as what kind action had been taken by the police to curb such activities.

Syed Hamid said that the police were looking for a new location to build a police beat base that would be able to give “guaranteed and continued service to the public.”

Another MP, Dr Mohd Hatta said that if the police themselves felt unsafe in a beat base, then it would be even worse for the public.

“The minister has to resign if he is worried about the safety of police in that area. Maybe it would be better to put the beat base in army barracks,” he said.

Dr Mohd Hatta then managed to raise the issue again during his own debate on Budget 2009 saying that Syed Ali’s response was not rational.

“The police are there to make a place safe. If they themselves are scared and run away, then how can we hope for others to want to be there?

“It is embarassing and that is why the criminals will always be there,” he said.

Dr Mohd Hatta said if the place is dirty, then it is up to the police to organise gotong-royong activities to clean it up or if they did not want to then they should move to Putrajaya or Parliament.

“And what is this about contagious diseases on Jalan Haji Taib? The only kind of contagious diseases that are present there are sexually-transmitted ones.

“Is the minister scared that his charges will contract such diseases? That kind of thing is a matter of choice. In any case, if this is what he is worried about then we are worried that the police are not above this.”

Dr Mohd Hatta added that the police had to be brave people and that they were a different breed altogether when facing demonstrators. He said he hoped that the minister would clarify his written answer in the House as this is not the kind of police that the people want.

Ok, that tells us a bit on the guy who issued orders to ban HINDRAF. I wonder if Utusan will come up with another piece of s**t creative work ending with a “Sod Am It” being impaled on a stake and then
blown to bits with C4. Probably they will since he is far behind in the deputy presidency race.

More explanation from Syed Hamid:

The banning of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) was not politically motivated, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.

Syed Hamid said the actions by Hindraf members during the recent Hari Raya open house, hosted by the prime minister and cabinet members, showed that “it had pushed the boundary of religious tolerance.”

“We have and will continue to take action against any individual or group out to create racial tension or conflict, regardless of their political affiliations,” the Home Minister said.

This, he said, was shown when the government had banned the Al-Arqam, Al-Maunah and Jemaah Islamiyah.

Hindraf members had consistently carried out extreme activities and they were clearly using religion as a tool to create disharmony between races, Syed Hamid told a press conference at his office yesterday.
“We had investigated Hindraf’s activities thoroughly. All facts and evidence had been scrutinised by the Registrar of Societies.

“If the movement’s activities were not stopped, public safety and harmony would be at risk. Its members had consistently broken the law by holding illegal rallies and had acted violently,” he said.

Syed Hamid everyone is accorded with freedom of speech but this does not involve stirring up racial sentiments.

He then went on to say that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had said that the government is willing to listen to everyone, even if they have unpleasant things to say.

“But when they use extreme tactics, which go against racial tolerance and courtesy, we have to act for the sake of public order and harmony,” said Syed Hamid, quoting the prime minister.

He further added that Hindraf did not represent all Hindus.

“It represents a minority. The Hindus play a very valuable role in our society. One quarter of our doctors are Indians and there are legitimate Indian political parties like the MIC to look into their grievances.

“They will continue to work with the government. The government will continue to listen to the problems of all races in this country,” Syed Hamid said, adding that Malaysian Indians must not be misled into believing that they are not represented.

He also dismissed concerns of a backlash with Deepavali around the corner.

“There won’t be any backlash. We are not taking action against Hindus but against this extremist group which does not represent the majority of the Indian community.”

He mentioned HINDRAF organised 384 illegal gatherings. Not bad! Would be given a place in Malaysian Book of Records? Let’s look at some of his points. Since when is open house a religious event? Is he preaching deviant teaching? Are JAKIM people reading newspapers?

Hindraf is being compared with the JI, Al-Arqam and Al-Maunah - groups that were involved in armed attacks. Well, in Bolehland, you can compare school student with bank robber and arrest him as well, I guess.

I remember watching the PM in TV last year saying that “why should he meet HINDRAF”. Now, the resident clown says opposite.

Finally, on what basis is he saying that “HINDRAF does not represent all HINDUS” or that “it represents a minority”? HINDRAF have clarified countless times that it represents all Malaysians. If UMNO or MCA can claim to represent all Malaysians, why not HINDRAF? Doesn’t it sound funny? Also, isn’t it curious that apart from MIC, its cronies and few individuals, no other groups from the Indian community came forward condemning HINDRAF actions? So, is it really a minority?

Syed Hamid also said that the police will investigate and its up to the courts to pass sentence on HINDRAF leaders if found guilty.

He also gave some statistics:

He said the Indian community was not neglected in this country as they were quite well represented with 14 Indian members of parliament, 21.4% in the legal fraternity, 18.4% in the field of medicine and their overall income was 1.2 times higher than the income of the Malays.

With regard to those living under the poverty line, the Indians comprised 2.9%, Chinese 0.6% and Malays 8.3%, he said.

Syed Hamid added that there was a ratio of one temple to 149 Hindus and one mosque to 2,300 Muslims in this country.

The most unbelievable thing mentioned by Syed Hamid is that 14 Indian MPs being in the parliament. Well, that happened due to Makkal Sakthi! How many Indian MPs are there on BN side in that 30 years? Is he admitting to something here? Next, even MHS doesn’t really know how many temples there are in the country. How does the Home Minister get this data? There’s no registry anywhere.

It has been well documented that the rate of improvement among other races are better than the Indians and the other minorities. Even in employment, the ratio of Indian professionals is not as before.

The police then says that HINDRAF’s members are being monitored following the ban:

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said members could face arrest if they remained defiant and proceeded to organise gatherings.

“They have been banned and deemed illegal, therefore cannot do anything.

“Hindraf’s status is akin to a secret society,” he said here on Thursday.

Musa said police had also identified Hindraf members who had “gate-crashed” the Prime Minister’s Hari Raya open house at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 1, including the organiser. He added that police would hand over the investigation papers to the A-G for further action.

Well, MIC’s boss Samy Vellu said the usual stuff - they will continue to fight for release of the ISA detainees. However, he said “no comments” when asked about the ban:

“Regarding the ban on Hindraf, no comment. I don’t have any reaction. I don’t like to comment on it,” he told reporters after the MIC Central Working Committee meeting at MIC headquarters here on Thursday.

Let’s see what else he said:

Asked whether the Indian community’s support for MIC would be affected as a result of the ban, he said, “MIC stands on its own foundation. We have more than 600,000 members.”

On Coalition of Indian NGOs secretary-general Gunaraj George’s statement that the ban would result in the Indian community losing their platform to voice their opinions, Samy Vellu reacted: “Now, they are saying that the voice comes from there? What do they voice out? Whose voice is it?

“The voice normally comes from MIC. The demands come from MIC. The plans are formulated by MIC.

“We have a special Cabinet Committee to protect the interests of the Indian community through MIC.

“Voicing out issues? Anyone can do it. It is not difficult to voice out your opinions. What’s hard is implementing actions that can benefit the Indian community,” he said.

On Bar Council vice-chairman Ragunath Kesavan’s remark that making Hindraf illegal would not solve the problem as it was important to address the issues raised by Hindraf, rather than the movement itself, Samy Vellu said: “I do not see any issues that they raised. We raise the issues.

“We have representatives in Cabinet. I have raised certain issues concerning the community. Now, (Human Resources Minister) Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam raises issues on a weekly basis.

“Not through massive street demonstrations. We plan it from our office and raise it to the Government and the Prime Minister,” he added.

Ok, let’s get to the points. MIC’s membership is 600,000? I thought it was 500,000 only. Out of 1.7 million population, can we believe that 35% are MIC members? How many Indians are above the age of 21? Could it be 70%? That means many MIC members did not vote for BN in the last elections!!! Kesian Samy Vellu, betrayed by own members. Or, he’s lying about the membership. Next, the “voice” thing. I guess its not how many times you shout, but the effect is the one that counts. Can we get a figure from MIC on the number of memorandums/demands/suggestions/plans/ideas sent to the leaders, and its status now? At least we know HINDRAF can’t even send one memorandum, so we take it as a failure. How many successes does MIC got? The Cabinet Committee is a nice spin by Samy. He conveniently forgot to tell that it was formed just 3 months ago and had its second meeting last month! So much for telling the truth! Ok, let’s give them the benefit of doubt. How many issues have been raised since March 2008 and what are their status.

By the way, MIC’s open house will be on Deepavali day (10am to 1pm) at PWTC - so that means not many Indians (except MIC politicians and those seeking favors) will be attending. Maybe its purposely held on that day to hide the fact that many Indians will boycott it if held on any other day. Or would MIC members betray Samy Vellu again and turn up in orange on that day?

Next, we’ll read what HINDRAF and the rest say about the ban - in Part 2.

Popularity: 1% [?]