While I disagree with Hindraf over the use of strong language such as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘mini-genocide’ in its letter to the British prime minister without any legal or factual basis for such statements, the rest of its allegations merit consideration by the government.

There is nothing wrong in studying the underlying concerns and grievances of Malaysian Indians to rectify what may be a perception that the government is not responsive to their problems and is not doing enough to help them alleviate their social-economic disparity vis-à-vis the other races.

Serious issues have been raised by the Hindraf letter that touches on fundamental rights under the Constitution such as freedom of religion, the right to education, equality before the law, the right to due process, protecting the legitimate interests of the Indian community, representation in government and economic rights.

There is nothing sinister or unpalatable about these demands. They are neither racist nor extreme. Perhaps the letter could have been better worded with less rhetoric and embellishment. But it should not be a case of kill the messenger just because the government is unhappy with the message or the manner in which it was delivered.

Street protests, demonstrations and rallies may be inconvenient and disruptive but they are a legitimate form of expression in any democracy. Rather than being counterproductive, unreasonably dismissive and exaggerating concerns for public safety and security even when unwarranted, the government and the police should deal with such gatherings in an open, professional and honest way.
In most countries this can be achieved if there is pragmatism and cooperation from both sides. But it will not work if the authorities while pretending to consider applications for permits for public gatherings and processions insidiously work behind the scenes to ensure that these events do not take place at all even to the extent of intimidating the organisers, their supporters and even the owners’ of private property who are willing to allow their premises to be used for such gatherings and meetings.

The contents of the Hindraf letter should be examined in a detached and objective manner. Lets be dispassionate about it.

Kampung Medan

Hindraf and other non-governmental organisations have been talking about the Kampung Medan incident since 2000, the public has heard great many versions about what transpired there but no one knows the truth yet. There were fatalities and injuries among both the Malay and Indian communities in Kampung Medan but a disproportionately larger number of Indians were killed or maimed. The area itself was a hotbed because of social and economic depravation and neglect.

There were allegations made about police incompetence, mishandling and more seriously a racial bias on the part of the police in the discharge of their duties that favored one race over another.

While the government may have addressed the problem in terms of urban renewal, rejuvenation, employment and fostering inter-ethnic relations, it has not been transparent in investigating the causes and the reasons for the incident, the underlying racial and religious tensions and the role played by the police and the local authority in dealing with the crisis not just in terms of policing, protection and preservation of public order and safety but also in the context of economic and social responsiveness to a situation that was already brewing for many years before it erupted into violence.

These concerns could have been addressed by conducting a public inquiry. For reasons best known to the government this was not done. Appeals to Suhakam also fell on deaf years and its inaction was clearly a dereliction of duty under the terms of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act. Attempts by some of the victims to bring a public interest action in the courts was blocked by the attorney-general through his intervention to have the action struck out.

The government’s total lack of transparency in this matter has led to the accusations that it now faces both within the country and abroad about a possible suppression of the truth, misfeasance by the police and culpability of the authorities in the deaths and injuries of the Indian minority. Sometimes it is better that the truth be told and be damned than to allow anger, suspicion, despair and resentment to fester and grow even if unwarranted, exaggerated or embellished to a point when even the truth itself no longer matters.

High crime rate

Similarly, the government needs to address the high crime and delinquency rates among Indians. The community is over-represented in these statistics. The underlying causes and effects have been studied and analysed by numerous experts, academics and non-governmental organisations but the response has been slow and dilatory. The numerous deaths of Indians during encounters with the police and in police custody are seldom investigated and the family members of the deceased can ill afford to file a private civil action against the police and the government to discover the truth.

Even if criminality is involved on the part of the victims, it is the duty of the state to ensure that the police observe the law and proper operating procedures in all such cases. If inquiries were conducted as provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code in all cases of sudden death during police encounters or in police custody irrespective of the ethnicity of the victim, allegations of impropriety and arbitrary use of force by the police would not arise. I don’t think that Hindraf’s claims on this issue is exaggerated. The figures speak for themselves.

The fact that a Royal Commission was formed to inquire and investigate into allegations of abuse of power, excessive use of force and corruption in the police force, that has now galvanised the government to move the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) bill in Parliament, is a belated admission by the government that there are problems within the force that need to be independently examined and addressed.

I am not suggesting that the entire force is tainted but the actions of some segments of the force have caused the Indian public to form a view that a policy of shooting first and then explaining may have crept into sections of the force that deal with serious crimes. Public inquiries and inquests if carried out in an open and impartial manner will go a long way to dispel these concerns.

Temple demolitions

On the vexed question of illegal Hindu temples being built on public and private land, it is a problem that needs to be handled in a sensitive and open manner. It is a fact that a large number of Hindu temples have been demolished and destroyed in the last few years. It is an issue that is not just religious in nature but also close to the hearts of many Tamils as it is a part of their culture. This practice of building places of worship as and where it is convenient has its roots in the displacement of Tamils from India to the then Malaya at the behest of the British. Many came to this country as indentured laborers and also as economic migrants. Of course some were brought by the British to work as administrators and in the police force.

Most of these immigrants however, were brought to work in the rubber plantations and to help in the construction of roads and the railways in this country. As they lived and worked in remote and rural parts of the country, the building of temples and shrines became common place.

Having these places of worship gave them a sense of community in this land and also brought back memories of their distant homeland. In fact many anthropologists and sociologists claim that the Tamils are a people who are fond of building temples and shrines wherever they may be. It is part of their culture and belief structure. The British tolerated this practice and it remained untouched for decades even after our independence.

However, with urban migration, this Tamil practice of building temples and shrines has continued much to the inconvenience of public and private owners of land. Sometimes there is a genuine need for places of worship as very few public authorities and private developers make provision for non-Muslim places of worship. At other times the hostile reaction of the local Muslim population in some areas have caused difficulties not only to Hindus but also adherents of other religions as well. It is sad that such problems that never existed until the last two decades is now becoming very prevalent.

The higher levels of government in this country must be made aware of the existence of a group of very narrow-minded, extremist and bigoted officials in middle and lower ranking positions of local government and in the state religious authorities who in their zeal to propagate, instill and defend the Islamic religion and values, which while being universal in many ways, is given such a distorted, prejudiced and unfair interpretation by these officials when it comes to their dealings with people of other races and religions. They impose all sorts of unreasonable restrictions and conditions when it comes to the building of temples and churches to the point that many feel their right to freedom of religion is seriously eroded.

Are these people so weak in their faith that any non-Muslim house of worship or religious symbol is treated with suspicion and contempt? Examples would be like telling a temple to relocate itself next to a sewerage treatment plant or insist that a church be built in an industrial zone but that it must not look like a church but more like a factory? Is this the kind of religious tolerance that we have in this country?

Unreciprocated tolerance

Why should racial and religious composition of a particular area be the sole determinant for the building of a temple or a church? It is certainly not the criteria when a mosque or surau is built? A good example is where I live. Sixty percent of the residents are Chinese, 30 percent are Malay and 10 percent are Indian and yet within a two kilometer radius there are two suraus and a large mosque. I am neither complaining nor objecting but I often see such tolerance not being reciprocated when it comes to other religions.

Sometimes even the construction sites of temples and churches are vandalized because of opposition from the local populace but no action is taken by the police and the local authority. The only advise is that the temple or church should just relocate to some other obscure area where it is not noticed. But no such objections or concerns are tolerated if it involves a Muslim place of worship. Is this not fair? Even if Islam is the official religion of this country, the Constitution does not permit religious discrimination, intolerance and subjugation.

Most importantly, Islam itself prohibits such intolerance. The demolition of temples and other places of worship is a very serious matter. Even if the law provides for it, such acts must be tempered with justice and mercy. There must be proper consultation with the temple authorities, enough notice to relocate given, an accessible alternative site should be given for the relocation and adequate funding given to help in the reconstruction of these temples. Relocation is not just a word. Religious ceremonies and rituals must be observed before the deities can be moved to a new location. Even if we don’t share these beliefs we must respect them and not denigrate or criticise them.

The state governments, local authorities and the police should be race and religion sensitive. By conducting some kind of “blitzkrieg” operation on an illegal temple while people are still praying and in the midst of their religious observances days before a major religious festival in the country is insensitivity at its worst and stupidity at best. Naturally, Indians of the Hindu faith are angry and offended.

Any desecration of a temple whether legal or illegal is still a desecration. You can’t spin it any other way. While we lament the destruction of mosques in Palestine and Iraq, we should also lament the destruction of other places of worship and religious symbols both in our country and abroad. Any house of worship which is a house of God must be treated with respect and tolerance.

While the decision of the government on freezing further temple demolitions is welcomed it must be implemented properly and effectively. What is the point of giving such assurances from the top when some indescribably narrow minded and stupid person is going to do the exact opposite the next day in some other part of the country.

I would suggest that both at the federal, state and local government levels a committee be set up with representatives of all religious groups to advise the government and deal with these issues before decisions are taken with a right of appeal to the prime minister or the relevant menteri besar and chief minister if no agreement or consensus can be reached.

I disagree with Hindraf but... (Part 2)

GERARD LOURDESAMY is a lawyer who has been in practise for about 15 years with an interest in government and politics.