In 2013, just before the 13th general election (GE13), Prime Minister Najib Razak signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Hindraf (Hindraf MOU). In return, Hindraf actively engaged and campaigned for the victory for the Barisan Nasional (BN).
After plundering the Hindraf MOU, the administration has come out with yet another scheme in 2017 – in the form of the Malaysian Indian Blueprint (MIB).
It is not coincidental that the 14th general election (GE14) is just around the corner.
To dispel any notion that MIB is not another gimmick, and that it is real and not rhetoric, the simplistic explanation by the chief of the socio-economic development unit (Sedic), N S Rajendran (FMT: May 27) requires further enquiry.
The Sedic chief should be given an avenue to give a clearer explanation about the MIB.
Just to recollect, some of the points contained in the Hindraf MOU signed between Hindraf and the BN government on April 18, 2013, included:
- increasing the income levels of displaced estate workers to double its 2013 level by the year 2020;
- housing for displaced estate workers and low-income Indian families at a rate of 20,000 units per year starting from 2013 until the needs are fulfilled;
- retraining and reskilling of displaced estate workers’ children with pre-requisite preparation and financial support; and
- completely resolving all issues related to statelessness of Indians by 2018.
The Hindraf MOU further outlined allocation of a quota of 7.5% to 10% in the intake of all institutions of higher learning, a quota of 7.5% annually for small business loans and microcredit from the various government programmes, licences and permits, government controlled franchises, government contracts and 7.5% quota for jobs in the civil service, statutory bodies and GLCs.
Hindraf also insisted in the MOU that there should be a special unit with executive powers to implement and monitor the various initiatives agreed by the parties for the duration of 2013-2018.
Sadly, the government failed in its promise to fulfill any of the above initiatives outlined and agreed with Hindraf.
The frustrated Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy, who was appointed as a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department on June 5, 2013, called it a day and resigned on Feb 10, 2014.
Are we not seeing a repeat in the form of the MIB just before GE14?
On a positive note, the government did allocate more than the usual funds for the Tamil schools, business loan schemes, and grant allocations to Sedic to carry out programmes, addressing the issue of statelessness with the Special Implementation Task Force (SITF) and the Cabinet Committee for the Indian Community (CCIC) to address the plight of the Indian community.
However, these are mere ad-hoc allocations. They are not built into any policy framework but are an accommodation to appease the Indian masses.
In terms of intervention strategies for the Indian poor, the agenda of action proposed in the Hindraf MOU was much more exhaustive, and it can only be met with a structural shift in policies, policy-based allocation of resources and the political will of the government.
Based on the statistics provided in the MIB document released by the government, there has been barely any change in the status of the Indian poor in the past five years.
The Indian poor have become the urban underclass with a tag – Indian Bottom 40% (IB40%).
In terms of numbers, there are 227,600 households. The average monthly household income is RM 2,672 and 82% are debt-ridden.
MIB also noted that 3,500 households are classified as poor with monthly income of less than the Poverty Line Income (PLI) of RM960 (RM910 for rural) and another 22,700 households with monthly household income of less than RM1,000.
MIB also quotes that based on the 2010 survey only 3% of the bottom 40% owned houses.
This indicates that the remaining 97% of them are either living in slums, squatters or staying in rented homes.
In terms of distribution 89% of them are in an urban setting and the balance in rural areas.
On access to education, 45% have no access to preschool education, only 54% pass UPSR and 44% pass SPM.
Among children who drop out at primary level, 13% are Indian.
They are under-employed and the unemployment rate is the highest – 4% for Indian males and 5.2% for Indian females. The national average is 2.9% and 3.2% respectively.
On crime, the MIB quotes that 70% of gang members are Indians and Indians are over represented in violent crimes at 31%.
On statelessness, the MIB admits that there are about 25,000 Indians facing stateless and documentation issues.
This was the simplest of all the promises agreed by the Najib administration in 2013. This is an administrative function that requires efficiency and that can be solved with a stroke of a pen.
However, the MIB’s target to resolve this over the next five years is an indication of a ride on a merry-go-round wheel that has returned to the starting point.
These disclosures are cause for serious concern. It seems as if the situation has gotten worse than what it was in 2013.
The Sedic chief should realise that he is yet another pawn in the political game.
Neither he nor the MIC is in a position to shape the policies of the government to structurally reform the social strata of the poor communities to an equitable position.
A massive and concerted political agenda of action is needed for such an undertaking.
MIB is devoid of anything close to it. Hence, it is naïve to believe that MIB would uplift the Indian poor.
K Arumugam is a FMT reader.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.