Since it was announced that this year's intake into public universities was based on a questionable merit system that sustains racial discrimination, there has been a spate of commentaries in the mainstream media on the Indian Malaysian community.

Some of these commentators, mostly Indian Malaysian professionals, have resorted to what we think is a weak attempt at an internal criticism of the community, sounding more like Indian-bashing instead.

Communal self-reflection and criticism is certainly a good thing for it helps to identify issues, build self-correction measures and communal self-regeneration. But to do so, one must be honest and look at the issue carefully and comprehensively.

To consider only the surface issues and forget about structural ones, to merely consider internal issues without the external ones, borders on prejudice and/or naivety.

Thus for some commentators, the predicament of poor Indian Malaysians is solely of their own making, i.e. they do not work hard and take advantage of the abundant opportunities available in Malaysia.

Supposedly, they are always complaining and squabbling among themselves. They do not take an interest nor bother to invest in their children's education. They are robbers and violent gangsters. In short, they are just bad and irresponsible citizens who are an embarrassment to the community and the nation, and hindrance to attaining Vision 2020 and the goal of Bangsa Malaysia.

Are these statements of facts? Are they anywhere near the 'truth' of the matter?

Limited view

Certainly not. Sadly, some among the well-placed members of the Indian Malaysian middle class seem to have a limited view of their community and have certainly failed to appreciate the immense social, economic and political problems faced by them.

This has resulted in them playing a game of 'good Indian versus bad Indian'. The message they want to convey to the larger Malaysian society is they are the good Indians. They have worked hard (the 'rags to riches' story is substituted here) and succeeded in life; so why can't the others, particularly those in the poor community? They begin to feel that the bad Indians (read as the poor Tamils) are tarnishing their image through their 'lazy, drunken ways'.

As typical of a successful and comfortable middle class within weak minorities, they find excuses not to address the root causes of poverty among Indian Malaysians. While addressing individual causes they are blind to structural ones.

They, for instance, see the abundance of opportunities but fail to see the difference between these and access to them. While examining the poor community's behaviour, they somehow do not see the role of the government or the negative social impact of its policies.

Either they are blind or are aware that such a course of action would be very uncomfortable and risky. For it involves calling for better governance and taking to task the government for its neglect of poor Indian Malaysians, while addressing the internal obstacles.

So, what's the easiest thing to do? Make careless statements, avoid taking the government to task where necessary, create myths and half truths, and keep badgering the poor Indian Malaysians for the 'poor image' of the community. There is very often a tone of contempt, which is rather disturbing.

Consider the comments by one Deeo of Banting ( New Straits Times , May 22):

"Many Indian parents do not really take a serious interest in their children's education. They are not really prepared to invest in their children's future either because of poor guidance or they expect subsidies and handouts from the government.

"Look at the Chinese. They are ever willing to work hard, save and make great financial sacrifices in life which not many Indians are willing to do. They have long-term planning.

"But take a look again at the Chinese schools. This situation has never been a problem or a stumbling block. They don't depend on the government for hand-outs.

"They build their own schools. Don't say the Chinese are rich. There are also lorry drivers, estate labourers and manual workers among the Chinese. So what's the problem? It is the priorities in life."

Only avenue

At best, Deeo can be said to be misinformed. And certainly unsympathetic. Deeo's assertions are, however, far from the truth. While we understand that some parents may not pay much attention to education, it is certainly central to most Indian Malaysian parents.

Education has become the only avenue available for their children to attain upward social mobility. Thus, some poor parents take up two or more jobs and work very long hours in order to put their children through school. They put all hope on their children, believing that a university education for their eldest child will be a ticket for the whole family to climb out of their misery.

Here the attention to individuals should end; we are faced with 'structural' problems. Tamil schools and Tamil education are being systematically destroyed by short-sighted government policies.

And after struggling to put their children through education, what happens at the university admission level? Their children may not have gotten straight As in the STPM examination, considering their socio-economic background. They may not have had the luxury to spend (the middle class concern for) 'quality time' with their children.

But what is important is these poor children worked hard, tried and qualified to enter universities. So, naturally when they are denied admission into public universities under a very questionable race-based merit system, they are upset and feel cheated.

Deeo talks about poor Indian Malaysians not saving, making sacrifices and investing in their children's education. He should first suggest how it would be possible for many in the community.

Even after over a century, the plantation owners and the government are still dragging their feet over the monthly wage issue. The plantation owners are still insisting that they would only pay RM300 a month. Now, how much exactly is a plantation worker expected to save from this amount after paying for essentials such as food?

We can forgive Deeo's myopia and ignorance for only as far back as three years ago even the Primary Industries Minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik was not aware what the rubber tappers were "doing behind the trees", and made a joke of it at the expense of the Indian community!

Deeo is also wrong to suggest that poor Indian Malaysians have not tried to help themselves. Just do a cursory examination of the efforts of the community after the announcement of the plan to set up Maika Holdings. He or she will then realise the drive of the community to help itself and its frustration with the Indian Malaysian political leadership for its inability to provide financial certainty.

Further, Deeo insults poor Indian Malaysians claiming they are seeking subsidies and handouts from the government. Aren't these people citizens of the country whose ancestors had contributed enormously in laying the foundations of the modern Malaysian economy?

Is it pathetic for them to expect the government to allocate a fair share of resources for them to grow with the nation's progress?

Just policies

What the poor Indian Malaysians seek are just policies from the government and education and other opportunities to better themselves. And really, in principle, why do we elect representatives and put them in our Parliament? Is election just a matter of finding jobs for some Malaysians in our Parliament? Deeo's argument here is really pathetic and in need of some minimum exercise of critical analysis.

We wonder why the likes of Deeo are only comparing us with the Chinese Malaysians and not with the Malay Malaysians and the ethnically-discriminatory application of the NEP. Unlike Chinese Malaysians, the bulk of Indian Malaysians were trapped in a cycle of generational poverty peculiar to the plantation economy. Here again, there is a thorough ignorance of the different histories of the Chinese and Indian Malaysians in a colonial setting.

The rural-based Malays were in a similar situation as the Indian Malaysians in the plantations more than 30 years ago. The government embarked on a massive social engineering programme for the Malays and allocated billions of ringgit to raise their standard of living. After more than three decades, the government still considers it has not achieved the desired results for Malay Malaysians.

Considering this, how would one expect a numerically small and economically disadvantaged community to overcome similar obstacles on its own, particularly in a racially-charged environment? Is it not the responsibility of an elected government to devise an appropriate economic plan to lift the poor Indian Malaysians, as all poor Malaysians, out of their misery?

Another columnist KJ John ( New Straits Times , May 25) lectures Indian Malaysians how to become first-class citizens, using fanciful words such as Vision 2020 and Bangsa Malaysia. His concept of a Bangsa Malaysia is not really clear. But perhaps the Johns, Deeos and others giving their 'three sense' worth would ponder on these developments and enlighten us further on how Indian Malaysians can be a component of Bangsa Malaysia.

The breakdown of rubber plantations, the migration of poor Indian Malaysians from rural to urban poverty, lack of opportunities, the socialisation of the young into anti-social survival strategies are not purely the making of the community. What has the government done so far to resolve these matters?

The government has formulated a home ownership scheme for plantation workers decades ago. But plantation owners are flouting it and the workers end up in urban squatter colonies. When the government does not set a good example by implementing the policy forcefully, how are the young who end up in urban squalors going to strive to be "first-class citizens?

An Indian Malaysian academic has all the paper qualifications and slogs for years in a public university. Over the years, he works extremely hard and rises to be the acting head in his faculty. Then he goes on annual leave for a week. On returning to work, he finds a junior Malay colleague has been appointed to head the faculty. What idea of Bangsa Malaysia is this Indian Malaysian academic suppose to have?

A low-income earning Indian Malaysian works hard, makes sacrifices and saves to buy an average house for his family. When he buys from a developer, he has to pay more than a Malay Malaysian millionaire for the same type of house. What relevance is Bangsa Malaysia to this average Indian Malaysian house buyer?

The family of an intelligent and responsible Indian Malaysian student moves to a new town dominated by civil servants. When the student enrolls in a new school, her fair-minded Malay teacher reviews her performance and decides to make her a school prefect. But the recommendation is immediately shot down because the student is not a Malay Malaysian. What idea of Bangsa Malaysia is this girl going to hold when she enters adult life?

Some plantation workers managed to move out of their wretched environment through hard work, sweat and tears. They borrow from friends and relatives, buy small plots of land and go into cattle rearing and other self-employed activities. Then their livelihood gets threatened as some poachers keep carting away their cattle for about two years. They lodge over 100 police reports about their missing cattle. There appear to be no action from the Malay-dominated police force. How are these hard working Indian Malaysians going to survive and be good citizens? What is Bangsa Malaysia for them?

Not realistic

Unless we live in a totally egalitarian society, there is no such thing as a level playing field. A highly stratified, unequal society with inter-generational poverty cannot have a level playing field.

Agreed, there are many Indian Malaysians who have entered such a field and come out successful (we suppose, it includes people like John).

But to say people who are talking about such a problem as having a level playing field (in the context of discussions on meritocracy) are not being realistic or practical is really missing the point.

As a democratic principle, should a society plan to achieve a degree of level playing field? Is that being addressed in our society? And practically, should not capable young Malaysians of all communities be educated to be 'good' citizens to lead Malaysia tomorrow? What kind of policy is that that wastes its human resources on the basis of race/ethnic group affiliation?

We understand that this 'rag-to-riches' narrative is a convenient explanatory model for many upwardly mobile Indian Malaysians. But it is a model that focuses on some successful individuals and loses sight of the many who are pushed out of the 'path of development'. Marginalised.

The message to all the Johns and Deeos out there is simple. Stop just blaming or demonising the victims of unequal, unsustainable development. And, racist policies. If we as a community and nation are really serious about pulling the poor Indian Malaysians out of their current rut, we need wholesome analysis and solutions.

And that involves not only undertaking self-criticism to develop self-help measures but also making the government in a multi-cultural society to be more responsive to the plight of poor Indian Malaysians (and poor Malaysians in general).

Yes, you can throw poor families out from the squatters areas (many of these will be Indian Malaysians) because these slums are dirty and source of social ills but do that after installing and realising the right to housing and enabling living environments in actual practice.

S NAGARAJAN was a journalist with The Star and Malaysian Business , and is currently a research student at the Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Research, Universiti Malaya.

Dr M NADARAJAH is a sociologist by profession. He works on sustainable development issues and is currently the deputy co-ordinator of a virtual organisation called the Asian Communication Network, with an anchor in Bangkok, Thailand.