It was with great interest and concern I read the comment by S Kulasekaran, the MP for Ipoh Barat which was quoted in your report 'Flight of fancy' speech from Samy .

He has been quoted to having said, "Self help might be good for the middle and upper classes of Indians like the MIC leaders but what about the poor? The poor have no resources to mobilise and no hope to move up."

As he implies, do the poor really have 'no self' and 'no resources'? Does that mean then that they have no identity and worth? How demeaning is this? This has immensely perturbed me. His words seem to rob the poor of their self-determination and their right to human dignity and to imply that they do not have a mind of their own. This is what I call as 'double victimisation'.

I am a social worker by profession. The very ethos and principle of the social work profession is, that however the world may be distorted, fragmented and seemingly hopeless, there is yet hope and all is not lost. There are inherent resources in each and every God-created human being. 'Being' does not mean existing but living. This is my firm conviction and belief that has given me the inspiration and motivation to work with people no matter who they are, what they are, how they are and what they might have or have not.

I have known of the poor who have overcome their poverty through sheer grit, courage and a little moral and emotional support provided by some concerned person. What the poor need is a little support from you, me and other concerned individuals. What kind of support? Not alms and handouts but support to realise their inherent God-given potential and at the same time the know- how to access available resources.

I am not decrying the moral responsibility and obligation of the government but would like to place an emphasis on our shared corporate responsibility for the community. It is good governance coupled with social responsibility. There is no community in the world which has no resources of whatsoever.

While the poor within the community may not have the financial resources or educational resources, there are others who may have these in abundance. This is the point where community self-help is given birth to. While the affluent profess to be the voices of the poor, how far would they want to share their resources with the poor in building up the latter positively and affirmatively? A community's concern needs to be dealt together as a community rather than just waiting for things to happen.

This is where the 'need addressing' system needs to be multi-pronged. While we, as policy researchers, impress upon the government the needs of the community and the government assistance needed, we need to find a balance through empowering the community by greater confidence building and to look at themselves positively and affirmatively as to what they can do together as a community.

There is this old Chinese words of wisdom, 'Give a man a fish and he will eat for the day but teach him how to fish and he will eat for his whole life time'. I will expand on these words a little further. If the river is polluted, teach him also to address the issue of pollution. By which I mean there needs to be a political will as well as the crucial component called 'self determination' that makes a man a living being rather an existing one.

I will rather continue to believe that people of my community are treasure troves overflowing with innate talents and resources that may or may not have been tapped so far. They are not in a vegetative state of just being passive recipients but are overwhelmingly full of zeal and fervour to determine their lives and future. This gives me the 'oomph' to go on walking alongside my people or, for that matter, anyone who is in need. As I rest my case, I am also sure and positive that many out there with resources are ready to pull our community upwards towards social mobility.

The writer is Yayasan Strategik Sosial's (YSS) project director.