In 1999, MIC president S Samy Vellu said, “I support the dissolution of
the (SILF) board because it will benefit the Indians… it is for their
own betterment. I never betrayed the Indians by supporting the bill in
Parliament because the decision was made collectively, during a cabinet
meeting, for the benefit of Indians” (The Sun on Sunday, July 18, 1999).
Further he asserted, “I am not bothered by the noise made by these
people who have no vision for the Indian community. None of their
activities are going to divert our attention. I will see that the Indian
community benefits from the fund, the children get the necessary
skills, education and better employment” (The Star, Aug 12, 1999).
Before the South Indian Labour Fund (Dissolution) Bill was passed in
Parliament on July 13, 1999, the Human Resources Ministry gave an
assurance in the House that children of south Indian workers would be
given priority in a skills training centre to be built on the SILF land
in Nibong Tebal.
When winding up the debate on the Bill, then Deputy Human Resources
Minister Dr Affifuddin Omar said “the government’s aim is to bring south
Indians back into the mainstream of national development. The (SILF)
assets will be used to develop them. More educational and training
opportunities will be provided for them and this will encourage and
enable them to participate more effectively in the development.”
Then came a bomb after the Arumugam Pillai Industrial Training Institute
built on the SILF land began operating in January this year. There were
no Indian Malaysian youths in the institute’s first intake. Samy Vellu
announced after the MIC’s central committee meeting on Feb 25, 2005 that
he has appealed to the Human Resources Ministry to allocate places for
Indian Malaysian youths in the institute. The MIC appears to have
forgotten its role in the destruction of the SILF and the promises the
party made to the community in 1999.
Obscuring the events
Against this background, it is exasperating to see the attempt by
Yayasan Strategik Social (YSS), the MIC’s propaganda wing, to obscure
the events that led to the construction of the institute and to blame
Indian Malaysian youths supposedly for failing to take advantage of
available opportunities at the centre.
The government’s move to dissolve the SILF in 1999 attracted national
attention after many Indian Malaysian-based NGOs protested strongly
against the decision. Interested groups staged demonstrations outside
Parliament and fistfights broke out between MIC activists and
descendants of plantation workers in several places in July 1999. There
were also heated exchanges between Samy Vellu and NGO representatives at
the Parliament lobby and memorandums were submitted to the relevant
ministries and government leaders against the proposed dissolution.
These strong emotions and protests are rooted in the history of the
fund, which symbolised the toil and sufferings of their forefathers. The
British colonial administration set up the Indian Immigration Fund in
1908 following widespread abuses of Tamil and Telugu labour from the
1830s and the consequent difficulties in luring more workers from south
Indian villages to develop the rubber plantations in Malaysia.
The plantation owners and other employers of Indian labour contributed
to the fund in order to facilitate recruitment, to provide better
shipping and medical facilities and to repatriate the “sucked oranges”
after they have outlived their usefulness in the plantations. The
primary aim of the fund was to entice south Indian villagers to migrate
to Malaysia to develop the rubber plantations and to build
infrastructure such as roads, railways and communication networks.
However, the continued exploitation and abuses of south Indian workers,
depressed wages and poor living conditions irked the nationalist
movement in India which forced the colonial Indian government to ban all
forms of assisted labour migration to Malaysia in 1938. The fund was
subsequently used for the welfare and repatriation of the aged and
destitute workers who did not have any kin to care for them in Malaysia.
The immigration fund was no longer relevant in the post-independence
era. The SILF replaced the immigration fund on Sept 1, 1958 to provide
for the welfare of retired plantation workers. In the early 1960s, NTS
Arumugam Pillai, who bought the fragmented Krian and Sungai Jawi
plantations near Nibong Tebal, allocated six hectares of Krian Estate to
the SILF to build a home for the elderly, disabled plantation workers
and others, including survivors of the Japanese “Death Railway” project.
Over the years, the SILF also financed the education of descendants of
south Indian labourers. Scholarships and loans amounting to RM470,830
were give to 699 poor Indian Malaysian students between 1962 and 1992.
The SILF beneficiaries – that is the Indian Malaysian descendants of
south Indian labourers – were taken by surprise and obviously angered
when the government unilaterally decided to abolish the fund and
transfer its assets to state coffers in 1999. There were also
speculations that the MIC would eventually take over the RM5 million in
assets, which included RM2.36 million in cash and 6.07 hectares.
The NGOs and other interested groups were alarmed and rallied against
the move. Surprisingly the loudest protests came from traditional allies
of the MIC – the Malaysian Tamil Youth Bell Club, Malaysia Hindu
Sangam, Malaysian Hindu Youth Council and the Malaysian Dravida
Association. These groups were disappointed that they were not consulted
and felt it was unfair to take away something that was of historical
significance and has great symbolic value to a neglected community.
Good alternative
They insisted the government should come up with a good alternative
before abolishing the fund. At the very least, the assets could be used
to build a monument to remember the thousands of young south Indian
workers who died of malaria, malnourishment, exhaustion, snakebite and
accidents in the early years of Malaysia’s development. Indentured Tamil
and Telugu labourers were first brought to work in sugar plantations in
Province Wellesley (Seberang Perai) in 1833, the state where the Nibong
Tebal old folk’s home was located.
The National Union of Plantation Workers proposed that a South Indian
Plantation Workers Education and Development Trust Fund be set up to
replace the SILF. In expressing shock over the government move, then
Malaysian Trade Union Congress president Zainal Rampak suggested that
the SILF be renamed Malaysian Labour Fund Board and the assets be used
to finance the education of plantation workers’ children.
Calling for the spirit of the SILF to be respected, the Group of
Concerned Citizens’ network of independent NGOs underscored the
importance of controlling and managing the assets in the interest of
Indian Malaysians who have suffered socio-economic neglect and
marginalisation for more than a century. It pointed out that the
community would inevitably lose out if the assets go to state coffers in
spite of assurances given by the prime minister and other national
government leaders to the contrary. The bureaucrats who conduct
publicity campaigns and interviews to recruit and promote students or
others in government institutions come from only one ethnic group.
Naturally, there were fears that some ethnically biased civil servants
may insist in doing things their way and ignore the government
assurances.
The NGOs affiliated to the Plantation Workers Support Committee proposed
that the SILF be replaced with a new fund to be managed jointly by the
government and Indian Malaysian-based community organisations.
Considering that thousands of resident workers were being displaced from
the rubber plantations over the past two decades, these NGOs suggested
that the fund could be used to resettle their families and finance the
education of their children.
Samy Vellu and then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad dismissed these
concerns, fears and suggestions as “rubbish” and being politically
motivated. The assets were considered to be "insufficient" to implement
any of the recommendations and they contended that “opposition stooges”
stirred the protests to discredit the MIC.
However, as an afterthought due to the persistent protests from the NGOs
and a tough general election looming in 1999, the government announced
that the SILF assets would be used to build a skills training centre for
the benefit of plantation workers’ children. Hence, the Human Resources
Ministry made the pledge in Parliament on July 13, 1999.
Though the NGOs could not prevent an important part of Indian Malaysian
history and heritage from being wiped out, they were consoled by the
promises that the spirit of the SILF would live on. The community felt
reassured by government leaders’ statements in Parliament and the media
that the SILF assets would continue to benefit its youths. It was
presumed that the institute would admit a substantial number of Indian
Malaysian youths when it started functioning.
Disturbing news
Then came the disturbing news in February 2005 that there was no Indian
Malaysian youth in the institute’s first intake and of Samy Vellu
requesting the ministry for places.
The MIC has not addressed some vital questions. The institute was
created from the toils of yesteryear’s plantation workers for the
benefit of their offspring. There were so much publicity and public
promises, including in Parliament, that the institute would give
priority to poor Indian Malaysian youths. Why were the promises not
honoured? The community-based organisations warned all along that this
would be the outcome. Why did Samy Vellu choose to belittle their
protests and concerns? The SILF assets belonged to a marginalised and
neglected community. RM5 million is an enormous amount for a people
whose monthly wage is only RM350 and who lack basic living facilities.
About 70 of their Tamil primary schools are dilapidated and in need of
repairs. What was the need to force the community to surrender its
valuable assets and then make it beg from a government that has been
insisting Indian Malaysians should not expect state assistance?
Non-Malay Malaysians have often resisted government take over of
community institutions for very obvious reasons. They do not trust a
government that privileges one ethnic community in its policies and
practice, though not in principles. Usually when this happens, the
government's "good intention" is defeated. What really happens is that
an ethnic minority community not only loses control of an institution
but also opportunities it provided. It is a loss that is critical for
its future and is only seen as betrayal by the government. This is
precisely why Tamil Malaysians are holding on dearly to their Tamil
schools and are lukewarm to the government’s Vision School concept in
spite of the various pressures.
Nevertheless, YSS executive director Dr Denison Jayasooria considers the
dissolution of the SILF a “success story” because the new
government-financed “institute is bearing the name of an Indian
personality”. Such suggestions are a kin to applying chilly powder on a
wound. Jayasooria does not appear to understand the sentiments and hurt
of many in the community. Even though the assets were considered
“insignificant”, many Indian Malaysians saw the SILF as a monument to
the toil of the south Indian workers.
The benefits were earned through hard work and not granted as charity. A
fact pointed out by H.A. Campbell, a plantation owner, when he
supported the proposal to set up the SILF in 1958. According to the
Hansard of May 1, 1958, he was recorded as saying, “We employers fully
realise the contribution that has been made towards this great rubber
industry by the south Indian labourers.” After wiping out this monument,
Indian Malaysians are now told to be grateful that the new institution,
which does not benefit them, has an Indian name.
It is preposterous to claim that Indian Malaysian youths are not
forthcoming or interested in applying for places in the new institute.
Poor youths from plantations as far as Kedah have enrolled in private
skills training centres in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and Kajang. They
are financing themselves by working part time as security guards,
restaurant helpers or whatever job that fits their timetable. It is
highly unlikely that these youths would not want to take advantage of
opportunities available in a government-subsidised institute near their
homes.
All is not completely lost. The MIC can still make amends by ensuring
that the government honours its pledges when the SILF was dissolved. The
government must also ensure that Indian Malaysians are represented in
the management and administration of the institute. This is the only way
to guarantee that sufficient numbers of Indian Malaysian youths are
enrolled every year. Otherwise, one will continue to hear the
justification that Indian Malaysians are not interested in applying for
places. However, considering the MIC’s record, the outcome is not very
promising.
The chain of events is yet another replay of the plight of a politically
marginalised community, which is unable to protect even small things
that matter a lot to its collective memory. It is the same old story of
betrayal. Unscrupulous political leaders continue to mislead and worsen
their situation and clueless think-tank entrepreneurs deceive and
callously blame them for their predicament.
