Demos By Umno Youth And Hindraf Have Nothing In Common?

Hmmm...have you read the recent article from the local rags about the 2006 demonstration by the Umno Youth have nothing in common with the 2007 Hindraf rally Well, there's a little excerpt from an article from Bernama about it that goes a little like this:

(Bernama: Wednesday, December 12, 2007): Demos by Umno Youth and Hindraf have nothing in common.

Attempts by certain people to equate the demonstration by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) with efforts by Umno to stand for the rights of Palestinians are difficult to be accepted because the gap in their struggles is very wide, like between the earth and the sky.

The public may still remember when Umno Youth vice chief Khairy Jamaluddin and 10,000 other Malaysians of various religions stood together in a wave of anger towards the United States (US) for defending Israel that openly murdered the Lebanese and Palestinians.

The rally on July 28 last year in this capital city, initiated by Umno Youth, finally managed to hand over a memorandum to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was here for the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, calling for the world power to broker a ceasefire to end the Israeli military campaign.

Fascinating, isn't it? Perhaps later Bernama can teach us - to put it bluntly - to suck eggs as well.



But going to back to the article, while it can be agreed that these two protests - let us not mince semantics and try to differentiate the Umno Youth protest as an 'effort' - are somewhat divergent, it should be understood that the basic principles underlying these two demonstrations do run parallel to one another.

However, before we go on to its similarities, let us first examine the differences between these two protests, if only to while away our time in bemused silence...

1. The organizers of the protests

While the Hindraf demonstration was organized by an NGO of little repute, the Umno Youth protest was staged by a component wing under the ruling coalition, who numbers were added to by other youth sections of Barisan Nasional component parties.

Of course, while this does not automatically imply that the protest staged by Umno Youth was any less - or more, I might add - relevant than the Hindraf rally, it does imply that by Umno Youth protest was afforded a degree of immunity (or should we say impunity).

Indeed, this question is one that is quite salient, as Khairy Jamaluddin himself frankly admitted that he was afforded certain ‘protections’ as the son-in-law of the premier not too long ago. This in turn beggars the question of the degree of hypocrisy on the part of the government to either vindicate or victimize protests protests it endorses to its personal gain.

2. The 'reception' of the police force

While the Hindraf demonstrators were 'tearfully' embraced with violence, the Umno Youth protesters were seen to be handled with velvet gloves, as they were able to force their way - through a cordon of usually baton happy Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel, I might add – to deliver their memorandum with little or no adverse effects.

Again, this alludes that the Umno Youth protesters were afforded certain immunities, especially in light of the following article from the Star:

(The Star, July 29, 2006): When there was no sign of this happening, Khairy together with about 200 supporters pushed their way past the FRU line.

In the commotion, some supporters, including Khairy, fell. Other police personnel moved in to form a human chain in front of the entrance to the convention centre.
Despite this, Khairy and a handful of supporters managed to get through. They squatted outside the entrance for two hours.

The fact that the Umno Youth protesters were able to stage their protest shortly after Friday prayers - squatting (constipation, izzit?) in the middle of Kuala Lumpur unmolested for three hours - does indeed raise more than a few eyebrows, especially when there were sporadic reports of scuffles between Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel and the protesters.

3. The supposed 'support'

While previous reports in 2006 published by the local rags had numbered the Umno Youth protest at around 2,000 protesters, today’s article has exaggerated that figure to 10,000 protesters.

Right. Freud probably could say something about this obtuse form of masculine anxiety, but as we are not psychoanalysts, perhaps it is best if we were to not to dwell on the unfortunate lack of genitalia endowment of certain individuals or parties who are trying to inflate the number of supporters it has been able to garner.

So, penile insecurities apart, the inflation of this number does show some form of duplicity on the part of the ruling coalition, especially when the ‘official’ number of supporters for the Hindraf rally was quite obviously underplayed.

These three dissimilarities are of course merely the tip of the iceberg. If given sufficient time, it is assured that many of us could all come up with a host of other differences in methodology and mannerisms between these two protests, not the least of which is the burning of a flag of another sovereign nation, and the sheer anger of the Umno Youth protest when contrasted with the entreaties of the Malaysian Indians.

As for the similarities between these two protests, well...

1. The organization of the organizers

There is not much difference between street protests, as they all do run more or less the same rote: get people on the streets, wave banners, shout till you’re hoarse and so forth. Not much difference there, unless you count the Umno Youth protestor’s tendencies to run amok whenever they feel like it without any repercussions.

2. The need for political mileage

Before I go on, please do let me make this stand: the Israeli aggression against Palestine and Palestinians must be fought. Thankfully, many of us are not ignorant of the atrocities committed by the Israeli government which is backed by the United States.

To be honest, if I had known about this protest by the Umno Youths, I too would have taken to the streets in support of this (though if I did stand beside Khairy on any issue I would have required the help of a psychiatrist after that).

However, not all Malaysians are aware of this issue, or its pressing need to be addressed. It has to be admitted that most Chinese and Indian Malaysians are ignorant of the Palestinian struggle, though this is not their fault.

After all, it is a matter of sensitivities, and while many Malay Malaysians have sensitivities that lie in this direction, most Chinese and Indian Malaysians do not. So to say that the protest by the Umno Youth was justifiable merely because it touches on certain matters is - in a country as multiracial as ours - tantamount to crass duplicity, especially when contrasted with the claims that the Hindraf protestors have no justifiable basis to voice their concerns.

3. The basic ideology

That both protests are similar in ideology - to address an injustice that is obvious to its particular creed – is obvious, so to argue over it is again would do no more than quantify the semantics of it all. Both protests were done to highlight an injustice that was perceived by that particular group, the only difference between these two ideologies was that one was internal, and the other external.

Again, I could wax lyrical about the similarities between these two protests, but we will never really get anywhere other than to further divide ourselves to the betterment of others.
So please do allow me to end this on this note: to claim that the Umno Youth protest was more permissible – merely because we sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians - as "the only way to protest against the Israeli aggression" is wrong.

If indeed that this was "the only way to protest against the Israeli aggression", then it must be noted that our government is one that is weak both within and without, and an insult to a nation that once commanded respect - and more than it's fair share of anger - from the international community.

After all, the Umno Youth is component wing under the ruling coalition, and is part and parcel of the government. It is lead by a member of parliament, and has a strong voice within the government and its policies. To add on to that, the rally organizer is the son-in-law of the Premier of the nation, the very Premier who had invited Condoleeza Rice to Malaysia in the first place.

Would it have been so difficult for him to fax the memorandum over to Condoleeza Rice, as Hindraf was ultimately forced to do?