MIC PRESIDENT Tan Sri WA Vigneswaran made a preposterous remark in a recent interview with a Tamil news portal.He claimed that the Indian community lost out on matriculation admission because the places reserved for the non-Malays were disproportionately given to Chinese students under the Pakatan Harapan’s (Pakatan) administration.He said that what was slowly and steadily gained for Indian students (he used the Tamil metaphor of birds saving food and others) was lost to Chinese students, and that the Pakatan Government was responsible for this.I would like to ask Vigneswaran to provide some substance to his remark by proving that Chinese students had indeed benefitted at the expense of the Indian community.
“The problematic matriculation admission”
Every year, without fail, matriculation admission invariably becomes problematic.The allocation of only 10% admission quota for non-Malays keeps out many qualified non-Malays, both Chinese and Indians, from the matriculation programme. Students from these two ethnic groups will then have to compete for limited admission.I am not sure whether Indian students are given some advantage over Chinese students, or whether there is a quota in place for these two categories of students.Given the apartheid-like quota in the admission of students, the entry of Malays is much easier than the entry of non-Malays.This means many Malay students with less impressive Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) results than non-Malays tend to gain admission to the matriculation programme.Essentially, the matriculation is meant for the Malays; the 10% admission was allowed for non-Malays only in the last few years as a result of various representations.However, this allocation has hardly resolved the problem of many non-Malay aspirants getting knocked off. This is because of the nonsensical quota in place.
This is not about allocating a quota for the admission of foreign students but keeping out non-Malays who are Malaysians from partaking in the admission programme.Whether 10% or not, the issue of overt discrimination against non-Malays shows the ugly face of the Malaysian apartheid educational system.It is not just the educational system, but other public sectors where non-Malays are kept out ostensibly on the grounds of the New Economic Policy (NEP) — or the “never-ending policy of ethnic discrimination” — so that a few can benefit to enrich themselves at the expense of the misery and misfortune of the large majority.
“Don’t racialise an already racial system”
MIC, supposedly the “mother” party of Indians, should not racialise the already racial and polarised educational system.The party, if it represents the larger interest of the Indian community or the non-Malays, should be asking the Government to open up the matriculation system to be based on merit.I know for a fact that the MIC, before and now, never really fought to see an increase in Indian student admissions to the matriculation programme and into several public universities in the country. The MIC has also never asked the Government in power to increase Indian student enrolment into the faculties of science, technology and medicine.The party has such a shamelessly mediocre role that it has lost all sense of effective representation of the Indian community; about 70% of them are members of the working class.It is strange that MIC is mimicking the role of UMNO and other racial parties in dividing the races.Rather than asking the Government to move beyond the present divisive apartheid quota on admission to the matriculation programme, especially for non-Malays, it should not pit the Indians against the Chinese and vice-versa.The fact that very few Indian students get into matriculation is not the fault of the Chinese students but the racist and extremist Government (a Government that has also included the representation of the MIC).
“Don’t bark up the wrong tree”
Vigneswaran should not be barking up the wrong tree in addressing the obstacles faced by Indian students to gain admission.I understand that this year alone a sizeable number of well-qualified Indian students were not given admission. Whether they were given admission on appeal remains clear.What is Vigneswaran’s stand on this matter? Were the Indian students excluded because the Chinese students were favoured?I hope that the MIC does some homework to find out why a number of Indian students were excluded from entry into the matriculation programme under the Pakatan Government.Is he willing to make a public statement to say that there is no discrimination against Indian students under the present Government? Were they discriminated against in favour of the Chinese?Vigneswaran’s argument that the MIC took care of the Indians as “birds take care to accumulate food” is complete nonsense. It is the wrong metaphor to be used.In short, a cursory glance at the Indian community will suggest that the MIC did nothing to uplift its political, social and economic status. Its leaders, including Vigneswaran, have even stopped saying that the MIC is the “mother” party of Indians.
The presence of overwhelming evidence contrary to its effective representation seems mind-boggling. — Aug 14, 2022
Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is the state assemblyperson for Perai. He is also deputy chief minister II of Penang.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
