8 theSun | THURSDAY JANUARY 29 2009

INTERVIEWS VIEWS

Race relations:
moral argument against racism
which the majority of the po-
litical parties have bought into.”
(Malaysian politicians, please
take heed.)
He also credits the Internet
which helped younger people

The British experience

by K.K. Tan
WHEN I was a student leader
in late seventies fighting for fair
treatment for overseas students
in Britain, one of my dearest
friends and allies was Aneez
Esmail. Of Indian origin, Aneez
and his family took up UK citi-
zenship after they were expelled
from Uganda by the Idi Amin
regime which wanted to purge
the country of all Asians.
As a British medical student,
his support for our causes was
crucial. Both of us were hauled
to court as ringleaders for organ-
ising peaceful protests against
the university authorities which
wanted to expel us (but they
relented after the court ruled in
our favour).
All this we remembered
fondly when I visited Aneez
recently. It was also a good time
for us to discuss one of world’s
most pressing issues – race rela-
tions – and I couldn’t have found
anyone better to talk to.
Aneez has been a leading
campaigner and researcher
for racial equality in Britain for
more than 30 years and is As-
sociate Vice-President (Equality
& Diversity) and Professor of
General Practice at the Uni-
versity of Manchester. He was
also President of the Medical
Practitioners Union (1997-2003),
a current Fellow of the Royal
College of Physicians and was
the only medical adviser to the
high profile Shipman Inquiry
(2001-2004) in Britain.
He was nominated for an Or-
der of The British Empire (OBE)
award which he declined for
good reasons, one being accept-
ing an award that harked back to
the long-gone “empire” seemed
to him faintly ludicrous.
We talked about how our re-
spective society and government
have responded to the complexi-
ties of race relations.
Upon my return home, we
continued our discussion via
email about Britain’s transfor-
mation from a homogenous
society to a multiracial and
multi-cultural one, which I think
offers some valuable lessons to
us in Malaysia.
Here is an edited version
of Aneez’s email replies to my
questions.
In Britain, large scale immi-
gration from its former colonies
began after World War II when
its ruined economy was in need
of skills, labour and expertise.
Most of them came from South
Asia and Afro-Caribbean coun-
tries (and more recently from
Eastern Europe).
The trade unions did not ini-
tially support the rights of black
workers and there was a general
view that these migrant people
were here to work in jobs that
the British did not want. From
the beginning there were racial
tensions which soon gave rise
to organised resistance by the
black community.
The black civil rights move-
ment in the United States in
the early 1960s also had a
huge impact on how the ethnic
minorities in Britain viewed
their struggle for equality and
fairness.
An area of conflict was with
the police and even as far back
as the 1950s, there was evidence
that ethnic minorities, especially
Afro-Caribbeans, were targeted
by police.
Then the first race riots took
place in Notting Hill, London,
in 1958. It was following these
riots that the government began
to worry about issues around
equality and fairness. This period
also coincided with an attempt to
restrict immigration. Laws were
introduced for the first time that
stipulated that people would
only be entitled to British citizen-
ship if their parents were British
citizens. This had the effect of
disenfranchising huge sections
of the immigrant population.
The first race relations
legislation in Britain was the
1976 Race Relations Act. It was
a response to huge campaigns
by black organisations for
equality. Before the legislation,
it was quite acceptable to deny
employment and even housing
simply because they were from
ethnic minority groups. All these
were made illegal by the Race
Relations Act.
The Act was important
because Britain was the first
European country to enact such
legislation and it began to talk
about the issue of equal rights
under the law for all people.
One aspect of the Race
Relations Act which Aneez
highlighted was how it “defined
the concept of indirect discrimi-
nation which was much more
difficult to prove and which has
since become much clearer,
through legal precedents.”
Furthermore, Aneez says
while the Act did significantly
reduce discrimination, it did
not deal with certain problems,
for example, the denial of
promotion prospects to ethnic
minorities and equal education
opportunities. Hence, there was
still significant unrest among the
ethnic minority communities
which erupted again in the inner
city riots in Southall in 1979 and
in Brixton in 1981. The focus of
these riots was the treatment by
the police of ethnic minorities.
Because Britain was under-
going a recession, there were
huge problems which were
affecting the ethnic minority
population much more than the
white population. The demand
for equality under the law
became even more important
and the government responded
by tightening up the powers of
the Race Relations Act but did
not fundamentally change its
principles.
The next significant piece of
legislation was enacted in 2001
and became known as the Race
Relations Amendment Act. This
Aneez has took race relations legislation to
been a leading the next stage. Whereas the 1976
campaigner and Act made it illegal to discriminate
researcher for on the grounds of race, the 2001
racial equality in Race Relations Amendment Act
Britain for more required public bodies to have a
than 30 years. duty to promote race relations.
The key change then became
a need for public bodies to be
accountable for what they did
Beyond and this has had a huge impact
Race on how the bodies are moni-
tored and what can be expected
A new perspective of them in terms of promoting
racial equality.
To my question on what the
various anti-racist campaigns
have achieved so far, Aneez says
the current improved race situ-
ation in Britain is not only due
to the result of the race relations
legislations but other factors as
well.
One factor being a genuine
move to have greater equality
from most political parties. Adds
Aneez: “There is also a growing
to be more knowledgeable and
less susceptible to racist stere-
otyping.
“However, it is also true to
say that the lawmakers wouldn’t
have made changes unless there
had been campaigns around
these issues. You also cannot ig-
nore the fact that there is also an
element of trying to reduce strife
(which is bad for the economy)
through the passage of equality
legislations.”
Finally, Aneez’s view of what
makes Britain’s race relations
laws important is that they pro-
vide an important framework
against which people can seek
redress if things don’t go right.
There is also an additional point
in that there is a requirement
for public sector bodies (and it
is important because the public
sector represents about 40% of
all people employed) to behave
in a certain way through the use
of equal opportunity policies,
monitoring, etc.
Therefore, he adds, the pas-
sage of race relation legislation
is very important in ensuring
that at the basic level there is
equality but of course, you can-
not just achieve this by passing
legislation. There needs to be
continued campaigns, there
needs to be an understanding by
people that these are important
issues and we need to put in
place mechanisms where equal-
ity is not just stated but actively
pursued.
The problems of racism in
Britain are somewhat different
from those of racialism or com-
munalism in Malaysia but there
are some similarities which
would require a pro-active ap-
proach.
The cabinet has recently de-
cided not to proceed with a Race
Relations Act but surely there
is nothing to stop any group
from appealing for a re-look by
putting forward more convinc-
ing arguments, like what Aneez
has shared, in its favour.
The writer is the CEO of a think-
tank and strategic consultancy
firm based in Kuala Lumpur. He
can be contacted at kktan22@
hotmail.com

An assault on the peace process

by Donald Macintyre
ISRAELI forces used aerial bombing,
tank shelling and armoured bulldozers
to eliminate the productive capacity of
some of Gaza’s most important manu-
facturing plants during their 22 days of
military action in the Gaza Strip.
The attacks, like those which
destroyed an estimated 20,000
homes leaving some residential areas
resembling an earthquake zone and
more than 50,000 people in tempo-
rary shelters, destroyed or severely
damaged 219 factories, Palestinian
industrialists say.
Leaders of Gaza’s business com-
munity, who have long stayed aloof
from the different Palestinian political
factions, say that much of the 3 per
cent of industry still operating after
the 18-month shutdown caused by
Israel’s economic siege has now been
destroyed.
Chris Gunness, chief spokesman
for the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency, said that widespread
destruction of “civilian economic
infrastructure” was a strike “at the
heart of the peace process” because
“economic stability is an essential
component of a durable peace.”
While the main impact of the de-
struction is likely to be on the already
politically fraught prospects of medium
to long-term reconstruction in Gaza, it
will not make efforts to help Gaza’s
many stricken and displaced residents
any easier. It is those humanitarian
relief efforts for which the main Brit-
ish aid agencies are appealing for help
in the advertisement so far barred by
the BBC. The Unrwa is meanwhile
separately pressing donors for US$345
million (RM1.2 billion) for immediate
repairs to homes still standing and to
its own damaged premises.
The destroyed factories include:
Alweyda, the biggest Palestinian food-
processing plant and the only one still
operating in Gaza until the war; Abu
Eida, the largest, and now flattened,
ready-mixed concrete producer; and
the 89-year-old Al Badr flour mills,
which have the biggest storage facili-
ties anywhere in the Strip. The owners
of all three said yesterday they were
proud of their close and long-stand-
ing contact with Israeli partner firms
and suppliers. Dr Yaser M Alweyda,
owner and engineering director of the
demolished food-processing plant es-
timated the total damage to his plant
at US$22.5 million (RM81 million) and
accused Israel of wanting “to destroy
the weak Palestinian economy”. He
added: “They want to ensure that we
will never have a state in Palestine.”
The air and ground strikes have
compounded the impact of the total
18-month trade embargo, which Israel
imposed in June 2007 after the civil
war between Hamas and Fatah ended
in the collapse of the short-lived coali-
tion between the two rival factions
and Hamas’s enforced takeover of
the Strip.
Amr Hamad, executive manager
of the Palestinian Federation of Indus-
tries, said yesterday: “What they were
not able to reach by the blockade, they
have reached with their bulldozers.
Businessmen are not connected at all
to Hamas and are very pragmatic and
open-minded.
“They are the last layer in Palestin-
ian society who believe in peace and
the importance of the economy. They
also believe that the only economic
link should be with Israel.”
Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minis-
ter, Ehud Olmert, told his cabinet that
with “typical moral acrobatics” the
“terrorist organisations” were trying to
lay the blame on Israel, and that “the
State of Israel did everything in order
to avoid hitting civilians.” Israel would
ensure that soldiers and officers who
took part in the operation would be
safe from any tribunals investigating
them, he said.
At the Al Badr mills in Sudaniya,
north of Gaza City, owner Rashed
Hamada, 55, said the company had
been making wheat flour for bakeries
right up until the attack on Jan 10. He
strongly denied that his compound
had been used by Hamas gunmen,
and said it was clear the production
line itself had been the target.
“It seems that the father of the
commander had owned a flour mill,”
he commented ironically. “He knew
exactly where to hit. The Israelis ...
used to encourage me to expand
production here. Now they have de-
stroyed it. I don’t understand why.”
Standing beside mangled and
incinerated refrigeration vans and the
burned-out ruins of his food factory
and warehouses, located for ease of
access to Israel between the eastern
Gaza City district of Shajaia and the
border 650m away, Dr Alweyda said
that as well as the production lines,
26 vehicles had been destroyed. The
company, sole Gaza agent for Israeli
milk products company Tnuva, had
managed to keep biscuit production
going up until the outbreak of war.
The Israeli military said that it was still
investigating allegations of civilian
casualties and property damage but
that it “does not target civilians or civil-
ian infrastructure, including factories,
unless it is being used by Hamas for
terrorist purposes.”
But Amr Hamad said that he be-
lieved the two purposes of the strikes
was to make Gaza’s economy depend-
ent on Israel’s, and to stimulate popular
pressure on Hamas to agree to certain
compromises as a precondition to a
reopening of the crossings, such as
allowing the Ramallah-based Palestin-
ian Authority control of the crossings
and also the release of Israeli corporal
Gilad Shalit, abducted two-and-a-half
years ago by Hamas and other mili-
tants. “Maybe some people directly af-
fected will blame Hamas” Amr Hamad
said of the strategy “but it will never
succeed.” – The Independent