The two “honourable options”, there being no third, are what we call “Hopson Choice” – impossible options (translated means no option).

To get Cabinet and Parliament to concede the legitimacy of the “grievances, frustrations and unhappiness” of the Malaysian Indians is tantamount to getting them admit the marginalisation of the category of all Non Malays in general of whom the sub-category of Malaysian Indians is, only in degree, more severe and poignant – that’s all.

To get the MIC President to admit his failures as MIC President and Cabinet Minister in the past 28 years and submit his resignation as both MIC President and Cabinet Minister is an ethical option of which the chances of it being even considered much less exercised is practically zero.

Lets better look at the other side’s story and what options are available to the UMNO’s leaders.

First what our IGP said – that the Organisers of Bersih and Hindraf were offered “stadiums and other alternative venues” to hold peaceful demonstrations consistent with freedom of assembly but they stubbornly rejected them.

“The organisers were adamant to hold them in the city streets…We offered to escort them to the high commission but they said they did not want. They said they wanted to send the memorandum to the Queen, instead. We gave them an alternative venue but they insisted on gathering in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.
“They are stubborn and that is the problem” ….he said.
See link – http://tunkuaisha.blogspot.com/

“If the authorities allowed Hindraf to go out in the streets to voice their dissatisfaction, others will make claims too.
“The Malays will say they had a good life during the Malacca Sultanate and you (the British) destroyed it … and it will go on and on,” the IGP said.

There is also rumour (from RPK’s blog I think) that some malay muslim groups are also planning demonstrations. Don’t know if it’s true.

Now many of us are excited about these new developments of nurturing fostering and cultivating rights recognition, one of the first ways of which is to be able to exercise the right to freedom of assembly and free speech.

Carrying forward from what I said in last thread of the importance of for Hindraf’s organizers to evaluate pluses(+) and minuses of their various actions.

The pluses – whatever the shortcomings : (1) it succeeds in raising attention on Indians’ plight as underclass and dealt a severe blow on pretender MIC making MCA and other component parties reverberate with shocks whether their claims will also be likewise refuted; (2) it is always inspiring to say the least to see people martyr Ghandi style for the Cause of Democracy against the forces of repression.

The Minuses – this “racialised approach of appealing on behalf of a sub group (Hindu Tamils alone) to other nations like UK and India and writing in what some may readily seize as incendiary language (eg Ethnic cleansing & Tamil Indians) – does it serve the larger cause of negotiating and broadening the public space for democratic expression for all Malaysians – will this Cause be served and put in jeopardy?

If the government does not do anything, will not other ultra right wing groups favouring status quo also press for demonstrations, with or without police permit, leading down the road to further heightening racial and religious tensions?

Will moderate Malaysian Malays desirous of reforms be alienated by such an approach?

Secondly, there are right wing factions within the ruling parties and their leaders who may want to usher the present PM out of the slot to take his place on grounds of his lack of resolve to handle demonstrations.

Is it not impossible that they may use demonstrations as a means to spark riots for their own ambition? Now before one dismisses this as standard pro government excuse, ask yourself if you believe the unofficial version of what happened in May 13, whether you believe reactionaries and power brokers who had done it before can repeat this or not.

In light of all these, it should be asked – no, should we “flagellate” – whether an approach as that taken by Hindraf organizers best serve the higher interest of democracy when it is done in such a way and by such an approach to almost beg for an official crackdown in the interest of public order and security considering the kind of forces at play in this country? Will the “approach” have the unintended consequence of sabotaging our nascent civil rights movement beginning on the streets? I am talking of the “approach” not the goal of which I have no quarrel with. :)

But if, within the BN’s scheme of arrangements, he doesn’t ask MIC, ask who else? Have majority of Indians withdrawn support from MIC judging from last general election and if so where did that support go? On Big Joe’s point that PM should take unprecedented step to wind down if not dismantle NEP, would the majority of Malay/Muslim constitutency from whom he gets his political support at this juncture agree to their leader’s winding down and dismantling of the NEP?

Earnest you are right about Hobson’s choice as meaning a false illusion of choice – as subtly distinct from a choice between two undesirable options presented by Kit to Samy Vellu. Thanks…

The phrase (Hobson’s choice) is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1630), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England who, in order to rotate the use of his horses, offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door—or taking none at all.