By Haris Ibrahim,
Since Waythmoorthy went into exile, there have been several occasions that we have communicated by phone.
I have alluded to some of those conversations, and some of the matters discussed, in several posts in this blog.
On every occasion that I have disclosed matters discussed between Moorthy and I on this blog or anywhere else, for that matter, I have first sought and obtained his agreement to such disclosure as many believe, myself included, that to do otherwise would, firstly, be in bad taste and, more importantly, discourage total candour during private discussions such as those that have passed between Moorthy and I.
Last Saturday, I spoke at the BUM2010 forum at Subang Jaya on the panel that discussed the ‘Allah’ issue.
That wrapped up by about 1.45pm. You can read about that discussion on Malaysiakini HERE.
I dashed off for another talk at a church, after first checking to see what time Uthayakumar was speaking at the BUM2010 event as I planned to come back to Subang Jaya in the hope of having a private word with Uthayakumar.
The church talk ended after 5pm.
Got back to the BUM2010 venue around 5.45pm and, yes, Uthaya was there.
I approached Uthaya and we talked for a little under 10 minutes. We stopped as the next panel discussion, ’Bloggers Role in Bridging the Religious Divide’, where Uthaya would be speaking, was about to start.
Uthaya was the third and final speaker on that panel.
On at least two occasions, Uthaya alluded to our discussion. On one of those occasions, he alluded to my having said in the course of that discussion that he and his party were still pursuing a communalist course.
I will confirm now that at no time during our discussion did I consent to such a disclosure.
During the Q&A part of that discussion, after several others had spoken from the floor, I spoke to lend my support to the views proffered by blogger A Voice ( Salahuddin Hisham ) and to say that many bloggers are reluctant to carry news posted on the HRP website given the communalist slant of their reports.
The Malaysiakini report on that panel discussion can be read HERE.
At the time of writing up this post, the second Malaysiakini report alluded to above had received 66 comments.
I reproduce one of those comments below. I have highlighted the part which I want to emphasise in red.
Anticommunalist : Dear Jiminy Qrikert, I strongly believe Uthaya, Haris and most PR leaders are on the same side but everyone’s ego is only working towards UMNO’s favour. Why can’t all of them sit down and talk amicably. It will never happen. Nobody will give in hence UMNO wins. You can’t just give a blanket statement that PR has done good and Uthaya has done bad and vice-verse. Also unruly comments such as yours don’t help either.
Given that Uthaya did not see it as being unseemly for him to disclose what I had said in the course of our discussion, I trust he will not begrudge me the right to do the same.
Anticommunalist, it will please you to know that I had asked Uthaya to meet me so that we could have a healthy ‘no holds barred’ discussion to explore how HRP and the many civil society initiatives can come together and work for the betterment of the marginalised Malaysians.
Anticommunalist does not think that discussion will happen.
I’ve asked for that discussion.
The ball is now in Uthaya’s court.
Uthaya, it seemed to me, took exception to my having referred to HRP’s politics as being communalist.
So, too, has Anticommunalist in another comment of his/hers to the second Malaysiakini report alluded to above.
Have I been unfair in categorising HRP’s politics as being communalist in nature?
Dictionary.com explains ‘communalism’ to mean, amongst others, a “strong allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole” . A ‘communalist’ is explained to mean “one who is more interested in one’s own minority or ethnic group than in society as a whole” .
UMNO was established to look out for the interests of the Malay community. No pretence is made about this. Is not UMNO a communalist party?
Are not MCA and MIC, respectively set up to supposedly look after the interests of the Chinese and Indian communities, just as communalist as UMNO?
What of Hindraf and the Human Rights Party?
On 6th February, this year, Malaysiakini reported that Waythamoorthy had taken strong exception to Hindraf being categorised as racist and asserted that if any party was racist, it was UMNO.
Malaysiakini also reported that Moorthy candidly admitted that he only raised issues touching on Malaysians of Indian origin and saw nothing wrong with that.
Is this not a communalist stance?
In fairness to Moorthy, I must disclose that the last two paragraphs of that Malaysiakini report attributes to him the following words which might be construed as contradicting his statement just quoted above.
On 19th July, last year, Uthaya formally announced the formation of and application to register HRP as a multiracial party.
Malaysiakini reported Uthaya speaking about his move to register HRP.
“Our main thrust is to be the focus group in putting the Indians in Malaysia back on the mainstream development of Malaysia after 52 years of having been left out,” , Malaysiakini reports Uthaya as saying.
The report went on to say that whilst ’the party’s struggle focuses on the upliftment of the Indian community, Uthayakumar however stressed that it would not shut its doors to the plight of other communities’.
This is a multi-racial party?
I think the ‘About Us’ section of the HRP website adequately answers the question.
In his comment quoted above, Anticommunalist opines that “Nobody will give in hence UMNO wins” .
In a post in this blog on 28th November, 2007, 3 days after the historic Hindraf rally, I wrote :
I wish to have placed on record that since that posting, I have made efforts too numerous to recall to persuade the leadership of Hindraf to join the many civil society efforts to fight for “all peoples of our nation, without discrimination, without exclusion, without exception”.
I shall continue to try.
Since Waythmoorthy went into exile, there have been several occasions that we have communicated by phone.
I have alluded to some of those conversations, and some of the matters discussed, in several posts in this blog.
On every occasion that I have disclosed matters discussed between Moorthy and I on this blog or anywhere else, for that matter, I have first sought and obtained his agreement to such disclosure as many believe, myself included, that to do otherwise would, firstly, be in bad taste and, more importantly, discourage total candour during private discussions such as those that have passed between Moorthy and I.
Last Saturday, I spoke at the BUM2010 forum at Subang Jaya on the panel that discussed the ‘Allah’ issue.
That wrapped up by about 1.45pm. You can read about that discussion on Malaysiakini HERE.
I dashed off for another talk at a church, after first checking to see what time Uthayakumar was speaking at the BUM2010 event as I planned to come back to Subang Jaya in the hope of having a private word with Uthayakumar.
The church talk ended after 5pm.
Got back to the BUM2010 venue around 5.45pm and, yes, Uthaya was there.
I approached Uthaya and we talked for a little under 10 minutes. We stopped as the next panel discussion, ’Bloggers Role in Bridging the Religious Divide’, where Uthaya would be speaking, was about to start.
Uthaya was the third and final speaker on that panel.
On at least two occasions, Uthaya alluded to our discussion. On one of those occasions, he alluded to my having said in the course of that discussion that he and his party were still pursuing a communalist course.
I will confirm now that at no time during our discussion did I consent to such a disclosure.
During the Q&A part of that discussion, after several others had spoken from the floor, I spoke to lend my support to the views proffered by blogger A Voice ( Salahuddin Hisham ) and to say that many bloggers are reluctant to carry news posted on the HRP website given the communalist slant of their reports.
The Malaysiakini report on that panel discussion can be read HERE.
At the time of writing up this post, the second Malaysiakini report alluded to above had received 66 comments.
I reproduce one of those comments below. I have highlighted the part which I want to emphasise in red.
Anticommunalist : Dear Jiminy Qrikert, I strongly believe Uthaya, Haris and most PR leaders are on the same side but everyone’s ego is only working towards UMNO’s favour. Why can’t all of them sit down and talk amicably. It will never happen. Nobody will give in hence UMNO wins. You can’t just give a blanket statement that PR has done good and Uthaya has done bad and vice-verse. Also unruly comments such as yours don’t help either.
Given that Uthaya did not see it as being unseemly for him to disclose what I had said in the course of our discussion, I trust he will not begrudge me the right to do the same.
Anticommunalist, it will please you to know that I had asked Uthaya to meet me so that we could have a healthy ‘no holds barred’ discussion to explore how HRP and the many civil society initiatives can come together and work for the betterment of the marginalised Malaysians.
Anticommunalist does not think that discussion will happen.
I’ve asked for that discussion.
The ball is now in Uthaya’s court.
Uthaya, it seemed to me, took exception to my having referred to HRP’s politics as being communalist.
So, too, has Anticommunalist in another comment of his/hers to the second Malaysiakini report alluded to above.
Have I been unfair in categorising HRP’s politics as being communalist in nature?
Dictionary.com explains ‘communalism’ to mean, amongst others, a “strong allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole” . A ‘communalist’ is explained to mean “one who is more interested in one’s own minority or ethnic group than in society as a whole” .
UMNO was established to look out for the interests of the Malay community. No pretence is made about this. Is not UMNO a communalist party?
Are not MCA and MIC, respectively set up to supposedly look after the interests of the Chinese and Indian communities, just as communalist as UMNO?
What of Hindraf and the Human Rights Party?
On 6th February, this year, Malaysiakini reported that Waythamoorthy had taken strong exception to Hindraf being categorised as racist and asserted that if any party was racist, it was UMNO.
“A racist is one who denies other people their place in the sun and their legitimate rights under the Federal Constitution. That’s Umno. That’s the truth whether some people like it or not. A person fighting for his place in the sun and his rights under the Federal Constitution – read Hindraf – cannot by any stretch of the imagination be labeled racist. That would be defamation.” , Moorthy is reported to have said.
Malaysiakini also reported that Moorthy candidly admitted that he only raised issues touching on Malaysians of Indian origin and saw nothing wrong with that.
“I am an Indian. I know only Indian issues and no one is taking up their cause…I know that other Malaysians are also being systematically marginalised as well by the system. It’s not my business to speak up for them.” , Moorthy is reported to have said.
Is this not a communalist stance?
In fairness to Moorthy, I must disclose that the last two paragraphs of that Malaysiakini report attributes to him the following words which might be construed as contradicting his statement just quoted above.
“We have been reaching out to other Malaysians in our own way although we are very busy pushing our own case worldwide. If I am a racist, surely I won’t lift even a finger to help others fight for their place in the sun.” .
On 19th July, last year, Uthaya formally announced the formation of and application to register HRP as a multiracial party.
Malaysiakini reported Uthaya speaking about his move to register HRP.
“Our main thrust is to be the focus group in putting the Indians in Malaysia back on the mainstream development of Malaysia after 52 years of having been left out,” , Malaysiakini reports Uthaya as saying.
The report went on to say that whilst ’the party’s struggle focuses on the upliftment of the Indian community, Uthayakumar however stressed that it would not shut its doors to the plight of other communities’.
This is a multi-racial party?
I think the ‘About Us’ section of the HRP website adequately answers the question.
In his comment quoted above, Anticommunalist opines that “Nobody will give in hence UMNO wins” .
In a post in this blog on 28th November, 2007, 3 days after the historic Hindraf rally, I wrote :
“Hindraf champions the cause of the downtrodden Indians.
My friends and I in the ‘One People, One Nation’ initiative desire the emancipation of all peoples of our nation, without discrimination, without exclusion, without exception.
It follows that the ‘One People, One Nation’ initiative encompasses and includes the legitimate interests of those whom Hindraf presently stand for.
I believe that the Hindraf leadership, too, wishes the best for all Malaysians…
…in substance, both Hindraf and the ‘One People, One Nation’ initiative desire the same thing.
We are, therefore, not opponents.
BN and its ‘divide and rule’ blueprint is our common enemy…
…The danger that we face now is that, if we pursue our respective strategies and methods independent of each other rather than working together on a common strategy, neither will get anywhere and the current status quo will remain.
In all humility, I say that if Hindraf is to take the cause that it now champions to its desired end, it must now change course.
I ask the Hindraf leadership to reflect upon this with an open heart.
My friends and I would welcome with open arms the Hindraf leadership to come together as one and secure justice and equality for all” .
I wish to have placed on record that since that posting, I have made efforts too numerous to recall to persuade the leadership of Hindraf to join the many civil society efforts to fight for “all peoples of our nation, without discrimination, without exclusion, without exception”.
I shall continue to try.
No comments:
Post a Comment