Samy raps Palani for ‘shooting his mouth’

The former MIC president also takes Dr S Subramaniam to task.

KUALA LUMPUR: Calling for an end to speculation that he will be contesting in the 13th general election, former…

More ► More ▼

The former MIC president also takes Dr S Subramaniam to task.

KUALA LUMPUR: Calling for an end to speculation that he will be contesting in the 13th general election, former MIC president S Samy Vellu maintained that he had never requested MIC to nominate him to re-contest the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat.

“At no time, did I ask the MIC nor the party boss (G Palanivel) that I wanted to contest in the coming general election,” he said when asked to comment on Palanivel’s statement today that Samy Vellu will not be contesting in the 13th general election.

Samy Vellu said Palanivel and MIC deputy president Dr S Subramaniam had misunderstood his statement made at a media conference after handing over donations to the families of the slain warriors of Lahad Datu, Sabah in Bukit Aman here last Wednesday.

“I was asked by a reporter (at the media conference in Bukit Aman) whether I will be interested to contest in Sungai Siput to which I said it is up to the prime minister to decide who can contest.

“The reporter went on to ask if I thought I was a winnable candidate. I told the reporter that I have no doubt that I am a winnable candidate. But that did not mean that I had requested Palanivel that I wanted to re-contest in Sungai Siput,” he said.

Palanivel and Subramaniam were quoted as saying that only the prime minister and Barisan Nasional chairman could decide on the candidates for Barisan Nasional in the 13th general election.

They were referring to the statement by Samy Vellu that he would be a winnable candidate for the BN in Sungai Siput in the forthcoming general election.

Samy Vellu said he was saddened over the statements made by Palanivel and Subramaniam which did not reflect his real intentions.

“They (Palanivel and Subramaniam) should have called me first to find out what transpired at the media conference (in Bukit Aman) before shooting off their mouths,” he said, adding that Palanivel and Subramaniam showed immaturity in politics by “jumping the gun”.

Samy Vellu said it was he who fought political battles for the duo (Palanivel and Subramaniam) in MIC when he was the party president.

“They must remember that they are where they are today because of the political battles which I fought for them,” he said.

Samy Vellu said he was entrusted by the Prime Minister and Barisan Nasional chairman Najib Tun Razak to deliver the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat for BN in the coming general election irrespective of who the BN candidate would be.

“I will continue to work in Sungai Siput to deliver on what has been entrusted on me by the BN chairman,” he added.

▲

Sugumar case: NGO asks ‘next PM’ for help

Lawyers for Liberty’s letter complains of lack of seriousness in dealing with custodial deaths.

PETALING JAYA: Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Eric Paulsen has written an open letter to “the next…

More ► More ▼

Lawyers for Liberty’s letter complains of lack of seriousness in dealing with custodial deaths.

PETALING JAYA: Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Eric Paulsen has written an open letter to “the next Prime Minister of Malaysia” asking him to ensure justice in the case of C Sugumar and similar cases of deaths in state custody.

Paulsen alleged that police were not serious in investigating such deaths and politicians in power had shown little sympathy with the victims’ families.

“They often choose to downplay, cover up, ignore or even make outrageous claims about these deaths,” he wrote.

“Despite the long list of custodial deaths, very few policemen are charged, much less found guilty of any offence.”

Referring to the Sugumar case, he said the police had made the “incredible claim” that they were not responsible for his death since the post-mortem report showed that the victim died of a heart attack.

“This is not surprising as PDRM [the Malay abbreviation for Royal Malaysian Police] does have a terrible history of cover ups and denial of responsibility,” he wrote. “See, for example, the death in custody of A. Kugan and the fatal police shooting of 15-year-old Aminulrasyid.”

Sugumar, a 40-year-old security guard, was allegedly chased, handcuffed and beaten to death on Jan 23 by policemen and several members of the public.

His family disputes the report of the government pathologist and is trying to get an independent pathologist to conduct a second autopsy.

“Even though Sugumar’s death was championed mainly by the opposition and civil societies, the authorities should have addressed his death instead of blindly supporting the police,” Paulsen said.

“According to the Home Ministry, 156 people were found dead in police lock-ups or in custody from the year 2000 to 2011.”

Eighty-five of these cases were in the “No Further Action” pile, he added.

Allow Thai pathologist

He said Lawyers for Liberty was hoping that the next federal government would make amends so that Sugumar’s family would have closure over his death.

“In order for this to happen, state institutions must be freed from improper political interference so that they are able to function independently and impartially like in any other modern democratic state,” he said.

He also called for the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) that was mooted during the administration of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“The IPCMC will certainly go a long way in preventing custodial deaths and enhancing public confidence,” he said.

The lawyer representing Sugumar’s family, PKR vice-president N Surendran, said today that he and the deceased’s relatives were hoping Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak would change his mind and allow Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand to conduct the second autopsy.

Pornthip came to the Malaysian public’s attention when she served as observing pathologist in the case of Teo Beng Hock. She later testified in court against the post-mortem report.

“As caretaker PM, Najib can still lift the ban on Pornthip and allow her to perform the second post mortem,” said Surendran.

He said the family was insisting on the second autopsy even if they had to wait until after the general election.

“As PKR’s vice-president, I assure you that we will issue an immediate invitation to Pornthip if Pakatan Rakyat forms the next federal government,” he added.

▲

‘Winnable’ or not, Samy Vellu won’t be contesting

MIC president G Palanivel says the former party chief will not be a candidate in the general election.

KUALA LUMPUR: In less than 48 hours after claiming he wa…

More ► More ▼

MIC president G Palanivel says the former party chief will not be a candidate in the general election.

KUALA LUMPUR: In less than 48 hours after claiming he was a winnable candidate if fielded in the coming general election, S Samy Vellu suffered defeat: his hopes of making a comeback were dashed.

He will not be a candidate in the 13th general election (GE13).

This was confirmed by MIC president G Palanivel who said that the former long-standing party chief would not contest in the polls.

He said Samy Vellu, who is Barisan Nasional coordinator for Sungai Siput, had been hard at work in ensuring the BN wrest back the seat which was lost in the last general election in 2008.

“[Datuk Seri] Samy Vellu has been working hard in Sungai Siput to garner support from the people… but he will not be a candidate,” Palanivel said in a text messge to Bernama today.

Samy Vellu had confidently declared that he was candidate material in GE13, following the dissolution of the Dewan Rakyat announced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak on Wednesday.

“I am a winnable candidate, there’s no doubt about it. I am willing to re-contest the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat,” Samy Vellu declared at an event here on Wednesday.

He had been the Sungai Siput MP for more than three decades since 1974, until he lost his stronghold seat to Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj of the Socialist Party Malaysia (PSM) by a 1,821-vote majority.

“Winnable” candidates is one of the main criteria set by top BN leaders in choosing its candidates to stand in the election.

Samy Vellu was also the MIC president for nearly three decades until Palanivel succeeded him in 2010.

On the seat allocation for MIC, Palanivel said the party looked set to contest in the nine parliamentary and 19 state seats.

However, he remained light-tipped on the names of candidates for the 28 seats.

“We are still negotating to swap two state seats in Perak and one in Johor with other Barisan Nasional parties for GE13,” he said.

According to media reports, the MIC would give up the Behrang and Pasir Panjang seats and instead, take up Buntong, which consists of a 48% Indian population, and another seat, which was still being negotiated.

▲

Plagiarism cries, and the tragedy of Hindraf

COMMENT The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), or what’s left of its original leadership, has accused the DAP of plagiarising 11 of the 14 items in its blueprint (supposedly for…

More ► More ▼

COMMENT The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), or what’s left of its original leadership, has accused the DAP of plagiarising 11 of the 14 items in its blueprint (supposedly for the uplifting of the Indian poor and marginalised) in DAP’s Gelang Patah Declaration.

Plagiarism is an academic abomination, a commercial crime in some intellectual rights cases, and an indictment of policy bankruptcy and incompetency in politics if, say, Party A were to steal policy ideas from Party B.

But Hindraf is neither Party A nor Party B in the current scheme of things. Hindraf drew up its blueprint not as an academic or commercial item, but to demand that either side of Malaysian politics adopt same if they wish to have Hindraf’s support in the coming general election.

Thus, we would have expected the organisation to be happy with the DAP for adopting most of its blueprint. But bizarrely, it has now accused DAP of plagiarism of its policy when in the first place it had wanted political acceptance of it.

It appears Hindraf is either confused over what it wants or it has been the wrong side of politics which has adopted its blueprint, hence its chagrin and rather absurd accusation of plagiarism against DAP.

Indeed, it seems to contradict itself when it alleged in the same breath that the DAP-led Penang government could have carried out some of the 11 so-called plagiarised items in five years of its rule.

Now, whether the Penang government had failed or ignored the Hindraf requirements, or was constrained by circumstances beyond its control in not meeting Hindraf’s expectations, is still open to debate and explanations. But this very accusation against its favourite target, the DAP-led Penang government, ironically indicates that Hindraf had wanted political endorsement of it, thus making its accusation of plagiarism a total mockery.

This leads us uncomfortably to the suspicion that the DAP has been an unwanted suitor, when Hindraf probably desires someone else. I hope I am wrong but when I read in Malaysiakini’s ‘Tough issues in store for second PM-Hindraf meet’ I see a totally different Hindraf reaction to its meeting with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. Dare I say it has been coquettishly coy complete with fluttering eyelashes?

Its adviser N Ganesan stated that there will be a second meeting, lending a noticeable contrast to P Uthayakumar’s immediate dismissal of DAP’s Gelang Patah Declaration as not good enough in his letter to Malaysiakini. And now we have in addition the ludicrous accusation of plagiarism.

Uthayakumar’s long acrimonious relationship with the DAP has led us to the unavoidable conclusion he is invincibly biased against the political party, even unto vilifying DAP’s Indian members as mandores, presumably all of DAP's seven members of parliament (MP) and 11 assemblypersons.

I suppose we have to assume that Uthayakumar considers any Indian politicians without Hindraf’s approval as deserving of his gross abusive insult, which lacked substance but was full of hostility.

Who or what is Hindraf?

I believe Hindraf came about because of three principal issues, namely, the brutal, wanton and horrendously insensitive destruction of Hindu temples by an unfriendly uncaring authority, the unexplained, unaccountable and horrific deaths in custody of just too many Indians, and the general poverty and hopeless situation (eg. statelessness) among many Indians.

The first public emergence of Hindraf on its magnificent rally was so inspiring that I attempted a poem '25 November 2007' to show my admiration and support for both its cause and its courageous stand.

Of the five original Hindraf leaders who were detained under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA), V Ganabatirao, M Manoharan (right), K Vasantha Kumar, R Kenghadharan and P Uthayakumar, four are members of Pakatan Rakyat, split between the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). Manoharan was even elected as a Selangor DAP assemblyperson while he was still in detention.

But alas, after Uthayakumar’s release from ISA detention, we observed and suspected he couldn’t cope with fame and admiration. In his arrogant misguided belief that Hindraf was the singular engine of the 2008 political tsunami, he must have brought himself the idea that he as the very persona of Hindraf possessed extraordinary political leverage.

He suffered from excessive hubris, and coupled with his anger and impatient over the undeniable Indian tragedy, he began to antagonise his natural supporters and sympathisers instead of consolidating on that hard-won support for his cause for Indians. He betrayed himself by his unjustified overbearingness. By alienating the very people who could help, he has also betrayed his cause.

His brother Waythamoorty (left in photo) took a different tack, perhaps after seeing his brother’s failure to convince both BN and Pakatan to come to Hindraf’s heel. But has his fasting been any better than his brother’s vituperative antics? His stand has been the same, to make threatening demands, where he had hoped his personal abstinence and suffering would threaten the conscience of the major political parties.

Ironically, having criticised the government’s National Economic Policy (NEP), Umno’s affirmative action programme exclusive to bumiputera, Hindraf could somehow, with brazen face, put forward its original 18-point demands, which is as exclusively ethnocentric as the NEP, or even worse.

Instead of asking for the policies, plans and programs of the NEP to be tailored along the basis of need rather than race, and thus to include all needy Malaysians, most of whom would be Indians, the proponents of Hindraf 18-point demands decided instead to jump on the ethnocentric bandwagon, with what we would reasonably opine as an unrealistic expectation that the government will issue an exclusive-to-Indian NEP in accordance with its claims.

Some of the 18-point demands are actually good but regrettably have been contaminated by unrealistic and impractical stipulations in others, thus discrediting the entire lot. I wonder whether Hindraf’s ulterior aim has been to ask for the sky and hopefully expect and to happily accept a much lower offer?

Poker-style bluff

But if that has been the case, then may I say that the future of Indian Malaysians isn’t best served by the whimsical derring-do poker-style bluff of upping the ante to heights of absurdity in Hindraf’s exactions for wrongs perpetuated on Indian Malaysians.

Let’s quickly run through a few of Hindraf 18-point demands to examine what I consider some to be totally impractical, unrealistic and preposterous claims while others have an ethnocentric odour, for therein lies the explanation why no political party could find grounds to work with them.

Hindraf’s Point No 3 calls for ‘affirmative action for all poor Malaysians especially the ethnic minority Indians’. It also wanted a ‘Protection of Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indian Act 2007 to be passed to secure and safeguard the interests of the poor and defenceless ethnic Indian Minority Community’.

The ‘call for affirmative action for all poor Malaysians’ is praiseworthy, but why spoil it by adding on the exclusionary clause ‘especially the ethnic minority Indians’?

Poor Malaysians are poor Malaysians, regardless of whether they are Indians, Thai, Ibans, Kadazans, etc, or Malays and Chinese. Thus the ‘Protection of Ethnic Minority Malaysian Indian Act ...’ is unnecessary or could have been written to embrace all minorities, or better still, the poor of all races.

I believe I would be reasonable in suspecting HIndraf’s Point No 3 hasn’t been about the non-Indian poor, and that its opening ‘call for affirmative action for all poor Malaysians’ was added just to sound inclusive.

Then, its Point No 4 on Tamil schools demands, among many things, air-conditioned libraries, non-Muslim religious classes, pocket money for pupils, etc, which we can accept, though I personally would disagree with religious classes - and are those to be on Hinduism only, bearing in mind Indians subscribe to many religions, even [gasp again] Islam?

But wait, there's more, Hindraf then demanded ‘A RM100 billion grant @ 20 billion per year with effect from 2007 to be allocated to Indians under the 9th Malaysia Plan …..’.

It’s wonderful to think big as per Dr Mahathir Momad’s slogan of Malaysia Boleh, but doesn’t the 2013 education budget for Malaysia amount to only RM38.7 billion?

So can anyone tell me whether any government (let alone the current BN one) will ever approve such a Hindraf demand? Isn’t ‘preposterous’ the most apt adjective to describe Hindraf’s claim?

Sweetheart deal?

But who knows, maybe PM Najib will just approve a sweetheart deal on this a la "I help you, you help me", though it will surely challenge his innovativeness on campaign promises when Hindraf wants more than 50 percent of the entire 2013 education budget for each year.

Point No 6 on business for Indians also demands another RM100 billion, which I suspect attempts to imitate the NEP investment schemes for Malays. I won’t comment on this standard Hindraf ‘think big’ approach in the billions of ringgit.

Point No 7 lays claim to 20 percent of the government top-most level postings including appointments right from ministerial secretaries-general down to district officers. But the surprise gift item in Hindraf’s cereal box is about top positions in the private sector where it demands the same percentage reservation for Indians. The requirement will apply for the next 15 years.

Hmmm, I wonder what percentage of Malaysia’s population is made up of Indians? Twenty percent?

And assuming such a (yes, that adjective again) preposterous demand is acceded to, how will the government ensure 20 percent of top-most level positions in the private sector will be reserved exclusively for Indians?

In its Point No 18, and this is the best of the lot, Hindraf demanded a minimum of 20 opposition members of Parliament to be elected exclusively by the Indian community and which number shall be increased proportionately with any increase in parliamentary seats. Hindraf wants this point to be, in its own words, ‘entrenched into the federal constitution’.

I wonder why opposition MP only? Perhaps it’s a Freudian slip and a reminder of Hindraf’s inability to work cooperatively with anyone?

Apart from being flabbergasted by such a comically grotesque form of parliamentary structure, I ponder on what it will say for or do to our Westminster democracy, warts and all?

Instead of attempting to overcome the evil that is racism, which no one would deny is prevalent in Malaysia especially the worst kind, namely, institutionalised racism, Hindraf has instead joined the exclusionary mob by attempting to carve for itself a cozy racist ghetto in parliament.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it expects its own members to play the role of the so-called 20 opposition MPs, which as a reminder, is only the minimum number.

I believe in any language such a demand would be correctly described as monstrously absurd and a lunatic harebrained scheme. How will this demand, designed to be rejected in the first instant, help the marginalised Indians in practical terms other than to have 20 voices adding to the noise in parliament?

DAP cat among the Hindraf pigeons?

And what if those terrible Uthayakumar’s mandores, the DAP Indians with their political experience and sense of confidence in their political success stories, participate in and dominate the 20 exclusive MP positions for positions? Now, won’t that just put the DAP cat among the Hindraf pigeons?

Will Hindraf then seek PM Najib to make an amendment to its No 18 point to specify that Indian politicians from the DAP, PKR, MIC, Gerakan, PPP and various other Indian-based parties cannot participate for the 20 seats which will be exclusive only to Hindraf-approved members?

More importantly, it tells us of a Kafkaesque mindset prevailing in Hindraf that’s totally unhelpful or contributing to the real needs of marginalised Indians. It’s even more atrocious than that in MIC.

With its ethno-exclusive mentality, Hindraf might as well ask for a state, say, Perlis, to be designated as an autonomous state exclusively for Indian residents where either Uthayakumar or his brother can be its chief minister.

I hesitate to use the taboo-ed word of T.E. to name such an exclusive-to-Indian enclave, especially with the hypothetical example of Perlis being in the north, so let us just call it SARSI (Special Autonomous Region Specifically for Indians). Besides, SARSI gives us a nice Malaysian flavour [grin].

Yes, with a SARSI, Hindraf may be assured not only of 20 percent top positions in the public and private sectors for only Indians, but in fact 100 percent.

Finally we come to its Point No 10. Hindraf asserted that 15,000 Indian temples were demolished by authorities in the last 50 years, and which should be compensated at RM10 million per temple.

I have to confess I wasn’t aware that the number of Indian temples demolished by government actions totalled 15,000.

I just wonder what would constitute such a temple. I ask only because I am visualising a Hindu or Indian temple as the one in my kampung of Ayer Itam village, Penang, where my (Chinese) family prayed at when I was a kid, namely, the Arulmigu Sri Ruthra Veeramuthu Maha Mariamman Devasthanam, more familiarly known as the Ayer Itam Mahamariamman Temple.

Now, that’s a temple, though not big at all but nonetheless would reasonably not fail the description of a Hindu temple.

After fumbling around with my Casio calculator, I worked out that the total compensation cost, presumably to be handed over by the government to the proposer of Point No 10, would only be a mere trifling RM150 billion (yes, billion and not million - I am sure Dr Mahathir would be proud of such ‘think big’ Malaysians).

But alas, I hate to be a spoilsport in asking whether PM Najib even with his ‘wa tolong lu, lu tolong wa’ generosity, or for that matter, a Pakatan or even a Hindraf government, would ever consider giving RM150 Billion ringgit away as compensation for temples demolished by the authorities?

Godzilla-size demands

The demands are so insanely nonsensical that the major political parties shouldn’t be blamed for not giving credence to Hindraf’s 18 point demands as a serious petition by reasonable leaders of the Indian community.

So will the so-called Hindraf and its Godzilla-size demands serve Indian Malaysians in the way they should be, and which they would be as per the down-to-earth DAP’s 14-point Gelang Patah Declaration?

Abdul Razak Hussein’s NEP was meant principally to serve the Malays until the economic gap between them and the generally better off Chinese can be closed. Admittedly the policy has been bastardised to enrich an elite because of someone’s humongous chip on his shoulder. The deliberate change in tack for the NEP was a gross betrayal of the Malays.

The so-called Hindraf 18-point demand seems to be heading in that same direction, maybe without even its proponents being aware of it.

It’s common wisdom that when a race is oppressed, you will find at the heart of that oppression its very own people playing significant roles in the betrayal. The Chinese were betrayed by Chinese in oppressions by Mongolians, Manchurians, Western powers, Japanese, etc, and likewise with the Malays even right up to this day.

The Hindraf 18-point demands show its leaders don’t have the temperament or political competency to serve Indian Malaysians, other than to hold rallies or to hurl vilifications against DAP.

What good will Hindraf instructing Indians to boycott the elections do for their well-being? Remember the Socialist Front who decided to boycott the 1969 general elections? Where are they now?

Let me conclude with a four-line dirge for Hindraf:

Alas, here lies a once great movement
That had wanted its people to be free
But it failed even its own development
Shackled by its leader’s lamentable hubris

---

K TEMOC is a Penangite who enjoys being an independent blogger and loves to share his opinion on Malaysian and world affairs without fear or favour, though currently is politically inclined towards DAP, only because the political party has thus far shown faithfulness to its promise of competency, accountability and transparency.

▲