Posts Tagged ‘Hindraf’

Release Hindraf 5 says BN Youth and MIC

September 22nd, 2008
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


If the readers can recall back to the time near general elections, few of the BN component parties – MIC, MCA, Gerakan, and PPP were clamoring for release of HINDRAF 5 ISA detainees – since this was a sore point among the Indian community. MIC in particular had a horrendous time during the elections. Now, nowhere did we hear the “big brother” of BN saying that the detainees should be released.

So, imagine my surprise when today’s Star reported:

Barisan Nasional youth leaders plan to meet Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar over the call for the release of the five leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force.

People’s Progressive Party Youth chief T. Murugiah said the Youth leaders from Umno, Gerakan, MIC and MCA had already agreed in principle to join the group which he would lead.

Can’t believe it la!

At least Samy Vellu is being direct in saying that by releasing the 5 fella, BN will win back some voters (and in the course save MIC’s hind). Let’s read some of Samy Vellu’s quotes on the second round of call by MIC to release the detainees:

It’s about time that they are released as they pose no danger to the security of the country.

“The government should not hold them any longer as it will prolong the Indian community’s ill-feelings towards the government,”

They only voiced out the problems and the frustrations of the Indian community.

“Similarly, the MIC has also been doing the same for the past few decades … so why detain them any longer?”

Err…that means MIC fellas also should have been in ISA for decades? Please la, don’t insult HINDRAF by comparing with MIC. Wait till rebranding finishes and people can see some improvement before attempting to do so.

Samy Vellu said many Barisan Nasional “die-hards” among the Indian community had voted for the opposition in the last general election as they felt that the five Hindraf leaders had been detained unjustly.

“It is not because they loved the opposition or they wanted a change but rather they vented their anger on the (BN) government,” he said.

He said the BN could regain their support if the five Hindraf leaders were released.

Right, the reason to release them is to gain more votes. So that the champion of the community can go around claiming that they were released due to his effort? Hopefully not.

I had asked the prime minister to release them on several occasions and also raised the matter at two BN Supreme Council meetings.

Now, this is very interesting. Note that Samy deftly avoided telling what was PM’s response to his request. Makes us all think. Did Samy Vellu really ask? Was the PM’s reply unmentionable? 🙂

Uthaya’s appeal rejected again

September 18th, 2008
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Habeas Corpus application by Uthayakumar to be released from ISA due to medical neglect reason have been rejected by the KL High Court. According to the judge, Justice Suraya Othman:

…the claim by the applicant that he was denied proper medication, treatment and proper diet by the Taiping Hospital and officials of the Kamunting detention camp was not true and without merit.

She said the respondents, the Home Ministry and the camp officials through numerous affidavits had stated that all complaints by Uthayakumar were throughly investigated, diagnosed and proper medications were prescribed by doctors at the hospital.

Secondly, the judge noted that vegetarian diet was provided as recommended by a dietician:

According to Bernama, Suraya said the affidavits also revealed that even the camp officials prepared a suitable vegetarian diet for Uthayakumar, who was diabetic, after being recommended by a dietician.

The NST wrote that:

In the application filed on May 22, Uthayakumar claimed he was denied his medication for diabetes between mid-February and April 6.

Prior to that, Uthayakumar, 46, was taking the medicine that was given to him by his fiancee, S. Indradevi, 36, when she visited him at the Kamunting camp.

Uthayakumar also claimed that he had been denied the diabetic diet he requested. Instead, he was given rice and curry which was sweet.

Suraya said Uthayakumar and another detainee, lawyer R. Kengadharan, had scheduled a meeting with a dietician, but Uthayakumar refused to go at the last minute, while Kengadharan kept the appointment.

The dietician prescribed a diet plan for Uthayakumar which was similar to Kengadharan’s despite him not turning up.

“The court is satisfied that all which could be done within the confines of the law was done by the doctor, dietician and prison wardens to assist Uthayakumar,” she said.

She then highlighted that Uthaya changed his appeal from IJN to overseas treatment citing that local doctors will be subjected to manipulation and pressure from authorities.This she says is alarming and insult to the doctors.

She said in his initial notice of motion on May 22 this year filed via Messrs Edwin Lim & Suren, Uthayakumar, besides seeking his release from ISA detention, or in the alternative (second order) to be admitted to the National Heart Institute (IJN) immediately to seek treatment for his diabetes and heart condition.

However, in his affidavit on July 30, he decided not to seek treatment at IJN and wanted the court to substitute the order to allow him to seek overseas treatment from a medical practitioner of his own choice.

Suraya said the applicant in the affidavit had claimed that he had absolute right to choose medical treatment since local doctors would be subjected to manipulation and pressure from the authorities.

Suraya said the court found the reason given by Uthayakumar to be very alarming since he alleged that he could not trust doctors at the government hospitals and IJN.

“He had alleged that these doctors were incompetent, where the court believes this is an insult to their professionalism.”

She said even Dr GR Letchumanan of Taiping Hospital acceded to Uthayakumar’s request to be sent to IJN immediately although the doctor did not feel his (Uthayakumar) condition merited to be referred to IJN.

“Despite two appointments being made to allow him to be seen by two prominent heart specialists at IJN, the applicant, in the eleventh hour, changed his mind and refused to attend.

“This court feels the sudden change in mind by the applicant showed that he was not serious in seeking medical treatment at IJN,” added Suraya.

No independent medical reports? Wonder why Uthaya’s lawyers never asked for independent medical examination. Or was it rejected?

RM27000 fine for Hindraf Rally

September 18th, 2008
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Indians “contribute” RM27,000 to government by pleading guilty to offense committed during the HINDRAF rally on November 25. From Malaysiakini:

A total of 27 men who failed to disperse after being ordered by the police to do so during the Nov 25 gathering organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) were fined RM1,000 each by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
The men were fined after pleading guilty to the offence.

Trial of Hindraf 66 postponed to next year

September 15th, 2008
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


The trial of 66 people arrested during HINDRAF rally has been postponed to next year!

The trial of the 66 Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters charged for illegal assembly and causing mischief was postponed to next year by the Sessions Court here on Monday.Judge M. Gunalan fixed March 24 to 27, May 11 to 15 and July 6 to 10 as trial dates.

Padang Serai MP N. Gobalakrishnan was among the 66 accused, aged between 20 and 56.Five out of the 66 men failed to turn up in court on Monday, and this prompted Gunalan to warn that warrants of arrest would be issued if they failed to attend their hearing next year.He also ordered the five men to give the court valid reasons for their absence.The five were E. Segaran, S. Gunaseelan, J. Prakash, S. Ravi and R. Vijayndran.

Businessman K.P Samy, who had posted bail for all the accused, was asked to explain why the five were absent.Samy, who posted bail by pledging the title of his land worth RM410, 000 to the court, said he was not able to contact some of those who were not present.

Defence counsels G. Naidu and G.K Ganesan also appealed for Gobalakrishnan’s passport, being held by the court, to be handed back to him.Ganesan said many things had changed since the arrests last year and Gobalakrishnan was now an elected representative and needed his passport.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Kamal Arifin Ismail objected to the request and suggested that Gobalakrishnan apply to obtain the passport temporarily whenever he wanted to leave the country.However, Gunalan, who said that this arrangement would be too inconvenient, ordered for Gobalakrishnan’s passport to be returned to him for the duration of his tenure as an elected representative.

Initially 69 people, including five students, were charged for participation in an illegal assembly at Batu Caves on Nov 25 and for causing mischief by damaging seven vehicles at the Sri Subramaniam Temple premises there between 1am and 8am on the same day.The prosecution withdrew the charge of causing mischief against the students but maintained the charge of participating in an illegal assembly against two of them.The other 64 people face both charges.

HINDRAF candidates lose in DAP CEC elections

September 10th, 2008
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


A bit of old news – DAP CEC elections which happened on the same week as the Permatang Pauh by-election. NST carried an interesting viewpoint – that of HINDRAF being sidelined by DAP. How? By virtue of not electing two of HINDRAF ISA detainees (Manoharan and Ganabatirau – both DAP members) into the CEC. The duo got 38th and 39th placing out of 58 candidates, but only the first 20 are chosen to be in the CEC.

According to NST:

DAP gave the Kota Alam Shah seat in Selangor to detained Hindraf lawyer, M. Manoharan, in exchange for full backing from Hindraf to capitalise on Indian sentiments. The NGO also called on its 5,000 members to vote for the opposition in the general election.

It worked. Manoharan won the seat comfortably with a 7,184-majority, despite not campaigning even a single day’s (his wife campaigned for him instead).

But the CEC elections may indicate that HINDRAF’s efforts are not appreciated by DAP members. So claims, a person claiming to represent Ganabatirau. K.P. Samy, the main bailor for the 118 Hindraf members charged with illegal assembly and a friend of Ganabatirau’s and Manoharan’s, had high hopes of the two making it to the CEC.

“They only got 15 per cent of the votes,” he said. “Indians played a major role in the last general election. Hindraf played a major role. But these heroes of Hindraf were not recognised. They should be honoured. “We don’t expect victory but 15 per cent of the votes is like total rejection. We must send a strong signal to the party that it has to be racially representative.”

Two of the successful candidates, Kulasegaran and Dr Ramasamy disagreed with KP Samy.

However, re-elected party vice-chairman Kulasegaran, who had 500 votes, making him the fifth, most popular CEC candidate,said Hindraf had not been forgotten. “They still got a sizeable number of votes,” he said, adding that DAP members were practical when it came to voting in leaders who could perform for the 90,707-strong organisation.

“In fact, Hindraf came about with the controversy in late 2005 over Mount Everest climber M. Moorthy’s conversion to Islam. When it first happened, who was the first to take up the case? “It was DAP lawyers, not P. Uthayakumar (another detained Hindraf leader) and gang.”

Ramasamy, who was elevated from international secretary to deputy secretary-general, said the party had always championed the Hindraf cause.

“The secretary-general of the party has repeatedly urged the release of the Hindraf detainees under the Internal Security Act. It is just that the party polls are highly competitive, that’s all,” he said.

A delegate from Kuala Lumpur, K.A. Ramu, also denied Hindraf was being sidelined. “With the two Hindraf CEC candidates in detention, of course, it was impossible for them to go to the branches and canvass for votes. At the end of the day, popularity matters,” said Ramu.

KP Samy disagrees: “Manoharan could not go out and campaign in the general election. Yet he won resoundingly. How do you explain that?”