Posts Tagged ‘Penang’

maika revisited

December 21st, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


flashback to 2003…maika issue

Maika: Bleeding Again
A case of noble intentions gone awry

by P Ramakrishnan
Aliran Monthly 2003:11

http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2003a/11j.html


Maika tottering on brink of bankruptcy?

Maika's accounts raise more questions:

1. Why does it take one whole year for the AGM to be held? (The AGM for the financial year ended 31 December 2002 will only be held on 30 December 2003. Normally, the AGM should be held within 6 months of the end of the financial year).

2. From RM125 million paid up share capital, the accummulated losses have come up to RM71.7 million. (The loss after tax and minority interests for the year ended 31 December 2002 was RM4.5 million).

3. The overall profit before tax for the year ended 31 Dec 2002 amounted to RM8.9 million. The only significant profitable activity is insurance, which made a profit before tax of RM26.9 million. Investment trading made a loss of RM12.2 million, property incurred a loss of RM1.4 million and manufacturing made a loss of RM3.5 million. How were these losses incurred?

4. The current liabilities is four times the current assets. The general rule of thumb for healthy companies is that current liabilities should only be half the value of current assets. This is why Maika is tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.

5. Provision for doubtful debts for the year ended 31 Dec 2002 amounted to RM8.3 million. Who were the borrowers or debtors? They should be named.

6. Directors' other emoluments(remuneration) totalled RM202,000 for the year. Do they deserve this? Why is there no figure disclosed for directors’ salaries?

7. Staff costs of RM15.7 million works out to RM40,000 per annum per employee at the group level. At the company level, staff costs (for 11 employees) averaged almost RM70,000 per annum per person! How much was Vell Paari a/l Samy Vellu paid?

maika (7K)
Maika didn't reject the shares

In its twenty years of tortured history, Maika investors have known nothing but pain and sorrow. The new dawn of a golden opportunity that was held out to the Indian poor never arrived. Instead, each passing year only witnessed dashed hopes and broken promises that littered the chequered history of Maika.

Touted as an economic vehicle and a miracle to lift the Indian poor from the shackles of poverty, Maika was launched with much hype and hope. The poor Indians – traditional MIC supporters, the lower middle-class and the working class Indians as well as a vast majority of plantation workers – were mesmerised into responding enthusiastically. Respond they did, some scraping the barrel, others mortgaging their property and pawning their jewellery while the vast majority took loans at exorbitant rates to invest in a venture that promised dreams of hopes and tantalising prospects.

It’s not only the poor Indians who responded to this call to rally behind the MIC's efforts to secure seven per cent of the corporate ownership for the Indian community – which at that time had been stagnating at under one per cent since 1960. Even the middle-class Indians who were wary of the caste and communal politics practised by MIC came forward to participate.

Incorporated on 13 September 1982, Maika commenced business on 31 January 1983.

A Phenomenal Response

According to Terence Gomez, “Although the original plan by the MIC was to ensure that at least RM30 million worth of Maika shares were subscribed to, so successful was the campaign to promote the company that by 1984 a phenomenal RM106 million was raised from almost 66,400 shareholders. The largest individual shareholder with almost 2.8 million shares was MIC president Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu. The amount invested in Maika was even larger than that obtained by the MCA’s Multi-Purpose Holdings when the company commenced business.”

What went wrong for a venture that took off in a blaze of glory? Why is it in shambles today?

It is a case of a noble intention that has gone awry through bad management, poor investment and sheer arrogance that brooked no question and refused to be accountable to the shareholders. If proper business ethics had been observed, if honest criticism had been tolerated and accommodated, if from the beginning Maika was run by professionals rather than politicians, Maika perhaps may not have nose-dived into the hopeless situation that it is in today.

In spite of a number of major acquisitions made into some important companies – like the United Asian Bank (UAB), United Oriental Assurance (UOA), Malaysian Airlines System (MAS), Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC), TV3 and Edaran Otomobil Malaysia Bhd (EON) – Maika’s performance has been mediocre.

It registered a profit from 1984 to 1986 – the total amount was nothing to shout about and amounted to RM16.5 million only – which enabled Maika to declare three dividends which totalled 11 sen per share.

Telekom Shares: Hanky-Panky

There wasn’t any fanfare when Maika was allotted shares in Syarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd (STMB). It was assumed in 1990 that Maika had been allotted all the shares it had subscribed to. No details were made known at that time.

samy1 (4K)
Samy: "They don’t deserve 10 million shares"

Sometime in the middle of February 1992 the shroud of secrecy surrounding the Telekom shares allocation was ripped apart. Then all hell broke loose.

A journalist from Watan disclosed that “there could have been some hanky-panky in the allocation of Telecoms shares to Maika.”

This was then followed by another report in a Tamil magazine, Thoothan, on April 1, 1992 which disclosed that there could have been some discrepancy in the distribution of the ten million Telekom shares allocated to Maika by the Finance Ministry. Malaysians learned for the first time that Maika acquired only one million and not the entire 10 million shares that were allotted to Maika.

Samy Vellu, through the Tamil Nesan and at MIC meetings, tried to explain by insisting that the cash flow problem faced by Maika did not allow Maika to take up all ten million shares. But, one of the directors, a one-time ally of Samy Vellu, Vijandran, issued a statement insinuating that the truth may not have been told.

When this matter was raised in parliament, Finance Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim disclosed that since Maika had stated that it could take up only one million shares, the remaining nine million shares were allocated to three companies proposed by Maika because to his “ministry”s knowledge, the three companies represented the interests of the Indian community” (The Star, April 30, 1992).Incidentally, at the time of share allocation in 1990, the Finance Minister was Tun Daim Zainuddin.

Maika Didn’t Reject The Shares

The mystery deepended and bewildered the shareholders when another Maika director, Pasamanikam, contradicted the statements made by Anwar and Samy Vellu. According to Pasamanikam, Maika did not reject the Finance Ministry’s offer and did not propose that the nine million shares be allocated to any other company. He further revealed that Maika had indeed raised a RM50 million loan to facilitate the acquisition of the entire 10 million shares even before the Finance Ministry had withdrawn its offer.

Why did the Finance Ministry cancel the initial offer of the 10 million shares and subsequently allot only one million shares to Maika? Who was responsible for the retraction of the original offer? Who lied to the Finance Ministry? Who informed them that Maika had recommended that the nine million shares be given to the three companies? Who supplied the names of these three companies? Who coerced the Finance Ministry to change their mind?

There was no earthly reason for the Finance Ministry to change its mind on its own after having allocated 10 million shares. Who aborted this offer?

According to Tan Sri G K Rama Iyer, the Managing Director of Maika Holdings Bhd – as revealed in his press release dated May 16, 1992 – Samy Vellu was informed at 6.10 am on october 5, 1990 that Maika had been offered 10 million STMB shares and of the probability of obtaining full loan financing and that Maika intended to take up the entire allocation of 10 million shares.(Indeed, a letter dated October 5, 1990 from Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bankers Bhd – AMMBB – offering RM50 million to finance the purchase of the 10 million shares was received on October 6, 1990).

There Must Have Been A Mistake

He further clarified that Samy Vellu replied that “there must have been a mistake. The offer to Maika should be for one million and not 10 million.

“According to Dato Seri Samy Vellu, the remaining 9 million shares were for allocation to “other MIC bodies”.

“Further, Dato Seri Samy Vellu stated that he would contact the Ministry to clarify the position.”

It was then, after Samy Vellu had contacted the Finance Ministry, that the letter of offer was retracted and Maika’s allocation reduced to one million shares.

Why did Samy Vellu prevent Maika from acquiring the 10 million shares? Wasn’t Maika his brain-child to raise the corporate wealth of the Indian community so that their economic welfare would be secured? Wasn’t he the leader of MIC which launched Maika as a business venture to enrich the community which had long been associated with deprivation and poverty?

This was God-sent wealth. Why did he prevent this wealth from reaching Maika? Imagine how much Maika would have made from these shares for which it only paid RM5 per share. When Telekom shares were “first traded it fetched a price of RM6.15 per share and that too during a bearish market. By mid-1992 the Telecoms share price was hovering around RM11-RM13,” observed Terence Gomez.

According to Ram, in an article in the Aliran Monthly – 1993:13(10) – by giving away the bulk of the shares, Samy Vellu had taken away from Maika RM120 million in profit (which it would have attained had it just held on to the extra shares until then).

They Don’t Deserve 10 Million Shares

Samy Vellu made it abundantly clear that he personally decided to allocate only one million shares to Maika. According to Samy Vellu, “I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings if not for their past business record. They don’t deserve 10 million shares because of the dismal performance of the Maika management. They have to learn to do business on their own and not depend on shares and make money out of it” (
New Strait Times, 16 May 1992).

His autocratic style and arrogance comes through so forcefully: “I could have given all the shares to Maika Holdings…,” he boasts. “They don’t deserve 10 million shares…,” he berates. Mind you, he decides – not the Ministry of Finance!

It is very apparent that he keeps a very tight hold on Maika. That being the case, how could Maika undertake any business venture without his knowledge and blessing? Shouldn’t he be part of the debacle that is haunting Maika today? Shouldn’t he also shoulder the blame for “the dismal performance of the Maika management”?

And why should he give nine million shares to three obscure companies, two of which were in fact shell companies with paid-up capital of RM2 each? He did it on his own, without authority or directive from the Central Working Committee. And what was the rational for doing so?

And who lied to the Finance Ministry that these “three companies represented the interests of the Indian community”? What was the motive for diverting nine million shares to three private companies?

Those who sought to find the answers were threatened or beaten up. One brave soul who went on a crusade to expose this scandal was stabbed in Penang. Whenever questions regarding Maika were raised at MIC meetings presided by Samy Vellu, it was alleged that thugs would suddenly appear beside the person asking the question and that would be the end of the affair to seek answers.

start_quote (1K)
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, our new Prime Minister who seems to be on a crusade to wipe out corruption, should order the ACA to reopen this case.
end_quote (1K)

Some years ago, it was claimed that at one paricular MIC meeting at the Dewan Sri in Penang, chaired by Samy Vellu, a Maika shareholder wanted to know the position of Maika. It was alleged that Samy Vellu told this shareholder that he would provide the answer after the adjournment for refreshment. In the meantime two thugs confronted this shareholder and told him that if he wanted to return home in one piece it was the right time to go home. When the meeting resumed, Samy Vellu reportedly called for the shareholder to repeat his query. But since he wasn’t there, Samy Vellu continued with his meeting without touching on the subject of Maika.

Highly Questionable

It was alleged that Samy Vellu’s son and brother-in-law were directors of of the RM2 companies, SB Management Services Sdn Bhd and Advance Personal Computers Sdn Bhd. which received three million shares each. The third company that received the remaining three million shares was Clearway Sdn Bhd.

How these companies disposed of these shares and the manner the profits were channelled to Maju Institute of Education and Development (MIED) were highly questionable. Millions of ringgit were given to MIED in cash. In this day and age one has every right to suspect such transactions. Do you carry millions of ringgit in your person to pay to an educational institution? For God's sake, there is such a thing as bank transfers!

Let’s for a moment try to be logical. How did these companies come to possess this amount of money before it was handed over to MIED? They must have been paid in cheques when they sold the Telekom shares. Does it mean that they went to the bank, cashed the cheques and carried the millions of ringgit, presumably in a bag, as one crazy Malaysian guy did in Australia? This seems far fetched!

What is puzzling is the fact that in spite of so much overwhelming evidence, the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) after 17 months of investigation cleared Samy Vellu of any wrong-doing but unfortunately without clearing the doubts in the minds of the Malaysians, as was observed by Aliran Monthly. (See accompanying story on page 9 for a fuller account)

Who Benefits From Share Allocations?

But the larger question as to how and why political parties are allocated shares that are monoploised by the connected few have not been addressed. These allocations are never revealed and it is not possible to know which crony benefits and by how much. This system has led to abuses and effectively blocks the wealth from reaching a wider circle of deserving citizens.

Even the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, when queried on the issue, confirmed the lack of accountability being practised by government leaders. Mahathir’s twisted logic for not interfering with Samy Vellu’s decision in connection with the allocation of shares for the Indians was: “I cannot interfere in this matter because I also don’t want non-bumiputras to question how we distribute the shares among our commu-nity.” (The Star, 14 May 1992)

He wasn’t bothered whether the benefits reached the right people. He wasn’t concerned if there was a corrupt practice in place. The policy seemed to be one of non-interference when wealth resources were allocated, particularly under questionable circumstances.

Maika Scandal Refuses To Be Buried

In spite of 10 years of history, the Maika scandal refuses to be buried. It keeps on surfacing, haunting and hounding the perpetrators of a crime that robbed the poor of their fair share of their due. Ten years ago the Aliran Monthly had rightly observed, “The controversy surrounding the Maika-Telekom shares scandal appears to be far from over.”

Maika will be holding its Annual General Meeting on December 19, 2003 in Kuala Lumpur. As far as we know, no shareholder seems to have received any Notice of Meeting. Neither have they received the Annual Report nor the Statement of Accounts. And today is December 17, 2003. (This AGM has now been postponed to December 30, 2003)

How many shareholders are aware of this meeting? And what can they discuss without the benefit of the annual report and the statement of accounts? Will the shareholders be free from intimidation to raise relevant questions? Will they receive honest answers?

But answers may not be found at this AGM. What could this AMG reveal that the previous AGMs failed to disclose?

It is, therefore, a matter of urgent concern that the Maika scandal be re-investigated seriously. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, our new Prime Minister who seems to be on a crusade to wipe out corruption, should order the ACA to reopen this case. The poor Indians have turned to him as a last resort for help. Many of them had lost almost everything in investing in the Maika shares. All they want is the return of their investment. Justice must be done to them. Will he respond?

HINDRAF linked with LTTE and RSS

December 8th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Hmmm…how stupid of the hindraf organisers to announce that they want to meet terrorists. for sure cannot la. want to meet foreign groups/leaders, also condemned. Want to meet PM, also condemned. Who else is left to meet? but they are asked to discuss and channel their problems. to who? i am more confused 🙂

Link is with Tamil Tigers and India’s RSS, says Nazri

source

KUALA KANGSAR: The Government has identified the overseas groups linked to Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf). Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said the groups are Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the RSS, a militant organisation in India. Speaking to reporters yesterday after presenting gifts to UPSR excellent students at Kati, near here, Mohamed Nazri said this was from statements of Hindraf leaders who went overseas to garner support that they would meet LTTE leaders. “As we know, the LTTE has been declared a terrorist group by the United Nations and the United States. 

“If it is true that Hindraf leaders have links with them, Hindraf is also a terrorist group,” he said yesterday, adding that the Government was closely monitoring the activities of Hindraf leaders. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan was reported to have said yesterday that there were signs lately that Hindraf was trying to garner support from terrorist groups. 

He said Hindraf had also set up a fund by misleading the public into believing that the money was to finance its activities. 

On accusations by Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran that the A-G was pressuring the judiciary by leading the prosecution team charging Hindraf supporters, Mohamed Nazri said being the country’s top lawyer, the A-G could act for the Government in any court in the country. “The A-G’s job is to prosecute. The fact that the A-G is involved shows the seriousness of the matter as it can affect the country’s peace,” he added. 

On calls by the Pertubuhan Pembela Islam (Pembela) that Hindraf be banned, Mohamed Nazri said the Government would do so if the group was linked with the LTTE. In Shah Alam, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patil said detailed investigations would be carried out to determine the alleged link between Hindu Rights Action Force and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. 

He told reporters that a police report had been lodged that Hindraf members were going out to contact the LTTE. “These are serious allegations and we believe that investigations have to be done,” added Abdul Gani. In Penang, DAP national chairman Karpal Singh said the leaders of the Hindu Rights Action Force should be given the opportunity to explain the reasons behind the demonstration. He added that the presence of thousands of Indians at the demonstration was cause for concern and reason enough to assume that the problems of the community ought to be addressed.

Hindraf Uthayakumar Interview

December 5th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Uthayakumar: I am no racist
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/75675

Soon Li Tsin
Dec 5, 07 2:26pm

Fending off allegations that he is a racist, extremist and attention-seeker, Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) legal adviser P Uthayakumar insists he is nothing of that sort.

In an interview with Malaysiakini two days ago, he spoke at great length about his self-proclaimed vendetta against Umno, his Kelantanese heritage and his interpretation of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Indian Malaysians.

Edited excerpts from the interview follow, although his manner of speech has been retained in the interests of authenticity.

Can you gauge the success of Hindraf rally – did you achieve what you set out to achieve?

To us it was a success. It was above my expectations because we targeted 10,000 but towards the end we knew that the numbers were a lot more higher. Our estimate was about 100,000 although Malaysiakini estimated it to be 30,000 and the local press made it 5,000-10,000.

The floodgates were broken. We didn’t expect that […] there was a lot of excitement on the part of Indians in particular to attend the peaceful assembly I do not know why but it was the talk of almost every Indian in Malaysia. They felt that they had a duty to attend the assembly and it was a historical day in Malaysia in a sense that people in such large numbers turned up.

Where were you that day? People said you did not appear until 1.30pm. Why was there a lack of leadership during the rally?

About 7am, I left my house and by 7.30am I was right in front of KLCC (Kuala Lumpur City Centre). We were telling the crowd not to do anything but keep quiet because we are officially suppose to start at 9am, we would wait for everybody to come. We were waiting for 9am and we wanted to go and tell the police we wanted to hand over the petition (addressed) to the Queen but before we could do anything the police started firing tear gas into the group to break them up.

I was particularly concerned with the safety for the assemblers because as I told Malaysiakini (in an interview the night before the assembly that) I would take personal responsibility because whatever happens, I have to take responsibility.

There were pictures of me with the British Council in the background, that’s in Jalan Ampang. From right in front of KLCC we moved into Jalan Ampang and I believe that was the major crowd, the bulk of the crowd was there.

We have no experience in organising a large assembly so there was problems with coordination. We originally wanted people to gather in front of KLCC at the last minute but the crowd was too large so we could not really coordinate properly.

Do you think the poor coordination led to the violence and people getting injured?

No, I think the police attack on innocent peaceful assemblers was what caused the violence.

But that was to be anticipated wasn’t it?

No, to me we have warned the police that we are assembling peacefully, our big banner said kami aman, polis jangan ganas (we’re peaceful, police don’t be violent’). We were exercising our right pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (right to freedom of assembly). Who are the police to tell us not to gather? Who is the government to tell us not to gather?

So are you saying you’re placing constitutional superiority over people’s safety?

No, the people came against all odds. The prime minister (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi), the deputy PM (Najib Abdul Razak) , the Inspector-General of Police (Musa Hassan) had warned them not to come every day for the past week with the media going full blast with their headline news on the radio, TV, the press in particular the Tamil press (all saying) ‘Don’t go’ but yet 100,000 [sic] people defied the PM, the DPM, the IGP.

Normally the media propaganda works but this time it did not work. The floodgates were opened. People came out in large numbers because they have been suppressed, oppressed, marginalised for 50 years. We are against the practice of racism by Umno […] on the Indians They have already been pushed to the wall and they come out in large numbers to peacefully register their protest against the Umno-led Barisan Nasional.

On the issue of racism, people allege that Hindraf is racist in nature. Why do you take such a communal approach when poverty affects Chinese, Malays and other minorities as well? 

Umno’s racial mindset has in fact spilled over to the opposition, NGOs and civil society in Malaysia (which have) begun to play to the gallery. They don’t go according to the seriousness of violation of human rights or the issue (but) by what gets them political mileage (because) the Malays and Chinese form 90 percent of the population.

If you take the latest example of the Hindraf peaceful assembly, people were arrested and beaten up and remanded for three days […] and they were charged immediately. None of the other supposedly multiracial opposition parties, NGOs or civil society (groups said anything) – there was pin-drop silence from them because the victims were Indians

If you see the issue of temple demolition – if only Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah (Wan Ismail), Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Nasharudin (Mat Isa) and (Abdul) Hadi Awang condemned the Umno government for demolishing temples […] they put their foot (down) strongly and tell (Abdullah), ‘Look this is wrong How can you go and demolish somebody’s temple’, I am sure the Umno government will back off.

But DAP, PAS and PKR will lose Malays votes so they don’t want to make a stand. If at all, they should be more multiracial. Maybe I shouldn’t use the word ‘racist’ against them, they should be multiracial. (When) the temple in Padang Jawa was demolished Kulasegaran moved an emergency motion (in Parliament but) why couldn’t it be Lim Kit Siang (as the parliamentary opposition leader)? […] it is a national issue, it is not n Indian issue.

[…] So if the opposition party, NGOs and civil society doesn’t want to do (Indian issues) […] if we don’t do, nobody would do it. So we are left with no choice but to focus on Indian issues, temple demolitions, Indians schools not being fully aided […] many schools look like a cow shed. I have not seen one Chinese or Malay school which looks like a cow shed.

The press don’t highlight the issue according to the gravity or the seriousness of it. So here we are we are saying it’s a serious problem, please pay attention to it but it is unfortunate that we are Indians and we champion Indian issues because the other communities are not interested so we are left with no choice but to do it ourselves. So who is racist-lah?

I was brought up in Kelantan where 99 percent (of people) are Malays, 0.9 percent Chinese and 0.1 percent Indian. Until today I speak fluent Kelantan Malay; not many people know that and I don’t look like someone who can speak Kelantan Malay, I was brought up with the Malays. I’ve got nothing against the Malays.

You want to know a little secret? I once went out with a Malay girl for five years. I have got people who say I’m a racist, I’m anti-Malay, but no I’m not. But because of religious considerations I could not convert to (Islam). She is a wonderful lady […] converting was something I could not accept. I told her from the beginning and we went our separate ways. It was sad, very sad but it had to happen. But I am no racist. Hindraf is no racist.

Do you think you could broaden your struggle, fight for rights of all poor people and not polarise races?

You see when it comes to the poor, the Chinese poor they have their guilds, associations and they are taken care of. The Malay poor is taken care of by the government. Chinese control 50 percent of the business in this country, they own a certain amount of political clout, they own about 30 percent of the votes. The Umno-led government takes the Chinese seriously. The orang asli they have an (Orang Asli Affairs Department), international bodies and NGOs which take care of aborigines. There are groups that take care of the foreigners.

But if a local Indian suffers some form of violation, these people will not speak up. I think that is not right. I think the onus is on the multiracial community to address the most serious violations of human rights. So if the Malay and Chinese communities do not want to support the Indian poor, there’s nothing we can do about it. We can’t help it. It is beyond our power. It is up to them now.

This is criticism in a blog that describes Hindraf as "sheer idiots" for thinking they can change Indian Malaysians by walking […] to the British High Commission on a Sunday. People are saying Indians can be changed by education, eradicating toddy, eradicating gambling and others. What do you think of that?

To me, if the writer has a better solution he should have put it in his comments. Anybody and everybody can criticise. They should have come up with constructive criticism saying ‘don’t walk on a Sunday, this is what you should do’. To me we’ve talked about it, we are on the ground, we’ve been doing work for the last 10 years we do not have any other choice but to stage a peaceful assembly. I wish the writers and other commentators have better solutions for us, we would follow that, we would listen to them.

What do you expect out of the lawsuit against the British government?

The British are not like Malaysian. They do not have the Malaysian mindset. We have confidence in the British courts. We cannot say the same about Malaysian courts. […] So these people who have doubts about our suit, they are basing it on a Malaysian mindset. If at all we lose the suit, so what? So be it. We have got the best chance at justice.

What has happened to the 10-member delegation to deliver the petition to the Queen?

On Nov 27, the PM threatened us with the Internal Security Act and there was a real danger of Hindraf leaders being arrested. We had to devise a new strategy (for) one person to leave the country to carry the torch on the assumption that the others will be detained under ISA. So now (Hindraf chairperson) P Waythamoorthy (photo) is on an international lobby to India [..] he will then proceed to London, Geneva, Brussels, Washington DC, New York, Atlanta.

For the sake of transparency, how much does Hundraf get through donations? How much is being spent on Waythamoorthy’s lobby?

We will take it as it comes. We have never done this before. Maybe about RM50,000? Since it’s public funds, I think until yesterday we have collected about RM150,000 already. We were surprised. We wanted to take stock of the exact amount before we make the announcement because we are accountable to the public. We have got almost zero foreign funding. This is also good because we maintain our independence.

Are you going to meet with the PM?

If he gives us an appointment, we will meet him.

What is this vendetta against Umno about?

You see Umno has been very successful, (it) has been trained by the British who are very good and astute politicians. They conquered three-quarters of the world, they trained the Umno leaders […] to be very good politicians; they divide and rule.

They way they rule the Indians is that they create a system with MIC (and) leave the two million Indians’ problems to Samy Vellu (photo), the MIC, Hindu Sanggam. They’ve got a structure […] so any problems regarding the Indians, Umno will say ‘ go see your MIC leader’. The MIC leaders are powerless. Samy Vellu is the most senior cabinet member; he qualifies to be the PM but he is not because of his ethnicity. He cannot be PM.

During the Padang Jawa temple issue Samy went to the ground (and told) the enforcement chief, ‘please don’t break the temple’ and the enforcement chief told him pergi dah (go away). I’m breaking the temple’. What powers does Samy Vellu have (if) even the enforcement chief of the Shah Alam City Council doesn’t want to listen to him? To me that enforcement officer is more powerful than the most senior minister in the cabinet. That’s the reality because (the officer) is a Malay and Samy Vellu is an Indian. That’s a fact.

You can say I’m a racist but you see in Malaysia, people avoid talking about the realities about race. So Samy Vellu is a proxy of the Umno government. He is suppose to cheat and mislead the community. Samy Vellu has no power, he’ll only tell you three things: ‘I will bring this up with the cabinet’, ‘I will bring this up with the PM’ or ‘I will bring this up in Parliament’ because beyond this he cannot say anything.

To me even if you remove Samy Vellu and place me in his position, I will not be able to do anything. I’m powerless. Only PM and Umno have the power. Umno rules this country not Barisan Nasional. It’s a game Umno has played for 50 years so the Indians will end up fighting among themselves, it’s exactly what Umno wants.

Have you tried engaging Umno?

Of course. We have written over 1,000 letters over the past 10 years to the PM, chief ministers, mayors, Attorney-General, IGP (about) all the atrocities (done) to Indians (but) they just don’t (give) a damn. They don’t even bother replying save for a few letters acknowledging they have received our letters, thank you very much, full stop. That’s the first and last we hear from them.

The PAS-led government in Kelantan has not broken a single Hindu or Buddhist temple. In fact the largest sleeping Buddha in Southeast Asia is not in Thailand but in Kelantan in Kampung Neting, Tumpat, where I grew up. The PAS-led government does not break temples, only the Umno-lead government breaks temples.

Why didn’t Hindraf raise the issue of that surau the was also demolished and show you are not racist?

Because the surau was already replaced with a bigger surau, fully funded by the government. It is a non-issue. […] Until today, none of these groups – political parties, NGOs or even Umno – have said anything (about the fact).that no Hindu temple has been given government land or is fully funded by the government. There is zero. Nobody talks about it.

But there are also claims that there are many temples built illegally.

Most of these temples were built before Independence. Similarly mosque and suraus were built before Independence […] but they have all be legalised. So they become legal. Now these Hindu temples you do not legalise it and then you say they are illegal. Where is the justice? Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states there is equality before the law. Why one rule for the surau and one rule for the temples?

There is a Tamil proverbs saying that ‘you should never live in a village with no temple’. The Encyclopedia of Britannica define the Tamils as a ‘temple-building race’. It is their culture, it goes to the heart and the core of their culture. So (over) the issue of illegal temples, just make them legal, like how you make mosques and suraus legal, the problem is solved.

In the post-independence temples, the government has not made any allocation of land, so they (Indians) built temples which are (located near their) houses, whatever. But if the government had given them land, as it gave to Muslims, there would be no issue of illegal temples.

Why isn’t Hindraf lobbying to legalise the temples?

That is what we’re doing now. We are asking the government to gazette all Hindu temples. Take stock of all the Hindu temples, give them the land, gazette them as Hindu temple reserve and let’s move on from there. Any new temples, we deal with separately. The power is not with Hindraf, the power is with the government. (The Umno-led government) insults Hindu temples by relocating them next to sewerage ponds. Really demeaning, really insulting. If you don’t call that ethnic cleansing, then what is? They are insulting us saying, ‘that’s where you belong’.

What is Hindraf’s relationship with Parti Reformasi Insan Malaysia (PRIM)?
PRIM’s registration has never been approved. We at all times have been operating under Police Watch. It was only because of the recent Hindu temple demolitions that we started doing work under the Hindraf platform. That’s all.

Past Umno ministers have said we are doing it because of political motivation […] but because of the Umno-led government manoeuvering and gerry-mandering of parliamentary constituencies, there is not a single parliamentary or state constituency with an Indian majority. There is none. We can’t contest anywhere in Malaysia; we will lose because we do 99.99 percent Indian issues. So we can’t win.

As you can see I criticise Umno and I also criticise the opposition, so we are non-partisan. If we fight for Malay issues, it means we are fighting Umno’s racist policies. We are fighting against Umno’s Malay supremacy thinking. Of course PAS and PKR will not support us because they will lose Malay votes but that is not our concern. We are fighting for justice, equality, fairness for all communities.

As we see it now, politics is not important to us. The issues are more important. And I think we will lose credibility if we join a political party. We will support candidates who are sympathetic to the Hindraf cause and we will work behind them.

Maybe you can win if you become a political party by taking a less communal stand…

Maybe we will take a less communal stance and focus less on Indian issues when the Malays and Chinese fill in the blanks and take up Indian issues on a serious and equitable basis. If they had done it before, we would not be focusing on Indian issues […] we would (strike) a natural balance. People do not know about the non-Indian work we do. Even my lawyers friends have told me, ‘eh this is a Chinese case, a Chinese victim of police brutality, eh, you get Chinese papers coverage you know, you must do’. I don’t go by that. I don’t go by the mileage we get. I go by the seriousness of the issue.

How do you feel about the PM’s statement that Hindraf is spreading lies and causing hatred? He wants proof that genocide and ethnic cleansing have taken place in Malaysia.

I started off my letter (to British PM Gordon Brown) with (a reference to) Kampung Medan. Six people were killed, (more than a) hundred (were) injured (in May 2001).

But your letter states ‘100 over Indians were slashed and killed’ but you just said only six were killed …

No, the 100 over includes the six. Six were killed but 100 were slashed and (sustained) grievous bodily injury.

Aren’t you worried that this statement ‘100 over Indians were slashed and killed’ is misleading people to think hundreds were actually killed?

I’ve made this allegation about genocide and ethnic cleansing seven years ago and I have repeated it many times but it (only) caught fire at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kampala, Uganda (last month). It caught the attention of the British PM and the press in Kampala, the (Malaysian) government is upset. But to me Hindu temples being relocated next to sewerage tanks – that is ethnic cleansing a la Malaysia. Every three weeks, a temple is demolished. If you don’t call it ethnic cleansing, what is it then? In Bosnia, you kill people. (But ethnic cleansing) a la Malaysia is worse because you are living and suffering on a day to day basis.

Don’t you think your choice of words is what’s getting you in trouble?

No, if they want to charge me for sedition, then so be it, but the court must give me a chance. I would like to produce hundreds of documents and media reports to justify that it is ethnic cleansing. Let the court decide whether it is ethnic cleansing or whether it is sedition but the court must hear me out. I have the evidence, I have the proof.

Is it true you got your law degree in United Kingdom through MIC-owned Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) loan?

Certainly not. My mother sold a house in Brown Garden in Penang for RM91,5000. MIED gave me a subsidy of 10 percent which is about RM12,000 – it was given to me by MIC (for) which I was thankful. But upon completion of my studies, I paid it back in full.

Why did you say Umno leadership was behind your car tyres being slashed recently?

Because they are now attacking me. Currently, who is attacking me? I have no enemies except Umno and the police. So it’s either one of them. I have no other enemies. Who else would do it?

But you don’t have evidence. It is because of such statements that people attack you and calling you an extremist.

Then you tell me who else? No. I don’t have any enemies. At all. I have zero enemies. I maintain a very low profile because of my work – I go home, I have no social life. I don’t go to pubs, I don’t go to disco, I don’t go for birthday parties. I don’t interact much with society, I’m a homely person.

Tell us more about the political asylum you tried to seek in UK in 2004?

It was at the height of the Francis Udayappan (missing police detainee) case. There was an attack on me, done with razor-sharp precision. That kind of thinking can only come from the police. […] They smashed my car windscreen and I hit a lamp post and somebody pulled out a gun and pointed it at me. I had all the evidence.

I would have easily qualified for asylum but in the meantime the (de facto) law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz told me to come back, ‘Malaysia is your country please come back’ and he assured me my safety. I came back to Malaysia […] and the asylum application was withdrawn.

But with the current (situation) my life is back in danger again. But if you ask me whether I will seek asylum again, the answer is ‘No’. I will stay back and fight this time.

convert cant renounce yet

December 3rd, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Convert will have to wait for decision
source

Opalyn Mok
PENANG (Dec 3, 2007): A Chinese convert seeking to renounce Islam will have to wait longer before the Penang syariah court can deliver a decision on her application as another mention date was fixed for the case.

The last time the case came up in court in August, it was supposed to deliver a decision on Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah's application but the decision was postponed after she was ordered to attend counselling sessions first.However,when the report of her counselling sessions was submitted to the court today, Siti Fatimah and her lawyer were not present.Syariah court judge Mohd Zawawi Nor fixed Dec 31 for mention to enable the court to study the report. Ahmad Munawir Abdul Aziz, representing the Penang Islamic Religious Council, had submitted the report to the court this morning.

Siti Fatimah, previously known as Tan Ean Huang, 38, from Nibong Tebal, filed her application to renounce Islam on July 10 last year. In August, she was ordered by the court to attend counselling sessions and a report was to be submitted to the court for a decision on her application.In her affidavit, Siti Fatimah claimed she converted to the religion on July 25, 1998, in order to marry an Iranian man, who later left her.She stated that she had never practised the faith since embracing the religion and had continued to eat pork and practised the Buddhist faith. She filed the application to renounce Islam after her husband left her.

IGP says organisers given choices

November 30th, 2007
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


IGP: We gave them choices

source

BY JANE RITIKOS

PETALING JAYA: Organisers of the recent illegal gatherings were offered stadiums and other alternative venues to hold peaceful demonstrations but they rejected them. 

“The organisers were adamant to hold them in the city streets,” said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan who revealed why the police rejected permit applications by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) for their gathering last Sunday and the Bersih coalition (on Nov 10). 

He said police investigations into the groups’ activities found that public security and peace could be threatened. “We cover their meetings and gather information.  “If we find their activities could be critical to public order we won’t approve them,” he said during question time at his talk on Democracy, Law Enforcement and Security: Perspective from the Royal Malaysia Police at the University of Wales Aberystwyth Alumni Club of Malaysia dinner here on Wednesday. 

Musa said the demonstrators wanted to be in the streets because “they want onlookers to join them”. “But not everyone likes demonstrations. When they gather in large numbers, they scare people and shops will close.  “They shout slogans that make people angry. They call the police ‘dogs’ but we keep a deaf ear.”  

Musa said the police had no problems allowing peaceful gatherings. “For example, we allow unions gathering to protest about their salaries.” 

The Hindraf gathering was to submit a memorandum to the British High Commission in relation to a class-action suit they had filed against the British Government for bringing in Indians to pre-independence Malaya as indentured labourers. 

The Bersih gathering called for clean elections and submitted a memorandum to the Yang di Pertuan Agong. 

Musa said prior to the Hindraf gathering, the organisers had gone to Penang and other parts of the country where they made fiery speeches. “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. 

“When the police wanted to speak to the leaders of the Sunday gathering, they were no where to be found. They only came at 1.30pm.  “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,” he said. 

On Bersih, Musa said: “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. We said they need not gather 20,000 or 40,000 people to submit a memorandum to the King and offered to escort them,” he said. Musa added that the police were still waiting for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide whether those arrested in the Bersih-organised gathering would be charged in court.