Posts Tagged ‘Politicians’

Sothinathan interview on MIC elections

September 7th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


In an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, deputy presidential hopeful S Sothinathan defends himself against accusations of caste and money politics.

What happened between you and MIC president S Samy Vellu?

Actually there is no friction between us. What happened is that I understand the present change in the political scenario in the country after the March 8 elections. I think there is a need for a young and vibrant leadership in MIC. I think we need to embrace this change if we want to remain relevant to the community. On that basis, I told him (Samy Vellu) that I wanted to go for deputy presidency… and there was total agreement all this while. But in May, I didn’t know there was a change in (his) mind… they wanted to remain neutral and remain as what they were (maintain status quo for deputy presidency)… which I feel would not help us anymore.

So I stood firm in my decision to go for number two… because a much more dynamic leadership has to be established for MIC to remain relevant. On that basis, I stood by what I felt was right. I think that is the correct thing to do at this moment. Because of that, they might not be very happy with my decision. But I am not really interested in that. Because I am more interested in staying relevant to the community, the party must be relevant, the leadership must be relevant. If that change cannot be brought about, I don’t know where we are heading towards.

For a long time, it was said that you would be the appointed successor and the president was giving the same impression. Now that the situation has changed, do you feel betrayed?

I don’t feel betrayed because in politics you must be brave enough to face anything. In politics, if you are fearful or very dependent on something, you will never succeed and you can never lead a community. We are talking about leading a community. When you are leading a community, when something unfavourable comes, you must accept it. It does not mean you must be dejected, you must move ahead with bravery and determination. In my case, I am not dejected because I take this as a greater challenge, and if I make it in this challenge, this is what is going to give me the real strength in politics.

You have always been seen as Samy Vellu’s man. Do you believe you can stand on your own feet?

I am very determined and I feel very strongly about it. As I told you earlier, this is what is going to decide the future. If I can get the mandate, this is what will give me the real strength to lead the community and the party in future.

On the president’s recent attack against you, that you are nothing without him, and that you speak with a forked tongue.

I don’t practice this kind of politics. It has never been my style of leadership at all. Because I just speak what I feel is right. I don’t speak one thing here and another thing there. That is not my way of campaigning. All the delegates (that) I have met will vouch for this. I have been very open to say what is my reason (for contesting)… it is purely to say what I can do for the party if they elect me. I don’t smear anybody’s campaign.

Why is he doing this then? His attacks have always been towards S Subramaniam, now suddenly he is focusing on you.

Only he will know why he is doing that. I remain focused on what I am doing because I am not going to be disturbed or distracted by what others are doing.

Do you feel hurt by his attacks?

In politics, you got to face all these things. You can’t be too sentimental about it. You have got to be practical about things.

How are your proposed reforms different from that of your rivals? Even Samy Vellu is talking about change.

My question is very simple. They have all been there in this position. What change have they brought? I am asking them (the delegates) to give me a chance (to change things). When you talk about change, for 25 years they have been there as deputies, they couldn’t bring this change. Give me the opportunity to bring about the change. When someone who has been there for such a long time, I mean at this particular stage in life, to talk about change, I really don’t understand what (that) change is all about.

Change means, change for the better. If there is a transition, if someone comes to take up the leadership, they should have the age with them. Not someone who is about to retire, comes into politics, and says ‘I want to lead this community’. A man’s most productive period is in the range of 45 to 60… and that is what I say, let us believe in that. Let us believe in a man’s productive period… and not those who have gone past those times, and come back to say ‘I want to bring about change’. You must have the physical strength and mental strength to lead a community, not just the wish to do it, but also the stamina.

So you are saying that your rivals have ‘missed the boat’ to bring about change

See… Samy Vellu became president of MIC at the age of 44. You can see the kind of changes that he brought into the party. The kind of enthusiasm…it was really great. Look at (Barack) Obama at the age of 47. I mean for being a black, everyone thought he would not do well but he is doing a fantastic job. Because they have the courage and determination and also the physical and mental strength to carry out what they feel, to carry out their vision. This is what is necessary.

How do you rate your chances, going against two heavyweights?

We are talking about a new leadership. To remain relevant, the society looks for young leadership. Given my advantage in those areas and given my experience, I am sure these will be advantageous for me. They (his rivals) have been in that position (deputy president) and people can see what they have done, and at the same time, I have been in the low position (vice-president), people can see what I have done. And they know my style of leadership, and the leaders on the ground can access what will be good for the party and community.

So you are saying that the delegates are matured enough to vote for change?

There are many things going on. There is a lot of intimidation, there are a lot of money politics, which I hear. Although I don’t practice that, I do hear (about it). I am talking about change. I don’t want to subscribe to all these. When I talk about change, I am talking about some new ways… people must genuinely support, then only we can lead this community. If there is no genuine support, then I think we are wasting our time.

Can you elaborate on the intimidation of delegates?

Sometimes when you go and see the delegates, they are threatened not to see us. A lot of things… when they express support, they come under intense pressure. All this is not good for the present generation, it will not look good in the eyes of the community.

On the issue of caste politics, you have been accused of campaigning along those lines?

Throughout the 49 years of my life, I have never been brought up in that manner. My family has never taught me all those things. I myself am not sure who belongs to which caste. I have never practiced caste politics in my life. I do not know who belongs to which caste, unless they explain to me. I have never done that. Although many people who claim that (accuse him), are the ones who practice it, but they put the blame on others who are innocent. The public is the best to decide, the public knows who preaches caste and who preaches money politics.
I mean, one can go and say ‘I don’t do this, somebody else does this’ but at the end of the day, each and every single individual in MIC and also the public knows as a matter of fact who preaches all these things.

Are you saying the president also does this?

Let the people decide, they are all informed about what is happening. I am not pointing at any individual.

Do you agree that the practice of caste politics is rampant in the party?

It rises during elections. This is not good for the party. When we talk about the Malaysian Indian Congress, I think we should represent all Indians irrespective of caste. I think our greatest challenge is that we don’t work along caste lines. We should try to integrate and unite the Indians. If we talk about caste, we are not going to unite the Indian community forever.

It is said that caste politics is one of the factors that turn away the younger generation from MIC…

I would not say it is rampant. It surfaces during elections, you can see that it is rampant (only) during elections, and then it disappears but rises again during elections, people tend to go along those lines. It is not a healthy trend for us.

How do you eliminate caste politics?

I think it all comes back to the leaders. We should always avoid ourselves from this kind of political campaigns. We should just go on our own merits, ‘What I can do’, ‘What kind of changes can I bring for the community’ and ‘How can I improve the lot of the community?’. If we go along those lines, we can revamp.

There is also the perception that you are ‘tainted’ with regards to the Telekom shares issue scandal. How do you think this negative perception will affect your chances?

This is an issue which arose in 1991/92. It is now almost 18 years. After nine years (following the issue), I came into politics, I was the political secretary (to Samy Vellu), I became a member of parliament, where I won (the Teluk Kemang parliamentary seat) by a majority of over 5,000 votes in the by-election, I became the secretary-general of the party, thereafter in the 2004 general election, I won with an 18,000 vote majority, I was promoted to a deputy minister, I also won the (MIC) elections as vice-president. And when election comes, there are no other issues, and they try to plant things and create issues out of nowhere and try to taint somebody’s image. This is very unbecoming of present politics.

I think one must go on one’s own merits. I have a first class honours degree in business administration from University Malaya, I don’t think any other Indian has achieved that yet. I also have a second (class) upper degree from University of London in law. Colleagues of mine have done well in their lives, I have sacrificed my whole life for the public, and today when I see these kind of things, I am sure many other youngsters or professionals will never want to engage in public life (by entering politics). But still I take it as a challenge.

Let people say what they want, the public knows what is right and what is wrong. They know about my integrity, I will go on that. I will go on public perception, not on individuals’ lies which is being spread around. When you don’t agree, they come and taint you and you are a useless man, when you agree, you are a great man.

It is wrong to say that it is an individual perception, to a certain degree, it is the public’s perception because of your association with the matter.

Those things have been answered and cleared. People are now trying to bring back the same issue, just to tarnish one’s image. This is a smear campaign that is going on. I have gone so far in politics, today you can see how organised my campaign is, so the only way (for his detractors) is to smear one’s name. I am not going to smear anybody’s name. I am going to go on a very clean campaign and go on merits.

If people believe in me, believe in the change, if they support me, I will do what is necessary for the community. If they are going to believe in this smear campaign, there is nothing much I can do for them.

Critics are saying that it is not the second tier, but change is only possible if the president steps down.

He has indicated that after these elections, he will give way to whoever is elected. This is known to everybody.

But now he is saying that he might stay on…

That has to be decided by the MIC members. If we don’t embrace change, we have to face the consequence of it. I firmly believe in that. You can deny, but you cannot run away from that fact.

Do you perceive him as a stumbling block?

It all depends at the end of the day. The decision has to come from the members or the delegates. They have to make the bold decision. If they want to remain relevant, they have to be brave enough to make the decision. If they don’t want to, I think nobody can change our destiny.

Based on the feedback, do you think the delegates are ‘brave’ enough to make the change?

I am very confident about that.

The president has already named his preferred choice. If someone else wins, will it create further divisions like what is happening in MCA?

The problem that we are facing now is the perception of the community. It is not the problem over the choice of one individual. It is the community’s perception that we have pay heed to. If we don’t do that, we have to face the wrath of the community.

You can go down to the community and find out what is their preference, what they expect. Remember, at the end of the day, it is the community that makes the party, it is not the top leaders that make the party. If the community says it wants this and that, and if we don’t pay heed to that, we are gone.

Going back to the earlier question, if you win the deputy presidency, and you have all these ideas for change but a president who disapproves of your presence there. Would this not be a stumbling block?

The president cannot disapprove when the choice is made by the delegates. It has to be accepted. That is what leadership is all about.

But would he not make it difficult for you…

No, no, no… one man cannot deny the decision of the majority. How can that happen, no way... let it be any of the three (who is elected). It has to be accepted. If you cannot accept it, then you can’t be a leader.

Critics say that MIC’s glory days are over and it cannot regain lost ground. Do you agree with this?

I think we are on the verge of that. That is why I am talking about change. If we are not prepared to embrace change, we must face the serious consequences. The community is expressing a lot of interest in the MIC elections, they are looking forward to how these elections is going to take place, what will happen. This is what is going to give them hope or… these elections are very crucial to MIC.

Some say that this (your decision to contest) was orchestrated…

Let me make this very clear. There is no orchestration. I have made a very clear, a very bold decision, I am going for broke. Either I make it or I forget about it. There are no two ways about it.

If you are defeated, what will be your next plan?

I think the best is, whoever wins, led them lead the party. I am not going to get involved, and be a nagging point.

Will you quit politics?

That, I will decide after Sept 12.

So this is a ‘do or die’ battle?

Yes, for me it is definitely a ‘do or die’ battle. My intentions are very clear, very sincere. I have all my positions in the party, but I have made this bold decision to go for broke simply because I believe change is inevitable. I believe in this change (for MIC) to remain relevant. Only then is there meaning to my existence in MIC. If that doesn’t happen, I don’t think there will be any meaning to my existence in MIC…

Did the president try to talk you out of it?

Nobody tried to talk me out of it. As a matter of fact, they know when I make a decision, I stand firm by my decision.

Was the president surprised by your decision?

No. He knows that I have made a decision. I think he knows very well about the whole situation. I am very surprised by his late decision to put back his choice of candidate.

Was it a wise choice? How do you rate his line up?

I wouldn’t want to do any rating because I only have one vote to cast like any other delegate. Let us look at the wisdom of the delegates.

Critics also say that Barisan Nasional component parties, including MIC, are too subservient to Umno. Do you think this attitude must change?

In politics one has to speak without fear or favour. You must speak your mind. If you feel something is right, you must stand by it… when you feel something is not right, you must be able to speak up. There should not be any fear or favour… because in politics, we are there to determine the future of the community. Every single decision that you make, affects the public. We must speak without fear or favour, and do not look at the feelings of one or two individuals in any particular group. That is the best approach… I do not want to dwell on the past, let me look at the future.

Since the 2008 elections, has the re-branding exercise of MIC brought about any change or has the party remained stagnant?

I think we are going through a very crucial test now. That will be answered by the delegates. Rather than me answering that, I will leave it to the delegates to answer (in the elections). They will be able to give an indication as to whether we paid heed to the calls for changes.

There is also the perception that the rot is far too entrenched from top to bottom in MIC. Will the members be willing to embrace the change or is the party in need of a complete overhaul?

They have to. My personal opinion is that we have to embrace change.

If one day you become the president, how different will the party be?

You will see that for yourself. Believe me.

Some have accused you of money politics?

I don’t have money, I have not been in any employment since the March 8 elections. I have devoted my time to the activities of MIC. Since March 2008, I have been at the MIC headquarters virtually everyday, working for the party… at that moment, all these so-called people were never there. Nobody was there, everyone abandoned MIC. They all believed that was the end of it. But now when elections come, everybody is there. When I was busy campaigning, people say I don’t turn up at MIC. The last three months, I have been busy campaigning but before that, every other day, MIC leaders and the public know that when they come to the MIC headquarters, I am always there to serve them.

This is what people should look at, I never ran away from my responsibilities. Despite having professional qualifications, despite being admitted to the Bar, I can always go back and do something on my own. But I was not interested because I owe an obligation to the community, to the party, where I held various positions. Just because I lost the general election, lost my government post, it means that I can run away, abandon this party and go? I stood firm by the party, through thick and thin I was there to make sure that things go very well and that we can bounce back. You can see whether others did it or not.

It was speculated that you were there every day in lieu of the promise that you would be named by the president as his preferred candidate.

No. It was not a promise. But I felt there was an obligation on me that when the party is going through a crisis, when most of its members of parliament and state assemblymen have lost their positions, you think it is wise for me to abandon the party and look after my own fortunes… I felt there was a serious obligation to work for the party at that difficult time and I did that wholeheartedly. Although I did go through a lot of difficulties in my personal life, I never shirked away from my responsibilities.

On the possibility of joining the opposition if you do not succeed…

I am very confident about winning this elections. I believe that change will take place. Change is the only way forward. It will take place. So let me stay focused on that.

So you will always be true to BN?

Yes.

Take up skills training

September 7th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


refer to www.jobsmalaysia.gov.my for Train and Place scheme, like those involving skils training such as below:

The Government will train more Indian youths in various skills to lift them from poverty and unemployment, said Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam.

He said the ministry, through partnerships with local private colleges, aimed to create a pool of skilled workers to meet the country’s demand and also reduce our dependence on foreign workers.

Dr Subramaniam added that the ministry had allocated more than RM1mil to Tafe College in Seremban to train 150 youths as mechanics and another 25 as installers for NGV systems, under the Train and Place programme.

“The 175 trainees will complete their training in November and will likely be employed in December,” he said yesterday.

Dr Subramaniam also said another 150 Indian students would be trained by the college in aircraft materials and workshop practices.

“During their four-month training, the trainees will be paid a monthly allowance of between RM500 and RM800,” he said, adding that more Indian youths, especially unemployed ones, should take up such training programmes offered by local colleges.

PM advises while toyol…

September 5th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Read this advice from PM Najib:

Muslims were reminded to avoid condemning or insulting other religions and the followers with their actions, but instead follow true Islamic teachings by respecting other religions.

Prime Minister Najib Razak said their offending actions could have detrimental effects as those who felt insulted could respond in a worse manner, hence causing racial disunity.

Quoting verse 108 in the Al-An’am chapter of the Quran, he said Muslims were also forbidden from insulting or desecrating anything that the followers of other religions worshipped so that they would in turn show respect for Islam.

He was speaking after breaking fast and performing Maghrib prayer with about 1,000 residents of Mukim Chenor at the Chenor Jamek Mosque in Maran, Pahang today.

Also present were his wife Rosmah Mansor, Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob and Chenor assemblyman Mohd Aminuddin Ishak.

Return to real religious struggle

Najib said Prophet Muhammad himself, when setting up the first Islamic state in Medina and drawing up the Constitution of Medina, made Islam the thrust of his administration but allowed the practice of other religions.

“This enabled the people of Medina to live in peace. In our country too, we have big minority groups… God willing, we will remain a peaceful country. If there have been no peace, we would not see rapid development in our country today.”

Najib also called on Muslims to return to the real religious struggle by avoiding jealousy, hatred, backbiting, confrontation and incitement, and to address the ills such as poverty.

“We must correct the negative perception of the West about Islam and Islamic countries by practising true Islamic teachings so that we can be good role models to others,” he said.

Read the verse here.

However, there will be devils in disguise (or even out in the open) who aim to create mischief. One such creature is the toyol. Read about it in Wikipedia.

The protestors found themselves another supporter in the form of ex-Selangor MB, Khir Toyo:

As far as Selangor opposition leader Dr Mohd Khir Toyo is concerned, the controversy surrounding the cow-head protest in Shah Alam last week is just a big misunderstanding over a ‘stupid’ animal.

According to the former menteri besar, the protesters had no intentions of belittling the Hindu religion which considers the cow to be sacred.

“The reason (the cow’s head) was brought was to show that the (state government) had acted without thinking as the site (for the Hindu temple) was ready (in Section 18), so why relocate (to Section 23)?

“The state government did not think… the cow’s head was displayed because it is a ‘stupid’ animal, to show that the state government made a ‘stupid’ decision, and disrupted the peace of Section 23 residents. (It has) nothing to do with religious issues,” he stressed.

“I don’t know who brought it (the cow’s head)… but for me, there is no sensitivity (involved) or link to the animal being holy for the Indians (Hindus),” he added.

Khir was speaking to reporters in Shah Alam. Also present were Section 23 residents action committee deputy chair Ismail Saabri and the neighbourhood’s Umno patrons association chairperson Azmir Md Zain.

Azmir is said to be one who brought the severed cow’s head to the protest.

BTW, the ex-MB of Selangor said that the earlier plan was to relocate the temples and gurdwhara into a complex in Section 18. About RM600,000 was spent on infrastructure, but he claimed the temple committees did not move in after that.

“During my administration, the state government had discussed with people from the temple and other houses of worship and we agreed on the site in Section 18. In fact, the state government offered an alternative site in Section 22,” he told reporters at the site in Section 18 here today.

He said the site in Section 18 was already developed with roads and street lights that cost RM600,000, and seven houses of worship could be built on the 0.92ha land.

“Our initial agreement was to wait until the state government built the infrastructure, but when the infrastructure were completed in 2007, as you can see now, they refused to move to Section 18 or alternatively, to Section 22,” he said.

Dr Mohamad Khir said to accuse the former government of not being sensitive to the need for houses of worship for non-Muslims was incorrect and ill-intentioned.

“In fact, the site in Section 18 is suitable for continuous religious activities as it is not too close to residential areas and is linked to several other Sections (15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24 and 25, Shah Alam) and Padang Jawa. And it’s only 3km away from Section 23.”

Asked to comment on why the temple people refused to move to Section 18, he said the Pakatan Rakyat could have promised them the site in Section 23 but it had turned out to be an issue.

“It’s not that we didn’t consider Section 23 for the temple site, but the residents objected as it is too close to a residential area. So, we looked for an alternative site,” he said.

According to Malaysiakini’s report on the same matter:

Former Selangor menteri besar Dr Mohd Khir Toyo today said the previous state government led by BN was resolving the temple relocation issue in Shah Alam contrary to allegations that suggested otherwise.

Khir, who is now state opposition leader, said the previous BN administration had initially allocated land in Section 18 for a non-Muslim place of worship and this was ready in 2007, with fully equipped infrastructure worth RM600,000.

Speaking to reporters at the proposed site in Sungai Renggam, Shah Alam, Khir said the seven-lot site was “suitable and it was never BN’s fault as we allocated a strategic place.”

“I think there is no other state (government) in history willing to provide such infrastructure to build a non-Muslim place of worship,” he added.

However, Khir said the BN government had to subsequently propose another site in Section 22 following the objection from the Hindu community to the site allocated in Section 18.

He added that the Section 22 location was also agreed to by the Malay residents of Section 23. However, the infrastructure was not completed in Section 22 as BN lost the state in the last general election.

The Section 18 site is situated beside a Telekom building and a river to separate it from a mosque and another Hindu temple. The site is currently being used by car enthusiasts for motor sport of ‘drifting’.

The current Pakatan Rakyat state government has proposed that the temple be relocated to Section 23, and this led its Muslim residents to stage a protest last Friday.

However, the protest became controversial when a severed cow’s head was paraded. The animal is considered sacred to Hindus.

Back in 2005, the Hindu community had objected to the Section 18 proposal since there were already three temples in the area and wanted the temple to be constructed in a different section to cater for devotees living there.

However, Mohd Khir said this was not a valid reason as there were many places where temples “stand side by side.”

“Along Jalan Puchong for example, they have temples built side by side because we all know that they have different gods,” he added.

The ex-MB’s statements were rebutted by current state government reps:

In an immediate reaction, Shah Alam PAS MP Khalid Abdul Samad said Khir’s previous proposal would have been more ‘insensitive’ towards Muslims in the long run. [how?]

According to him, Khir (when he was the menteri besar) proposed a ‘temple complex’ where seven temples, six Hindu temples and one Sikh temple, would be located in one place.

Khalid also pointed out that Section 18 was also a Malay-majority area. “And the mosque that is located opposite to the site is even closer compared with the distance in Section 23.”

Commenting on the RM600,000 spent on the infrastructure in Section 18 for a non-Muslim place of worship, Khalid described it as a “waste of money.”

Meanwhile, state exco Dr Xavier Jayakumar also criticised Khir over his remarks, claiming that he had never solved the problem.

“If his proposal was such a great idea, why did the people reject it? If it was approved so long ago, why has the temple not moved yet?” he asked.

So, now each trying to blame the other and show that they were doing something to solve the problem. Anyway, I think I know the spot in Section 18. Its not near housing area, but there’s a mosque nearby.

One a side note, I’m interested to read about the research done by Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim):

An Islamic missionary organization added fuel to the Shah Alam temple row today by concluding that the root cause of the controversy was that there are too many Hindu temples in Malaysia. [can a case study on one location be extrapolated to cover the whole country? Does temple mean shrines as well?]

Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim) president Datuk Mohd. Nakhaie Ahmad said today that Muslims could accept the right of non-Muslims to build their own houses of worship, but the problem was the proliferation of illegal Hindu temples. [Illegal since when is it because the land title changed hands or development takes place in that area? How many temples were surveyed and their age recorded to justify the legality? How easy is it to legalise a temple?]

He also argued that it was the responsibility of non-Muslims to take care of the sensitivities of Muslims. [He must be joking. Is it stated in the Quran or is he preaching some deviant teaching?]

He said that Yadim had come out with a research case study to back the opposition to the construction of the Sri Mahamariamman temple in the Section 23 neighbourhood of Shah Alam, in an apparent justification of last week’s cow-head protests by a group claiming to be residents there. [It would be great if can publish the case study. I just found some extra details on their website.]

Nakhaie told reporters that the case study had been done to examine the sensitivities of Muslims towards the building of temples/ places of worship of non-Muslims.

“The number of mosques compared to Hindu temples are not at all balanced with the ratio of people who live in a particular area. There are approximately 2600 Hindus living in Sentul and there are also 72 temples there,” he said, citing Yadim’s research of a Kuala Lumpur neighbourhood. Muslims make up the majority of residents in Sentul at around 60 per cent of the population, he said, but there were only 13 mosques in the area. [Perhaps need to mention the background of Sentul. What was it 100 years ago? The temples include shrines as well as Gurdhwaras, according to their website. Why not include suraus in the calculation? What about the temple size and their deities? I think need to refer to their full case study.]

According to him, the Muslim level of tolerance in the country was “quite high”. [I agree.]

“Muslims are fine if temples are built but there has to be some limit. They cannot accept it if temples were to be built in Malay-Muslim majority areas. There will be some level of uneasiness if the temple activities disrupt the harmony of Muslims,” proclaimed the Yadim chief. [Majority area, yeah can accept that. But lets look at Shah Alam. Its practically been invaded by one race due to policies of the state. Where’s the non-Muslim area in Shah Alam? Even Sri Muda looks like foreign country. Even Batu Caves has high percentage of Muslims. Can we close down the Batu Caves temple?]

He added that what happened in Section 23 “was expected” because the sensitivities of the Malay-Muslims were not taken into account by the Selangor state government.

He also blamed ‘certain’ parties for politicising the issue, stating that based on statements made by politicians, there was a tendency for the public to blame the residents of Section 23 for being racist. [I think its quite clear people are unhappy with the protestors, not the whole residents]

“Whatever that has happened is simply the reaction of Malays towards the aggressive moves of building an illegal temple in the area.

“They are disappointed with the Selangor state government. The reason this has escalated to such a level is due to the negligence of the state to act swiftly and promptly on the matter,” lamented Nakhaie.

Nakhaie urged local governments to take action on the proliferation of illegal temples, emphasising religion should not be used for political gain by some parties. [Can anyone remember when a new temple was built in Selangor? So far, the government of past and present are focused on relocation and demolishment only]

When asked on what should be done to handle the current crisis in Section 23, he said that tolerance is the answer and that non-Muslims should take care of the sensitivities of Muslims.

“Back in the time of pre-independence, past leaders like Tan Cheng Lock understood their position in this country. Non-Muslims did not arrive on an empty piece of land in Malaysia. Malays and Malay Kings were already here for centuries. [ah..yeah. pre-independence time. Now is 2009.]

“The past leaders understood that in order to be a part of this country, they had to respect the rights and sensitivities of the Malays, and they did just that. Sadly today this agreement is lost,” he said. [from privileges, now becomes rights and sensitivities. When was this inserted in the constitution?]

Nakhaie also lambasted Selangor Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders like Shah Alam MP Datuk Khalid Samad as well as state executive councillor Datuk Rodziah Ismail, calling them hypocrites for wanting legal action to be taken against the protestors.

“These people who wanted the ISA abolished suddenly have no qualms in wanting it to be used against Section 23 residents,” said Nakhaie. [yeah, no need ISA lah. Existing laws are adequate]

Its only in Bolehland we can find people like this 🙂

I found some more details on the research done by YADIM:

“Contohnya terdapat hanya 13 buah masjid dan 62 surau di mukim Sentul di sini, sedangkan terdapat 532 rumah ibadat lain (20 gereja, 72 kuil Hindu/Gurdwara dan 440 tokong Budha).

“Di seluruh Kuala Lumpur pula terdapat 64 buah gereja, 192 buah kuil Hindu, malah bilangan tokong Budha mencecah 819 buah, dan hanya ada 59 masjid dan 218 surau/madrasah “ katanya semasa sidang media Hasil Kajian “Sensitiviti Masyarakat Islam Terhadap Struktur Rumah Ibadah Agama Bukan Islam” di sini hari ini (4 September).

Just curious, did the study include the suraus in offices, shopping complexes, schools, government departments, business centers, hospitals etc., and also provide details about area size/built-up of the places of worship?

Changing tunes on cow head protest

September 4th, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


While yesterday’s reports sounded bewildering, today’s statement by the Home Minister seem to be more befitting:

Those responsible for bringing the head of a cow during the Aug 28 protest at the Selangor state secretariat building should be charged in court, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.

He ordered the police to proceed with further investigation and take stern action against those responsible.

“The police have identified the individuals involved,” he said in a statement Thursday.

… Although the residents were angry with the state government and had no intention of hurting the feeling of any other race, Hishammuddin said such action could not be tolerated.

“The Home Ministry view seriously all issues that could undermine the harmony, unity, national security and stability of this multiracial country,’’ he said.

Not sure why there’s a change of tone. Probably the earlier message was not clear enough or sounded biased.

Worse still, there are contradictions to his earlier statements as well (regarding his claim that there are Hindu residents who are opposing the relocation):

Meanwhile, Section 23 Hindu committee pro-tem president K Rajah has also rejected Hishammuddin’s statement yesterday that some Hindu residents were against the proposed temple plan.

“We have collected over a hundred signatures in a petition to support the temple being relocated here and not one is against the idea,” he said.

He also claimed that neither his committee nor any Indian resident was consulted by the Section 23 action committee led by Mahyuddin.

– From Malaysiakini.

Meanwhile Hindu residents of Section 23 today also denied press reports that they also did not want the temple to be relocated to the area.

K. Raju said one third of all residents in Section 23 were Non-Malays and they have carried out a signature campaign to support the state government’s move to relocate the temple.

He also disputed claims in the press that the cow’s head used during the protest was brought to the scene by outsiders.

“The people who carried the head are Umno members, from Section 23, and they seem to be above the law.”

– From Malaysian Insider

I’m not sure if  the other papers will carry the rebuttal by the Hindu resident (I think K.Raju and K.Rajah are the same person). Let’s see who is telling the truth.

The above article also gave an interesting piece of news (not sure how to verify it):

While the state government is hosting a dialogue session with all residents this Saturday, the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government is also considering holding an event to bring both Muslims and Hindus together to defuse racial tension.

The plan, which entailed roping in the assistance of Hindu Sangam, was proposed to the Cabinet by Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Noh Omar, who is also the Umno state deputy liaison chief.

According to sources, the Cabinet is also considering offering an alternative site to relocate the Hindu temple despite the fact that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the state government.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Noh was forced to defend himself at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. He told the meeting that he did not instigate the Malay-Muslims of Section 23 to protest against the temple relocation.

He is understood to have also told the Cabinet that he would organise a sit-down with Hindus and Muslims in the neighbourhood.

The protestors wanted their voices heard?

September 3rd, 2009
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


We can see it coming now. After a “small” crowd of 50 people did their vile, embarrassing, insulting, and damaging stunt with an animal head in from of state government office, the police and Home Minister have provided some input. While the police said the probe was completed and case files to be submitted to AG office today, there need to be an inquiry on why the incident was allowed to take place in the first place since the police gave rather innovative reasons – situation was not permitting and that a junior officer was in charge. Granted the district police chief was forced to apologise for the inaction, but still need to review to avoid future problems. I mean, people are asking – why is this particular protest handled differently from others? What’s so unique about it? Is it due to the fasting month? Is it due to the participants? Is it due to the large crowd and lack of officers? Wasn’t there a worry of the  later impact of the protest even though the immediate situation on the ground was controlled (protest was allowed for 15 minutes or so).

Did the probe also cover (i)  the statements by the protest leader that his protest was hijacked (what a lousy leader! I won’t want him to represent me after this, if I was a resident in Section 23 – small protest also cannot handle, how to face the state government?), (ii) the source and the owner of the animal head, (iii) identification of the culprits based on the video clip freely available on the Internet?, (v) the hate-inciting and religion-insulting banners/words uttered, and (v) the persons behind the scene who instigated or planned for the s0-called hijack? I hope so because IGP said 60 people were interviewed within 3 days and the persons involved have been identified.

Our esteemed Home Minister have also provided his valuable thoughts after issuing warning action against actions that can be detrimental to national security (I take it as meaning if someone protests against the cow head protestors?):

“We need to look at the angle where a temple is going to be moved there, so we need to go across the political ideology. The relocation could be offensive to anyone.

Hmm…I guess we should only consider that angle. Non-relocation also offensive to “anyone”. So, why no just demolish and pretend nothing happened?  Can ask a certain ex-MB for advice and contacts – he’s experienced in ordering demolition of temple.

Home Minister Hishamuddin also met some of  the residents at Putrajaya. He tried his best to rationalise the action of the protestors, which is kind of unexpected for a person who is supposed to be in charge of internal security. Probably wanted to show a softer approach to this problem. Among the interesting arguments put forth by the minister:

he said the protesters “had no intention at all to bring the cow’s head and invoke racial sentiments or cause tension”.

“They are not going (to be let off) scot-free. But they just feel victimised because they feel there is another valid explanation and had no intention to cause racial (divisions),” he said. [don’t we all feel victimised. So, means can carry some head or another to voice our dissatisfaction? how about wearing certain color shirts? No? Only cow head allowed? Need clarification here.]

… Hishammuddin said he was told that the “residents did not know the organisers and did not know a cow’s head would be brought during the demonstration”. [I thought the organiser also attended this meeting? Or is the organiser an outsider, a non-resident?]

“When we sat and discussed this, they (said they) realised that they were in a situation they could not control.” [sesal dahulu pendapatan, sesal kemudian tak berguna – have heard of this proverb? Doesn’t apply here?]

He further defended the protesters, saying that “they just wanted their voices to be heard”.

“However it was unfortunate that the protest was given negative publicity because it was linked to religious and racial sentiments,” he said. [Err…isn’t that the whole point? So, we must give it positive publicity? If want to voice out also, use the brain a bit la. Very clear even for small kids, that this is not voicing out, but provocation.]

… The minister noted that the residents have since taken “a pro-active” measure by meeting with members of the Hindu Sanggam two days ago, and that both sides will hold another meeting tomorrow.“So if it can be resolved quickly and both sides understand each other, why (should) they be penalised?” said Hishammuddin. [Ahh..so if you do something and later do something else to negate the first action, then it should be alright. I like this word pro-active. Maybe the residents should have approached MHS BEFORE allowing outsider to organise the protest, siap dengan banner pulak! That would be super pro-active. Can win prize for best RA.]

Although the protestors reportedly did not have a permit the minister said “the protest was not big and they (organisers) were very respectful of the Selangor sultan” [Hmm…two criterias outlined for protests in Selangor. Is this written somewhere or just use common sense? ].“They even limited the number of people from the committee to only 10. In fact if they wanted to have a bigger protest they could have, but they were conscious (of the impact).“All they wanted to do was to voice their unhappiness and the unwillingness of the state government to consider their request.” [so, this is the way to voice out. Lesson to be learnt here?]

Hishammuddin said the Selangor government made a poor decision in relocating the temple to a predominantly Malay area.“Even the Hindus are not passionate about the relocation of the temple to the area,” he claimed. [The minister should have elaborated which Hindus are not passionate on the relocation – MHS, Section 19 residents, Section 23 residents, or some MIC people.  There should have been some statistical data, backed by the complete case study and survey forms /AV recordings of the interviews. Then it would carry more weight. And surely, can provide sugggestion for alternative location? Shah Alam has about 30-odd sections only].

Asked why the police had not acted when the cow’s head was brought in, he claimed that action had been taken.“I was monitoring it myself and reporting it to the prime minister,” he said. Commenting on the upcoming dialogue between the Shah Alam Municipal Council and the residents to be held on Saturday, Hishammuddin said this comes “a little too late”.“The residents had met the state representatives before. If they (the representatives had) resolved it then, there wouldn’t need to be a protest (in the first place),” he said. [So, this is not considered pro-active after residents said they are unhappy? The meeting was already being arranged, but the protest still went ahead. Why?]

On a personal note, Hishammuddin felt the protest “in this day and age should be accepted in this world, as the people want their voices to be heard”.“If we don’t give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest. (But) regardless of the action they take, they have to adhere to the laws of the country. So they have to be responsible,” he said. [Motivation talk to protest responsibly.]

Hmm… I wonder if HINDRAF /candle vigil/”wear black” protestors can borrow him to argue their case. The reasons seems applicable to them as well.

The resident association also met with MHS earlier, and will be meeting them again to issue some sort of statement – damage control I guess. For the greater good.

Anyway, I guess we know the outcome. Anyone willing to bet a prosecution to take place?