Taken from Malaysian_Indian@yahoogroups posting
20 yrs a long time shahrir, your vision blurred, don't confuse yourself with old ideologies, no race is supreme under the constitution, malay privilege is no malay rights and this privilege is limited to the hardcore poor and not the rich malays.stop harping ketuanan melayu and concentrate on ministerial job.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2008
Shahrir defends Umno's 'Ketuanan Melayu'
Kong See Hoh, The SunPETALING JAYA (April 29, 2008): Umno Supreme Council member Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad has poured cold water on Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s rally cry of "Ketuanan Rakyat" (people's supremacy), saying "Ketuanan Melayu" (Malay supremacy) cannot be done away with unless the Federal Constitution, which accords the natives their special rights, is amended.Said Shahrir: "In fact, it depends on how people interpret it (Ketuanan Melayu). To me, Ketuanan Melayu is linked to the survival of the sultanate system. To abolish "Ketuanan Melayu" means to change the constitution to do away with the sultanate system in favour of the presidential system."Shahrir, who was appointed Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister recently after an absence of 20 years from the cabinet, told Sin Chew Daily this when asked to comment on PKR president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail's remark that if her party comes to power at the federal level, party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will champion "Ketuanan Rakyat" and not "Ketuanan Melayu".Shahrir said he is not of the view that the sultanate system can be maintained as part of the "Hak Istimewa Melayu" (Malay special rights) (if Ketuanan Melayu) is replaced with Ketuanan Rakyat.He said Ketuanan Melayu determines the present facets of the country and keeping the sultanate system is part of Ketuanan Melayu as prescribed under Article 153 of the constitution.Shahrir said only by reforming the present government system, to one of presidential system, can Ketuanan Rakyat be practiced. Otherwise Ketuanan Melayu is not to be denied.Ketuanan Melayu cannot be denied, because the constitution has institutionalised a system of Constitutional Monarchy for Malaysia. If the Ketuanan Rakyat as espoused by PKR is implemented, where will the sultans be?" he asked.He felt that Ketuanan Rakyat that is being bandied about by PKR is just a political catchphrase.He said Ketuanan Melayu is something that exists under the constitution. What Umno is doing – in shouting for Ketuanan Melayu – is just defending the concept of Malay special rights as enshrined in the constitution.He said although the sultans do not have executive power, they still have power (over their territories) as indicated by the flexing of power by state rulers in the selection of mentris besar in some states recently."This shows that sultans have their power and role under the system of constitutional monarchy, otherwise why should Pakatan Rakyat (PR) compromise (on the selection of mentris besar?"If Pakatan is championing Ketuanan Rakyat, it would not have compromised, " he said.Meanwhile, Wan Azizah begged to differ, saying the so-called "Ketuanan Melayu" is a phrase coined by Umno, and has nothing to do with the special rights the constitution accords the Malays in language, religion and land matters.She said Ketuanan Melayu is just a concept and when Pakatan Rakyat proposed to replace it with Ketuanan Rakyat, the coalition did not intend to abolish the system of constitutional monarchy – in other words, there is no change to the position of the Malay rulers.Speaking to Sin Chew, the parliamentary opposition leader said: "We did not ask that Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the special position of the Malays, be abolished."When we talk about Ketuanan Rakyat, apart from the special rights enjoyed by the Malays, we want all the people to enjoy equal rights."We reject Ketuanan Melayu because PR wants to be a government which looks after all the people, and not for a particular race to reign supreme."Wan Azizah stressed that as a Malay and a Muslim, it would be wrong under Islam for her to ignore non-Muslims who need help.She said she believed Shahrir said what he said to defend Umno.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
No quick end in sight for ISA-Syed Hamid
No quick end in sight for ISA, PPPA
http://malaysiakini .com/news/ 82149
Apr 30, 08 12:58pm
Newly-appointed Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar quashed any hopes of a quick end to restrictive media laws when he told RTM1's 'Bersemuka Bersama Media' programme that the Printing Presses and Publications Act was still valid.
The former foreign minister also extinguished any hopes for quick changes to the Internal Security Act, arguing that "the preventive law was more effective in pre-empting unrest in the country than normal measures".
During the hour-long programme, which was broadcasted live last night, Syed Hamid said that in a multi-racial and multi-religious country, such laws were necessary to ensure peace and harmony.
"We are not against people's freedoms but at the same time, we need the ISA to stop people who incite others before any damage is done," he said.
"Freedom is not just about rights but also about responsibilities too. And as the government, we've to ensure there is balance in the two matters.
"During Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration, a lot of leeway is given to people, be it media, rallies or public forums, but many still perceive that it is not enough."
Room for improvement
While he admitted there was still room to improve the system, the minister stressed that the ISA is still necessary to ensure that peace and harmony remains in the country.
Asked why ISA detainees were not brought to court, Syed Hamid said this was done to protect the government's intelligence gathering units and secrets.
It was also pointed out to the minister that some detainees have be held for as long as six years without trial.
"Besides protecting certain information the government has acquired, the objective of ISA is to re-habilitate people and not treat them as criminals. Once they are no longer deemed dangerous, we release them.
"And because this is not under the Penal Code, they go back to society without any criminal records," Syed Hamid explained.
Asked if the re-emergence of such laws in United Kingdom and the United States after the Sept 11 attacks has encouraged the government to keep the ISA, Syed Hamid answered, "There will be a time for that (to dismantle the ISA) but not now".
He also dismissed suggestions that the government uses the ISA as a tool to clamp down on its political rivals as "nonsensical" .
"If you look at the recent elections, there was a lot of freedom given everywhere. Furthermore, the ministry does not issue instructions for the use of ISA, it is the police who do that," said Syed Hamid.
Sufficient freedom
On media freedom, he said that there was sufficient freedom in the country with some 31 newspaper licences issued.
"Furthermore, if you look at the recent elections, dissemination of news is no longer restricted to traditional avenues like newspapers and television. Information sharing is now very rampant on blogs and alternative news websites such as Malaysiakini.
"As such, we don't see any restrictions placed on the media in Malaysia," said Syed Hamid.
Asked whether the government has from time to time instructed mainstream news editors to not publish certain news, he told the panelists to look to the future and not the past.
"While, yes, the government has sometimes told the mainstream media not to highlight crimes or even the haze issues, but this is something of the past.
"And when we did that, it was done with the intention of not frightening tourists," he added.
The weekly programme is hosted by RTM with panelists from other media organisations.
Besides its host Sabarudin Ahmad Sabri, yesterday's interview saw the participation of The Sun's political editor Zainon Ahmad and Malaysiakini editor K Kabilan.
http://malaysiakini .com/news/ 82149
Apr 30, 08 12:58pm
Newly-appointed Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar quashed any hopes of a quick end to restrictive media laws when he told RTM1's 'Bersemuka Bersama Media' programme that the Printing Presses and Publications Act was still valid.
The former foreign minister also extinguished any hopes for quick changes to the Internal Security Act, arguing that "the preventive law was more effective in pre-empting unrest in the country than normal measures".
During the hour-long programme, which was broadcasted live last night, Syed Hamid said that in a multi-racial and multi-religious country, such laws were necessary to ensure peace and harmony.
"We are not against people's freedoms but at the same time, we need the ISA to stop people who incite others before any damage is done," he said.
"Freedom is not just about rights but also about responsibilities too. And as the government, we've to ensure there is balance in the two matters.
"During Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration, a lot of leeway is given to people, be it media, rallies or public forums, but many still perceive that it is not enough."
Room for improvement
While he admitted there was still room to improve the system, the minister stressed that the ISA is still necessary to ensure that peace and harmony remains in the country.
Asked why ISA detainees were not brought to court, Syed Hamid said this was done to protect the government's intelligence gathering units and secrets.
It was also pointed out to the minister that some detainees have be held for as long as six years without trial.
"Besides protecting certain information the government has acquired, the objective of ISA is to re-habilitate people and not treat them as criminals. Once they are no longer deemed dangerous, we release them.
"And because this is not under the Penal Code, they go back to society without any criminal records," Syed Hamid explained.
Asked if the re-emergence of such laws in United Kingdom and the United States after the Sept 11 attacks has encouraged the government to keep the ISA, Syed Hamid answered, "There will be a time for that (to dismantle the ISA) but not now".
He also dismissed suggestions that the government uses the ISA as a tool to clamp down on its political rivals as "nonsensical" .
"If you look at the recent elections, there was a lot of freedom given everywhere. Furthermore, the ministry does not issue instructions for the use of ISA, it is the police who do that," said Syed Hamid.
Sufficient freedom
On media freedom, he said that there was sufficient freedom in the country with some 31 newspaper licences issued.
"Furthermore, if you look at the recent elections, dissemination of news is no longer restricted to traditional avenues like newspapers and television. Information sharing is now very rampant on blogs and alternative news websites such as Malaysiakini.
"As such, we don't see any restrictions placed on the media in Malaysia," said Syed Hamid.
Asked whether the government has from time to time instructed mainstream news editors to not publish certain news, he told the panelists to look to the future and not the past.
"While, yes, the government has sometimes told the mainstream media not to highlight crimes or even the haze issues, but this is something of the past.
"And when we did that, it was done with the intention of not frightening tourists," he added.
The weekly programme is hosted by RTM with panelists from other media organisations.
Besides its host Sabarudin Ahmad Sabri, yesterday's interview saw the participation of The Sun's political editor Zainon Ahmad and Malaysiakini editor K Kabilan.
Friday, April 25, 2008
MIC Youth: Review Hindraf 5's detention
Mkini - Apr 24, 08 5:49pm
MIC Youth has called on the government to review the Internal Security Act (ISA) detention of the five Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders.
In a statement today, MIC Youth chief SA Vigneswaran said the five should be freed if they are no longer considered a security threat.
'At that material time, the decision (to arrest) was warranted for if every demand is taken to the street then the democratic process will be in jeopardy and this will lead to chaos.
'But now when we go down (to the ground), the true sentiment is that they feel that these people were punished for asking for their rights.
'And because this was reflected in the general election result, they feel that the government is not adhering to their sentiments,' he added.
Vigneswaran said if the five are still considered a threat then it is incumbent on the home minister to be transparent and explain the reasons for their continued detention.
He also suggested that the five could be released with conditions if there is a need for this.
The five leaders were detained on Dec 13, shortly after Hindraf had organised a mammoth rally which drew some 30,000 people to the streets in Kuala Lumpur.
Those detained are P Uthayakumar, V Ganabatirau, R Kenghadharan, M Manoharan and T Vasantha Kumar.
Manoharan had also won the Kota Alam Shah state seat in the March 8 elections which he contested from behind bars under a DAP ticket.
Religious conversion
Meanwhile, MIC Youth also recorded its appreciation to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over his recent decision concerning the issue of religious conversion.
The premier had said that those seeking to convert to Islam must inform their family beforehand.
Apart from this, Vigneswaran appealed to the premier to also enforce a rule for prospective converts to obtain a 'release certificate' from recognised religious bodies such as the Hindu Sangam.
'When a convert chooses to convert out of the religion, the decision should also be left to his right without any restrictions, ' he added.
Vigneswaran’s statement comes following a two-day MIC brainstorming session held in Penang which ended today.
Elaborating on the session, the Youth chief said numerous issues were discussed in depth, including those raised during the recent general election.
In a nutshell, Vigneswaran said the dismal performance of MIC members in the polls is a result of their failure to resolve sensitive issues pertaining to the Indian community.
'The issues involve religious rights, educational issues, government contracts, business opportunities and employment in the civil service,' he added.
He also said the government appeared to be uncommitted in resolving issues affecting the community and this allowed certain groups to take advantage of the situation and influence the community to turn its back on MIC and the BN government.
'It seems that the efforts of the BN for the past 50 years are no longer something to be proud of,' he added.
Silent no more
Vigneswaran said this allowed movements like Hindraf and Makkal Sakthi to flourish and they received support from the opposition which exploited the sentiment for political mileage.
'In view of this, MIC Youth has decided not to keep silent any longer or blindly follow protocol when there is a need to voice out sensitive issues.
'This does not mean that we will ignore or not adhere to the existing directive as a BN component party,' he added.
Among the strategies devised during the session, Vigneswaran said it includes the immediate setting up of a toll-free line for the community, especially the youngsters, to channel their grouses in a more effective manner.
MIC Youth will also form a ‘task force’ to receive complaints directly without delegating it to other quarters.
Another move will be the immediate creation of an electronic media team called ‘E-Team’ to counter the allegations raised by the opposition in cyberspace.
Vigneswaran also said that MIC Youth will look into education issues as well in an aggressive manner.
MIC Youth has called on the government to review the Internal Security Act (ISA) detention of the five Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders.
In a statement today, MIC Youth chief SA Vigneswaran said the five should be freed if they are no longer considered a security threat.
'At that material time, the decision (to arrest) was warranted for if every demand is taken to the street then the democratic process will be in jeopardy and this will lead to chaos.
'But now when we go down (to the ground), the true sentiment is that they feel that these people were punished for asking for their rights.
'And because this was reflected in the general election result, they feel that the government is not adhering to their sentiments,' he added.
Vigneswaran said if the five are still considered a threat then it is incumbent on the home minister to be transparent and explain the reasons for their continued detention.
He also suggested that the five could be released with conditions if there is a need for this.
The five leaders were detained on Dec 13, shortly after Hindraf had organised a mammoth rally which drew some 30,000 people to the streets in Kuala Lumpur.
Those detained are P Uthayakumar, V Ganabatirau, R Kenghadharan, M Manoharan and T Vasantha Kumar.
Manoharan had also won the Kota Alam Shah state seat in the March 8 elections which he contested from behind bars under a DAP ticket.
Religious conversion
Meanwhile, MIC Youth also recorded its appreciation to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over his recent decision concerning the issue of religious conversion.
The premier had said that those seeking to convert to Islam must inform their family beforehand.
Apart from this, Vigneswaran appealed to the premier to also enforce a rule for prospective converts to obtain a 'release certificate' from recognised religious bodies such as the Hindu Sangam.
'When a convert chooses to convert out of the religion, the decision should also be left to his right without any restrictions, ' he added.
Vigneswaran’s statement comes following a two-day MIC brainstorming session held in Penang which ended today.
Elaborating on the session, the Youth chief said numerous issues were discussed in depth, including those raised during the recent general election.
In a nutshell, Vigneswaran said the dismal performance of MIC members in the polls is a result of their failure to resolve sensitive issues pertaining to the Indian community.
'The issues involve religious rights, educational issues, government contracts, business opportunities and employment in the civil service,' he added.
He also said the government appeared to be uncommitted in resolving issues affecting the community and this allowed certain groups to take advantage of the situation and influence the community to turn its back on MIC and the BN government.
'It seems that the efforts of the BN for the past 50 years are no longer something to be proud of,' he added.
Silent no more
Vigneswaran said this allowed movements like Hindraf and Makkal Sakthi to flourish and they received support from the opposition which exploited the sentiment for political mileage.
'In view of this, MIC Youth has decided not to keep silent any longer or blindly follow protocol when there is a need to voice out sensitive issues.
'This does not mean that we will ignore or not adhere to the existing directive as a BN component party,' he added.
Among the strategies devised during the session, Vigneswaran said it includes the immediate setting up of a toll-free line for the community, especially the youngsters, to channel their grouses in a more effective manner.
MIC Youth will also form a ‘task force’ to receive complaints directly without delegating it to other quarters.
Another move will be the immediate creation of an electronic media team called ‘E-Team’ to counter the allegations raised by the opposition in cyberspace.
Vigneswaran also said that MIC Youth will look into education issues as well in an aggressive manner.
Letter from MADPT abt Suhakam report on Uthaya
Charles Hector Apr 25, 08 3:48pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Suhakam: Uthaya wasn't denied treatment.
Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed by the fact that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) made and pronounced conclusions about complaints about detention conditions and health care of an Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee in Kamunting Detention Centre without even meeting with the said P Uthayakumar.
The Malaysian Human Rights Commission should never come to any conclusion or finding without at least meeting and talking to both sides.
In this case, it was reported that the Suhakam team, led by Human Rights Commissioner Siva Subramaniam, had meetings with `…senior officials, the doctor and police personnel at the camp, as well as medical personnel in Taiping hospital'.
It was also reported that `Uthayakumar was neither present during the four-hour probe, nor interviewed by the team'. When Siva Subramaniam was asked why Uthayakumar' s side of the story was not heard it was reported, `He pointed out that media reports were also sufficient to highlight Uthayakumar' s plight'.
The manner in which this `inquiry' was done and the conclusions reached are very wrong, and is a deprivation of Uthayakumar and his family's fundamental right to be heard and participate in any inquiry and/or investigation.
Uthayakumar is already a victim of a draconian law that allows for detention without trial - where there is no right to defend oneself; no right to a fair and open trial and no right to even go for judicial review of the alleged reasons for detaining him.
As such, the manner in which Suhakam conducted themselves in this case makes it even more deplorable and is certainly unacceptable behaviour for a national human rights commission.
Madpet seriously hopes that the making of such speedy `conclusions - in this case by Commissioner Siva Subramanian - was not affected by the fact that his current term expires in July 2008, and a belief that a `pro-government' positioning now may assist chances of a re-appointment for another two-year term.
Human rights commissioners and Suhakam must at all times be independent and be seen to be independent and fearless and should only be driven by human rights and justice considerations. If a human rights commissioner cannot do this by reason of fear or some other reason, then the proper and ethical thing to do is to resign.
Madpet urges Suhakam to immediately retract its conclusions about the complaints by Uthayakumar, his family and/or his friends as reported in the media, and conduct a proper inquiry into these complaints in the proper manner – which would necessarily include that the fundamental rights to be heard and to participate be accorded to the alleged victim and the complainants.
Madpet also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Uthayakumar and all those currently detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and other laws that allow for detention without trial and that all laws that allow for detention without trial be repealed.
The writer represents Madpet.
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Suhakam: Uthaya wasn't denied treatment.
Madpet (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) is disappointed by the fact that the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) made and pronounced conclusions about complaints about detention conditions and health care of an Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee in Kamunting Detention Centre without even meeting with the said P Uthayakumar.
The Malaysian Human Rights Commission should never come to any conclusion or finding without at least meeting and talking to both sides.
In this case, it was reported that the Suhakam team, led by Human Rights Commissioner Siva Subramaniam, had meetings with `…senior officials, the doctor and police personnel at the camp, as well as medical personnel in Taiping hospital'.
It was also reported that `Uthayakumar was neither present during the four-hour probe, nor interviewed by the team'. When Siva Subramaniam was asked why Uthayakumar' s side of the story was not heard it was reported, `He pointed out that media reports were also sufficient to highlight Uthayakumar' s plight'.
The manner in which this `inquiry' was done and the conclusions reached are very wrong, and is a deprivation of Uthayakumar and his family's fundamental right to be heard and participate in any inquiry and/or investigation.
Uthayakumar is already a victim of a draconian law that allows for detention without trial - where there is no right to defend oneself; no right to a fair and open trial and no right to even go for judicial review of the alleged reasons for detaining him.
As such, the manner in which Suhakam conducted themselves in this case makes it even more deplorable and is certainly unacceptable behaviour for a national human rights commission.
Madpet seriously hopes that the making of such speedy `conclusions - in this case by Commissioner Siva Subramanian - was not affected by the fact that his current term expires in July 2008, and a belief that a `pro-government' positioning now may assist chances of a re-appointment for another two-year term.
Human rights commissioners and Suhakam must at all times be independent and be seen to be independent and fearless and should only be driven by human rights and justice considerations. If a human rights commissioner cannot do this by reason of fear or some other reason, then the proper and ethical thing to do is to resign.
Madpet urges Suhakam to immediately retract its conclusions about the complaints by Uthayakumar, his family and/or his friends as reported in the media, and conduct a proper inquiry into these complaints in the proper manner – which would necessarily include that the fundamental rights to be heard and to participate be accorded to the alleged victim and the complainants.
Madpet also calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Uthayakumar and all those currently detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and other laws that allow for detention without trial and that all laws that allow for detention without trial be repealed.
The writer represents Madpet.
Open letter - Suhakam’s probe “UNTRUE”
By. G Kanchana
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) as a supposed independent vanguard of human rights in Malaysia should be the first to come into the defense of victims of abuse, in this case P.Uthayakumar, or at least take the initiative to ensure the truth is unveiled through an appropriate and accurate probe that includes both sides being heard. After all wasn’t Uthayakumar the very person in the centre of the issue? Wasn’t it he who made the complaints?
If a one sided probe is sufficient, than from my very own probe it seems Suhakam deliberately refrained from interviewing Utayakumar. Had they done so, they may well have had to throw accusations at the prison officials and police officers. We know from past history this is something Suhakam abstains from doing. Perhaps that’s why time after time it has earned itself the name of “ toothless tiger ”. If this is the manner in which Suhakam conducted its previous inquiries into other human rights issues than, I fear for the preservation of “truth”.
Suhakam has decided, or perhaps been coached to portrait P.Uthayakumar as a liar. Are they now saying that his sugar level did not rise to three times the normal level and that he had not been admitted to the hospital for this reason, that from the blood test done at the hospital, urea, protein and cholesterol were above the limit and this condition had led to some blurring of his eyesight, that infact there is fear there may be minimal damage to his heart for which he is scheduled to undergo some test’s.
Aren’t these symptoms that a diabetic would suffer if medication was not taken, in this case medication denied? Is Suhakam saying none of the above things took place?
What prove does Suhakam have that he Uthayakumar only received salt and sugar-free food and drinks. Can rice and Malay style foods which are constantly sweet in nature be construed as ‘diabetic diet? Is mere assurance by the party which would otherwise be guilty, sufficient? Uthayakumar has repeatedly conveyed his problems of not obtaining diabetic diet and medication to his family and lawyers. He made similar complaints for his friend Mr. Kengatharan who is a vegetarian. Infact it was claimed by his lawyer, that on a recent visit and upon requesting for hot drinks (with no sugar) for both of them, she had been shocked to find that the drinks came extremely and unnecessarily sweet, that they had to put it away. Uthayakumar has been consistent with his claims. How can Suhakam carelessly or maliciously doubt the victim and not the perpetrator.
As to his medication it is my contention that Suhakam has misled and twisted the issue once again. The statement that Utayakumar had expressed satisfaction with the medication he received (if made at all) would have been while he was admitted at Taiping Hospital and receiving treatment there. Being a well established hospital with dedicated and meticulous doctors they would certainly uphold the need for medical treatment. At all times Uthayakumar was referring to not having been given medication at the Kamunting prison.
Uthayakumar’s contention was that for one month he was not given his diabetic medication by the prison officials and this despite his 6 written requests to see the Director of the prison. The prison authorities can claim or even demonstrate to Suhakam the ample stock of diabetic medication in their possession but that does not mean nor prove that they had given him those medicines.
Medication was brought by his family and lawyers only because he had not received the same from the prison. He was beginning to feel very weak and tired. Despite this he exercised daily in a desperate hope that the sugar level would be lowered. If not for the exercise his sugar level could have been at the most dangerous level. Knowing, that without medication and consumption of non-diabetic meals he was going to be very ill, he requested for medication to be brought by his family. It was not to substantiate the medicine supplied by the prison (as indicated by Suhakam) but rather it was the only medication that he could have had. What was the motive behind refusing Uthayakumar his medication?
Suhakam has further ridiculed itself by claiming medical confidentiality and media reports being sufficient to highlight Uthayakumars plight. Did Suhakam also conduct a similar fact-finding probe on others who claimed medical neglect at Kamunting, namely of a detainee by the name of Sanjay Kumar who apparently made more than 30 request for treatment. He was admitted only after his situation got critical. He is now suspected of being paralysed on one side. Did Suhakam attend to him or his problems ?????
As to the fact that Uthayakumar’s family did not approach Suhakam – can you really blame them? Can you really blame how people feel about Suhakam, a body created by the government for the government. Thus far, apart from preparation of reports and recommendations Suhakam has not played an active role in upholding the rights of the people in this country. Its probe’s and inquiries should not be seen as eyewash for the government.
The very same people came to you as a Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), lodging a complaint about the incident in Batu Caves that took place on the day before the Hindraf rally. Their allegations encompassed alleged use of excessive force by the police to disperse the crowd that had gathered there. A series of photographs were shown on how the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) had fired tear gas and used water cannon against those caught within the temple compound. One photograph depicted several FRU members inside the compound - the site of one of the holiest Hindu shrines in Malaysia.” After that, they just kept on pumping tear gas inside.
Where is Suhakam’s public inquiry or at least a ‘fact-finding’ probe into the Batu Caves issue and of course the November 25th 2007 Hindraf Rally itself. A rally that claimed denial of human rights , discrimination and marginalisation. Shouldn’t Suhakam be seen to be acting without fear or favour?
It was once said by Mr. P Ramakrishnan
“……..that the protection of human rights and the preservation of civil liberties in this country will always require the active participation of conscious citizens.”
Uthayakumar and all those we consider as true and active human right advocates personify this statement.
However as concerns Suhakam, I quote Mr. P.Ramakrishnan again :
“ Accordingly, I had always thought that a fundamental assessment of Suhakam’s role and work must determine whether Suhakam is a creature of the BN government, or an ally of the national movement for justice, whether, in other words, Suhakam sides with those who abuse human rights and violate civil liberties or gives true assistance and solidarity to the victims of the same abuses and violations.
Personally, I wouldn’t blame Mr. P.Uthayakumar if he had refused to see you had he even been invited.
He was merely fighting for his rights under Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution i.e. his right to life which includes right to proper medical attention.
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) as a supposed independent vanguard of human rights in Malaysia should be the first to come into the defense of victims of abuse, in this case P.Uthayakumar, or at least take the initiative to ensure the truth is unveiled through an appropriate and accurate probe that includes both sides being heard. After all wasn’t Uthayakumar the very person in the centre of the issue? Wasn’t it he who made the complaints?
If a one sided probe is sufficient, than from my very own probe it seems Suhakam deliberately refrained from interviewing Utayakumar. Had they done so, they may well have had to throw accusations at the prison officials and police officers. We know from past history this is something Suhakam abstains from doing. Perhaps that’s why time after time it has earned itself the name of “ toothless tiger ”. If this is the manner in which Suhakam conducted its previous inquiries into other human rights issues than, I fear for the preservation of “truth”.
Suhakam has decided, or perhaps been coached to portrait P.Uthayakumar as a liar. Are they now saying that his sugar level did not rise to three times the normal level and that he had not been admitted to the hospital for this reason, that from the blood test done at the hospital, urea, protein and cholesterol were above the limit and this condition had led to some blurring of his eyesight, that infact there is fear there may be minimal damage to his heart for which he is scheduled to undergo some test’s.
Aren’t these symptoms that a diabetic would suffer if medication was not taken, in this case medication denied? Is Suhakam saying none of the above things took place?
What prove does Suhakam have that he Uthayakumar only received salt and sugar-free food and drinks. Can rice and Malay style foods which are constantly sweet in nature be construed as ‘diabetic diet? Is mere assurance by the party which would otherwise be guilty, sufficient? Uthayakumar has repeatedly conveyed his problems of not obtaining diabetic diet and medication to his family and lawyers. He made similar complaints for his friend Mr. Kengatharan who is a vegetarian. Infact it was claimed by his lawyer, that on a recent visit and upon requesting for hot drinks (with no sugar) for both of them, she had been shocked to find that the drinks came extremely and unnecessarily sweet, that they had to put it away. Uthayakumar has been consistent with his claims. How can Suhakam carelessly or maliciously doubt the victim and not the perpetrator.
As to his medication it is my contention that Suhakam has misled and twisted the issue once again. The statement that Utayakumar had expressed satisfaction with the medication he received (if made at all) would have been while he was admitted at Taiping Hospital and receiving treatment there. Being a well established hospital with dedicated and meticulous doctors they would certainly uphold the need for medical treatment. At all times Uthayakumar was referring to not having been given medication at the Kamunting prison.
Uthayakumar’s contention was that for one month he was not given his diabetic medication by the prison officials and this despite his 6 written requests to see the Director of the prison. The prison authorities can claim or even demonstrate to Suhakam the ample stock of diabetic medication in their possession but that does not mean nor prove that they had given him those medicines.
Medication was brought by his family and lawyers only because he had not received the same from the prison. He was beginning to feel very weak and tired. Despite this he exercised daily in a desperate hope that the sugar level would be lowered. If not for the exercise his sugar level could have been at the most dangerous level. Knowing, that without medication and consumption of non-diabetic meals he was going to be very ill, he requested for medication to be brought by his family. It was not to substantiate the medicine supplied by the prison (as indicated by Suhakam) but rather it was the only medication that he could have had. What was the motive behind refusing Uthayakumar his medication?
Suhakam has further ridiculed itself by claiming medical confidentiality and media reports being sufficient to highlight Uthayakumars plight. Did Suhakam also conduct a similar fact-finding probe on others who claimed medical neglect at Kamunting, namely of a detainee by the name of Sanjay Kumar who apparently made more than 30 request for treatment. He was admitted only after his situation got critical. He is now suspected of being paralysed on one side. Did Suhakam attend to him or his problems ?????
As to the fact that Uthayakumar’s family did not approach Suhakam – can you really blame them? Can you really blame how people feel about Suhakam, a body created by the government for the government. Thus far, apart from preparation of reports and recommendations Suhakam has not played an active role in upholding the rights of the people in this country. Its probe’s and inquiries should not be seen as eyewash for the government.
The very same people came to you as a Group of Concerned Citizens (GCC), lodging a complaint about the incident in Batu Caves that took place on the day before the Hindraf rally. Their allegations encompassed alleged use of excessive force by the police to disperse the crowd that had gathered there. A series of photographs were shown on how the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) had fired tear gas and used water cannon against those caught within the temple compound. One photograph depicted several FRU members inside the compound - the site of one of the holiest Hindu shrines in Malaysia.” After that, they just kept on pumping tear gas inside.
Where is Suhakam’s public inquiry or at least a ‘fact-finding’ probe into the Batu Caves issue and of course the November 25th 2007 Hindraf Rally itself. A rally that claimed denial of human rights , discrimination and marginalisation. Shouldn’t Suhakam be seen to be acting without fear or favour?
It was once said by Mr. P Ramakrishnan
“……..that the protection of human rights and the preservation of civil liberties in this country will always require the active participation of conscious citizens.”
Uthayakumar and all those we consider as true and active human right advocates personify this statement.
However as concerns Suhakam, I quote Mr. P.Ramakrishnan again :
“ Accordingly, I had always thought that a fundamental assessment of Suhakam’s role and work must determine whether Suhakam is a creature of the BN government, or an ally of the national movement for justice, whether, in other words, Suhakam sides with those who abuse human rights and violate civil liberties or gives true assistance and solidarity to the victims of the same abuses and violations.
Personally, I wouldn’t blame Mr. P.Uthayakumar if he had refused to see you had he even been invited.
He was merely fighting for his rights under Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution i.e. his right to life which includes right to proper medical attention.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
1st Msian Indian appointed as Speaker in State Assembly
First Malaysian Indian, appointed as a speaker for Perak state assembly. Reliable informer said, Y.B.Sivakumar, Tronoh state asemblyman is the candidate for the state speaker. The history will named him as a first Malaysian Indians who has been appointed as a state speaker. This is a history for Indians and Malaysians. State speaker is a second highest position's after the Menteri Besar. This is a good move from "Pakatan Rakyat" since they promised the new Malaysia for all Malaysian and of course this is bad information for Semi Value's party. They are still begging to Pahang MB to appoint MIC man as an EXCO yet MB are not bothered about the appeal. MIC was so loyal to umno yet umno has never give a due respect to this party. With more appointment' s from Indian community in Pakatan Rakyat's government, I'm dare to say, the chances for MIC to regain the lost ground is getting slimmer.
Valga Makkal Sakthi
source: http://doi-moi. blogspot. com/ [write your comment in blog]
Valga Makkal Sakthi
source: http://doi-moi. blogspot. com/ [write your comment in blog]
Reply to Suhakam's Dato Siva
Hi all,
It is clear evidence tht the government is under pressure to immediatally close the case of illtreatment to Uthaya.
There are many Amnesty, Human Right and even International red Cross have condemn the the ill treatment by the camp warden. They have personally wrote letters to Msian government and cc to Suhakam ( as there is only this body claim representing Human Rights in Msia).
Tht is why the Suhakam step in so fast even there was no official request by HINDRAF neither the family to Suhakam over the condition of Uthaya.
Hindraf have deal with Suhakam many times before and Suhakam repeatly telling that they are working within scope given and they are not activist, they can only advise, they are bound to Parliament and many more of this and that restriction to themselves.
They spent tonnes of money on printing the annual report on human right in Msia, ( u can see hundreds of reports) for many recent years in their office at Jalan Raja Laut. They say they only visit and write report and cant do anything beyond that. They are expecting Parliament to talk abt this !!!
Aiyoo aiyoo which "not so smart" rulling government will open this report and condemn themselves in the Parliament ???
There was an government officer told to media tht Suhakam is toothless tiger, but I think he was wrong by using "tiger", he should instead use "cat".
Mr Siva had made it twice !! He is popular in giving statements that is half true and favor to his ex-employer ( the government). He was chase out from a human right meeting by various NGO groups few months ago for giving a "not smart" statement about BERSIH gathering. He said tht the police have act wisely by using tear gas and water cannon in dispreasing the crowd !!! This is still in the mind of many ppl. He is not fit to be in the commission if he failed to understand what is human right !
Mr Siva is not a medical expert nor pharmist to understand the medical need of a diabetic patient. He is a ex cikgu whom most of the time attending meetings for union.
If Uthaya's diabetics have rose up to 18.8 which is 3 times higher than normal person, there is a serious medicine consumption or a serious uncontrolled non diabetic food consumption. Any normal person would understand this.
So what went wrong?
Why was the medicine not given for 1 month ? Proven thru medical report tht says his pottasium level drop below normal and his uric acid rose up.
Uthaya was very ill as his sugar level rose high as his family and lawyers visited him, after several complaints then only the camp sent him to hospital.
Being detained in a camp with control food supply, theoritically a diabetic person should get better as he will have control food and proper medication BUT it was reverse in Uthaya's case !! So what is so mystery here.
Are there any attempt by the camp to "kill" Uthaya systematically inside ??
If his uric acid rose high, his eye sight have problem and his heart muscle function irregularly as all these were mentioned in his medical report and due to that he was approved for further check up thru ECO than Uthaya is really in serious health condition due to improper diabetic control.
Mr Siva of Suhakam and others whom delaying proper medical treatment to Uthaya are just doing more damage to his health and life !!
HINDRAF wont wait long to react.
Thx
Kannan R
Hindraf Makkal Sakthi Event Coordinator.
It is clear evidence tht the government is under pressure to immediatally close the case of illtreatment to Uthaya.
There are many Amnesty, Human Right and even International red Cross have condemn the the ill treatment by the camp warden. They have personally wrote letters to Msian government and cc to Suhakam ( as there is only this body claim representing Human Rights in Msia).
Tht is why the Suhakam step in so fast even there was no official request by HINDRAF neither the family to Suhakam over the condition of Uthaya.
Hindraf have deal with Suhakam many times before and Suhakam repeatly telling that they are working within scope given and they are not activist, they can only advise, they are bound to Parliament and many more of this and that restriction to themselves.
They spent tonnes of money on printing the annual report on human right in Msia, ( u can see hundreds of reports) for many recent years in their office at Jalan Raja Laut. They say they only visit and write report and cant do anything beyond that. They are expecting Parliament to talk abt this !!!
Aiyoo aiyoo which "not so smart" rulling government will open this report and condemn themselves in the Parliament ???
There was an government officer told to media tht Suhakam is toothless tiger, but I think he was wrong by using "tiger", he should instead use "cat".
Mr Siva had made it twice !! He is popular in giving statements that is half true and favor to his ex-employer ( the government). He was chase out from a human right meeting by various NGO groups few months ago for giving a "not smart" statement about BERSIH gathering. He said tht the police have act wisely by using tear gas and water cannon in dispreasing the crowd !!! This is still in the mind of many ppl. He is not fit to be in the commission if he failed to understand what is human right !
Mr Siva is not a medical expert nor pharmist to understand the medical need of a diabetic patient. He is a ex cikgu whom most of the time attending meetings for union.
If Uthaya's diabetics have rose up to 18.8 which is 3 times higher than normal person, there is a serious medicine consumption or a serious uncontrolled non diabetic food consumption. Any normal person would understand this.
So what went wrong?
Why was the medicine not given for 1 month ? Proven thru medical report tht says his pottasium level drop below normal and his uric acid rose up.
Uthaya was very ill as his sugar level rose high as his family and lawyers visited him, after several complaints then only the camp sent him to hospital.
Being detained in a camp with control food supply, theoritically a diabetic person should get better as he will have control food and proper medication BUT it was reverse in Uthaya's case !! So what is so mystery here.
Are there any attempt by the camp to "kill" Uthaya systematically inside ??
If his uric acid rose high, his eye sight have problem and his heart muscle function irregularly as all these were mentioned in his medical report and due to that he was approved for further check up thru ECO than Uthaya is really in serious health condition due to improper diabetic control.
Mr Siva of Suhakam and others whom delaying proper medical treatment to Uthaya are just doing more damage to his health and life !!
HINDRAF wont wait long to react.
Thx
Kannan R
Hindraf Makkal Sakthi Event Coordinator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)