As regards breaking the law by the illegal gathering of Hindraf, they were denied of the permit by the police in the first place. Now with the marginalisation of the Indians, are they accorded with equal rights as the UMNO members to obtain rally permit? Some of the Indians lawyers had made petition and yet it was denied with lame excuses such as traffic jams. Yet one see rampant traffic congestion in KL when there is no street demonstration. It was the police road blocks which caused the traffic jams. But which rally planned by UMNO was denied of permit by the police? I suppose none.
Hindraf's memorandum appeals to Britain to refer Malaysia to the World Court for crimes against ethnic Indians. It also claimed that "100 over Indians were slashed and killed by the Umno-controlled Malaysian government in the Kampung Medan mini genocide".
The Indian community expects to get RM1mil each in compensation from its class-action suit filed against the British Government for bringing Indians into Malaya to work as labourers. Undoubtedly they support Hindraf to hold the street demonstration.
Cameron Highlands MP S.K. Devamany's commented in Parliament that the Hindraf demonstration showed there was frustration at the lower levels in the community. Continuous marginalisation of Indians in the country gave them no hope of equal standing with the Malays. Is it the crime for a country to give unequal treatment to the Indians who contributed much to nation building?
============================================
The Star Online Wednesday November 28, 2007
Nazri: 'Robin Hood' still needs to face the music
KUALA LUMPUR: Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and deputy chief whip Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said MIC parliamentarian K. Devamany should not be let off the hook even if the Indian community regarded him as a hero.
"Should we let Robin Hood off the hook just because he is a hero? He robbed the rich and gave to the poor but he was still breaking the law," he said at Parliament lobby yesterday.
"Should we encourage people to be popular among the community by breaking ranks? Or should we consider the welfare of the whole BN?"
Nazri, who is in charge of parliamentary affairs, maintained that Devamany had "broken ranks" when he disputed the MIC's stand with regard to Sunday's Hindraf demonstration. He said Devamany also broke ranks when he said the Government failed to address the issues of the Indian community.
He reiterated his stand that if Devamany had disputed his own party, he should resign from the MIC.
Nazri said Devamany would have to explain his remarks to Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, who is the Barisan chief whip, tomorrow.
"In my opinion, there has been a breaking in ranks," Nazri said, adding that if Devamany wanted to be a "fighter" then he should not put his party in a difficult position.
Nazri said the demonstration on Sunday would not change the Government's perception towards the Indian community in general.
He said the Government believed that the other one million Indians in the country who did not participate in the rally were fully behind the Government.
"Some 20,000 penyangak (crooks) who participated in the rally will not alter our viewpoint of the entire community," he said.
Meanwhile, International Movement for a Just World president Dr Chandra Muzaffar said it was not right to put a racial slant to a gathering. Dr Chandra said that while he respected a person's right to gather, he did not agree with the racial stance taken and the violence that reportedly occurred.
Nazri should apologise – That's the decent thing to do!
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
De facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz owes the nation an apology. He had misled the nation by claiming the existence of a "Witness Protection Bill", when no such Bill exists. It is really shocking that the minister in charge of law should be so ignorant in matters of the law but is so loud in his views in making reference to a non-existing Bill
The decent thing for him to do when his ignorance was exposed is to apologise unreservedly. Instead he blames his secretary for failing to issue a clarification to the media. We are not interested in his wishy-washy excuse couched as 'clarification'. Clarification is only needed or provided when one is misunderstood. In this case there was no misunderstanding. He was understood perfectly when he stated that "cover for informants was provided for under the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in Parliament."
But the truth of the matter is that no such bill has been tabled in Parliament for first reading. In other words, according to the facts he has not been truthful in making such claims. Some people would even argue that he had lied.
That being the case what is there to clarify? And why should his secretary clarify on his behalf? Is it beneath him to personally say, "I am sorry?"
Malaysians would want to know why there is so much emphasis placed in wanting to know the identity of the person who recorded the "Lingam tape". Shouldn't we be focused on the contents of the tape, which has disparaged the entire system of justice and the judiciary? Are we after the truth or after the person who blew the whistle?
There is no need for Nazri to look into the possibilities of arranging for plastic surgery to give a new identity to protect the witness or to relocate him or her elsewhere. All these are unnecessary and even would constitute a waste of effort. All that is required to know the person responsible for the "Lingam tape" - if that is the priority for Nazri – is to appointment a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
We have been told that the person who taped the conversation is prepared to come forward openly, boldly and without a new identity to reveal himself and tell his side of the story. We don't need a new Bill and we need not enact a new law to find out the identity of this person.
Nazri has stated that the three-man panel will be rendered useless unless witnesses come forward. But they are not going to come forward. The panel is not going to summon them; neither are they going to compel anyone to step forward with their evidence. After 30 days, we will discover that the three-man panel was appointed to undertake a task in futility.
This is why Aliran has from the onset rejected the panel and consistently insisted on the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
The BN government must decide whether it truly wants to clean up the judiciary and restore the people's confidence in an institution so vital in upholding the Federal Constitution.
10 October 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment