Hindraf Urgently Needs to Produce True Leaders,
Fighting Alone Will Not Extricate from Its Dilemma
- Sahabat Rakyat's interview with Uthayakumar,
the key leader of Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007 (Part 2)
◆ Organised and reported by Nyam Kee Han ◆
Part 2: Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar exchanged views about the way out of the oppressed nation in the days to come
[Sahabat Rakyat Editor’s Note]
Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Sahabat Rakyat") had two exclusive interviews with Uthayakumar to explore the encounters and tendency of the Hindraf. The first was held on 17 March 2018 before the "509" general election was held. The delayed publication of this interview is in accordance with Uthayakumar's personal consideration and decision. After discussion, we chose to publish the exclusive interview “The Malay Hegemonic Ruling Clique Should be the Main Target of Hindraf Struggle” on the eve of this year's May 1 International Labor Day.
This is the report of Sahabat Rakyat’s second interview with Uthayakumar. This interview was conducted on 22 December last year, after the 509 General Election. The contents of this interview include:
(1) Message conveyed by Sahabat Rakyat in the first interview with Uthayakumar
(2) The plan of activities launched by Uthayakumar in the name of Hindraf 2.0
(3) Exchange of views between Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar on Parliamentary elections and social reforms
(4) Sahabat Rakyat shared with Uthayakumar some experience of the struggles for the equal rights of the Chinese and Indian communities
(5) How do other Hindraf leaders see the Hindraf rally on 25 Nov 2007 and the deeds of Waytha Moorthy?
(6) Conclusion: Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely an incident rather than a movement
The first interview and the second interview are interrelated. The first interview was a prelude, the second interview was a follow-up, and the two parts should combine and become one.
The following is the full content of Part 2 -
(1) Message conveyed by Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee in the first interview with Uthayakumar
Sahabat Rakyat: Our first interview was conducted on 17 March 2018 (Sunday), before the "509" general election. At that time, you made it clear that you are not willing to publicly express any opinions before the election, but you will carefully observe the development of the political situation in Malaysia. Today is 22 December 2018 (Sunday), our second interview with you. We noticed that you issued three statements in the name of Hindraf 2.0 after the "509" general election, mainly to convey the voice about “The Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has fulfilled almost zero percent of its promise to the Indian community” to Dr. Mahathir, who becomes the prime minister for the second time. Therefore, this second meeting is timely.
For us, we mainly want to brief you on two things. Firstly, our first interview report has been completed. We will send it to you for proofread and review twice, after the completion of the first draft of the Chinese and English rendition, and also after finalization of the article. Secondly, in this interview, apart from getting your confirmation that our understanding of the first interview with you is correct, we would also like to understand some of your views on the political situation after PH government came into power and the future path of Hindraf. We will reflect your actual views comprehensively in the reports of these two interviews. At the same time, we will also express Sahabat Rakyat’s understanding on the issues of Hindraf and even the Indian ethnic community. Let’s exchange our views and let our ideas collide. Let our understanding about the democratic reform movement in Malaysia verified by practice.
The second interview with Uthayakumar (3rd right) was held on the afternoon of 22 December 2018 at Cafe Bonda, Kajang. 2nd right is Arivom Namasivaya, a friend of Uthayakumar. The representatives of Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee are: (From the left) Nyam Kee Han, Tan Seng Hin @Chen Xin, Choo Shinn Chei. First from the right is Ravi Sarma, who is well versed in Chinese, Tamil, and English languages. Ravi is a democrat who devoted himself to the revolutionary struggle of Malaya (including Singapore) in the early years and is now a businessman. He joined this interview upon the special invitation of Sahabat Rakyat Working Committee. His participation had helped and added splendor to the communication and idea exchange in this interview.
Uthayakumar: Why are you or your organization interested to know the truth?
Sahabat Rakyat: From our point of view, Hindraf is a new emerging force resisting the Malay hegemonic rule. This is because the Chinese and Indian communities have been facing the same situation all the while – being oppressed and discriminated by the British colonial rule and the Malay dignitary rule. However, the encounter of the Chinese community is not as bad as the Indian community. Before this, the Chinese society had non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Dong Jiao Zong (DJZ) which served as the core force against racial discrimination. However, on the Su Qiu incident in 1999, when Mahathir deployed high-handed measures, they backed off and no longer take a clear-cut stand to fight for the equal rights of Chinese community in Malaysia. We are glad that group like Hindraf emerged in 2007 to fight against racial discrimination and oppression suffered by the Indian community all the while. We are of the view that Hindraf is a product of the struggle of the Indian poor community to change their unfortunate encounter at present phase. It is the fruit of the struggle of the Indian community especially the Indian poor, it should not be plundered by some opportunist careerists who claim themselves as the “leader”. How will the Hindraf go on in the future? This is a question that the Indian ethnic group should ponder, and a question that all democrats and democratic parties and organisations in our country should be concerned of. That is the main reason why we want to meet you, to understand more about Hindraf from you.
As an independent and autonomous NGO in our country, before and after the "509" national election, we have clearly expressed to the people of all ethnicities, our political position and political proposition towards the 3 original parties of PH, Mahathir and his Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM). Therefore, we will not repeat ourselves here.
Before the "509" general election, some influential democratic parties and organizations and their advisers, regarded "509" as a key opportunity for our country to go through a "change of regime (ubah)". They pinned their hopes of "ubah”on: (1) the awakening of the Malays – some leaders of the democratic parties and organizations were of the view that, as long as they could awaken the Malays who supported the UMNO-BN in the past turned to support PH, PH will be in power; (2) Mahathir’s leadership - some leaders of the democratic parties and organizations believed that Mahathir is the only and most suitable candidate who can “Save Malaysia” after leading PH to overthrow Najib and UMNO and become Prime Minister again. It has been more than half a year now (22 December 2018) since PH came to power, and the people of the entire nation have had experienced it themselves.
The results of the "509" general election shows that PH took power by getting simple majority of the Parliamentary seats (113 out of 222 seats). But Mahathir and his PPBM did not play the “significant role” in awakening the Malays (especially Malays from Felda areas) as what some of the PH leaders and their trumpeters boasted. The Malay ballots nationwide were actually split among UMNO, PAS and PH. Mahathir did not gain as much support as some PH leaders and their trumpeters expected from Felda areas. After the election, not only UMNO and PAS work closely together and intensify racist political propaganda, hoping to consolidate and further expand their political power, Mahathir, on the other hand, as the commander-in-chief of PH, quickly arranged his preferred candidates to control the important government departments and state machinery after coming into power, in order to continue the “Mahathirism” hegemonic rule of emphasizing "Malay sovereignty" and "Malay supremacy". Therefore, rather than saying the "509" general election is a "change of regime," in essence it is still the racial hegemonic rule, it is just old poison in the new bottle.
Waytha Moorthy (right) publicly announced before the "509" election that he could shift 20% - 30% of the Indian votes to Pakatan Harapan (PH) to win the election. He intentionally planned to approach PH (actually is to stay close to Mahathir) so that he can get a minister position in Mahathir’s government. After Mahathir became the “twice-cooked prime minister”, he also needs an "ethnic representative" from the Indian ethnic group who would listen to him, with a view to strengthen the political status of Mahathir himself and PPBM in PH. Also, he can then directly control the political movement of the most oppressed and most discriminated ethnic group in the country. To the Indian community and the people of the whole country, both of them are "jackals from the same lair."
Before the "509" general election, Waytha Moorthy used his best endeavours to disguise himself as "the supreme leader of Hindraf" and "the representative of the Indian ethnic community" and declared that he was ready to stand in the camp of PH, and could contribute to the victory of PH. In our view, the two main political parties of the PH, namely Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP) already have many Indian leaders. Parti Amanah, as a Muslim-based party, will also not welcome careerist like Waytha Moorthy. Therefore, Waytha Moorthy had no choice but to please Mahathir and accept his appeasement.
To Mahathir, he needs to consolidate and expand his and PPBM’s political status and influence after he takes power. He needs politicians like Waytha Moorthy who obeys to his order to decorate his political facade. Hence only Waytha had the opportunity to be appointed as the Senator and National Unity and Social Wellbeing Minister under the Prime Minister’s Department. Therefore, we can say that Waytha actually deceived the Indian people. He used the name and status as the "Supreme Leader of Hindraf" and "Representative of the Indian Ethnic Group" to deceive Mahathir. On the other hand, Mahathir also used Waytha’s opportunistic to deceive the Indians and other ethnic groups. The truth will eventually be revealed.
Uthayakumar: To the people, politicians like Waytha Moorthy and Mahathir are always the takers of interests and never the givers -- Politicians’ specialization is to fish people’s votes in order to gain power and plunder wealth. I would say both Mahathir and Waytha Moorthy are using each other. Waytha Moorthy will be finished without Mahathir.
(2) The plan of activities launched by Uthayakumar in the name of Hindraf 2.0
Sahabat Rakyat: We know that you have issued three statements in the name of Hindraf 2.0. We wish to understand about the upcoming plan of Hindraf 2.0 or yourself?
Uthayakumar: Before I answer your questions, I want to explain a little more. You may not believe that, before the Hindraf Rally on 25 November 2007, in terms of leadership, it was almost a one-man show. Nobody wanted to join me. I can swear that if I didn’t proactively involve in the planning and leadership, the rally would not take place. But if you take out Waytha Moorthy or any of the other 4 leaders, the rally would still take place if I persisted. Now, I count my blessings. I could do it at that time, but if you ask me to do it again now (initiating the rally), I think I cannot. I also cannot see that it will happen again in future. I won’t jump into the field again unless there is concrete support. So, currently I take very cautious moves.
Secondly, you asked about Hindraf 2.0. During all my life, I realise the problems of the Indians – how UMNO (the ruling clique) split the Indians that reflected in how Sammy Vellu and Subramaniam fought each other. UMNO (the ruling clique) made Indians fight with the Indians, and generally diverted the Indians from their main problems (namely being oppressed and discriminated by the hegemonic rule). UMNO (the ruling clique) is the real culprit. For me, my mind is very clear that no Indian is my enemy. Furthermore, how can I fight my own brother? I do not want to lose the fight for the basic rights of the Indians because I fight against my brother.
The best platform I can use now is “Hindraf”. But Waytha Moorthy and I are using “Hindraf” together, which is which? Therefore, I named mine Hindraf 2.0. Indirectly, I am telling UMNO or the other Malay ruling clique: the Hindraf rally in 2007 may happen again. But in my heart, I know it is difficult, unless there is another “miracle”.
So, the main reasons I am using Hindraf 2.0 are: (i) to distinguish myself from Waytha Moorthy; and (ii) to send a message to UMNO and other Malay ruling clique that I will continue the struggle. The real change must include extricating the Indian poor from their predicament. That is why I focus on Indian poor. I admit that I lost the battle for Indian poor. As I have told you in the first meeting, when I just came back from London, I saw serious problems faced by the Indian poor but nobody was doing anything.
I wondered why as there are so many Indian doctors, lawyers and etc but rarely saw those people working to help the Indian poor. I tried to look for guidance from people like you (referring to Chen Xin and Ravi Sarma) in the Indian community as I did not know how to start (the struggle). My father did not have political background and he voted for BN in his entire life. So, how do I get guidance? I had no choice but to use my brain and enthusiasm to jump-start the Indian issue. The reason I did it because I don’t want my children and grandchildren to blame me for not doing anything for a better future of the next generation during my lifetime. So, I have done my part before (I was then jailed). But now I have very little energy, no resources and no financial backups. Therefore, I just want to focus on Indian poor with whatever little strength that I have.
(3) Exchange of views between Sahabat Rakyat and Uthayakumar on Parliamentary elections and social reforms
Uthayakumar: After almost 20 years of social work, from Police Watch to Hindraf rally in 2007, I could say that I have done my best to bring forward the Indian issues nationwide and even internationally as serious issues to be resolved without delay. But, after coming out from Penjara Kajang, the people seemed to lose confidence on me. I only got 3% vote when I stood for election in 2013. I cannot claim myself as a Hindraf leader, nor the Indian community leader or the “Lim Kit Siang” of Indian leaders. The election result means that the Indian community does not want me, not that I do not want them, or I do not want to be Hindraf or Indian community leader. So, if you (Waytha Moorthy) want to hijack Hindraf, you do what you want. I will do whatever minimum work that I can.
For me, it’s very simple. Mahathir can control the whole country with only 13 parliamentary seats. Out of the 13 parliamentarians, 11 are Ministers and Deputy Ministers. According to a calculation that I did in Kamunting, which is stated in my book (Malaysian Indian Political Empowerment Strategy – The Way Forward), I have identified 15 parliamentary and 38 state assembly seats out of the 222 parliamentary and 576 state assembly seats in Malaysia. These seats have about 20% to 46.2% Indian voters and are located in 9 states including Kuala Lumpur based on the 8 March 2008 General Election’s electoral roll. This can be referred in the “Changing the Political Landscape” article from page 32 to 42 in the book. I have also outlined 6 steps towards changing the political landscape, as follows:
- Step 1 – One Indian voter brings two Indian voters to register at preferred constituency;
- Step 2 – All (Indian) voters register in state seat;
- Step 3 – Promote the registration of unregistered (Indian) voters;
- Step 4 – Promote the registration of qualified new (Indian) voters;
- Step 5 – Voter registration campaign;
- Step 6 – Elect the best Indian candidates.
By following the steps above, we can create 15 parliamentary seats by making the “identified areas” into Indian-majority areas. For example, if one Indian voter from Lunas can invite at least two Indian voters from any part of Kedah and Perlis to register as voters in Lunas, then we can easily have an Indian-majority parliament constituency (whereby the constituency’s existing Indian voters is about 20% in average). Similar case can be applied in Kedah, Padang Serai, Penang, Batu Kawan, Ipoh Barat, Kota Raja, Cameron Highland, Port Dictson and etc. If this theory of mine doesn’t happen, the Indians are finished. I wrote in one of my article, “The Indians are finished unless we have a Malay or Chinese ‘Abraham Lincoln’”. However, I think the only way forward is to create the Indian-majority areas (as mentioned above). Because if you have the votes, you have the power. This is the reality. Today, Mahathir cannot shake Lim Guan Eng because he (DAP) won 42 parliamentary seats, which means he (DAP) won the Chinese votes.
Sahabat Rakyat: We will seriously ponder for what you have just expressed, "(1) establish Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian ethnic group via 6 steps; (2) if it is impossible to put (1) into practice, the Indians have no future," and then choose an appropriate time to discuss with you in depth. Now, let us express some preliminary comments for the time being.
We understand and respect your aspiration and proposition that "the creation of Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian community." We are of the view that the size of the constituencies in our country and the structure and number of voters have been determined and divided according to the political needs of the UMNO hegemonic ruling group since the independence of Malaya till the formation of Malaysia. Therefore, in the parliamentary elections in this country, there exists unfair situation where “Malays or other bumiputras-majority rural constituencies” (the number of voters can be as few as just over ten thousands only) electing the “Malays or bumiputras’ representatives” whereas “Chinese-majority urban constituencies” (the number of voters can be as many as 150,000) electing the "Chinese’ representatives." You (Uthayakumar), represent the Indian community to voice up for the creation of Indian-majority constituencies to enhance the political representation of the Indian community while PH government comes into power, can be deemed as a legitimate, just and reasonable aspiration and proposition. However, before the organized forces of the oppressed ethnic communities and the oppressed classes in our country (such as workers, peasants, women, youth movements, etc.) are formed, and while the Malay hegemonists of the ruling clique are still holding sway, your aspiration and advocacy above can hardly be materialized. It can only play a role in educating, organizing, and mobilizing the masses.
We may somewhat hold different views from you regarding the future path of Hindraf 2.0. First of all, we believe that the ideology and actions of “struggle against the oppressors” expressed via the 2007 Hindraf rally are still legal, valid, effective and appropriate. The marginalization of the Indian ethnic group in our country is the result of the discrimination and exclusion of the Indians from the enslavement and squeezing of the Indian ethnic group by the British colonial rulers before the independence of Malaya, to the UMNO-led Perikatan and the BN ruling group who succeeded the British colonialists after independence. Hindraf leaders should pay more focus to propaganda and education, so that the broad masses of the Indian ethnic community understand their status and their rights, and unite to continue to struggle against the oppressors, and fight to change their predicament of being oppressed and discriminated.
Secondly, the history and the facts at hand show that the broad Indian masses hope (more accurately "harbor the illusion") that their leaders will free their ethnic group from the plight and try to improve their lives. But majority of the Indian leaders active in party politics are also mostly opportunistic politicians who will accept appeasement and enlistment of the ruling clique in power, by becoming the tool of the ruling clique to deceive and oppress the Indian and other communities, for their own glory and wealth.. Therefore, the vast majority of Indian mass must learn from the lessons of repeated deception, and should realize that:
- The people can only change their fate of being oppressed and discriminated by uniting among themselves, instead of pinning hope (more accurately illusion) on those opportunistic careerist who fish for fame or covet power and position;
- Leaders and the people cannot be separated, but should be part of the people. If the leader is divorced from the masses and used as a tool of the ruling clique, it can then not be included;
- Social reform requires leaders to play his/their role, but the people are the decisive factor in creating history. We should emphasise the "people's masses" and never emphasise "leaders."
To be more specific, in order to consolidate the Malay racist hegemonic rule, Mahathir will definitely adopt “divide and rule” strategy to counter the DAP that is supported by 95% Chinese votes, like what UMNO did to Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) for 50 years ago when they were in power. The Chinese community will also be split as in the past. (Uthayakumar: Within DAP?) Yes, DAP will also split into 2 factions, namely, pro-Mahathir dignitaries (also known as “protectionist”) and anti-Mahathir democratic faction (also known as “reformist”). This schism will definitely occur (Uthayakumar: You are saying “now:?) We are not saying “will develop into schism now”, but “the schism will surface soon”. By then, Lim Guan Eng will also be shaken. (Uthayakumar: Like Waytha Moorthy, very obvious) Yes, social reform movement normally will split into two after a tide, this is the result of the ruling clique splitting the reforming force. Just like what you said, Mahathir and the Malay ruling clique will break up the democratic reform movement of the people sooner or later. This is because they (Mahathir and the Malay ruling clique) will not allow the development of the reform force of all ethnic communities (mainly the Chinese and Indian communities). (Uthayakumar: Yes, agreed.)
We think the danger that the Chinese community of our country is facing today is a lot of Chinese harbour illusion about the DAP leaders, including Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng. These DAP top leaders might not be reliable leaders for the people. They may want to maintain high officials, enjoy the wealth, and be willing to succumb to the control of Mahathir or other Malay ruling elites and betray their original political position and mandate of the people. The Chinese community may repeat the same mistake.
Uthayakumar: There are none Indian who thinks like you among the Indians. I would say that I will have no successor when I die. I admitted that I did not win much in my past struggles, but I don’t want to give the Malay Supremacy government a walkover. I know most Indian elites and professionals work very hard in the office, save a lot of money and send their children to private universities or overseas. In their mindset, they are not capable to fight for anybody. Therefore, they only fight and take care of their own family, which is within their control. Even though it’s sad to have such scenario, I still want to try my best. I don’t want my children and grandchildren to blame me for not doing anything for the better of their life.
Sahabat Rakyat: We understand your thoughts. You have expressed the difficulties of your struggle for the equal rights of the Indian community based on your experience. Moreover, you feel that you are almost on your own in leading the struggle. In your opinion, no one in the Indian community will truly stand by the Indian poor and fight for their rights as you do. Despite the fact that no one is willing to fight alongside you in the struggle to solve the plight of the Indian poor, we still believe that organizing and educating work of the Indian masses is crucial. It is right that you are currently making a public statement and directly targeting the "primary figures of the government." However, you must also let the Indian community understand your ideas and actions, and try your best to influence the masses so that they will spontaneously organize and mobilise themselves, only then the struggle for equal rights of the Indian community will move forward. We firmly believe that the people masses are the only driving force for social reform and the creation of history; leaders are part of the people, leaders are from the masses, and cannot be divorced from the masses; the role of leaders is to enable the masses to understand their own interests and unite to strive for their own interests. We can understand your present difficulty in fighting alone. Therefore, we will try to do all we can to support you on your way forward. We can't do it for you but we can work with you to help translating statements/articles, we can also as far as possible, contact some NGOs (especially Chinese-based organizations), and hope that more people can better understand you. Because, if you continue to fight alone without the support of the people, sooner or later you may collapse and Hindraf will not advance.
Waytha Moorthy announced at a rally on 7 March before the 14th general election that he welcomed Mahathir’s announcement that the “Hindraf” led by him had officially become a strategic partner of the PH and he promised “Hindraf” leaders and cadres will guarantee the victory of PH candidates. However, at that time, there were not many party or organization members and public who noticed the difference between the “Hindraaf” that he claimed and the original “Hindraf”. Therefore, neglecting the meaning and this motive of changing from the original “Hindraf” to “Hindraaf” (picture above shows Hindraaf with an additional "a").
You used the word "hijack" to describe the relationship between Waytha Moorthy and Hindraf, and we agree with you. We noticed that Waytha Moorthy in many occasions showed that the organization he leads is “Hindraaf” (having an additional letter “a”). We asked him why he changed “Hindraf” to “Hindraaf”? He simply responded that it is because of the superstitious beliefs of his people that single “a” is unlucky whereas double “a” is auspicious. We listened with doubts, but then he diverted the topic without giving further explanation. You said that you will not give up Hindraf, you said that you will persist as long as there is some support. However, you do not dare to say firmly that you represent Hindraf, represent the Indian community (or represent the Indian poor).
Your statements are contradictory. We understand that you were saying that your participation in the Kota Raja Parliamentary seat in 2013 general election did not win the support of the Indian voters. Yet, in our view, (i) whether a person can represent the broad masses, is not reflected in the number of votes he gains from the parliamentary election, but whether his speeches and actions represent the interests and aspirations of the people, and whether or not he really struggles for the fundamental interests of the people; (ii) To win the support of the masses, we must truly safeguard the interests of the broad masses and solve the living and work problems of the people. A leader of the ethnic group or the people, does not necessarily become an official or a minister, but to serve the people wholeheartedly.
We must believe that the eyes of the masses are discerning, and they will soon be able to recognize the difference between you and Waytha Moorthy. As long as you keep going, you will surely gain the trust and support of the broad masses. If Waytha continues to follow his old path, he will be dumped into the garbage of history.
(4) Sahabat Rakyat shared with Uthayakumar some experience of the struggles for the equal rights of the Chinese and Indian communities
Arivom Namasivaya: We appreciate your willingness to help Uthayakumar to translate his articles into Chinese language. By doing so, you may have the Chinese community to read and sympathize the dilemmas of Indians. My question is, would the Chinese community fight for the cause of the Indians? Do we (the Indian and Chinese) have the common cause to fight together? From what I understand, both had the common cause to fight for only in the era when the Communist Party of Malaya led the people in the struggle against British colonial rule. (Sahabat Rakyat: The common cause is we want equal rights in this country.) There is already Article 8 (in Federal Constitution) mentioning about equality.
Uthayakumar: I think there are two issues here. (i) Article 8 is subject to another law, Article 153; (ii) Article 153 is supposed to offer equal rights to all. However, there are two parts of Article 153: first, the special position of the Malay and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak should be safeguarded by Agong; second, the legitimate interest of other communities should be safeguarded by Agong. So, I also fight for the legitimate interest of the Indians on the basis of “legitimate interest of other communities should be safeguarded (by Agong)” stated in Article 153. However, I have repeatedly suffered setbacks and failed. For example, if I score 10As in SPM, I deserve a place in local university. That is my right. But the fact is, the government has unilaterally emphasized that the "Malays have special position" as stated in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and deliberately ignored the legitimate rights of other ethnic communities. As a result, it is not surprising that that the non-bumiputra students are rejected by the local universities despite their excellent test result.
Lately there is another incident that has irritated the Indian community. The forced eviction and relocation of the Sri Maha Mariamman Devasthanam Hindu Temple in Seafield, USJ 25, Subang Jaya, the activity centre of the Indians in the past 128 years is a typical example of the government neglecting the historical facts that the temple has existed for more than 100 years and the ruthlessly depriving the legal rights of the Indian community. Looking after and protecting the existence and development of Hindu temples is supposed to be the legitimate rights and interests of the Indian ethnic group safeguarded under the provisions of the "Federal Constitution". The cruel reality however is that the Federal Constitution is interpreted in favour of those in power to prolong their regime, it is completely unfavorable to other minorities other than the Malays.
Sahabat Rakyat: We understand that the Chinese community has accumulated some experience and learned some lessons in the entire process of the constitutional struggle of our country. We would hence like to introduce you Lim Lian Geok, a prominent leader who fought for the survival and development of the Chinese society and Chinese mother tongue education since 1950s. He came to the Peninsula Malaya from China in 1925 to work in education field. He had always been a poor teacher. Before Malaya went independence, the British colonial government colluded with the then Malay political elites and put forward "Barnes Report" aiming at continuing the oppression and assimilation policy of the British colonial government and eradicating the Chinese and Tamil education. This report set "abandoning own mother tongue" and "accepting English education" as the standard of "loyalty to the country" and "consider for the interests of a unified society." In 1951, Lim was the chairman of United Chinese School Teachers’ Association (UCSTA) Kuala Lumpur. He was obliged to lead the UCSTA nationwide and held the UCSTA Congress in Malacca to strongly oppose this report. This set off a wave of vigorous Chinese education movement. Lim Lian Geok's contribution to Malaya (Malaysia) Chinese education is widely recognised by the Chinese community, perhaps based on the consideration that "language is the soul of a nation", he was honored the "soul" of the Malaysian Chinese community.
What worth noting is that Lim Lian Geok and the Chinese education leaders then understood very well that it was insufficient to rely solely on the force of the Chinese community to oppose the British colonial government who colluded with the Alliance government to continue their oppression and assimilation policies on the Chinese and Indians in Malaya. It is necessary and right to join hand with the Indian community to fight together. Lim mentioned the demand of making Chinese and Tamil as official languages, (Bahasa Rasmi). There was a joint declaration by UCSTA and The Selangor Tamil School Teachers’ Association on 9 September 1956, putting forward 3 recommendations:
- Every community shall use its mother tongue as the medium of instruction;
- Every community shall enjoy equal treatment as well as equal opportunity for normal development of education;
- The language of the three communities shall be regarded as official language.
The cruel fact is, to the Chinese society, since the era of Lim Lian Geok until today, our tone, our way of expression, our demand, has been reducing. Today, nobody in the Chinese community dares to say “we want Chinese language as an official language”. And also, nobody dare to question it. (Uthayakumar: You are talking about Chinese as an official language? For me, the Indian community pressingly needs birth certificate and the chance for their children to go to school and further their studies. Your problem and my problem is different you know? Your fight and my fight are very far. Yours is above water issue. We are fighting below the water.) Yes, we understand that, but then we can find common ground. The principle and the root cause of our agony is the same, we all have been discriminated and oppressed by the Malay hegemonic rule.
Since the independence of Malaya in 1957, a lot of the Chinese had the wishful thinking of “easier to get things done if one has the representative in the government”. Thus they hoped that the MCA could speak and act for the interests of the Chinese community in the government, and therefore voted for MCA again and again. However, after taking up officials, the leaders of the MCA succumbed to the domination and control of UMNO racist politics and became the dependency of the UMNO ruling clique, and eventually became the accomplices of the UMNO in bringing calamity to the nation. From the results of the 2008 general election, the Chinese community had then realized that they could no longer harbour anymore illusions about MCA. We believe that Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 is a very important catalyst that has generally awakened the Chinese community from the young to the old.
More than half a century ago, the situation of the Chinese on the citizenship issue was the same as the situation of the section of Indians with citizenship issue that you are dealing with: a large number of people (most of them were born locally) lost all rights that a citizen should enjoy because they had no citizenship. At the time, some of the Chinese in Malaya (including Singapore), although not born and raised locally, they gave birth and raised their children here and prepared to live in this land they loved for generations. The prominent Chinese leaders such as Lim Lian Geok in Malaya and Tan Lark Sye in Singapore who understood the importance of political rights via the struggle against British colonial rule and the struggle for the independence of the nation, urged all the Chinese compatriots (whether native or not), to register or apply to become citizens of this newly established country, thereby enjoyed the rights enjoyed by citizens and fulfilled the obligations of citizens.
However, these two leaders who were highly looked up by the Chinese community consecutively being persecuted by the then ruling dignitary: On 12 August 1961, Lim Lian Geok’s citizenship was deprived by Tunku Abdul Rahman ruling clique Malaya for fake accusation for : (i) deliberate misrepresentation and inversion of government education policy; and
(ii) emotional appeals of an extremely communal nature calculated to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races in the Federation likely to cause violence”. In fact, this happened because of Lim’s strong opposition against the 1960 Rahman Talib Report and the 1961 Education Act. His teaching license was then revoked on 22 August. On the other hand, Tan Lark Sye’s (founder of Nanyang University Singapore) citizenship was revoked by Lee Kuan Yew ruling clique the next day right after the election result was released (22 September 1963) by accusing him of “being used by the Communist Party to carry out anti-national activities”. In fact, this happened because of Tan’s support for Nanyang University graduates to participate in the 1963 Singapore election. The contributions and sacrifices of these two outstanding late leaders in protecting and promoting the survival and development of the Chinese mother tongue education were held in high esteem by anyone of any ethnic community who has self-dignity and sense of justice!
Uthayakumar: Now, approximately 98% of Chinese citizenship issues have resolved, but about 350,000 people in the Indian society do not have identity cards (IC) yet. Malaysian Indians have a population of about 2 million. Therefore, it can be said that 15%-17% of the Indian population do not have an IC. Born locally, without an IC, is equivalent to non-citizen, they also lose all rights enjoyed by citizens. The IC issue of 350,000 people (that is their citizenship issue) urgently needs to be resolved. (Sahabat Rakyat: This maybe because there is no Lim Lian Geok in the Indian community.) Yes, you are correct. (Sahabat Rakyat: That is why we hope you (Uthayakumar) can be like Lim Lian Geok.) But why me alone? The Indian “Lim Lian Geok” have all become careerists. They don’t want to become Uthayakumar. (Sahabat Rakyat: You are right. If Lim Lian Geok and Tan Lark Sye accepted appeasement in the past, there would be no Chinese society and Chinese education today. Therefore, there is a saying: without Lim Lian Geok in Malaya, there would be no Chinese secondary schools, without Chinese secondary schools, there would be no Chinese colleges and universities, and Chinese education would naturally die out. This situation is then not far from the current situation of the Indian ethnic community.)
(5) How do other Hindraf leaders see the Hindraf rally on 25 Nov 2007 and the deeds of Waytha Moorthy?
Sahabat Rakyat: In our first interview, you said: (i) You were the main target of the government’s arrest after the “11•25” Hindraf Rally; (ii) In order to avoid highlighting your leadership position, and to facilitate the split within Hindraf, they (police) deliberately arrested four more people and made five people in the same position; (iii) You seemed to imply that one of the four people was even assigned by the Special Branch to divide you all to facilitate the domination of Hindraf; (iv) You also slightly hinted at the swaying position of the five leaders, including your brother Waytha Moorthy, on the mass rally. We want you to further confirm that the above 4 points were the correct messages you want to convey. Now, almost all the people in the country have learned from the media that there are 6 leaders in Hindraf. You want people to believe that you are the only leader who “initiated and led the Hindraf rally.” We believe that it is necessary for you to announce the real situation that happened among the leaders a week before the 2007 Hindraf rally, such as who persisted, who had shaken and ultimately who decided to carry on the rally as scheduled. This is to give an account to the people, and to the history.
Uthayakumar: For your information, there were arrests here and there one week before the Hindraf rally. We knew we were going into trouble. I still remember the last meeting that I called for in my house. Those who attended included P. Waytha Moorthy, V. Ganapatirau, M. Manoharan, R. Genghadaran, T. Vasanthakumar and V. Ganapatirau’s driver (V. Ganapatirau was arrested when he was on the way. So, his driver was there for the meeting just to report what happened.) Technically, there were 6 presence including myself, plus 1 in attendance, sum up to 7 person. 5 were detained out of the 7. At the meeting, Waytha and Genghadaran were very junior compared to the others. They wanted us to call off the rally because they were frightened by the police crackdown at that time, only Manoharan supported me. He was very excited to go to the public because it would attract publicity, not for himself but the Indian poor.
So, obviously, I was the final decision maker. The first fact is, the reason I called for that meeting with 5 of them was to seek for second opinion. You can check with Manoharan separately about this. He was the one who reminded me about the calling off of the rally by Waytha and Genghadaran during the meeting. I did not write all these in my book because I do not want to make Waytha looks bad. The second fact is, Waytha ran away to oversea, but I penned this as “move to the struggle abroad” to cover him. The book has 99.9% truth except these 2 parts which I covered up for Waytha.
Uthayakumar and his book "November 25th Hindraf Rally 2007". In this interview, he said that other than the motive or intention of Waytha Moorthy be in exile, balance 99.9% of the contents in the book are true. This 400-page English book is the second book he wrote when he was detained for one and a half year under the Internal Security Act (13 December 2007 to 9 May 2009). It was published on the 3rd anniversary of Hindraf Rally (25 November 2010). This is the only book written by someone who had personally experienced the Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007. No matter what kind of opinion that other readers have on this book, it is Uthayakumar’s personal view after all, which would serve as the reference of others.
Other incidents to prove me as the only leader of Hindraf rally were (i) New Straits Time interviewed me just one day before the Hindraf rally. They want to know whether the rally would really go on. The question was spotted on me but not the other 5 leaders. So, who do you think is the decision maker? (ii) All Hindraf’s operation was from my legal firm office in Bangsar, not the other leaders’ office. (iii) Al Jazeera, an international broadcaster based in Doha interviewed me on the same day of Hindraf rally, but not the other 5 or 6 leaders (including Waytha Moorthy).
But having said so, Waytha was charged in court and he didn’t win the bail. Therefore, he was in the Sungai Buloh jail from 23 to 25 Nov 2007 (3 days). He may argue that the press interviewed him because he was in jail for participating in the operation. For me, there is only one person who can write the book on 25 November 2007 rally because it’s all in my brain.
To be fair, the idea of filling the case in London court is Waytha Moorthy’s idea. (Sahabat Rakyat: We have some opinions about this strategy.) I accepted that strategy to file the case in London court considering we can get international attention for the tragic encounters of the Indian community in Malaysia. Honestly, it worked in terms of the effect of propaganda. It was something very new to me, and even among the Indians. But, in my heart, the real “taiko” (culprit) of pushing the Indian community to the tragic position was the UMNO government and now it is the Pakatan Harapan government.
Sahabat Rakyat: We basically agree with your saying that raising a lawsuit in the London court can draw the attention of the international community to the issue of Malaysian Indians. We had also done everything we could to propagate this litigation. However, after careful observation and reflection on Waytha Moorthy’s words and deeds in this respect, we believe that Waytha deliberately diverted the enemy (the object of struggle) in the reality namely the UMNO ruling group to the British colonial government of the history. In other words, he only chose to target on the British colonial government of pre-independence of Malaya (Malaysia) (1957), and renounced the UMNO-dominated Alliance government (1957-1969) and the BN government (1969-2018) that inherited the British colonial government after independence. He had his own motives in doing so:
- Gain international public opinion support through his litigation actions abroad, to achieve his goal of pressurising the UMNO-BN government to let him end his life in exile and return to the home country and curry favour the masses;
- Through his litigation actions, the Indian masses in the country who have been suffering cruel oppression all this while will harbour illusion on him personally, and achieve his purpose of controlling the Indian community for his own use;
- Through his strategy of diverting the object of struggle, he placed himself in a prominent and safe position and then accepted the appeasement and enlistment to realize his dream of enjoying the prosperity as the minister.
Uthayakumar: When I was in Kamunting, my brother Waytha Moorthy and I had discussed about forming a political party to fight for the cause of the Indian community. I wrote him a note when he was still in London, telling him that we must create Indian-majority constituents as the only way to move forward. I was still naive at that time. Waytha replied my note, “No, this one you must come out and do it yourself.” He was smart (for rejecting me) because it was not a winnable game. He knew that his reputation (popularity) together with Hindraf’s popularity will go down if he had done it, as people would perceive it as just a political act. That’s why he didn’t want to do it. For me, we missed the opportunity.
We just want Indian-majority seats. I was forced to do it when I came out from Kamunting because Waytha did not do what he was supposed to do. It was too late and I failed. That is why you said he told you that he is representing Hindraf while I am in HRP. He uses Hindraf in his favour. The reality is, everybody (Indian) wants to claim as Hindraf leader because of the glory of Hindraf rally in 2007. But, as I have mentioned, that rally would not take place without me. As for HRP, we could not register the party since day one as our application was rejected and we failed (to appeal) from High Court to Federal Court. In fact, Waytha’s Hindraf (refers to Persatuan Hindraf Malaysia) was registered before the 13th “505” General Election preparing himself to accept appeasement from the then Prime Minister Najib which was rapidly approved by the UMNO-BN government.
(6) Conclusion: Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely an incident rather than a movement
Sahabat Rakyat: Finally, let us summarize it. From the first and second interview with you, we came to the conclusion that: the Hindraf rally on 25 November 2007 was merely a moving “Incident” where the Malaysian Indian masses courageously vented their resentment to the ruling group that crushed them. It has yet become a "Movement" with a clear struggle program, outstanding leaders, concrete action plans, and massive mass support. Do you agree?
We should apologize to you. In the past, we made a very serious cognitive mistake as being deliberately misled by Waytha Moorthy. We erroneously regarded Waytha as a leader of “Hindraf movement”- although in the last few years we finally recognized his true colours (as an "opportunistic politician") and criticized him. We respect your statements in the first and second interviews, although our working committee may have different opinions, we will truthfully publish your views, and will truthfully express our feelings so that the people of all ethnic groups can correctly understand and master the actual situation of Hindraf, thus promoting its normal growth and expansion in the future.
Uthayakumar: Yes, I agree with your conclusion that Hindraf rally in 2007 is just an incident, not a movement. When this incident took place, there was no Hindraf website, there was only the Police Watch website doing the propaganda work and I was the one running the Police Watch. The Hindraf website only appeared after the Hindraf rally. If you ask me why Hindraf succeeded, because there was only one leader, there was no confusion and there was zero politicking during the rally.
Sahabat Rakyat: Thank you for accepting our interviews twice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment