S.A.VigneswaranChairman, Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF)

Thank u Raveendran for your comment. Your comment is quite right.

Two days ago, i commented in the tamil newspaper that there is a fundamental difference between religious fundamentalist and people who are seeking certain rights.

Temple relocation or the term commonly used at the moment temple breaking is not a new problem, a problem that existed only in 2007 but it has existed  from time immemorial.

MIC youth was the first of its kind to start a yagna in the temple about 6 years ago to stop a temple from being demolished in Puchong. On the same morning of the yagna, we obtained an alternative piece of land from the Developer for the temple relocation.

I will be posting a write up on temple issues soon.

Even though i dont agree to street demonstrations  but if there are no immediate or future threat to the country’s national security, then the Hindraf leaders ought to be released.

I am of the opinion that at the onset, the detention was justifed as the government was concern for the national security, but i cannot see or understand the justification for continued detention in the present circumstances.

Furthermore, MIC Youth’s contention to free Hindraf Leaders carries a three fold basis:

1. The call is made on humanitarian ground. The detainess have children and fammily who are longing for reunion. I myself have two daughters and I understand the implication and the trauma the children undergo when they are separated from their father in detention.

2. There is a big hue and cry by the Malaysian community in particular the indian community who feels the detainees are persecuted for speaking aloud the rights of the Indians in Malaysia. Furthermore, they feel the outcome of the 12th general election has clearly reflected the sentiment of the indian community which has to a large extent been influenced by Hindraf.  Now the community is questioning why, after the elections, the government is not further being sensitive by continuing the detention of the 5 Hindraf leaders. It is the people’s perception now that the government is an insensitive government.

3. MIC has been working for past 50 years.One should realise that for the last 50 over years it was MIC who have been solving the indian issues that is not to say that they did a great job because there were and are a lot of issues that were unresolved. But to say that we have not done anything is utmost unfair to all the people who has spent time. effort and money to serve thier kind. It is not fair to the MIC members who were genuine to their cause and worked very hard to do their bit to solve indian problems.

Who have been solving the problems if MIC did not do anything as alleged? When indians face problem in this country, how were the issues solved, did they disappear by magic? It is not fair to accuse MIC of not having done anything for the community.

Furthermore, there are many questions that MIC Youth is waiting to be debated and answered by the Hindraf leaders, the answers which they are unable to give whilst in detention. Among the key issues that we are awaiting explanation from the Hindraf leaders are as regards the suit filed in UK, if the suit has been filed as alleged by them, why resort to street demo, then the issue of allegation of genocide, their claim of 1 million pounds per indian, the issue of the demo on 25th Nov 2007 which is supposed to be against the British government. Whilst the Hindraf leaders remain in detention, these questions will not be answered as the general public is overwhelmed by sympathy for them.

The Federal Court’s decision yesterday that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his capacity as the Internal Security Minister had rightly issued the detention order and had complied with the procedural requirements under the Act is a decision that was expected as the judiciary looked at the compliance of the procedure of detention and when they found it was complied with, they ruled accordingly. This is because in 1989 the powers of the Minister under the Internal Security Act 1960 was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts to examine and review technical matters pertaining to the ISA arrest.

So, the decision to release the detainees lies with the Executive. The Internal security Minister is under tremendous pressure in this matter but if the continued detention is justified for threat to the country, then the people will accept it. What the people are asking is the reason for the continued detention, what is the probable danger this detainees will impose if released. Can the detainees be released with conditions attached to their release order to ensure national safety? Are there any terrorist connection, if so, can it be made public ? These are the questions that the community is awaiting answers. The longer the wait for answers, the more agitated the minds become.