No matter who is involve in the production of your videos or articles, they can never control or be an obstacle in delivering the message that you intended to the community. No doubt there are many in the media industry that works with an objective and intention, Citizen Journalist should not, never, NO work on any news piece to please their Master, the genuine master or the fake master. They are an Independent Individual that has the capacity, capabilities and courage to publish their genuine news.

It has to be the right of every Citizen Journalist  to communicate directly to ICFJ (International Center for Journalist) if they find unnecessary interference by any Individuals or organisation that provides the support or monitoring the Citizen Journalist in a way that is not complying with the Journalism Ethics. This can avoid manipulation or the hard work as a Citizen Journalist serves as an advantage for anyone. Main stream medias or Independent media either print, web based or Multimedia cannot cover 100% news. Every Citizen has the right to cover and cannot be stopped, threatened not to cover any events, even by the platform provider, they have the discretion not to publish it though. Recent Bersih rally in Kuala Lumpur is a perfect situation that shows, how much of valuable evidential footages was hard to be acquired. Every Citizen Journalist is entitled to cover as an Independent representing their country as a Citizen without fear and favour.

Every Citizen is a Citizen Journalist, if they know the right skills, a skill that can be mastered in 6 hours, when interest present.

Citizen Journalist Arvind Raj

INTRODUCTION

1. A domestic inquiry is an internal hearing held by an employer to ascertain whether an employee is guilty of misconduct.  The purpose of a domestic inquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations made against the workman.

2. The Industrial Court, in the course  of adjudicating whether a dismissal is without just cause or excuse within the context of Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, does not merely examine whether there were proper grounds for the employer to terminate the services of the employee but also examines whether the process by which the employee was terminated was fair or unfair.

3. This aspect of “procedural fairness” in the taking of disciplinary action, against an employee may often be a crucial factor in deciding whether the dismissal will be upheld by the Court.

4. It is therefore, imperative to recognise that upholding a dismissal in the Industrial Court involves satisfying 2 criteria: (a) That there were proper grounds for terminating the employee;  (b) That the procedure by which the employee was terminated was fair.

5. In conducting a domestic inquiry the rules of natural justice must be adhered to.  Justice must not only be done but  must  be  seen  to  be  done;  the  “twin pillars” of natural justice being “No person shall be condemned unheard” and “No person shall sit in judgment in his  own cause or in any in which he is interested”. 1

6. It is in this context that the importance of conducting a proper domestic inquiry assumes significance.

7. The domestic inquiry should not be regarded by the employer as a “mere formality” nor an unnecessary inconvenience but an  integral part of the disciplinary process whereby the employer can establish that the termination of the employee was with just cause or  excuse.  The objective of holding a domestic inquiry is twofold.  Firstly, to give the opportunity to the employer to prove the charges of misconduct against a delinquent employee before punishment is meted out and secondly to give the employee sufficient opportunity to defend himself/herself.

8. Rather than view the domestic inquiry as burden on the management, and an unnecessary waste of time, resources and expense, the employer, should view the process of the inquiry as a means to show that every possible means was made available to avail the employee of meeting the charges against him and, if possible, clearing himself. B.  POSITION UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT ACT 1955

9. Under  Section 14(1) of the Employment Act, 1955, it is stated that an employer may, AFTER DUE INQUIRY, dismiss the employee or take other disciplinary action including downgrading and suspension of the employee on grounds of misconduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service. 2

10. The effect of the incorporation of  the term “DUE INQUIRY” into the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Employment Act 1955 was considered in detail in the recent Federal Court decision of Said Dharmalingam v. Malayan Breweries (Malaya) Sdn Bhd (1997) 1 CLJ 646 where the Court stated as follows: “In R. v. BBC, ex parte Lavelle (1982) 1 RId? 404, Woolf J indicated, albeit obiter, that when there is a procedure for dismissal in an employment not covered by statute at all, employers must comply with that procedure for the dismissal to be valid. If the contractual procedure was infringed an injunction should issue to prevent the dismissal. This view was partly based on the notion that employment protection legislation had substantially changed the position at common law, so that ‘the ordinary contract between master and servant now has many of the attributes of an office.’ In the present case, there is a statutory requirement, to wit, s. 14(1) of the Act, providing for the elementary safeguard of the right to “due inquiry” by the employer.  It follows, that at least, prima facie, a dismissal in breach of s. 14(1) would be void. Having said that, we must add, that when, as here, a claimant is an employee within the meaning of the Act, he has  by s. 14(2) thereof a statutory right to “due enquiry” by his employer, and so, the approach of the Industrial Court or for that matter the High Court, in considering the question whether the claimant had been dismissed  without just cause or excuse, would be, to examine the decision not just for substance but for process as well.” 3

11. The decision of the Federal Court in  Said Dharmalingam clearly states in respect of employees governed by the Employment Act that unless there is due enquiry prior to dismissal for misconduct, the dismissal can be struck down by the Industrial Court even if the employer can show sufficient grounds to dismiss. Hence, “procedural fairness” is crucial in successfully upholding the dismissal.

12. It should perhaps be noted that an earlier Federal Court decision in  Milan Auto Sdn Bhd v Wong Sen Yen (1996) 1 AMR 49 held that the requirement of “due inquiry” before dismissal in  Section 14(1) of the Employment Act was not mandatory and, even if there was a defective inquiry, it was “curable” in the sense the Industrial Court could still enquire into the decision to dismiss and uphold the same if proper grounds were made out.

13. It is respectfully suggested  that the decision in the Milan Auto case can be explained on the basis that there, the Industrial Court wrongly struck down a dismissal without inquiring into the merits of the dismissal which it was required to do under  Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967. However, given that the most recent  pronouncement on the question of due inquiry, is as set out in the said  Dharmalingam’s case, it is respectfully suggested that all prudent employers should, when dealing with complaints of misconduct of employees governed by the Employment Act, ensure that a proper inquiry is conducted or run the risk of dismissal being struck down. C.  POSITION OF EMPLOYEES  NOT GOVERNED BY THE EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1955

14. With regard to these employees, the general rule that a failure to hold a domestic inquiry or the holding of a defective inquiry will not automatically vitiate or nullify the dismissal still applies.  4

15. This was the approach taken by the Federal Court in the case of  Ong Yuen Hock v Syarikat Hong Leong Assurance Sdn Bhd (1995) 2 MLJ based on the earlier leading decision in  Dreamland Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd v. Choong Chin Sooi (1988) 1 MLJ.  Essentially, these decisions state that even if the domestic inquiry held was defective, it is still open to the employer to satisfy the Industrial Court that the dismissal was proper on the merits.

16. It is respectfully suggested that as a matter of good industrial practice and irrespective of which the employee is governed by the Employment Act or not, a domestic inquiry should be held whenever a complaint of misconduct is brought to ensure that the employee is accorded fair treatment in answering the charge.

17. We shall now examine briefly the various stages of the domestic inquiry and the necessary procedures to ensure that no challenge can be successfully taken to claim the inquiry as unfair.

D.  BRIEF GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING A PROPER INQUIRY

18. It is essential to keep bear in mind, at all times, that there are no fixed criteria as to what constitutes a proper inquiry. Every case must necessarily depend on the particular circumstances and the degree of formality and rules adopted would also be determined by the prevailing circumstances.

19. What is of utmost importance, however, is that the basic principles of natural justice are observed. These may be summarised as follows:-  (i) That the employee is given an opportunity to know, in full, the charges made against him.  5(ii) The employee has reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges.

” (iii) The management team which sits as the Inquiry  Panel should be unconnected with the events and circumstances surrounding the charge: ”

Which means, lets say the management of a company has any dealing indirectly or directly towards the operation, management, decision or influence in the operation of the finance, management, training, funding and evaluation with the company or in the relation with the complainant and the accused.. the case is considered as an “Interest” towards the operation and sustainability of the business or operation and  in the intention  of a fair trial is almost impossible. Therefore, if any of the management staff in the interview with the witness before the process of ” Issuance of Show Cause letter to the accused has influenced the witness” ie: (examples)  She was fine while at the 2nd floor but she was not fine as soon as she went to the 3rd floor and even worse when the accused shifted together with her” will be  seen as an assumption and a decision on behalf of the complainant by the supposedly fair and unbiased team which are contradicting to the process of a fair investigation. Therefore the accused has all the reason and rights to demand for change of  the panel of Investigators.

20. It would be noticed that these are not simply legal requirements but basic concepts of fairness

and justice designed to ensure that the employee is given a proper hearing to answer the charges made against him.  E.  PROCEDURE PRIOR TO INQUIRYE1.  INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT

21. Normally, the source of the complaint comes from the employee’s immediate superior or a fellow employee.

22. It is essential to investigate the complaint as soon  as possible. This has the double advantage of obtaining the relevant evidence before it becomes difficult or impossible to trace and also to  avoid any allegation by the employee subsequently that the employers have “condoned” the alleged misconduct.

23. It is always useful to interview all parties concerned in the complaint and have their statements recorded. In charges involving financial irregularities and misconduct, it is best that an internal audit be conducted and full and comprehensive report be compiled. A difficulty can sometimes  arise, if the, complaint is from an outside source i.e. not within the employment, organisation and such person is reluctant to give any written statement to substantiate his complaint. There could be difficulties if the employee, when confronted, makes a total denial of the allegation.  6

24. To obviate the difficulty, it is suggested that the outsider complainant (i.e. the third party), should be persuaded to reduce his complaint in writing so that disciplinary action can be instituted against the employee concerned. At the same time, the investigation officer  should ascertain if  other supporting evidence from within the Company can be obtained to corroborate or support the complaint so that the third party’s complaint does not stand by itself.

25. It is also important that the investigating officer is unconnected with the allegations and not a person who is likely to be selected to sit on the Inquiry Panel.  If the investigation involves some special expertise and skill or understanding of a particular area of the operations, a suitably qualified person well versed in the area should be approached to assist in the investigation.  E2.  SHOW CAUSE LETTER

26. If the investigation establishes a prima facie case justifying the complaint which calls for an explanation from the employee, the employer should then proceed to issue a show cause letter.

27. The letter should be drafted in clear and unambiguous language setting out all the allegations to which the employee is requested to “show cause”.  It should normally be signed by the Personnel Manager or Head of the Department

.  Where the charges are of a technical nature, i.e. misappropriation or breach of trust, it is best to, draft the same in the format of a charge in a criminal case. This will immediately highlight the elements of the offence  that need to be proved and would also provide for precision in the drafting.

A vague or ambiguously worded charge in a show cause letter is often indicative that the employers are unsure of the circumstances  giving rise to the charge or even worse, create an impression that the charges are not bona fide. 7

28. Where possible, the charge should specifically refer to which rules or regulations, that have been breached. If no specific rules have been breached, it is best to state the charges constitute either a breach of both the express and/or implied terms of the contract of employment.

29. The show cause letter should be confidential and  preferably delivered to the employee personally.and  believe that it should not be exposed or highlighted to the  staff or the colleagues, If this  is not possible, the letter  should be sent to the employee’s address.

E3.  SUSPENSION DURING PERIOD TO SHOW CAUSE

30. Care must be taken that the period of suspension and the amount of pay the employee receives during the period of suspension are in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Act or  relevant Collective Agreement, where applicable.

31. If extension of the period of suspension is required to complete investigations, especially upon receipt of the employee’s reply to the show cause letter, the employee must be notified accordingly.   It is advisable to ensure that the employee receives his full salary for any extended period of suspension.

32. It is normal that suspension is invoked where the presence of the employee is likely to jeopardise the safety and discipline of the Company and hence, should only be resorted to where charges of major misconduct are made or there are several charges.

33. Furthermore, the letter of suspension  should not give instructions that the employee should stay at his place of residence during working hours as such an order amounts to house arrest and is unlawful. Malayan Banking Berhad v. Association of Bank Officers Peninsula Malaysia (Award 347 of 1986) 8

34. Depending on the reply received from the employee, the Company may proceed to institute a domestic inquiry. This may be necessary even if an employee, in his reply to the show cause letter, gives a vague response and appears to admit to only some of the charges or just part of the charge.  E4.  THE DOMESTIC INQUIRY PROPER

35. The first step is to send a notice of the domestic inquiry to the employee concerned. The notice should give particulars of the date, time and place of the inquiry and should stipulate that the employee would be entitled to crossexamine the employer’s witnesses and  may, himself, produce witnesses or documents to rebut the charges.

36. Where there are several charges of a detailed nature, care must be taken to ensure that the period of time between the notice of domestic inquiry and the actual inquiry is of a reasonable period to prepare his defence.

37. In the meanwhile, the employers should proceed to select the panel of members for the inquiry. The basic criteria for the selection should be:  (a) Officers who are not involved directly with the investigation and circumstances of the case. (b) Officers should normally be of a  rank or status above the employee facing the disciplinary charges.  (c) The Chairman should  be adequately well versed with the, general, legislation involving employment and the Industrial Court awards.

38. Of particular importance is the rule that the Panel should not be seen to be biased or even appear biased. In a number of cases the Industrial Court has held that the element of bias vitiates the fairness of the dismissal.  9

39. In Oriental Bank Bhd v Zulkiflee b. Hassan, Kaiang (1986) 2 ILR  1332 the Claimant was dismissed for breach of the express terms and limit of authority by which he was bound and/or breach of general duty of care obligatory upon him.

40. The Claimant contended that the inquiry held was not carried out properly and his dismissal was unlawful, mala fide and amounted to an unfair labour practice.

41. In this case, the Chairman of the Inquiry was fully informed of the results of the investigation conducted by the investigator. Subsequently, he had a meeting with the Claimant before the Inquiry where the Claimant gave his own story. Another member of the inquiry was also present during the meeting. The Chairman and the member knew all the  facts of the allegation prior to the inquiry.

42. It was held that there was an element of bias because some of the members of the inquiry had known the facts of the allegations.  Although the claimant was guilty of gross negligence and was rightly dismissed, since there was bias in the inquiry the Claimant was entitled to backwages.

43. Similarly, care must be taken to ensure that the Panel does not appear overly keen to question the employee. This role should be left to the employer’s representative presenting the case.  While the Panel may always clarify points arising during the course of the proceedings they should not turn the inquiry into an inquisition.  10E5.  NOTES OF INQUIRY

44. All statements given in the inquiry should be carefully recorded either by the Panel Member or a member of staff for that purpose. Further, the notes should be typed up and made available for the employee to counter-sign to avoid any challenge subsequently by the employee. See OYL Condoir Industries Sdn Bhd v. Kulijan a/i Muthusamy & 2 ors (1992) 2 ILR 33 where the Court held that the domestic inquiry was conducted unfairly and unjustly as the Claimants were not allowed to call witnesses, no notes of proceedings were recorded nor made.

45. The general procedure at the inquiry would normally be as follows:  The Charge must be read to the employee and explained to him at the commencement of the inquiry. If he admits the charge, he should be given the opportunity to express the circumstances that led him to commit the offence and mitigates his case. The Chairman then will ask the officer presenting the case to briefly state the facts of the case including how the offence was committed to enable the  Panel to recommend the appropriate punishment or continue with the proceedings.  If the employee concerned is absent without an explanation offered, the case may still be heard in his absence and the outcome of it must be communicated to him.  Any witnesses, called by either party to give statements, is to be subject to cross-examination by the other party.  In other words, there will be an examination in chief by one party, cross examination by the other party and reexamination by the former party of witnesses. Statements made by these witnesses must be recorded and signed by them. They must not be in the room where the inquiry is being held until called in by the Chairman. 11

46. It must also be noted that while an employee may be accompanied by a Union representative at the inquiry, he is not entitled to insist on legal representation. Petroleum Nasional Bhd v. Mohd Radzuan B. Rarnli 1993 1 ILP. 100 and Sime Darby Plantation Sdn Bhd v. Wong Chu Meng 1983 2 ILR 210.  E6.  PROCEDURE SUBSEQUENT TO INQUIRY

47. After the inquiry, the Chairman should discuss the case with the Panel Members and decide upon the merits of the case.

48. Findings should be contained in a report which should be based on the material and evidence produced at the inquiry giving reasons in brief for conclusions on the charges.

49. In  Standard Chartered Bank v. Cliff a/l James (1991) 2 ILR 1168, the Court held that as no finding of the inquiry was recorded at the end of the notes of inquiry, this effectively invalidated the inquiry and the Court was entitled to disregard the notes of inquiry.

50. The Report, once finalised, is then sent to the appropriate executive or officer in management for taking the requisite action. Unless it is expressly empowered to do so, the Panel should  refrain from determining what the punishment should be meted out although they may merely recommend disciplinary actions. The reason is  that the question  of meting out the appropriate punishment does not involve the deliberation of the finding of the charges but other factors such as the  employee’s previous records, warnings etc. which would not normally be available to the Panel.  12

51. Once management is in a position to fully consider all the relevant factors, then the appropriate disciplinary action can be taken. If dismissal is decided, the employee should be informed as soon as possible and also on what grounds he is being dismissed. If there is a right of appeal within the disciplinary procedures against the decision, the employee should be directed to that fact and informed of the period and to whom he may exercise his right of appeal. In this regard, the decision of Said Dharmalingam is again of importance. In that case, the Court held that it is incumbent on an employer to provide the employee an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation.

52. As was stated by the Court: “Due inquiry for the purposes of Section 14 of the Act includes the right to make representations against the punishment proposed as a result of adverse findings by a domestic body” The Court, however, held that a plea of mitigation is not necessary where the employment contract states that dismissal mandatory upon a particular finding or where the misconduct is so grave that no useful purpose would be served by a plea in mitigation.

53. Once all avenues for internal appeals  are exhausted and assuming that the employees appeal is rejected, the employee should be so informed. It is normal to pay the employee whatever monies due subject to income tax clearance and request that all company property be returned.

54. If these procedures and guidelines are adhered to, an employer should be well on his way to being able to defend successfully an unfair dismissal complaint in the Industrial Court.

by Arvind Raj______________________________________________________________ 13

source by  : http://www.unioncimb.org.my/home/news/AnOverviewOfADomesticEnquiry.pdf with permission to share to protect the uninformed poor staff.

Citizen Journalists in Malaysia are not merely working together but we are working as a family, hope this trend will be maintained to the success of CJ.MY!

Welcoming you once again, lets bring changes in our country.

Happy CJing!

Arvind Raj

In Malaysia, there is no such thing as privacy for Muslims. An individual is at the mercy of some vague religious officers and have no right to question their authority.

Early this morning I found out that a friend of mine was caught by JAWI for having male friends over to their house to watch a game of football. They were verbally abused and taken to a JAWI lock-up at 1.30am. They were not told what they did wrong, nor were they not given any explanation. Their house was ransacked without any reason.

I called JAWI asking them to clarify their offence. A male representative picked up the phone, and told me they acted based on a complaint, and when JAWI officers got there, the door was locked, and when no one answered their knocks they broke into the house. I asked the representative what were they doing, and he said they were in their own rooms. The girls were dressed and they were not caught in the act of anything suspicious. So why were they arrested? He then passed me to his a Puan Siti, pegawai dewan. She said that it was based on complaint, and if there was a complaint that means it’s not the first time it happened. And they were arrested on the grounds of ‘khalwat.’ She became quite irritated when I posed more questions on khalwat and asked me to read section 27 on khalwat – that a male and female without blood relation found not just in a room, but even a house is considered khalwat, regardless of what they’re doing. And when the officers got there, they found evidence of some hanky panky going on. I asked her what kind of evidence to which she did not reply but asked me to go to JAWI and see the officers there for further questions.

Interestingly, our religious officers breaking into people’s houses is NOT Islamic. A verse in the Quran reads, “Do not enter any houses except your own homes unless you are sure of their occupants’ consent.” (24:27)

Islam protects privacy, not kill it. Where did the Malaysian idea of Islam go wrong?

Note: You can raise this issue to JAWI by calling them at 1800-88-1771 and ask justice for Melissa Mohd. Akhir.

March 11,2010

Citizen Journalist Arvind Raj

R.Suresh Kumar the aide of Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader who is going through sodomy trials in Malaysia has called the Human Rights Party as an ” Illegal organisation and Maybe a worst scenario than a Terrorist”  in a rather one sided video produced by Malaysiakini [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOEAkxEhvE]. Human Rights Party at the other hand produced another video to explain its intentions in organising the protest in front of the PKR Headquarters[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmaGLDQs-k8] which was not explained or said in the video produced by Malaysiakini.  HRP Party Pro-Tem Sec.General Mr.P.Uthayakumar has stated his dissatisfaction towards the online news portal, accusing them for acting similar to the Mainstream Medias, which is biased and one sided with their own political agendas. R.Suresh Kumar agreed that he was part of the demonstrators  in the Nov 25,2007 Hindraf Rally, and now giving a shocking statement that HRP is an illegal Organisation, despite knowing that Hindraf was the main subject and factor that lead the Pakatan Rakyat to win overwhelmingly in the past March 08 GE. The sense of appreciation was not there in his interview to Malaysiakini, which can be clearing seen in his defensive statement against the protest by HRP. The Motive of HRP in organising the protest is to defend the poor and helpless Indians, and in the frustration over hope that has been shattered and promises that has not been fulfilled by Pakatan Rakyat since even before the 08 General Election. The issues that has been brought are Tamil School land issues, Temple issues, Graveyard Land issues and rights of the Indians as promised by the Pakatan Rakyat Government. In the same video by Malaysiakini, R.Suresh Kumar said that HRP has to have a discussion with the BN ruled State Government Chief Ministers before meeting the PR ruled state Chief Ministers but one new information in the Video is, Chief Minister of Johor Bahru which never been heard before, I hope that R.Suresh Kumar will explain his statement regarding the Johor Bahru Chief Minister. Why must HRP need to speak to the Chief Ministers of the BN ruled states? People voted them out and replace the Government to Pakatan Rakyat in the “HOPE” that they will bring changes to the normal 50years marginalisation and unfair system by Barisan Nasional. The system  has not changed since Pakatan took over the 3 states, instead the pattern can be seen in the administration of the Pakatan Rakyat Government too. Ego, Unfair, Ignorant and not transparent. Why must be the Aide of Anwar Ibrahim, talk about the Barisan MP’s and he is justifying the act of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, what Anwar and his alliances has to do with the Barisan Nasional Government? Any Hidden agendas? Secret and unknown future collabration?  Pakatan Rakyat top leaders must have been at least present there to discuss and treat the protesters with more cautious with respect, since HRP the child born from Hindraf, was one of the main influence to the victory of Pakatan Rakyat and to make Anwar Ibrahim as the Oppositon leader from no where. I think appointing R.Suresh Kumar as the representative or on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim to accept the Memorandum is an old technique used by the UMNO regime and it is the disastrous decision made by Anwar Ibrahim. We are unsure of the role of P.Vasanthakumar’s presence in the protest against the protest by HRP. Pakatan Rakyat has lost the trust of the supporters due to the ala UMNO way of handling protesters in a disrespectful manner. In the times of critical turmoil within the party and its coalition, Pakatan Rakyat could have handle this protest in a more fragile and cautious manner. This is a critical time where  people are confused and unsure of the genuine intentions of political parties in which Pakatan has to make every move cautiously, sincerely and with their promises fulfilled.

Rwindraj

www.cj.my/cryingvoices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsetwKTDSA4

A Mix subject; Leaders did not perform as they promised.

By Arvind Raj

01 Jan, 2009

The Hindraf leaders who went under the Draconian unlawful ISA detention without trial for 2 years have been released from Kamunting detention centre. They are now free to conduct their social services to fight against the discrimination, poverty, religious issues and marginalization of the Indians in Malaysia including human rights issues.

The political tsunami which caused the Nation shivered on March 08, 2008 was mainly the call for unity among Indians by the Hindraf leaders. Which cannot be denied by anyone, although some leaders are ungrateful and forgotten it. There is an informal quote about the 3rd March GE “Even if a donkey had been placed on the constitution in Penang, Perak and Selangor as a candidate, it will win! People have decided to throw the votes blindly to the opposition for a change.

The supremacy of the word Makkal Sakthi which was introduced by Hindraf is now being exploited by leaders such as Thanenthiran who is clearly seen working on self interest and fame. Not to help the Indians, he is known to be the traitor among the Indians and now holds the number one position as the most hated Indian so-called Leader of MMSP, although he doesn’t posses the real leadership attitudes. He is well known as a main trader that sold the slogan Makkal Sakthi to the UMNO leadership and he has a plan to overturn Samy Vellu and the MIC as the main Indian Giant party although the party has lost its trust from the people in the last General Election when most of its candidates lost their seats including its president which lost his seat to Dr.Jeyakumar in Sungai Siput.

It is believed that Samy Vellu was the first Barisan Nasional person that had visited him in the hospital in Penang when he was hospitalized due to chest complication after Anwar Ibrahim refused to give him a seat as a candidate in one by-election in Kedah, he has challenged Anwar Ibrahim with a deadline but Anwar ignored him even after the challenge. On the day of the deadline he admitted himself. Thanenthiran was a sacked Hindraf National Coordinator for an unknown reason.

The five Hindraf ISA detainees and its chairman Waythamoorthy had the influence towards the Indians in Malaysia before the November 25, 2007 and while serving their unlawful confinement in Kamunting Detention Centre. Indians were united for a change and freedom in term of opportunities in studies, business, job opportunities and religious rights. Indians were denied a progress in the National Mainstream equally with other races especially the Malays and privileged Bumiputera under the banner of the Barisan Nasional Government since Independence. They are less attracted now since they did not show a unity among themselves although the reason behind it is too complicated and need a thorough study and explanation.

Indians and Chinese hand to hand has voted to support the opposition party along with some one-hearted Malays to bring a change in the country, in the hope that they will bring changes and equality and transparency.

Leaders such as Lim Guan Eng, Ramasamy and RSN Rayer from Penang had broken their promises witnessed by the King of Law of Malaya Karpal Singh. They will be the main obstacle for Anwar Ibrahim’s dream to be the Prime Minister and one of the main reasons why the Indians supporters are jumping ship. Anwar has showered his own sands in his dreams by promising something that he is incapable of in Penang. Lim Guan Eng has ignored the plead by his own state citizens in Kg.Buah Pala that has worked for his party day and night by comparing them as “only 24 families” and downgrade himself as “Powerless compared to Barisan Nasional Government” repeatedly. He had shattered the ‘Dream for a change’ by millions of longing hearts.

Current parties participated by Indians in Malaysia will be PPP, Gerakan, IPF, HRP, UMIP, Keadilan, MIC, DAP, including PAS, and more parties are predicted to be emerging soon. This is a great sign to certain quarters which hopes for the split of the Indian votes, whom are known to be the king makers, or the deciding factor in the victory of the election candidates.

The unity among Indians here is in a critical disposition when the leaders of the community are hunger for self gain and addicted to fame and glamour.

Each and every leader in the country has to be ‘selfless being’ in order to achieve the unity and improvement of the community. Leaders must not be pointing fingers on a different direction but has to point finger to them in order to achieve the desired improvement of the community. Rather than working on a blaming games and fighting to be outstanding in the medias, leaders has to work hand in hand without bothering their believes and differences, to achieve the unity and influences to attract respect to the community as whole. A car with several steering will lead to No where!

Arvind Raj@Cryingvoices