HRP’s P.Uthayakumar is “racist”– a fact or ploy?

Part I
According Uthayakumar, the Malaysians Indians, 70 % of whom he estimates to be in the poor and hardcore poor categories and another 25 % in the lower middle and middle income categories, unaided by UMNO government ridden with racism and religious bigotry, are left to fend for themselves. Even the change, much anticipated and hoped for, post 2008 election in the opposition ruled states is a great let down.

Failing to answer any of P. Uthayakumar’s claims that the opposition alliance has failed to deliver its election promises to Indians and is practicing the same “racial politics” practiced by UMNO, favouring the majority Malays and Chinese, the opposition alliance seemed to have employed a rhetorical strategy, labeling him a “racist” in an attempt that seems to neutralise and discredit his claims.

Charges of racism
In this modern day politics, no one wants to be accused of racism or to be called racist. If it is Uthayakumar who is playing the “race card”, logically being a small party representing the poor minority community, and having not aligned himself with either the ruling coalition or the opposition alliance, what does he stand to gain really, politically?

In such a case, Uthayakumar’s emphatic repudiation of the opposition’s “racist” label as an attempt to counter his dissent on the opposition’s racial politics cannot be dismissed as a “Indian this, Indians that” mindset. Unless proven otherwise, it could be, as he claims, the opposition alliance that is covering up for the shortcomings in its “multiracial” politics.

Definitions of racism
Oxford dictionary defines racism as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualitiesspecific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races” and “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior”.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” and “racial prejudice or discrimination”.

Indian Perkasa
Based on the definitions above, those accusing Uthayakumar a “racist” need to explain which part of his struggle qualifies him to be a “racist”? In his struggle as a human rights activist and advocate over twenty years against UMNO’s racism, he has not even once claimed that Indians are of a superior race. Rather his claim has always been that the Indians are victims of such racism and race supremacism.  Neither has he in his struggle, discriminated ‘others’ on the belief that his own race is superior to ‘other’ races? HRP/Hindraf is often called the Indian Perkasa, equated to the UMNO’s Perkasa. Has Uthayakumar ever claimed that Indians are the masters of this land or theirs is the supreme race in the country like Ibrahim Ali claims “Ketuanan Melayu”? Beyond that, with the support of poor Indians, minorities at that, with all the social disadvantages in the country, he is in no position to discriminate or exercise prejudice against ‘others’? As such, to equate HRP/Hindraf’s struggle to that of Perkasa is a shallow parody of the truth.

If Uthayakumar is indeed a racist, where is the proof, and if no, why the racial rhetoric?

Racial discourse by dominant groups
Perhaps understanding the game and power of racial discourse by the dominant groups in racial politics world over might help to shed some light on why a human rights activist and advocate like Uthayakumar is being shrewdly labeled a “racist” by his political opponents.

Racial discourses shape mental models. It is a form of propaganda (Fields 1990: 110-112) in which social actors employ rhetorical strategies in order to make ‘claims’ and promote a particular interpretation of a social issue. Successful “claims making” enable practitioners to mobilize supporters, attract adherence and neutralise or discredit political opponents. Racial discourse is an attempt to influence others’ perception and a convenient tool to gain political advantages.

Racial discourse of dominant groups work very well to legitimize and reproduce dominance by minimizing claims of inequality and marginalization of subordinate groups and makes dominant group understanding normative for a larger society (Doane, 2006).

Racial discourse is inextricably intertwined with issues of power. Dominant groups enjoy disproportionate access to vehicles of transmission for discourse, including among others, government (e.g. opposition alliance with four states) and media (van Djik, 1997).

The global conundrum of racial politics
In the light of the global conundrum of racial politics, Uthayakumar’s claim that the minority Indians suffer the worst form of racism in Malaysia is not hard to comprehend. Racism on minorities exists in many countries around the world. Grosfoguel (1997) argued that poverty, unemployment and low wages are significant among people of African and Caribbean descent in Europe than among the “native Whites.” In fact, poverty, unemployment and low wages have been so rampant among the racially underrepresented groups of Europe that certain countries have experienced unprecedented social protest. In November 2005, exasperated by racism and police brutality, the youth of Caribbean, North and sub-Saharan African descent expressed their frustration by rioting throughout the artificially segregated Parisian suburbs, which offer little to no prospects (Schneider, 2008). Hindraf’s 25 November 2007 phenomenal rally comes to mind.

HRP/Hindraf’s 18-point demand, including issues related to Tamil schools, higher education, job and business opportunities, seek equality and nondiscrimination. This is provided for in the Federal Constitution. 
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution provides for equality before the law. 
Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides for no discrimination by reason of race or religion in any educational institution receiving government financial assistance.

Uthayakumar’s struggle for equality and nondiscrimination considered “racism” by both BN and PR leaders is puzzling as developed countries are moving towards equality and nondiscrimination in their policies. Nondiscrimination now stands as the key fundamental right in Europe and has been the object of many legislative acts, transposed from the European to national levels (Howard, 2005). From a political point of view “discrimination” has now become the new lens through which European policy makers who seek to promote equality and justice in plural societies view the fight against inequalities (Koppelman, 1996). As a result, the legal apparatus to address discrimination has been enhanced (de Schutter, 2006). This development has made, among others, possible for the vulnerable population, to gain protection and recognition, and in some cases obtain compensation because they have been the victims of unequal treatment based on their race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability (Amiraux and Guiraudon, 2010).

Obama’s call to transcend race and his successful bid to the presidency as well as the Bolivian indigenous Evo Morales’ and African Mandela’s presidencies are all efforts taken by the western world to end racism and inequality in their countries. 

It seems then that Uthayakumar’s struggle for justice and equality for the long marginalized minority Indians, for whom nobody else is willing to speak, is in line with the current global political trend of nondiscrimination and equality in plural societies.

Charges of racism and the use of the label “racist” especially by the dominant group can bring detrimental damage and serve as the best rhetorical weapon to kill the opponent.  Any such serious claim of racism should be rebutted and proved with factual evidence.

So far, Uthayakumar seems to have proven his claim that Pakatan Rakyat is playing racial politics sidestepping the Indians, with many factual evidences (some of which will be discussed in my following article) in his website (www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com).

Nonetheless, the same can’t be said about the opposition alliance which, on the one hand, is suspiciously silent on his claims, and on the other, virulently attack him as “racist”





Iraiputran

To the critics of Hindraf and Uthayakumar

Haris Ibrahim alleges 'communalism' and was quoted as saying he was particularly turned off by Uthaya's e-mail statement on the shooting of Aminulrasyid.



Looking through the Human Rights Party (HRP) website, I found these statements below; Uthaya's article headlines within inverted commas and my comments added in brackets.

(1) 'No justice for six Indians shot dead by police in one transaction. Policeman shot dead Malay-Muslim in a rare case instantly prosecuted'. [Can readers name another Indian besides Kugan who has been a victim of police brutality? They're largely namelesss to the mainstream media and yet according to Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong, 'Indians are a minority in this country but they form the majority when it comes to statistics on deaths in police custody or police killings.']

(2) 'Murder probe for odd Malay youth shot dead by police, criminal tag for hundreds of Indian youths killed by police!' [Exaggerated maybe, but is the 'criminal' tagging true though?]

(3) 'Deputy Home Minister visits Aminulrasyid's home. But zero such visits to any Indian shot dead by police & murder in police custody case.'

(4) 'Shot dead by police Home Ministry panel at work and media headlines. But zero for Indians victims.' [Last November, five Indian youths were shot dead by police in Klang. Of these 'suspected armed robbers' aged between 17 and 24, three were brothers. If you can't picture their mother's grief at three coffins lying side by side, perhaps you might recall the fourth victim's sister who committed suicide by drinking paraquat. Her name was Seetha.]

I won't refute that Uthaya has been race-specific in his crusade to highlight grievances but would it do justice to the real situation if he hadn't, and instead employed a blanket description of 'Malaysian' shot dead?

Kua summed up Suaram's 'Policing the Malaysian Police' 2005 report, a portion of which found, 'The marginalised Indians who make up some of the poorest and most oppressed sections among West Malaysians have been portrayed in a racist light. Yet Indians have been the main victims of racial killings such as at Kampung Medan in 2001, deaths in police custody as well as trigger-happy police shootings.'

Rebutting the 'communalism' accusation generally, R Shan in an earlier article in the HRP website wrote: 'Whenever an Indian issue is raised, it is classified as racist and not as a community issue, even when it is the truth and reality.'

Shan also pointed out that the first case handled pro bono by Uthaya on custodial death was 10 years ago – KL High Court civil suit (SI-21-61-2000) – for Mohd Anuar bin Sharip's family who approached Hindraf as a last resort. Hindraf's next case was the second postmortem of Ho Kwai See who died after eight days in police detention.

In the latter half of its story, Malaysiakini quoted blogger Salahuddin Hisham as saying, 'When you [Uthaya] highlighted the plight of the estate workers, do you know that there are also Javanese and Chinese workers in the estates? There are also the Chinese, Malay, and people of other races who are poor, not just Indians.

I'm presuming the Javanese he mentions are Indonesian. Whereas the Malay First-ers crave a monopoly on victimhood, poverty and suffering, Hindraf's harshest critics are the nationality-loving Malaysian First-ers who discount that race matters.

To Salahuddin's contention that it is not just the Indian community that needs special attention, I would counter that their urgent distress signal is not getting the attention it deserves.

Salahuddin is indeed correct that there are the poor from every community. However, the Malays live on land that belongs to them and they have their kampung to call home or return to, and there is Malay Reserve Land. On the other hand, when the plantations were dismantled, Indians who lost their estate jobs were turned out homeless to become urban squatters. They have not been the beneficiaries of government land programmes such as Felda, Felcra, Risda and others.

Unlike Malays, the Indians have no social safety net and receive little notice or help from the welfare departments. Furthermore, what is the evidence of your own eyes? I see vagrants sleeping on the five-foot way and they have consistently been Indian men.
I see Indian small vendors selling newspapers and sweets, and what they sell in sidewalk stalls fetch meagre profit like flowers and jasmine garlands at RM1 a strand.

I see that road sweepers, car washers and parking attendants are Indians, garbage collectors are Indians (and Indonesians), cleaners and labourers are Indians (and Indonesians). The Indians have been in this land for generations and their status no better than illegal immigrants.

The primarily English-speaking Malaysian First-ers like to think they are superiorly beyond or above ethnicity and choose to hold themselves aloof from Hindraf. They complain that Hindraf is confrontational, abrasive, hyperbolic, sectarian and always talking about Indians alone, plus the clincher – 'Hindraf is racist'.

Nonetheless, I would urge Malaysians to reassess this 'racist' label that they apply so cavalierly as well as to put Hindraf's struggle in proper context.

Our Malaysian constitution has Article 153 guaranteeing the Malay special position and granting quotas. The Umno-led government has since Independence (Mara was established before 1969) unremittingly implemented NEP-like policies that favour solely one race. This race-oriented structure of state has ultimately stranded Indians at the bottom of the heap.

While one may question his methodology like Haris does, still, Uthaya has spent a lot of time pondering on the Indian condition during his ISA detention of more than 500 days.

For his dues paid in Kamunting, surely we can give Uthaya this much, that is to weigh the substance, ie, merit of the argument and not be too distracted by the form. The form of Hindraf is arguably narrow – Hindu Rights Action Front – but then again, people don't similarly demand that Sisters in Islam must take up the cudgels for Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc or fight for men's rights in order to be viewed as inclusive.

I'm well aware that Hindraf does not endear itself to Malaysians who prefer politically correct posturing such as Yasmin Ahmad's huggy-feely Petronas ads or Anas Zubedy's feel-good publicity campaigns. But if Hindraf's critics are really so Malaysian-First, why do they read foremost in English? If one were to read more in Malay, you'd realise how negative and belligerent the stereotyping has been of Indians in our unique 'agama dan bangsa'-permeated environment.

Uthaya reluctantly agreed to came to the BUM gathering – which he already anticipated to be 'hostile' – to try to dispel the entrenched prejudices. What eventually transpired can only convince HRP that they're banging their heads against a wall of indifference.

It's undeniable that Uthaya and his colleagues have alienated even 'friends' (individuals, organizations and alternative media) sympathetic to the Indian cause. This being the case, perhaps we would all be better off going our separate ways whilst minding the Indian saying – 'If you can't help, don't hinder'.

Although Hindraf and its political arm HRP might be unpalatable to you, nonetheless the issues they raise are entirely valid. Once you grasp the gravity of the message, you could perhaps get some inkling as to why the messenger has lost patience with Malaysians. The official set-up of this country assuredly makes us one of the most race-obsessed in the world but it is paradoxically Hindraf and not bumiputera-ism that is taken to task.




Helen Ang

Kuil Hindu di Kelantan - in Bahasa Malaysia

Saya dibesarkan di Tumpat, sejak dua bulan dilahirkan, sehinggalah Tingkatan Lima. Semasa zaman remaja, kami bersembahyang di Kuil Sri Maha Mariaman Hindu di Tumpat, Kelantan.

Kuil tersebut dibina kelas pekerja India landasan keretapi semasa zaman penjajahan.
Kuil Hindu ini dibina di kawasan yang terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Islam dan diperintah PAS. Dua tahun yang lepas, semasa saya melawat ke kuil ini, saya diberitahu bahawa hanya dua keluarga India sahaja yang tinggal di Tumpat. Namun, kuil Hindu kami tersergam sehingga hari ini di jalan utama menuju ke Tumpat.

Saya menunjuk kepada isteri dan anak-anak kuil Hindu yang menemani saya ketika membesar dengan penuh nostalgia. Kuil ini kekal sebagai warisan sejarah Kelantan sehingga hari ini. Kuil Hindu kami ini boleh dirobohkan atau dipindahkan dari Kelantan memandangkan kawasan ini terdiri daripada 99.99% Melayu-Muslim, atau kerana negeri ini digelar "Serambi Mekah".
Saya percaya bahawa idea ini tidak terlintas dalam minda Menteri Besar, Nik Aziz. Inilah amalan kepelbagaian agama di kawasan yang diperintah 99% Melayu-Muslim PAS. Patung Buddha Tidur yang terbesar bukan terletak di Thailand, Kembodia atau India, di mana Buddhism berasal, tetapi di Kg.Neting, Tumpat Kelantan.

Kepelbagaian kaum dan agama di Malaysia memerlukan kewujudan bersama (religious coexistence), daripada toleransi agama. Maka kita tidak akan berdepan dengan kes bantahan kuil Hindu di mana kawasan majoriti dan didominasi UMNO seperti Seksyen 19 dan 22 Shah Alam, dengan alasan bahawa kawasan ini didominasi Melayu Muslim.

Ektremis agama yang berarak protes dengan kepala lembu tidak akan ditangkap, dan tidak akan didakwa secara serius oleh peguam negara dalam "1Malaysia" yang disarankan PM Najib Razak. Justeru itu, extremism perkauman dan agama berterusan di Malaysia. Pada hakikatnya, mereka memperoleh sokongan Menteri Dalam Negeri Hishammuddin Hussein yang menghalalkan tindakan mereka. Kerajaan Persekutuan yang dikawal UMNO, dan kerajaan negeri Selangor yang dikawal PKR, dan kerajaan negeri yang perintah PR di Barat Malaysia, perlu belajar dari Kelantan yang diperintah PAS.

PM Najib Razak berkuasa untuk mengeluarkan surat pekeliling yang memperuntukkan kuasa kepada Menteri Besar Selangor PKR dan Menteri Besar atau Ketua Menteri di negeri pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat, untuk memberi hak milik tanah kepada semua kuil Hindu yang sedia ada dan digazetkan sebagai kuil Hindu, seperti yang berlaku di kawasan 99% tanah rizab Melayu di negeri Kelantan. Maka, ia akan menoktahkan pemecahan dan ketegangan kaum dan agama di Malaysia yang baru, tidak pernah berlaku malah tidak perlu berlaku ini.

Begitu juga ia perlu dilakukan terhadap semua Hindu crematorium, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk India seperti Kg.Buah Pala. Ini sebenarnya akan menyelesaikan setengah masalah yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India untuk selama-lamanya.

Namun, kedua-dua UMNO, PKR di Selangor dan negeri pantai Barat lain yang diperintah PR hanya bermain politik wayang kulit, dengan "mandores" India mereka melalui media cetak dan elektronik, dengan pengumuman kosong tentang tanah sementara untuk kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium. Kemudian, dihebohkan bak pepatah "ayam telur sebiji riuh sekampung."

Kerajaan negeri yang mempunyai kuasa mutlak dalam isu tanah negerinya, tidak mengeluarkan surat bertulis untuk tanah sementara tersebut yang diumumkan oleh mereka, memberi hak milik tanah atau gazet kepada kuil Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan crematorium Hindu. Maka, keadaan kelas pekerja India baru-baru ini, di Kampung Buah Pala dan Seksyen 19 dan 22, Shah Alam, hanyalah sebahagian kecil masalah kritikal yang dihadapi kelas pekerja India di Malaysia.
Hanya di Malaysia, dan terutamanya atas nama pembangunan, kuil Hindu, crematorium Hindu, sekolah Tamil dan tempat duduk orang India yang miskin dijadikan sasaran utama. Kami menyimpan rekod ribuan kes sedemikian.

Masalah ini jarang berlaku di komuniti Melayu, Cina, orang asli, Iban atau Kadazan di Malaysia. Ia berlaku kepada hampir semua kelas pekerja India. Mengapa? Kerana BN, PKR, DAP, PAS, NGO dan masyarakat sivil mendakwa diri mereka "berbilang kaum" dan "berbilang agama."
Ini semua kerana kelas pekerja India tidak memiliki kuasa politik atau pengaruh ekonomi, dan seterusnya tiada dalam hampir semua UMNO, PKR, DAP, PAS (kecuali Kelantan), NGO yang sudi untuk menguruskan masalah kritikal India.





*Kenyataan ini dikeluarkan oleh P.Uthayakumar, Setiausaha Agung (pro-tem) Parti Hak Asasi Manusia (Human Rights Party, HRP). Teks asalnya bahasa Inggeris.

Uthayakumar finds a new office, still looking for his way

A controversial man and his new vision is taking shape at No. 6 Jalan Abdullah — the ground floor of an ordinary looking five-storey office block off Jalan Bangsar.

One thing however is striking — the bright orange/saffron colour that is newly being applied outside and inside the office when The Malaysian Insider team visited on Wednesday.

The bold Hindraf colour stands out in the pastel surrounding announcing the arrival of lawyer Uthayakumar Ponnusamy, recently released from ISA detention and still undecided what he wants to be — activist lawyer or pioneering politician.

“I am unhappy with both terms,” he says as supporters paint the wall and bring in old files, photographs, banners and plaques, all memorabilia from nearly 20 years of activism, since his return from London as a lawyer in 1990.

“The word politician gives me the creeps because politicians make promises that they seldom keep. I am also abandoning my law practice because law does not give justice to the people... not in this country,” he said.

“Besides Umno has no respect for the law,” he said taking a dig at his favourite adversary. “People here can’t get justice through the law and the courts are unreliable.”

No. 6 is where the Hindraf founder is setting up shop and hoping to recapture the magic of the Makkal Sakthi movement that he had sparked with his Nov 5, 2007 mass protest here.

Everywhere on the floor of his new office are the clutter of his past — books, file, banners, photographs — that tell the story of his life and the choices he had made.

As a student in London in the mid-1980s he was a leading light in the MIC Club of London.

He was also a pro-Barisan Nasional (BN) and pro-Anwar Ibrahim student although he now tries to skirt around that period.

On his return in 1990 he started a successful law practice but soon was caught up in the political maelstrom that followed the sacking of the former deputy prime minister.

In fact he was in Anwar’s house that day — Sept 20, 1998 — when balaclava-clad policemen stormed the house and took him away.

He was a Keadilan member but soon fell out with Anwar because he blamed him for not doing enough for the Indians.

After that Uthayakumar ventured into his own, forming the Party Reformasi Insan Malaysia or PRIM, which with a dozen loyalists, was a complete non-starter.

He again moved on to forming the Police Watch NGO to fight police brutality and death in custody in which many of those affected were poor Indians.

Here he had greater success and managed to make his mark as a grassroots Indian leader. He also brought international condemnation onto the government and managed to force changes.

Then came the Nov 25 protest that made world headlines and turned him into a hero to some and a enemy to others.

After over 500 days in detention, Uthayakumar was released last month and is now trying to find his bearings in a cluttered and changed political landscape.

The other Hindraf leaders held with him have also all been released and are not keen to associate with Uthayakumar and his schemes anymore.

Some of his core lieutenants who kept the flame alive when the leaders were in Kamunting have also parted ways. The so called co-coordinators have all split.

National co-coordinator R.S. Thanenthiran has formed his own Makkal Sakthi Party of Malaysia, strangely in quick time and ironically without the involvement of any of the core Hindraf leaders.

Uthayakumar’s only consolation is that his brother Waythamoorthy is making final preparations to return from self-imposed exile in London and to an uncertain fate.

"We will work together... he is the brains. I often defer to him," Uthayakumar said.

After his release last month Uthayakumar held a series of meetings with key supporters and the one topic that dominated the discussions was, what next?

They had a choice — a grassroots-based NGO or a full fledged political party to gather all the loose strands and unite them under one umbrella.

“The debate was fierce and is still raging,” said Uthayakumar, declining to elaborate on the final choice.

“A decision has already been made and a formal announcement will be made at the Hokkien Hall in Klang on July 19,” he said, refusing to divulge what shape his new movement would take. “It will be a unique movement with a vision and a total plan of action."

Sources close to him however said he is expected to announce the setting up of a new political party, a field already crowded with numerous old, new and expired political parties.

It would be a multi-racial party, his aides said, but concentrating on alleviating the critical problems faced by the Indian community.

Uthayakumar refused to confirm or deny this.

“We will be a third and an independent force and will not join either Pakatan or Barisan,” he said.

Uthayakumar also visited key areas in the country where Hindraf had previously enjoyed significant support like in Batu Caves, Kulim in Kedah and Georgetown in Penang.

“The crowd was smaller but the people still came and thanked me profusely for fighting for their rights,” he said. “Some want to fall on my legs but I did not allow it.”

The smaller crowd is not significant, he said, adding the March 8 tsunami is over and unlikely to return any time soon. “It took 50 years of discrimination to build up the Nov 25 type of anger.”

“The point is we have to tackle the issues that confront our community — poverty, lack of skills, ill treatment and so forth,” he said. “Although the tsunami gave Pakatan big victory, but despite that the Indian woes remain.”

“This is what the third force will tackle… force Pakatan and Barisan to tackle our woes in return for our votes,” he said.

His plans seems to be to undercut the Pakatan Rakyat allies — PKR and DAP and other newer rivals like the Makkal Sakthi Party — and corner the Indian vote.

After that to use his influence as a bargaining chip with PR to get the best for the community.

He has written off the MIC, Gerakan and PPP as rivals for the Indian vote.

"They are well past their shelf lives."

If this is his dream vision, then he has his work cut out for him — as a start-up new party he has to slogged it out and build a network, gather members, form branches and divisions.

Relying just on the emotional support he now enjoys from some sections of the community could be short-lived as other competitors, some credible like Datuk T. Murugiah, are entering the field and making waves among the Indian grassroots.

Besides, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin are not idle. They are giving priority to minorities' concerns and are quietly winning over the hearts and minds of the Indians.

Uthayakumar's other choice is to join either the DAP or the PKR and try to work with them to get the results he desires.

His answer to this is an emphatic No! “I will not join them… they have betrayed the Indians,” he said.

The reaction on the other side is equally firm.

“We don’t want him… he is a wild fellow impossible to tame,” said a top DAP leader.

Baradan Kuppusamy

Water cannons turned on crowd in Brickfields

KUALA LUMPUR: Water cannons were turned on a group who came to the Brickfields police station to lodge mass police reports against the mistreatment of ISA detainee P. Uthayakumar who suffers from diabetes.
The crowd had refused to disperse despite repeated warnings from the police.
City police chief DCP Mohd Sabtu Osman said 17 people, including Kapar MP Manikavasagam, had been arrested for illegal gathering.
Among the arrested, three, including a woman, were sent to the hospital but police declined to comment.
Earlier Saturday, about 300 people, including several Members of Parliament, had gathered to make the police reports.
Police allowed about 50 people - five family members of Uthayakumar and five representatives each from the country’s nine states, including MPs - to enter the station to lodge the reports.
The rest outside were asked to disperse. Most of them did but about 30 refused to leave.
The Federal Reserve Unit, which was already on standby, began shooting chemical-laced water at the crowd. The 30 ran away and then came back. They were again shot at with water cannons.
They ran way again, regrouped and returned to face a third round of dousing before dispersing.
It took about 40 minutes for the FRU to disperse the crowd.
They have now established a safety perimeter around the police station.
Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said police had no choice as the crowd had ignored police advise to disperse as they were inconveniencing others at the Brickfields police station.
“We advised them on Friday and even appealed to them via the TV, newspapers and radio not to come in such large numbers to lodge the same report as we will investigate them as a single report.
“They refused to listen and seemed to want to create unnecessary problems for others.
“The police station is a security area and we cannot allow such huge numbers inside for security reasons,’’ he said.
Musa warned that police would not hesitate to take stern action against any illegal gathering.
Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo who arrived later said that the incident should not have happened as every citizen had the right to lodge a police report regardless of the number.
“It is clear there are different standards practised by the police when dealing with such matters,” he said.




By Lourdes Charles and M. Kumar, The Star