We refer to the article entitled ‘The RPK blip, bleep and the Beeb’ written by Shane Fuentes and published in Malaysian Mirror, in particular the following part of that article:
When RPK tried to desperately contact London-based Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman Waythamoorthy Ponnusamy, the latter was understandably very wary and kept a good distance from him. RPK used a go-between to get Waythamoorthy to see him but the latter rebuffed all attempts. Finally, RPK turned up one morning at Waythamoorthy’s door himself. He was virtually shown the door.
Subsequently, he went on a tirade against Hindraf, labeling it and the Ponnusamy brothers – including the elder Uthayakumar – as racists. Hindraf did not dignify RPK’s attacks with any rebuttal.
In a statement that make no reference whatsoever to RPK, Hindraf has explained that “a racist is one who denies other people their rights in the sun”.
In the case of Hindraf, it was further explained, the ad hoc apolitical movement was only fighting for the rights of the marginalized to have their place in the sun without depriving others, in the process, of their rights”.
Hindraf sees no need to speak up for others but to focus only on the plight of the marginalized. This has been latched on by RPK to label Hindraf in his blog as racist since “it doesn’t speak up for all but only one group”.
Is it any wonder therefore that the BBC has found RPK not newsworthy enough or credible to appear on its HARDTalk show?
RPK neither makes a difference for the better nor for worse. He’s in the non-news category. No news is bad news. Bad news is good news. When a dog bites a man, it’s not news. When a man bites a dog, it’s news.
It’s more likely that Hindraf’s Waythamoorthy will soon appear on a BBC show. Even hardcore Malay racists in Malaysia concede, albeit grudgingly, that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi makes a compelling case. (read more here).
We wish to confirm that the article above is inaccurate, to put it mildly, as we have a very good relationship that extends beyond just a professional relationship but is very personal in nature. We have met many times and have visited each other’s homes on numerous occasions. Your commentary is therefore not only misleading but also malicious in intent.
Issued by:
Waythamoorthy Ponnusamy and Raja Petra Kamarudin
When RPK tried to desperately contact London-based Hindraf Makkal Sakthi chairman Waythamoorthy Ponnusamy, the latter was understandably very wary and kept a good distance from him. RPK used a go-between to get Waythamoorthy to see him but the latter rebuffed all attempts. Finally, RPK turned up one morning at Waythamoorthy’s door himself. He was virtually shown the door.
Subsequently, he went on a tirade against Hindraf, labeling it and the Ponnusamy brothers – including the elder Uthayakumar – as racists. Hindraf did not dignify RPK’s attacks with any rebuttal.
In a statement that make no reference whatsoever to RPK, Hindraf has explained that “a racist is one who denies other people their rights in the sun”.
In the case of Hindraf, it was further explained, the ad hoc apolitical movement was only fighting for the rights of the marginalized to have their place in the sun without depriving others, in the process, of their rights”.
Hindraf sees no need to speak up for others but to focus only on the plight of the marginalized. This has been latched on by RPK to label Hindraf in his blog as racist since “it doesn’t speak up for all but only one group”.
Is it any wonder therefore that the BBC has found RPK not newsworthy enough or credible to appear on its HARDTalk show?
RPK neither makes a difference for the better nor for worse. He’s in the non-news category. No news is bad news. Bad news is good news. When a dog bites a man, it’s not news. When a man bites a dog, it’s news.
It’s more likely that Hindraf’s Waythamoorthy will soon appear on a BBC show. Even hardcore Malay racists in Malaysia concede, albeit grudgingly, that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi makes a compelling case. (read more here).
We wish to confirm that the article above is inaccurate, to put it mildly, as we have a very good relationship that extends beyond just a professional relationship but is very personal in nature. We have met many times and have visited each other’s homes on numerous occasions. Your commentary is therefore not only misleading but also malicious in intent.
Issued by:
Waythamoorthy Ponnusamy and Raja Petra Kamarudin
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment