The case of Mr Khan

The sad truth is that most Malaysians have a short memory on matters that they would rather not get involved with.

By Lim Teck Ghee

Many Malaysians have forgotten how much we owe to Hindraf and its supporters for awakening the spirit of dissent and conscience of the people against the Barisan Nasional’s unscrupulous use of state force and power.

A little over three years ago, it was a Hindraf organized rally against the socio-economic and religious marginalization of poor Indians, especially of Tamil origin, that brought over 40,000 supporters to the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demonstrate for the right to justice and fair treatment. It was an event that was quite unprecedented in our political history, including in the overkill and repressive measures used by the police and other government authorities.

We also seem to have forgotten the extraordinary personal sacrifices of the movement’s leaders in their efforts to assert their legitimate right to dissent and to draw attention to the plight of their community.

Five prime movers of the movement were incarcerated under the Internal Security Act and many supporters were subject to pressure and other forms of disincentives to compel them to abandon their struggle.

The political impact of the Hindraf movement can be seen in the results of the 2008 general election when a disenchanted electorate – drawing inspiration from the Hindraf struggle – saw through the hypocrisy of the BN’s policies and leadership and lost its fear of opposing the incumbent ruling parties.

Because we owe them so much, it is doubly disappointing that so few Malaysians appear to be concerned over the recent deportation of Imran Khan, the solicitor appointed for the Hindraf suit in Britain.

Khan was detained at KLIA on arrival at 2pm last Friday and deported at 2am the next day and apparently attempts by top officials from London and the British High Commission to assist him were not entertained by the Malaysian authorities.

Condoning deportation standards

The Malaysian authorities have not explained why they stopped a solicitor from meeting his clients.

To date too apparently, neither the Malaysian Bar nor any of the civil society movements nor members of Parliament have registered any concern or protested publicly, according to a Hindraf source.

This silence is all the more stunning given the audacious excuse by the authorities that Khan is a “prohibited immigrant” and his name is on the list of ‘wanted’ persons.

In fact Khan is a prominent Commonwealth citizen renowned for his work in human rights and the fight against racism.

Whatever misgivings one might have with Hindraf as Khan’s clients, it is important that we raise our voices and not be seen as condoning his deportation especially when this is a breach of recognized international protocols and when he has not uttered a word against the Malaysian government and can in no way be construed as “a threat to the country’s security”.

A chorus of protests was raised against the government when the solicitor from France, William Bourdon, was deported a month ago in connection with his visit to draw attention to the scandal over the Scorpene submarine case.

The same Hindraf source has noted that there has been a deafening silence for almost a week on Khan’s deportation and commented that “surely, the entire “civil society” and Bar could not possibly be ignorant?”

He was probably being sarcastic. The sad truth is that most Malaysians have a short memory on matters that they would rather not get involved with or whatever memory cells they have are easily short circuited by the official spin.