24/4 - PS from WMP on Suhakam's "probe" on Uthaya's health

HINDRAF
135-3 JALAN TOMAN 7
KEMAYAN SQUARE
70200 SEREMBAN
MALAYSIA.
24th April 2008.

PRESS STATEMENT.

RE: Sivasubramaniam is liar, incompetent and lacks moral authority.
A probe without getting uthayakumar's testimony is a farce.
SUHAKAM irresponsible and serves as a tool of Govertnment.
Alleged "probe" not done according to powers conferred to Suhakam.

HINDRAF strongly condemns the "4 hour closed door probe" conducted by Sivasubramaniam which is one sided and deliberately calculated to paint a bad picture of the already defenceless P.Uthayakumar.

Sivasubramaniam and his team are liars, incompetent and lack moral authority. How can he(sivasubramaniam) speak for Uthayakumar that he is satisfied with the medication given to him when he (siva) never even interviewed him. The fact remains that uthayakumar was denied his medication for one month and for Suhakam to claim this is untrue is baseless and highly prejudical. What happened to the 6 written requests made by uthayakumar to the Prison Director. What happened to the medication supplied by his family members and lawyers that went mysteriously missing.

It sounds procedurally correct when he claims that the medication should be prescribed by the health Ministry. If the Government have the audacity to arrest him without trial then they should take the responsibility to immediately do a thorough medical check up on him and prescribe the necessary medication that was due to him . Isn't that the responsibility of the government and prison authorities?

What is even more puzzling is how does Siva knows that the contents of the medication supplied by the Prison and Uthaya's private doctor are the same? Since when did he turn into a "chemist" and we wonder if he ever conducted the necessary tests in the prison cell. It is amazing how a 4 hour probe can reveal all these complicated and scientific details.

They are many questions that were raised by the family of Uthayakumar that are still not answered but as a commissioner Siva could only lie for the sake of painting a bad picture of uthayakumar. It is a known fact that uthayakumar has had rows with SUHAKAM since its inception and he has never placed any confidence in it as an independent body. One would understand why then the family never approached SUHAKAM. Though under section 12 (1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 it may inquire an allegation of human rights violations on its own motion, SUHAKAM should not have conducted such inquiry in the first place knowing very well the animosity between them and Uthayakumar which goes back to the early days of Suhakam when he took action against SUHAKAM for failing to make an inquiry into the deaths in Kg.Medan.

HINDRAF wishes to assert that the inquiry conducted by SUHAKAM led by Sivasubramaniam is flawed as it did not follow the procedure and criteria laid down under Section 14 of the Act. Perhaps siva and his team should read and undertake some courses on how to conduct inquiries. Their conduct and the manner of inquiry which was completed within 4 hours without the knowledge of members of public is appalling. In short HINDRAF wishes to stress what was done by the team was never an inquiry but an attempt to tarnish the image of Uthayakumar, vindictive and malicious.

If not for Section 18 of the Act Siva and his team should have been prepared for a civil suit for their negligence.

P.WAYTHA MOORTHY
CHAIRMAN
HINDRAF
Currently in London.