Hindraf’s civil action at the Royal Court of Justice London to be heard on the March 30, 2015 is about the role played by Britain in seeding the current polarised and imbalanced situation both on entrenched racism and Islamisation of Malaysia after 58 years of independence.
Hindraf wishes to reiterate that the suit would no doubt be beneficial to all Malaysians who seek human rights and equality. The suit is filed on behalf of the Indian Malaysians to overcome various legal hurdles in the unprecedented case which is likely to expand the law beyond the current narrow interpretations of the law of tort and international laws.
Hindraf would seek to prove that Britain owed a duty of care to Indian Malayans in 1957 as the Indians from the plantations then were of the third and fourth generations and thus were citizens of the UK and Colonies by virtue of the British Nationality Act 1948.
The civil suit, backed up by thousands of pages of documentary evidence obtained from declassified documents in London, would substitute oral evidence needed to prove the case. Hindraf would prove that the constitution granted and approved by the British cabinet and Parliament did not meet the minimum standard required of a constitution.
A constitution is supposed to be the highest piece of legislation of a country with guarantees of fundamental freedoms, however the British government compromised and engineered an inferior document instead of a constitution.
Hindraf would prove that the major role played by Britain in ensuring all needs of a constitution were compromised against the original recommendations made by Reid Constitutional Commission and their deceit in colluding with our founding father Tunku Abdul Rahman. We would be exposing the entrenchment of a racist constitution and the creation of provisions that eventually would turn Malaya into an Islamic state as what we see happening today.
The dilution of fundamental provisions in the constitution and granting of racially superior rights to Malays has turned Malaysia into institutionally racist governance and of late creeping extreme Islamic principles. What is even more disturbing is that the non-Malays do not have rights but only legitimate interests under Article 153 of the constitution.
The attempt of passing hudud laws would not be possible if the original recommendations of the Reid Commission had been adhered to. The racist and extreme religious agenda and discrimination of the ruling government, surprisingly not opposed by the other side of the political divide, are all squarely the direct creation of Britain, from which we suffer perpetually.
Hindraf expects the British government to resist our case intensely. It would be an embarrassing case for Britain when the evidence eventually surfaces. The non-Malays and Orang Asal in the peninsula and natives from Sabah and Sarawak would benefit from this suit as the truth and actual manipulation would surface. We deserve to be equal citizens in rights and dignity.
P WAYTHAMOORTHY is chair, Persatuan Hindraf Malaysia.
