Storify Feed Feedburner Facebook Twitter Flickr Youtube

ROS Lboard

MIC has no more dignity, says DAP

 | March 21, 2011

It should quit BN for failing to defend Interlok amendments, says M Manogaran.

PETALING JAYA:  The Interlok debacle has taken away the last traces of MIC’s legitimacy as a party representing Malaysian Indians, according to the MP for Teluk Intan, DAP’s M Manogaran.

He said the party had failed to convince the government to withdraw the controversial novel from schools and it must quit Barisan Nasional to save its dignity.

In a press statement released today, he noted that MIC could not even defend amendments to the novel proposed by the three Indian representatives on a panel appointed for the purpose.

The three withdrew from the eight-member panel last week, complaining that the panelists had reneged on an earlier consensus to make about 100 amendments to the novel, which critics say portray Indians in a negative light.

“Stop calling yourself as the Indian community representative,” Manogaran said, addressing MIC. “You don’t have the legitimacy anymore to fight for the Indians.”

He said Pakatan Rakyat would continue to fight for Indian interests, including their desire to see Interlok removed from schools.

One of the three who quit the Interlok panel is Uthaya Sankar SB, chairman of the Kumpulan Sasterawan Kavyan. Speaking to FMT, he said: “During a panel meeting on March 4, the panel agreed to the proposal by the three Indian panelists to strikeout the word ‘pariah’ and to make about 100 corrections to factual errors.

“Suddenly, on March 16, we were called for a discussion with the Education Minister and were told the panel had only agreed to take out the word ‘pariah’ and that the factual errors will remain.

“Their reason given was that the factual errors have nothing to do with racial sensitivity.”

The other two panelists were NS Rajendran of the Institute of Global Studies and G Krishnabahwan, a former official of the Information Ministry.

Uthaya Sankar said even factual errors had bearings on racial sensitivity.

For example, he said, no Indian woman in the era depicted in the novel (about a century ago) would have called her husband by his name. “But Maniam’s wife in the novel called him by name. There was no such thing in those days.”


Comments

Readers are required to have a valid Facebook account to comment on this story. We welcome your opinions to allow a healthy debate. We want our readers to be responsible while commenting and to consider how their views could be received by others. Please be polite and do not use swear words or crude or sexual language or defamatory words. FMT also holds the right to remove comments that violate the letter or spirit of the general commenting rules.

The views expressed in the contents are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of FMT.

Comments