HINDRAF rally
On 25 November 2007 the Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) held a street gathering in central Kuala Lumpur over grievances of the Malaysian Indian community, and this page sets out what is documented about that day, the legal actions that followed, and what remains disputed about its effect on the 2008 general election.
what happened
On Sunday 25 November 2007, thousands of people gathered in central Kuala Lumpur at the call of the Hindu Rights Action Force. The purpose HINDRAF gave for the day was a single, specific one: to walk a memorandum to the British High Commission in support of a civil claim it had filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of descendants of Indian indentured labourers brought to Malaya under British rule. The wider grievances aired around the event were domestic and long-running, and included temple demolitions, the condition of Tamil vernacular schools, access to public-sector jobs and higher education, and income gaps between ethnic groups. The government's position, stated before the day and repeated after it, was that the gathering was banned, that it risked inflaming racial tensions, and — in the words of officials quoted by Al Jazeera — that it was an attempt to create racial animosity and smear the government's image. MIC president S. Samy Vellu, then a cabinet minister, said his party did not support street demonstrations and believed in working within the system, that MIC had been working within the system on the community's problems, and that "there is still a lot more to be done for the Indians".
No permit was issued, a court order restraining the gathering was obtained, and several HINDRAF figures were arrested beforehand. On the day, police sealed roads into the city centre and the Federal Reserve Unit used tear gas and chemically treated water from water cannon. The Bar Council's monitoring team logged tear gas from around seven in the morning and repeatedly thereafter, with the crowd largely gone by early afternoon; the police account reported at the time was that force followed orders to disperse being ignored. The memorandum was not delivered. How many people were there is genuinely unsettled: the Bar Council monitors logged around 15,000 at one vantage point by mid-morning, Human Rights Watch later wrote of between 10,000 and 30,000, and DAP MP Charles Santiago has written of fifty thousand. Figures attributed to organisers sit at the top of that range and those attributed to police at the bottom.
Two strands of legal action followed. Three founders had already been charged with sedition over remarks made before the rally, and a court ordered their release on 26 November. Separately, a group arrested on the day were charged over a clash at Batu Caves in which a police officer was injured; Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail said the prosecutions had nothing to do with race, and then, on 17 December, withdrew them — attempted-murder charges against 26 people and all charges against five others — saying that freeing them was the fairest course and in the public and national interest. Then, on 13 December 2007, five HINDRAF leaders were detained under the Internal Security Act, which allowed detention without charge or trial and which was repealed in 2012. They were held at Kamunting. Official accusations included endangering national security, sedition and links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; Human Rights Watch states no evidence for those accusations was produced, and several human rights organisations described the detentions as arbitrary. In October 2008 the home minister declared HINDRAF an illegal organisation, saying it had been used for unlawful purposes and posed a threat to public order and morality, and that if its activities were not reined in they would jeopardise security, public order and sovereignty and upset harmony among races; HINDRAF figures replied that they had broken no law and that the ban was an attempt to criminalise the movement.
What followed at federal level is argued about more often than it is demonstrated. At the general election of 8 March 2008 the Barisan Nasional coalition kept its majority but lost its two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969, and MIC president S. Samy Vellu lost Sungai Siput, a seat he had held since 1974. One of the detainees, M. Manoharan, was elected to a Selangor state seat while still in detention. Al Jazeera reported at the time that the police response and the detentions had produced a swing among Indian voters, and Santiago has written that the rally shifted the balance for the opposition. Thomas Pepinsky, working from electoral and demographic data, attributes the result to non-Malay voters in general moving towards secular opposition parties rather than to an isolated Indian-specific effect. Both readings are on the record; neither is settled here.
One thing worth stating plainly for readers coming to this fresh: the legal environment shapes how this episode can be discussed. The Sedition Act 1948 was used against HINDRAF figures in 2007 and again in the prosecution that ended with Uthayakumar's conviction and his release in October 2014, and the ISA regime then in force allowed detention without trial. Much of the surviving record consists of monitoring reports, court outcomes and NGO appeals; no official inquiry report or police account of the day has been located for this page, and the Gazette order banning HINDRAF has not been traced either. Where the official side is on the record it is quoted here directly, and every characterisation is attributed to whoever made it.
the working
What the sources say
uncertain
No reliable public source located states how many signatures the HINDRAF memorandum carried; the frequently repeated figure of about 100,000 is not treated here as established fact.
No responsive primary or contemporaneous source located
established
Contemporaneous reporting of the Home Minister’s announcement states that HINDRAF was declared unlawful under section 5(1) of the Societies Act 1966, with effect from 15 October 2008.
uncertain
The memorandum was not delivered to the British High Commission on 25 November 2007, and no reliable public record located shows that the High Commission formally received it later.
established
HINDRAF organised a gathering in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday, 25 November 2007, centred on the area around the Petronas Twin Towers (KLCC) and Jalan Ampang, with the stated aim of delivering a memorandum to the British High Commission.
established
The memorandum was connected to a civil claim HINDRAF had filed in the United Kingdom on behalf of descendants of Indian indentured labourers brought to Malaya under British rule. Al Jazeera reported at the time that the suit sought US$4 trillion in compensation for the estimated two million ethnic Indians whose ancestors were brought to Malaya as indentured labourers by Britain in the 1800s. HINDRAF continued to pursue the claim, filing at the European Court of Human Rights in July 2017.
Police break up Malaysia protest · Hindraf files case against UK at European Court of Human Rights
established
No police permit was issued for the gathering; a court order restraining the gathering was obtained, and several HINDRAF figures were arrested in the days before 25 November.
established
Police blocked roads into the city centre and the Federal Reserve Unit used tear gas and chemically treated water from water cannon to disperse the crowd; the Bar Council monitoring team recorded tear gas being fired from roughly 07:00 and repeatedly through the morning, with the crowd largely dispersed by early afternoon.
established
The memorandum was not delivered to the British High Commission on the day; the Bar Council monitors recorded word circulating around 11:40 that it would instead be handed over elsewhere.
established
The authorities had said before the event that the gathering was banned and that it risked inflaming racial tensions in multi-ethnic Malaysia; Al Jazeera reported that police used tear gas and water cannon after demonstrators ignored orders to disperse, and that government officials denounced the demonstration as an attempt to create racial animosity and to smear the government's image.
Police break up Malaysia protest · Court frees Malaysian activists
established
MIC president S. Samy Vellu, then a cabinet minister, said on the day of the rally: "We do not support street demonstrations. We believe in working within the system." He described the gathering as an opposition ploy to smear the government's image, said "We have been working within the system to resolve the problems faced by the Indian community," and added that "There is still a lot more to be done for the Indians and we'll continue with our struggle," positioning MIC as the mainstream party voicing Indian Malaysian rights.
Samy tells Indians to work 'within the system' · Police break up Malaysia protest
established
The grievances publicly advanced around the rally included demolitions of Hindu temples, the funding and condition of Tamil vernacular schools, access to public-sector employment and to higher education, and household-income gaps between ethnic groups.
established
Pillay's account of the temple-demolition grievance identifies the specific trigger commonly pointed to: many small Hindu temples and shrines are treated as unauthorised structures by local and state authorities, and he records that many NGO activists regarded the demolition of a temple in Kampung Jawa, Klang, by the Shah Alam Town Council on the eve of Deepavali 2007 as the immediate precipitating event. This is his characterisation of activist opinion, not a finding about the council's reasons.
adjudicated
P. Uthayakumar, P. Waythamoorthy and V. Ganabatirau were arrested and charged with sedition over remarks at a gathering in Selangor shortly before the rally; a court ordered their release on Monday 26 November 2007.
established
A group of people arrested on 25 November 2007 were charged over a clash at Batu Caves in which a police officer was injured; Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail said at the time, "This has nothing to do with race. We follow the law. It applies to everyone under the sun." On 17 December 2007 the Attorney-General withdrew the charges in the Sessions Court: attempted-murder charges against 26 people were dropped and all charges against a further five were dropped. He said he could have been strict but did not think that was the time to be, and that "when we exercise the law … we look at what is fair and just", freeing them being in his judgment the fairest course and in the public and national interest.
Malaysian Indians deny charges · Malaysia protester charges dropped
established
On 13 December 2007 the government detained five HINDRAF leaders — P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R. Kenghadharan, V. Ganabatirau and T. Vasanthakumar — under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which permitted detention without charge or trial.
Human Rights Watch · Asian Human Rights Commission urgent appeal AHRC-FUA-001-2008
alleged
The detainees were held at the detention camp in Kamunting, Perak, and two of them were held for about 16 months; official accusations against them included endangering national security, sedition, and links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
Human Rights Watch · Asian Human Rights Commission urgent appeal AHRC-FUA-001-2008
established
The ISA allowed administrative detention without trial for renewable periods of up to two years on the order of the minister; it was repealed in 2012.
established
M. Manoharan was elected to the Selangor state seat of Kota Alam Shah on a DAP ticket at the 8 March 2008 general election while still in ISA detention, and was released on 9 May 2009.
Manoharan expected to remain as Kota Alam Shah rep · Human Rights Watch
established
On 15 October 2008 Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar declared HINDRAF an illegal organisation, saying the ministry was satisfied it had been used for unlawful purposes and posed a threat to public order and morality.
Gov't declares Hindraf an illegal organisation · Malaysia bans Hindu group
established
The only provision of the Societies Act 1966 conferring that power is section 5(1), which makes it lawful for the Minister, in his absolute discretion, to declare unlawful by order any society that in his opinion is or is being used for purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the interest of the security of Malaysia, public order or morality; section 5(2) requires the order to be published in the Gazette and cancels the society's registration immediately. The grounds Syed Hamid gave track that wording, and Al Jazeera reported him as saying HINDRAF had violated the Societies Act, but neither report cited here names the section and the Gazette order itself has not been located for this page.
established
HINDRAF figures rejected the ban at the time: R. S. Thanenthiran said it was unfair because they had not committed any crime or broken any laws, and lawyer N. Surendran described it as a way to criminalise HINDRAF with the aim of stamping out the movement. Syed Hamid said that if the ministry did not rein in HINDRAF's activities, "they will continue to jeopardise security and public order, and our country's sovereignty, as well as upset the harmony among races".
adjudicated
Uthayakumar was later convicted of sedition over a 2007 letter addressed to then British prime minister Gordon Brown, lost his appeal in 2014, and was released in October 2014 after serving a sentence shortened on appeal.
Hindraf leader loses sedition appeal · Hindraf's Uthayakumar freed after completing shortened sentence
established
At the general election of 8 March 2008 the Barisan Nasional coalition retained a parliamentary majority but lost its two-thirds majority for the first time since 1969.
Thomas B. Pepinsky · Malaysiakini commentary by Charles Santiago
established
MIC president S. Samy Vellu lost the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat at that election, having held it since 1974.
established
Public discussion of the rally, of the detentions and of the underlying grievances took place under legal constraints that remain relevant to how the episode is written about: the Sedition Act 1948, which was used against HINDRAF figures both in 2007 and later, and the ISA regime then in force.
Court frees Malaysian activists · Hindraf leader loses sedition appeal
where accounts differ
The parts nobody agrees on
uncertain
The household-income figures most often quoted in connection with the rally's grievances are not securely sourced. Writing in Aliran Monthly in October 2007, Subramaniam Pillay gave average 2004 monthly household incomes of RM4,437 for Chinese Malaysian households, RM3,456 for Indian households and RM2,711 for Bumiputera households. He introduced them with the word "apparently", did not name the publication or agency they came from, and went on to question both their reliability and the usefulness of averages that conceal inequality within each group. This page has not been able to verify them against an official statistical release and does not treat them as established.
contested
Crowd size is contested and no official count was published. The Bar Council monitoring team logged roughly 3,000 at 07:50, "easily 10,000" by 08:30 and "approximately 15,000" by 08:50 at specific vantage points; Human Rights Watch later described "between 10,000 and 30,000 participants"; DAP MP Charles Santiago wrote of "fifty thousand"; Al Jazeera at the time described it as the largest protest by a single ethnic group in more than a decade without giving a figure. Figures attributed to organisers sit at the high end of that range and figures attributed to police at the low end.
HINDRAF Rally · Human Rights Watch · Charles Santiago · Al Jazeera
contested
Whether the use of tear gas and water cannon was proportionate is contested. The Bar Council monitoring team recorded tear gas fired "without any apparent provocation" and, in several instances, without prior warning; the authorities' position was that the assembly was unlawful and that dispersal orders had been ignored before force was used.
alleged
The grounds for the December 2007 ISA detentions are contested. The government invoked national security; Human Rights Watch states that the authorities never produced evidence for the accusations, including the alleged LTTE links, and human rights organisations characterised the detentions as arbitrary.
Human Rights Watch · Asian Human Rights Commission urgent appeal AHRC-FUA-001-2008 · World Organisation Against Torture urgent intervention on the detention of five HINDRAF members
contested
How much the rally caused the 2008 result is contested. Al Jazeera reported in March 2008 that the police response and the detentions had triggered a swing among Indian voters; Charles Santiago wrote that the rally "shifted the power balance" for the opposition; Thomas Pepinsky, analysing electoral and demographic data, attributes the outcome to non-Malay voters generally moving to secular opposition parties rather than isolating an Indian-specific effect.
Malaysian Indians aim to swing vote · Charles Santiago · Thomas B. Pepinsky
contested
HINDRAF's later trajectory is contested. Santiago, a DAP MP, argues the movement declined after 2007 because it framed grievances in ethnic rather than class terms and because of a split between founders P. Uthayakumar and P. Waythamoorthy; that is his assessment, not a settled finding.
still being researched
- How many people were detained on 25 November 2007 and how many were released without charge; contemporaneous reporting gives a figure of at least 240, with about half released.
- Whether any of those arrested on the day were convicted of any offence arising from the rally. The attempted-murder charges against 26 people, and all charges against a further five, were withdrawn on 17 December 2007; whether the withdrawal was recorded as a discharge amounting to an acquittal or a discharge not amounting to an acquittal is not stated in the reporting cited here, and no other prosecution arising from the day has been traced.
- The exact ISA section under which the five were detained on 13 December 2007, and the release dates of each of the five; 9 May 2009 is documented for M. Manoharan.
- Which official publication, if any, the 2004 household-income figures quoted around the rally were drawn from, and what the corresponding official series actually records.