////The revocation of my passport is probably the last ditch desperate effort by the Malaysian government in crippling my international lobby for the cause of the Malaysian Indians/// – P. Waytha Moorthy.

That is, however, not how the Malaysian government sees it: more likely the last ditched effort of crippling his international lobby for the cause against the Malaysian government’s detention of his comrades in Kamunting, and to get him to return to share their cells in Kamunting.

Although much more needs to be done, HINDRAF, no matter that there is disagreement of their methods, has been effective to spotlight both national and international attention to the predicament of Malaysian Indians, the undermining of MIC and the denial of BN’s 2/3 majority in political tsunami of 8th March, the latter of which the PM had admitted “point taken”!

However if the point were taken then there should be national reconciliation – and healing – by release of HINDRAF’s leaders detained. There is no need to keep detaining them under the draconian ISA just to appease certain extremist factions baying for their blood. The ISA is intended to incarcerate preventively anti national subversives (which is why majority of detainees are militants committed to ideology of violence). HINDRAF’s leaders are political dissidents. It is fatuous to attribute violence to them just because of some silly reference to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)! If they had advocated violence instead of ballot box, why is it that one of them Manoharan stood for election and was elected to the Selangor state legislature from Kota Alam Shah???

The crux of the problem lies in the misuse of the ISA. Detainees under ISA are not normal felons. There is no trial; no right to be heard, no conviction by normal due process; it is just a preventive measure, and even then because it concerns the deprivation of a subject of his liberty, there must be certainty that ministerial decision is fair but here the laws are written such that ministerial decision is not justiciable – ie reviewable by courts to se if it has basis or based on bad faith!

There is no issue then if passport were revoked for a normal felon whether terrorist or pedophile. Even governments of developed countries do this. HINDRAF’s leaders are not common felons. They are political dissidents and under normal democratic culture their detention is viewed as political persecution.

So as long as other Hindraf’s leaders are continued detained, Waytha Moorthy would keep up the international lobby against the Malaysian government ostensibly under the banner of the Malaysian Indians’ Cause.

And the gridlock is that as long as he keeps up the international lobby against the Malaysian government, the government will see every reason to use every power within its capacity to end this lobby, one of the most effective ways of which is to revoke his passport so that he comes back and face the music like the rest of his comrades.

Although the availing of a passport is an incidence of citizenship, the revocation of the passport is however not synonymous with revocation or termination of citizenship. He is expected to return to face the country’s laws (ISA) and if those laws are bad and misapplied, then to fight against the law and it’s misapplication rather than enjoying privilege of Malaysian passport to stay abroad to take potshots at the government at will and free from the latter’s retaliation.

Although technically he could seek asylum in Britain on grounds of political persecution, his case is not straightforward (as far as Britain goes) as he belongs to an organization that (technically) brought a frivolous suit against the British Crown seeking damages for her colonial policies of bringing indentured labour to Malaya.

“///….The only issue before the court if he were to apply for asylum in the U.K. is whether he has a well-founded fear of persecution based on the five statutory grounds…///” – Undergrad2
However, he is not, at least in first instance, applying to a court but to the UK Home Office for an administrative/ministerial decision to be granted asylum.

I don’t know much about the so-called statutory grounds for asylum leave but it seems to me that if you are part of a leadership group that brings a vexatious and frivolous mega suit against British Crown, (implicating 3rd party (British tax payers monies if suit were for any reason successful) – albeit that suit might be just a devious ruse to draw international attention to Malaysian Indians’ conditions in Malaysia – it is a factor that cannot be ignored by the UK Home Office bearing on the question of “credibility” that in turn may or may not relate to whether “he is a threat to the security of the United Kingdom”.

The other part of the comment whether he comes under one of the exceptions to asylum eligibility – that “he may have a problem with his connections to the LTTE” – no, I assume he has no connections to the LTTE because otherwise, not only he is not qualified for asylum, he would also be totally qualified to be arrested by British authorities and sent back to Malaysian authorities for immediate incarceration under ISA!

My two responses to comments arising have been sent into the mysterious corners Cyberspace untraced…

Whether Waytha Moorthy could successfully obtain asylum or deported is a complex question decided at first instance not by any court but by Secretary of State of UK Home Office. The ISA though draconian in sense that it overrides due process of trial is however not dissimilar to other draconian preventive laws enforced in these western countries post 9-11 : so the nice question is whether Malaysian government’s invocation of ISA per se automatically raises presumption that the person politically persecuted (in sense of being subject to discriminatory police & judicial measure) is in real risk of serious harm making him eligible for refugee status under UN Convention or humanitarian protection. That has to be balanced against the disqualifying factors, that is: (1) the applicant for asylum has not committed or participated in a group a serious crime; (2) whether there is a serious reason to consider that the applicant constitutes a danger to the community or security of UK.

The Malaysian government’s case against Waytha Moorthy & rest of HINDRAF’s leaders is that they misrepresented and lied – about genocide in Malaysia and have committed the offence of sedition. Would UK Home Office give Waytha Moorthy benefit of doubt and dismiss Malaysian government’s allegations? The fact that he is party to a group that was responsible to bring a RM trillion frivolous legal suit against British Crown, knowing that it has no legal basis but just to draw international attention to the Malaysian situation, does not exactly help his cause on the issue of credibility. These are some of the vexed problems on this issue of whether he is entitled to political asylum.