I'm surprised that National Union of Teaching Profession president Ustaz Ismail Nihat should mention that Jerome Fernandez and I had underestimated the capability of the 59 NUTP executive council members in his letter to malaysiakini - Siva's MTUC nomination done by the book . This was never the case.

He goes on to say, "Although we are comparatively young and new, we are fully aware of the provisions under the NUTP Rules and Regulations and the Trade Union Act." I must emphasise that we never questioned their maturity or their knowledge pertaining to the NUTP Rules and Regulations and the Trade Union Act.

We merely pointed out to the fact that there was no provision in the NUTP constitution for the nomination of Siva as a delegate to contest in the MTUC elections because his status was that of an employee of the union, besides he being an associate member.

When I was contacted by malaysiakini for my views on Dec 16, 2004 following the controversy surrounding Siva's nomination, I said, "But the clause on associate membership clearly states that such members are only eligible for death benefits. They cannot attend union meetings, be nominated for elections or selected as a delegate... Here, I understand that Siva is on the list of NUTP delegates. If the constitution has not been amended, then his nomination as a delegate would be a violation of it."

I merely stated a fact that was very obvious and very apparent and nothing else.

I'm appalled that the president of NUTP had given a evil twist to my view as reported in the Malay Mail (Dec 21, 2004). He is quoted as having said, "Allegations that we did not follow the NUTP constitution were made by those with an ulterior motive and we don't need to entertain such people."

To begin with, it wasn't an allegation. It was a statement of fact that was also acknowledged and confirmed by Ustaz Ismail himself as reported in the Star : "Datuk Siva (Subramaniam) cannot be nominated by the NUTP..." (Dec 17, 2004)

What ulterior motive is he then alluding to? As a teacher and union leader, he must be straightforward and forthright in stating clearly what that motive is. He cannot simply insinuate. That is not the proper conduct of an upright person. He must substantiate, not merely allege.

In a wish-washy way he prattled in a manner that made no sense in trying to explain the controversy. He vainly tried to extricate himself for coming across, unfortunately, as a bumbling fool.

Let's look at his antics.

On Dec 16, 2004, when he was contacted by the Star seeking an explanation as to Siva's nomination by the NUTP, Ustaz Ismail said that "to his knowledge, his union had only nominated one candidate, Lim Cheng Uo to contest in the MTUC elections".

"I can't understand how this could have happened as the NUTP only nominated Lim to defend his vice-presidency in the elections... Datuk Siva cannot be nominated by the NUTP..." he emphasised. (The Star , Dec 17, 2004)

Ustaz Ismail was indeed stating a fact and speaking the truth on that day. This statement was made just 10 days after the last executive council meeting on Dec 6, 2004 when Lim was nominated as the union's candidate to contest in the MTUC elections. There can be no lapse of memory within the 10 days. What took place must be very fresh in his mind otherwise he would not have been so forceful in asserting this view.

When Lim, the deputy president of NUTP, was contacted by malaysiakini , Lim without hesitation confirmed this single nomination as a fact.

He said that the NUTP president Ustaz Ismail had announced Lim's sole nomination on Dec 6 to contest the post of vice-president.

"After that, I don't know what happened. What I have heard (about the other nomination) up to now is only hearsay," he said.

Lim also told malaysiakini that the NUTP constitution was silent about associate members contesting in an election. What he really meant was that there was no provision in the constitution for Siva to be nominated.

Both the president and the deputy president - the two top leaders of NUTP - had stated categorically that Siva was not nominated at the last exco meeting in December and that he could not have been nominated. There was no contradiction between the two. There was total agreement as to what transpired on Dec 6 when the exco met.

Ustaz Ismail is also on record as reported in the Star of Dec 17 which quoted him as having said that Siva Subramaniam might have been nominated by the union representing NUTP employees and not the NUTP per se.

But when the Star checked with the MTUC, it was revealed that Siva was indeed nominated by the NUTP and not the Union of Employees in Trade Unions. In fact, the Union of Employees in Trade Unions had emphatically stated that Siva was never a member. This statement effectively nailed Ustaz Ismail's lie that the NUTP did not nominate Siva..

Why was there a need to lie? Concocting a lie to hide the truth and consequently misleading the union members and the public generally is a serious issue and cannot be accepted or tolerated in a civil society. What kind of a teacher is he if he cannot uphold truth? And what moral values can he impart to his students if his entire integrity is in question? And to think that he is the president of the biggest civil service union in the country representing the teachers is really revolting!

There was more to come. Four days later, on Dec 20 he did a complete somersault and shocked all of us. At the specially convened press conference, he declared "that the decision to nominate Siva as the staff of the union was made one year ago before Siva retired and made executive secretary of the NUTP." ( Malay Mail , Dec 21)

This decision was apparently made on Oct 5, 2003, a day before Siva retired. According to Ustaz Ismail's latest version as reported read: "As the NUTP constitution does not allow the union to nominate associate members as delegates, the union has gone around this by nominating Siva in his capacity as an NUTP staff."

He further stated that the "NUTP has used a technicality in its constitution to nominate its executive secretary and associate member". But he did not clarify or specify what this technicality was and in which part of the constitution this was to be found. He couldn't have because it was a complete hog-wash.

It would appear that the exco was desperately trying to nominate Siva. They were aware that there was no provision in the NUTP constitution and therefore they had to find a loophole to make this nomination stick. This would have entailed considerable discussion and debate. If that was the case, how could Ustaz Ismail not remember Siva's nomination? It wasn't the run-of-the-mill nomination. They had to invent an excuse to nominate Siva.

If in spite of all this and for some reason, Ustaz Ismail had indeed forgotten Siva's nomination why didn't the rest of the exco members refresh his memory? After all it was, according to Ustaz Ismail, an 'unanimous decision' of the exco and why didn't even a single exco member contradict the president of NUTP? Is this what they call "collective leadership" to bury the truth? Or were they all conspiring to protect the lie?

When all these lies were apparently being manufactured, why did Siva keep quiet? Shouldn't he have spoken up and thrown some light on the issue of misrepresentation? Wasn't he then the secretary-general taking down minutes? Or was the whole thing stage-managed by Siva himself one day before his retirement?

At that point in time - on the eve of his retirement - Siva was an ordinary member and therefore eligible for all the benefits, including the right to be nominated. Could it be that the exco was manipulated to do his bidding and taken for a ride? What was the urgency to nominate Siva 14 months ahead of the MTUC conference? We need honest answers from the president, the deputy president, the present and former secretary-generals and the entire exco.

On Oct 5, 2003, MTUC was not calling for nominations. That item therefore could not have been on the agenda of the NUTP when the exco met. What was the compelling reason that warranted his nomination to be decided on Oct 5, 2003? What was the hidden motive behind this move? Can the members of the union be blamed for thinking that the whole thing was stage-managed for some ulterior purpose?

Siva is also a human rights commissioner. He must come out of this controversy clean and clear his name. It does not look good for Siva to have doubts hanging over his head. It is certainly bad for the Human Rights Commission to have one of its members' integrity being questioned.

Ustaz Ismail's letter to malaysiakini stated, "Siva is being nominated as one of the 42 delegates of the NUTP in his capacity as a staff of the NUTP. This is in accordance with the Trade Union Act 1959 paragraph 30 and also the MTUC Regulations 6(6)."

For the information of Ustaz Ismail, there is no paragraph 30 in the Trade Union Act of 1959 but there is section 30. Was he referring to section 30? If so, what does this section actually say? I challenge Ustaz Ismail to quote this section in full to support Siva's nomination and justify the exco's authority in nominating Siva. He shouldn't simply resort to quoting irrelevant sections of the Trade Union Act to mislead and fool the public.

When the Star queried Ustaz Ismail about his different stand with regard to Siva's nomination, he claimed that when he spoke to the reporter, he "was confused whether Siva had been nominated as an exco member or as a union staff."

"I admit my mistake. When the reporter called ad-hoc like that, it was difficult to remember. I was confused about his position as an exco," he said. ( Malay Mail , Dec 21)

Ustaz Ismail Nihat, you were not confused. You were, in the opinion of thinking people, just ignorant of what was happening in the NUTP. The entire exco, it would seem, was equally ignorant of what took place with regard to Siva's nomination.

This whole sordid episode stinks and reminds me of that famous French painter who said, "Truth exists, only falsehood has to be invented."

The author is former secretary-general of NUTP.