Sad tale of Bolehnaut left behind

malaysiakini photo

Malaysiakini’s K Kabilan interviewed Vanajah Sivasubramaniam, a Bolehnaut finalist but unfortunately an unsuccessful one for a seat in only two positions to go into space with the Russians.

But I believe Kabilan has been very naughty in attempting to draw Vanajah into controversial ‘quicksand’ with some of his, best described as sh*t stirring questions, and the way he wrote up the Rentakini article:

Obviously our first question was if this Kulim-born 35-year-old resident of Klang had gotten over the pain and disappointment of failing in the last hurdle.

Thinking hard and long before answering the question, Vanajah said that participating in the programme was the best thing to have happened to her.

But then we noticed a tinge of sadness in her face, and a burden of disappointment in her body language.

“All that I can say is that I am very disappointed. It is something very difficult to overcome,” she said at first.

And this was soon followed by a very PR response from Vanajah, who is to start work as a research officer with the National Space Agency in two weeks time.

“All four of us are qualified. We were treated equally. Everything was very fair. I enjoyed my role as a role-model to all the youngsters and school children. Going to space is very important to our nation. It doesn’t matter who gets to be there first. We are not in it for the fame and glory,” she said.

And it was something which she automatically said in the course of our three- hour session with her. Another was: “You can’t ask me that.”

Why consider some of her responses as PR-ish? Why impute that insincere motive to Vanajah? Maybe she answered truthfully, according to her heart?

OK, there could be a possibility that maybe she was PR-ing but let me then ask the obvious question: what was there in the actual interview to inform Kabilan (not presented in Rentakini of course) that had him portraying hints or even insinuations in between the lines of his article?

Indeed Kabilan confessed to that motive because he wrote next:

So we censored all the ‘sensitive’ stuff and concentrated on some lighter stuff which she enjoyed talking about:

What ‘sensitive’ stuff? This is very strong insinuation that the actual interview contained more than what was presented in the article, possibly less-happier and less-gracious responses from Vanajah. Why alluded to such after purportedly censoring the 'sensitive' bits of the interview from the article?

Anyway the interview went as follows (I am going to leave out those interview questions that dealt with the predictable stuff that one expects to hear asked of a minor celebrity):

Rentakini: Dr Mahathir or Abdullah Ahmad Badawi?

Oh my god! I can’t answer that.

Indeed, why ask her such a political question that’s best left to UMNO members (and naughty bloggers like KTemoc).

Do we need such an expensive space programme?

Going to space is very important to our nation. It doesn’t matter who gets to be there first. We are not in it for the fame and glory.

Very nice warm 'inclusive' fluffy answer but read Lim Guan Eng’s comments on the space trip. But to be fair to Vanajah, it was the best answer she could give, and to her credit she provided that ideal response.

Did you really think you had a chance of going to space?

All four of us are qualified. We were treated equally. Everything was very fair.

Most disappointing moment in your life?

Do you have to ask?

And then, most naughtily, and in fact, unfairly on Vanajah:

Were you the better candidate?

You can’t ask me that ... I can’t answer that ... All four of us are qualified. We were treated equally. Everything was very fair.

Here was either Vanajah’s first stumble or ….. (you guess), because if she had answered “You can’t ask me that ... I can’t answer that”, (meaning ...?) why then did the article had her immediately following that up with a 180-degrees about turn in a gracious “All four of us are qualified. We were treated equally. Everything was very fair.”

The way I read it is the insinuation that she was reluctant initially to answer that question (on the issue of fairness in the selection process), meaning she was criticising the process; of course it could well be that Vanajah had only mean “All four of us are qualified. We were treated equally. Everything was very fair”, especially when we consider that she is going to work for the National Space Agency as a research officer.

But the article by now has her coming across as a hypocritical sore loser – disappointed loser of course (that’s only natural) but hypocritical sore loser? Sadly, it’s probably not her fault nor her actual feelings.

And may I ask, where was the bloody censoring of all the ‘sensitive’ stuff that Kabilan promised?

I assess the article as naughty and quite damaging to Vanajah through those few unnecessary words of "You can’t ask me that ... I can’t answer that”, rather than what it wanted to portray, Vanajah as a gracious, gutsy and positive-minded Malaysian.