I am proud of JSM, a fellow employee of BCB who wrote the letter 'Human resources minister shows bias' and for daring to bring forth the truth.

I am deeply saddened with the arbitrariness of Bumiputra Commerce Bank and the pretentious invitation by Human Resources Minister Dr Fong Chan Onn that affected parties approach him to settle the dispute.

I have loyally served the bank for 20 years. On my 21st year of service, I was suspended from work and have been placed under an unfair domestic inquiry where evidence have been formulated to make me look guilty. I am one of the 14 staff suspended from BCB for allegedly participating in an unlawful picket.

The truth is that on the day of the picket on Oct 21, I participated at the picket line between 1pm and 1:30pm. When the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) officer dispersed the crowd at 1:30pm, I walked back into the bank.

The department that I am attached to is located within the Bank's premises at the Jalan Tun Perak Building. I had no alternative but to enter the bank through the lobby entrance to get back to my office. I entered the lobby and sat at the seats available in the banking hall for about five to10 minutes. Then I got up and went to my department.

The bank subsequently charged me for "unlawfully picketing in the Bank premises which tantamount to conduct that is not conducive to our business environment which has caused the Bank disrepute". This was the show cause letter. On the second instance, I was charged for "unlawfully picketing within the Bank's premises and that my conduct has now led to the disruption of the Bank's business and operation and the same has caused disrepute to the Bank's image." This was a domestic inquiry letter.

The charges levelled against me in the show cause letter and the domestic inquiry letter differ greatly. When I raised this during the inquiry, the chairperson of the inquiry panel refused to record my objection.

The prosecution consistently referred to me, as "the group". When I tried to object, the chairperson claimed that such actions are the prerogative of the bank. My objection to the prosecution referring to me as "the group" was again brushed aside by the panel chairperson.

However, one of the 14 suspended members was requested to return to work, despite having received the same charge letter. Before the domestic inquiry could commence, she was requested to return to work. Why are the other13 penalised with disciplinary procedures? My objection, raised during the domestic inquiry, was again brushed aside.

At this juncture, I wish to refer to the recent press statement by a BCB senior official carried in the News Straits Times on Jan 9, 2004, in which he said: "One of the best channels to expedite the successful implementation of the bank's business plan was by tapping suggestions and opinion of BCB staff."

This, was a blatant lie. I humbly request that malaysiakini obtain a response from this official as to why my objections to the domestic inquiry procedure went unanswered. In fact the entire disciplinary process was a camouflage, and hardly a 'fair trial'.

Why are long serving, loyal employees victimised? The answer, is very simple. Long serving employees prevent the bank from completely 'selling' its banking business to subsidiary companies. Why bother paying voluntary separation schemes or additional benefits, when with temporary staff you can simply find a fault and sack them. After all, it takes years before any dismissal comes up for adjudication at the Industrial Court, that is, if it ever gets there.

At a juncture when the country is preparing for the challenges of the Asean Free Trade Agreement and General Agreement on Trade in Services, BCB's credibility to lead the local banking industry is highly questionable.