If UMNO is de-registered, will it mean that all UMNO MPs and ADUNs will also lose their position as MP or ADUN - Well, the answer is 'NO' - all that the candidate does in standing as an UMNO mandated candidate - So, if UMNO is deregistered, they will still remain ADUN and/or MP. [Note in the GE14, DAP/Amanah/Pribumi members stood for elections as PKR candidates eventhough they were not even members of PKR - and that is OK]
2nd point, they all did not stand as UMNO - but as Barisan National candidates.
UMNO AND THE DRACONIAN SOCIETIES ACT - WRONG FOR REGISTRAR TO BE ABLE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF A SOCIETY AND EXTEND TIME FOR HOLDING GENERAL ELECTIONS.
UMNO is a society, and as it is ALL the members that should decide the running of a society - and the agreed way a society operates depends on the CONSTITUTION of the Society generally. Other than the Constitution, a society is also bound by Resolutions passed by members at a General Meeting of the Society, but this cannot be in violation of the society's Constitution.
A Society can amend its Constitution, and this generally requires a two-third majority vote of members in a General Meeting of the society.
Now, most important is the length and/or duration the President and the Executive Committee should hold office. So, all Constitutions will stipulate the term of office. For UMNO, the Constitution stated that the term of office should be three(3) years...
According to Umno’s constitution, stipulated under Clause 9.3, the supreme council is required to hold its next election within three years, or by October 19, 2016.A further extension of 18 months is allowed under Clause 10.16 of the party’s constitution.Najib announced the postponement of the party’s elections on June 27, 2015, saying Umno needed to prepare for the general elections.By April 19, this year, it would have been fifty-four months since Umno last held its elections, the absolute limit allowed by the party’s constitution.“By right, Umno’s divisions and supreme council would be unlawful under their constitution, as stipulated under Clause 10.16,” Haniff said.
Therefore, since the last UMNO Elections was on October 19, 2013, therefore it should have held its elections by 19/10/2016.
However, the UMNO Constitution, being the Constitution approved by the members, allows for UMNO President and the Supreme Council to delay the elections for a further 18 months...
Now, this decision to extend is not really a decision of ALL members of UMNO - simply the current President and Supreme Council. Members may be angry but then the UMNO Constitution itself does ALLOW for this further extension of maximum 18 months.
So, UMNO elected leadership could 'delay' elections, effectively extending their ability to still be UMNO leaders(without any further mandate by members) for 3 years PLUS 18 months.
This additional 18 months in power ended on 19 April 2018. Elections should have been held by that day, UNLESS the UMNO Constitution could have been amended by members to allow even a longer extension...maybe 36 months...but there was No Constitutional amendment, was there?
UMNO Constitution says election must be held within 3 years(or plus another 18 months) - How can the ROS extend it further, contrary to existing UMNO Constitution?
Now, apparently the UMNO leadership asked the permission of the Registrar of Society(ROS) for a further extension to have their elections... Who applied? The very people, who were elected leaders in 2013 - who never granted the membership the right to vote in new leaders after the 18 month extension was over.
Who is the ROS - he should never have the power to extend time for holding elections to elect new leaders of UMNO. The UMNO members, as stated in the Constitution has already decided when elections should be held...within 3 years from the last elections(plus an additional 18 months for possibly exceptional reasons).
ROS could maybe extend time for matters which a society is supposed to submit to the ROS - like the annual report, details of elected leaders and accounts.
Now, in this case, the ROS goes further to extend time for having general elections, going against the very Constitution of UMNO.
Then, what happens to the 16 that took the case to court - UMNO kicks them out of UMNO.
In any society, if members have a complaint against the leadership(or any other matters about the society), it should reasonably their RIGHT as members to bring the matter to the leadership(elected leadership), and they should resolve it(that is, if this right is there in the UMNO Constitution).
Normally, if the member is not happy, that member would have the right to the attention of all members, usually at the next General Meeting...after that, the member should have the right to take the matter to be settled by the courts[certainly not the ROS], and the courts will hear decide on the dispute.
How did the ROS even approve a provision in UMNOs constitution barring a member to take an action against another member(or even the society) in court?(This allegedly was the reason why UMNO terminated the membership of the 16)
This means that even if President UMNO (Najib) stole money from its members - they, the UMNO members, have no remedy in court?
Absurd....note currently, the ROS also has the power to approve the Constitution of Society, and even amendments to the Constitution. The right of a member to take an issue to Court is a fundamental right, and no Constitution of any society, trade union or cooperative should BLOCK such a right of a member.
The case of the UMNO 16 was dismissed because of section 18C, which certainly must be repealed. Now even decisions made by government can be challenged in court - BUT not a decision of a political party and their leaders...This is absurd. Members challenging the wrong done by leaders do not even have the right to go to court - A MEMBER OF ANY SOCIETY, EVEN A POLITICAL PARTY, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A MATTER CONCERNING A 'POLITICAL PARTY'(WHICH IS A SOCIETY) TO COURT - THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
18C Decision of political party to be final and conclusiveThe decision of a political party or any person authorized by it or by its constitution or rules or regulations made thereunder on the interpretation of its constitution, rules or regulations or on any matter relating to the affairs of the party shall be final and conclusive and such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground regarding the validity of such decision.
The ROS allowed UMNO to delay their General Elections by virtue of this section 13A - The ROS or even the Court should never be allowed to extend time for Elections(especially) - unless the Constitution of UMNO allows for it. In so doing, the ROS behaves as though it has more power that an UMNO Member or even existing UMNO Constitution.
13A Power of Registrar to make certain orders in respect of registered societies(1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of any registered society, or in the interests of public order, safety or security, or otherwise in the public interest, the Registrar may at any time, after giving the society an opportunity to make representations to him, make an order in writing-
(a) requiring the society, within the time specified in the order, to provide in its rules or constitution that the office bearers of the society shall be Federal citizens, and, consequently, requiring the society to remove from office all persons who, not being Federal citizens, were office bearers of the society immediately before the making of the order; or(2) The Registrar may at any time, after giving a registered society an opportunity to make representations to him, make an order in writing requiring the society, within the time specified in the order, to amend its rules or constitution so as to-
(b) prohibiting the society from having, directly or indirectly, any affiliation, connection, communication, or other dealing whatsoever, with any society, organization, or other body whatsoever outside Malaysia, or with any authority, governmental or otherwise, in any country, territory or place outside Malaysia;
(c) (Deleted by Act A557:s.14)
(a) have the same conform to, or be consistent and in accordance with, the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder; or(3) Where the Registrar makes an order under subsection (1) or (2) he may include in that order, or make or give at any time thereafter, any consequential or ancillary requirements or directions in relation to such order as he may deem necessary or expedient to make or give.
(b) remove any ambiguity or vagueness therein, or provide for greater clarity and preciseness of meaning in any provision thereof; or
(c) provide for any other matter which the Registrar may deem necessary, reasonable or expedient to require.
(4) The Registrar may, on application in writing made to him by a registered society, extend the time provided by him to the society in any order made under subsection (1) or (2) if he is satisfied that the society has given good grounds in its application and it would be just and proper to grant such extension.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), "office-bearer" includes the persons specified in paragraphs 9A(7)(a) and (b).
(6) (Deleted by Act A557:s.14).
(7) Any society which contravenes any order given by the Registrar under subsection (1) or (2) or any requirement or direction made or given by him under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand ringgit or to both.
The Registrar of Societies(ROS), and also the Registrar of Trade Union(ROTU) in Malaysia just have too much power...Even if the members decide to amend the Constitution, maybe to increase membership fees, now it has no effect until the Registrar approves it...and if the Registrar says 'No', the society and trade union just cannot increase membership fees - this is something that did happen to a trade union(I am told) in the past. So Trade Unions and societies can be kept weak because they cannot even increase membership fees as provided in their Constitution/Rules in a country where the cost of living has increased so much...
The SOCIETIES ACT AND THE TRADE UNION ACT (and other Acts affecting other associations) need to be repealed, if not seriously amended to restore real FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION in Malaysia.
Registration should be fast (within a couple of weaks), and names should not be restricted(now, most difficult to register a name of a society having words like human rights, women's rights, justice, workers....) and
...the ROS powers should be limited to collecting annual returns(documents/accounts), and certainly no power to extend time contrary to existing Constitutions governing the association.
Members right to take matters to court, to resolve disputes or even seek 'judicial review' should not be prohibited.
Pakatan Harapan, DAP, Parti Pribumi ,...have experienced the 'evil' of the Societies Act, and the 'excessive' power of the ROS - not enough to simply change the ROS - but the Societies Act seriously need to be repealed/amended seriously ...
This must be PRIORITY of Mahathir and the Pakatan Harapan new government ...
Umno 16's bid to dissolve party dismissed
The High Court in Kuala Lumpur today dismissed the leave application
on the judicial review application brought by 16 "sacked" Umno members
against the Registrar of Societies (ROS).
The review is to seek the ROS to quash its decision last month to
allow Umno extend its party elections until April 2019, to investigate
the complaints made and reply to them, and also a dissolution of the
party.
Justice Kamaludin Md Said said Section 18C of the Societies Act 1966 applied, where members cannot bring party dispute to court.
"Hence the application is dismissed without costs," he said.
He noted that despite the decisions in the Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd and
Indira Gandhi Federal Court cases, it does not apply to political
parties.
Lawyer Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla told reporters a notice of appeal will be filed soon.
Citing Section 18C, as brought up by the Attorney-General's Chambers
in its objection, Justice Kamaludin said the decision of a political
party or any person authorised by it, or by its constitution or rules or
regulations made, shall be final and conclusive, and such decision
shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called
into question and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or
determine any suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground
regarding the validity of such decision.
In the Indira Gandhi and Semenyih Jaya case earlier this year and
last year, it was ruled that the High court had the inherent
jurisdiction under Article 121 (1) as judicial independence and the
separation of powers are recognised as features in the basic structure
of the constitution.
"The inherent jurisdiction of the civil courts under Article 121 (1)
is inextricably intertwined with their constitutional role as check and
balance mechanism.
"The Malaysian apex court had prescribed that the powers of the
executive and legislature are limited by the constitution and that the
judiciary acts as a bulwark of the constitution in ensuring that the
powers of the executive and legislature are to be kept within the
intended limit," he said in citing the Indira Gandhi and Semenyih Jaya
judgments.
However, Justice Kamaludin said having considered the Indira Gandhi
and Semenyih Jaya cases relied on by Haniff, those cases in his view can
be distinguished from the present application.
"There the Federal Court, in general term, reminded the stakeholders
that judicial power may only be vested in courts, safeguarded by
constitutional provisions to ensure judicial independence and judicial
independence and the separation of powers are recognised as features in
the basic structure of the constitution.
"The cases are not dealing with decisions of a political party on any
matter relating to the affairs of the party within Section 18C of the
Societies Act.
"I cannot ignore the decision made in the ROS vs Justin Jinggut, (in
2013) clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the courts from going into
merits of any disputes between members of a political party," he said.
"Effect must be given by the Parliament to enact Section 18C, as the
words 'no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any
suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground regarding the
validity of such decision'. These words clearly show that Parliament
intended to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts," he added.
For this reason, Justice Kamaludin dismissed the leave application.
The 16 filed their challenge last Friday led by Umno branch head Salihudin Ahmad Khalid.
Salihudin, who was present, told reporters that he and the other
"sacked" Umno members are disappointed with the decision and said that
he has not received any notification from Umno secretary-general Tengku
Adnan Tengku Mansor that they were sacked.
"We filed the application on April 20 and the said notice to expel us
was dated April 21. Hence, we have the legal standing and will continue
with the challenge by appealing today's decision," he said. - Malaysiakini, 27/4/2018
RoS should declare Umno illegal by April 19, says Dr Mahathir’s lawyer
IF the Registrar of Societies (RoS) applies the same standard to
Umno as it does Bersatu, the dominant Barisan Nasional component party
would be declared illegal by April 19, said Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s
lawyer.
Haniff Khatri Abdulla said RoS should equally enforce all political
parties to hold their meetings on time, as required by their
constitutions.
“By right, Najib Razak should not take the oath as prime minister
before the Yang Di-pertuan Agong after April 19,” he told The Malaysian
Insight.
Haniff was responding to a statement by
Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor on Tuesday that the
party’s elections were only due by April 19 of next year.
Tengku Adnan said RoS had approved the party’s application to postpone its party elections to April 19, 2019 at the latest.
The Umno secretary-general said RoS’ approval was in line with
Section 13A (4) of the Societies Act 1966, which states: The Registrar
may, on application in writing made to him by a registered society,
extend the time provided by him to the society in any order made under
subsection (1) or (2) if he is satisfied the society has given good
grounds in its application and it would be just and proper to grant such
extension.
Haniff, however, said the deadline for Umno’s divisional and supreme
council elections is April 19, this year as Umno last held its party
elections on October 19, 2013.
According to Umno’s constitution, stipulated under Clause 9.3, the
supreme council is required to hold its next election within three
years, or by October 19, 2016.
A further extension of 18 months is allowed under Clause 10.16 of the party’s constitution.
Najib announced the postponement of the party’s elections on June 27,
2015, saying Umno needed to prepare for the general elections.
By April 19, this year, it would have been fifty-four months since
Umno last held its elections, the absolute limit allowed by the party’s
constitution.
“By right, Umno’s divisions and supreme council would be unlawful
under their constitution, as stipulated under Clause 10.16,” Haniff
said.
“Najib Razak would automatically cease to be president of Umno and prime minister after April 19, this year,” he said.
“RoS is now challenged to take the necessary action.
“Will they use the same rigorous standards on Umno and they did against Bersatu, which has lawfully followed its constitution?”
RoS has cited irregularities as reasons for its continuing investigations into Bersatu.
RoS director Surayati Ibrahim has said the investigations were into claims Bersatu’s annual general meeting on December 30 was illegal and had violated the party’s constitution.
DAP was made to hold its central executive committee re-election on November 12 last year, finally receiving a notification in early February it has complied with all requirements as directed by RoS.
Bersatu appears to be the last main obstacle in Pakatan Harapan’s registration as a legally recognised coalition.
Last Wednesday, PH took legal action to compel RoS to reply to the coalition’s application to be registered.
Bersatu sued RoS over the status of the party’s registration two days later.
PH submitted its application for registration on July 24 last year.
Bersatu and PH chairman Dr Mahathir has accused RoS of acting in Barisan Nasional’s favour. – March 1, 2018. - Malaysian Insight
No comments:
Post a Comment