The matter was brought to the Registrar of Society(ROS) to decide on the validity of the additional motion passed at the 2022 UMNO General Assembly for the president and deputy president posts to be uncontested in the party's election this year.
Therefore, it must be the Registrar of Society(ROS) independently that makes the decision. So, what exactly was the ROS's decision? It looks that ROS decided that the no contest motion was invalid > and then the Minister stepped in to RECTIFY...or rather give the 'Exemption' from complying with the provision in the law...
If Opposition MPs are dissatisfied with the Home Ministry’s move to rectify a decision by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) against Umno, they could challenge the matter in court, says Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail.
Then, if any member in UMNO is dissatisfied with the Registrar's decision, the can appeal to the Minister. The Minister then confirm or reverse the ROS's decision.
So, can the Minister step in before an appeal of the Minister against the ROS's decision, and EXEMPT UMNO '...any society registered under
this Act from all or any of the provisions of this Act...'. Was there even an appeal, or an application to the Minister after the ROS's decision to ask for EXEMPTION from compliance with law and UMNO Constitution?
70 Power to exempt - SOCIETIES ACT 1966
The Minister may at his discretion in writing exempt any society registered under this Act from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
So, show us, for the sake of transparency, the ROS letter to UMNO must be disclosed.
Then, the Minister's letter giving the EXEMPTION must be disclosed.
"In reference to Umno's constitution and meeting rules, the ministry had decided to grant an exemption from compliance Section 13(1)(c)(iv) through Section 70...
Section 13(1)(c)(iv) is as follows
13 Cancellation and suspension (Societies Act)
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Registrar may, in the following cases, cancel the registration of any society registered under section 7:
(c) if the Registrar is satisfied—
(iv) that the registered society has wilfully contravened any provisions of this Act or of any regulations made under this Act or of any of its rules or that any members of the society have habitually contravened the provisions of subsection 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 [Act 15] by any acts or utterances to which paragraph 3(1)(f) of that Act applies;
What exactly did he exempt - was it compliance with the Act or Regulations, or was it compliance with UMNO's constitution and rules?
Then the question is WHAT IS THE REASONS the Minister gave the exemption?
Even the using of power to exempt under Section 70 is not as the Minister pleases - If so, then what is the used of the LAW, if the Minister can as he/she pleases exempt any person, in this case, Societies, to be exempted form following the law. Why did the Minister exempt a political party - was it because, it was part of the current coalition government? The Deputy Prime Minister comes from that party? WHY? WHY? - Explain to us clearly.
If the Minister exempts one, but not another > is it not DISCRIMINATION, going against the '..equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law...'
The Judiciary is there to ensure Ministers or the Executive do not ABUSE the law - With regard the decision of the Minister, was there, amongst others NO 'illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness'. If there was, the Minister's decision is invalid, and ... [Will any member of UMNO take this matter to court for a Judicial Review? - that is the question]
We need to know the ROS's decision - to know what exactly was the law or section that UMNO breached, that required the MINISTER to step in and say non-compliance of the law in this case will be given an exemption?
Was it a non-compliance of UMNO's constitution and rules - If this is it, it is WORSE - did the Minister now OK that UMNO did not have to follow its own Constitution and Rules? This surely is a violation of Freedom of Association > so can current leaders of societies freely break a Societies's Constitution or Rules ... no problem, there is always the possibility of getting the Minister's exemption.
Now, in UMNO - if the ROS determine that the No-contest for top 2 post is INVALID - then, UMNO will have to immediately re-conduct its Elections. This will happen for ALL posts > as some may have wanted to contest for Presidency or No. 2 BUT did not as they could not by reason of that no-contest Resolution - so they may have contested for some other lesser posts...
WHY did the Minister EXEMPT? Was corruption or threats involved? Was it because Anwar and PH did not want to anger current UMNO leadership - who may then withdraw their MPs confidence to remain as Prime Minister? It could be some OTHER reasons and we will not know unless there is transparency, and the Minister discloses it. So, please disclose.
This exemption of the PH Minister will have REAL CONSEQUENCE in terms of the people's support. CLEAN, REFORMIST, ALTERNATIVE?
The no reform yet of the Political Appointment practice is already raised the question - 'Where Is The Reform?' Simply appointing to replace old government's political appointees is not what we wanted. Nepotistic political appointment of the PM's daughter was also question. Nurul Izzah is still a 'political appointment' - she just resigned from one position, and was then moved to another position in her father's Ministry >> was this not what happened.
The decision of not to review or repeal SOSMA also causes concern > is this 'Janji Tidak Ditepati'(Non performances of promises)
Now to take the Minister's Exemption to Court, I believe that it can only be brought by a member of UMNO - as this affects UMNO and its members. The Opposition MPs may find it most difficult to challenge this in court >> Why don't Minister Saifuddin Nasution take it to court to ask the confirm that his decision to exempt was valid?
The decision of the ROS - should it be just given to UMNO and its leaders > JUSTLY, it must be given to ALL members of UMNO, as they are all affected? So, they are entitled to receive the ROS letters, and the Minister's letter too.
Reasonably, this EXEMPTION by the Minister do not just affect UMNO - but do impact all Societies, and Malaysians.
Now, Section 70 really should be repealed ...
Saifuddin confirms RoS letter to Umno
Bring it to court, Saifuddin tells those unhappy with Umno-ROS decision
KUALA LUMPUR: If Opposition MPs are dissatisfied with the Home Ministry’s move to rectify a decision by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) against Umno, they could challenge the matter in court, says Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail.
The Home Minister said Section 70 of the Societies Act 1966 (Act 832) gave ministers the prerogative to make several exemptions.
"If the complainant is dissatisfied, saying that the minister had overstepped his powers. they could go through legal channels and the due process.
"Then, the courts will decide. This is my understanding of this process and so, that is my explanation," Saifuddin.
Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) then interjected and brought up an alleged letter by the ROS to Umno, which stated that irregularities were found in the motion passed during its recent general assembly not to contest the president and deputy president post.
"Is this letter real and genuine? It clearly stated that Umno’s motion not to contest its president and deputy president post had contravened Article 9.3 in the Umno constitution," said Takiyuddin.
"Will this decision by YB (Saifuddin) become a binding precedent to every other party after this?" asked Takiyuddin.
In response, Saifuddin said various perspectives on the issue could be made by a lawyer and a minister, respectively.
According to Saifuddin, he scrutinised the legal aspects behind the issue before arriving at the decision.
"With clear understanding, the decision has its implications that may bring about legal action in court. I’m fully aware of it, with full respect," added Saifuddin.
Saifuddin’s reply was not met well by Opposition leaders, and many of them attempted to interrupt his speech.
However, Deputy Speaker Datuk Ramli Mohd Nor told MPs that it was Saifuddin’s floor and no interjections were allowed by Saifuddin.
Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim (PN-Arau) then raised a Standing Order and demanded a written reply from Saifuddin.
However, Saifuddin then schooled Shahidan regarding parliamentary practices.
“You can cite a standing order and the Speaker will make a ruling. If the Standing Order is accurate, then I will sit down and you (Shahidan) will speak.
"This is not the way," said Saifuddin.
Shahidan, who looked dissatisfied, then sat down, before Mohd Ramli told the International Trade and Industry Ministry to proceed with its winding up speech on Budget 2023.
On Tuesday (March 7), Saifuddin confirmed that Umno was given an exemption under Act 832 regarding the resolution for no contests for the posts of president and deputy president passed during the party’s 2022 general assembly.
Saifuddin said the exemption was made based on Section 70 of the Act.
Under
Section 70 of the Act, the minister might at his discretion in writing
exempt any society registered under the Act from all or any of the
provisions of the said Act. - Star, 8/3/2023
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment