MIC LEADERSHIP TUSSLE

by

K.Siladass

         

When there is a leadership tussle in a political party, or there arises a dispute between the members of a political party such leadership tussle, or the members’ dispute should be settled by the political party’s own members. The rules of a political party, would provide the mechanism as to how any such dispute should be resolved. Contrary to the established rule drastic change was introduced by the former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed’s government whereby a provision empowering the Registrar of Societies to intervene in the affairs of a political party if there is a dispute in the manner that party is managed. This provision could be scandalously abused when a member, to satiate his own selfish ends, makes unfounded allegations thus invoking the Registrar’s intervention.

          In 1960, one Tharmalingam brought an action against the then MIC President V.T. Sambanthan, in which the former claimed that his dismissal from the party was illegal and that he be reinstated. Tharmalingam had in fact ignored the MIC rules governing this sort of complaints, which is in fact domestic inquiry, and had gone directly to court for remedy. In this context the then Chief Justice Thompson said that, Tharmalingam should have come to court after the “MIC Gods” had dealt with his grievances. [see Tharmalingam v. Sambanthan (1961) MLJ 63].

If we look at the laws as they are in relation to the affairs of political parties it would seem that the Registrar is the present God.

          There is currently a dispute in MIC as to which faction commands the support of the party members and who is the de facto President. Elected President of MIC Dato Sri Palanivel has had been removed, in fact dismissed, from the party in the pretext that he has contravened MIC’s constitution.

          The present position in the light of the current impasse in MIC is that it is not that MIC members who are unable to find a solution but there is no mechanism to solve it when a tussle of this magnitude springs up. The help of the Registrar is needed, purportedly an independent authority. The question is: would the Registrar of Societies act impartially? In a time when the number of little Napoleons has rapidly increased the views of the Registrar of Societies, whether in writing of otherwise, could attract considerable controversy. The ROS should not lend his ears to one side and come to a conclusion which could result in being challenged in court. Besides, it would be patently wrong to allege that what the Registrar has stated in his letter is final. The Registrar may say many things clouded by the lopsided comments, and unfounded allegations. There could be no basis for such a claim. In fact, the ROS has not the power to terminate the membership of a party member.

It is now claimed that Dato Sri Palanivel, by going to court, has ceased to be a member of MIC. Those who so claim rely on Article 15.6 read together with Article 91 of the MIC Constitution.

         

Article 91 reads as follows:

“Every member shall be bound by the decision of the Central Working Committee in matters relating to his rights, obligations, duties and privileges as a member of the Congress. If he resorts to court proceedings in respect of his rights, obligations, duties and privileges or on behalf of any other member or in respect of the rendering or meaning of the provisions of this Constitution without first referring to the Central Working Committee or in violation of any decision or directive if the Central Working Committee he shall ipso facto cease to be a member of the Congress and shall not be entitled to exercise any of the rights of a member.”    

And Article 15.6 reads as follows:

“Any member who resorts to Court proceedings in breach of Article 91 shall cease to be a member.”   

          The effect of article 91 is that every member shall be bound by the decision of the Central Working Committee. In Palanivel’s case the Central Working Committee has not made any decision which would, in case of any contravention, result in the said provision being invoked. Palanivel has made an application to the High Court, for judicial review as against the ROS. In other words, ROS has made certain decisions which affect the party not an individual. Palanivel wants that wrong to be remedied. It was not an action against MIC or its members, or over any decision MIC’s Central Working Committee had made. It is simply a matter where the ROS had made a decision without consulting the person affected by his decision. Strictly speaking the ROS is in breach of the rules of natural justice as he had failed to give an opportunity to Palanivel to explain a properly formulated charge. Or, the ROS has exceeded his powers; or, that the ROS is bias. Besides, the ROS seems to have believed what Palanivel’s opponent had said, which should have been tested critically and with opportunity extended to Palanivel to explain or challenge the allegations levelled against him. But, what is he guilty of? Seeking legitimate redress for the wrong decision of ROS which could affect the party as a whole is not within the contemplation of Article 15-6 read together with Article 91 of MIC’s constitution.

          In the circumstances it would be wrong to conclude that Palanivel has lost the membership of MIC.

COMPARISON OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

Comparison of distinct religious beliefs could be interesting if it is pursued with an open mind to discover the unifying thread of all faiths; but, it can turn out to be dangerous, harmful and catastrophic if the comparison-exercise, while extolling the grandeur of one’s own religion, is aimed to ridicule, undermine and abuse other faiths. Based on this premis, comparison of religions could be an unrewarding, futile exercise if it is done to promote disbelief and pave way to inject hatred against other faiths.

We must admit that unreasonable differences in religious belief are very real, but, when you are talking about the faiths, one cannot discard the dangers that are so inherent because of prevailing warped notions: especially when a faith takes the position that its dogmas are superior to others, forgetting that beliefs are simply beliefs.

Perhaps it is because of this inherent human weakness in religious matters Article 3(1) was entrenched in the Federal Constitution. A very unique provision which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, and adds in no unequivocal term that other religions could be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. It could be seen that Islam being the religion of the State, other religions’ protection is guaranteed.

The secure constitutional protection of Islam in the Constitution is burdened with a unique responsibility and that is, Islam has the duty to protect the religions of minorities. It is clear, then, the religions of the minorities should not be questioned and their faiths cannot be called in question, and most importantly there should be no condemnation of other religions’ existence.

It follows, therefore, Malaysia and all its member States have the paramount duty to ensure that the foundation of religious harmony envisaged in Article 3(1) is preserved. Those who venture to condemn and criticise other religions are doing so out of spite and in violation of Article 3(1) and other provisions in the Constitution which guarantee the existence of all religions. And those who transgress these protective constitutional safeguards cannot be regarded as persons with noble intentions. They, indeed, are perpetrators who work to retard mutual understanding and harmony among all faiths. We must make it plain that those who do not appreciate the fragile racial and religious balance in this country, its significance, dignity and worth are indeed ignoring human values.

                                                                                                                                      K. Siladass

Valuation of Immovable Property

by K. Siladass

         

          When a person wants to buy a house there are few things he will have to consider, and the most important facts would be whether the house is sold free from encumbrances, whether the price asked for is reasonable compared to other properties in that locality. When it is a house which is for sale the question is whether it is vacant or it is occupied. The price of a house would much depend on various factors, especially, whether the sale is with vacant possession or without it. If there is a tenant occupying the house, the value will depend on the desire of the buyer: whether, he wants it for his own occupation or he is just buying it as an investment. If the buyer is thinking to occupy the house upon completion of the sale the price would be higher. On the other hand if the house has been tied down with a tenancy for a long period the chances are that the buyer who wants immediate occupation would not venture to buy. If it is an investment the buyer will consider the duration of the tenancy, if it is too long then, his investment will not be too lucrative considering the fluctuating temperament of the property market. The value may appreciate but that is a long term plan. For the immediate purchase the price of the house would not fetch a higher value because of the sitting tenant.

          It is possible that the willing seller is tied down with a long tenancy may sell the house to the sitting tenant at price less than the market value because the owner need not go into the cumbersome process of getting the tenant out.

          If the price is agreed and the parties conclude the sale and purchase, say for three million ringgit, documents would show that amount; but, when it is submitted for valuation, the valuation office would have their own value. They do not consider the tenancy of the house and its value. Therefore, if the valuation is more than the sale price, it does not mean that the purchaser has bought it at a lower price. If that is the case at least fifty percent of property transactions in the country would be subjected to adjustment of the sale and purchase price after valuation by the valuation department. Are we going to say that the sale price to be adjusted according to the valuation? Ludicrous.

         

Assuming that the government valuer values the property less than the sale and purchase price could the buyer turn to the seller and say that he has paid more than the actual value, therefore, there should be an adjustment on the price? Unheard of. Only those with warped thoughts would venture into this type of unrewarding exercise with the hope of political gains. It is just lying on one’s back and spitting. You know where the spittle will land.           

Parliamentary Privilege

by K. Siladass

         

          Although a member represents one parliamentary constituency needless to remind that his or her duty, obligation and responsibility are towards the country. He has to protect the integrity of the august house. Furthermore, it must be remembered that members of Parliament represent the people who had empowered them to enact laws for the good and safety of the country, and of its people. It is, therefore, incumbent of every member of Parliament to speak the truth, and when he or she says something capable of evoking sensation, or cast aspersion on any person whether that person is a member of Parliament or otherwise, the member who levels accusation carries the additional burden to prove what he or she said in Parliament is actually true, or that there was reasonable cause which made it essential to bring it to the notice of Parliament, and be brave to face the consequences.

          A legislator must be brave to express the views he feels – genuinely feels – which calls for an explanation and must stand by what was expressed, and most importantly when impugned, must be ready and willing to substantiate what has been said in Parliament, rather that shielding behind parliamentary privilege.

          When a member of Parliament says something which is scandalous, the immediate reaction would be for the person affected, whether a member of Parliament or not, to challenge the member who uttered the defamatory statement to repeat them outside parliament relinquishing parliamentary privilege. And if the member who uttered the defamatory statement accepts the challenge, then, the same statement could be repeated at a place out of Parliament. But, not all members who enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege would be ready to accept the challenge because their motive may not be to elicit the truth, but to sow the seed of suspicion in the fertile ground of malicious falsehood thus confuse the people, therefore, they will not repeat the scandalous, libellous statement outside parliament fearing the loss of privilege and immunity. Such a member who seeks the umbrage of Parliamentary privilege after having made scandalous remarks cannot be any better than a coward.

          The affected person is not without any remedy. Parliament has the procedure to deal with any unfounded allegation that may be made by any member in Parliament, thus, it would be worthwhile to look at the parliamentary standing orders.

          A case on point is Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 2 MLJ 142; and [1966] 2 MLJ 66*, there Seenivasagam, a prominent opposition leader and parliamentarian made a statement in parliament of corrupt practices by Abdul Rahman Talib, a Minister. Rahman Talib challenged Seenivasagam to repeat the statement outside parliament and which challenge was accepted. Seenivasagam repeated what he had already said in Parliament in a public place. In his speech at Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on 11 September 1963, Seenivasagam stated:

“You allege that I besmirched your character in the House (Parliament). You are wrong, because you could have asked the House to punish me under standing orders with a maximum penalty of $1000 or two weeks jail.”

          Rahman Talib did sue Seenivasagam but lost.

          The House itself in appropriate circumstances take action on its own to preserve its dignity when a member speaks or acts which tantamount to scandalous abuse of parliamentary privilege.

* MLJ (Malayan Law Journal)

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CITIZENS' DECLARATION

The country is in turmoil. There are too many demeaning incidents that do not inspire confidence in the present leadership, particularly Dato Seri Najib Razak. Foreign governments are not too comfortable to deal with the present Prime Minister, because his explanations about the money found in his personal bank account varied from one another which is nothing but a clear case of vaccillating. His handpicked Attorney-General believes that he is the law and whatever he says must be accepted. In this regard he treats the whole legal system as being incapable of differentiating between chalk and cheese. An Attorney-General who condones criminal acts is unfit to be one. And in handling Najib's case he has clearly abused the discretionary power he has.

UMNO Baru is split, hence within the country Dato Seri Najib Razak's prestige as Prime Minister is in shambles. His integrity as a leader is questioned. The most important question that looms at large is who needs to be saved? Najib or Malaysia? Who needs to be protected UMNO Baru led by Najib or Malaysia? The answers to both question would be if you love Malaysia, then, it need to be saved. If you love Malaysia, then, it needs protection. Thus, Malaysia needs to be saved from greedy, unscrupulous, and corrupt leaders like Najib. Malaysia needs to be protected from Najib and those who support him. Therefore, the Citizens' Declaration first of its kind in the country's history can only be seen as a genuine effort to save Malaysia from leaders whose motive is self-aggrandisement and unjust enrichment and at the same time the declaration seeks to protect the country and the people from unjust laws perpetuated by Najib and his supporters.

What is remarkable is the fact that the current UMNO Baru is Mahathir's brain child, and its transformation into a political Frankenstein is there for all to see. This Frankenstein under the control of Najib actually caused more damage than one could imagine. It is time the creator of this Frankenstein come out to destroy what he had created. Besides, Najib the Frankenstein is also Mahathir's creation, hence it is only befitting that he leads to ensure that his creation does not cause more irreparable damage.

The signatories to the Citizens' Declaration by mostly of political parties with diverse objectives and non-government organisations can only be seen as  awakening to meet the challenge the unjust course pursued by Najib and his supporters. The significance of the Citizens' Declaration could only mean that its motive is to see a clean, efficient, transparent and fair Malaysian government whose aim must be for a just society. SAVE MALAYSIA.

K. Siladass