S.A.VigneswaranChairman, Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF)

AGAIN, THE RM100 MILLION SURFACES!

This time, it might be in the benefit of the Indian community.

I am member of Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) which is a company limited by guarantee pursuant to Companies Act 1965. I received a copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of MIED on 27^th March 2009 after I requested a copy from MIED’s Company Secretary through my solicitors on 5^th March 2009.

The following statement is made after due consultation with my Accountant and Solicitor.

Any misuse of public funds, particularly when those monies that were given by government and public as government grants and donations intended to support a marginalized community, is unacceptable.

The objective of the establishment of MIED as per Article 3 of the Memorandum of Association states, “to receive and administer funds for education, scientific and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare and for no other purposes and to this end: (a) to foster, develop and improve education of all kinds and in such manner as may, from time to time, be decided upon by the Institute including but without prejudice to the generality of this provision, the founding and maintaining of scholarships, provided that it does not contravene the provision of the Education of Law of Malaysia; (g) to assist, aid and give relief to the poor and needy who by reason of age, ill-health, misfortune or infirmity are wholly or in part unable  to maintain themselves and their dependents by their own exertions and in particular widows and orphans, victims of fire, floods, famine, war or calamity and those in need of moral or social rehabilitation or welfare” (emphasis added).

There are no other provisions as regards giving of any study loans. Any disbursements of money to the needy are ONLY by way of scholarship or grants.

The reality of disbursements in MIED

A total sum close to RM100million has been disbursed as study loans to almost 10,000 students with an accruing interest at the rate of 6% per annum. This interest is charged on an annual basis commencing from the 6th month after completion of the studies funded through MIED. From 2008, an additional interest of 2% per annum is charged from the time the loan is disbursed and the 6% upon completion of the course till the loan is settled.

1.                MIED is not authorized to give any study loan but only scholarships under its own Memorandum of Association.

2.                To give any loan, with interest, whether study loan or otherwise requires a money lending license without which it becomes illegal. Todate, MIED does not have any money lending license. Therefore, all monies collected with interest is illegal.

3.                All monies collected with interests are taxable. Failing to pay tax is another breach of the law and failing to declare the interest as an income is evading tax and illegal.

4.                In an Institution such as MIED, a Section 24 company under the Companies Act 1965 which has acquired a Tax Exemption status, it must disburse all funds received for its intended purposes (like donations and grants) within 18 months. Failing to do so, the income is deemed taxable and if the monies are placed in Fixed Deposits (like the millions collected as government grants and donations were and are kept) as in the case of MIED, becomes taxable. Failing to declare and pay tax on such accrued gains are again illegal.

5.                MIED has and is violating its own Memorandum and the Malaysian Law.

Dato Seri S. Samy Vellu, MIED Board of Trustees, MIED’s Company Secretary and MIED’s Auditors should take responsibility for these unacceptable acts and omissions, where not a single members meeting was held except for signatures collected during the MIC’s Central Working Committee (CWC) Meetings since the inception of MIED in 1984.  Prior to January 2009, MIED’s Board last met in 2003.  

SA Vigneswaran

(019-3832281)

According to Federal Criminal Investigation Department director Datuk Seri Bakri Zinin, the 6 people shot dead in Kulim by the police were the trigger-happy gang which had been terrorising jewellery store owners in Selangor, Penang, Perak and Kedah over the past two years.

MIYDF Human Rights Committee’s Legal Consultant, SA. Vigneswaran calls for a public inquiry into the cause of and circumstances of the deaths as the inquiry will go a long way towards abating public concern over the 6 shooting incidents and urges the police to provide a satisfactory explanation for

the fatal shooting.  The public needs to know why the suspects were not captured alive.

The law must be maintained by the police and we acknowledge that shootings are rarely easy calls and officers face potentially life-or-death situations that require an instantaneous decision: to shoot or not to shoot.

However, they must provide details of their actions, especially when the lives of 6 people were abruptly ended and their families are crying for an explanation.

If the police refuse to provide an explanation, it would seem as if they had carried out a `shoot-to-kill’ order and many irresponsible parties will capitalise this issue into a racial pigeonhole to discredit the police as having hidden agenda.  “It is best that the police clear the air, once and for all”. To not do so is to widen the chasm between the police force and the community, and really, who needs that right now.

The question that is being asked is why in all instances of police shootings, only after the tragedy, do police reveal that the shot dead suspects had committed series of criminal acts?

How come the public or the press were never given a list of wanted persons or photofit of the suspects not released to be published if the police knew them to be trigger happy jewellery store robbers alleged to be on the prowl for 2 years.

If the photofits had been released, then the families and the public would have been aware of their criminal activities and an eventual surrender of suspects could have been achieved. In some cases, a person who had innocently joined a group of suspected criminals might be killed in a shoot-out just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time as he was not aware he is mingling with criminals.

The other question that is hovering over our heads is what is the reason for hurryingly storming into the building which resulted in this fatal shootings. Was there an emergency need to enter the building?

Police ruled the shooting as justified under self defence but a full disclosure of whether the officers could have calmed the situation without gunfire or given adequate warning or had they exhausted other options before barging through the door, is crucial.

Evidence from the police of attempts to confine the suspects to the building, or some sort of negotiation or calling for back up or had they resorted to tear-gas will reveal that the fatal shooting was exercised as the last resort.

It is questionable when in incidents of hostages like the Al-Ma’unah incident, the police managed to arrest all suspects without even injuring a single person even though two police officers were killed but in cases like this, no capture was possible?

When police officers take the job as a law enforcement professional, they become part of the criminal justice system.  This is the only profession that can legally take someone’s life.  As a law enforcement officer someday they may have to choose to take another person’s life by deadly force, like this incident.  Should they be put in this unenviable position, they must remember that society does not like this and that they must expect go through full disclosure of the fateful event to exonerate themselves from illegitimate blame.

The Perak state assembly’s special privileges committee’s decision to suspend Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir and all his six executive councilors is in contravention of the royal pronouncement and assaults the very web that binds our society together.

I am baffled by the behaviour of Pakatan Rakyat leaders, who make bizarre unprecedented decisions that shows that the Speaker of State Assembly is above the constitutional monarch.

The committee has totally disregarded the state and federal constitutions and the spirit of the Rukunegara in deciding to suspend the office of MB and 6 others.  

Pakatan’s modus operandi in bringing about the episode today is akin waging war against His Highness, the Sultan of Perak and a clearly defined act of treason.

Despite the quagmire that Pakatan seems to have gotten itself into, Pakatan is displaying new development of procedural democracy in an appalling manner.

Aren’t Malaysians shocked at the behaviour of Pakatan Rakyat, which won’t allow its members to hop but will welcome other hoppers into its fold.
 
I view this unethical decision by Pakatan to resurrect in Perak with grave concern and utter disgust.

I am alarmed why Pakatan Rakyat could not wait for the decision by the court in their much-publicised constitutional suit which was filed last week. This fact only strengthens the theory that their suit is a ploy to incite sentiments and public sympathy. The façade has now turned into reality.

Pakatan has violated the sacred oath of allegiance towards Perak state and Malaysia and the sovereign and as such should swiftly face the full extent of the law.

If this unethical and demeaning conduct goes unchecked, Malaysia will head towards political chaos that none wish for.