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)

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.

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.

In all disputes, the deeming inference is the first person to go to court has the benefit of the public perceiving him to be righteous and the party sued is the wrongdoer.

The true meaning behind the suit is to portray to the people that Pakatan has a good case and the Sultan has acted unlawfully. The lawsuit will keep the dissent burning and the subsisting strong emotions will help Pakatan gain public sympathy especially at a time when there are two by- elections approaching.

When the majority moves from one political party to another, the credible response for any leader of the adversely affected party is to take responsibility.

Menteri Besars and ADUNs hold public office pursuant to a fiduciary duty owed to the people.  That duty must be discharged with a very high standard of care.

Unfortunately, instead of understanding and analysing the problems and offering solutions, the outgoing Mentri Besar and his Pakatan Rakyat contributed to the snowballing of a negative, unhealthy and misinformed debate among the rakyat.

The diversity of opinion on the blogs are tilted towards blaming the monarch without substance and facts.

Have the dissenting Rakyat forgotten that  in Kedah, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu, the rulers and the Penang governor had exercised their rights under the constitution to appoint the menteris besar and chief minister on their own judgment without being dictated by the ruling government.

When the Sultan of Perlis stood firm to express the rakyat’s dissatisfaction by choosing Mat Isa Sabu as the MB despite the Prime Minister’s public support for the incumbent Shahidan Kassim, the PM or the ruling government did not commence a legal suit against the MB or the Sultan.

Similarly in Terengganu, the new MB Ahmad Said was fully endorsed by the ruler against the recommendation of the PM who was again supporting the incumbent Idris Jusoh.

The decisions of the respective rulers of state indicate our monarch have placed themselves above, partisan politics. They have redefined their roles as that of helping to uphold justice, maintain peace and resolve conflicts between contending parties, in much the same way as judges serve society.

In the Perak crisis, the Sultan, who is no stranger to interpretation and rule of law, acted in accordance with the State constitution.

Article 16 (2)(a) states, “His Highness shall first appoint as Mentri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly,”.

Article 16(4) states, “In appointing a Mentri Besar, His Highness may, in his discretion, dispense with any provisions in the Constitution of the State restricting his choice of a Mentri Besar, if in his opinion it is necessary to do so in order to comply with the provisions of this article.”

Article 16(6) states, “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative assembly, then, unless at his request His Highness dissolves the Legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council (emphasis added).

The dissenting voice of the Rakyat is accusing the Sultan, the former Lord President and an eminent judge, as having erred in Law. Based on the relevant articles of the constitution as above, where did the Sultan err in law?

It was the MB who after realizing he lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative assembly due to the cross overs, approached the Sultan to act pursuant to Article 16(6). At this material point, the Sultan had to make a decision i.e whether to dissolve or not to dissolve the State Assembly.

The first limb in Article 16(6) “unless at his request His Highness dissolves the Legislative assembly” where the word “unless’ gives the Ruler absolute discretion to decide whether to or not to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

The Sultan after listening to both parties and the four representatives who pledged support to BN decided not to dissolve the assembly.

The second limb in Article 16(6) “he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council” makes it mandatory for the Executive Council headed by the MB to resign irrespective of the decision on the dissolution.

Upon deciding not to dissolve, the Sultan had to decide on the new Executive Council pursuant to Article 16(2)(a) which expressly states the Sultan chooses MB who in His Highness judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly.  That is exactly what the Sultan of Perak did.

Why didn’t Nizar resign graciously rather than creating a crisis and now further seeking judicial review on the decision of the Sultan.

We must be careful to distinguish between fact, law and fiction, and between what is authentic and façade. Nizar’s refusal to accept the sultan’s decision and pakatan’s play up of the situation ignite passions, fuel debates and stir hatred among the people towards the monarch, a reality that Pakatan Rakyat grooved.

It is natural for defections to brew crisis. But it is unethical for the unhappy group to create myths or narrow interpretations of fact and experience to capitalize on the crisis especially in trying to conceal embarrassment over deceit by their very own party representatives.

Representing realities or ‘imaginings’ of injustice by Pakatan Rakyat are mere lubricants to increase the unnecessary friction and conflict in our multi racial society.

 by

SA. Vigneswaran, Chairman

Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF)

In War It Is Not About Who Is Right But Who is Left

Was this the guiding principle of the Pakatan Rakyat in obtaining power without total disregard to moral principles?

Q: Who hailed he had signed up more than 31 defectors needed to form a new government and called on Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi not to impose emergency rule to thwart a takeover on 16^th September 2008?

Q: Who pumped our adrenalin by claiming the Pakatan Rakyat was able to form a new government by September 16 2008 with the help of defecting BN MP.

From the dawn of 12^th General election, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim sowed the seeds of defections and cross overs.  Datelines were set. September 16 came and went.

Then, in October 2008 he said he had enough defectors from the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition to form a new administration possibly before Hari Raya Haji on 8 December 2008. That day too came and went.

At the party’s Congress in December 2008, Anwar again announced that Sarawak would be Pakatan Rakyat’s new battle ground. There was strong wind but we saw no rain.

When Dato Seri Anwar set the datelines, one after another, to take over the government by defection, how come there was no hue and cry from the so called leaders of community, bloggers and opposition leaders that the defection was immoral, undemocratic, appalling and oppressive.

At all time, the enigmatic truth is, the ONLY way Pakatan Rakyat was going to take over the government was by this immoral, undemocratic, appalling and oppressive defections.

Pakatan Rakyat continued to woo MPs and ADUNS to cross over to them for an eventual and hopeful ambition to take over the government without any criticism from the public.

Finally, the Bota state assemblymen decided its time for Anwar to reap what he has sowed. After 11 months of struggling to take over the government with cross-over MPs, Anwar succeeded to get the Bota state assemblymen crossover to PKR.

Again, there was no hue and cry from the Malaysian public that the Bota defection was immoral, undemocratic, appalling and oppressive. Neither was there nasty remarks made against Anwar or PKR.

But, the very moment four Pakatan ADUNs crossed over to Barisan Nasional, the nastiest remarks and accusations are casts at the government.

Let us not forget the cliché every action has a reaction! Mind you. It was not BN who opened the floodgates for defections.

Be fair to your own unflagging conscience, Malaysians.

Challenging the Sultan’s decision

What wrong has His Highness committed? Did he jump party and created this scenario?

The first and foremost one should realise especially by a new and evolving Pakatan Rakyat, that  first it has to take responsibility for actions of its own and that of its members especially that of their elected representatives.

The first scenario in Perak began first with the Bota State Assemblyman crossing over to Pakatan Rakyat which did not earn the wrath of anyone from the Pakatan Coalition. Then, the second scenario, three (3) State Representatives including Bota crossed over to BN. Both the scenarios are identical morally and legally.

Only difference is, in the second scenario, it warranted the intervention of the Sultan, not by His Highness own accord, but by the Constitution of Perak that requires His Highness intervention.

When twenty-eight members indicated to the Sultan of Perak that they no longer have confidence in the incumbent Mentri Besar, and that with the three disputed memberships, they form a thirty-one team of majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, on 5th February 2009 His Highness directed the Executive Council to resign.

His Highness Sultan’s  ruling was pursuant to Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution which expressly states where a request for dissolution is made as a consequence of the Mentri Besar ceasing to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly and His Highness refuses, the incumbent Mentri Besar must tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

It is the elected state representatives of Pakatan Rakyat in Perak and the modus operandi of the Pakatan to take over the government without election that has resulted in them getting the taste of their own medicine. 

Instead of accepting the Sultan’s decision, all hell break loose for Pakatan Rakyat. Demonstrations and accusations are hurled at the Sultan now.

Has PKR and its leaders forgotten their declaration at PKR Congress in December 2008 that PKR took a strong stand on restoring the rulers’ immunity and their endorsement that although the country practised parliamentary democracy, the sovereignty of the rulers must be preserved.

Departing from their earlier rhetoric, where are they now when their own party members are insolent towards the Sultan of Perak.  Demonstrations by Pakatan members against the Sultan is not our Malaysian culture.

It is not the public who are unhappy with the Sultan’s decision but the members of disgruntled Pakatan Alliance.

The Pakatan leaders must take responsibility for the acts of their members. Is this how they are going to run the government if they take over?

Have the Pakatan members forgotten all Malaysian’s solemn pledge to “Loyalty to King and Country” in Rukunegara that they very strongly uphold in their parties?

Pakatan should learn from the lesson in Perak and begin concentrating on its promises to people, to uplift the multiracial society.

We should look forward to better the economic state of our country and make Malaysia a better home for us rather than verbalising on individual prejudices, applying double standards and making loose accusations that unnerves the harmony.

The raw lesson we learnt from Perak is “Those who live by the sword die by the sword”.