Vigneswaran: Signing a copy of his book for a buyer

A PASSION to share his views with the Indian community in Malaysia, and work together with one and all to “chart the path to redeem our dignity” has made former MIC Youth leader S. Vigneswaran pen a book.

And this 218-page volume titled Redemption of Indian Dignity was written in just one month, backed of course with research from able assistants and officials of the Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF) that he chairs.

Vigneswaran, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Youth and Sports from 2004 till the March 8 general election tsunami last year, held a media launch of his book in Subang Jaya yesterday. One who underwent quite a struggle to get to read law in England, Vigneswaran in 2003 became the first MIC Youth chief to be elected to the post, after nearly 50 years of the party’s existence.

Youth leaders prior to this were appointed by the MIC president. While he has been acknowledged for his many contributions to the youth movement, within the party as well as among Indian NGOs, Vigneswaran was early last year unceremoniously stripped of his post for calling on his president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu to retire. He then quit the party.

As Vigneswaran pointed out when making the call to Samy Vellu, the MIC since its establishment in August 1946 till 1979 — a period of 33 years — had seen six presidents, but for almost 30 years till last year (and until today), the party has been lorded over by Samy Vellu.

“In this book,” he told a press conference after the launch, “I am saying what I have in my heart. It’s about what we have to do together as Indians in this country …

“We should not sit and wait for handouts. We should work for what we want! We seem to have forgotten our dignity, all arising from the self-pity of marginalisation. So, how and why did we get marginalised in the first place?”

A read of Vigneswaran’s Redemption of Indian Dignity will be both informative and thought-provoking, for he touches on several areas of concern to the community.

He even reveals details on what many MIC members themselves know little of — the Blue Book for Indian progress, drawn up in 1970 under the leadership of MIC’s sixth president Tan Sri V. Manickavasagam.

This was a blueprint for Indians to achieve a 10 per cent equity holding in the national economy by 1990. Indians then held one per cent equity in the economy, he added, but today, it remains at a dismal 1.2 per cent, much of it in the hands of billionaires and millionaires, including Forbes-listed Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan.

MIYDF is working to get the soft-cover book, priced at RM33, into some of the leading bookshops in the country. For now, those interested can purchase it through the website at www.miydf.org. The email address is info@ miydf.org.

Source : www.mmail.com.my

MIYDF is pleased to invite you to the launching of “Redemption of Indian Dignity” book by SA Vigneswaran at Sheraton Subang today at 9th April 2009 at 12.00pm-3.00pm.

Lunch will be servered.

RSVP: Kannan : HP: 012-238-9789; Vas : HP:012-309-0140

]]> http://savigneswaran.com/blog/2009/04/09/book-redemption-of-indian-dignity/feed/ 0 http://savigneswaran.com/blog/2009/03/30/is-mied-authorized-to-give-out-study-loan-or-scholarship-2/ http://savigneswaran.com/blog/2009/03/30/is-mied-authorized-to-give-out-study-loan-or-scholarship-2/#comments Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:14:37 +0000 SA.Vigneswaran http://savigneswaran.com/blog/?p=73 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)

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)

SA Vigneswaran LLB (Hons) UK , CLP Malaya

Chairman,

Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF)

Life Member, Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED)

6 March 2009

MIED Fiasco

________________________________________________

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

Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) is a company limited by guarantee pursuant to Companies Act 1965.

The opening paragraph of MIED’s webpage on educational funds solemnly states, “Since the commencement of its operations in 1984, MIED has assisted needy students by providing study loans to pursue their courses and today it has become the leading provider of study loans to members of the Malaysian Indian community seeking such assistance for further education.”

What the opening paragraph omitted to state is that, in practice, MIED very generously provides personal and business loans to millionaires and upcoming millionaires.

In 1998, Samy Velu, the Chairman of MIED, authorized MIED to release a RM9 million personal loan to Tan Sri Hari Narayanan’s company.

In 2008, Samy Velu, authorized MIED to release a RM3.5 million business loan to Chitrakala.

In 2008, Samy Velu authorized MIED to release a RM30,000-00 personal loan to Mumtaj Begum, the current acting CEO of MIED.

All the loans were provided on a one year repayment basis and interest free.

The eligibility requirements for approval of such loan, even if allowed, is by way of a resolution passed by the Board of Trustees.

Where does Samy Velu derive his authority in sanctioning the unlawful financial assistance?

I am a life member of MIED. I have never received a single notice of EGM or AGM or a member’s meeting of MIED all these years.

The recent so called appointment of Dato Sothinathan and Dato Veerasingam is void because they were not elected by the members. The members of MIED should have elected the members to the Board of Trustees (this was not done) and the Board of Trustees then elect a Chairman.

None of the members including me were aware that we were suppose to elect the Board of Trustees until Chithrakala-MIED fiasco came to the limelight. When I enquired Chitrakala, she said she was under the impression all members knew the procedure and were handled personally by Samy.

In the construction of AIMST University, most of the contracts were awarded by Samy, through direct negotiation. A contract worth RM190 million was awarded to SP Setia Sdn Bhd, contract worth RM40 million to Maika Intellectual Resources (MIR) who sub contracted the entire work to various other companies which eventually led to the contract increasing to RM45 million and contract worth RM30 million to Nova Bloom Sdn Bhd.

Where does Samy Velu derive his authority, in sanctioning those awards? He is not an Executive Chairman of MIED. Therefore, he does not have the executive powers to do so. He must table it for sanction by the Board of Trustees.

Samy’s unilateral decision to disburse loans and contract in MIED is a blatant breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty amounting to misfeasance of highest order.

The fate of MIC members is of no interest to me if they continue to blindly accept his mischief but the money collected to build AIMST and for MIED is, because the money was contributed by the Government and the public including myself.

I will be taking up this matter to the police and MACC tomorrow.

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.