Home Editor's Pick Mistakes by ROS allows Palanivel to defer decision on re-election!

Mistakes by ROS allows Palanivel to defer decision on re-election!

430
0
SHARE
Ad

palanivel-1Kuala Lumpur, December 19 – Political observers and lawyers following closely the recent events on MIC,  pointed out that a couple of serious mistakes made by ROS gave the space for Palanivel to defer the re-election directive.

Those who attended yesterday’s so called ‘working meeting’ of MIC, said Palanivel and his team were able to convince their opponents by pointing out the mistakes by ROS and thereby confusing them.

First and foremost is the inordinate delay exercised by ROS in giving the final reply to MIC. ROS took almost one year to give the reply thereby raising doubts whether it was a politically motivated delay. When they can give their decision on DAP elections last year within one or two months why they should take almost one year for a BN component party?

#TamilSchoolmychoice

Second mistake

my}micSecondly, the letter by ROS combines decisions on some MIC branches and divisions which should have been handled separately as it further confused re-election issues.

The complaints on the national party elections held on 30th November last year were filed after November 30th and were specific to the elections whereas some of the complaints on divisions were about the divisional elections which took place much earlier, around September 2014. The complaints were also filed separately.

Therefore, ROS should have given separate decisions for different complaints.  May be, they can cite their decisions on other divisions and branches in their letter on the re-election but by combining everything together in one single letter, they confused the re-election issue.

After the letter was delivered on Dec 5, Tanjoing Malim division Chairman Tan Sri Ramasamy approached ROS directly and convinced them of some flaws in their decision and got them to overturn their decision on his division. In the Dec 5 letter ROS had ordered re-election for the post of Chairman for Tanjong Malim but subsequently changed their decision and issued another letter to Tanjong Malim division saying that re-election need not be held for that division.

CWC members attending the meeting yesterday were dumbfounded when told of such a move by ROS.

Another change of decision by ROS on the way?

Furthermore, the meeting was also briefed that Ananthan, Chairman of MIC Kulim-Bandar Baru (Kedah), has also approached ROS directly pointing out some flaws in their decision and is likely to get the order to hold re-election overturned. In the Dec 5 letter, ROS directed that re-election be held for Kulim-Bandar Baru MIC division.

g-palanivel_mic-300x198“When ROS issues a final decision by letter, they should not change it within the next few days as it happened in the case of Tanjong Malim division. Once ROS gives a decision, the only avenue opened to the parties concerned is to file an appeal to the Minister within 30 days and not go back to ROS again. ROS should not have entertained such a move in the first place. Now, since they have already done such serious mistakes (for the case of Tanjong Malim and Kulim Bandar Baru) it became much easier for Palanivel’s team to convince the CWC members present and their opponents such as T.Mohan, that ROS can change their decision before the stage of appeal to Minister and therefore discussions should be held with ROS first” a CWC member who attended the meeting yesterday pointed out.

Palanivel and his team were determined not to call for re-election as per the directive of ROS as it could have been a political disaster for them and yesterday they managed to push through their wish not by political might but by the fumbles of ROS.

A lawyer following the MIC debacle had this to say: “The MIC-ROS tussle clearly shows that the time has come for the government to review the laws on Societies Act. We talk so much about Sedition Act but the Societies Act still forbids parties concerned from going to courts, which is against established principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the laws should provide a reasonable time frame for ROS to give their decision and not take one year to give their findings. Role and scope functions of ROS should also be specified to avoid confusion as it is happening in MIC now”