Home English News “Palani’s CWC appointments flawed in law” – Vel Paari

“Palani’s CWC appointments flawed in law” – Vel Paari

390
0
SHARE
Ad

Kuala Lumpur, Feb 10 – Former Strategic Director of MIC Dato Seri S.Vel Paari (pic) has called on MIC President Palanivel to seek the advice of senior legal experts well-versed in MIC Constitution before making important decisions.

Following is the full text of his press statement released today:

Vel-Paari-Feature“It is shocking to note that after all the effort taken by PM to smoothly solve the MIC crisis, Dato Seri Palanivel does his regular controversial statements and appointments that falls foul of MIC constitution and conditions set by ROS.

#TamilSchoolmychoice

After reading his comments on STAR today, I feel Dato Seri Palanivel should not assume that Minister Dato Seri Zahid and ROS officers are stupid. The words used in the letter, especially ” elected and serious violations ” were very detailed and were chosen with a lot of thought.

Both Dato Seri Zahid and ROS have read and understood our party constitution thoroughly. They are also well read in the society acts.

I request Dato Seri Palanivel to read Article 92 on ” Transitional Provisions “. After reading this article, I hope Dato Seri Palani will understand why the word ” elected CWC members of 2009 ” was used. Article 92 will clearly disqualify his controversial appointments yesterday.

G.PalanivelI am of the considered opinion that the drafters of the Constitution deliberately used the term ‘elected’ during the transition period in Article 92 and the Minister and ROS have read and understood the Article and also used the terminology ‘elected’.

The omission of the term appointed is not accidental and as such any attempt to introduce the term is a breach of the Constitution and would be seen as amending the constitution as seen in the case of Dato’ Hj Talaat Hj Husain v Chak Kong Yin (2005) 5 CLJ 221 where Justice Singham VT has stated that though the action did not expressly amend or rescind the appeal provision of S11 of Societies Act 1966 and/or the rules of the club, it was still a violation of the appeal provision and tantamount to an amendment/rescission of the appeal provided under the rules of the club.

I now call upon Dato Seri Palanivel to seek the advice of Tan Sri Vadivello and Mr. D.P. Vijandran, both of whom have had assisted in drafting the constitution, together with Dato Selva Mookiah (MIC legal advisor), to tutor Dato Seri Palanivel on MIC Constitution especially Article 92 to avoid further embarrassment to the party.

MIC-logoIt’s evident that while Dato Seri Palani has admitted openly not once but twice that he is not well versed in law. But he still continues to interpret the MIC Constitution and the society act to his understanding which is causing a severe turmoil to MIC which will in turn affect the BN. His contradicting statements clearly shows that his thought process are influenced by others.

If Palanivel still wants to interpret the law to his understanding, I suggest he purchases a tiny island in South Pole; and names it Palani’s Fantasy Island. He and his group of tattoo advisers can move there and continue to practice his version of the law. But we the human beings of sound mind and body would like to continue adhering to laws established by human beings.

In regards to the serious violations of the party constitution and the Societies Act and to safeguard the party and to send a clear message to future leaders, I now call upon a “legal advisers committee” to be set up by the Special Committee of Division Chairmen to prepare and lodge a report with ROS and Police on the violations of the Societies Act by Dato Seri Palanivel. The Home Minister clearly stated in the press conference that there were serious violations.

And on a final note, Dato Seri Palanivel said that during the elections in 2009, there were no Putera or Puteri wings in existence, which were only created after the amendments to the Constitution made in September 2009.

Sorry to rebut Dato Seri Palanivel but Putera and Puteri wings were in fact in existence. Puteri leader and 15 delegates from the Puteri wing did vote in the 2009 party elections. That is why Puteri Wing complained to ROS for not allowing them to vote.”

Comments