I have always thought of Muhyiddin Yassin as a reasonable, restrained and urbane Umno leader; in fact, he used to be one of my favourite cabinet ministers.
When he ascended to the exalted position of deputy prime minister, I was a touch worried that he might just be the new face and the new voice that Umno and BN need to regain the support of the voters who had swung en masse to the opposition coalition in the last general election.
My worry turned out to be both unfounded and unwarranted. Within a week of assuming the second highest office in the land, the public statement of the new DPM has shown that he is just like the past Umno and BN leading lights - arrogant, insensitive and quite removed from reality.
When MIC boss S Samy Vellu made disgruntled noises about not getting enough ministerial appointment, Muhyiddin practically told him to shut up, and Samy Vellu dutifully complied.
This little bit of melodrama played out in front of a national audience must have entrenched the belief among many Indian voters that MIC is indeed a subservient serf to their Umno masters in the BN coalition, and therefore no longer worthy of support.
Soon after, while reflecting upon the results of the by-elections in the two Bukit, Muhyiddin opined aloud that the Chinese voters were ungrateful or “unappreciative”.
This is evidence that the new DPM is very much the prisoner of the kind of Umno racial narrative that used to be both popular and effective in those Mahathir years. Unfortunately for BN, this kind of vocabulary has outlived its shelf life.
The Chinese electorate throughout Malaysia have changed. The unexpected election results of March 8, 2008 have opened their eyes to new political possibilities in Malaysia. They have tasted the nectar of change, and their ravenous hunger for greater and more fundamental change has grown. Just note their increased support for PAS and PKR in the two Bukit.
This talk of Chinese being ungrateful must have touched a raw Chinese nerve throughout our fair land. Instead of apologising for his insensitive remark, Muhyiddin blamed it on the media, as BN ministers are wont to do. This must have riled up the media fraternity, even if they keep quiet, as mainstream journalists are wont to do.
The new MCA boss Ong Tee Kiat was silent on the DPM’s insensitive remarks against Chinese voters, displaying to a national audience once again that indeed MCA is subservient to Umno in all things Chinese, and they do not deserve support from the Chinese community in the next election.
Finally, Muhyiddin more or less warned the Chinese people on the peril of seeing themselves as king-makers.
The ramification of such a seemingly innocent statement had to be played out in the ultra-right Malay press: if the non-Malay people become king-makers, the Malays are in danger of losing their Ketuanan Melayu and their grip on political power will be loosened. The existence of the Malay race would be threatened on their own homeland.
The clarion call for the Malays to rise and unite is only to be expected.
Political narrative aimed to spook non-Malays
That is the sort of political narrative that could frighten the non-Malays into voting for the BN in the past. I doubt it will do the trick now in our new Malaysia. It will probably whip up the appetite of the Chinese and the Indians for change even more.
Given the Malay voting trends in the two Bukit, it is also unlikely that this scare tactic aimed at the Malay masses can generate the usual communal panic as it used to do.
Even when Anwar Ibrahim was still spending his enforced vacation in Sungai Buloh, I had predicted that the Chinese and the Indian voters could play the role of king-makers in national politics.
As soon as PKR and PAS could split the Malay votes in the urban and the rural constituencies, the minority Chinese and Indian voters in the mixed and even the Malay-majority seats could determine the outcome of a contest between Umno and PKR or PAS.
There is nothing wrong with the Chinese and the Indians playing the king-maker role. The only casualty will be the idea of Ketuanan Melayu and Umno. This new found significance of the two minority ethnic groups will not be a threat to the Malays, because they will need to vote alongside those Malays who believe in the new collective ideology of Ketuanan Rakyat.
Thanks to people like Ong Kian Ming and Wong Chin Huat, we now have very professional empirical analysis of past election results, constituency by constituency, and even polling stream by polling stream.
The latest addition to such collection of meticulous election researcher is Kenny Gan. His recent letter to Malaysiakini entitled 'Can East Malaysia again save BN in 2013' is particularly sobering for watchers of Malaysian politics.
The following is his speculation of what the next general election would look like:
“There are 51 non-Malay majority seats, 44 mixed seats and 70 Malay-majority seats in the Peninsula. A non-Malay majority seat is defined as having less than 50% Malay voters, a mixed seat from 50% to less than 66% and a Malay-majority seat equal to or greater than 66% Malay voters.
“Based on the current voter sentiment, BN will be expected to lose all 51 non-Malay majority seats. Based on 30% non-Malay support and not more than 60% Malay support, BN should theoretically lose all 44 mixed seats too.”
At the end of his analysis, Kenny Gan has this to conclude:
“So BN's tally in the Peninsula is nine mixed seats and 45 Malay-majority seats making a dismal total of 54. Can the East Malaysian states save BN this time?”
Again, the spotlight is turned onto the two powerful blocs of parliamentary seats in Sarawak and Sabah. With BN federal power in doubt, the Chinese and the non-Malay indigenous voters would now have a different set of political parameters to consider when casting their votes.
The Chinese-majority seats in those two eastern states are especially gullible to the Pakatan Rakyat assault. The tone of the campaign and the issues raised would be considerably different from past elections.
The Sarawakian and Sabahan Chinese voters may just decide to emulate the fine example set by their ethnic counterparts in the Peninsula, and vote en masse for the Pakatan Rakyat candidates. Those few Chinese seats may just be king-makers again in a hung Parliament in 2013.
Horse trading involving Sabah, Sarawak
Another possibility is that once the dust has settled in the 2013 general election, and the BN and Pakatan have more or less similar number of seats in Parliament, there would be intense horse trading involving Sarawak and Sabah MPs. The torrid history of politics in those two states has shown that political loyalty can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Bought or sold, such MPs would be toxic assets to the political coalition which they would choose to belong at the end of the bargaining session, so I am not so excited about this prospect. But it does illustrate that Malaysian politics cannot be business as usual as it was done before 2008. Many new variables have crept into the confused equation.
The same unknown variable has also crept into the 70 Malay seats in the Peninsula.
According to Kenny Gan, there are 70 Malay-majority seats in West Malaysia, of which 25 were won by PKR and PAS in 2008.
Gan has defined a Malay seat as one where there are 66% or more Malay voters. If the results in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau are an indication, the Umno base support cannot exceed 57%.
Again, in a keen contest, the 34% or less king-maker in those Malay majority seats may just want to try switching their political allegiance from BN to Pakatan. The end game in national politics would then be anybody’s guess.
How the Chinese, Indian, and “other” ethnic voters will vote in the next general election depends on how our political drama plays out before the entire national audience.
They are watching with great interest, slowly realising perhaps that for the first time, the so-called minority ethnic groups suddenly have power to change the destiny of politicians and that of the country far out of proportion with their numerical strength.
The new ruling class within Umno and BN are obviously oblivious to this new development. They are stuck in the time-capsule of their old paradigm and talking in the antiquated language of race and violent threat.
That is why Muhyiddin talked and behaved as he did. He is just adding another nail to the closing coffin. We should encourage him to do more of the same.
Written in Malaysiakini by:SIM KWANG YANG was MP of Bandar Kuching in Sarawak between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Perak crisis: Judges have let Najib down
The Federal Court decision that Perak speaker V Sivakumar did not have the right to suspend BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six cabinet members is a perverse judgment.
It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says, "The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".
The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words, the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean "outside the law". It means "outside one's jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one's power or authority".
And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the speaker when the supreme law of the country says that "the validity of any proceedngs in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".
Don't these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.
In 1900, the English House of Lords, which is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England.
Voters threw out gov’t after judges erred
The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative government of the day because in the general election of 1906, it was toppled by a landslide.
The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative government was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book ‘Landmarks in the Law’:
“There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund, out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment.
“Now in the Taff Vale case, the railwaymen's union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action.
“But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds.
“Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?
“In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As GM Trevelyan says in his History: 'It struck at the very heart of trade union action'.
“That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906, there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge.
“The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.
“Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable."
I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to throw out the Conservative government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next general election because they do not trust the judges.
What if speaker ignore court decision?
Poor Najib Abdul Razak, our new prime minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the prime minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.
The law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:
7 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.
Suppose Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then?
Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that "No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof'.
The Federal Court can say anything they like but the speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the legislative assembly.
The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a ‘brutum fulmen’, which in Latin means "ineffectual thunderbolt” - an action which is loud but ineffective.
Written by: NH Chan
NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.
It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says, "The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".
The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words, the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean "outside the law". It means "outside one's jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one's power or authority".
And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the speaker when the supreme law of the country says that "the validity of any proceedngs in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".
Don't these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.
In 1900, the English House of Lords, which is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England.
Voters threw out gov’t after judges erred
The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative government of the day because in the general election of 1906, it was toppled by a landslide.
The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative government was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.
It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book ‘Landmarks in the Law’:
“There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund, out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment.
“Now in the Taff Vale case, the railwaymen's union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action.
“But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds.
“Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?
“In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As GM Trevelyan says in his History: 'It struck at the very heart of trade union action'.
“That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906, there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge.
“The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.
“Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable."
I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to throw out the Conservative government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next general election because they do not trust the judges.
What if speaker ignore court decision?
Poor Najib Abdul Razak, our new prime minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the prime minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.
The law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:
7 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.
Suppose Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then?
Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that "No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof'.
The Federal Court can say anything they like but the speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the legislative assembly.
The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a ‘brutum fulmen’, which in Latin means "ineffectual thunderbolt” - an action which is loud but ineffective.
Written by: NH Chan
NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Voting by proxy
A look at the role and limitations of a proxy.
A PROXY allows a person who is entitled to attend and vote at a meeting, to appoint another person to attend the meeting and vote on his behalf.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word “proxy” means the authority given by one person to another to do something for him when he cannot do it himself. The word “proxy” also refers to a person who has been given authority to represent someone else. The subject of proxy votes most frequently arises in the context of meetings of companies and societies. However, there is no common law right to a proxy. Such a right only exists where it is provided by law or contractually agreed to.
Whilst the subject of proxies is relevant in the context of meetings, it is more likely to impact upon meetings of companies and societies. Companies are entities where traditionally individuals associate for the objective of making profits for themselves. Their activities are regulated by the Companies Act 1965. Societies are usually associations of seven or more like-minded persons who come together in pursuit of some common interest.
Companies
In the case of the Companies Act 1965, there is a statutorily provided right for a member of a company to appoint another person to attend company meetings as a proxy. Such a person can have the same rights as a member at the meeting. This right is restricted to the proxy voting in a poll (he must be a member), an approved company auditor or a person approved by the Registrar in any particular case. It is permissible for the company to frame its Articles of Association to have provisions which either restrict the rights of the proxy holder when attending the meeting or put him almost in the same position as a shareholder.
A proxy is appointed by an instrument in writing, in accordance with the articles. There are two forms of proxy: a general proxy which appoints a person to vote as he thinks fit, having regard to what is said at the meeting, and a special proxy appointing a person only to vote for or against a particular resolution.
The Companies Act 1965 requires that when notices are sent out calling for a meeting, the notice must state the right of the member to appoint a proxy. To what extent the proxy can then act has been discussed earlier.
Societies
When it comes to societies, there are no provisions in the Societies Act 1966 for the appointment of a proxy to attend and vote at meetings.
As stated earlier there is no common law right to vote by proxy. In the case of societies, such a right to appoint a proxy and the extent to which the proxy holder can act would need to be provided for in the constitution, which is the contract between the society and the members, and the members inter se.
The constitution of the society is a document created and adopted by its members. It is also a document endorsed and registered with the Registrar of Societies. If the members have not chosen to give themselves such a right, then it does not exist.
In some cases the constitution of a society may say that a member can only vote at a meeting if he is present. Some organisations may impose additional conditions to allow members who are personally present to vote. But whatever the situation, such a clause would make it clear beyond doubt that there can be no proxy voting.
Committee meetings
Another aspect to consider is whether proxies can be given by an absent committee member to another to make decisions at committee meetings.
“Committee” here refers to a group of persons elected by the members of an organisation at a general meeting, to manage the organisation. Such a committee may in different situations and organisations be referred to as a board of directors or a council. Its role is to administer the organisation and execute its policies.
Whether decisions can be made at such committees through voting done in part by proxies, depends on the constitution. If this is not provided for, then no proxy can be given and it would be wrong to rely on it.
If the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 are carefully looked at, it will be noted that the power of giving proxies is for voting at the meeting of members only and not at the board level. There is no such thing as proxies at board meetings.
I am inclined to take the view that there cannot be proxy voting at committee meetings. This is because of the different nature and purpose of a general meeting compared to a committee meeting. Different considerations are involved here.
At a meeting of members which is a general meeting, the member is voting for himself. He can decide which way he is going to vote even before attending the meeting or listening to what is being said. This is reflected in the format of the proxy form where he can direct the proxy to vote for or against a resolution. A committee member’s role is different. Committee members are chosen by the general body to act in the best interest of the organisation. Such a member has to cast his vote in the interest of the society, instead of personal interest.
This he does by taking part in the deliberations of the committee at its meeting, considering contrary views expressed during the meeting and then casting his vote. A person who gives a proxy would not in such a situation be meeting the requirement of making an objective judgment with regard to the matter being considered.
Thus if a proxy were allowed, it would mean that the person giving the proxy pre-directs the voting by doing so without proper consideration. If he leaves it to the person to whom the proxy is given, then he is delegating his responsibility to someone else. This is not what he was elected to do.
Using a proxy in such circumstances in the absence of a specific would be tantamount to abdication of responsibility. How then, it may be asked, can the absent member’s vote be brought into consideration? The way out is to provide for the appointment of an alternate.
If a particular member cannot attend, the alternate member can attend and participate in making the decision. This is common in board of directors’ meetings where alternate directors are often appointed. And this is also an option for societies.
Written by : Bhag Singh
A PROXY allows a person who is entitled to attend and vote at a meeting, to appoint another person to attend the meeting and vote on his behalf.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, the word “proxy” means the authority given by one person to another to do something for him when he cannot do it himself. The word “proxy” also refers to a person who has been given authority to represent someone else. The subject of proxy votes most frequently arises in the context of meetings of companies and societies. However, there is no common law right to a proxy. Such a right only exists where it is provided by law or contractually agreed to.
Whilst the subject of proxies is relevant in the context of meetings, it is more likely to impact upon meetings of companies and societies. Companies are entities where traditionally individuals associate for the objective of making profits for themselves. Their activities are regulated by the Companies Act 1965. Societies are usually associations of seven or more like-minded persons who come together in pursuit of some common interest.
Companies
In the case of the Companies Act 1965, there is a statutorily provided right for a member of a company to appoint another person to attend company meetings as a proxy. Such a person can have the same rights as a member at the meeting. This right is restricted to the proxy voting in a poll (he must be a member), an approved company auditor or a person approved by the Registrar in any particular case. It is permissible for the company to frame its Articles of Association to have provisions which either restrict the rights of the proxy holder when attending the meeting or put him almost in the same position as a shareholder.
A proxy is appointed by an instrument in writing, in accordance with the articles. There are two forms of proxy: a general proxy which appoints a person to vote as he thinks fit, having regard to what is said at the meeting, and a special proxy appointing a person only to vote for or against a particular resolution.
The Companies Act 1965 requires that when notices are sent out calling for a meeting, the notice must state the right of the member to appoint a proxy. To what extent the proxy can then act has been discussed earlier.
Societies
When it comes to societies, there are no provisions in the Societies Act 1966 for the appointment of a proxy to attend and vote at meetings.
As stated earlier there is no common law right to vote by proxy. In the case of societies, such a right to appoint a proxy and the extent to which the proxy holder can act would need to be provided for in the constitution, which is the contract between the society and the members, and the members inter se.
The constitution of the society is a document created and adopted by its members. It is also a document endorsed and registered with the Registrar of Societies. If the members have not chosen to give themselves such a right, then it does not exist.
In some cases the constitution of a society may say that a member can only vote at a meeting if he is present. Some organisations may impose additional conditions to allow members who are personally present to vote. But whatever the situation, such a clause would make it clear beyond doubt that there can be no proxy voting.
Committee meetings
Another aspect to consider is whether proxies can be given by an absent committee member to another to make decisions at committee meetings.
“Committee” here refers to a group of persons elected by the members of an organisation at a general meeting, to manage the organisation. Such a committee may in different situations and organisations be referred to as a board of directors or a council. Its role is to administer the organisation and execute its policies.
Whether decisions can be made at such committees through voting done in part by proxies, depends on the constitution. If this is not provided for, then no proxy can be given and it would be wrong to rely on it.
If the provisions of the Companies Act 1965 are carefully looked at, it will be noted that the power of giving proxies is for voting at the meeting of members only and not at the board level. There is no such thing as proxies at board meetings.
I am inclined to take the view that there cannot be proxy voting at committee meetings. This is because of the different nature and purpose of a general meeting compared to a committee meeting. Different considerations are involved here.
At a meeting of members which is a general meeting, the member is voting for himself. He can decide which way he is going to vote even before attending the meeting or listening to what is being said. This is reflected in the format of the proxy form where he can direct the proxy to vote for or against a resolution. A committee member’s role is different. Committee members are chosen by the general body to act in the best interest of the organisation. Such a member has to cast his vote in the interest of the society, instead of personal interest.
This he does by taking part in the deliberations of the committee at its meeting, considering contrary views expressed during the meeting and then casting his vote. A person who gives a proxy would not in such a situation be meeting the requirement of making an objective judgment with regard to the matter being considered.
Thus if a proxy were allowed, it would mean that the person giving the proxy pre-directs the voting by doing so without proper consideration. If he leaves it to the person to whom the proxy is given, then he is delegating his responsibility to someone else. This is not what he was elected to do.
Using a proxy in such circumstances in the absence of a specific would be tantamount to abdication of responsibility. How then, it may be asked, can the absent member’s vote be brought into consideration? The way out is to provide for the appointment of an alternate.
If a particular member cannot attend, the alternate member can attend and participate in making the decision. This is common in board of directors’ meetings where alternate directors are often appointed. And this is also an option for societies.
Written by : Bhag Singh
Saturday, December 13, 2008
HOUSE OF LORDS BRIEFING ON THE PLIGHT OF MALAYSIAN ETHNIC INDIAN
British Conservative party's Shadow Minister for Education and a
member of the House of Lords Baroness Verma of Leicester today (Dec
8, 2008) hosted a briefing on the plight of minority Indian rights of
Malaysia.
The briefing was held at the House of Lords on behalf of the Friends
of Minority Communities in Malaysia.
The purpose of the briefing was for members of the House of Lords
and House of Commons to obtain a true picture on the plights of the
ethnic minority Indian community in Malaysia.
Baroness Verma had extended invitation to key personalities from
Malaysian as well as from the USA.
The speakers were the Director of Public Policy of the Hindu American
Foundation Ishani Chowdhury, the Director of Centre for Public Policy
Studies (Malaysia) Tricia Yeoh, Human Rights Advocate (Malaysia) P
Waythamoorthy and the editor of Malaysiakini.com K Kabilan.
"This is an important event that emphasizes the need to sustain focus
on a nation that continues to discriminate against the minority Hindu
population by judicial onslaughts, educational impediments and temple
destruction," Ms Chowdhury told the briefing.
"The Malaysian government needs to work with its peaceful and
productive minority community and address these legitimate
grievances. Only then can it ensure true upliftment of its people and
progress as a multi-ethnic nation," she added.
Ms Yeoh said that Indians in Malaysia were excluded from the
mainstream, were mismanaged, and was a misunderstood community.
She said that there were an estimated 40,000 unregistered Indian
children nationwide and as a result they were excluded from
examinations, university, scholarships, access to healthcare,
business and employment.
"The Indian participation in the civil sector has also dwindled in
recent years. Their representation in civil service stood at 7.2% in
2006 and now it is on 2.8%," she said.
Ms Yeoh also touched on the various Malaysian government measures
and efforts to solve the Indian problems.
Kabilan spoke about the plight of the plantation workers in Malaysia,
stating that their condition had largely remained unchanged since
independence in 1957.
"Issues such as wages, housing rights, education and healthcare are
still there," he said.
"In 1941 and then in 1946, there were reports published which stated
that these plantation workers wanted a better wage structure, an
improvement of living quarters, a proper healthcare and a proper
education.
"Malaysiakini did a story on bonded laborers' two years ago and we
found out that these workers were still in want of the same things
which were originally sought in 1941," he added.
He also said that the measures implemented by the government had been
insufficient in addressing the problems faced by these plantation
workers.
Waythamoorthy, who is also the chairperson of the Hindraf, spoke on
the marginalisation of the Indian community for the past 50 years.
"And for speaking up these issues, five Hindraf leaders have been
detained under the draconian Internal Security Act which provided for
detention without trial," he said.
He urged the Baroness to look into the sorry situation of the Indian
community in Malaysia and to influence British politicians to raise
their concerns to the Malaysian government.
"We will continue in highlighting the grievances of this community
in the international arena as the local government is not keen to
meet us and address the issues," he said in the briefing.
Representatives of Civil societies within the UK also attended the
briefing which included Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
European Centre for Human Rights Studies, The Law Society of England
and Wales. Community leaders of the local Hindu/Indian community
pledged their support and agreed to take up the matter further with
the European Parliament members.
member of the House of Lords Baroness Verma of Leicester today (Dec
8, 2008) hosted a briefing on the plight of minority Indian rights of
Malaysia.
The briefing was held at the House of Lords on behalf of the Friends
of Minority Communities in Malaysia.
The purpose of the briefing was for members of the House of Lords
and House of Commons to obtain a true picture on the plights of the
ethnic minority Indian community in Malaysia.
Baroness Verma had extended invitation to key personalities from
Malaysian as well as from the USA.
The speakers were the Director of Public Policy of the Hindu American
Foundation Ishani Chowdhury, the Director of Centre for Public Policy
Studies (Malaysia) Tricia Yeoh, Human Rights Advocate (Malaysia) P
Waythamoorthy and the editor of Malaysiakini.com K Kabilan.
"This is an important event that emphasizes the need to sustain focus
on a nation that continues to discriminate against the minority Hindu
population by judicial onslaughts, educational impediments and temple
destruction," Ms Chowdhury told the briefing.
"The Malaysian government needs to work with its peaceful and
productive minority community and address these legitimate
grievances. Only then can it ensure true upliftment of its people and
progress as a multi-ethnic nation," she added.
Ms Yeoh said that Indians in Malaysia were excluded from the
mainstream, were mismanaged, and was a misunderstood community.
She said that there were an estimated 40,000 unregistered Indian
children nationwide and as a result they were excluded from
examinations, university, scholarships, access to healthcare,
business and employment.
"The Indian participation in the civil sector has also dwindled in
recent years. Their representation in civil service stood at 7.2% in
2006 and now it is on 2.8%," she said.
Ms Yeoh also touched on the various Malaysian government measures
and efforts to solve the Indian problems.
Kabilan spoke about the plight of the plantation workers in Malaysia,
stating that their condition had largely remained unchanged since
independence in 1957.
"Issues such as wages, housing rights, education and healthcare are
still there," he said.
"In 1941 and then in 1946, there were reports published which stated
that these plantation workers wanted a better wage structure, an
improvement of living quarters, a proper healthcare and a proper
education.
"Malaysiakini did a story on bonded laborers' two years ago and we
found out that these workers were still in want of the same things
which were originally sought in 1941," he added.
He also said that the measures implemented by the government had been
insufficient in addressing the problems faced by these plantation
workers.
Waythamoorthy, who is also the chairperson of the Hindraf, spoke on
the marginalisation of the Indian community for the past 50 years.
"And for speaking up these issues, five Hindraf leaders have been
detained under the draconian Internal Security Act which provided for
detention without trial," he said.
He urged the Baroness to look into the sorry situation of the Indian
community in Malaysia and to influence British politicians to raise
their concerns to the Malaysian government.
"We will continue in highlighting the grievances of this community
in the international arena as the local government is not keen to
meet us and address the issues," he said in the briefing.
Representatives of Civil societies within the UK also attended the
briefing which included Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,
European Centre for Human Rights Studies, The Law Society of England
and Wales. Community leaders of the local Hindu/Indian community
pledged their support and agreed to take up the matter further with
the European Parliament members.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
A piece of paper does not determine your faith
Religion is a human idea on the relationship between man and the
supreme. There was never an occasion in the history of mankind
where all men and women, worshipped the same God, followed one
doctrine.
This never happened and will never happen. Humans are creatures of
ideas. We have the free will to think and decide what is best for
ourselves. Our ability to imagine can never be governed by any
individual or organisation.
Throughout history, people who shared similar beliefs have
gathered. They introduced rules, rituals and philosophies. This
caused religions to be born.
In this modern world, we are required to state our religion on
official papers. I find it amusing because it does not carry any
weight on an individual's spirituality.
Religion is not similar to race. Religion is about the mind, race
is the physical and cultural characteristic of a human.
Humans have the ability to decide their relationship with God. Just
because someone has stated that he or she follows a particular
religion on official documents, that does not mean that he or she
actualy follows it.
Therefore, in my opinion a piece of paper does not determine your
faith. You may even forcefully change the legal documents of a
person and categorize him under a different religion, but you can
never determine his spirituality. Only an individual knows what
runs in the mind during prayers, chanting of mantra, rituals etc etc
etc. Nobody else will know it except for that particular individual.
Hope the above made some sense. I chose to write my opinion because
there are many organisations out there which are trying to establish
religious rules.
Nobody can determine my spirituality. My way of religion is my
personal choice. It is not necessary for me to follow somebody
elses rules and regulations because this is between me and God.
Regards,
Sharmalan
Seremban.
supreme. There was never an occasion in the history of mankind
where all men and women, worshipped the same God, followed one
doctrine.
This never happened and will never happen. Humans are creatures of
ideas. We have the free will to think and decide what is best for
ourselves. Our ability to imagine can never be governed by any
individual or organisation.
Throughout history, people who shared similar beliefs have
gathered. They introduced rules, rituals and philosophies. This
caused religions to be born.
In this modern world, we are required to state our religion on
official papers. I find it amusing because it does not carry any
weight on an individual's spirituality.
Religion is not similar to race. Religion is about the mind, race
is the physical and cultural characteristic of a human.
Humans have the ability to decide their relationship with God. Just
because someone has stated that he or she follows a particular
religion on official documents, that does not mean that he or she
actualy follows it.
Therefore, in my opinion a piece of paper does not determine your
faith. You may even forcefully change the legal documents of a
person and categorize him under a different religion, but you can
never determine his spirituality. Only an individual knows what
runs in the mind during prayers, chanting of mantra, rituals etc etc
etc. Nobody else will know it except for that particular individual.
Hope the above made some sense. I chose to write my opinion because
there are many organisations out there which are trying to establish
religious rules.
Nobody can determine my spirituality. My way of religion is my
personal choice. It is not necessary for me to follow somebody
elses rules and regulations because this is between me and God.
Regards,
Sharmalan
Seremban.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
CONGRATULATIONS BROTHER BARACK OBAMA !
It is really a proud momemnt for me when I heard the news that Barack Obama had won the US Presidential Election. For the first time, a Black President will occupy the White House. Hats off to the people of America for a wise move! Change is the essence of life. Refuse changing is refuse living. The people of America understood this phenomenon well. I really feel proud of being black after seeing the newly crowned President-Elect giving his victory speech. As human beings history, the first man in this universe was a black and today Obama made everyone of us proud and happy. You have changed the mindset of the world. You have realised your father's dream.You made it my Brother!!! Can Malaysia adopt this mindset???????????????
May be in 1000 years to come provided there is no UMNO in this part of the world.
May be in 1000 years to come provided there is no UMNO in this part of the world.
SOCIAL CONTRACT Vs RACIAL CONTRACT
The Pakatan Rakyat Kedah state government's ruling of imposing a 50%
Bumiputra quota on houses in the state does not help either. Why 50%?
Why even 30%? Should in the first place there even be a quota?
If you have not done so this you should read Zaid Ibrahim's book "In
Good Faith", Zaid has addressed this matter of Article 153 and the
"Social Contract" with great clarity.
What the Kedah state government has done is unconstitutional. Article
8 and Article 153 of the Constitution do not allow this. You just
can't dictate how people run their businesses.
Those who support the imposition of quotas argue that there exists a
"Social Contract" that allows them to do so. But while they mention
this "Social Contract", they fail to mention the terms of this
"contract", what it says, and who is bound by it.
In short, if I am not a party to that contract can I be bound by it?
The contract was entered into by the Malays and the then immigrant
Indians and Chinese; of course it is not really a written contract as
much as a verbal contract and we all know that a verbal contract is
not worth the paper it is written on.
Nevertheless, should Malaysian-born Indians and Chinese who have never
even visited India and China be made to abide to a verbal "contract"
made by their immigrant parents and/or grandparents? How long will
this "contract" run? Will Indians and Chinese 1000 years from now
still be made to abide to a "contract" made in 1957?
There should be a cut-off date. There must come a point of time when
all Malaysians are regarded as equal. How can an Indonesian who
migrated to this country a few years ago be regarded as Bumiputra when
Chinese and Indians who come to this country in the 1400s are still
second class citizens?
Yes, Article 153 accords Malays certain rights and privileges. But
that same Article, and Article 8, do not allow imposing of quotas and
permits which deny Indians and Chinese their rights in favour of the
Malays. This, many people do not seem to understand.
We also seem to have forgotten that the New Economic Policy is a
two-pronged attack. Other than reducing the gap between the different
races it is also about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.
And this would mean regardless of race.
When we talk about the Malay farmers and fisherman. We do not seem to
realize that there are Chinese farmers and fishermen as well. Poverty
does not recognize race.
It is time that the "Social Contract" be reviewed. A new "Social
Contract" must be drawn up that looks into the SOCIAL structure and
not RACIAL structure that the present "Social Contract" addresses.
Only then can it be called a "Social Contract". If not, then let us
call it what it really is, a "Racial Contract".
The poverty level also needs to be reviewed. The new "hardcore"
poverty level should be RM1200. Anyone earning below RM1200 per month
should be considered poor. That would mean a high percentage of
Malaysians. Then the NEW "Social Contract" should address the needs of
those who live below the NEW poverty level of RM1200.
And the NEW "Social Contract" should no longer be a verbal contract
but chiseled in stone. And it should be a contract to take care of
Malays, Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Ibans, Dayaks, etc. As long as
you are poor, meaning earning below RM1200 then you are taken care of.
That should be Malaysia's NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
