Media Statement – 8/7/2024
Repeal Societies Act, including Section 18C that deny members of political parties’ access to court when they are oppressed or are victims of abuse of power of party leaders
Freedom of Association – A right of association and individual members
From a freedom of association and human rights perspective, it is hypocritical for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to call on societies to reject corruption, abuse of power and oppression, when it is the Malaysian government itself, vide the draconian Societies Act 1966 and other laws like the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and Trade Unions Act that continues to oppresses and abuses its power to prevent the full enjoyment of one’s right and freedom of association. (NST,7/7/2024)
Like, its predecessor Societies Ordinance 1949 of the States of Malaya [F.M. 28 of 1949] enacted by the British colonial powers, our current Societies Act was not enacted for the facilitation of one’s true right of associations, but rather for the State to ‘CONTROL’ and suppress one’s freedom of association.
In Malaysia, through this law, the State even controls the name of societies, the Constitution and even the ability to register any society, including political parties. Members rights against societies are also denied.
Act That Prevents Registration of Societies – Abolish Control of State
Anwar’s own Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), previously known as Partai Keadilan Nasional could not itself easily register under the Societies Act, and had to go a round about way by taking over an existing political society, Ikatan Masyarakat Islam Malaysia and then later amending its name.
Likewise, another Pakatan Harapan party, being Parti Amanah Negara, also could not register easily, and had to take over Malaysia Workers' Party (Parti Pekerja-Pekerja Malaysia).
Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM) started to register as a party in 1998, but the ROS only approved its registration after ten years, in 2008 after a long drawn out court battle.
No society in Malaysia can be registered unless their Constitution is pre-approved by the Registrar of Societies, and that results in State’s ability to deny or control our freedom of association, which is unacceptable. Freedom of Association means easy registration of societies.
No Changing Constitution Without Registrar’s Approval Must End
Even when a society, through its membership of a society at a General Meeting, being the highest decision-making body of any society, makes an amendment to its constitution and/or rules, it will only come into force if and when the Malaysian Registrar of Society approves it, whereby it can also be rejected by the ROS.
We saw this recently, when the amendment to the Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia's (Bersatu) Constitution, aimed at preventing its members from switching sides required the Registrar of Societies (RoS) approval before it came into force.
The Societies Act 1966, that denies one’s freedom of association, must be repealed.
The freedom to register any society with any name must be there, the power and freedom to decide and/or amend constitution and rules must be with members alone. There must be no necessity of prior State approval for any of this.
Members of political parties even denied right of access to court when their rights as members violated by party
In 1990, Malaysia’s Societies Act was amended vide Societies (Amendment) Act 1990 which introduced, amongst others, a new Section 18C, to deny access to court to members of one type of societies - political parties.
The law was amended the following a 1988 suit by 11 UMNO members, that resulted in the Court declaration that UMNO was unlawful, thus resulting in the demise of UMNO that was formed in 1946, and who had been in government since Independence. A new party, UMNO Baru was speedily registered thereafter.
Section 18C now says. ‘The decision of a political party or any person authorized by it or by its constitution or rules or regulations made thereunder on the interpretation of its constitution, rules or regulations or on any matter relating to the affairs of the party shall be final and conclusive and such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground regarding the validity of such decision.’
Thus, effectively the law OUSTED the Court’s jurisdiction to hear matters concerning political party decisions, thus also depriving members of the said party from being able to refer any such matter including wrongful termination of membership to the courts.
The normal access to justice for any victims has always been the courts, who will independently uphold justice, was no longer available for members of political party.
Hence, current party leadership can even simply expel or suspend membership of party members which they believe may even potential contenders in the party’s upcoming elections that will decide on new leadership - a threat to incumbent’s continued hold of power.
This was possibly what happened prior to the last UMNO elections, which saw the expulsion of Khairy Jamaluddin, suspension of Hishammuddin Hussein and expulsion/suspension of others.
Sadly, our courts to date seems to be bound by Section 18C, so aggrieved members or victims of political party wrongdoings or abuse of power simply do not have the option to go to court to seek justice.
Now, the BERSATU’s expelled 6 Members of Parliament (MPs) because of Section 18C, may have no right to bring the matter to court.
Anwar Ibrahim too, when expelled from UMNO in 1998, had no access to court to challenge his ‘wrongful expulsion’ from UMNO because of this 18C provision. Ironically, Anwar was in UMNO leadership and the cabinet then, when these amendments were brought to Parliament.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION – a right of a person, not a political party
Freedom of Association is a right accorded to persons, not to associations including political parties. Art. 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution says ‘(c) all citizens have the right to form associations. Once a member of an association, he/she naturally has equal membership rights, and reasonably the right not to have his/her membership rights violated by other members, including the then elected leaders of the party.
When member’s rights violated by the society? Access to court is fundamental
If a member’s rights are violated by other members, or even the association – reasonably the said member ought to have recourse to the courts to determine whether there has been a violation of the said member’s rights.
Did the political party wrongfully terminate their membership? Was there procedural non-compliance, including the right to be heard, before termination? Was the reason used justified or proven, be it a breach of the party’s Constitution or rules? It cannot be the alleged perpetrator that decides what is right or wrong – it always must be the Courts.
Comparatively, when a worker is terminated, he/she has the right to take the employer to court for wrongful dismissal, and the court determines whether the termination was wrong or right. Same goes with any other alleged worker rights violation.
A Prime Minister’s decision, a Minister’s decision or any government decision can be taken to court for the court to determine whether the decision, amongst others) was illegal (contrary to law or rules), procedurally unfair and irrationality, amongst others. Thus, why should a member of a political party only be unable to take decisions and/or actions of their party to court for review?
There is no justification in denying the right of access to court to a member or members of a political party – when the said political party abuses its power or oppresses a member’s rights. A political party’s decision should also be subject to Judicial Review.
Section 18C – Discriminatory?
In Malaysia, Section 18C of the Societies Act has removed that right of access to court for members of just political parties – not other societies.
That itself is wrong or DISCRIMINATORY – should not the same law apply to all societies and their members? After all, political parties are also societies under the Societies Act.
Courts are bound by BAD laws – Only Parliament can reform bad laws
The courts are bound by the laws enacted by Parliament, save unless the said law is in violation of the Federal Constitution. Thus, unless and until Parliament amend the law, be it to repeal Section 18C and other draconian provisions, the injustice will continue. Oppression and abuse of power by party leadership will continue.
Hence, MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls on Anwar Ibrahim led Pakatan Harapan, who just reaffirmed its commitment to the rejection of ‘corruption, abuse of power and oppression’ to repeal the draconian Societies Act 1966, including Section 18C and other draconian provisions that oust the court’s jurisdiction that is most oppressive and a violation of member/s of political parties rights to defend against violation of their association rights by their party itself;
MADPET calls for the respect of freedom of associations, including the rights of members in a association.
MADPET calls for a repeal of all legislations like the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and Trade Unions Act, especially provisions that violate freedom of associations.
MADPET also calls for political parties and societies to repeal provisions in their Constitutions and/or Rules that deter member’s access to courts.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET(Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
PM Anwar urges NGOs, youth movements to reject corruption, abuse of power
IPOH, July 8 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has urged non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and youth movements in the country to heed the government’s call to reject corruption, abuse of power and oppression.
Anwar said that Prophet Muhammad (SAW), with strong faith, belief and morals, defended rights and upheld justice by rejecting corruption, oppression and bribery within society.
He said the country will progress and develop if the people emulate these qualities, understand the true meaning of ‘hijrah’ (to emigrate), and wake up from their slumber to uplift their dignity.
“Hijrah means leaving behind outdated practices and ‘syirik’ (the sin of ascribing a partner or rival to Allah in Lordship), practices of injustice, oppression and rampant slander. Only by doing this will we change, and I believe Pertubuhan Lima Generasi (PLG) Malaysia will have the same spirit that we will save our nation and our people.
“I happen to belong to the older generation, but when defending our rights and sovereignty, I don’t care. You can criticise and condemn me as much as you want, throw me in jail, (but) I get out and continue fighting!” he said at PLG’s launching ceremony yesterday.
Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Saarani Mohamad, Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Adam Adli Abd Halim, state Communications, Multimedia and NGO Committee chairman Mohd Azlan Helmi and PLG president Datuk Abdullah Ghani Kassim were also present for the event.
Anwar said Malaysians could not be complacent as the country was now competing to develop, so everyone needed to be equipped with knowledge, raise their understanding of justice and unite to make Malaysia a great country.
“We need investment, digital, artificial intelligence, poverty eradication and its conditions (are) there needs to be leadership from youth, PLG, national political leaders who reject tyranny and stop power abuse for self-enrichment.
“I guarantee that with the power invested in me, I will ensure PLG or silat gayung or any other machinery will be strengthened in lifting our country to become great,” he said.
The prime minister, therefore, said that he wanted everyone to stop fighting and use the spirit of hijrah as it was time for them to rise as one and to show that they are knowledgeable, conscientious, hard-working people capable of upholding justice for the country and its people.
“We need this spirit among the Malay, Chinese, Indian, Dayak, and Kadazan youth; this is our country, and we will save our country. This is the time and moment that we rise and save our country,” he said.
At the event yesterday, Anwar also presented donations from PLG Malaysia to five students in the state who excelled in their examinations — two students who scored four As in their Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) Term 1 2024, a student who scored four As in their STPM Term 2 2024 and two students who achieved excellent scores for their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) 2023. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 8/7/2024
Repeal ‘draconian’ Societies Act, govt told
Activist Charles Hector says the act denies individuals the freedom of association guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
PETALING JAYA: A rights activist has called on Putrajaya to repeal the Societies Act 1966, describing it as “draconian” and noting its effect on entities attempting to register as political parties.
In a statement, Charles Hector said the Societies Act denied individuals the freedom of association guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
He gave the example of PKR, led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, which he said had to take “a roundabout way” in order to get itself registered, by taking over an existing political party and amending its name.
He said PKR’s fellow component in Pakatan Harapan, Amanah, had been forced to adopt a similar strategy in order to get itself registered.
“No society in Malaysia can be registered unless its constitution is pre-approved by the Registrar of Societies (RoS), and that results in the state’s ability to deny or control our freedom of association, which is unacceptable.
“Freedom of association means the easy registration of societies,” he said.
He added that it was “hypocritical” of Anwar to urge societies to reject corruption, abuse of power and oppression when the government itself, through the Societies Act and other legislation such as the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, continued to prevent the right to freedom of association.
Anwar had made the call yesterday, at the launch of Pertubuhan Lima Generasi Malaysia.
Hector’s call for the repeal of the Societies Act comes three days after the RoS rejected the registration application of Indian-based party Urimai. - FMT, 8/7/2024
Does the ouster clause 18C in the Societies Act promote democracy or breeds dictatorship? ― Raman Letchumanan
FEBRUARY 4 ― Recently the Umno supreme council sacked and suspended several senior party members, which was seen as a purge or cleansing of those not aligned with party president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
Since then debates have been raging on the merits and due process of this decision and its implications to the party and individuals involved. Regrettably, its wider implication to democracy, national leadership, and good governance has hardly been discussed, given that major political parties like Umno are breeding grounds for top leadership in government.
Now consider this likely scenario, moving forward.
In accordance with party constitution, Zahid was elected Umno president in June 2018. The presidency is for a term of three years. However, based on party rules, Umno decided to postpone party elections for the (maximum) 18 months to December 2022, with the consent of the Registrar of Societies (ROS).
Citing preparations for the 15th general election (GE15), Umno amended its constitution to provide for an open-ended extension of party elections for 6 months after GE15. The Registrar of Societies duly approved the amendment. It was patently clear then to all and sundry that the six-month extension was for the sole purpose of calling for an early election, one year before it is due, and for the party president to choose his candidates for GE15.
Recently, Umno approved a motion that the top two posts shall not be contested. Then the purge of those not aligned to the president took place. Umno has scheduled the election of its remaining office bearers in May 2023. Zahid’s position has already been secured for another three years without any election. The president could then postpone the next election of office bearers due by June 2026 for another two years.
That would mean Zahid could stay in office as president at least until 2028. Unless of course, barring some unforeseen circumstances such as criminal convictions that makes him ineligible.
The above scenario would best describe some third world autocratic dictatorship. But this is in Malaysia.
The interesting fact is that the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335) actually facilitates this situation. Democratic choice would dictate that election of office bearers should take place at prescribed period, and only exceptionally extended. Was the ROS right in giving the extensions sought, in accordance with Act 335?
Any appeals by disgruntled party members can only be made first to the party itself, then to the Registrar of Societies, and finally to the minister in charge.
Clause 18(C) of the Societies Act shuts up any avenue to seek redress at the courts, and the courts have dutifully struck off any such application thus far. Clause 18 (C) reads,
“The decision of a political party or any person authorized by it or by its constitution or rules or regulations made thereunder on the interpretation of its constitution, rules or regulations or on any matter relating to the affairs of the party shall be final and conclusive and such decision shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any ground, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any suit, application, question or proceeding on any ground regarding the validity of such decision”
Quite a mouthful in legal parlance, but it simply says the doors of the courts are tightly shut, or the so-called ouster clause.
Clause 18 (C) was introduced by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, which enabled him, along with other amendments to party rules, to helm the government for 22 years. Mahathir claimed he is not a dictator, but the only one gifted and fit to govern Malaysia, as he sacked his deputies one by one. When Anwar was sacked from the party in 1998, he had no recourse to the courts because of Clause 18 (C).
However, by poetic justice or karma, Mahathir while in his second stint at PM7, as he was aiming to install himself a dictator by forming a unity government, was sacked from the Bersatu party he founded, and having failed to challenge because of the ouster clause, founded another party ― Pejuang.
Pejuang failed miserably at GE15, losing all seats along with the deposits. This is an important lesson of the power of democracy. Mahathir held on as Prime Minister through undemocratic party laws and rules, but was toppled by the common people when they exercised their democratic choice.
In the current scenario, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim heads a fragile unity government. Essentially, Zahid was instrumental in making Anwar the PM, by not only supporting Anwar, but aggressively corralling support from his coalition, and other undecided parties. In fact, Opposition Party Leader Tan Sri Muhiddin Yassin claimed he had enough support with statutory declarations to form the government, before Anwar did.
Zahid’s longevity as President may seem to assure Anwar’s longevity as Prime Minister. But that may not be the reality. Disgruntled members may break away from UMNO, because they have no recourse to the court due to the ouster clause. Already they are claiming it would be futile to appeal the decision internally or to the Register of Societies. Their move will erode support for Umno and strengthen opposition parties.
Umno and its coalition were the arch rival to Pakatan Harapan (PH) in GE15. Yet PH didn’t do well in GE15 and Umno was massacred. PH voters are now disillusioned being in a unity government with BN, especially with Zahid facing several court charges. Zahid himself may make a move against Anwar in either outcomes of an acquittal or conviction.
The message I am sending here is that the ouster clause 18(C) has implications for national leadership, democracy, good governance and democratic institutions. It is not just a matter of resolving internal party matters.
It strikes at the core of our parliamentary democracy and separation of powers. The ouster clause enables the executive, elected from the party/coalition with the most support, to exert pressure or undue influence on the judiciary or parliament, especially when they are in position through undemocratic party processes.
I intentionally avoided legal arguments where lawyers have adept at arguing for either side. The courts have ruled on the validity and legality of the ouster clause, and we have to respect that decision.
As a layperson, I am analysing this situation from the perspective of social and natural justice as it affects our constitutional rights on access to justice, freedom of association, freedom of expression and speech, and most importantly freedom of choice to vote in government leaders who are not tainted with dictatorship and corruption.
As a victim of the ouster clause himself, I trust
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim would make the necessary reforms in
relation to the double-edged ouster clause 18 (C) in the Societies Act. - Malay Mail, 4/2/2023
Zaid: 'Repeal law giving parties free rein'
KUALA LUMPUR: FORMER law minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim said Section 18(C) of the Societies Act 1966, which gives a party free rein to manage its affairs, should be repealed to ensure party members get fair treatment when in a dispute.
He said this had been made evident following the controversy that arose after Umno sacked and suspended several of its leaders, with many questioning the legitimacy of the process.
However, Zaid said, the "unjust punishment" was allowed because loopholes in the Societies Act prevented the court from intervening in party affairs, thus hindering the democratic process.
"This is the source or mother of all problems (Section 18C of the Societies Act 1966).
"Parliament should not be given political carte blanche to interpret or manage the affairs of the party.
"The law should not have excluded the powers of the court to intervene.
"This is why leaders of political parties get sacked or suspended without proper process," he told the New Straits Times.
Last Friday, Umno sacked its former Youth chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, and Supreme Council member Tan Sri Noh Omar.
Former Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, former Umno information chief Shahril Hamdan, former Youth exco member Datuk Dr Fathul Bari Mat Jahya, former Johor exco member and Tebrau Umno chief Datuk Maulizan Bujang and former Jempol member of parliament Datuk Seri Mohd Salim Mohd Sharif were suspended for six years.
Zaid said another reason for the controversy was that the Umno constitution gave its Supreme Council broad authority to manage the party's affairs.
This, he said, included the authority to suspend or dismiss members.
According to clause 10.6 of the Umno constitution, among the responsibilities of Supreme Council members are deciding on a member's status (according to clause 5.7), and suspending or terminating a person's party membership.
"The constitutions of Umno and other political parties are all approved by the Registrar of Societies (RoS), so where the provisions are unreasonable or unfair to the members, you can blame the RoS for this," said Zaid.
He said none of the members who were punished had succeeded in bringing their cases to court.
Zaid said: "Where complaints to the RoS have the support of the home minister, then the threat of deregistration may compel the party to address the issues.
"Otherwise, taking the matter to the court itself is grounds to remove the member." - NST, 31/3/2023
RoS rejects Urimai’s registration application
The party’s legal team is working on an appeal to home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, says interim leadership committee chairman P Ramasamy.
PETALING JAYA: The Registrar of Societies has rejected Indian-based party Urimai’s application for registration.
P Ramasamy, chairman of Urimai’s interim leadership committee, said the party’s legal team is working on an appeal to home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail within the 30-day stipulated period.
He said the decision was “not surprising”, blaming it on what he said was a vendetta by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government against his party.
He also accused the RoS of timing its rejection of Urimai’s application, made on Nov 3 last year, to coincide with the Sungai Bakap by-election on July 6.
“After more than eight months, the RoS informed us on July 4, 2024, that our application has been rejected.
“We suppose the decision to reject our application is the government’s expression of anger toward our party’s leaders for not supporting the Pakatan Harapan-led coalition government in both the recent Kuala Kubu Baharu by-election and the yet-to-conclude Sungai Bakap by-election.
“We will not be intimidated by the actions of the Madani government, which refuses to respect the basic right of freedom of association for this country’s citizens,” he said in a statement.
Last month, Ramasamy said his party will not support either PH or Perikatan Nasional in the Sungai Bakap by-election despite not fielding a candidate.
“We usually campaign when there’s a candidate, but we don’t have one this time. Nevertheless, we will still campaign.
“We went to the Sungai Kechil estate last week to meet the Indian community there,” he said. - FMT,5/7/2024
No comments:
Post a Comment