Pakatan Rakyat will seek registration as a coalition under the Societies Act 1966 with the stand taken by the Registrar of Societies Datuk Md Alias Kalil that the law requiring at least seven political parties to register as a society does not apply.
Section 2 of the Societies Act 1966 defines “society” as including
“any club, company, partnership, or association of seven or more persons whatever its nature or object, whether temporary or permanent, but does not include—
(a) any company registered under the provisions of any written law relating to companies for the time being in force in Malaysia;
(b) any company or association constituted under any written law;
(c) any trade union registered or required to be registered under the provisions of any written law relating to trade unions for the time being in force in Malaysia;
(d) any company, association or partnership formed for the sole purpose of carrying on any lawful business that has for its object the acquisition of gain by the company, association or partnership, or by the individual members thereof”.
This has been interpreted as requiring any coalition of political parties to have at least seven constituent political parties to be registered under the Societies Act.
However, as the Registrar of Societies has now taken the position that a coalition of political parties does not fall under this provision, Pakatan Rakyat will seek registration as a coalition under the Societies Act to work for the national reforms and political changes if Malaysia is to restore her national unity, sense of purpose and international competitiveness.
#1 by boh-liao on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 9:14 am
Too late, mate, there’s olredi the real Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia in Sarawak
#2 by boh-liao on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 9:15 am
Care to join the real Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia in Sarawak?
#3 by BoycottLocalPapers on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:23 am
Most likely application will be rejected. I wonder why Makkal Sakti party can be easily registered as a party.
Clearly UMNO has hijacked “Makkal Sakti” which is Anwar Ibrahim’s favorite slogan during last election.
#4 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:36 am
Just out of interest, who’s in the coalition? I read on wikipedia that Parti Sosialis Malaysia contested a few seats on a Keadilan ticket in the last election. Are they in?
#5 by sheriff singh on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:50 am
Why didn’t you all write in much, much earlier to ask for an official interpretation?
Why don’t seven individuals from PR parties register it first while the party sort out the constitution etc and subsequently join and take over? There are alot of mavericks and opportunists out there who want to frustrate you especially from BN.
Better still, change the name “Pakatan Rakyat” to something more distinguished. It sound very cheapo.
#6 by sheriff singh on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 11:03 am
Want to make Najib and BN frus, go crazy even?
Name the new coalition “1Malaysia Party”.
Everybody is doing the “1” thing, latest being the 1MCA, so join in.
#7 by yhsiew on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 11:37 am
Name the new coalition “1Malaysia Party”. (#6 by sheriff singh)
===========================================
Name the coalition “1Pakatan Rakyat” to outshine 1MCA.
#8 by taiking on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 12:36 pm
How about 1DeadAtan?
Err maybe not.
#9 by limkamput on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 1:43 pm
One Pakatan not because there is a common enemy. One Pakatan because there are common aspiration and mission please.
#10 by monsterball on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 1:59 pm
3 parties cannot be Pakatan Raykat….must be 7.
This is another smart cunning move mooted by UMNO…making life difficult for DAP…keDAILan and PAS.
These 3 said parties represent the majority Malaysians…more than the so call Barisan National.
This move is to say…to Malaysians..DAP.,,keDAILan and PAS are not united…as they need to stand for elections with their part symbols and not under Pakatan Rakyat.
They have PPP and another from East Malaysia.
I am confident..the big 3 will find a solution to beat this cunning system.
UMNO is depending on propaganda with a tilted playing field..corrupted referee..to favour them always…to win votes.
In spite of such unfair rules and regulations….more and more Malaysians are sick of UMNO…especially from their own race.
#11 by rchia on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 2:04 pm
Suggest not to do anything yet, until AFTER the Bagan Pinang by-election. BN could easily disqualify PR or PAS on “technical or administrative grounds” should they wish to play havoc on your application.
#12 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 2:50 pm
Can you get the Pokok Demokrasi in there? One day that’ll be an icon in Malaysia’s political history.
How about a ‘ZeroSlogans’ campaign that carefully omits photoshopped images of Dear Leaders blown up to children-frightening proportions?
#13 by Jeffrey on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 4:14 pm
YB,
I haven’t time to think through but preliminarily you should be cautious and consider all implications before just jumping in to register Pakatan Rakyat as a society under Societies Act (“Act”) just because ROS DG says “opposition parties are eligible to register as a coalition as the requirement of having at least seven component parties does not apply to them” because ostensibly “the condition does not apply to political parties as they enjoy a national status”!
What ROS’s DG says is contrary to law. When section 2 says “any club, company, partnership, or association of seven or more persons”, then seven or more persons refer to natural persons like you & I.
Pakatan Rakyat is made up of 3 political parties, PKR, PAS & DAP each a registered society so how can you register a society of 3 societies? One can only do so with 3 natural persons (assuming waiver given to minimum of 7 due to national importance).
Are they trying to get you registered as a society with DG blessing only to have a court sometime later in the midst of tumultuous events for a court to declare you PR illegal and DG’s decision wrong and ultra vires the Act????
Beware of political opponents bearing gifts….
Ask yourself how come the Barisan Nasional as a coalition (BN) is not registered as a society (I stand corrected if I were wrong on this) and yet you PR want to leap in?
The issue is not registration of legal body – it is you PR coming out with a common electoral symbol integrating moon half moon and rocket going to the moon, and then get it registered with Election Commission (like BN’s weighing scale since Alliance time), then you get use a common sign!
What for Societies Act? Political parties, being partisan in nature, should not owe their existence to the courtesy of the Home Affairs Minister, whose portfolio includes the Registry of Societies! It suffices that your coalition and common symbol be registered and supervised by the Election Commission. No matter how bias EC, ROS could be more draconian and worse!
The Societies Act is draconian: the DG can inspect your accounts and dissolve you !
Before that they’re banking on you PR (PKR, PAS, DAP) will fight and disband when it comes to forging out details of office bearers, objectives, opening financial accounts and sharing property, hoping that you will all fight over this issue and someone from PAS says that its haram to join up with DAP to share harta etc.Think about it.
#14 by Jeffrey on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 4:27 pm
PR is threat to BN, and they’re all out to do you in and you think they will now “bend the law/Societies Act ” on 7 minimum to make it 3 (based on “national importance” not even mentioned in Societies Act) just to favour you (ostensibly to give you benefit of legal status/legitimacy as a coalition (that arguably you also don’t need)? It has all appearance of a trap! Then again don’t have to believe me, cos’ I am always suspicious!
#15 by a-malaysian on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 4:27 pm
Jeffrey, I was also thinking more or less along the same line as yours.
Just be very careful not to fall into a trap. When the judges can interpret the law as and when they like to suit umno, like the Perak fiasco, can the words of Datuk Md Alias Kalil from the Registrar of Societies (one man) stand. They may allow you to register but when umno finds the need to challenge it should they feel that they are facing a great force at the next GE they will get the court to work some thing out to rule against the coalition registration.
Get something concrete in writing and the lawyers to ensure that this is not something said with bad intention for the future. All the national bodies are under evil umno’s thumb and I do not trust this Registrar of Societies Datuk Md Alias Kalil fellow.
Malaysia For All
GE 13 – Change The Federal Government No matter what, we must ensure that racist umno bn do not regain the power like they had for over the past fifty one years.
#16 by boh-liao on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 4:33 pm
So is this invitation to register a big fat noose trap?
#17 by lew1328 on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 4:56 pm
Yes, timing is just rightas we are waiting for the alternative.
WE NEED CHANGE… tell the people
“Vote for pakatan and support us” Thanks
#18 by Jeffrey on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:15 pm
For contesting (in Bagan Pinang for eg) what PR needs is common symbol and emblem/insignia. Have you guys come out with one? If so, you still need Registrar of Societies (ROS) to approve. Not that you can dispense with it. You may as well get Election Commissioner to approve rather than ROS. If EC says no unless you register as society then ask him why BN could have the emblem without being registered as a society?
Once registered as society ROS can probe PR’s financial affairs: you have to submit audited accounts/balance sheet for every financial year to ROS as companies to ROC!
You will be entirely at discretionary mercy and regulatory powers of the Registrar of Society who is under control of our Minister of Home Affairs, so you are placing PR under Minister of Home Affair’s discretion/mercy?
Take for example, that part of the Societies Act saying that no society should conduct its affairs in manner showing disregard for “system of democratic government headed by constitutional sovereign of Malaysia and, in the States by the respective constitutional Rulers or Yang di-Pertuah Negeri.
Now if Karpal Singh can be charged for sedition for questioning Perak Ruler’s decision to appoint Zambry as MB – and Karpal Singh is merely lawyer for Pakatan Rakyat bringing the suit – then I think (arguably) PR has violated this provision of the Societies Act entitling the Registrar of Society to cancel your registration with all consequences of a reputation being an illegal organization after the cancellation!
What I am saying is that under parameters of the Society Act it can be construed that you, PR, qualify even now to be struck out as an illegal society even before you apply and get registered as a lawful society. What an irony to show the point!
With all due respect to Registrar of Societies Datuk Md Alias Kalil (who might well know better) a society, in its ordinary grammatical meaning as well as specialized legal meaning, is always a reference to an association of persons, persons meaning natural persons (human beings) not legal persons like a company or a society. It is unheard of (at least to me) that a society can be an association of 3 different already registered societies – ie a Soceity of societies! Do we know of any case of a society being constituted of other societies? If there is, then I am wrong.
Lastly I’d like to know if BN, as a political coalition of different political parties/societies is itself (BN) registered as a society under Societies Act. If not, can it be explained why?
#19 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:25 pm
not registered
My language handicap getting in the way again – doesn’t ros.gov.my have a searchable register to check?
#20 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:34 pm
The Societies Act does make fairly harrowing reading. Where got so many rules for a club?
http://www.ros.gov.my/editor/files/File/documents/Akta_Pertubuhan.pdf
Perhaps it would be cheaper to put up candidates from all component parties so they could tell the voters to vote for their friend from PAS! But then, maybe that’s why the deposit is so incredibly high.
#21 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:36 pm
Maybe the PR component parties could offer a ‘3 for 1’ membership deal. You could all have been PAS members for a few days.
#22 by limkamput on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:48 pm
During the last general election, the symbols of PR parties in the ballot papers were different, i.e. based on the respective party’s symbol (PAS, PKR or DAP). Yet somehow, the majority of the people knew what to do and was able to bring about substantive change. I think the focus should be on getting the message out and I believe the symbols will take of themselves.
#23 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 5:56 pm
somehow
My wife told me she had to ask. She recognised the dacing, but had a choice of 4 others at the last election, including independents. If we were marketing consultants, I think we’d be shaking our heads and pulling a face that means ‘fail’.
#24 by katdog on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 9:20 pm
The people who are claiming that PR not being registered as one coalition as a sign of disunity are just stupid BN people.
I don’t care if PR is registered as one coalition or not. Only narrow minded losers think that only with one registered coalition can unity be achieved.
The registration of one coalition is purely symbolic. As long as the PR parties can come out with a common platform for working together and discussion, it doesn’t matter whether it is registered or not.
And as Jeffrey pointed out, is BN registered as a society? I think not. So how is it that EC allows them to campaign together? Just what is the BN coalition registered under?
#25 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:08 pm
YB Kit,
Jeffrey’s warning about the possible trap of the Societies Act is really worth noting.
Just imagine about the administrative hassle you have to go through in filing the appeal to the Registrar of Societies requesting for grace extension period for submission of annual return in the event that any single branch of Pakatan Rakyat (a legal entity registed under the Societies Act) is to fail in submitting the annual return to the Registrar of Societies.
I don’t think registering Pakatan Rakyat as an association under the Societies Act is really what you people from Pakatan Rakyat really want! Why don’t you just register Pakatan Rakyat as a political party which will automatically include all members of DAP, PAS and PKR as the members of Pakatan Rakyat?
#26 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:18 pm
Only narrow minded losers think
The issue is probably up for discussion now because of the EC’s enforcement of an alleged rule against campaigning by political parties who haven’t put forward a candidate.
It seems like a reasonable rule, so establishing BN’s registration as a society would seem like a good idea. If they are not registered, then let’s just declare their 2008 victory a fraud and live happily ever after.
This stuff isn’t as immaterial as you might think, even without the inconvenience to PR’s campaigning machinery. So what if over 50% of Peninsular voters chose PR last time? If they do it again at the next election, you’ll still be driving under horrendous billboards, but with Muhyiddin or KJ leering at you. PR has to convince the 49% that didn’t vote for them. That’s the 49% who are convinced by the NST and the Star reminding them that PR don’t really exist, are split by endless squabbling and couldn’t form a proper government.
If you voted PR last time and will vote PR next time, and you really “don’t care” then in all truth it doesn’t matter what you think – you have already bought the product.
Symbols are important to some people. Probably about 49% of voting Malaysians. They don’t seem to get much else for their brand loyalty.
#27 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:35 pm
Sorry for the diversion to a personal secret of BN’s Bagan Pinang by-election candidate, Tan Sri Isa Samad.
Isa was believed to be the top BN Government Officer who approved the investment of Taiwanese criminal gansters’ secret society, Bamboo Alliance Society, in a garment factory at Nilai, Negeri Sembilan. In reward to Isa’s approval in the land deal, Isa was given 30% shares in the garment factory, which situated along the roadside of PLUS North-South Highway.
The above-mentioned factory was believed to have resorted to the gansterism to control all the foreign workers who were employed in the factory. Tai Long (Loan Shark) insitution was instituted within the factory rendering services to the foreign workers. The female foreign workers who failed to pay back the debt on the due date would be forced to work as a prostitute. This BLACK FACTORY was believed to be a factory which had the highest rate of reported unknown loss of foreign workers in Malaysia and the highest rate of mysterious murder of foreign workers in Malaysia. The workers’ uprising against the Police had also happened once in year 2004, resulting in the Bukit Aman sending the Federal Reserve Unit and the investigators to probe into the causes of the uprising. Could you believe that Isa was one of the substantial shareholders of this notorious Garment Factory which name begins with an intial “H”?
#28 by Onlooker Politics on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 10:39 pm
Sorry, spelling errors need to be corrected.
“Ganster” should be amended to “gangster” and gansterism to “gangsterism”.
#29 by OrangRojak on Friday, 9 October 2009 - 11:56 pm
…weird, just had a call from TM at 10 minutes to midnight. I suppose I might as well post what I was looking at, since they obviously know I’m online!
I’m puzzled by the malaysianinsider article:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/39967-kdsb-lodges-police-report-over-two-unlisted-documents-
The blogspot site it refers to seems to have been cleaned out by the owner. You can still find some of the content in Google’s cache, and in particular the documents referred to in the article are still visible at pkfz.blogspot.com/2009/06/test.html
What’s going on with that? Onlooker Politics? You seem to have encyclopaedic knowledge!
#30 by monsterball on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 7:26 am
MCA have…….”1 MCA” now…when it is more than 2.
At least we know where these second class citizens stand.
Today…you will hear MCA result and any fool will know …..the biggest UMNO apple polisher …Ong Tee Kiat…who make sure …his face is always in the papers…smiling..pally with Najib.
Between a first class both hands stretched out to catch UMNO balls and a real stupid Doc….Dr.Chua have no chance at all.
Now with “1 MCA” slogan…Najib should be please with his loyal puppets.
Do not forget…Najib insulted voters rights..by putting MCA and Gerakan loosers back into the cabinet…and that is his “1 Malaysia”.
PREPARING MYSELF T GO TO BAGAN PINANG.
Cannot do anything…at least provide moral support to PAS voters.
#31 by k1980 on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 7:35 am
Both are only in office for a few months, but why is Ohbama given the Nobel Peace Prize while Najid is not? I mean, look at the latter’s great achievements— uniting the people under 1malaysia, staring down Bendera’s threat to invade the country, getting the country’s Indians to support umno again, taking Universiti Malaya into the Top 200, bringing down the PR govt in Perak, almost succeeding in toppling the SElangor state govt… the list is endless!
#32 by Hugos on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 8:41 am
“One Pakatan not because there is a common enemy. One Pakatan because there are common aspiration and mission please..>>limkamput
This is so gay! So lame!
#33 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 9:20 am
Ignore my previous comment about the blogspot site – I failed to notice they’ve spelt the name of the site wrong in the article!
In response to Onlooker Politics’ “Why don’t you just register Pakatan Rakyat” – what is the ideological difference between DAP and PKR that necessitates two separate parties? I can see how some PAS members might consider that dual membership of a ‘super party’ with DAP and PKR members might be an ideological stretch, but what is it that keeps DAP and PKR apart?
#34 by taiking on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 9:55 am
Half-way point. That is if registration is not advisable; and identity is an issue – especially if varying symbols are not immediately recognisable to some voters when they are at the polling booth. PR component parties could include a common identification mark – small but distinctive and in a fixed position (say bottom right corner) – on their respective party logos to indicate their “1-ness”.
#35 by boh-liao on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 10:56 am
The big fat Q is are ppl still excited about PR
When ppl voted for PR in 308, there was this intangible HOPE
Hope for change for the better through PR
Although ppl did not really know much abt PR
It was between the known BN devil and the unknown PR deep blue sea
So, really fed up with the BN devil, just took the plunge n voted 4 PR
Now, what had PR done since 308
Looks like not much unity within PR
Many devils in PAS n PKR, wanting to impose their values on others, shooting their own feet
There is political fatigue among voters
Many are plain fed up with both BN n PR
Tomorrow is D-day
By, buy, or bye election
#36 by grkumar on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 2:55 pm
Has Pakatan become irrelevant through its conduct and its failure to provide real alternatives to government (however bad that government may be perceived to be) apart from slander, sloganeering and making of promises it is unable to fulfill?.
Are Pakatan’s members who were complicit in this affair courageous enough to comment on the claims in the article which has now raised more than a cloud off dust in its wake?
http://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/hindraf-badawi-albar-and-the-british/
#37 by grkumar on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 2:59 pm
Jeffrey’s comments about 3 persons and 7 persons or more is somewhat perplexing. It beggars belief.
Perhaps he Jeffrey ought to read through the laws he refers to before making such embarassing statements.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#38 by sltiger on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 3:10 pm
Never be negative!
The Pakatan Rakyat will succeed. Do not doubt that.
The top leaders of the Pakatan Rakyat are extremely sincere in wanting to establish a Government for the People and by the people.
IT CANNOT FAIL AND IT WILL NOT FAIL.
DSAI, LIM KIT SIANG and NIK AZIZ are there. THEY MAKE TRUE LEADERS.
I can vouch especially for KIT as I have know Kit as a 27 year old youth.
We have had enough of mismanagement for 52 years by the Alliance first and later known as the BN.
It is high time, we discarded them. We stand united in our agenda.
#39 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 4:17 pm
Gopal Raj Kumar, it is hard for me to respond unless you first explain how and which parts of my comments beggar belief or which parts of the law that I should have but not read. I’d like to know too.
#40 by Loh on Saturday, 10 October 2009 - 6:25 pm
Look at the possible scenario where the GE 13 results show that BN has 49% of MPs and Pakatan has a total of 51% but none of the three has more than BN. The King might decide that BN has the largest number of MPs and is authorised to form the government. The minority government would soon get MACC to deliver a few like they did in Perak.
Pakatan Rakyat has to register itself like what BN has done, to whatever authority. Somebody suggested that Pakatan Rakyat register another four parties, to make up seven. These might be registered in Sabah and Sarawak, and they do not necessarily have to field any candidate in general election.
There was a suggestion that DAP and PKR merge. That would not solve the problems since PAS cannot be expected to merge with the combined party of DAP and PKR. Besides new problems would emerge trying to merge DAP and PKR.
Pakatan has to follow BN in getting the coalition registered. BN might not even be registered, since it is always above the law.
#41 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 5:33 am
//Are Pakatan’s members who were complicit in this affair courageous enough to comment on the claims in the article which has now raised more than a cloud off dust in its wake?// – posting #36 of grkumar .
What are the intentions of posting #36? I wish you show its relevance to the topic raised in this thread under discussion.
If it is trying to sway public opinion here or sow doubts here against PR in asking question like “Has Pakatan become irrelevant through its conduct and its failure to provide real alternatives to government (however bad that government may be perceived to be) apart from slander, sloganeering and making of promises it is unable to fulfill?”, you are most wellcomed to try. There are many hardcore supporters here for you to work at, if you could with skills!
Your comment in #37 on my posting that “it beggars belief” and that I ought to read through the laws before making such embarassing statements ironically convinces me that my advice to PR is basically right, which is precisely why it needs to be discredited.
If you want to discredit it, you have to come out with much more than vague generalisations and sweeping statements.
Try specifics. Perhaps you may want to formulate specific arguments, cite judicial cases, local or commonwealth, eleaborate on what specific canons of interpretation as applied to specific sections of the Societies Act or the General Interpretation Act to teach me! I am eager to learn.
I make no claims to infallibility. However we believe that the sincerity of what we say here and try to influence others is always subject to proof and that it is not part of any subterranean counter cyber campaign against the PR. All are welcome to express their views and carry out the agenda in the name of freddom of Speech.
#42 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 5:57 am
On PR’ parties agreeing to register with the Registrar of Societies PR coalition under Societies Act already a top BN chief has questioned how it could be done if PAS were unwilling to forego its party constitution on the setting up of an Islamic state – see report by Malaysiakini’s Hafiz Yatim Oct 10, 09 under caption “DPM calls on PAS to give up Islamic state.”
From here it is a sign that the overture given to entice PR to register as a society is consistent with the intention to subject the coalition partners to stress on how to “merge” under society’s framework.
It may be asked in the last election whether PR coalition partners need to “merge” under a legal entity to score its win? Also it is interesting to note that until now no one has enlightened as to what BN itself was registered under.
#43 by grkumar on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 6:50 am
The first port of call Jeffrey is the constitution. There are no provisions in the Malaysian constitution for recognition (express) of political parties.
You will note that this is a peculiarity of the Westminster Constitution where they in the UK and in places like Australia and NZ have overcome this omission by creating a provision for parliament to remunerate the chief whip of each side of the house or its equivalent.
Recognition of the majority group as such (we call political parties) is manifested in their association with each other in some lawful and binding way (an association and being part of that association).
More directly in reference to the points you make here is the interpretation of the DG of the ROS statements with respect to forming a coaltion and your perceptions or interpretation given to its outcomes if followed.
Does the DG of the ROS have either the authority or powers to make such a statement as the one you rely on for your argument? if he does not then the point is a moot one a to whether to follow his advise. If he does then there are sufficient grounds to overcome any defect you perceive in its implementation.
A coalition may be the comming together of all parties under a particular banner or cause with each group still retaining its peculiar characteristics, policies and self interests acting together to further their common political (in this case) objects in Parliament.
It need not be the disassembling of whats already in existence but the widening of the same with a coalition, whereby the representative membership exceeds the number 7.
That coalition can then direct the operation of its members in parliament. The coalition then satisfies the registrars requirements. (I must admit having gone to the website of the ROS and found it wanting in certainty or clarity).
The following is an interpretation of what constitutes a coalition and may be instructive when considering forming a coaltion.
“A coalition is an alliance among individuals or groups, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in his own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause.
The alliance may be temporary or a matter of convenience. A coalition thus differs from a more formal covenant. Possibly described as a joining of ‘factions’, usually those with overlapping interests rather than opposing ones.”
You willl find that the operative words here in this definition are ” cooperate in joint action, each in his own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause”.
Interestingly from this definition. “A more formal covenant” is what maybe that binds the Barisan.
Rightly you refer to an absence (my words) of any such evidence as to how the BN came about.
The Constitution does not provide for formal definitions of many of the words it uses which gives credibility to the often used term ‘a constitution in a hurry’ by various commentators in reference to the Malaysian constitution.
The drafters skills ( or more the lack of it) are evidence of the lack of thought or importancce given to the framing of Malaysia’s constitution at independence.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#44 by grkumar on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 7:03 am
Don’t take it too personally. Thi is politics in which you like your other colleagues in Pakatan engage in personal attacks and unssubstantiated rumours to advance your villification of individuals, groupings and policies of others in much the same waay the Barisan does.
There is such a thing as being independent. And much to the disappointment of many when you engage in the type of responses you have above to my posting as being sweeping and an attempt to sway public opinion (presumably against your interests), you embellish and adorn the comments and the suspicions of your opposite numbers against you and your interests.
It is not appropriate or a reflection of a healthy or broad intellect to suggest like Bush Jnr “those who are not with us must be against us”.
simply a contribution and a challenge to you and your colleagues to respond. And in any even why the totalitarian mindset to deny anyone the right to sway or influence others unless it is without truth?
Lets have a healthy debate and discussion rather than to reinforce the other side’s argument you are no different to them.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#45 by limkamput on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 10:35 am
grkumar, I don’t follow your arguments here at all. We are talking about whether it is advantageous or whether it is the right thing for PR to form a coalition. We are not here to discuss what a coalition is and is not. We want to know whether BN is a coalition, and if so, which government agency governs them in case there is breach. Besides, from the political point of view, can we naturally assume the ROS will be neutral? We are talking politics, not arguing a case in the court of law. On your observation that our constitution is blur and ambiguous in forming and governing political parties or coalitions, may I know how relevant are they to the discussion on the issue at hand? You don’t engage in a discussion by responding to a question with another question or introducing new arguments which seem totally irrelevant.
#46 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 11:11 am
grkumar,
On your post #43 regarding “first port of call, the Constitution, I have not visited that ‘port’ because I don’t even dispute at all that our Constitution recognises association of political parties withion a political coalition. In fact the Constitution guarantees freedomm of Association. I am not therefore questioning legality/constitutionality/legitimacy of a political coalition.
I am addressing the specifics of section Section 2 of the Societies Act 1966 (“Societies Act”) cited by Kit relating to definition of what is a society for purposes under the Act, and I question whether if PKR, PAS and DAP being each a registered society, whether their collective coaltion together under Pakatan Rakyat can, in law and under the Societies Act, constitute a registrable society within meaning of the Societies Act, with all due respect to the opinion of Registrar of Societies Datuk Md Alias Kalil who implied otherwise when he gave an impression that in spite of the number of 7 “persons” to form a society specified in section 2, PR’s 3 different parties (each a political society in its own right) would qualify a waiver to 3 since they are of “national importance”.
I am questioning this becuase (rightly or wrongly) my interpretation of “persons” in section 2 is that it refers to natural persons (ie human beings) not already registered societies that PKR, PAS and DAP are each already a society. And I question whether we can have a society of 3 different societies when section 2 obviously refers to an association of 7 (or 3 if a waiver given) or more of natural persons to constitute a society.
The reason the above is discussed is because the issue under this thread is whether it is the right thing for PR (which is already a coalition formed) to form or register its coalition as a society under the Societies Act. The collateral issue is, if it does so, on the advice of Registrar of Societies (notwithstanding), and if the Registrar’s advice is misconceived in law – because 3 different societies (as distinct from natural persons) cannot, by the societies Act, be registered as a society – then listening to such an advice to register may constitute a trap, when subsequently on the application of any of PR’s political opponent to court, PR as a registered society could find itself declared an unlawful society, with all the damaging consequences to its reputation!
Do you have a beef with what has been said above, if so why?
#47 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 11:34 am
Regarding posting your # 44 where you urged “don’t take it too personally”, I don’t take it personally and am ever in agreement with what you said about not engaging “in personal attacks and unsubstantiated rumours” or that “there is such a thing as being independent.”
I only take issue with your comment “when you engage in the type of responses you have above to my posting as being sweeping and an attempt to sway public opinion (presumably against your interests you embellish and adorn the comments and the suspicions of your opposite numbers against you and your interests”.
My defence is based on 2 reasons.
First, you have alleged that my comment of about 3 persons and 7 persons “beggars belief” and that I “ought to read through the laws before making such embarrassing statements” without giving a reason and basis to show where I am wrong on my interpretation of section 2 of the Societies Act. Now that you have explained your position citing the Constitution, I have also explained in my preceding posting that the Constitution is not a relevant issue because the legality legitimacy and right to form association or a coalition under the Constitution has never been in dispute by me or anyone in this blog! The only issue is an otherwise legal coalition of 3 different parties, each already a society, under the Societies Act can register another society of 3 different existing societies having regard to wordings of section 2 of the Societies Act.
Second, you were the one threw a challenge whether “ Pakatan’s members who were complicit in this affair courageous enough to comment on the claims in the article – “HINDRAF BADAWI ALBAR AND THE BRITISH”. Reserving my comments on merit(s) of the article, it suffices me to say that I don’t see anything there relevant to topic of this thread.
So what are your intentions to refer us to this link to your article that has no relevance to the topic discussed here?
#48 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 11:43 am
Then I went further and clicked on your uncategorised writings on “Ketuanan Melayu – a New Constitution” where exerpts:-
It asks the first question – “Is the term “Ketuanan Melayu” an assertion by Malays of a Malay Constitution which pre dates the British Westminster derivative thrust on Malaysia at independence? is it a renaissance of Malay culture in politics?”
Then the body discussing leading to this conclusion – “Ketuanan Melayu is not about Malay rights exclusively to the exclusion of other races, religions and cultures. Ketuanan Melayu is simply is a re assertion of that right of every Malay (nation) to re claim their past and to extract from it whatever it is that is rightfully theirs. It is part of a process evolution, of decolonization and reclaiming a cultural identity free from the stain of colonization.”
See link http://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/ketuanan-melayu-a-new-constitution/
It ‘beggars my belief’ as well. Against the backdrop of you introducing issues in your article ‘HINDRAF BADAWI ALBAR AND THE BRITISH’ to this blog when the subject discussed is whether Pakatan Rakyat ought to seek rergistration as a society under Societies Act, you can understand my bewilderment and questioning your intentions. Sorry about that. No offence intended. I am just speaking my mind.
#49 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 11:55 am
In other words your postings are not discussing the issues in this thread but basically to question PR’s supporters why they are unquestioningly supporting PR as evinced in your clear comments in #36 –
“Has Pakatan become irrelevant through its conduct and its failure to provide real alternatives to government (however bad that government may be perceived to be) apart from slander, sloganeering and making of promises it is unable to fulfill? Are Pakatan’s members who were complicit in this affair courageous enough to comment on the claims in the article which has now raised more than a cloud off dust in its wake?”
You have every right to take PR’s supporters to task by your questions but you can’t claim relevance of what you said in relation to the topic discussed in this thread and neither should you disparage what I have said without basis if it were a good advice for PR unless you have other intentions.
#50 by grkumar on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 12:48 pm
When you’ve calmed down and are able to go through the responses I had earlier provided you, without the emotion and confusion in your mind (for whatever the reason), there is a chance you may be able to understand the nature and the substance of that response to issues raised in your previous postings.
From reading all of your subsequent and successive postings in respect of my response , I think you are looking for legal advise or a black and white response to a myriad of questions.
Your interpretation of my reference to the constitution tells me I may have gone into an area quite clearly out of your depth for which I apologise.
The context in which that reference was made in my posting appears lost on you and it appears to make you angry. Very angry. Again I am sorry.
Take some time to read through the response. Refer to the constitution to see that in reality it matters not whether you are a coalition under the societies act, a stand alone party or otherwise.
The constitution does not give recognition to political parties registered or otherwise. So the matter of wheter or not the ROS appears to be giving advise that you fear so much or are paranoid about, your legal advisors ought to be able to provide you with advise that would concur with at least the substance and the trajectory of my thinking in this regard.
Come to your own conclusions. Read the definitions properly and the rules and legislation that applies then you won’t be so paraniod or have the need to speculate.
As for the rest of it I am amused.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#51 by grkumar on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 12:58 pm
As to the other posting of yours, you having visited Gopal Raj Kumar the blog and having read the articles and postings therein, you appear to have gone totally out of orbit with respect to the issue of the ROS and registration of a possible coalition and appear to be getting a bit “frothy around the mouth” with your comments.
These are issues which any ‘democratic ‘ community must openly debate and discuss in an open forum, an open society with an open mind. You do not have to agree with them.
There are a myriad of possibilities by which any subject including one as controversial as Ketuanan Melayu can be discussed and done so with an open mind.
In fact the blog invites open and intelligent debate and discussion to provocative writing and challenging ideas.
Things could get worse than they are perceived to be now in Malaysia. We could well end up like Singapore if we are not careful. There Eugenics is propogated by a leader, manufacturing evidence, a country with a one party system where the old saying “Give me liberty of give me death” by freedom loving people has been twisted in its policies and practice to “Give me liberty or give me wealth”.
Appears to me that pluralistic politics is dead even with opposition in Malaysia. Its either ‘think like I do or don’t think at all’.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#52 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 1:29 pm
You are parrying – albeit in eloquent language – without coming to grips in respect of the thrust of the points I raised. You know it. There’s no meeting of minds – or points – here in this debate. Thanks anyway. I’d leave it at that. By the way I am not frothing in the mouth.
#53 by grkumar on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 3:12 pm
These are figures of speech (frothing at the mouth and the need to respond is disappointing).
I am sorry that you take offence to my comments as it appears in your last posting. It is meant to enliven the he spirit of discussion and debate.
I think have adequately answered the points in your original postings here (9 October 2009 with respect to ROS).
It is incumbent upon you to then at least articulate your differences or your disagreements with me on either the merits of those issues I have raised in return or to allow a further explanation if required. There was no offence intended on my part even if it were interpreted as such.
What’s important here and in other sites I visit is the abject lack of attack on the quality of the constitution and legislation and in the way these documents so important to the lives of millions have been allowed to fester like open sores. Thats where the mischief lies. Yet none of the so called ‘High Profile Lawyers’ of Malaysia have managed to come to grips with this glarring ommission or defects at the core of all our gripes.
Unless and untill those ‘open sores’ as I refer to them are healed, through a re draft or challenge in court of parliament (especially where the lack proper meaning or relevance is at the root of all the problems people face, and that includes a government) these discussions and arguments are fruitless and an exercise in futility.
Specifically in this instance, the ROS website provides if anything at all incomplete phrases, in its various provisions on the subject in question. It is also incomplete where the criteria for those which adds to the confusion.
I would have thought that would stand out like a dogs proverbials to someone like you which is why I said it beggars belief. I have doubts now as to whether you are the Jeffrey that blogs and the error is mine for making such assumtions withut the facts.
Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You’ve got to have something to make it real.
I thank you anyway for the opportunity to enter into this discussion.
Gopal Raj Kumar
#54 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 3:44 pm
My friend, there’s nothing personal or anyone taking offence but am I not engaging you on merits of the issues? I raiser section 2 of Societies Act on interpretation of “persons” whether it refers to natural or legal persons. You, on the other hand, refer to the Constitution of which I have already said that there’s nothing there about which we are disputing or arguing. You also referred specifically to the ROS website which you said provided if anything at all incomplete phrases, in its various provisions on the subject in question”. But why is ROS website of imprtance when it does not say much when the issue raised by me can be verified against section 2 of the Societies Act cited by YB Kit? Aren’t we not talking about what the Society Act says?
So where is the meeting of minds on what’s the common issue argued here?
Even “frothing at the mouth” which you say the “need to respond is disappointing”, why is it disappointing? I know what frothing in the mouth means and merely said that I was not frothing in the mouth in metaphorical sense.
Then your further remark – “What’s important here and in other sites I visit is the abject lack of attack on the quality of the constitution and legislation and in the way these documents so important to the lives of millions have been allowed to fester like open sores” – in what way this observation advance either your argument or contradict mine?
“Nothing from nothing leaves nothing. You’ve got to have something to make it real” is interesting observation, and I have been trying even till now to find something ‘real’ behind your first objection in your posting #37 on page 1 of this thread in which you said that my comments on the meaning of “persons” in section 2 of the Society Act “beggared belief, and that I ought to read through the laws he referred to before making such embarassing statements.”
#55 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 11 October 2009 - 4:01 pm
For you to say that my comments beggared belief you must first show that my interpretation of section 2 of Societies act on meaning of persons – as well as other points raised by me – are outlandish and baseless or illogical or contrary to common sense or known law or legal principles. You have done none of this aside from making some general remarks about the Constitution, which I have shown is irrelevant to our arguments since I don’t dispute the Constitution protects right to association.
You exhort that “it is incumbent upon you to then at least articulate your differences or your disagreements with me on either the merits of those issues I have raised in return or to allow a further explanation if required.”
Am I guilty of not doing that? I have tried to specifically pin down what we’re arguing but you keep eluding, deflecting left to right, fromnt and back and not meeting (as I put it) the thrust of what I said headlong.
You said in comment #50 page 1 “your interpretation of my reference to the constitution tells me I may have gone into an area quite clearly out of your depth for which I apologise. The context in which that reference was made in my posting appears lost on you and it appears to make you angry. Very angry. Again I am sorry.”
First of all I am not angry. Secondly, you have said that I am lost in an area outside my depth without showing and explaining lucidly how I am in that position!
Then in #3 of this page you said “I think have adequately answered the points in your original postings here (9 October 2009 with respect to ROS).”
A thing does not become so just becuase you say it is. At least to me, you have not answered any of the points in my original postings. Sorry. I leave it to other readers to judge that.