Registrar of Societies ― DAP ‘re-election’ controversy ― Tony Pua
Share this article
JULY 11 ― A. Summary Chronology of Events
The ROS said that “the DAP re-election (in 2013) should have been based on the 15/12/2012 list of 2,576 qualified delegates”
B. Frequently asked questions
1. Has the DAP received official notification from the ROS?
No. As at 10/7/2017, we have yet to receive official notification from the ROS.
2. Why did the DAP not use the 2012 qualified delegates list for the 2013 re-election?
That’s the thing. We DID use the 2012 qualified delegates list for the 2013 re-election per the directive by the ROS. This was vetted by the independent auditors.
3. If the DAP did use the 2012 qualified delegates list for the 2013 re-election, why is the ROS asking the DAP to hold another election with the 2012 list?
That’s where we are clueless. Only the ROS has the answer to this question, and that’s why we want to meet them once we receive their official notification.
4. Did the DAP cooperate with the ROS for the 2013 re-election?
The DAP cooperated fully with the ROS by providing every document – letters, qualified delegates and branches lists etc., to the ROS on a timely basis. The last request for documents by the ROS was in November 2014.
5. Did the ROS ever explain to the DAP why they are not satisfied with the 2013 re-election?
Never. We were never told what we did, or might have done wrong in our compliance with the 2013 re-election directive. Even when the question is repeatedly raised in Parliament, the answers from the Home Minister were always “the ROS is still investigating”.
6. Why didn’t the DAP take legal action against the ROS?
We did take legal action against the ROS by filing a judicial review application in January 2014 when the ROS exceeded their legal powers by trying to “suspend” the 2013 re-elected CEC.
The ROS in a settlement agreement dated 23 September 2014 conceded that its refusal to recognise the DAP CEC was not legally enforceable.
7. Why did the DAP hold a “Special Congress” instead of a “Ordinary Congress” for its re-election in 2013?
The DAP Party Constitution stipulates that an “Ordinary Congress” requires a notice period for nominations for candidates in the CEC election.
Since there is no need for a nomination exercise as the candidates for the election are to remain unchanged from the 2012 election, the DAP Party Constitution allows for a “Special Congress” to be called with a 7-day notice.
8. Is it true that 753 (or any number of) qualified delegates were denied their right to vote?
No. No delegate was denied their right to vote in the CEC election in 2012 or the re-election in 2013.
1,842 out of the 2,576 or 71.5 per cent of qualified delegates turned up to vote for the 2012 election. The quorum for party elections is 25 per cent.
We have provided all proof of postage for both the 2012 election and the 2013 re-election in 2013 to the ROS.
9. Has the DAP agreed to comply with the directive by ROS?
The DAP has not agreed nor disagreed to hold another re-election.
The CEC on 8 July 2017 decided that we need to first await the official notification from the ROS, which may differ in detail from their media statement.
We will then seek an urgent meeting with the ROS to obtain clarification(s) of their directive. The CEC will then meet again after such clarification(s) are obtained to decide on the next step.
10. If the DAP holds another re-election, will the newly elected CEC be recognised by the ROS?
The DAP had expected to resolve its ROS controversies by complying with the re-election directive by the ROS in 2013, despite fiercely disputing the basis of the ROS directive then. We had hoped that by complying to the letter, the problems can be resolved and the party can move on.
Unfortunately, nearly 4 years after our re-election, the ROS has again issued a directive for another re-election to be carried out.
Hence, there is clearly no assurance of “recognition” by the ROS even if we were to comply with another re-election based on the 2012 qualified delegates list.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.