The DAP secretary-general was referring to one of the six conditions set by RoS, which stated that the party must publish a notification on the CEC re-election at least 14 days prior to the polling date, in one English, Chinese and Tamil newspaper, respectively. There was no requirement for a notice to be published in any Bahasa Malaysia newspaper.
The three-page letter from the RoS and addressed to Lim, referred to the discussions between the agency, Lim and two representatives from independent auditors Grant Thornton on Aug 21.
“For a political party to advertise or give any notification in newspapers is ridiculous.
“The RoS is weaponised now as a political instrument against opposition parties like DAP,” Lim told reporters at the DAP headquarters today.
DAP organising secretary Anthony Loke said that this is the first time in Malaysian political history that a political party has been asked to publish a notice in the newspapers.
“They have asked us to put the notice in the newspaper, DAP is the first political party asked to do this.
“This is unprecedented in the history of Malaysian political parties,” Loke said.
On Saturday, the RoS said it had agreed to the appointment of US-based independent audit firm Grant Thornton to conduct the party’s re-election of its CEC on Nov 12.
Lim expressed his satisfaction over RoS’ approval of DAP’s decision to appoint the audit firm.
He added that the decision, however, does not have anything to do with the credibility of the previous auditor PKF, which had conducted the party’s CEC re-election in 2013.
Lim said that it is also confirmed that the re-elections would take place at the Ideal Convention Center in Shah Alam (IDCC) in Selangor on Nov 12.
“The letters of notification on the DAP re-election will be sent out to 2,576 delegates from the 2012 CEC elections.
“However, we will not be sending the notices to members who have already passed away or have left the party,” he said.
The dispute over DAP’s 2012 party elections was revived in July, three years after the matter was thought to have been settled between the party and RoS.
On July 7, the RoS issued a statement saying it had instructed DAP to hold a fresh election for its CEC, having decided that DAP’s earlier re-election, held on Sept 29, 2013, was not in accordance with the law.
“RoS believes the appointment of the CEC members as well as the main position holders through that re-election, is illegal.
“The re-election should be based on the list of delegates entitled to attend and vote for DAP’s CEC elections dated Dec 15, 2012, involving 2,576 delegates from 865 branches,” RoS director-general Mohammad Razin Abdullah said in the statement.
The whole issue with the the dispute over DAP’s last party elections started more than four years ago, less than three weeks before the 13th general election (GE13), which was held on May 5, 2013.
On April 17, 2013, the RoS had sent a letter to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng stating that it did not recognise DAP’s CEC which had been elected during the party elections the year before.
Then RoS director-general, Abdul Rahman Othman, said the non-recognition was due to the alleged dispute surrounding the party polls.
“Until the disputed matters are resolved, the ROS under Section 3A of the Societies Act does not recognise the office bearers in DAP, formed by the CEC on Dec 15, 2012,” he had said, adding that DAP faced the risk of being de-registered.
However, the RoS issued another letter on April 19 informing that the party would be allowed to use its rocket symbol in GE13.
A re-election of the CEC was eventually carried out by the DAP on Sept 29, 2013 but that too ran into problems, with the RoS still refusing to recognise the CEC.
Then, on Jan 22, 2014, Lim filed a judicial review application on behalf of the party, saying the RoS had no power under the Societies Act 1966 to refuse the recognition of the CEC which was re-elected on Sept 29, 2013.
DAP decided to drop the application on Sept 23, 2014, following the RoS’ recognition of the re-elected CEC and its stand that statements on the matter were merely advice and not legally binding.