One thing I am quite sure about misquoting this part of the Lord's Prayer and making fun of it, is that I am unlikely to be condemned by Christians.
At the moment of writing, DAP's advisor, Lim Kit Siang's 7-day ultimatum to whoever created 'Father Augustus Chen' is nearing its end. Soon, we shall know for sure whether this Catholic priest really exist in person, was just a figment of someone's imagination or just a creation by mischievous persons out to discredit and hopefully de-register DAP. That FAC's article on DAP's CEC election controversy was in printed form and well distributed, suggests a well-organised effort by groups who are disgruntled ex-members or supported by leaders of organisations who are anti-DAP. That ROS seemed to take particular interest in their accusations serves to reinforce people's perception that he is biased and obviously under orders from the powers that be who are worried about DAP's growing success.
Based on FAC's article (as reported), there were ' “753 DAP delegates (mostly Indians)” who were eligible to vote in the DAP’s CEC elections and were NOT given notice to attend and vote at the DAP Congress' and a more serious accusation that there were 574 unauthorised delegates who attended and voted.
As a former delegate before the controversial party congress, I wish to know whether the 753 members were just members or authorised delegates entitled to attend and vote. If they were members who attended as observers, then the issue about their not being allowed to vote does not arise at all. If they were entitled to attend and vote, then I would be surprised that they were unaware of such a big event as a party congress whether they were properly informed or not. I do not think there is a specific requirement for use of registered post in notifying delegates, and it would seem such a requirement might be necessary to prevent future accusations on notification.
On the second more serious accusation, I am sure it is easy to check if those 574 delegates were authorised, by checking against their dates of admission as members; whether the dates of registration of their branches and their status met the party's requirements as to whether they were entitled to attend and vote as delegates.
Since DAP is open to a public enquiry on their CEC election controversy, perhaps this is a better way of solving the issue than merely following orders from ROS who seems more anxious to exercise his right not to provide a reason for instructing DAP to have another CEC election.
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/08/12/public-inquiry-into-dap-cec-elections-will-prove-that-in-last-seven-months-there-has-been-mass-production-and-regurgitation-of-hundreds-of-lies-and-falsehoods-against-dap-in-the-umnobn-media-culmin/
Update on eligibility of members to attend and vote and the number of delegates from each branch:
According to New Sunday Times report on Aug 11:
Excerpt:
"Clause 8 of Section 3(a) of the consitution states that each branch is entitled to send at least one delegate out of its 15 to 25 branch members to the party congress.
Two representatives from a branch, which has 26 to 50 members, one representative from a branch of 51 to 100 members, and one for every 100 members if a branch has more than 100 members."
I am not sure if the above has been misquoted, it seems to suggest a bigger branch can send less number of representative. I am inclined to read it as a minimum of 1 or 2 representatives from every branch; while bigger branches have to limit their reps by the rule of '1 rep per 100' on the excess number of members over 100.
In other words, 1 rep from a branch with 15 to 25 members; 2 reps from a branch with up to 50 members; 3 reps from one with up to 100 members; and a branch with say 500 members can send 7 reps.
Using the above 500-member branch as an example, FAC's claim of 753 delegates not given notice would involve at least 100 such branches with a combined total of over 50,000 members! Was it likely?
Therefore, I believe the numbers quoted by FAC or others on the number of delegates entitled to attend and vote were grossly overstated because based on the number eligible to be delegates, they were likely to be office-bearers like Branch Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and other committee members. How could such delegates be left out on notice as to when the party congress was to be held?
Link
At the moment of writing, DAP's advisor, Lim Kit Siang's 7-day ultimatum to whoever created 'Father Augustus Chen' is nearing its end. Soon, we shall know for sure whether this Catholic priest really exist in person, was just a figment of someone's imagination or just a creation by mischievous persons out to discredit and hopefully de-register DAP. That FAC's article on DAP's CEC election controversy was in printed form and well distributed, suggests a well-organised effort by groups who are disgruntled ex-members or supported by leaders of organisations who are anti-DAP. That ROS seemed to take particular interest in their accusations serves to reinforce people's perception that he is biased and obviously under orders from the powers that be who are worried about DAP's growing success.
Based on FAC's article (as reported), there were ' “753 DAP delegates (mostly Indians)” who were eligible to vote in the DAP’s CEC elections and were NOT given notice to attend and vote at the DAP Congress' and a more serious accusation that there were 574 unauthorised delegates who attended and voted.
As a former delegate before the controversial party congress, I wish to know whether the 753 members were just members or authorised delegates entitled to attend and vote. If they were members who attended as observers, then the issue about their not being allowed to vote does not arise at all. If they were entitled to attend and vote, then I would be surprised that they were unaware of such a big event as a party congress whether they were properly informed or not. I do not think there is a specific requirement for use of registered post in notifying delegates, and it would seem such a requirement might be necessary to prevent future accusations on notification.
On the second more serious accusation, I am sure it is easy to check if those 574 delegates were authorised, by checking against their dates of admission as members; whether the dates of registration of their branches and their status met the party's requirements as to whether they were entitled to attend and vote as delegates.
Since DAP is open to a public enquiry on their CEC election controversy, perhaps this is a better way of solving the issue than merely following orders from ROS who seems more anxious to exercise his right not to provide a reason for instructing DAP to have another CEC election.
http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2013/08/12/public-inquiry-into-dap-cec-elections-will-prove-that-in-last-seven-months-there-has-been-mass-production-and-regurgitation-of-hundreds-of-lies-and-falsehoods-against-dap-in-the-umnobn-media-culmin/
Update on eligibility of members to attend and vote and the number of delegates from each branch:
According to New Sunday Times report on Aug 11:
Excerpt:
"Clause 8 of Section 3(a) of the consitution states that each branch is entitled to send at least one delegate out of its 15 to 25 branch members to the party congress.
Two representatives from a branch, which has 26 to 50 members, one representative from a branch of 51 to 100 members, and one for every 100 members if a branch has more than 100 members."
I am not sure if the above has been misquoted, it seems to suggest a bigger branch can send less number of representative. I am inclined to read it as a minimum of 1 or 2 representatives from every branch; while bigger branches have to limit their reps by the rule of '1 rep per 100' on the excess number of members over 100.
In other words, 1 rep from a branch with 15 to 25 members; 2 reps from a branch with up to 50 members; 3 reps from one with up to 100 members; and a branch with say 500 members can send 7 reps.
Using the above 500-member branch as an example, FAC's claim of 753 delegates not given notice would involve at least 100 such branches with a combined total of over 50,000 members! Was it likely?
Therefore, I believe the numbers quoted by FAC or others on the number of delegates entitled to attend and vote were grossly overstated because based on the number eligible to be delegates, they were likely to be office-bearers like Branch Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and other committee members. How could such delegates be left out on notice as to when the party congress was to be held?
No comments:
Post a Comment