KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — MIC rebel V. Mugilan refuted today suggestions that the Gerakan Anti Samy Vellu (GAS) movement had run out of steam and was headed for a split among its three key leaders.
He also renewed his attack on MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu and accused him of mismanagement and other improprieties involving millions of ringgit in funds belonging to the MIED, the education arm of the Barisan Nasional (BN) Indian party.
Mugilan lodged a police report today outlining his allegations and distributed copies to the media.But the “evidence” provided was merely the allegations former MIC Youth chief S. Vigneswaran had cited in a summons for a derivative action against MIED directors last year.The same allegations had been submitted to police and the MACC numerous times by various parties and investigated but no action had ever been taken against Samy Vellu.The authorities have also not informed the public the outcome of their investigations.
The bulk of the allegations have also been published in the Makkal Osai Tamil daily aligned with Samy Vellu’s arch rival, Datuk S. Subramaniam.But last month the MACC charged former MIED CEO P. Chitrakala Vasu with three counts of cheating MIED of a total of RM4 million.She pleaded not guilty and her international passport was surrendered to court on an application by the MACC.
Mugilan told the media that he had no confidence with the MACC.
“They are extremely biased and are not acting without fear or favour,” he said.He has given the police 30 days to investigate his police report against Samy Vellu and take the necessary action.Failing which, he said, the GAS leaders will personally complain to IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan.He also denied that GAS aims to force out Samy Vellu had hit a wall, and expressed confidence the veteran party leader was on his way out “very soon” but declined to say why he is confident of this.Samy Vellu vowed recently that he would only leave in September next year although his term expires in 2012.“Nobody can force me to leave before I want to leave,” he had said recently.Mugilan also for the first time claimed the title “boss” of the GAS movement, dispelling speculation he and another GAS leader K. P. Samy were at loggerheads over the movement’s mission.
“I am the boss and have instructed K P Samy to organise the Klang gathering on July 4,” Mugilan said.Instead of styling the gathering as a GAS protest like the first May protest, K P Samy is calling it an Indian awakening movement.Vigneswaran had filed the derivative action under Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965 asking leave to force the MIED, as an entity, to sue its officers, directors and chairman Samy Vellu, to recover or punish its trustees, directors and officers for losses, fraud, negligence and other failures.He cited 17 instances of alleged impropriety to convince the court to give leave.Samy Vellu and others replied to the summons with affidavits of their own.On June 14 the court granted leave and a suit is being prepared for filing by lawyers for Vigneswaran.
In his supporting affidavit, Vigneswaran alleged breach of trust, financial mismanagement, abuse of power, negligence and breach of statutory duties by the officers including allegedly giving out personal loans to the tune of some RM100 million to individuals, company officials and a trustee.He also alleged abuse in the awarding of contracts for the construction of the MIED-run Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology University (AIMST) in Semeling, Kedah.MIED sourced millions of ringgit from the Indian community, received RM300 million in grants from the government and took a RM220 million loan from Bank Pembangunan Malaysia to build the AIMST campus on a 228-acre site.
Section 181 is a statutory derivative action introduced by Parliament in 2007 and it allows members of organisations and minority shareholders to act to safeguard their interest and that of the corporation against abuse, mismanagement, fraud and losses, but without incurring personal cost.The court decides on the issues brought before it and decides to grant leave or otherwise to proceed with the class action.The law requires the person taking the class action to give 30 days’ notice to affected officers for them to respond or take action before an application is made to the court for remedies.
Source : http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
No comments:
Post a Comment