OCTOBER 21 — Section 16 of the Societies Act (Revised 2021) reads as follows:
(1) If the Registrar is of the opinion that a dispute has occurred among the members or office-bearers of a registered society as a result of which the Registrar is not satisfied of the identity of the persons who have been properly constituted as office-bearers of the society, the Registrar may serve notice on the society requiring the society, within one month of the service of such notice, to produce to him evidence of the settlement of any such dispute and of the proper appointment of the lawful office-bearers of the society or of the institution of proceedings for the settlement of such dispute.
(2) If any such notice as is provided in subsection (1) is not complied with to the satisfaction of the Registrar within the period of one month or any extension of the period allowed by the Registrar, the Registrar may take steps to cancel the registration of the society under Section 13.
In the case of Pendaftar Pertubuhan v Datuk Justin Jinggut [2013] the Federal Court had occasion to construe Sections 16(1) and 13(1)(c)(ix) of the Act.
Delivering the apex court’s judgment, Federal Court Judge Abdull Hamid Embong said:
“This appeal involves the statutory interpretation of Sections 16 and 13 of the Act. On a literal interpretation of Section 16(1), we are of the view that the ROS … merely needs to act on the documents presented to him to objectively decide if a dispute had arisen. Once he is satisfied, and here we say on a subjective test, that a dispute had in fact occurred, he may straight away form such an opinion. We say that this is his only statutory duty.
“The word ‘opinion’ as found in Section 16(1) entails a subjective evaluation by the ROS. It is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as ‘according to one’s view or belief’.
“[The ROS] forms this opinion based on the documents and information before him …. No detective work is required of the ROS to form this opinion. Otherwise, the office of the ROS would be bogged down to make unnecessary inquiries each time he is faced with information of a dispute having occurred in a political society.
“Under Section 16(1)… [the ROS] merely comes to an opinion of the existence of a dispute. And this he needs to do as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the fate of a society will be left in a limbo, and all its activities suspended.
“We say that the ROS role is one of non-interference in a dispute situation involving a political society …. Once he was satisfied, on a subjective test, that a dispute had in fact occurred, he could straight away form such an opinion.”
The learned Federal Court judge then went on to say:
“In our considered view, for the court to go behind the opinion stated by the ROS … this would be usurping the limited powers of the ROS under Section 16(1). The court would then have to substitute the subjective opinion of the ROS.
“In other words, it would take over the role of the ROS, which we say we cannot do.”
Construing Sections 16(1) and 13(1)(c)(ix), the learned Federal Court judge said:
“It is our considered opinion that Section 16(1) empowers the ROS to direct [the political party] to put its house back in order. In other words, the ROS merely gives [the political party] an ultimatum to settle the dispute or face the peril of cancellation under Section 13(1)(c)(ix).
“The phrase used in subsection (1)(c) is ‘if the ROS is satisfied’. ‘Satisfy’ as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is to ‘be certain in one’s own mind’, meaning that a subjective test is to be applied to the ROS in considering whether there has been compliance with the Section 16(1) notice.
“The notice [which was] sent to the secretary general of [the political party] simply states that the party [is] to take steps to settle the dispute within one month.
“Section 16(2) of the Act states that if any such notice as is provided in subsection (1) is not complied with to the satisfaction of the ROS within the period of one month or any extension thereof allowed by the ROS, the ROS may take steps to cancel the registration of the society under Section 13.
“Now, [having] been satisfied that there has been a non-compliance of his notice, [the ROS] can act under Section 13(1)(c)(ix) of the Act to cancel the registration of [the political party].
“Thus, if no evidence … is forthcoming from [the political party] and if the ROS is satisfied that there has been a failure to comply with the Section 16(1) notice, then he may cancel the registration of [the political party].
It must be minded that the only basis for cancellation of a society’s registration under Section 13(1)(c)(ix) is for non-compliance of a Section 16(1) notice.
It was emphasized by the Federal Court that once the ROS is satisfied with this failure to comply, the ROS may accordingly act to de-register a society.
The decision to de-register a society is merely consequential to the failure of the society to comply. Once the conditions stated in the Section 16(1) notice have not been satisfied, the operation of Section 13(1)(c)(ix) is triggered.
No reasons are required under the law.
No reasons need to be given.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
You May Also Like