Sunday, October 11, 2009

马大校长的回复

相信日前若有通过电邮信件向马大校长表达对6名学生遭受控诉不满者,皆会收到来自校长的电邮回复。

在此要对Prof Gauth Jasmon之专业表达敬意。

但仔细留意的话,校长对此事件的看法与实际事实有所不吻合之处:

1.HEP纪律信件注明之罪名为:邀请非会员
2.马大校长表明之罪名为:在未获得准许情况下邀请非会员
(推敲:校长认同邀请校外人士,只是必须事先获得校方准许)

在此附上相关电邮及纪律信件供参考:

P.S:推荐此文章底下的读者留言(Comments:Kho and Terry),有助于以更专业的角度探讨此次事件。

--- On Sun, 10/11/09, Ghauth Jasmon  wrote:


From: Ghauth Jasmon
Subject: Re: Withdraw Disciplinary Charge on UM Students Immediately
To: "kong heng" , "UM - Azarae" , "LEGAL - Thana Krishnan"
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 12:56 PM


Ms Thana, Legal Officer, HEP.

Please see me urgently.

Ghauth.



2009/10/11 kong heng <khkong5197@yahoo.com.my>








To:

Y. Bhg. Professor Datuk Dr. Ghauth Jasmon



Thanks Prof for your reply =)


Regarding your "believe", i wonder if HEP cc the disciplinary letters to Prof which states that the 6 students are  being asked to attend the proceeding with the reason of inviting "outsider" to judge the debate competition.


Nothing such as "invited outsiders without PRIOR PERMISSION" is mentioned in the letter.


Therefore, there are certainly something wrong in the process which might be intentionally done by some party.I wish that Prof can take action regarding this.


For your information, we have set up a Facebook group and petition online regarding this matter.


Thank you again for your willingness to reply to all of us even during weekends.


Have a nice day :)










Yours faithfully,
Kong Kok Heng





--- On Sat, 10/10/09, Ghauth Jasmon <ghauth@gmail.com> wrote:


From: Ghauth Jasmon <ghauth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Withdraw Disciplinary Charge on UM Students Immediately
To: "kong heng" <khkong5197@yahoo.com.my>
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2009, 12:16 PM


Dear Kong,

I believe the students under charge were asked to answer why they have
invited outsiders without PRIOR PERMISSION of the university which the
students know very well this rule that they have infringed.

Regards.

Ghauth.






















7 comments:

  1. wtf?! i thought it's already permitted?
    you guys have any documents black and white to prove that the activity is being conducted under uni's permission anot?
    if yes,
    hold your black and whites and blast the uni.
    NO FEAR bro.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A suggested reply:
    The (mention the particular provision) only states that non-member (not merely outsiders) of the particular association is not allowed to be invited to/to join any event which is held by the association. The provision is silent about VC's discretionary power to permit the abovementioned situation. Hence, non-members and outsiders are not allowed to be invited/to join any event which is held by the association. Having regard to that, every event that invited non-members and outsiders were contradicting with the particular provision. However, UM administrative body did not "consider" to/take any disciplinary action against any committee of those events. Therefore, it is submitted that UM administrative body might/is suspected to bias against committee of 908 debate show in "considering" to take disciplinary action. So, the proceedings before them might be vitiated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 昱渊 :

    我们是有获得准证的。
    稍微修改了内容,方便大家参阅。

    谢谢你啦,老兄=)

    ReplyDelete
  4. kho :

    Judging from your pro. reply, i think you are familiar or expert in law=)
    You are totally correct, this law doesn't make sense at all. Thats what we have in a uni that rank 180 in the world, sarcastic.

    Btw, thanks a lot for your opinion =)

    ReplyDelete
  5. and that answers why our uni rank only 180 in the world, not higher rank. ;p

    [another suggested (and sarcastic, perhaps)reply to VC:
    please compare the relevant laws or situations to worldclass uni (eg: Oxford, Cambridge, ...) as he compared car stickers' policy in our uni with University of Melbourne (if i'm not mistaken).

    ReplyDelete
  6. it is a violation of the rules if you do not submit permission to invite said parties. ESPECIALLY a political person, be it pro-government or NOT. end of story. it is the um administration's discretion to take action or not. for outsiders with no particulat political affiliations, you are also required to submit permission for them to enter UM. a personal particulars/background info is required too. SO DID THE ORGANIZERS DID THAT? if the answer is no, then i can only say it is their inexperience and gross mistake as an event organizer. pls admit you did wrong. however if u have black and white proof that permission was granted, then surely this shouldn't be an issue from the beginning, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Permission from UM administration is a non-issue here as sub-paragraph 16(1), Form 2 in Statute UM (Badan-badan Pelajar) 1979 clearly prohibits non-member in a particular association's event WITHOUT confer any discretionary power to UM administration.

    2. As the statute says nothing about the permission, the permision can be either written permission or verbal perission. What is important is the PERMISSION itself, not the form of the permission. The form of permission in written is merely for convenient and evidence purpose. Hence, once the verbal permission is proven, its effect is equivalent with the written permission.

    3. With the knowledge of the situation in 908 debate show, UM administration conducted themselves by giving verbal permission to the committee and without taking any action to halt the event. Hence, they already permitted it and is estopped to pursue the matter after one month.

    4. Furthermore, is it mean that the committee can counter-claim that UM administration infringe the particular rule as well? as they are bound by law to stop any "illegal" event? hmm...then UM administration might get into trouble as well..(that is a just a possibility, anyway.)

    4. Anyway, permission of UM administration can change nothing in that matter. So, outsiders are not allowed in whatsoever event which is held by any association in UM. This means that any event that was joined by one outsider (or more) which was held in UM since coming into force of the abovementioned atatute was illegal. what an absurd rule in UM! Ohh Gosh! (bearing in mind that "UM is ONE")

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails