The two points in the letter from ROS under section 13 (2) to the club are:
The club intentionally violated the provisions of the registered law of the establishments;
1. by failing to comply with the requirements of the provisions in making the selection or appointment of the Club's committee during a general meeting.
2.by having appointed a committee where it is not provided for in any Article content in the Club's Constitution.
The above are no small or insignificant matter that can be settled within 24 hours. If I were a member of the club I will be deeply concerned and call a directors meeting or better yet an EGM to get views from all members.
I believe the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course I am sure ROS will question the Club on all the matters I had complained of in due course.
Since I have done the ground work for over two weeks I might as well print and submit more matters to ROS for their information and action.
Do you think the members of the club can get away by saying that ROS has no investigative powers to look into the 3 extra bank accounts?
1 comment:
The last sentence of the newspaper article says, "the purpose of the additional bank accounts could not be ascertained."
Why did the response from Francis Liew not address this important issue?
Post a Comment