Yesterday was my third time attending the AGM. I will describe what transpired during the meeting yesterday from my observation. Please refer to the newspaper article and the resolutions first before reading the detail of what transpired in the meeting yesterday. Notice of motions and the reply letter from MIA Council dated 22 September 2010 are included for reference.
This time I expect the AGM to last from 2 p.m. until 6 to 7 p.m. The meeting started at 2.14 p.m. plus. The meeting started with the opening by the President, Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid. His validity to chair the meeting was challenged by a few members and the members kept on insisting that the President has no right to chair the meeting based on what has been said by the President in The Star Business Section. The members insisted that the House to decide whether the President has the validity to chair the meeting. The President argued and kept on insisting that he has the right to chair the meeting. At the end the President gave up and decided to let the Vice President, Christina Constance Foo, to chair the meeting. The President was emotionally affected. When it came to the Presidential speech, the members insisted that the President read his presidential speech, the President was reluctant to do so. At the end, the President decided to give his speech from his heart i.e. not reading the prepared text. The members did notice that the President was emotionally affected from the incident. Throughout the meeting, there were not much words from the President other than his presidential speech.
The meeting continued with the agenda of acceptance of the minutes of the 23rd AGM. After the minutes were accepted, the next agenda was the annual report of the Council. The annual report of the Council was duly proposed and seconded at the AGM. Later, the lady chairperson invited comments from the members on the annual report. I quickly took the opportunity to raise questions. Half way raising the question, I was reminded by the lady chairperson to adhere to the protocol i.e. to raise question on the annual report and not the financial statement. I humbly apologized and let others to raise questions. Personally, I got myself confused between the annual report and financial statements. The annual report was duly received at the meeting with no further comments from the members.
The next agenda of the meeting was the financial statements of the Institute. After the financial statements was proposed and seconded by members, the Chairperson invited comments from members. This time, I took the opportunity to raise questions on the inconsistency of income statement items and notes to the financial statements. I also questioned the disclosure of comparative figures in relation to the cash flow statement. I was satisfied by the explanation given by the Council on the questions that I raised. Members took turn to raise questions on the financial statements of the Institute. It was almost 5 p.m.. There being no further comments, the audited financial statements of the Institute was duly received at the meeting.
The following agenda was the 4 resolutions to be discussed on the proposed increase in subscription fees for members (RM250 to RM300 per annum) and practicing certificate fees from RM250 to RM500 per annum. I personally do not like the idea of increase in fees. The quantum was too much 20% increase for me and 100% increase for practitioners. The subscription fees and practicing certificate fees had remained the same since 1998. The explanations put forward by the Council to increase fees were superficial as there were no budgets and projections put forward to members to consider and evaluate before the resolutions were tabled. Members were given opportunities to present their view on the resolutions before being put to vote. After a few members voiced their dissatisfaction on the resolutions to increase fees, I took the opportunity to speak. Before I could do so, the lady chairperson reminded the members to give opportunities to others who have yet to speak. I duly adhered to the request of the lady chairperson. Whenever I wanted to speak, the opportunities were taken over by other members. Those members spoke against the resolutions to increase fees. I had no opportunity to speak on the resolution as time was running out. Thankfully, I did not have to speak as other members had voiced out what I intended to speak i.e. to speak against the proposed increase in fees resolutions. Later the lady chairperson called for the resolutions to be voted by show of hands. Majority of the members (including myself) i.e. approximately 90% by show of hands objected to the 4 resolutions on proposed increase in fees. Only the Council members and a few members on the floor supported the 4 resolutions. Not satisfied with the situation, the lady chairperson demanded a poll to be conducted. Some members challenged her rights to demand the poll but it was clearly spelt out by the other council members that she has the right to demand a poll to be conducted.
When the poll was about to be conducted, the Registrar read out the members who were appointed proxies. When the President name was read out as proxies, I was surprised to know that he was appointed by 226 members as their proxies for this AGM. This strikes my mind that the huge number of proxies by the President could cause the resolution/motion to be defeated or approved to the disadvantage of the members present at the AGM. I was quite worried that the resolutions to increase fees would go through this time due to huge numbers of proxies forms submitted by the President.
The members were told to cast their votes and place the ballot papers on the resolutions in the proper ballot boxes. This was the first time in the MIA AGM that I attended witnessing members casting their votes and instruments of proxies being used in the poll. This reminds me of the last general election in 2008 March. The only difference is that this was a mini-poll by the members of the Institute to decide on the resolutions.
Later the meeting proceeded with resolution 5 to approve on the Universiti Industri Selangor degree programme to be recognized as qualification under the Accountants Act 1967 for the admission of Chartered Accountant. Some members raised questions. When the lady chairperson called for votes by show of hands, majority of the members including council members supported resolution no. 5 with vote of 52 for and 14 against if I could remember clearly. I voted against resolution no. 5. It was declared that resolution no.5 to be carried out and those who were against the resolution including myself had to accept the majority voice in this democracy process.
After resolution no.5, the results of election to council were announced. Mr Subramaniam Sankar (one lf the member who brought up the 6 motions in this AGM was duly elected into council). Although I did not vote for him, I personally admired his courage for raising his dissatisfaction on the proposed increase in fees in this AGM.
Later, the meeting proceeded with the discussion of the 6 motions proposed by Mr Subramaniam Sankar and seconded by Mr Chan Kah Kooi. Mr Subramaniam Sankar was asked to speak on his motions and explain the rationale to the members. After, the explanation, tThe lady chairperson asked for those who speak against the motion to speak first. After some council members had spoken against the motion, she kept on asking for those to speak against the motion to speak. I wanted to speak for the motion but there was no opportunity for me to do so due to the bias manner the meeting was conducted by this lady chairperson. This led to dissatisfaction of some members as she was depriving the rights of members to speak. She was reminded by one of the member that every member has the right to speak at the AGM regardless of whether the member spoke for or against the motion.
As a result of the reminder, the lady chairperson allowed members to speak for the motions to speak. After a few members spoken for the motion had done so, I quickly went to the microphone and spoke for motion no.3 as time the lady chairperson would be calling for votes soon. I spoke for motion no.3 proposed by Mr Subramaniam Sankar from a non-practitioner point of view. In my opinion, it is unfair to allow non-practitioner (the majority of members) to vote for matters relating to practitioner (the minority of members). I stressed on that matters relating to practitioners should only be decided by practitioners themselves and not non-practitioners. Therefore, there should be a separate voting for matters affecting the practitioners and non –practitioners as the practitioners accounts for 2,500 members and non-practitioners account for 19,500 members. After I had spoken, a few members took the opportunity to speak for the motions before votes were called by the lady chairperson.
The lady chairperson then called for votes by show of hands and majority of the members present supported the motion. Only the Council members and a few members objected the motions. Due to this situation, the lady chairperson demanded a poll to be conducted for the 6 motions. Once again the members were asked to cast their votes and placed the ballot papers properly into the respective ballot boxes. I casted my vote for all the 6 motions.
Later, the poll results for the resolutions 1 to 4 on the proposed increase in fees were announced. Approximately 60% of the members (including proxies) polled against the resolutions to increase fees and 40% of the members (including proxies) polled for the increase in fees. The polling results of the 6 motions were also announced. Approximately 70% of the members (including proxies) polled for all the motions to be carried on and 30% of the members (including proxies) polled against all the 6 motions.
Yes!!! At last it was a victory for the majority members of the Institute as the subscription fees and practicing certificate fees for financial year ending from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 will remain the same.
Yes!! All the motions proposed by Mr Subramaniam Sankar and seconded by Mr Chan Kah Kooi had to be carried out by the Council even the Council was against all the 6 motions as the voice of the majority rules. This means that the Council has to appoint representatives to discuss with the authorities on the 6 motions affecting the practitioners. The final authority to amend the legislation affecting members lies with the Finance Minister and the Parliament.
The meeting officially ended close to 7.30 p.m. I was mentally tired after the meeting and now is in the process of recovering from the mental tiredness as a result of marathon hours of the AGM.
From the meeting, I do notice that proxies can sometimes deal a cruel blow to the resolutions or motions i.e. causing the resolutions or motions to be defeated or approved to the detriment of the majority of members present. The next time I come for meeting, I’ll try to request members who are not able to attend the AGM to appoint me as their proxies provided that they are agreeable with the appointment. In the event of what had happened to the President earlier, one has to be able to control his or her emotion properly in this contentious meeting. It may not be easy to deal with the situation if you are in the shoe of the President as his validity to chair the meeting was challenged until he was emotionally affected in this meeting.
Once again, I would like to congratulate those who were duly elected into the Council and those who had spoken for the benefits of the members. I would also like to say a word of thanks to Mr Subramaniam Sankar who proposed all the 6 motions and Mr Chan Kah Kooi who seconded all the 6 motions for the Council to adopt.
Author: LIM FANG HAU
Membership no. 28424
Date: 26 September 2010
Labels: miaagm
