I refer to the trilogy of letters by Justice, DAP youth elections: All not right, Dapsy AGM: Why were unsigned accounts approved? and Anonymity doesn't discount Dapsy irregularities.

If I read them correctly, there are four allegations by Justice.

  • Justice was thrown out as a delegate;

  • Others have been co-opted to be delegates though they haven't attended any divisional meeting;

  • Unsigned accounts approved;

  • Delegates who voiced their protest at this irregularity were 'brushed aside'.

I wish to offer my opinion. Generally, there are three stages to becoming a delegate in political party.

The first hurdle - in order to be a qualified candidate for the position of delegate, one has to fulfill the formal requirements stipulated under the Societies Act as well as the party's constitution.

In Dapsy's case, I would imagine them to be something like between 17-40 years of age, of sound mind, not a bankrupt, not in default of membership fees, has fulfilled a certain period of Dapsy membership.

The second hurdle - one has to be nominated by a qualified member and seconded by another qualified member.

The third hurdle - if there are more candidates than the position, then an election will be held.

There is no requirement that a candidate needs to be present at the meeting. In the instant case, Justice did not furnished any particulars on whether he has cleared the three hurdles. Thus, every corner of his first and second allegation collapses.

On the third allegation of 'unsigned accounts', is the signature requirement mandatory or merely a directory requirement? Does it contravene any specific accounting rules in the first place? If it is merely a technical issue, then it should be curable under the concept of alter ego.

Again, there are no particulars of the forth allegation. Please define 'brushed aside'. Did they request for a vote? Or were they out-voted? Did they walk out in protest or merely mumble at the sideline?

Justice did not utilise the formal channel of writing to the relevant authority in the party. Furthermore, Justice chooses to live behind a veil by not disclosing his or her identity.

By considering the allegation in their totality, it seems to me that Justice is not a bona fide complainant. In my humble opinion, the allegations should be struck out for lack of particularisation. They simply disclose no reasonable causes of action and are frivolous and vexatious.