Harapan, two others file to strike out suit over PTPTN-linked GE14 promise
Pakatan Harapan and two others have filed applications to strike out a suit against them for allegedly not fulfilling the GE14 manifesto to postpone the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) loan repayments for borrowers earning less than RM4,000 a month.
Pakatan Harapan and two others have filed applications to strike out a suit against them for allegedly not fulfilling the GE14 manifesto to postpone the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) loan repayments for borrowers earning less than RM4,000 a month.
Through their respective legal representatives, Harapan, PTPTN and the government filed the striking-out bids at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on Dec 20 and 31, as well as Jan 2, respectively.
Messrs Ram Caroline Sha & Shah and Messrs Adnan Sharida & Associates acted on behalf of Harapan and PTPTN, while the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) represented the government.
When contacted by Malaysiakini today, lawyer Adnan Seman, who acted for the five PTPTN borrowers suing Harapan and the other two entities, confirmed that the striking-out applications were filed.
On Oct 22, it was reported that five PTPTN borrowers had sued Harapan, PTPTN and the government over the issue of unfulfilled general election promises.
This is especially on deferment of repayment of PTPTN study loans for those earning less than RM4,000 a month.
Harapan, PTPTN and the government are seeking for the court to strike out the action under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012.
According to Harapan's striking out cause papers obtained by Malaysiakini this afternoon, the ruling coalition was seeking to set aside the suit as there was sufficient time for the ruling coalition to fulfil the GE14 manifesto of implementing the deferment of PTPTN loan repayment for borrowers who make less than RM4,000 a month.
According to an affidavit signed by Harapan's secretary-general Saifuddin Abdullah, more time was needed to fulfil the GE14 manifesto as Harapan found extensive damage done by the previous BN administration. And, as a result, could not implement the promises in the Buku Harapan as soon as possible.
Saifuddin, who is also foreign minister, said that at any rate, Harapan was fully committed to fulfilling the promises in Buku Harapan, and noted that some election promises have been implemented and others were in the process of being implemented.
“I also refer to Paragraph 18 (of the main suit) and say that the action brought by the plaintiffs are in the alternative, pre-time because the matters contained in the Buku Harapan, specifically Janji Kelima Janji Kelima Puluh and Iltizam Keempat, are matters that would be implemented in the time between the formation of the government after GE14 and until the dissolution of the 14th Dewan Rakyat in a certain time (to come),” said Saifuddin.
“Also in the alternative, I also say that in any event, the plaintiffs did not vote for Pakatan Harapan parties (PKR, Bersatu, and Amanah) to choose the MPs therefore, what is contained in the Buku Harapan is not capable of binding them with the second defendant (Harapan) and/or any Harapan parties,” he added.
Saifuddin further noted that the GE14 manifesto contained in Buku Harapan was not meant to be a legally binding contract but instead to be a form of measurement of election promises to be considered for the next general election.
He then referred to Mahathir Mohamad’s foreword in Buku Harapan issued before GE14, where he said: “With the publication of this book, we also with full responsibility state that we are willing to be judged by the people on how far we succeed in fulfilling these promises. If we fail or break promises, then reject us through the democratic process.”
Saifuddin also said the suit should be struck out as the plaintiffs failed to state whatever loss they purportedly suffered as a result of Harapan’s alleged failure to fulfil the GE14 manifesto.
“On the above-stated reasons, I say that the plaintiffs’ action against the second defendant (Harapan) are, among others, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and/or it is an abuse of court process,” he said.
According to its striking-out application, first defendant PTPTN emphasised that the GE14 manifesto was not a binding contract.
“The plaintiffs, at all material times, are bound by the 'loan agreement' entered with the first defendant (PTPTN) and there are no terms specified for the deferment of the loan repayment for borrowers who earn salaries less than RM4,000 a month,” the corporation said.
PTPTN also pointed out that the plaintiffs failed do prove through their suit over whether the corporation had given any promise prior to GE14 to defer loan repayment for borrowers making less than RM4,000 a month.
In relation to the government’s bid to strike out the suit, it said the plaintiffs failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the government was a different entity from that of Harapan and PTPTN.
“The naming of the third defendant (government) as a party here (in the main suit) is an abuse of court process because the third defendant is not the one who made the election manifesto and is not the one that monitors and manages PTPTN loans,” it said.
Meanwhile, Adnan added that the matter of the striking-out applications would come up for case management before the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Feb 17.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.