View - The Malaysian Bar

Loading...

Jan–Mar 2011

www.malaysianbar.org.my

Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar

Unified in a Common Purpose

PLUS PLUS Of Of Sunscreen, Sunscreen, BBs BBs and and Successful Successful Lawyers Lawyers How How can can you you defend defend aa criminal? criminal? In collaboration with

For Malaysian Bar circulation only

Kelly’s Legal Precedents Twentieth Edition

Kelly’s Legal Precedents is an unrivalled practical research and drafting tool that covers a broad range of subjects in depth. The new edition is up-to-date with FA2010 and incorporates all major legislative changes since the publication of the previous edition.

A unique collection of the main forms and precedents

Table of Contents

by R.W. Ramage

• •

Formerly known as

Kelly’s Draftsman

Order Now! via our eBookstore @ www.lexisnexis.com/ store/my/

RM

Hard Cover ISBN 978 818 038 666 8

550



• • • • • • • • • •

Definitions – words and expressions Standard Clauses Declarations (statutory) and Statements Formal Part of Documents Arbitration Bills of exchange Bills of sale Commercial Documents Companies Employment Guarantees and indemnities Partnership Sale of shares and businesses

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Assents Change of name Family Gifts Power of attorney Trusts and Trustees Wills Building Agreements Easements and boundaries Leases and Tenancy Agreements Mortgages Sale of Land Associations Charities and community interest companies

A must have for Solicitors, Accountants, Company Secretaries, Legal Professionals & others related to the field

Log on to www.lexisnexis.com/store/my to browse and purchase books online

For Enquiry, please contact our Helpdesk at 1800-80-6374 or Email: [email protected]

Follow us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/LexisNexisMY Promo code: MM1101-003

Contents

January–March 2011

Contents

PRAXIS CHRONICLE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR

President’s Message Editorial Features/Articles 4 6

BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA BAR COUNCIL 15 Leboh Pasar Besar 50050 Kuala Lumpur Tel No: 603-2031 3003 Fax No: 603-2026 1313 / 603-2034 2825 / 603-2072 5818 Email Add: co[email protected] Website: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my MEMBERS OF BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA 2010/2011 President Vice-President Secretary Treasurer

: : : :

Ragunath Kesavan Lim Chee Wee George Varughese Tony Woon Yeow Thong

Arrest and Detention of the Bar Council Legal Aid Lawyers Recent Federal Court’s Decision on section 340 of the National Land Code 1965: Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors – Are Landowners and Banks Secured? Of Sunscreen, BBs and Successful Lawyers How can you defend a criminal? Redbook Arrest – Harassment of Justice The Rule of Law and the Law of Rules: A Semi-Sceptical Perspective A Conversation with the CEO

12 14 17 18 26

Aaron Abraham | Ahmad Taufiq b Baharum | Amirruddin b Abu Bakar | Anand Ponnudurai Andrew Khoo Chin Hock | Aziz b Haniff | S Balarajah (from December 2010) | Brendan Navin Siva Cecil Rajendra | Christopher Leong | Edmund Bon Tai Soon | Gnasegaran s/o Egamparam Hendon Mohamed | Jaspal Singh Gill | Kanarasan Ghandinesen | Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari Low Beng Choo | Mad Diah b Endut | K Mohan K Kumaran | Mukhtar b Abdullah Murelidaran Navaratnam | Nazira bt Abd Rahim | Ng Kong Peng | Rajpal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh M Ramachelvam | Sarengapani s/o K Rajoo | Shamsuriah bt Sulaiman | Steven Thiru Sulaiman b Abdullah | P Suppiah (until November 2010) | Syamsuriatina Ishak Yasmeen bt Hj Mohd Shariff | Zainuritha-Alfa bt Datuk Abu Hassan

Events 28 31 32 34

Kempen PerlembagaanKu: Perjalanan Setakat Ini Upcoming Events 21st POLA Conference 15th Malaysian Law Conference; Showcasing the Rule of Law, Corporate Governance and Malaysia as a Premier Business Destination

EDITORIAL BOARD Bar Council Syamsuriatina Ishak – Azman Thaiyub Khan – Chua Ai Lin & Anis Taufik (fr Jan 2011) – Brendan Navin Siva & Noor Arianti Osman – Rachel Tan Mei Chien –

Editor Assistant Editor Officers-in-charge

LexisNexis Ivan Yap Razlina Razali Agnes Tan Aniza Zaharuddin

– – – –

Contract Publishing Manager Associate Editor Design and Production Marketing & Advertising

Editing Team Marketing & Advertising

Lifestyle 36 40 42

Through the Lens – Moh Kok Wai Advertorial – Monterez Golf & Country Club: golf, leisure, chilling and dining Advertorial – Not your average Cruze

44

Highlights of Sports Events

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 2010/2011 Syamsuriatina Ishak (Chairperson) Azman Thaiyub Khan (Deputy Chairperson) Chua Ai Lin (Officer-in-charge) Desmond Ho Chee Cheong | Dipendra Harshad Rai | Fahri Azzat | Hamidi Izwan Ahmad Soffian Harcharan Singh Najar Singh | Janet Chai Pei Ying | Johnson Lim Fung Tat Kanarasan Ghandinesen | Kenny Lai Choe Ken | Khairul Anuar Shaharuddin | Ng Chung Yee Nitin Kumar Gordhan | Noor Arianti Osman | Mohd Reza Abu Hassan Rao Suryana bt Abdul Rahman | Valerie Choo Huae Ling

Sports State Bar News Book Review

LexisNexis MaLaysia sdN Bhd

T1-6, Jaya 33, 3, Jalan Semangat Seksyen 13, 46100 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia Tel: (603) 7882 3500, Fax: (603) 7882 3506 Praxis is the official publication of Bar Council Malaysia, published quarterly in collaboration with LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, for circulation to Members of the Malaysian Bar. Bar Council Malaysia, and its authorised authors and designers of Praxis, accept no liability for any loss arising from the use of, or reliance on, Praxis. The Bar Council does not warrant the accuracy of the contents thereof or any statement made by the contributors, writers or advertisers herein, and does not accept responsibility or liability in relation thereto. Statements of contributors, writers or advertisers herein represent their persional views and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar Council or the Malaysian Bar. All users are permitted to view the content of Praxis, without prejudice to the intellectual property rights belonging to Bar Council Malaysia. However, any unauthorised reproduction, duplication, transmission or alteration, in any form or by any means, whether in part or in whole, of Praxis, is strictly prohibited. Bar Council Malaysia also prohibits the use of Praxis and all or any of its contents herein, for commercial and/or personal gain, profit or sale.

51

The PAM 2006 Standard Form of Building Contract

By The Way ... 52 53

Crossword puzzle Sudoku & Poem – Justice & Jamtarts

Bar Updates/Notices 54 55 65 68

Summary of Circulars Library Updates – New Books, Legislative Updates Disciplinary Orders Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council’s Custody

© 2011 All rights reserved. Enquiries on advertising: Aniza Zaharuddin - [email protected] Rachel Tan - [email protected]

Jan–M

ar 2011

Article contribution: Bar Council Malaysia welcomes letters, articles, views and news (including photographs) for possible inclusion in Praxis. However, Bar Council Malaysia reserves the right not to publish or to edit those published for content, clarity, style and space considerations. Contributions and enquiries may be directed to [email protected] Circulation: 14,000

Chro

Unifie Com d in a Purpomon se

nicle

of th e Ma la

ysian

Bar

PLU PLUS S Of Of Sun Sunscre screen, Suc Succes en, BBs cessful BBs and sful Law and Lawyers How How can yers can you you defe aa crim criminal inal?? defe nd nd

Cover credit Photography: Moh Kok Wai Art Direction: Azman Thaiyub Khan Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

1

President’s Message

Braving the Changing Environment Penned by the President

I

t is my pleasure to pen a few words on the occasion of the publication of this latest edition of Praxis. Praxis has been an important journal that serves to capture the contemporary challenges facing the practice of law in Malaysia, as well as the achievements, and I am pleased to see it once again in print after a lapse of over two years. During this time we continued to release Praxis, but only an online version. Life at the Bar continues to be demanding, and we are repeatedly called upon to respond to a changing environment. Allow me to highlight a number of matters that I believe are significant. Changes in the court system and challenges. Bar Council has continued to raise the issue of the over-emphasis on the numerical disposal rate of cases in various dialogues with the Chief Justice and senior members of the Judiciary. At the last meeting with the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Malaya and Managing Judges, held on 29 Sept 2010, a consensus was reached on some key matters. Courts will schedule hearing dates for full trials after ascertaining the availability of all parties involved. Pre-fixed hearing dates will not be brought forward without the consent of all counsel. Oral submissions are permissible even where parties have filed written submissions. The Chief Justice discourages the practice of written submissions for most interlocutory matters, and parties are therefore urged to request the courts to hear oral submissions. The Chief Justice launched an audio conferencing system for the courts on 15 Oct 2010. This means that it will be possible to conduct case management via telephone. While it is a small innovation, it will reduce the need to be at court (with all its attendant problems) in order to fix dates for trials and other related practical matters. It should contribute to speeding up case management and making practice life a little more convenient. Motor Insurance. I am relieved that the government has decided not to proceed with Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”)’s proposed reforms. BNM had recommended that third party bodily injury and death motor insurance claims be subject to a RM2m ceiling amount. The entire third party motor insurance scheme would be brought under the establishment of a “Newco” to manage the scheme. BNM will now not revamp the existing system but will focus instead on expediting payment of claims to accident victims. BNM is considering Bar Council’s request for the formation of a joint committee consisting of all stakeholders. National Legal Aid Foundation. I hope that by the time you read this, the Foundation (or Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan “YBGK”) will have been launched. Currently, too many persons are unrepresented in criminal trials, a situation that is very troubling. YBGK, once established, will be an independent body

that administers funds given for legal aid in the country. It will fund the provision of legal aid, enhance services for lawyers to represent those needing legal representation, determine the guidelines for the administration of the national legal aid scheme, and initiate and carry out educational programmes designed to promote understanding amongst members of the public of their rights and duties under the laws of Malaysia. YBGK will focus on obtaining representation for persons caught in the criminal justice system — from the point of arrest to court hearings. Those who do work for YBGK will be remunerated. YBGK will be a collaborative effort involving the government, the Malaysian Bar, and the private sector. A working committee has been established and is looking into various methods to ensure the long-term funding of YBGK. Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”). We are pleased to inform Members that the PII base premium for 2011 has dropped by 7.7% to RM1,200 per Member, down from RM1,300, while policy terms and coverage remain unchanged. Risk management (“RM”) continues to be a crucial aspect of the PII scheme’s development and sustainability. The Bar Council Secretariat’s PII and RM Department continue to organise workshops and develop new practice tools. These practice tools are aimed at identifying potential problem areas, addressing them ahead of time and minimising risk. Two recent additions are our “Setting Up Practice” and “Accounting for Lawyers” practice booklets, which are essential reading to prepare lawyers for the rigours of running a practice in today’s environment. What I have written above is a snapshot of practical issues that Bar Council is addressing on behalf of Members. It is by no means a comprehensive survey, but is intended to highlight key developments in the area of legal practice. I hope that Praxis will continue to serve as a conduit through which practice-related issues will be brought to the attention of Members. Let me take this opportunity to thank the Bar Council’s Publications Committee, headed by Syamsuriatina Ishak (Chairperson), with the assistance of Azman Ali Thaiyub Khan (Deputy Chairperson) and Chua Ai Lin (Writer/Editor at the Secretariat), for their determination and collective hard work in bringing this initiative to fruition. My thanks go to LexisNexis as well; needless to say, the revival of a print version of Praxis would also not have been possible without its collaboration and support. Happy reading. Ragunath Kesavan President Malaysian Bar 21 Dec 2010

2

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Editorial

From the Editor’s keyboard ...

O

ccasionally, I find myself wondering why I chose the legal profession as a career. You know how that feeling goes? Work assignments pile up and seem never ending; I spend more time waiting than being heard at the courts; clients are sometimes unnecessarily difficult, not to mention exasperatingly sluggish at paying my dues ... But, just when I may think of throwing in the towel, I remind myself of other aspects of this career that endear themselves to me: the occasional “big” and meaningful win after years of hard work; the satisfaction after seeing a junior lawyer or student improve upon receiving some knowledge imparted by me; a nod of approval of colleagues and judges at a point well argued; the moments when a client earnestly (and sometimes tearfully) thank me for assisting them in their legal troubles. And then, there is the feeling of satisfaction I get from being involved in the Bar ... Anyone who has ever been involved in Bar activities would agree with me – despite the hard work it entails, one cannot discount the satisfaction derived from being involved in programmes organised by the Bar’s Committees, whether it be rendering legal assistance to deserving members of the public, partaking efforts to improve our profession, lobbying for legislative development, speaking out on human rights issues or even raising awareness on predicaments suffered by the ordinary citizen at various outreach events. It’s because we all know these efforts, albeit small, make a positive difference in the lives of people around us. This brother/sisterhood of intelligent individuals may not always see eye to eye, but we cannot deny the unique position that the Malaysian Bar is in to contribute to society ... In the challenging times which we faced this past year, the Malaysian Bar and its statutory leading body, the Bar Council, have often come under attack. We were criticised for not doing enough, for doing too much, for leaning too much to one side and not enough to the other. Being newly exposed at the

heart of it all, it is literally mind boggling to see the dilemmas faced by the volunteers who put themselves in constant hot soup for the sake of others or the lengths theses men and women go through (often thanklessly) to help others. Weeding out a few bad apples and improving the profession are but a small part of the challenges faced daily by these men and women. It makes me very proud to be counted amongst them. It is indeed heart-warming to see that we, for the most part, stick together and stand out for each other. Non-members may wonder – Why do we do this? I conclude it’s because we know – no matter what, this is an association by us and for us, and no one’s going to do it better, all the while also playing its part in advocating for issues affecting the rest of society ... So, I take my hat off to all of you – Members of the Malaysian Bar – by presenting a revival of our very own Praxis, Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar – that we may celebrate this camaraderie of association, keep abreast of events and developments, share the different perspectives involving our profession and the industry around us. The Editorial team is proud to unveil the Jan-Mar 2011 issue of Praxis - featuring a varied collection of interesting content, with this issue’s central theme: “Unified in a Common Purpose”. Two feature articles – Yohendra Nadarajah’s “Arrest & Detention of Bar Council Legal Aid Lawyers” and Richard Wee’s “Redbook Arrest – Harassment of Justice” discuss the difficulties faced by lawyers in carrying out their duties and how our association prevails in spite of adversities thrown our way. Thematically intertwined is the Editorial team’s choice frontage for this first quarter issue – the enchanting photograph captured by our guest amateur photographer and full-time lawyer, Moh Kok Wai, with art direction by Azman Thaiyub Khan. The colourful matches reflect the myriad of individuals making up the Malaysian legal fraternity – different

shapes, sizes, inclinations and views – some short, some long, some red, some blue, some yellow, some fresh, some already burnt-out or worn down ... All tied together, as a symbol of communality, of a common purpose ... Professional pride arising, not out of a false sense of elitism, but the constant strive to achieve meaning in our lives ... and others. In the new Praxis’ art direction, the team has made a conscious effort to spruce up the feel of the magazine, departing from the concept of a mere newsletter, with the hope that Members will be attracted by its pleasing new layout and general outlook. The launch of this project would not have been possible without the dedication of my two right-hand people – Chua Ai Lin and Azman Thaiyub Khan. My thanks must also go to the dedicated editorial and design team of LexisNexis (Malaysia); the commendable effort of individual contributors; the Editing Team – Brendan Navin Siva and Noor Arianti Osman; members of the Publication C o m m i t t e e 2010/2011; State Bar Committee members and secretariats; and last but no means least, the Bar Council 2010/2011 term members, in particular the Office Bearers for their constant support and encouragement. May we move forward in this new year with the promise and optimism that once again, while we strive to be the best that we can be, that we may do so in the solidarity as one Bar ... Best regards, Syamsuriatina Ishak Editor and Chairperson of the Bar Council Publications Committee 2010/2011

Dear Readers, We are pleased to invite any comments regarding our content. All comments may be sent via email to [email protected] by 15 Mar 2011. The best five will be printed in our “Comments from our readers” section, wherein our favourite amongst them will also receive a free copy of the Book reviewed in the “Book Review” section of each Praxis Issue commented upon. For this issue, the book up for grabs is “The PAM 2006 Standard Form of Building Contract”. For this purpose, please provide your details – name, law firm name and address, telephone number and email address. While we shall only identify printed comments by name, firm name and state, comments that omit providing full details will be disqualified from reproduction. Happy writing!

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

3

Features/Articles

Arrest and Detention of the Bar Council Legal Aid Lawyers by Yohendra Nadarajan Such violations of human rights occurred because the relevant officers did not understand nor appreciate the functions and duties of defence lawyers in the context of the criminal justice system. On the evening of 7 May 2009, five Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) (“KL LAC”) lawyers were arrested at the Brickfields Police Station. The five were Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Chairperson of KL LAC), Fadiah Nadwa bt Fikri (Secretary of KL LAC), Murnie Hidayah bt Anuar, Puspawati bt Rosman and Syuhaini bt Safwan. They tried to gain access to their 14 clients who had themselves been arrested earlier that evening for participating in a candlelight vigil in support of arrested political scientist Wong Chin Huat for sedition at the same police station. I was also at the scene with the five KL LAC lawyers but I was not detained during the arrest of the five KL LAC lawyers. The police were informed by the lawyers that they wanted to meet their clients as they were representing the detained group of people. The police had informed the five lawyers that their clients had waived their rights to legal representation. The lawyers tried to gather more information from the police. However, the police on instructions of the Officer in Charge of Police District (“OCPD”) detained the lawyers who were waiting outside the main

4

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

entrance of the Brickfields Police Station without any reasonable grounds. The police released them on police bail the following day at around 3:00 pm, notwithstanding the repeated requests by other lawyers for their immediate release just after they were arrested including the President of the Malaysian Bar! They were also handcuffed and were forced to wear lock up uniforms. The police also deliberately refused to disclose to the detained lawyers’ families or their lawyers any information in relation to the detained lawyers after their arrest, including their location and their next course of action. The very next day on 8 May 2009, Members of the Bar held a gathering at the foyer of the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex in solidarity to condemn the high handed actions of the police. Bar Council subsequently called for an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) a week after the incident on 15 May 2009 at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre. Each of the arrested lawyers was allowed to give a brief personal account of their ordeal and highlighted various aspects of their detention. A total of 1,429 lawyers and 81 chambering students attended the EGM and Members of

the Bar unanimously and unequivocally called for the resignation of the Minister for Home Affairs, the Inspector General of Police, and OCPD Wan Abdul Bari b Wan Abdul Khalid and Deputy Superintendent of Police (“DSP”) Jude Pereira of the Brickfields Police Station among others. On 20 May 2009, Bar Council handed a memorandum to the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) requesting that SUHAKAM conduct a public inquiry into the arrest of the five KL LAC Lawyers. On 13 July 2009, SUHAKAM decided to establish a panel of inquiry pursuant to section 12(1) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 to inquire into the exact circumstances of the said arrest. The public inquiry was conducted by a panel of three SUHAKAM commissioners presided by Dato’ Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and also comprised Datuk Dr Michael Yeoh Onn Kheng and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria. The terms of reference of this public inquiry were: (1)

to determine whether the arrest and detention of the five

Features/Articles Photo credit: Shan Theivanthiran

of the KL LAC lawyers by the police at the Brickfields Police Station on 7 May 2009 constitutes a denial of legal representation and contravenes article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution (“FC”) and section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”); (2) to determine whether there was any justification or necessity to arrest and detain the KL LAC lawyers under section 27 of the Police Act 1967 (“PA”) and therefore a violation of human rights; (3) if violations of human rights accrued, to determine: (a)

which person or agency was responsible;

(b) how did occurred; (c)

the

violations

what administrative directives and procedures, or arrangements constituted to them; and

(d) what measures should be recommended to be taken to ensure that such violations do not reoccur. The inquiry started in July 2009 and continued at regular hearing dates up to 23 Feb 2010 when submissions by all parties were concluded. A total of 27 witnesses testified comprising 15 civilian witnesses (including those from the Bar) and 12 police witnesses. Video footage was also presented during the inquiry as evidence. The inquiry’s findings were made public on 23 Apr 2010. The panel concluded as follows:

The Police must be made familiar with basic local and international instruments pertaining to human rights (1) The arrest and detention of the five KL LAC lawyers did constitute a denial of legal representation and a contravention of article 5(3) FC and section 28A CPC. That being the case, it was a clear violation of human rights; (2) There was no justification or necessity to arrest and detain the five KL LAC lawyers under section 27 PA as they were not participating in the cause of their clients but simply performing their duties as legal practitioners in defence of the 14 arrestees who were their clients. This is a clear transgression of human rights. (3)(i) Clearly the violation of the human rights herein were mainly committed by DSP Jude Pereira and OCPD Wan Bari. We are in the view that these two senior most officers in Brickfields Police Station at the relevant time were responsible in making all the assessments of the situations and subsequently giving directions that have now become subject of controversy.

(3)(ii) Such violations of human rights occurred because the relevant officers did not understand nor appreciate the functions and duties of defence lawyers in the context of the criminal justice system. We find that this episode need not have happened. All the police need do was invite the five lawyers into the police station for a discussion with the relevant officers. In this context it would have been OCPD Wan Bari and DSP Jude Pereira. An exercise in public relations of some sort by giving a chance for the lawyers to express their request would have brought about a better understanding between the Police and members of the Bar. The directives in relation to the mechanics of section 28A CPC ought to be relooked at along the lines of our observations earlier. (3)(iii) It is time that the Police on the ground in charge of crime enforcements be made familiar with the constitutional provisions in relation to fundamental liberties and human rights. Section 28A CPC must be thoroughly explained to the police on the ground perhaps from the police Headquarters after consultation with the Attorney General’s Chambers. The Police must be made familiar with basic local and international instruments pertaining to human rights. Instruments have been cited herein are important documents for starters (ie Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders held in Havana, Cuba, where the congress passed and adopted a document called “Basic principles of the Role of Lawyers”, FC and the CPC). The inquiry found as a whole, the rest of the testimonies of the other police officers in this inquiry were very credible and forthright with the exception of DSP Jude Pereira and OCPD Wan Bari. The whole process of this inquiry was to ensure that basic fundamental liberties are afforded to those arrested as well as protection of lawyers who are carrying out their professional duty.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

5

Features/Articles

Recent Federal Court’s Decision on section 340 of the National Land Code 1965: Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San &

Ors – Are Landowners and Banks Secured? by Andrew Wong Fook Hin1

1

Deferred indefeasibility finally restored

After nearly 10 years, deferred indefeasibility under Malaysian Torrens System was finally restored by the Federal Court in its recent decision in Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors.2 Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) had described the protection conferred on a registered proprietor by section 340 National Land Code (“NLC”) as “the centrepiece of the National Land Code”.3 Since the Federal Court decision in Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit @ Sun Yok Eng4 in 2001, which was said by many, to have placed landowners on thin ice and in jeopardy, two limbs of this centrepiece have created havoc in the Malaysian law of real property. 2

Tan Ying Hong made an immediate impact

On 22 Feb 2010, the Sun reported that the High Court in Shah Alam returned to a 71-year old retiree his land in Hulu Langat which was stolen from him “through the hands of government officers and individuals”. The newspaper also reported that “This is the first case to find in favour of land theft victims since the Federal Court last month reviewed its Adorna Properties decision”. In that case the true landowners were two brothers who inherited the land from their

6

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

father. The land was “transferred” to a limited company (Propaxis). Identity cards of the two brothers were forged and they were made directors of Propaxis through forged signatures. Records showed they later “resigned” as directors. The transfer deed from the two brothers to Propaxis was attested by an “advocate & solicitor” who was not on the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors. The scheme involved the transfer of shares in Propaxis. The same rogues were involved in a similar land theft of a neighbouring piece of land. It was reported that the High Court ordered that the land be returned to the two brothers. 3

Legal effect of Tan Ying Hong

Tan Ying Hong has made clear the statutory exceptions to indefeasibility set out in section 340(2) NLC. Basically, if a person gets his title or interest registered on the document of title and registration was obtained, inter alia, by fraud or misrepresentation to which the person or his agent was a party or privy or by forgery or by means of an insufficient or void instrument, then that person’s title or interest shall not be indefeasible. However the protection conferred by section 340(2) NLC requires the true owner to act quickly to attack the indefeasibility before that person uses his title as a good root to pass an indefeasible title to a third party. Time is of the essence.

4

So, are landowners and banks secured after Tan Ying Hong?

Fraudulent schemes have become more and more sophisticated and complex as shown in the case of the retiree from Hulu Langat. In Tan Ying Hong, the Chief Justice referred to the first owner as “A” who then transfers the same piece of land to “B” and which subsequently is transferred to “C”. Forgers today have already begun a modus operandi of transferring land from A to B and then immediately from B to C, presumably C to seek protection under the proviso to section 340(3) NLC. Fraud and forgery will continue, whether indefeasibility is immediate or deferred. Landowners and banks cannot be regarded as secured unless additional steps or measures are taken by all parties involved in land administration and transactions. 5

Additional steps and measures

We need to carefully examine in detail and consider the type of documents or instruments used to perpetuate the fraud or forgery and the individuals involved. Forgery involves fraud but fraud does not always involve forgery. For example, in Owe Then Kooi v Au Thiam Seng & Anor5 the plaintiff was in prison and he thought he signed some papers to make his half brother hold his 1/7th share

Features/Articles

in a piece of land in trust for him until he completed his sentence. He later found out that his share was transferred to his half brother. Here, there is fraud but no forgery. This paper will focus only on additional steps and measures to prevent identity theft or forgery within the meaning of section 340(2)(b) NLC. Case study No 1 In Tan Ying Hong, the application for alienation was fraudulent or forged, as Tan Ying Hong told the court that he did not apply for the land. The land administrator had testified that he could not find or locate any application for the land. A power of attorney was “given” by Tan Ying Hong to the first defendant, and his “signature” thereon was attested by a commissioner for oaths from “Mahkamah Kuantan”. The instrument of charge signed by the first defendant, using the forged power of attorney, was attested by an advocate & solicitor. Case study No 2 In Adorna Properties,6 Thai International Passport No 033852 was issued to someone

else and not “Boonsom Boonyanit”, the name stated on the passport. The fake “Boonsom Boonyanit” first swore a statutory declaration to state that the title deeds to the land were lost. The forger then swore another statutory declaration to state that Boonsom Boonyanit holding passport No 033852 and Sun Yok Eng @ Boonsom Boonyanit named in the title deeds refer to one and the same person. The forger’s signature in the sale and purchase agreement was attested by an advocate & solicitor. The instrument of transfer signed by the forger was attested by the Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah, Seberang Prai Tengah, Bukit Mertajam. Case study No 3 In OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar Hakmilik, Negeri Johor Darul Takzim,7 Ng Kim Hwa was the original owner and his land ended up in the proprietorship of Ng See Chow. Ng Kim Hwa claimed that he had never executed any instrument of transfer to Ng See Chow. The instrument of transfer was allegedly executed by Ng Kim Hwa by using his thumb print, which according to forensic evidence was not his thumb print impression.

It was not clear from the law report as to who attested the affixation of the thumb print. Case study No 4 In AGS Harta Sdn Bhd v Liew Yok Yin8 the original issue document of title was in the possession of the plaintiff, the true owner “Liew Yok Yin”. The vendor’s name on her identity card was also “Liew Yok Yin” but the vendor’s identity card number and address were not the same as that of the true owner Liew Yok Yin. The vendor was represented by a solicitor who testified that the “Liew Yok Yin” that he represented in the sale transaction was not the plaintiff. It was not clear from the law report as to whether a duplicate title had been applied for. Case study No 5 In Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak Chew & Ors9 the original issue document of title was in the possession of the true landowner at all material times and yet the vendors delivered to the purchaser’s solicitors an “original issue document of title”.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

7

Features/Articles (iv) that he understands the contents and effect thereof.

There was no application for a duplicate title on the ground that the original title had been lost. Both vendors possessed only temporary identity cards, and were not represented by a solicitor in the transaction. Their signatures on the instrument of transfer were attested by an advocate & solicitor. Case study No 6 In Ahmad Md Daud & Anor v Che Yah Man10 a forged court order was used to effect the transfer of land. 6

Common factors

Nearly all of the forgery cases above involve identity theft. The forgers assume the identity of the landowner, create fake identity cards, and forge signatures and attestations.

As witness my hand this ...day of … 20… ………………… Signature It is no secret that many solicitors in Malaysia do not require the person executing an instrument of dealing to sign in his presence, even though this may make the instrument insufficient or void under section 340(2)(b) NLC. In Albert Chew v Hong Leong Finance Bhd11 the solicitor attested the signature of a bank’s attorney on a discharge of charge. He admitted that the bank’s attorney did not sign in his presence or before him. It turned out that the signature of the bank’s attorney was forged. RK Nathan J said,

The target is usually vacant and idle lands. They do not involve a plot of land with a residential house or an apartment or condominium. The cases usually involve the attestation of instruments of dealings, whether by a solicitor or by the land administrator. Other common elements involved in forgeries relates to the issue of a duplicate title; “fake” title; change of name by proprietor; alienation; power of attorneys; statutory declarations; and passports or identity cards. 7

Attestation of instruments of dealings in Malaysia

Section 211 NLC stipulates that the execution by a natural person of any instrument of dealing shall be attested by one of the officers or persons specified in the Fifth Schedule. Currently, the attestation clause is in Form 13B: I, … hereby testify that the above *signature/thumb print was *written/affixed in my presence this … day of … 20…, and is the true *signature/thumb print of – … who has acknowledged to me – (i)

that he is of full age;

(ii) that he is a citizen of Malaysia; (iii) that he has voluntarily executed this instrument; and

8

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

In other words, the advocate and solicitor had falsified the attestation. He had breached a code so fundamental to the legal profession that the excuse he gave that it was the practice of the legal firm to do as he did, makes the commission more heinous. 8

Attestation in New South Wales

The Real Property Act 1900 of New South Wales requires the person attesting a signature to personally know the person signing. Under the Registrar General’s Directions, a general form of attestation is: Signed in my presence by ... (their full name) ...who is personally known to me. If the words “who is personally known to me” are omitted or struck out, further proof of execution will be required. The witness must also clearly show his full name and his full residential or business address. In Graham v Hall12 the Court of Appeal in New South Wales held that a person who signs a document as a witness owes a duty of care to the person whose signature they witness. Mr Hall was in financial trouble and decided to mortgage the family home which he owned with his wife, without the wife’s knowledge. He told the solicitor that his wife was dying and that he would take the mortgage papers home for her to

sign. Hall then forged his wife’s signature and asked Graham, a Justice of Peace, to witness his wife’s signature. The attestation clause stated that the mortgage was “signed in my presence by the mortgagor who is personally known to me.” Graham was made to pay the wife $137,479.66 in damages. The Court of Appeal explained that the reason why a signature on property documents must be properly and protectively witnessed is that there is always a serious risk of loss resulting from forgery. 9

Authentication of documents in Botswana

Botswana has an Authentication of Documents Act, and the attestation clause used is: I, X.Y., in my capacity as [insert qualification] do certify that A.B. signed this document in my presence, and that A.B. is personally known to me (*or that C.D. and E.F., being persons known to me, have severally testified before me that the person signing this document is personally known to them as A.B.) Given under my hand (and seal)… at…in…on the …day of… (Signature) C.D. and E.F are required to be “respectable and responsible persons”, otherwise X.Y. shall refuse to attest the document. 10 Certificate of correctness in Singapore In Singapore, the registrar may reject any instrument purporting to deal with or to affect land unless there is endorsed thereon a certificate by the parties to the instrument that it is correct for the purposes of the Land Titles Act. Where a solicitor has been employed by a party to the instrument, the certificate shall be signed by the solicitor. The certificate shall imply representations that the instrument is made in good faith; the matters set forth therein are substantially correct; the person acquiring title accepts proprietorship and is of full age and legal capacity; or the person divesting title is entitled to divest the interest and is of full age and legal capacity.

Features/Articles 11 Proposed measures on attestation to prevent identity fraud An appropriate measure will be to require that a person never attest to having witnessed a signature unless he knows the person and has actually seen the person sign the document.

Gazette. A copy of the notice is required to be served on every person having a registered interest, and to be published in accordance with section 433 NLC. Section 433 prescribe stringent requirements on publication of such notices. A copy of the notice shall be affixed:

Alternatively, a witness to the execution of any instrument of dealing under the NLC should certify that he has known the person executing the document for more than 12 months or that he has taken reasonable steps to ensure the identity of that person.



in a conspicuous position on the land; and



on the penghulu’s office or balai in the area in which land is situated; and



Another measure may be to require financial institutions to take reasonable steps to confirm the identity of the borrower or the security party, and to maintain records of such steps taken for at least seven years.

in that area, on such court-houses and mosques (if any) and in such markets and other public places (if any) as the director thinks fit; and



where the state authority considers that publication of the notice in a newspaper is desirable, the notice shall be published in such newspaper circulating in the state as the director thinks fit.

Finally, any instrument of dealing under the NLC which is executed by a natural person should consist of his signing it and affixing his thumb print thereto (to include also the thumb print of the person or officer attesting the execution). Currently the use of the thumb print is an option but is not mandatory. Under section 210 NLC, the execution of any instrument of dealing by a natural person shall consist of his signing it or affixing his thumb print thereto, although section 377 NLC empowers the registrar, if he thinks it expedient, to require any person by whom any instrument has been executed to affix his thumb print thereto. 12 Application for a duplicate issue document of qualified title Under section 187B of NLC, a proprietor or any person claiming under him, may apply for a duplicate issue document of qualified title on the grounds that his issue document of title has been lost, destroyed or is being improperly or wrongfully withheld. An application is required to be in writing and supported by evidence of the loss, destruction or the wrongful withholding. Upon such an application, the registrar or land administrator has the power to issue a duplicate issue document of qualified title, if he is of the opinion that the register document of title to the land does not require replacement. Before issuing a duplicate issue document of qualified title, a notice is required to be published in the

13 Application for a duplicate issue document of final title The procedure to apply for a duplicate issue document of final title, if the original has been lost, destroyed or is being improperly or wrongfully withheld, is basically the same as that which applies to a qualified title.13 The registrar or land administrator may, if he is of opinion that the register document of final title does not require replacement and that the final title was issued under the NLC, instead of issuing a title in continuation, issue a duplicate issue document of final title. Similar provisions are in place regarding publication of notices in the Gazette, service and publication of the copy of such notice. 14 Lacuna in a case where original issue document of qualified title is lost and the final title for the land has been issued Although the land administration authorities all over Peninsular Malaysia are to be commended for their speed and efficiency in issuing final titles for alienated lands, a lacuna has emerged which, if not addressed, will be taken advantage of by forgers in the waiting. This concerns a case where: •

the original issue document of qualified title has been lost; and



an application is made for a duplicate qualified title at a time when the qualified title has been converted to a final title; and



the original issue document of final title is still with the registrar as it has not been delivered to the proprietor.

In such cases section 187B NLC will not be complied with. Once the registrar is satisfied that the original issue document of qualified title is lost, the original issue document of final title will simply be delivered to the proprietor or the applicant, without having to go through the procedure of publication of a notice in the Gazette, serving and publication of the notice in accordance with section 433 NLC. In Au Meng Nam14 the “original issue document of title” produced by the vendors to the purchaser’s solicitors could well have been the original issue document of final title, since there was no application for a duplicate qualified title. What the real and original owners had in their possession all the time could have been the original issue document of qualified title, and the forgers had somehow got their hands on to the original issue document of final title in order perpetrate the fraud on the purchaser and his solicitor. In AGS Harta Sdn Bhd,15 the original issue document of title in the possession of the real Liew Yok Yin could have been the qualified title and the title in the possession of the forger could have been the original issue document of final title. 15 Proposed measures on issue of duplicate titles, qualified or final Firstly, on receiving any application for a duplicate qualified title or final title, an enquiry ought to be held in accordance with the provisions similar to that contained in Chapter 4, sections 23 to 39 NLC. In such an enquiry, the applicant must be personally present. The registrar or the land administrator will then not just rely on a statutory declaration, which can so easily be forged. Secondly, the discretion of the state authority in section 433(b) NLC, ie whether or not to publish a copy of the notice in a newspaper, ought to be removed and publication of a notice of intention to issue a duplicate title in a national newspaper

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

9

Features/Articles ought to be mandatory, as it is likely that landowners do not pay close attention to notices affixed on the penghulu’s office or balai or court-houses or mosques or markets, if at all such notices are affixed. Thirdly, section 187B NLC ought to be amended to provide that, if at the time of application for a duplicate qualified title: •

the qualified title has been converted into a final title; and



the original issue document of final title is still in the possession of the Registrar;

Then the original issue document of final title should be deemed to have been lost as well, as if it is lost, the issue of a duplicate final title will have to follow the stringent procedures set out above, as if the qualified title had not been converted to a final title. Fourthly, the provisions contained in section 192(2) NLC ought to be strictly complied with to safeguard proprietors. Where a qualified title exists in respect of the land, section 192(2) requires the registrar or land administrator to call for its production before issuing a final title. If the original qualified title is not produced, then a notice of intention to issue the final title is required to be published in the Gazette, and a copy of such notice is required to be served and published in accordance with section 433. What is happening today is that final titles are being prepared and issued before the surrender of the qualified titles. Most proprietors are not even aware that their qualified titles have been converted to final titles unless an instrument of dealing is presented for registration, or a search on the land is conducted. 16 S e c u r i t y measures computerised titles

on

A computerised title comes in two sheets of paper, the first sheet being the Borang 5BK or 5CK or 5DK or 5EK (final title); or Borang 11AK or 11BK (qualified title), and the second sheet being a copy of the plan of the land in Borang B1 (final title) or Borang B2 (qualified title). The first sheet contains a barcode and a number at the bottom left hand corner. The plan on the second sheet will be

10

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

demarcated in “green” for a final title and “red” for a qualified title. Security measures on computerised titles are closely guarded secrets.

Application forms for alienation of land may be found in some state land rules, but none requires a closer scrutiny of the identity of the applicant.

The public ought to given sufficient information or a working knowledge to enable them to look out for security measures on computerised titles. The Registrar or Land Administrator ought to take steps to allay the public fear that due to human factors or greed, it is always possible for another copy of an original issue document of title to be printed out from the computer for improper use.

It is suggested that the applicant should be made to appear in person before the State or an enquiry under Chapter 4, sections 23 to 39 NLC, should be held, in any application for alienation.

It is also suggested that when authenticating the copy of the plan in Borang B1 or B2, the Registrar or the Land Administrator should not sign in black ink, so that one can immediately differentiate an original from a photocopy. 17 Change of name of proprietor Currently, the procedure to enable a proprietor to change his name is just too simple. Under section 378 NLC, the Registrar may, upon production of satisfactory evidence of a change of name of any person vested with any alienated land or interest, make a memorial of the change in the register document of title and in any issue document of title. Evidence can be by a deed poll, official certificate, statutory declaration or otherwise. As we have seen in many forgery cases, all these evidence can be easily forged. There ought to be a specific form in the First Schedule to effect a change of name, with a stringent attestation clause. The person applying for a change of name should be made to appear in person before the Registrar or an enquiry under Chapter 4, sections 23 to 39 NLC, should be held, before a duplicate title can be issued to the proprietor. 18 Alienation of land by State In Tan Ying Hong, it was not disputed that he did not apply for alienation of land from the state and yet the land was alienated to him. Although under section 921 NLC, the Minister may, with the approval of the National Land Council, make regulations to provide for the form and contents of any application for alienation, to the best of the writer’s knowledge and information, no such regulations have been made.

19 Power of attorney and statutory declaration Immediate steps ought to be taken to ensure that a power of attorney or a statutory declaration be properly and protectively witnessed. The form of authentication in the First Schedule of Powers of Attorney Act 1949, and attestation clause to the statutory declaration in the Schedule to the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 ought to be changed: •

to ensure that a person never attest to having witnessed a signature unless he knows the person and has actually seen the person sign the document; or



to require a witness to the execution of a power of attorney or a statutory declaration to certify that he has known the person executing the document for more than 12 months or has taken reasonable steps to ensure the identity of that person.

20 Verification of identity card, etc, and of citizenship Section 436A NLC requires, in the case of a natural individual, a description of his citizenship, and the number of the identity card issued to him under the National Registration Act 1959, or where no such identity card has been issued to him, the description and number of his passport or other official document of identity. The name of any natural person to be inserted in any instrument of dealing shall be the name appearing on such person’s identity card or passport or other official document of identity. A Malaysian identity card can be verified at the Department of National Registration. However, in practice passports issued by another country are not verified. Perhaps it is time to establish a mechanism or procedure for verification of a foreign passport.

Features/Articles 21 Torrens Assurance Fund In a majority of countries that practise the Torrens system of land registration, an assurance fund is set up to compensate those whose interest are defeated or those who are deprived of their land, through no fault of their own. Usually the moneys in the fund are contributed from registration fees paid on the lodgement of instruments of dealings for registration. Currently provisions for compensation from the State are inadequate. Under section 386 NLC, any purchaser of any alienated land who suffers loss or damage by reason of any error in, or omission from, any official search certificate applied for under section 385(1), shall be entitled to such compensation as may be agreed or determined in accordance with section 434. If the amount of compensation cannot be agreed, then it shall be determined by arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1952.

When Sir William Maxwell (the then British Resident in Selangor) first implemented the system in the state towards the close of 19th century without the state guarantee or the assurance fund, it was like a trainee building up something new but with an important component missing, against his instructor’s advice. It is time for us to look seriously into establishing an assurance fund to compensate victims of land scams. There are usually two victims, the innocent landowner and the innocent purchaser or the innocent bank. In Tan Ying Hong, the victim was the bank. The assurance fund can also be applied for any compensation payable by the State under section 386 NLC. Whether such an assurance fund is to be administered by the Federal Government or by the state requires detailed and further consideration.

Under section 22 NLC, no officer shall be liable to be sued in any civil court for any act or matter done by him in good faith and in the intended exercise of any power or performance of any duty conferred or imposed on him under the National Land Code, and this makes a claim difficult to pursue.

22 Title insurance

It has often been said that the Torrens system works on three principles, namely the mirror principle, the curtain principle and the insurance principle. Salleh Buang in an article published in NST on 15 Oct 2008 wrote:

Title insurance was first developed for the US market, but it is now available in many other countries such as Canada, Australia, UK, Northern Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, China, Korea and throughout Europe.

Sir Robert Richard Torrens, a former premier of South Australia and author of the land registration system, said “a state guarantee is an integral part of a system of registration of titles.”

It is suggested that our government together with the insurance industry should consider introducing title insurance to protect an owner’s or a lender’s financial interest in real property against loss due to title defects, liens or other matters. The bank in Tan Ying Hong would have benefited from such title insurance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Title insurance is principally a no-fault indemnity insurance that protects against loss from problems connected to the title of a property. The insurer will defend any legal suit attacking the title or reimburse the insured for actual monetary loss incurred up to the sum insured.

[email protected] [2010] 2 MLJ 1. Yap Lai Yoke v Chin Fook Wah & connected case [1984] 2 MLJ 274. [2001] 1 MLJ 241. [1990] 1 MLJ 234. [2001] 1 MLJ 241. [1999] 2 MLJ 511.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Title insurance is inexpensive. The premium is a one-off cost payment that protects the purchaser for the life of ownership. For example, in Victoria, Australia, a premium of $332.75 will cover a purchase price of up to $600,000 (approximately 0.05%). 24 Conclusion In concluding, the additional steps and measures which are required to be taken before landowners or banks can be regarded as secured are summarised as follows: •

Much more stringent attestation clause for instrument of dealing under the National Land Code, power of attorneys and statutory declarations and requiring personal knowledge or steps to be taken to verify identity of person signing;



Execution and attestation of an instrument by signing and affixing thumbprint of both signatory and person attesting;



Issue document of final title not to be issued unless the issue document of qualified title has been surrendered;



Much more stringent procedures for the issue of a duplicate issue document of title, qualified or final, or change of name of proprietor or application for alienation, perhaps only after an enquiry;



Mechanism for verification of foreign passports;



Setting up a Torrens Assurance Fund; and



Introducing title insurance.

24 June 2010 This paper was prepared for presentation at the 15th Malaysian Law Conference, 29-31 July 2010.

[2010] 1 MLJ 309. [2007] 5 MLJ 136. [2009] 6 CLJ 530. [2001] 4 MLJ 497; [2001] 4 CLJ 419. [2006] NSWCA 208. Sections 166,168 and 175 NLC. [2007] 5 MLJ 136. [2010] 1 MLJ 309.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

11

Features/Articles

Of Sunscreen, BBs and Successful Lawyers Brendan Navin Siva’s speech at the Ethics and Professional Standards Course Luncheon that took place on 15 July 2010

Ladies and gentlemen, 15 minutes is hardly enough time to speak on any topic let alone to give a talk to pupils on how to be an excellent, ethical and successful lawyer and the challenges ahead in the profession. By giving this talk, I am by no means proclaiming myself to be an excellent or successful lawyer. And by no means are you to blindly accept everything I say to you today as being correct or similarly applicable to you. “Be careful whose advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it.” These are words from The Sunscreen Song. Who does not know The Sunscreen Song? It is a song made up of someone’s rambling advice about random things in life. Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it. The long-term benefits of sunscreen have been proved by scientists, whereas the rest of my advice has no basis more reliable than my own meandering experience. I will dispense this advice now. I will dispense my advice now. Look at yourself and work out what YOU want to do in life. Have a plan. Do not meander through life not knowing what you want. Wanting to be rich or wanting to make money is not a plan. It is the end result of a good plan but it is not itself a plan. Work hard. Many people would have told you the same thing the last nine months

12

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

but it is true. There is just so much that you need to learn in the next three years – how to draft, how to speak, how to handle clients, how to handle judges, how to think, how to solve problems and over and above all this, to acquire the knowledge of law in many areas of law. Put your head down for the first three years and set yourself a good foundation for your future whether or not you continue to be a lawyer thereafter. Present yourself well. Dress sharply. Invest in good clothes. Always be well groomed. What you think looks cool or suave to your friends may not be the right image that the real world expects of a lawyer. Deal with stress. Do not try to run away from it. Stress is a part of the life of any successful professional – whether you are a lawyer, doctor, engineer or accountant. Understand that stress is relative – whatever you find stressful today, I can assure you will not be stressful for you in three years time. And what is stressful for you in three years time will not cause you much stress when you are a senior lawyer of 10 years or more. But there will always be stress at all levels. It is part of the job. Find your own way to deal with stress. But never use stress as an excuse to give up pursuing something. Never use stress as an excuse for failing to do something. And never blame stress for producing substandard work. Learn how to deal with people. You will be dealing with people a lot in your career. There are many different types of people. Some are nice. Some are not so nice. More

often than not, you will not deal with nice people. The people you deal with will be demanding, irritating, annoying, deceitful and demanding in many different ways and forms. The key to success is learning how to deal with them all. Never ever be beholden to any client. Never put yourself in a situation to be totally dependent on any client financially. Always be in a position where, if your client asks you to do something that you know is not lawful or ethical, you can stand up and politely excuse yourself and walk out of the room without compromising your integrity and morality. Speak and write English well. There is no way out of this one. English is the language of commerce and it is the language of the common law. Our courts will not abandon English any time soon. Our clients – local and international – will judge you as a lawyer on how well you speak and how well you draft – in English. Take steps to improve your English, regardless of whether you think your English is good or bad. In particular, you must acquire the ability to say or write something in a concise and comprehensive manner. To do this, read English newspapers online (most of them are still free), read magazines (Newsweek, The Economist, The Far Eastern Economic Review), watch CNN or BBC at least an hour a day. See and learn how they package and present large amounts of content into a concise and compelling five-minute newsreel or one page article.

Features/Articles Embrace technology. BlackBerries (“BBs”) are not evil. They are not your enemy. They save time. They save a lot of time. When you are waiting in court, when you are waiting for a meeting to start, when you are stuck in a traffic jam, when you are waiting for friends for dinner, when you are watching TV and the advertisements come on – emails can be checked and responded to – this is time that you do not otherwise have to spend in the office answering emails. Embrace change. A lawyer is nowadays only one part of a transaction. If your clients are all on blackberries, you do not have the luxury of saying “It is 6:00 pm. I am out of the office and I cannot answer your queries”.

Set aside one week in the first half of the year and one week in the second half of the year for a holiday. Book these dates well in advance so your boss cannot say he does not know about it. Better yet, book tickets to fly somewhere so your boss cannot expect you to reschedule your plans (without feeling guilty). Downtime is very important. The more senior you get, the more difficult it will be to take scheduled time off. Travel. See the world. See what is out there. It gives you perspective and it opens your eyes to things you never would normally think about. It matures you.

Find a network of friends who are similar as you in thinking, in ambition and in character. There is nothing unhealthy about a group of lawyers socialising together on the weekend or after work. There is nothing wrong with a group of lawyers talking about law all the time. You will grow together and you will become better lawyers together. Lastly, do not blindly accept everything you are told by someone more senior and supposedly better than you. We are not better than you. We have just been here a little bit longer than you. Challenge the logic of what we say. If it does not make sense to you, don’t accept it. Thank you.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

13

Features/Articles

How can you defend a criminal? by Fahri Azzat (used with the permission of LoyarBurok)

The standard archetypical question posed to me by lay persons once they discover my dabbling with criminal law are: How cans you defending criminal when chew know he do it already? Aren’t chew helping him gets away with its? Don’t chew feel bad or guilty for helping him escapes the law, you pompous sounding wanker? Allow me to address these questions in as simple terms as I am able to once and for all, if not for others, then for myself at least! In order to understand a criminal lawyer’s ethical and moral outlook in defending any person accused of a crime, there are two preliminaries that have to be clarified, explained and understood. Accused is not the same as criminal The first thing that requires clarification is terminology. Descriptions are important and necessary because they categorise a person in his relation to society. To be categorised wrongly is potentially defamatory as I shall demonstrate shortly. It is important to recognise that a person charged for a crime is not a “criminal” because he has not been convicted of his crime. To merely charge someone for a crime is to merely “accuse” them of something. At that stage no evidence has been led to prove his crime. So someone who has been charged for a crime is properly referred to as “an accused”. Only after evidence, the court makes a finding of guilt, then an accused can be properly referred to as “a convict” or a “criminal”. This is because of one of the cardinal principles of criminal law – a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see sections 173(m) and 182A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code).

14

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Whoever refers to an accused as a “convict” or a “criminal” is vulnerable to liability in defamation if the accused is acquitted at the end of his trial because that description of him is wrong and defamatory in law. History of criminal law The second is the history and development of criminal law. I shall deal with this as briefly and generally as possible. The enforcement of law in the past used to be the sole prerogative of a Ruler (back then it was the King or Queen) simply because the law was whatever the Ruler said it was. This was the rule of whim. Modern constitutional developments have diluted and divided the Ruler’s power into the rule of law, which comprises of three branches of government. These are the Legislature (power to make law), the Executive (power to enforce the law) and the Judiciary (power to regulate and interpret the law and ensuring that the Legislature and Executive actions are constitutional). These branches of government are supposed to act as a check and balance against each other. If the Legislature enacts law that infringes the Federal Constitution, the Judiciary can strike that law down. If the Executive does something ultra vires (exceeding) the law, then the Judiciary can declare that action void. If judges are corrupt, the Executive can charge and prosecute them. If the Judiciary made a series of poor decisions in an area of law, the Legislature can enact law to overrule those decisions. This awesome power of the Ruler was diluted and divided to avoid tyranny in the form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Rule of law, not rule of whim The rule of law demands the process of law be fair, equal, accountable and transparent as compared to the rule of whim, which is whatever the Ruler says it is. How that demand

translates at the operational level of a criminal trial goes simply like this. Firstly, an impartial and honest judge must hear all the relevant evidence before he decides on the guilt of an accused. Secondly, the prosecution must bring evidence to prove the crime against the accused. Thirdly, the accused has the right to sufficient time to prepare his case, to hear the evidence against him, challenge it (either factually or legally), and have someone familiar with the law to defend him before an impartial judge. All these fundamental attributes must exist in reality before a fair trial can be said to have taken place. If any of these attributes are not in existence, the trial will inevitably be unfair. A short demonstration will suffice. If the judge is biased and does not hear the evidence from both sides before making his decision, he can convict an accused after just hearing from the prosecution. If the prosecution does not have to bring any evidence to prove its case to secure a conviction then the accused charged can be immediately convicted without an opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s decision. He will also not know why the prosecution charged him for such a crime. This is illustrated eloquently in the most claustrophobic terms by Franz Kafka’s famous novel, The Trial. It is obvious if an accused is not given any right to prepare his case, challenge the evidence or to a competent counsel, he would be at a fatal disadvantage when compared to the prosecution, who has the entire resources and machinery of the state to prosecute the case against an accused. The playing field would not be equal. So why ah? With terminology clarified and the development of our modern criminal trial understood, we are now in a better position to understand

Features/Articles why lawyers defend, or more accurately, are under a duty to defend any person accused of a crime, regardless of their personal thoughts or feelings and moral orientation. The rule of law makes it the incumbent duty of a lawyer to defend any person accused of any crime because in defending an accused person, that lawyer is also sustaining the very system of a fair trial. That incumbent duty also lies with a judge but it is expressed differently because of the nature of his task. The judge must ensure a fair trial and decide honestly. Finally, the duty lies with the prosecutor to prosecute the accused fairly and truthfully. All three must be faithful to their duties simultaneously if the trial is to remain a fair one. If this occurs at every trial then the system of a fair trial is maintained. If it is lacking then the system of a fair trial breaks down. You only need one unfair trial to potentially create a systemic breakdown of the entire system and process of a fair trial. You cannot say we have a system of fair trial but not, for example, for cases of sodomy involving the opposition politician. You either have a system of fair trial or you do not. It is not a question of percentage. When this is understood, it is more easily and clearly seen that defending an accused person is not simply about his innocence or guilt. It is actually about sustaining, maintaining and defending the system of a fair trial. This is why for a criminal lawyer, whether their client actually committed the crime or how they feel about his innocence or guilt is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. It is also not their responsibility. Theirs is limited to merely testing whether the prosecution’s evidence is relevant and true, and ensuring that the judge is fair. It is the judge’s duty to decide the innocence or guilt of the accused. That single act of defending in one case is merely part of the criminal lawyer’s wider expression and in his collective series of actions in the larger scheme of justice. With each case a lawyer defends, he reinforces that ideal and system of a fair trial. If a lawyer did not take up a case simply because he thinks the accused is guilty and many think the same, who will finally defend that system and ideal of a fair trial when the judge and the prosecutor have betrayed their duties? If there were no lawyer to test the prosecution’s evidence and the law is such that if presented evidence is not challenged it will be deemed admitted by the accused, this would lead to every charge against an accused ending with a conviction. This, as anybody can appreciate is manifestly unfair. This is why a true criminal lawyer is and should be unconcerned about their own thoughts or feelings about an accused. They should also be unconcerned with the media, their friends,

their family and even society’s thoughts and feelings about the matter. A trial is not about what anybody thinks. A trial is really about the sustenance of the system of justice. This is why they are under a duty to challenge and take up any legal objection against the charge if the accused contests the charge. The act of challenging also ensures the quality of prosecution and would tend to ensure that the prosecution’s evidence will always be high and sufficiently meets the standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutor, judge, and lawyer – different roles So prosecutors and judges who view defence lawyers as a nuisance or annoyance in truth do not understand the criminal legal system or even their respective roles within it. The lawyer is as necessary if not more necessary than the prosecutors or judges because he is theoretically the most independent. A prosecutor is part of the Executive and a judge is part of the Judiciary. Both, from the perspective of international and administrative law, form part of the government administration. Both the prosecutor and the judge are in very powerful positions; so both, according to Lord Acton, are as potentially vulnerable as they are powerful to institutional prejudice and corruption (in the broadest sense of the word – intellectual, financial, moral, etc). Finally, both the prosecutor and judge can be directed by the powerful, influential and political elite to do their bidding when they do not possess sufficient ethical courage and moral conviction to resist the wealth, convenience and power that corruption brings. A lawyer, however, is generally not close to the source of power. His role as a lawyer is not dependent on powerful political forces or patronage. It is for this reason I personally consider that a lawyer who betrays his duties, to act without fear or favour in the interest of justice, actually commits a greater act of betrayal to the system of a fair trial and hence justice. When the system is under attack, history has shown that often the first to betray justice will be the prosecutors. The next would be the judges. Of course there will be the good ones fighting the good fight but they are the first to be sidelined or sacked. They will never thrive and assume influential positions. But it is the lowly lawyer who is the last defence of justice. It is the lawyer who bears the heavy burden of being that final hope of keeping the ideal of a fair trial alive when the institutions of justice have betrayed the public. It is the lawyer who must be the conscience of justice as the judge is the fountain of justice and the prosecutor the enforcer of justice. All three of

them represent the different facets of justice. That is why equity demands those that come to court do so with the cleanest of hands, especially those hands that are tasked with creating, shaping and dispensing justice. One hand may act to defend justice, but all three hands are needed to dispense justice. This is why the judge, lawyer and prosecutor must come to court with not just clean hands, but cleaner souls and the clearest of minds. If any of them are lacking these vital attributes, they have no business in the courts of law, never mind the realms of justice. A lawyer that turns to cowardice, complacency and colludes with judges or prosecutors betrays and thwarts not only justice but demeans his brothers and sisters at law whilst sacrificing the entire nation on the altar of self interest and corruption. When all this is understood, those questions posed earlier appear to miss the point and they indicate a very narrow conception and micro perspective of the purpose of a criminal trial. It is not simply a process the “bad guys” go through before being sent to jail. That many lay people misunderstand this is natural because they usually do not understand the broader legal system or the larger principles of justice in which a criminal trial operates; they fail to understand what a trial means in the larger scheme of things ie a macro perspective. A criminal trial if faithfully carried out is an opportunity to reinforce the ideal of a fair trial and allow for the manifestation of justice. It is an instance for the system of a fair trial to vindicate itself again. What is actually at stake in each trial is not just the accused but the entire criminal justice system itself. Defending the criminal is defending justice So a lawyer defending an accused person is not simply defending him, he is defending justice itself. That is why when somebody asks me how I feel about defending an accused that I think or know to be guilty, I usually tell them I feel great about it. This reply often draws funny looks and no doubt thoughts about me that as one of those lawyers who lies and cheats to get criminals get off for mere money. Not many are patient enough to hear my explanation above and for them to understand when I tell them that I feel great because firstly, it is not my job to decide his guilt, and secondly, in carrying out my job and defending him, I am playing a miniscule but vitally important role in sustaining and preserving justice. That is the least any lawyer, judge or prosecutor should strive for. Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

15

Features/Articles

Redbook Arrest – Harassment of Justice by Richard Wee On 10 Oct 2010, two lawyers and two pupils in chambers representing the Legal Aid Centre were detained by the police at Endah Parade, Sri Petaling whilst distributing the Redbook pamphlet as part of the Law Awareness Program of the National Legal Aid Centre. Their crime? Apparently the police were suspicious of the red-coloured pamphlets that the lawyers were distributing.

the Redbook actually has paragraphs where the person is advised to be polite to the police and co-operate whenever necessary.

On 28 Oct 2010, a lawyer received a letter from the Royal Malaysian Air Force (“RMAF”), demanding that the lawyer advise his client to surrender to the RMAF. The issue? The client was being investigated by the RMAF for the loss of the jet engines at the RMAF last year. And for some reason; the RMAF decided to do what they did.

It was also rather comical to discover that the primary reason for the lawyers’ arrest was due to the phrase “Anti Polis” in the Redbook pamphlet. That phrase can be

Instead of perusing and understanding the purpose of the Redbook, the police decided to detain all the lawyers who were distributing the same at the shopping centre.

Photo credit: Moh Kok Wai

Last year, five lawyers appeared at the Brickfields Police Station in their capacity as Legal Aid lawyers, trying to aid detainees of a candle light vigil. They were detained by the police. Their crime? Apparently the police believed they were part of an illegal assembly outside the gates of the police station. The predilection of the authorities to harass and/or arrest lawyers in recent times is alarming. Just a few months ago, the Security Commission interrogated a lawyer who was defending a client on a security matter. A few years ago, another lawyer defending an accused at an interrogation by police at the police station, was himself called for interrogation by the police. The fact remains; that the lawyers in all these instances were merely carrying out their duties as lawyers, or as volunteers for a cause supported by the Bar. Take the Redbook arrest for instance. The Redbook pamphlet contains the basic rights of a person when detained by the police. It gives people a simple guide on what to do when detained by the police. In fact

draft back in 2006, before the book was changed to a pamphlet in 2008. So, not only was this latest arrest incorrect; the reason for the arrest is preposterous. The act of calling lawyers who were defending parties in criminal investigation, for questioning by the authorities must stop. It is illogical that a lawyer who is defending a client in a criminal matter, may find himself or herself subjected to interrogation and questioning. That is an attack on the work of the lawyer, who would be governed by rules of solicitorclient privilege and secrecy. Also letters sent to lawyers demanding or requesting the lawyer to advise the lawyers’ client to surrender (in court martial or criminal investigation matters); is akin to a threat. How can any party demand a lawyer to advise his client to surrender? External pressure on the lawyer to advise the client to submit a plea in a certain way is wrong and inequitable. There have been many calls by the government for the people to respect the police, but respect has to be earned, and reciprocated. The police cannot expect to be respected, if they do not conduct themselves in a manner expected of a police officer. This trend of harassing and arresting lawyers will only work against the police.

found at the tail end of the pamphlet, but a simple reading of the same would show that phrase to be part of a longer phrase ie Tindakan Anti Penyalahgunaan Kuasa Polis, the short form is “TANGKAP”. A quick history lesson — TANGKAP is a band of lawyers, who came together to draft the Redbook. Calling themselves TANGKAP, these lawyers finished the first

Lawyers must be left to do their work. If they are unethical, then let the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board deal with that. If the lawyer commits a crime, charge that lawyer. But if lawyers are merely carrying out their duties for and on behalf of their client, or carrying out volunteer work; that lawyer should in fact be protected and be left to do what a lawyer is supposed to do; protect their client’s legal interests.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

17

Features/Articles

The Rule of Law and the Law of Rules: A Semi-Sceptical Perspective Opening Plenary Speech by The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG* at the 15th Malaysian Law Conference

Return to Malaysia This is the 15th Law Conference of the Malaysian Bar Association. I have visited Malaysia as many times. I begin by paying my respects to the King and the people of Malaysia for the astonishing achievements that have been made in this country since my first visit as a university student in 1962. As a school boy, attending public schools in Sydney in the 1940s, I was aware of the British Empire, from the large maps that portrayed its global enterprise in red.1 It was a colour that linked my country to the Malay Peninsular and Archipelago. At about the same time as my consciousness absorbed the special relationships of the English-speaking countries, two important changes were happening, about which my teachers instructed me. The first was the Allied victory in the Second World War, including in the Pacific, ending in the fearful mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, Japan. Out of that conflagration arose the commission, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, which drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”). In 1949, all Australian school children were given a copy of that document with its proclamation of a new world order based upon shared ideals. One of them was stated in the Preamble:2 Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the Rule of Law ... The concepts of equal liberty for all, proclaimed in the UDHR, spelt a quick end

18

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

to the British Empire and the creation of the Commonwealth of Nations. This became a new link to bind my country to this part of the world; but henceforth on the basis of “free association” and full respect for the equal independence of all the member countries. At university, in 1962, I was elected to lead a delegation to Malaysia, then rejoicing in the first years of independence under the wise leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the first Prime Minister. Many of the Malaysian friends whom I met on that visit, and later in Australia, went on to high service in the professions and government of this country. Later, as a judge, I returned many times. I came to know well the first Lords President of the new Federal Court of Malaysia: successively Tun Mohamed Suffian (1974-82) and Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas (1984-88). The latter participated with me in the influential acceptance, at a judicial conference in India, of the Bangalore Principles on Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms.3 Soon after returning to Malaysia from Bangalore, he was removed from office. That was an unhappy time for the rule of law in Malaysia. Its chief events were described in a book to which I was proud to offer a foreword written in distinguished company with Tunku Abdul Rahman.4 In my remarks, I observed, as prudently as I could, the importance for the rule of law of independent judges and yet the near universality of challenges to the notion of such independence from national governments. I included in the list of challengers both my own government in Australia5 and the then-government of Malaysia.

Later I was to know of the steps taken under Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in April 2008 to award ex gratia payments to the six judges of Malaysia who had been affected by the 1988 crisis.6 And the amendment of the procedure for appointing judges in this country, designed to remove, or reduce, criticism of excessively partisan political influence over judicial appointments.7 These steps coincided with action by the Malaysian Bar Council, together with LAWASIA and the International Bar Association (“IBA”)‘s human rights committee, in creating a Panel of Eminent Persons to review the unhappy events of 1988. The Panel was chaired by the Hon JS Verma, former Chief Justice of India. It affirmed the wrongness of the judicial removals. It confirmed the views that I had expressed as a friend of Malaysia in 1988. My opinions, written so long ago, were expressed in my then capacity on the executive of the International Commission of Jurists (“ICJ”). That body (of which I later became the President) was one of the first international human rights organisations formed after the adoption of the UDHR. It took as its central plank the global defence of the rule of law. This was a natural enough objective, because the ICJ was a body made up of judges, practising lawyers and legal academics. Spending much time in the councils of the ICJ, I had many occasions, over the years, to reflect upon this core agenda: the rule of law. And the more I did so, the more I became convinced that it was an important principle, and one worthy of the advocacy of lawyers and citizens. Yet though the rule of law was essential to a good society and a worthy legal profession,

Features/Articles it was not sufficient. As the IBA has pointed out:8 All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to legal form and detail. I was asked to give this plenary address on the rule of law when Lord Bingham of Cornhill, until recently the Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, was unable to do so through illness. He is, as I shall show, a celebrated writer on the subject. Until recently, he was one of the leading judges of the Commonwealth of Nations. Were he here today, I suspect that his remarks might have been a little different, although not inessential. Having, however inadequately, to step into his shoes, has obliged me to return to the hesitations that I felt in my years in the ICJ concerning the very notion of the rule of law. And to analyse some of the weaknesses of the concept as a rallying cry for lawyers around the world, aiming to build better societies for their people. If The Malaysian Bar Association expected a panegyric of praise for the rule of law, then I am afraid that you have asked the wrong speaker. My thesis is that, as a principle, the rule of law is essential. But it is only so as it safeguards and promotes the higher principle of justice. Justice for all. Harmony in society and its law through justice. Not simply justice for the majority, as expressed in democratic elections. Justice also for minorities. Justice, especially, for vulnerable and unpopular minorities. It is then that our discipline, the law is tested. As Lord Bingham himself has remarked, quoting Chief Justice Latham of Australia in war time.9 in the give and take of democracy, popular majorities can generally look after themselves. Laws and legal process are “basically needed for minorities and especially unpopular minorities”.10 Deconstructing the Rule of Law There have been various evocations of the rule of law in different civilisations and over a very long period of time. Most of those who have made laws over the centuries, expected them to be obeyed. So compliance with law is an idea that lies at the very heart of law’s purpose.

The Code of Hammurabi, dated to about 1700BC and other ancient Assyrian documents reveal the great antiquity of the legal aspiration.11 In all probability, the notion existed at an even earlier time in ancient China.12 Much later, the common law and civil law traditions of law in Europe offered a variety of definitions for the rule of law. For Dicey, writing of English law in the nineteenth century, there were three basic principles: the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to arbitrary power; the notion of equality before the law in the sense of equal subjection of all to the law; and the right of the courts to define and enforce what the law was.13 The civil law tradition, on the other hand, tended to focus on the concept of a state that was itself based on law: constrained by a constitution and protecting the citizens.14 However, it has been the very vagueness of what is involved in the ‘rule of law’ that has probably made the concept popular. It was liable to mean all things to all people: each different nation and legal culture reading into the idea of the rule of law what it wanted and expected to find. Lord Bingham was rather dissatisfied with this approach. He feared that it might lead lawyers to dismiss the central ideas of the rule of law as “meaningless verbiage, the jurisprudential equivalent of motherhood and apple pie ...”.15 It was this fear that led Lord Bingham to attempt his famous deconstruction of what the rule of law means today. He identified what he declared to be eight sub-rules, which together amounted to the unified notion of the rule of law which every modern civilised country is bound to uphold. As I mention the propounded sub-set of these elements, we will all of us reflect on the extent to which, together and separately, they are a feature of the law and its institutions in countries such as Malaysia and Australia.16 (1)

The law must be accessible and, so far as possible, be intelligible, clear and predictable;

(2)

Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not by the exercise of discretion;

(3)

The law applies equally to all, except to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation;

(4)

The law affords adequate protection of fundamental human rights;

(5)

Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve;

(6)

Ministers and public officials at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers;

(7)

Judicial and other adjudicative procedures must be fair and independent; and

(8)

There must be compliance by the state with its international legal obligations.

This detailed sub-set of rules has been declared a “powerful and persuasive” description of the rule of law today by respected commentators.17 However, most have acknowledged that it is limited to the national scene. When the same criteria are applied to the international legal system, it is generally accepted that that system falls far short of a rule of law regime. Many actions have been taken by governments over the decades, since the Charter of the United Nations and the UDHR, that appear to have been contrary to international law. Professor Robert McCorquodale has instanced as prime examples the decision of the United Kingdom government in 1956 to undertake an armed intervention in Egypt in order to retake control the Suez Canal. However, one does not have to go back to 1956 to find such instances. The actions of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” in invading Iraq would appear to have been a more modern instance of the rule of power in place of the rule of law, and one affecting a number of countries, including Australia. Further and later attempts have been made to flesh out the contemporary prerequisites of the rule of law so as to provide further guidance to local lawyers and bar associations by which they may hold their national governments to account. In a resolution of the International Bar Association in 2009, the sub-rules that were declared to be implicit in the very concept of the rule of law, were said to involve twelve essential ideas.18 (1)

The existence of an independent, impartial judiciary;

(2)

The presumption of innocence in the case of criminal accusations;

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

19

Features/Articles (3)

The prerequisite of fair and public trials, conducted without undue delay;

(4)

The observance of a rational and proportionate approach of punishment of those who are convicted of crimes;

(5)

The existence of a strong and independent legal profession;

(6)

The strict protection of professional secrecy and of confidential communications between a lawyer and client so as to build confidence in the administration of justice;

(7)

The maintenance of equality of all before the law;

(8)

The absence of arbitrary arrests and secret trials;

(9)

The absence of indefinite detention without trial;

(10) The exclusion of cruel and degrading treatment or punishment; (11) The absence of intimidation and corruption both in the electoral process and in judicial and other adjudicative decision-making; and (12) The conduct of governance in society through open and transparent institutions and procedures, with freedom of information, opinion and expression as prerequisites to the operation of all of the foregoing characteristics. If one digs still more deeply into the notion of the rule of law and asks why that notion, and the prerequisites elaborated successively by Dicey, Bingham and the IBA are essential to civilised modern governance, Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter19 suggests that Lord Bingham was right in prescribing the rule of law as “a fundamental bargain between ‘the individual and the state’, the ‘governed and the governor’, in which both [parties to the compact] accept constraints for the sake of the common interest and the common good”.20 These theoretical analyses are all well and good. But what does the rule of law come down to in practice? What have I learned over a long life and, in particular, over a long life in the law? The World Cup, the latest cricket scores and the current movies and songs are more likely to be on the lips of citizens at work and at play. The importance of the rule of law does not tend to come up very often in such popular discourse amongst our fellow citizens. But that does not mean that it is unimportant. Why do I think that this notion, which has to do with institutions and procedures of law, is essential to a well-governed society. For the answer to that question, one must descend further into the engine room. Why the Rule of Law is Essential Having enumerated the basic and familiar characteristics of law, with independent judges and a vigorous legal profession that can no doubt sometimes be extremely irritating to other interests in society: politicians who want to claim simply to get things done’; business people who want to cut corners; powerful individuals who are irritated by what they see as outdated obstacles to their bright ideas for the rest of us; and religious preachers who are disturbed about what they occasionally see as disparities between the law of the state and the rule of God (as interpreted, of course, by themselves). We lawyers and judges advocate the rule of law and all of the paraphernalia of accessibility, clarity, equality, protection of rights

20

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

and so forth because doing so brings order into many of the most important decisions that arise in every society. It is a principle that provides a public place and largely transparent process to resolve our most heated and significant disputes. It affords a mechanism for establishing and clarifying the rules by which our people will live together in relative peace. It recognises that the only alternatives on offer are the power of money, influence and guns. Those forms of power are generally viewed as defective when compared to the invocation and application of written rules that pre exist events or that can be derived by logical reasoning from earlier expositions of the common law. The experience of humanity has been that, in the absence of law, and effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush, like quicksilver, to fill the gaps. Thus, Germany, under the Nazis, remained a Rechtstaat – a state based on law. The only problem was that there existed “black holes”. There were spaces where the law did not run. There were areas of life where judicial orders were silent or completely ineffective. Often this was because of the very large discretions granted to civil and military officials affecting the lives of ordinary citizens. Sometimes it was because of the invocation of notions of the superior force of the Führer’s decrees and the excuse of a pressing “national emergency”. Hitler invoked both of these “black holes” in his murderous elimination of his rivals during the Night of the Long Knives on 20 June 1934. It is to remove such disturbing and unsettling dangers, which disrupt the orderly management of the state, civic and business activity within the state and ordinary human lives, that societies have constructed the expectations of the rule of law. However irritating it may sometimes be to have independent officials (who happen to be lawyers and are usually called judges) second-guessing what politicians in the parliament or the executive have done in pursuit of their notions of what is best for society, it is necessary to uphold the checks and balances. Over the long haul, this has been found to be in the best interests of good government. It has also been found to be in the long term interests of business which depends upon predictability in ordering its affairs by reference to laws and rules and in depending on courts to insist impartially upon conformity with the law and to uphold contractual promises that comply with law. In the integrated regional and global economy of today, it would be intolerable for business if it could not predict its legal obligations and entitlements by reference to law. Where global business cannot trust local courts to impartially uphold bargains entered with local businesses, it will demand external arbitration. It will resort to alternative dispute mechanisms in the search for reliable, predictable and lawful outcomes. At about the time that I received my first copy of the UDHR in 1949, I became aware of a very great danger, appearing in the form of law in Australia, facing a close family member of mine. He was Jack Simpson, who had recently married my paternal grandmother in her second marriage. He fell victim to the provisions of the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth). That was a law which was enacted by the Australian federal parliament. At the time, Jack Simpson was the treasurer of the Australian Communist Party. A finer man of principle, I never met. Unworldly, somewhat naive and sometimes misguided, that is true. But a good man for whom communism had become his new religion.

Features/Articles At the age of 10 years and in a very vivid way, I learned how the rule of law works in a modern democracy. The Communist Party and other interests challenged the Act before the High Court of Australia. That was the court that, half a century later, I myself was to join. The government had an undoubted electoral mandate to ban the party. An Australian brigade was fighting communists in Korea. Communists were then often regarded as terrorists in Australia. Opinion polls showed that initially 80 percent of the population supported the Australian government’s legislation. Yet, in this heated atmosphere, the High Court of Australia measured the statute against the requirements of the Australian Constitution. By five justices to one (with Chief Justice Latham dissenting), the Court held that the law was invalid. Communists could be prosecuted under valid laws for what they actually did against fellow members of society. But they could not lose their civil liberties for what they believed, however foolish those beliefs might seem to their fellow citizens.21 This was a countermajoritarian lesson for a young boy in a tolerant democracy. It was a clear insistence of the protections of the rule of law. Subsequently, in September 1951, a referendum of the electors of Australia rejected the government’s proposal to amend the Constitution to override the court’s decision. The Communist Party was not banned. It continued to stumble along with a small band of dedicated members until, one by one, they became disillusioned. Eventually, at the end of the century, the party was disbanded by vote of its own members.

the independent and impartial courts. We must hope that our judges will always have the wisdom and foresight to respond to such challenges when they arise. If this constituted an illustration of the rule of law in my country, as it was, it was one that I honoured and celebrated.

In the many years that have elapsed since those important events, I have kept them before me as an illustration of the wisdom and foresight of great judges in the past in protecting my country from the provision of over-wide discretions to officials; from the removal of true equality amongst citizens; from the imposition of differential treatment based upon political and other beliefs; from a departure from fundamental human rights to free expression and free association; from an excessive deployment of public power; and from the attempt to remove crucial decisions affecting the lives of citizens from

part in some myself) where the rule of law has been upheld again to safeguard basic constitutional rights. This has been so even though, in Australia such rights are rarely spelt out in the constitution as those of Malaysia are. In Australia, they must usually be derived from the common law or individual statutes or be inferred from the structure and purpose of the 1901 Constitution. Instances have included:

In the years since 1951, I have witnessed many instances in Australia (and taken

*

To uphold the right of indigent accused persons to have effective access to competent legal representation when facing a serious criminal trial;23

*

To undo a demonstrated wrong to a convicted prisoner notwithstanding a repeated rejection of his complaint by the appellate courts below;24

*

To uphold the rights of short term prisoners to vote as citizens in Australia’s federal elections and to reject the notion that parliament could deprive any category of citizens it pleased of the right to vote;25 and * To uphold the rights of Islamic places of worship to enjoy precisely the same taxation advantages as Christian places of worship under the law.26

*

To permit protection of the environment in Australia against irreversible damage;22

It is when the law protects the poor, the powerless, the vulnerable and the unpopular that it knows its finest hour.27 It is when the system of government provides for, accepts and implements such decisions that we can say that the society is a rule of law society. It is so when judges feel constrained to reach, and give effect to, decisions that might be unpopular and might upset powerful interests in society. It will be so even where the outcome in the particular case is upsetting to the judge because it seems unfair. Such instances must be tolerated (as Lord Bingham has explained)28 because such instances are inherent in any system where the judges are obliged to construe, and give effect to the law. Not simply to give effect to their own notions, intuitions and human feelings.29 Naturally, powerful people, used to getting their own way, will sometimes find having to submit to the external opinions of unelected judges (responding in their turn to troublesome lawyers) annoying and frustrating. But there are strong reasons of principle, economics and efficiency for maintaining and defending that system. Over the years, powerful politicians in most countries have tried to shape and reshape the composition of the judiciary in

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

21

Features/Articles accordance with their own notions and values.30 However, in mature democracies, they rarely succeed. This is why there is special wisdom in maintaining a thick wall between appointed judges and the corrupting pressures and influences of external power or pressure. In my 35 years as a judge, I can say that never once was I conscious of an attempt of any power external to the parties and the courts to influence the outcome of a decision I made as a judge. Those who submit their disputes to legal determination do so upon the assumption of impartial and independent decisions. It is destructive of the peaceful acceptance of such decisions in society if that assumption is ever displaced or placed in doubt. Why the Law of Rules is Not Sufficient Having established that the rule of law, as we have come to understand it, is essential for an effective and just governmental system. I now want to state a number of sceptical thoughts. A common criticism of legal systems, and of the people who repeatedly participate in them, is that they are overly concerned with institutions, systems and procedures. And insufficiently attentive to the substance of what they are ultimately about: the attainment of just or fair outcomes; the achievement of improved relations between parties; the pursuit of desirable social objectives beyond the parties; and the protection of minority interests, as ascertained by consulting civil society, not just powerful individuals and companies. In a recent essay, Stephen Golub has argued that the concept of justice represents a broader and more effective organising principle for international efforts to alleviate the really serious grievances and problems on the planet, rather than the rule of law which tends to be concentrated on courts, other legal institutions, judges, laws and lawyers: persons and bodies that the ordinary citizen encounters but rarely.31 Some of his propositions bear comparison with a connected set of views expressed by James Goldston, Executive Director of the Open Society Justice Initiative in New York. He points out that rule of law objectives have attracted much support from powerful agencies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and wealthy Western sponsors.32 However, they tend to sustain top-down instruction by Western

22

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

countries, addressed to developing countries. Often they fail to ask what lessons developed nations can themselves learn about real problems affecting long-term governance, including instruction for the way in which they should go about addressing the defects in their own legal systems.33 The basic defect involved in focusing exclusively, or mainly, on the rule of law as an organising principle for the idealism of the legal profession is, to put it bluntly, that it all depends upon the justice, wisdom, applicability and even-handedness of the law that is being upheld and enforced. Only when that factor is taken into account can the question be decided whether the ultimate outcome is good or bad for the human beings affected and for the society about them. It is important to make this point because it is all too easy, in rule of law discourse, to overlook the fact that sometimes, including in modern democracies, the law in the books (whether statute or judge-made law) may be unjust, out-of-date, inefficient, lacking in balance, inattentive to later knowledge or contrary to universal human rights. In Australia, we have had many instances of legal decisions which were entirely faithful to the law but which produced outcomes that were seriously unjust and unfair, as we can now see: *

The body of laws that upheld the immigration principle of White Australia, administered by a dictation test, is a good illustration;34

*

The confirmation, in former times, of the death sentence in cases where the reviewing court confessed itself to be concerned about the reliability of a confession by an Aboriginal accused which was the very foundation for his conviction;35

*

The previous, long-standing common law rule, upheld by the courts, which denied indigenous Australians any recognition of their traditional interests in land;36

*

The rejection of claims to status as a conscientious objector against military service, except in a case of total opposition to every conceivable war;37

*

The interpretation of modern migration law in a way that would permit the

indefinite executive detention of a stateless person;38 *

The confirmation of anti-terrorism laws that would invest judges with restrictive powers based on very wide discretionary and policy judgments unusual to the judiciary;39 and

*

The conferral of jurisdiction on State Supreme Courts to keep in prison a person who had completed serving his sentence upon a judicial prediction of dangerousness, always notoriously disputable.40

Some of these cases might breach the rule of law assumptions and sub-rules, at least as they have been elaborated by Lord Bingham. But the instances show that fearless maintenance of the law and faithful observance of its rules and procedures by uncorrupted courts are not, of themselves, a sufficient guarantee of a just and fair society or even of just and fair outcomes to particular controversies. Moreover, we lawyers know that there are many forms of law which may be upheld, and even arguably comply with the external requirements of the rule of law, and yet be a repository for very large and effectively unreviewable decision making by governments or other powerful interests: *

The existence of very wide discretions in the letter of the law is not unknown in our legal systems. The power to prosecute or not to prosecute for criminal offences is one such instance. Both in Malaysia, in decisions to prosecute for sedition offences, and in Australia, prosecutorial discretions are generally left untouched by the courts although sometimes the decision to prosecute may effectively determine the outcome of the case;41

*

In cases involving the exercise of defence powers and in prosecution under anti-terrorism laws, courts will ordinarily defer to official decisions. They may sometimes be encouraged to do so by legal restrictions placed on their access to relevant evidence and information;42

*

In some instances, governments wishing to achieve particular objectives may do so by turning a blind eye to the letter of the law and indulging in selective enforcement of the law, difficult to reconcile with its strict terms;43

Features/Articles *

*

Even where the law is enforced equally, the unequal powers of government and of the ordinary citizen may produce a far from level playing field. A good example is where the Taxation Office pursues an ordinary taxpayer through the courts at a cost that few individual citizens could ever afford; and The powers of particular office holders will sometimes effectively be put them outside merits review. Occasionally this is done, according to law, so as to attain higher objectives, as in the special privileges and immunities accorded to parliamentarians and judicial officers. On other occasions, the law may protect particular categories (such as parents, teachers or guardians) out of deference to their traditional roles in society and because the deployment of such power is normally exercised for the benefit of the persons concerned.

Instances such as the foregoing demonstrate the practical limits that arise in subjecting many decisions to effective judicial scrutiny. Unless an obligation is imposed expressly by statute, the common law of Australia has been held not to oblige public officials to give reasons for their decisions.44 That ruling has had the result of placing those adversely affected by the exercise of public power in many cases beyond effective judicial review because they could never demonstrate the real reasons for the oppressive use of power by officials. Quite apart from these instances, we all know of the many practical impediments that can stand in the way of securing real access to the rule of law in societies such as ours. Just to list some of these impediments will help to demonstrate that, in some instances at least, the rule of law is more of a theoretical construct than a practical reality. Although the following instances are drawn from Australian case law, there would be many equivalents, some additional and some different cases in Malaysia, known only too well to this audience: *

A person intelligent and educated will enjoy enormous advantages because of their knowledge of law and of their rights and willingness to pursue remedies that lie in the books. Recent studies have suggested that disease may often be linked to intelligence. However this may be, real access to legal rights (in default of legal aid or pro

bono assistance) will often depend on a person’s background and experience; *

The type of people who assert, advocate and decide cases are generally amongst the elite of society. Inescapably, we are part of that elite. A good proportion of us have been well educated and supported by parents of better-thanaverage means. Sometimes people of this background, without any actual ill will, may not empathise with those on the fringes of society, at least sufficiently to perceive their complaints and to sympathise with their invocation of the law;

It is all too easy to overlook the fact that sometimes, the law in the books, may be unjust, outof-date, inefficient, lacking in balance, inattentive to later knowledge or contrary to universal human rights. *

The poverty of potential litigants will frequently mean that they cannot afford to secure even basic advice, still less to pursue their legal rights effectively in the courts. Judges may endeavour to accord equal justice to self representing litigants. But in the press of business, such litigants may not know, find or express their rights. Too much will often depend on the chance factors of their securing public legal aid or pro bono assistance;

*

Public legal aid in many countries, including Australia, has not kept pace with the ever growing needs of civil litigation. The common law system is inherently cost intensive and legal costs are ever rising;

*

Alternative dispute resolution is spreading and sometimes is now a compulsory prerequisite to litigation. Whilst often this is beneficial, it does occasionally deprive parties of a judge with the will to ensure a just and lawful outcome to a conflict. It may sometimes effectively substitute market forces for the rule of law;

*

Attempts to improvise with class actions and litigation funding have not always proved acceptable to the courts.45 Yet the old requirements of individual litigation may sometimes place some claims beyond the pockets of citizens of modest means.

*

Occasionally poor litigants, even in criminal trials, must accept inexperienced lawyers and courts of criminal appeal are generally reluctant to revisit the decisions and judgments of such lawyers, however imprudent they may appear to have been in retrospect.46

*

The sheer number of appeals that are now brought, including against criminal convictions and sentences, undoubtedly produce the risk of overlooking errors which a final court, with its many special burdens, cannot be expected to cure;

*

Civil society organisations in many jurisdictions often find it difficult to gain acceptance as amici curiae or as interveners because our system of individual litigation has not yet fully adapted to the role of courts in declaring the general law beyond the interests of particular parties;47

The advent of highly complex, scientific evidence has presented serious challenges to non-institutional litigants. Effectively, much litigation has begun to follow the pattern of the organisation of the legal profession itself. The days of the small time firm or sole legal practitioner and the local equivalent of Atticus Finch has been replaced by the mega multinational law office, often operating out of modern palaces of marble and glass for which somebody (usually the client) pays. And beyond the nation state are now international organisations and technologies that are not readily susceptible to domestic law and regulation. The large role that the World Trade Organisation plays in intellectual property law, as it operates on pharmaceutical patents is one instance. The influence of the internet on the First Amendment values of the American Constitution is another example of the extraterritorial operation of national law. In this way, the rule of national law today is often replaced by decision-making by anonymous officers, sometimes exhibiting a very large democratic deficit.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

23

Features/Articles Conclusions Individually or collectively, the practical inhibitions and impediments listed by me do not constitute a reason to abandon the adherence of the judiciary and legal profession across the world to upholding the banner of the rule of law. The growth of business law, and the demand of truly independent judges to decide business cases impartially, is likely to spill over in its consequences for the role of independent judges in deciding public law matters that can sometimes present sensitive issues of political power and contested human rights.48 Still, the practical limitations are reasons enough to recognise that the rule of law is, in the end, only productive of good governance for the people, if the law that is enforced is just, conformable with universal human rights and susceptible to consistent reform, modernisation and simplification. Not long after I received my first copy of the UDHR from my teacher in 1949 and learned of the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Communist Party Case in 1951, I discovered an aspect of the law in Australia that, astonishingly, made me a kind of outlaw. I refer to the criminal laws against homosexual men. I was subject to serious criminal penalties for an attribute of myself (like race, skin colour or gender) that I did not choose and could not change. This is still a feature of the otherwise generally beneficial heritage of British law. It still exists in 41 of the 54 countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. It exists in Malaysia but it has been abolished in Australia. Recently, in India, a unanimous decision of the Delhi High Court struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. That court held that the provision, in its general operation to adults in private, was incompatible with the constitutional notions of equality and privacy expressed in the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice AP Shah declared:49 If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is that of inclusiveness [which is a] value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising

24

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised. Similar decisions have been pronounced by judges in other common law countries as diverse as the United States50 and South Africa.51 Important decisions on connected themes have also been rendered by many courts, including recently by the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.52 In other jurisdictions, including my own, reform in this context has been achieved by democratic legislative amendments.53 Yet, in some parts of the world, reforms on this issue have been very slow in coming. One must respect the fact that different societies are at different stages on the journey. Just as, earlier, different societies had different views on respect for people of different races, religions and other personal attributes. I grew up in a society that disrespected Asian people and repeatedly proclaimed a culture of racial superiority.

We can never ignore our duty as lawyers, and as citizens and human beings, to ask whether the law so appearing is contrary to universal human rights. When I was young, there was no doubt about what the law on these subjects said in Australia. Just as there was no doubt on the laws that enforced apartheid in South Africa, anti-miscegenation in the United States and religious disqualifications from voting or holding public office in earlier Britain.54 My point here is that the rule of law had nothing really protective to say, as such, about the burdens imposed in these ways on minorities (or in the case of South Africa, on the majority racial group). On the contrary, the law, as such, tended to enforce inequality. It thereby gave prejudice and unequal treatment a kind of legitimacy and respect in the community. This was certainly the case with the White Australia laws in my country well into the 1960s. Only gradually were they dismantled, together with laws against Aboriginal Australians.

The law, in the sense of the letter of the law, is not, therefore, enough. We, as lawyers, must be concerned with the content of the law and the content of the procedures and institutions that deliver law to society. Lawyers above all must be ever vigilant to see new truths (often revealed by scientific research) which earlier generations did not perceive. This is why, for us, the rule of law means more than the fact that a law exists in the books. We can never ignore our duty as lawyers, and as citizens and human beings, to ask whether the law so appearing is contrary to universal human rights. And, if it is, it is a breach of the fourth of Lord Bingham’s subordinate attributes of the rule of law as that principle is understood today. This duty that we, the practitioners of law, carry is a very heavy one. But it is the one that gives the profession of law its nobility of purpose. It makes law as important to society as the health care professionals who look after our physical bodies. Embedded in the human spirit is an unending curiosity about the human condition and a yearning for the dignity that lies at the very heart of each and every one of us. I have never seen this idea better put than by Justice Kennedy, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in Lawrence v Texas55 when he said;56 ... [T]hose who drew and ratified the [US Constitution] ... might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. It is we, the lawyers, who must be specially alert to this ever present challenge to our sensibilities. And just as I agree that Western countries can derive wisdom and insights about law and justice from those of other cultures57 (most especially on economic, social and cultural rights) so those of other countries can sometimes derive insights from the West, as Chief Justice AP Shah did in his recent decision in India.58 The creation of the ASEAN Human Rights Commission, and the leading part that it may be expected that Malaysia will play in that body foreshadow an increasing influence of international human rights jurisprudence on the court decisions and other legal developments of Malaysia and the region. This will be a beneficial and

Features/Articles constructive influence. And it is not one that is inconsistent with the special features of Asian culture and values.59 Justice Sandra Day O’Connor captured this idea perfectly in a speech made by her shortly before her retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States:60 I suspect that, with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues. Doing so may not only enrich our own country’s decisions; it will create that all-important good impression. When U.S. courts are seen to be cognizant of other judicial systems, our ability to act as a rule-of-law model for other nations will be enhanced. I conclude, as I began, with an expression of respect for the King and people of Malaysia. And with affectionate regard for my many friends in the judiciary and legal profession of this country. How different your country is today from what it was when I found it as a young student in 1962. I am grateful to be welcomed back again. And especially because, by now, you are well aware that I am prone to offer thoughts that go beyond the self-congratulations that were once the comforting and invariable hallmark of these great occasions. Even for lawyers, law is not enough. It is the content and justice of law that matters. Ours is the special responsibility to ensure that law is just and protective of human dignity. Law is not, or should not be, simply for the wealthy. Law is, or should be, for all. It is not just for the popular and the acclaimed. It is for the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. We must never forget this. And conferences like this one provide us with the occasion to re-dedicate ourselves. And to reaffirm the universality and integrity of our discipline publicly before each other, before our fellow citizens and before the watching world.

3

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

*

1 2

Retired Justice of the High Court of Australia (1996-2009); member of the Eminent Persons Group on the future of the Commonwealth of Nations, (2010-); member of the UNDP Global Commission on HIV and the Law (2010-). M.D. Kirby, Foreword, H.P. Lee, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, OUP, Kuala Lumpur, 1995, vii. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble. See Rule of Law – A Commentary on the IBA’s Council’s Resolution of September 2005 by Francis Neate, co-chair of the IBA’s Rule of Law Action Group (July 2009, 4).

32 33 34 35 36

The Bangalore Principles are set out in M.D. Kirby, “The Role of the Judge in Advancing Human Rights by Reference to International Human Rights Norms” (1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 514 at 531-2. Tun Mahamed Salleh Abas and K. Das, May Day For Justice, Magnus, 1989, Forewords by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj at xi-xiii and by the author at xiv-xviii. Ibid, xvii. K. Arumugam Ruarum, Malaysia – Human Rights Report 2008 – Civil and Political Rights (2009), 148. Judicial Appointments Act 2008 (Mal). IBA Report, above n2, 6. Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc. v The Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116 at 124. Lord Bingham, “Dignity, Fairness and Good Government. The Role of the Human Rights Act” (2009) 34 Alternative Law Journal 74 at 77. R. McCorquodale in Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve (Eds), Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amoricum, OUP, Oxford, 2009, 136 at 139 fn8. Yongpin Liu, Origin of Chinese Law (1988) cited loc cit, 139. For a modern review, see Ann-Marie Slaughter, “Shielding the Rule of Law” in Andenas and Fairgrieve, above n11, 767-768. A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan, London, 1885 (1959 reprint), pt.II. See McCorquodale, above n11, 139. Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (2nd ed, 1967); J. Chevalier, L’État de Droit (3rd ed, 1999). See also McCorquodale, above n11, 139. Lord Bingham, “The Rule of Law” (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 67 at 81. Ibid, 69-84. See also Anthony Clarke and John Sorabji, “The Rule of Law and our Changing Constitution” in Andenas and Fairgrieve, above n11, 39 at 41; McCorquodale, ibid, 139; Slaughter, above n12, 767. See e.g. McCorquodale, above n11, 140. IBA – above n2. Slaughter, above n12, 761. Ibid, 771, citing a speech by Lord Bingham made in the United Kingdom House of Lords on 16 November 2006. Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1. Tasmania v The Commonwealth (Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1. McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468. Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125. Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR 162. Canterbury Municipal Council v Moslem Alawy Society Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 525 (NSWCA). Falbo v United States 320 US 549 at 561 (1944) per Murphy J. applied ABC v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 at 114. Lord Bingham, above n10 at 78. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365 is a good example. Jeff Shesol, Supreme Power – Franklin Roosevelt v The Supreme Court, Norton and Co. NY, 2010. S. Golub, “Making Justice The Organising Principle of the Rule of Law Field” (2009) 1 HJRL 61 at 66. James A. Goldson, “The Rule of Law at Home and Abroad” (2009) 1 HJRL 38. Ibid at 42. Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649; Potter v Minahan (1907) 7 CLR 277; O’Keefe v Calwell (1948) 77 CLR 261. Stuart v The Queen (1959) 101 CLR 1. Cooper v Stuart (1889) LR 14 App Cas 286 at 291 (PC). See also Attorney-General v Brown (1847) 1 Legge 312 at 316-318 and Williams v AttorneyGeneral (NSW) (1913) 16 CLR 404 at 439. These decisions were reversed by Mabo v Queensland

37 38 39 40 41

42

43

44 45 46 47

48 49 50 51 52

53 54

55 56 57 58

59

60

[No.2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 and Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 186 CLR 1. Ex Parte White: Reg v District Court (Sydney) (1966) 116 CLR 644. Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562. Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307. Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513. Cf. Stephen Gray and Naomita Royan, “The Blogger Prince and the Cultured Mongolian – Sedition Prosecutions in the Modern Malaysian State” (2009) 14 Media and Arts Law Review 455 at 463. But see also at 465 in reference to Re Param Cumaraswamy [1986] 1 MLJ 10. Gypsy Jokers Motor Cycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (WA) (2008) 234 CLR 532; K-Generation Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR 501. For example, the policy of non-prosecution of nude bathing on some Australian beaches and non-prosecution for needle possession in policies introduced to combat the spread of HIV. Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 reversing Osmond v Public Service Board of NSW [1984] 3 NSWLR 477 (NSWCA). Campbell’s Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif (2006) 229 CLR 386. Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614 at 636 [105]. See e.g. Wurridjal v The Commonwealth (2008) 237 CLR 309 at 312-314. Cf. Levy v Victoria 91997) 189 CLR 579 at 604, 650-1; Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83 at 135-6. Slaughter, above n12. Naz Foundation v Union of India [2009] 4 LRC 838 at 895 [129]. Lawrence v Texas 529 US 558 (2003). See Naz, above n48 at 867 [57]. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice [1998] 3 LRC 648 (CCSA). Cf. Naz, above n48, at 866 [56]. H.J. (Iran) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31, on appeal from (2009) EWCA Civ 172. Applying Appellant S395/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473. See also Toonen v Australia (1994) 1 Int Hum Rts Reports 97 (No.3); Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHHR 149; Morris v Ireland (1991) 14 EHHR 186; Naz Foundation [2009] 4 LRC 838 at 865 [52]. Sexual Offences Act 1967 (UK). Before the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (UK); 10 Geo IV, ch7. This was made applicable to Roman Catholic subjects in the Australian colonies by legislation of January 1830. See e.g. Roman Catholic Relief Act 1830 (UK). Before that legislation, Roman Catholics were denied the suffrage and many civil rights in the United Kingdom and its colonies. 539 US 558 (2003). 559 US 558 at 563 (2003). See Naz [2009] 4 LRC 838 at 889 [115]. Goldston, above n32 at 43. Naz [2009] 4 LRC 838. Contrast the consideration of apostasy in decisions of the Malaysian courts. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam [2004] 2 MLJ 119; [2005] 6 MLJ 193; [2007] 3 MLJ 557; [2009] 1 LRC 2. See also M.D. Kirby, “Fundamental Human Rights and Religious Apostasy: The Malaysian Case of Lina Joy” (2008) 17 Griffith Law Review 151; M.D. Kirby, “Law, Human Rights and Religion – Of Genocide, Sexuality and Apostasy” (2009) 9 Macquarie LJ 3. Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Asian Values”, 16th Morganthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics and Foreign Policy, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs (NY, 1997), 9, 28. In Adam Liptah, “United States Court, a Long Time Beacon, is now Guiding Fewer Nations”, The New York Times, 18 Sept 2008, A30.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

25

Features/Articles

A Conversation with the CEO Q & A with Rajen Devaraj by Chua Ai Lin

After more than a decade in the teaching profession, Rajen Devaraj took a leap of faith and joined Bar Council in early 2006. Today he is the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Bar Council. In his first interview since he assumed office, Rajen shares snippets of his work and life. Appointed on 18 July 2009, Rajen replaced Corrinne Wong who stepped down on 15 July 2009. Having been with the Bar Council Secretariat since January 2006, Rajen started as an Executive Officer assigned to the Human Rights Committee. In September 2007, he was promoted to the position of Director of the Practitioners’ Affairs Division, responsible for overseeing and monitoring the work done by officers involved in committee work. Tell us briefly about your educational and working background. I have a degree in Engineering (Civil) from University of Malaya, and in addition, I hold a Diploma in Industrial Relations. Prior to joining Bar Council, I was teaching in a private institution. How then did you end up in Bar Council? I have been interested in public interest issues from my time as an undergraduate in University of Malaya. I got into the teaching line in the mid-90s. In 2005, I received word that there was an opening for a Human Rights Officer with Bar Council. After having been in the teaching profession for some 10 years, I relished the opportunity to get back to human rights work. That was all it took for me to submit my application for a change of career. Chart your path to the hottest seat in the organisation. I was hired as the Executive Officer for the Human Rights Committee and in the first one-and-a-half years, also handled other committees at various points in time,

26

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

including the Ad Hoc Committee on the Immigration Act and Campaign for a Judicial Commission. When Kenneth Goh was the Acting CEO, there was a major change in the way the organisation was structured. Departments and divisions were developed from what used to be a flatstructured organisation and I was assigned to the Practitioners’ Affairs Division as the Director. A fourperson management team, consisting of Kenneth, Corrinne Wong, Cindy Chan and myself, was set up to run the Secretariat. With increasing managerial-type responsibility, my committee work was slowly eased off. In April 2008, Chin Oy Sim was hired and she took over the human rights portfolio. I was appointed as the CEO when Corrinne left Bar Council the following year. You joined Bar Council specifically for human rights work, but within two years that was no longer the main focus of your job. How has that worked out for you on a personal level? There’s no doubt that I miss human rights work but there was no way I could have held on to that portfolio with the additional things in the organisation that I had taken on.

In my previous job at the private educational institution, in addition to teaching, I was also part of the management. Looking at processes and systems, and how an organisation can function better, are things that I enjoy. Upon taking over as CEO, we have enlarged the composition of the management team. Today the team comprises nine individuals from various departments and we meet regularly, providing the element of having a group of people running the organisation rather than just one person. From the beginning of my tenure, the team has been getting deep into issues related to strengthening and improving the Bar

Features/Articles Council Secretariat on various fronts. We look at how things are being done, we analyse the approaches, even challenge them, if necessary. Just because things have been done in a particular way – for years – does not mean that it is the best or most effective approach. One of the issues that concerns us is the need to connect more effectively with Members of the Bar.

Tell us about Bar Council. I think Bar Council is an organisation unlike any other professional bodies in the country. It’s a body that is not just interested in defending and advancing the interest of its Members, but is also concerned about the larger issues in Malaysian society. This, I believe, sets the legal profession apart. I take pleasure from the fact that I belong to an organisation that places such a high premium on human rights. What is your take on criticisms about the Bar Council Secretariat?

For the Bar Council Secretariat, I hope to continue oiling its engines so that it will be more well run, enabling us to better cater to the Members’ needs. With the improvement plans we have in the pipeline, including a new telephone system, I hope that Members’ complaints, of not being attended to and delay in responses when making enquiries, will be drastically reduced. Tell us something not commonly known about yourself. I miss the classroom. There is nothing quite like being in charge of a class of 30 to 35 teenagers who are bright, full of life and naughty all at the same time. They test you and look to you for leadership and

Photo credit: Chua Ai Lin

On this note, I would like to put on record my congratulations to the Bar Council Publications Committee for having the vision and determination to jumpstart the publication of Praxis. The relaunching of Praxis is a monumental initiative because it

staff. With such privileges, there’s nothing I can give less than my very best.

means we now have an additional avenue of reaching out to Members. Kudos to Syamsuriatina Ishak, Chairperson of the Bar Council Publications Committee, and her team! Coming from a non-legal background, do you find difficulty in carrying out the job? As CEO, a large part of my job scope relates to managerial functions. Not having a law degree is not too much of a disadvantage when it comes to managing staff and the organisation as a whole. Fortunately for me, my job is made much easier by having supportive Office Bearers and Council members. In the efforts of the Bar Council Secretariat to revamp and rejuvenate ourselves, we’ve received nothing but full support from them. I also have the honour of working with a capable management team and dedicated

Criticism is not necessarily a bad thing. I think that it is important to be criticised when we fail to do a good job. That is only fair. When we are at the receiving end, we need to be objective in our assessment of whether the criticism is valid. We need to be particularly sensitive to complaints about our standard operating procedures or work processes. Such constructive feedback can serve as the starting point of making important adjustments to the way in which we do things. What would you like to see in the future of Bar Council? I hope that Members will take a greater interest in what’s happening in the Bar. At the moment, the actual number of voluntary lawyers who are actively involved in committee work, Bar events, taking up cases for the Bar, is still very much a minority.

direction. Assisting in their development is extremely satisfying. I am always amazed at their recollection of incidents that I had long forgotten. Oh, and for some strange reason, I have come to like cats – I never used to when I was a child. Are you happy? I have a good feeling about what I’m doing. Working at the Bar Council Secretariat has been a fascinating experience. I hope that I have impacted the organisation in a positive way. In the 2009/2010 Annual Report, the Bar Council Secretariat laid down five specific challenges for 2010. In the upcoming Annual General Meeting, we would be able to report that we have accomplished almost all that we set out to do a year ago. People need to be happy in what they do – life is too short for anything else. I’ve never stayed in a job where I’ve been miserable, and right now, I’m where I want to be.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

27

Events

Kempen PerlembagaanKu: Perjalanan Setakat Ini by Syahredzan Johan

Photos credited to ConstiLC Members

Anda mungkin sekali telah mendengar tentang Kempen PerlembagaanKu yang dijalankan oleh Jawatankuasa Undangundang Perlembagaan (“ConstiLC”) di bawah naungan Majlis Peguam. Kempen dua tahun ini adalah bertujuan membawa intipati Perlembagaan Persekutuan kepada semua rakyat Malaysia di dalam format yang ringkas dan mudah difahami. Kempen ini merupakan komitmen Majlis Peguam untuk meningkatkan kesedaran tentang Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan menggalakkan konsep keperlembagaan di kalangan rakyat.

28

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Ahli-ahli ConstiLC terdiri daripada pelbagai lapisan masyarakat, bukan hanya pengamal undang-undang tetapi juga ahli akedemik, para pelajar, pengamal media, aktivis dan juga masyarakat umum. Kempen PerlembagaanKu ini adalah inisiatif pertama ConstiLC. Ramai yang bertanya, apakah sebab ConstiLC mengambil inisiatif ini? Jawatankuasa ini baru ditubuhkan pada awal tahun 2009 sebagai reaksi kepada isu-isu perlembagaan yang timbul sejak beberapa tahun yang lepas. Lebih-lebih

lagi selepas pilihan raya umum yang ke-12, rakyat Malaysia semakin ingin tahu tentang hak-hak mereka yang terkandung di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah “buku panduan” untuk Malaysia dan mengekalkan tiang-tiang utama pemerintahan demokratik. Ia adalah undang-undang tertinggi Persekutuan. Ia membentuk sistem kerajaan dan disposisi kuasa di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan negeri-negeri. Perlembagaan Persekutuan menjamin kebebasan asasi dan juga

Events

peruntukan istimewa bagi komuniti etnik tertentu di dalam Malaysia yang berbilang kaum dan pelbagai kepercayaan. Rakyat Malaysia harus mempunyai pengetahuan ini supaya mereka dapat mempertimbangkan sama ada kedudukan yang diambil ke atas Perlembagaan boleh didukung dan diterima. Mereka harus diperkasakan dengan pemahaman tentang hak dan had institusi kerajaan dan hak dan had setiap rakyat Malaysia. Perlembagaan dimiliki oleh setiap rakyat Malaysia dan setiap rakyat Malaysia adalah benifisiari kepada “janji” keperlembagaan dan pemerintahan demokratik.

Namun, Perlembagaan bukanlah sebuah dokumen yang mudah. Tidak seperti negara-negara lain yang mempunyai perlembagaan bertulis, pendidikan tentang Perlembagaan tidak diterap ke dalam kurikulum pelajaran di negara kita. Ketandusan pengetahuan ini kerap kali membiakkan maklumat yang salah dan interpretasi yang tersasar. Kempen ini dibahagikan kepada sembilan fasa mengikut sembilan tema Perlembagaan. Fasa pertama iaitu pengenalan kepada Perlembagaan dlancarkan pada 13 Nov 2009 oleh Dato’ VK Liew, Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan

Perdana Menteri dan dihadiri oleh lebih kurang 250 orang. Ia mendapat liputan media massa yang meluas. Fasa kedua yang membincangkan tentang institusi-institusi Perlembagaan dan konsep pemisahan kuasa dilancarkan pada 15 Jan 2010 oleh Presiden Badan Peguam, Ragunath Kesavan di Kolej Universiti Sunway. Untuk fasa ketiga, ConstiLC telah mendapat kerjasama daripada Kerajaan Selangor dan melancarkan fasa tersebut di Shah Alam. Ia dilancarkan oleh Menteri Besar Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

29

Events pada 1 Mac 2010. Fasa keempat dilancarkan di Parlimen, bersesuaian dengan tema fasa tersebut iaitu tentang Badan Perundangan Persekutuan iaitu Parlimen. Ia dilancarkan oleh Yang Dipertua Dewan Rakyat Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia pada 21 Apr 2010. Fasa kelima pula dilancarkan oleh Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon pada 23 Julai 2010 di Putrajaya International Convention Centre, Putrajaya. Fasa ini membincangkan tema Badan Eksekutif Persekutuan. Sempena Hari Malaysia pada 16 Sept 2010, Kempen ini telah melancarkan fasa keenam yang bertemakan Badan Kehakiman. Kempen ini dilancarkan oleh Datuk KC Vohrah, bekas Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan di Malaysiaku Street Festival di Jalan Bangkung, Bangsar. Akhir sekali, pada 18 Sept 2010 Tan Sri Bernard Dompok telah melancarkan fasa ketujuh kempen ini di Sabah, bersesuaian dengan tema fasa tersebut iaitu Sabah dan Sarawak. Tujuh fasa telah dilancarkan dan kini tinggal dua fasa lagi. Fasa kelapan membincangkan tentang hak-hak rakyat dan juga kewarganegaraan, manakala fasa terakhir bertemakan pilihanraya dan demokrasi. ConstiLC menjangkakan kedua-dua fasa ini akan dilancarkan dalam bulan-bulan yang mendatang sebelum tirai kempen dilabuhkan pada Mac 2011. Tetapi aktiviti kempen tidak hanya berkisar pada pelancaran fasa-fasa. Terdapat pelbagai aktiviti lain, seperti pelancaran kempen tahap negeri, seperti yang telah dilakukan di Sarawak dan Kedah, bengkel-bengkel Perlembagaan, forum, kuliah, penyertaan aktiviti-aktiviti komuniti, penulisan rencana-rencana di media massa, wawancara di kaca televisyen dan di corong-corong radio dan pelbagai aktiviti lain. Kempen ini rata-rata telah mendapat maklum balas dan bantuan positif daripada pelbagai pihak seperti Kerajaan Persekutuan, Kerajaan-kerajaan Negeri, institusi-institusi pendidikan, badan bukan kerajaan, wakil-wakil rakyat dan orang ramai. Setakat ini, lebih kurang 100,000 Buku Panduan Rakyat telah diedarkan kepada orang ramai dan ConstiLC mendapat begitu banyak permintaan daripada semua pihak. Mungkin maklum balas di luar jangkaan ini lahir daripada orang ramai yang dahagakan ilmu tentang Perlembagaan. Mungkin telah terlalu lama mata kita dikaburi dan minda kita lalai tentang peri pentingnya dokumen ulung ini. Mungkin rakyat Malaysia kini celik tanggungjawab mereka, celik hak mereka dan ingin celik Perlembagaan mereka. Walau apapun sebabnya, adalah menjadi harapan ConstiLC bahawa kempen ini akan berjaya merakyatkan Perlembagaan. 14 Oct 2010

30

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Events

Upcoming Upcoming Events Events Selangor Bar Annual General Meeting

2nd Asian Mediation Association Conference

Date:

17 Feb 2011 (Thursday)

Date:

Time:

3:00 pm

Venue: Sheraton Imperial Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

Venue: Kelab Golf Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah, 1 Jalan Kelab Golf 13/6, Seksyen 13, Shah Alam Perak Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

18 Feb 2011 (Friday)

Time:

3:00 pm

Venue: High Court No 2, Ipoh 4th National Young Lawyers Convention Date:

19 and 20 Feb 2011 (Saturday and Sunday)

24 and 25 Feb 2011 (Thursday and Friday)

Theme: Rediscovering Mediation in the 21st Century Malacca Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

25 Feb 2011 (Friday)

Time:

4:00 pm

Venue: Malacca Straits Hotel, No 37A Jalan Chan Koon Cheng, Off Jalan Parameswara, 75000 Malacca Johore Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

25 Feb 2011 (Friday)

Venue: Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

Time:

3:00 pm

Kuala Lumpur Bar Annual General Meeting

Venue: Auditorium, JOTIC, Jalan Ayer Molek, Johor Bahru

Date:

23 Feb 2011 (Wednesday)

Time:

2:00 pm

Venue: MCA Auditorium, Level 3 Wisma MCA, 163 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur Kelantan Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

24 Feb 2011 (Thursday)

Time:

1:00 pm

Venue: Royal Guesthouse, Lot 440-443 & Lot 448-452, Jalan Hilir Kota, 15300 Kota Bharu

Negeri Sembilan Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

4 Mar 2011 (Friday)

Time:

4:00 pm

Venue: Negeri Sembilan Bar Committee Secretariat, No 3, Jalan S2 038, Magistrate Square, Seremban 2, 70300 Seremban 65th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Date:

12 Mar 2011 (Saturday)

Time:

10:00 am

Venue: Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur Penang Bar Annual General Meeting Date:

24 Feb 2011 (Thursday)

Time:

1:30 pm

Venue: Cititel Hotel, 66 Jalan Penang, 10000 Penang

Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance Date:

12 Mar 2011 (Saturday)

Time:

7.30 pm

Venue: Doubletree by Hilton Kuala Lumpur

NB: Details for the Annual General Meetings of Terengganu, Pahang and Kedah/Perlis Bars are yet to be confirmed at the time of printing.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

31

Events

21st POLA Conference (Kuala Lumpur, 27–28 July 2010) by Chin Oy Sim and Janet Nathan

On 27 and 28 July 2010, Bar Council Malaysia had the privilege of hosting the Presidents of Law Associations in Asia (“POLA”)’s 21st Conference at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. 95 participants, comprising 72 foreign and 23 local delegates, attended the Conference, which was organised under the leadership of Lim Chee Wee, Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar. As its name suggests, POLA is a coalition of the leaders of the bar associations in the Asia-Pacific region, and consists of

32

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

approximately 30 members. goals include:

Its stated



To provide regional cooperation for the promotion of peace and human rights activities;



To make joint efforts for the enhancement of the rule of law;



To cooperate in advancing the status of lawyers, in developing the legal profession and the scope of its activities and in strengthening the

activities of the law associations in the region; and •

To foster the development of regulatory systems which ensure transparent and rule-based governance.

Hosted by POLA members, the annual conference aims to promote the sharing of information on matters relating to the law and the legal profession, development of collaborative efforts and strengthening of relationships among members.

Events Themed “Rule of Law and Corporate Governance”, the 21st POLA Conference comprised five sessions that addressed issues relating to rule of law, corporate governance and directors’ duties, legal profession privilege, mis-selling of financial products, and privacy law. Delegates from various law societies, designated as panellists, shared their expertise and experience in each of these areas. In addition, three guest speakers took to the podium: Dato’ Muhammad Ibrahim, Deputy Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia, presented his views regarding Malaysia’s role in Islamic finance; Dato’ Sri Mustapa Mohamed, Minister of International Trade and Industry, tackled the topic of Investing in Malaysia’s Services Sector; and at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, Chief Justice of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Tun Azmi spoke on the reformation of the Malaysian Judiciary. At the breakfast meeting for the leaders of the various delegations, it was agreed that POLA members would focus on three initiatives:

POLA’s stated goals include: • To provide regional co-operation for the promotion of peace and human rights activities; • To make joint efforts for the enhancement of the rule of law; • To co-operate in advancing the status of lawyers, in developing the legal profession and the scope of its activities and in strengthening the activities of the law associations in the region; and • To foster the development of regulatory systems which ensure transparent and rule-based governance.

(1) How to expand and improve access to justice, particularly legal aid; (2) Developing a set of basic principles of corporate governance; and (3) Rule of law matters, particularly the issue of openness and transparency, and access to information, in the administration of justice. Among the opportunities for social interaction were the welcome dinner held at Kuala Lumpur Tower, which was a showcase for the wide range of Malaysian “street food” and cultural dances, and the closing dinner held at Bijan Restaurant, where delegates indulged in fine Malay cuisine. Delegates were also treated to a special visit to the Skybridge on levels 41 and 42 of the famed Petronas Twin Towers. At the conclusion of the Conference, delegates congratulated and thanked Bar Council Malaysia for the success of the two-day event, and expressed their appreciation to the Taiwan Bar Association for offering to host the 22nd POLA Conference in Taipei in 2011.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

33

Events

15th Malaysian Law Conference

(KL Convention Centre, 29-31 July 2010) Showcasing the Rule of Law, Corporate Governance and Malaysia as a Premier Business Destination by HR Dipendra

The delegates were also thoroughly entertained by the wisdom of Dato’ Seri Mohd Nazir Abdul Razak, the CEO of CIMB Bank who explained his strategy on expanding the bank’s business beyond borders and his desire for the Malaysian government to give better cooperation to the business community for this purpose. The MLC also saw a number of commercial topics ranging from schemes of arrangements, shareholders disputes and expectations of in-house counsel. It also laid down sessions relating to tax, mediation, child rights, managing law firms, consumer law, securities law and professional negligence.

After a three-year hiatus, the 15th Malaysian Law Conference (“MLC”) was upon us. Euphoniously themed “Malaysia: Extending Frontiers, Widening Horizons”, the MLC was a highly sought-after event in the olla podrida that is the Malaysian legal fraternity calendar. The MLC began with a keynote address from the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby, now retired High Court Judge of Australia, who emphasised that the law in the sense of the letter of the law is not enough — that lawyers must be concerned with the content of the law. Other notable foreign speakers included Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo of the South

34

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

African Constitutional Court who stoically stated that Courts have a crucial role to play in socio-economic rights, and Justice VK Rajah, Judge of the Court of Appeal, Singapore who took us through the UK House of Lords decision of Chadwood. In between we had the unyielding Chief Justice of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Tun Azmi who cogitated deeply what judicial activism meant to him. A common theme that ran throughout the MLC was that of the Constitution. A number of sessions were set out with distinguished speakers justifying what it means to have a living and breathing constitution.

The MLC was brought to a close when Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim addressed the anticipated crowd by explaining why reason was on his side, quoting Anatole France among others.

Events

In between the conference papers being presented and furiously debated, the delegates were feted to a welcome reception, Friday night party and the gala dinner. It was indeed endearing to see some delegates come alive at night while enjoying the fine food and beverage that were on offer. The success of the MLC would not have been possible but for the hard work of the organising committee. Plaudits must be given to Lim Chee Wee and Raphael Tay who marshalled the organising committee well. A vote of thanks also goes to the lawyers, Bar Council Secretariat staff, webreporters and volunteers who provided an invaluable service to the MLC. As we look back with some measure of pride, we take pleasure in knowing that we made the 2010 Malaysian legal calendar an eventful one.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

35

Lifestyle

Through the Lens – Moh Kok Wai “One does need a certain amount of passion to be able to come up with good photographs and often the passion of the photographer can be seen in the photograph that is produced. In that way, photography is similar to the practice of law as it too can be as dry or as rewarding depending on the passion of the person.” by Azman Thaiyub Khan With the motto “There is nothing more satisfying and gratifying as an honest day’s work”, Moh Kok Wai, of Messrs Moh Kok Wai practises his trade with integrity and self-satisfaction. While enjoying the view of rolling green hills through the window of his first storey office in Taman Putra Ampang, Selangor, this writer listened to Moh regale tales from his childhood, teenage years, the step into legal practice, his memorable experiences in the legal field and also his current hobby of photography. Born in Pulau Pangkor and bred in Penang, Moh entertained this writer with his wistfulness and joy. This former student of St Mark, Perai and Bukit Mertajam High School took a break of one year after his Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia to fish and generally enjoy life prior to choosing law as a career path. Moh is currently in his 14th year of practice and runs his own firm which to a certain extent has given him the flexibility to garner his practice, clientele and workload to his preference. How it started Moh, who in his early years took up fishing as a way to unwind and relax, has in the past two years been an avid photographer. He bought his entry level NIKON D40 two months prior to his trip to Indonesia in December 2008 and spent the two months learning the bells and whistles of his DSLR. He obtained his guidance through various

36

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

sources including friends and the internet. He states that the exposure is limitless as there are so many things to learn in photography. Lawyers generally work many hours of the day and often into the wee hours of the morning to take care of the needs of the clients and to comply with directions of the court and photography is merely one of the many ways one can choose to unwind, relax and unload the proverbial “problems of the world” off one’s shoulders.

Whilst the work a lawyer does in the advancement of his professional career is generally not appreciated, a photographer does receive a certain amount of appreciation from the people who get to see the pictures. Inspiration To this writer’s query to Moh as to whether anyone who had a good camera can produce good pictures, Moh had this to say, “The way of looking at things can be cultivated”. True enough, Moh credits

Lifestyle

National Geographic magazine for his eye towards his talent. Moh admires the talents of Joe McNally, the internationally acclaimed photographer who was once described by American Photo as “perhaps the most versatile photojournalist working today”. A local photographer he admires would be the wedding photographer, Louis Pang. The photo entitled “Afghan Girl” that appeared in the National Geographic June 1985 issue by journalist Steve McCurry is Moh’s favourite photograph of all time. Sharbat Gula was approximately 12 years old and living in a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan during the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when she was photographed by McCurry and the image brought her recognition when it was featured on the cover of the issue. According to Moh, it is an image that has layers of emotions entwined within it, from innocence to poverty to fear and the lighting and shadow play of the subject matter is remarkable.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

37

Lifestyle

Moh, whose photographic eye was opened at Sugihwaras near Bojonegoro, East Jawa and Kediri, a medieval kingdom occupying territory in present-day East Jawa, described the charm of these places as rustic and back to basic and hence ideal photography locations. Locally, although Moh has been to many places and locations to photograph many different views and sights, he said he loved to photograph children generally. Naturally, his daughter Patrina Moh, is the subject of many of his photographic compositions. Moh’s ideal locations to visit to photograph would be the base camp at Tibet, Yunan province in China and Mongolia where he hopes to have more challenging photo shoots with the chance to improve his style. It is all passion Photography is merely his hobby and his way to unwind and he is not looking at any pecuniary rewards from it and that would mean he does not see himself giving up his practice and going into photography full time. He said that one does need a certain amount of passion to be able to come up with good photographs and often the passion of the photographer can be seen in the photograph that is produced. In that way, photography is similar to the practice of law as it too can be as dry or as rewarding depending on the passion of the person. Moh’s advice to avid photographers is not to go into it looking for money but instead to start with an entry level DSLR, to fiddle with it and see if there is an interest and then to take it from there but most importantly, to have fun at all times. Moh has his own collection of photographs up for view at http://www.flickr.com/ photos/[email protected]/ and also http://www.facebook.com/mohkokwai

38

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Lifestyle

Monterez Golf & Country Club: golf, leisure, chilling and dining by Razlina Razali

Monterez Golf & Country Club which situated in the suburban area of Shah Alam gives you the green that any golf club should. The secluded location provides the escape from the hustle and bustle of the metro life. Monterez offers the weary urbanite an idyllic retreat to nature with resort facilities, steeped in the highest traditions of leisure. At Monterez, you will discover a world of difference. Monterez adopted the concept of the Maya civilisation, renowned as one of the most advanced civilisations in the history. The essence of this ancient traditions is reflected in Monterez’s unique architecture and building designs. These essence, according to Chow Chee Keong, General Manager of Monterez, is revealed significantly in their newsletter, murals and name of outlets such as Mayan, Madera, Montebello, Sunterez and Pedro. The contour of El Castillo (also known as Pyramid of Kukulcan) is even reflected in the design of Monterez Clubhouse, archway, corporate logo and landscape. In line with the theme symbolised by their emblem, “Create Monterez as an idyllic place for family where living and

40

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Lifestyle

leisure come together”, Chow would likens the Monterez to the comedy show Cheers, a friendly, relaxed environment where “everybody knows your name”. He added that he and his team strive to create a place everyone could have the sense of belonging to, and feel like at home while doing the activities offered at Monterez. A common excuse often heard is, “I’ve always wanted to try golf, but I don’t really want to be a club member and the notion of the exclusiveness (read: expensive) makes me feel uncomfortable”. According to Chow, Monterez welcomes beginners, they have programes for people with that kind of excuse, and it’s affordable. You don’t even have to be a member to enjoy the facilities. So, for you out there who

wants to try out golfing or who wants to golf without having the commitment, this is the place you want to be; where everybody knows your name. Besides golf, Monterez has so much more to offer. If your definition of a healthy lifestyle is through sports and leisure, Monterez provides both. For sports, they have swimming pools, squash, tennis, basketball and volleyball courts. As for leisure, you can bring your family and friends for karaoke and shoot some pool. Keep your skin healthy, smooth and firm in the sauna, and while doing so, relax your mind and let the heat do its wonders. No golf club would be complete without a superb restaurant or dining experience, and Monterez is not without either. At

its restaurants, the Sunterez Golfers’ Terrace, the Pool Side Terrace and the Garden Terrace, a team of excellent chefs work around the clock to provide mouthwatering, popular delicacies. Depending on your mood and preference, if you want to indulge in a wide selection of cocktails and mocktails and unwind with your golfing companions, Pedro’s Fun Pub is where you want to chill out. Catch the sizzling act of their live bands and meet them up-close and personal for a great time. Whether you want to enjoy the golfing experience, or you are into sports and leisure, or you just want to chill with your friends and family in this greenery with a touch of tranquility, Monterez is the place where everybody knows your name.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

41

Lifestyle

Not your average Cruze by Razlina Razali

The design of the Chevrolet Cruze stands out with a bold “face” that is fast becoming the signature look for Chevrolet models around the world. Its arching roofline gives the car a sporty, coupe-like proportion. “The Cruze reinterprets the traditional sedan with drama, confidence and a decidedly upscale presence”, adds Taewan Kim, chief designer of the Cruze. From front to rear, the striking aerodynamic exterior of the all-new Chevrolet Cruze has been expertly streamlined to exude strength, style and sophistication down to the slightest detail. A truly distinctive look appreciated by those who want to take a different journey.

The Cruze also sparks the beginning of Chevrolet’s new design language, clearly seen in its signature dual-port grille bearing Chevy’s gold bowtie with confidence. Flanked by rake headlamps with jewel details and rear styling with tail light clusters, the Cruze aims to please with a coupelike exterior and classy, sculpted twin cockpit. Wider and longer than most of its competitors, the Cruze has a wellproportioned cabin that seats four adults comfortably along with ample boot space. Every aspect of the interior, seamless in styling is designed to look truly tasteful. The look, a unique dual cockpit and luxury sports interior.

42

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Lifestyle

The Cruze also excels in terms of safety, having garnered a 5-star safety rating from Euro NCAP. The exceptional safety and crashworthiness of the allnew Chevrolet Cruze lets you cruise with greater confidence knowing you and your loved ones are both actively and passively protected from any unexpected situation every time and every where you drive. On a whole, the Cruze delivers European ride and handling with features that will have drivers clocking up the miles with ease. It’s the perfect city and highway companion for the driver who demands outstanding presence, exceptional quality and heart-pumping performance from his car. What’s more, with a built-in Anti-Pollution Sensor (“APS”), the Cruze is undoubtedly a car of the future.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

43

Sports

Highlights of Sports Events by Jaspal Singh and Anand Ponnudurai

Living up to the committee’s tagline “Bridging the divide through sports”, is exactly what the Sports Committee members have been focused on since the beginning of the 2010/2011 term. The Sports Committee has indeed had an active term so far. Interstate Bar Games 2010 Amongst the games organised were the Interstate Bar games. These games are now traditionally held as a selection process for the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games so that members from all states are given an opportunity to participate in the same.

44

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Held on 26 and 27 Feb 2010 in Kuantan, Pahang (hosted by the Pahang Bar Committee), the Interstate Bar Games saw the State Bars sending teams for the various games competed. Five games were played — badminton (won by Selangor, runner-up Penang), football (won by Terengganu, runner-up Selangor), golf (won by Perak, runner-up Selangor), netball (won by KL, runner-up Pahang) and Volleyball (won by Selangor, runner-up KL).

The Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament 2010 The Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament was held on 3 and 4 Apr 2010 at Bukit Jawi Golf Resort, Mainland Penang. Approximately 48 golfers participated in the two days event. SS Ravichandran of the Selangor Bar garnered the Net Champion award and Andrew Yee of the

Sports

Perak Bar, the Gross Champion award. This venue was also earmarked for the Bench and Bar Games the following month, so this helped the players eventually selected to represent the Malaysian Bar gain an edge over Singapore in the latter’s golf games. Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games The Annual Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games was the highlight of our calendar. Hosted by the Penang Bar Committee, the event was held in the Pearl of the Orient (Penang) from 29 Apr till 1 May 2010. A tremendous amount of effort was put in by all conveners to retain the overall trophy which we have now won three times on a trot. As part of tradition, the Malaysian contingent was led by the Chief Justice of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Tun Azmi, and attended by close to a 200 participants and supporters from Malaysia as well as Singapore.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

45

Sports

In the end, Malaysian Bar was triumphant in badminton, bowling, veteran football, hockey, netball, golf and premier soccer, while Singapore beat us in squash, tennis, table tennis, volleyball, cross country and cricket. We drew in ladies soccer. The series this year was indeed very exciting with the scores being level at the point of the very last game to be played which was premier soccer. The Malaysian team was down 1–0 at half time with Sports Chairperson Jaspal looking like he was having a heart attack! Thanks to the personal pep talk to all players by our CJ during half time, the players managed to score two goals in the second half and thus securing the win and the coveted overall trophy as a direct result thereof. We are already in the midst of preparing for the next series which will be hosted by Singapore at the end of April 2011. The Singaporeans have vowed to win the series on home soil and we will have to ensure that they don’t! Royal Selangor Club (“RSC”) International Hockey 9’s tournament Malaysian Bar hockey team were invited to participate in the above games which boasts participation from 30 teams from the country and abroad. The team performed well but lost in the semi finals of the plate event.

46

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

State Bar News

State Bar News (as at October 2010)

Contributions by State Bar Secretariats and Committee Members Johore Bar The Johore Bar Legal Aid Subcommittee organised various programmes in conjunction with the National Law Awareness Week from 11 to 17 Oct 2010, with the objective to create awareness on the rights of people and the Johore Legal Aid Centre. The theme of the National Law Awareness Week was “Police and Your Basic Rights”. On 15 Oct 2010, Noorfajri b Ismail, an “old boy” from Sekolah Menengah Dato’ Jaafar (“SMDJ”), Johor Bahru, gave a talk to SMDJ students about juvenile issues and their rights. A law awareness campaign, jointly organised with the Rotary Club of Tebrau, was held on 17 Oct 2010 at Danga City Mall, Johor Bahru, from 11:00 am to

4:00 pm, where 14 volunteer lawyers gave advice in their respective fields of expertise and 10 pupils in chambers were present to render their help and support.

Hotel, Kota Bharu, on 19 July 2010. During the dinner, members were treated with band performance by key boardist Azmi b Abdullah and a karaoke session.

Kedah/Perlis Bar

A Kelantan lawyers’ “Hari Raya GetTogether” was held on 5 Oct 2010 at 8:30 pm to 11:30 pm at Dewan Duyong 1, Perdana Beach Resort, Kota Bharu. The event was attended by about 200 guests, comprising lawyers and their families, and YA Tuan Ahmad Zaidi b Ibrahim and YA Tuan Azman b Abdullah. It was an enjoyable function and it was hoped that similar functions would be organised in the future.

No contribution was provided before the editorial deadline. Kelantan Bar The “Getting Started” workshop, jointly organised with Bar Council, was held in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. The workshop took place on 13 June 2010 at Royal Guest House from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm with 24 attendees. A welcome dinner was held for YA Tuan Ahmad Zaidi b Ibrahim and YA Tuan Azman b Abdullah at the Grand Riverview

Kuala Lumpur (“KL”) Bar The KL Bar, as part of its continuing efforts to improve non-professional services to KL Bar members, entered into a collaboration

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

47

State Bar News

with DiGi to bring to members exclusive mobile and internet (Blackberry and iPhone) packages through the Information Technology Committee, while the Professional Development Committee organised 21 seminars between March and October 2010. The Environmental and Humanities Committee (“EHC”) started the term by continuing the “old/used paper collection day” in conjunction with Earth Day on 22 Apr 2010. This year, 270 kg of old/ used paper was collected with the support of its members, several legal firms and the KL Bar Secretariat. EHC also took a major undertaking in promoting the Climate Change Programme led by Chew Swee Yoke. EHC was also invited to the Universiti Teknologi MARA Law Week on 1 to 5 Mar 2010, organised by the Environmental Law and Awareness Club of the Law Faculty, to host a booth, which was attended to by several members. EHC also organised a two-day trip to Cherating Turtles Sanctuary to enable members and their families to gain awareness about turtle conservation programmes. The Pupils Welfare Committee (“PWC”) continued to organise monthly civil litigation and criminal litigation workshops for pupils with the aim of introducing pupils to basic legal practice. PWC also

48

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

continued to organise monthly dialogues on the Ethics and Professional Standards (“EPS”) Examination where pupils are briefed on the EPS course and the usual problems relating to exam failure. The Social, Arts and Culture Committee (“SAC”) organised a “Blood Donation Drive” on 28 June 2010 at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex, Jalan Duta. SAC also organised a charity go-kart race on 7 Aug 2010. Net proceeds from the charity event were donated to the Orang Asli settlement in Kg Bertang, Raub, Pahang. The Sports Committee organised many activities including the Malaysian Bar Interstate Bar Games (hosted by the Pahang Bar on 26 and 27 Feb 2010 in Kuantan) and the Ruby Cup (a netball tournament hosted by the Selangor Bar on 26 June 2010 at Kompleks Sukan Negara Matsushita, Shah Alam). The Sports Committee also organised the 20th Sports Carnival, KL Bar v Royal Selangor Club where several games were played for the overall challenge trophy donated by the late Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim. The Kuala Lumpur/Selangor Bar Games - 10th Series was inaugurated after the split between the Selangor and Federal Territory Bar. Both teams played various sports for the Lall Singh Muker Trophy, donated by Lall Singh Muker, mother of a

senior Member of the Bar, SS Muker, who is a member of both the Selangor and KL Bars. The Young Lawyers Committee (“YLC”) has been involved in several activities, such as: a brainstorming meeting on 24 Apr 2010 at the Ascott; the Professionals Connect, on 15 and 16 May 2010, a public forum and exhibition organised by the Malaysian Professional Centre with the assistance of Young Professionals Alliance, of which the KL Bar YLC is a part of; the YLC futsal on 21 May 2010 at Padang OU; a trip to Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on 5 June 2010; a “Day with the Young Lawyers” at KDU on 26 June 2010; the Charity Night at GOSH on 2 July 2010; the Charity Night Appreciation Dinner at Malayas Bistro on 13 Aug 2010; the Jamuan Buka Puasa at Ali Baba’s Kebab on 18 Aug 2010; the Cheque Presentation (proceeds from Charity Night) to Marginal Youth Centre on 28 Aug 2010; the Cheque Presentation (proceeds from Charity Night) to Selangor Handicapped and Mentally Retarded Children Centre on 4 Sept2010; a visit to Parliament; a Traffic Light Party on 24 Sept 2010 at Finnegans, Changkat Bukit Bintang; a Day with the Young Lawyers at INTI, Nilai on 2 Oct2010; a Day with the Young Lawyers at KDU on 9 Oct 2010; and a Day with the Young Lawyers at UIA on 16 Oct 2010.

State Bar News Malacca Bar The Malacca Bar’s Human Rights Subcommittee and Contemporary Issues Subcommittee co-organised a forum entitled “1Malaysia: Fact or Fiction” on 6 Aug 2010 at Renaissance Hotel, Melaka. The forum was a platform for Malaccans from all walks of life to gain an insight to the current Prime Minister’s push for “1Malaysia”, its shortcomings and potential from the viewpoints of the panellists comprising Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, Tan Jing Shen (a 19-year-old student leader) and Dr Azmi Sharom. Negeri Sembilan Bar No contribution was provided before the editorial deadline.

Pahang Bar On 12 June 2010, a forum and public awareness programme on the new third party bodily injury and death insurance scheme (“TPBID”) was held at the Pahang Bar Building. The speakers, Ragunath Kesavan (President of the Malaysian Bar), M Ramachelvam (Chairperson of Bar Council’s Law Reform Special Areas Committee) and Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah (Chief Executive of the Federation of Malaysian Consumers Association), discussed the pros and cons of TPBID, not only to lawyers from the Pahang Bar, but also to members of the insurance industry and members of the

public. TPBID was conceived because it was feared that in the long run, insurance companies might go bust if claims were not capped. Penang Bar The Penang Bar held a “Talk on Basic Conveyancing Practice” by Louis Van Buerle on 9 Apr 2010, to guide pupils in chambers and young lawyers in pertinent matters and pitfalls of conveyancing practice. The Malaysia/Singapore Bench & Bar Games 2010 were held in Penang on 29 Apr to 1 May 2010. The event saw a good turnout of Members of the Malaysian Bar from throughout the country together with some Judges, as well as a large contingent from Singapore with a number

Chin; a courtesy call made by the Penang Bar Committee to the Penang State Prison Director on 20 July 2010; the PenangPerak Bar Games on 6 and 7 Aug in Ipoh, Perak. The Penang Bar was represented by about 60 members, participating in futsal, football, netball, bowling, hockey, tennis and badminton; a talk on section 340 of the National Land Code and the recent outcomes of related court cases on 20 Aug 2010 by Andrew Wong; the annual Jamuan Makan Malam Aidilfitri on 19 Sept 2010 at the Sunway Convention Centre organised by the Syariah Committee; a forum on “The Speedy Disposal of Cases” on 8 Oct 2010, chaired by Penang Bar’s Chairperson, Mureli Navaratnam, and senior lawyer Dato’ V Sithambaram; the Penang Bar’s 24th Annual Dinner and Dance on 2 Oct 2010 at the Eastin Hotel;

of their Judges. The Games’ Organising Committee, led by its chairperson, GT Lee, with the aid of volunteer lawyers and pupils, did a wonderful job in organising the event; from the games venue, games referees, accommodation, transport, protocol matters, dinners, and the works that went into the Games. It was a great weekend of camaraderie where old friends were reunited and new friends were made. The Malaysian team won the Bench & Bar Games 2010 and it is hoped that the 2011 Games in Singapore would see a huge turnout of the Malaysian Bar Members.

and “Remembering James Richardson Logan”, an evening event on 20 Oct 2010 to mark the anniversary of a Penang-based lawyer and human rights activist in the 1800s.

Other major events included: a Risk Management Workshop on 25 June 2010 by Bar Council Executive Officer, Wong Li

Pestaria dan Hari Terbuka Anjuran Jawatankuasa Peguam Perak bersama Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh was held at Polo

Perak Bar At the Perak Bar Closed Sports 2010; Senior v Junior, experience was shown to rule over exuberance when the senior members won three (volleyball, badminton and bowling) out of the five sports played. The junior members managed to conquer two final events, football and netball.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

49

State Bar News theme, was also organised by the Selangor Bar. There was also a netball tournament and for the first time, Selangor Bar participated in the Selangor Hockey league. Selangor Bar’s annual Bench & Bar Get-Together, themed “World Cup Fever”, was held on 19 June 2010 at the Tropicana Golf and Country Resort. Terengganu Bar

Ground on 22 May 2010 featuring 14 foodstalls, booths held by six corporate bodies comprising banks, insurance companies, telecommunication and publication company, the Insolvency Department and Rakan Cop. Mayor Dato’ Hj Roshidi b Hj Hashim officiated the event and expressed his intention to make it a yearly event. He also agreeed to provide an annual fund of RM5,000, in addition to equipment and services to the Perak Bar Committee to organise such events. The band and performances were courtesy of Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh (“MBI”) but the highlight was the performance by Bhangra King. The grand finale was the tug-of-war between the members of the bar and MBI. In the Bar & Bench Veterans Football Friendly, it was the day the glorious Perak Bar Veteran football players, who inspired fear in their opponents in the 90s, met the ever-fit Bench team. Both teams played a beautiful game, but in the end the valiant efforts of the Perak Bar was defeated by the fitness and determination of the Bench by 3-1. Perak’s only consolation goal came from their attacking midfielder, Nicky

Chen, who also sponsored the Jabulani Game Ball for the game. At the Interstate Bar Golf Tournament held at the Pantai Lagenda Golf & Country Club, the triumphant Perak Bar Team was represented by golfers like Mat Diah Endut (Perak Bar Chairman), Dalgit Singh (Golf Captain), Andrew Yee, K Subramaniam, Dr James Loh, Ahmad Kamal Ayob, Akhiruddin Mohamad Taib, Muhammad Fuaad Saibun and Zaizuraimy Abd Rahim. At the annual Perak-Penang Bar Games, the Perak Bar emerged triumphant again. The overall tie ended 7-4 in Perak Bar’s favour with the Perak Bar winning in football, tennis, basketball, snooker, hockey and darts, whilst the Penang Bar won in badminton, netball, volleyball and bowling. Futsal and cricket were tied. A celebratory dinner was held at the Neptune Room of the Ipoh Swimming club. Selangor Bar The Selangor Bar Committee organised 16 talks/seminars/workshops on topics such as effective advocacy in civil and criminal matters, family matters including tracing matrimonial assets and contempt proceedings, and women’s rights following divorce in syariah and civil proceedings. A workshop on mediation was also held for the benefit of the members. The Selangor Bar Cup, a football tournament with the World Cup

50

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

On 5 and 10 May 2010, the Terengganu Bar Committee organised an educational trip to Melbourne, Australia, for its members. The participants visited, inter alia, the Melbourne Supreme Court and Legal Aid Centre. The trip was made possible with the help of a member who currently resides in Melbourne. On 23 and 24 July 2010, the Terengganu Bar Committee held its Family Day 2010, which was a huge success where 385 members and their families were present, the biggest turnout ever. Most members stayed at the breathtaking Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa and enjoyed the events organised such as the telematch, sports event and dinner. Among the grand prizes for the lucky draw this year was a two-door LG fridge, a two-day stay at the Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa, bicycles and electrical goods. A well-received treasure hunt for members was also organised in conjunction with Terengganu Bar’s Family Day. The grand prize was a one-night stay at Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa. The participants’ cars were flagged off from Kompleks Seri Iman Kuala Terengganu and the route taken was via Kuala Terengganu to Kuala Berang. The pit stop of the race was at the Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa. Most of the participants managed to finish the race within the stipulated time and everyone enjoyed the treasure hunt immensely. On 18 Apr 2010, a farewell lunch was held for Tuan Azhar bin Othman and YA Tuan Khalid bin Abd Karim, two Session Court Judges who had been transferred. The Terengganu Bar members wished the judges every success in their future. Terengganu Bar’s Hari Raya Gathering was held on 2 Oct 2010 at Dewan Utama, Menara Yayasan Islam Terengganu. It was a wonderful gathering where members and their family had a great time enjoying each other’s company and the sumptuous buffet of traditional delicacies.

Book Review

The PAM 2006 Standard Form of Building Contract Authors: Sundra Rajoo, Dato’ WSW Davidson and Ir Harbans Singh KS Review by Daniel Tan Chun Hao

The PAM 2006 Standard Form was launched in April 2007. Sanctioned and approved by the Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (Malaysian Institute of Architects, “PAM”), it has been the form of contract adopted by many consultants and developers in the building industry over the past few years. The eminent authors of this book have clearly taken it upon themselves to compile a detailed analysis on the law and practice of the PAM 2006 Form, a task which is in every respect formidable. The layout of the book follows the chronology of the PAM 2006 Form, addressing the articles of agreement and each clause in turn with the authors’ corresponding analysis and criticisms as they considered appropriate. As a new form in the building and construction industries, the authors made clear their disappointments in the PAM 2006 Form, particularly in relation to certain departures from the drafting philosophy of its predecessor, the PAM 1998 Form, and the failure of the PAM 2006 Form to follow more contemporaneous trends seen in other available forms in the industry. Although credit is given by the authors to welcomed changes introduced by the drafters, these are few and far between. However, we should not be distracted from the fact that the drafters of the PAM 2006 Form are by no means newbies to the industry, each of them having considerable experience in their own right. With the collective experience of the drafters of the PAM 2006 Form and

that of the authors, this book contains much useful information for practitioners, provided the information is digested in an objective manner. As a practitioner involved in the construction and building industries, it is my view that comprehensive and accurate resource material in all forms is essential towards ensuring a proper understanding of contract law and its application in the administration of projects. Having had some experience using various reference textbooks over the years, this one stands out as being very relevant, if not the most relevant one currently available in the Malaysian context. The analyses and commentaries by the authors are very detailed and comprehensive, supported by numerous references to legal authorities and also views of other eminent writers. Where appropriate, the authors have not only stated the law as it was before printing (as at 31 Mar 2010), but discussed how the law has developed over the years against relevant clauses, thus giving some insights on possible trends for further developments in the near future. As a gauge of importance to contracting parties, the longer commentaries (that have more references to legal authorities) can be found in certain areas such as liquidated damages, extension of time, certificates and payment, and also adjudication and arbitration; these are areas where disputes typically arise. It should be noted here that the principles of law and practice referred to by the authors are of general application and largely relevant to other forms of contract used in the industry.

The authors of the PAM 2006 Form have highlighted changes in risk allocation introduced by the drafters. In all fairness to the authors, where some criticisms have been lodged, they have by and large been constructive by giving pointers as to what needs to be considered when addressing the shortfalls of the form. Taking these in good stead, it will become apparent to practitioners that it is not an option to simply adopt the PAM 2006 Form without amendment. Identifying the changes in risk allocation introduced by the PAM 2006 Form may appear straightforward, but appreciating and managing them would be a separate ball game altogether; a burden that can be made a little lighter with this book. There are essentially two criticisms in relation to the book as resource material: the first, on the book itself, relates several typographical, spelling and page referencing errors that annoyingly appear in various parts of the book — it is hoped that the publishers will in due course remedy (or at least minimise) this glitch; the second is that the local industry could do with more textbooks with similar commentaries on other commonly used forms of contract and on the often neglected forms of sub-contract. All in all, it is definitely a “must have” reference book for anyone involved in the industry.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

51

By The Way ... Crossword puzzle by Syamsuriatina Ishak

  



 













 







  













 





 

 













ACROSS 1. BENCH 6. HABEAS CORPUS 8. MENS REA 10. OFFER 13. NUISANCE 15. JUDGMENT 17. DEBENTURE 19. CODICIL 21. GARNISH 27. AB INITIO 28. TESTATE 30. RETAINER 32. MAJORITY 34. SPAM 35. DICTUM 37. DEPONENT

Jan–mar 2011

MEDIATION ULTRA VIRES COVENANT MERUIT SLANDER FEE COPYRIGHT SUBPOENA MEANS TEST BENEFICIARY LANDLORD AMICUS OIT STARE DECISIS WARRANTY RES IPSA LOQUITUR INFRINGEMENT EASEMENT IMPLIED DONOR

Praxis

Down 2. formal accusation (6) 3. face worth (8) 4. discuss aiming to compromise (9) 5. beyond power (11) 7. restriction (8) 8. quantum... reasonable value for services (6) 9. oral untruth (7) 11. payment (3) 12. right to exploit creative work (9) 14. order to attend court (8)

16. qualification for legal aid (9) 18. entitled to receive, heir (11) 20. owner of realty (8) 22. friend of the court (6) 23. order in terms (3) 24. follow precedent from above (12) 25. guarantee (8) 26. facts speak for themselves (15) 29. unauthorised use (12) 31. right of way (8) 33. not written down or spoken, but meant (7) 36. giver of gift (5)

4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 29. 31. 33. 36.

52

35. by the way (6) 37. affirmer (8)

DOWN 2. CHARGE 3. PAR VALUE

Across 1. judges (5) 6. writ to challenge detention (12) 8. intention (7) 10. first move in contract (5) 13. interfering use of property (8) 15. decision (8) 17. credit bond (9) 19. will supplement (7) 21. take property to satisfy debt (7) 27. from the beginning (8) 28. dying with a valid will (7) 30. fee paid in advance (8) 32. of age (8) 34. unsolicited email (4)

An

s r e sw

By The Way ...

Justice & Jamtarts

Sudoku is a game of logic and deduction, with the objective of filling all the blank squares with the correct numbers in the 9x9 game square, subject to the  following rules:

by Cecil Rajendra ‘The backlog of 3,395 commercial and civil High Court cases will be cleared in two years,’ said the Chief Justice at the launch of two new civil High Courts yesterday.



He added that the new civil court system also targeted for cases to be settled within 9 months. On average, each judge will handle 56 cases a month.

• Every row and every column of 9 numbers must include all digits, 1 through 9, in any order • Every 3x3 subsection of the 9x9 square must include all digits, 1 through 9

‘The faster disposal of cases will also instil confidence in investors wanting to come to Malaysia ...’ he concluded. Bernama

Working on the premises that what the Country most needs is a superfast jamtart factory ...







 









A spanking new Palace of Jamtarts — with a speedy delivery system — took root outside the City.





 





 













 





 

 

Any variety: Gooseberry Apple, Pineapple, Durian Rambutan or Raspberry could be whipped up & delivered in 9 seconds.





 





Sudoku  





' !"#$%&'()*+,))'



Each waiter had a quota of 56 tarts to dispose off in a minute. Each counter was tasked with clearing 3,395 packages within 2 hours. It did not matter if the tarts were halfbaked, rancid or sour ... the Chief Jamtart-Maker (CJM) was not interested in quality or flavour; only in quantity & number. Quislings boasting inflated figures were elevated; weaklings falling below their quota, tartly reprimanded. Never mind the local consumer ... “A superfast delivery system,” the Chief Jamtart-Maker said, “would put our country ahead of Hong Kong, Singapore UK and the States, instil confidence in foreign investment.”

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

53

Bar Updates/Notices

SUMMARY OF CIRCULARS (August - November 2010)

Circular No

Title

Summary

207/2010

Brief Report on the Dialogue Between Bar Council and LHDN Held on 2 July 2010 on Issues Relating to the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976

This circular is a summary of matters discussed at the dialogue between Bar Council and Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri held on 2 July 2010.

211/2010

Rules on Cessation of, or Change in, Practice

Members who wish to cease practice, either on a permanent or temporary basis, or intend to practise with another firm, are required to notify Bar Council, and to comply with the Bar Council’s Rules on Cessation of, or Change in, Practice.

213/2010

LawCare: Malaysian Bar Members’ Beneficiary/Trustee Form

Members are urged to complete and submit the Malaysian Bar Member’s Beneficiary/Trustee Nomination Form to assist the LawCare Department to expeditiously pay out the total sum insured.

214/2010

Guidelines for Filing and Checking of Orders and Judgments

The Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010, which came into effect on 16 Aug 2010, and the latest guidelines on how to check draft orders and judgments, are available at www.kehakiman.gov my.

216/2010

Implementation of Teleconferencing (Audio) System at the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the Civil and Commercial Divisions of the High Court, Kuala Lumpur Court Complex

To speed up case management and make it easier for Members, a teleconferencing system has been implemented in various courts.

217/2010

Practice Direction 5/2010 on Mediation

Access this circular to view a copy of Practice Direction 5/2010 on Mediation, which was issued to all Courts and took effect from 16 Aug 2010.

219/2010

Chief Registrar’s Circular No 5 of 2010: Handling Traffic Summonses and Warrants of Arrest in Subordinate Court

Access this circular to view a copy of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 5 of 2010, which came into effect on 18 Aug 2010.

223/2010

Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010: Guidelines for Filing of Draft Orders/Judgments and Fair Orders/Judgments in Court Proceedings Throughout Malaysia

Access the circular to view a copy of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010, which came into effect on 16 Aug 2010.

225/2010

Reduction in PII Base Premium from RM1,300 to RM1,200

Bar Council has successfully negotiated with our insurers for a 7.7% reduction in Professional Indemnity premium to RM1,200 per lawyer as a result of our risk management efforts and initiatives to instil a sound work culture.

234/2010

Practice Direction No 6 of 2010:Revocation of Direction that Photographs Submitted as Exhibits in the Trial Court Must Be Presented in the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court During an Appeal

The Chief Justice of Malaysia has directed that Practice Direction No 1 of 2010 be revoked, effective 24 Aug 2010, and the previous practice direction regarding photographs submitted in Court during trial or appeal stage be restored.

238/2010

Update on the Proposed Combined Rules of Court and the Amendment to the Subordinate Courts Act

This circular contains a summary of updates on the Proposed Combined Rules of Court and the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010.

245/2010

Update on the Register of Mentors

Members who require help and guidance in areas of practice management can seek help and guidance from senior Members through this initiative. The Register of Mentors is also accessible from the drop down menu under the “Directories” tab on the Malaysian Bar website.

247/2010

Updates on Court-Assigned Counsel for Capital Cases and Volunteers for the Buddy System

Access this circular to view the list of Members approved to serve as court-assigned counsel for capital cases, and the list of Members who have agreed to serve as mentors for the “buddy system”.

249/2010

Meeting between the Bar Council and the Judiciary

This circular provides a summary of matters discussed at the meeting between Bar Council and the Judiciary held on 3 June 2010.

250/2010

The Roll of Advocates and Solicitors (1948 to 16 June 2010)

A copy of the Roll of advocates and solicitors admitted to the Bar from 1948 to 16 June 2010 is available for inspection at the Bar Council Library.

255/2010

Ruling with regard to Guidelines for Filing of Draft Orders/Judgments and Fair Orders/Judgments in Court Proceedings throughout Malaysia

Access this circular to view a copy of the ruling made by Bar Council with reference to item (m) of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010 dated 12 Aug 2010. Refer to Circular No 223/2010 above.

257/2010

Guidelines on Early Evaluation of Cases and Guidelines for the Pilot Project of the Digital Recording System in the Industrial Courts

Access this circular to view:

258/2010

Compendium of Personal Injury Awards

Access this circular to view the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards, which the Judiciary is in agreement with.

260/2010

Registrar’s Circular No: 2/2010

Access the circular to view the Registrar’s Circular No: 2/2010 dated 11 Oct 2010, in respect of the attestation of the writ of summons filed in the High Court of Malaya, which must be in the name of the Right Honourable Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. The Registrar’s Circular No: 2/2009 has been revoked.

Teste of a Writ (Amendment)

(1) (2)

Practice Note No: 3 of 2010 – Guidelines on Early Evaluation of Cases; and Guidelines for the Pilot Project of the Digital Recording System.

The list above highlights some of Bar Council’s circulars sent out to Members of the Bar between August and November 2010 via email. Access the Malaysian Bar website at www.malaysianbar.org my to view these, and many other, circulars in full. Please note that some circulars may only be accessible if you are a registered user of the Malaysian Bar website.

54

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Bar Updates/Notices

LIBRARY UPDATES

NEW BOOKS Amnesty International, Trapped: The exploitation of Migrant Workers in Malaysia, Abused and Abandoned: Refugees Denied Rights in Malaysia & There is a Way Out: Stop Abuse of Migrants Detained in Malaysia, London, Amnesty International, 2010.

Pinsler, Jeffrey, Evidence and the Litigation Process (3rd Ed), Singapore: LexisNexis, 2010.

A Guide to Corporate Governance in Malaysia, Singapore, CCH Asia Pte Ltd, 2010.

Rachagan, Shanthy, Concise Principles of Company Law in Malaysia (2nd Ed), Petaling Jaya, Selangor, LexisNexis, Malaysia.

Bowstead, William, Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency (19th Ed), London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010. Chandrasegar Chidambaram, Take-overs and Mergers (2nd Ed) Hong Kong, LexisNexis, 2010. Charlesworth, J, Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (12th Ed), London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010. Dass, Santhana S, The Law of Motor Insurance, Kuala Lumpur, Marsden Law Book, 2010. Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases, Singapore, Academy Publishing, 2010. Hamid Sultan b Abu Backer, Janab’s Key to Criminal Procedure and Evidence (2nd Ed), Kuala Lumpur, Janab (M) Sdn Bhd, 2010. IM Shukri & Ainul Jaria Maidin, Malaysian Strata Titles: Law and Procedure, Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2010. McGregor, Harvey, McGregor on Damages, London, Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited, 2009. Nasser Hamid, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Gavel Publications, 2010. Netto, Marina, Contracts of Employment and Malaysian Industrial Law: Incorporating the Recent Amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 until 28th February 2008, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Ellen Burke, 2009. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme: A Handbook for Civil Society, New York, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2008.

Poh Chu Chai, Motor and work injury insurance, Hong Kong, LexisNexis, 2010.

Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s the Indian Penal Code: with exhaustive notes, comments, caselaw references and State Amendments, etc (33rd Ed) (Eco P/B) 2010 Gurgaon, Haryana, India, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010. Sabah Law Association Native Law, Culture, Custom & Rights Committee, Sabah Native Court of Appeal Law Report 1989–2009, Sabah, Sabah Law Association Native Law, Culture, Custom & Rights Committee, 2010. Sabah Limitation Ordinance, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Gavel Publications, 2010. Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Gavel Publications, 2010. Sarkar, MC Sarkar’s Law of Evidence: In India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma & Ceylon (16th Ed) New Delhi, India: Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2007. Shadrake, Alan, Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Petaling Jaya (SIRD), 2010. Stamp Act 1949: Commentary and Cases, Kuala Lumpur, Commerce Clearing House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, 2010. Tan Cheng Han, The Law of Agency, Singapore, Academy Publishing, 2010. Tan, Kevin, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore (3rd Ed) Singapore, LexisNexis, 2010. Understanding Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Eurosource Publications Ltd, 2010.

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

55

Bar Updates/Notices

Legislative Updates (As at November 2010)

BILLS 2010 TITLE

AMENDING ACTS 2010 PUBLICATION DATE

Act No:

Title

ACT A1377

RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - General Amendment- Amending ss.1,4, and 7 by substituting for the word “Malaysia” wherever appearing the words “Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of Labuan”. - A mends ss.1,2,66,89 w.e.f.: - 15.9.2010 – [P.U.(B) 386/2010]

ACT A1379

DIRECT SALES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends long title, short title, ss.2,4,6,11,12,Part. III,29,30,31,32, 33,34,35,36,38,39,41,42. - Inserts new ss.19A, Part.VA (ss.27A,27B),29A,29B,29C,29 D,33A,33B, 33C,36A,43A,45,New Sch. - Deletes s.7 w.e.f.: - Not yet in force

ACT A1380

STAMP (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends ss.2,36B,37,38,38A - Inserts new ss.36AA,36C,74A,74B w.e.f.: - 1.11.2010 - [P.U. (B) 476/2010]

Title

ACT A1381

YOUTH SOCIETIES AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT 2007 An Act to register youth societies, promote and facilitate the development of youth in Malaysia from the aspect of education, research and human resource, to establish a National Youth Consultative Council, to establish the Malaysian Institute For Research In Youth Development and to provide for related matters. w.e.f.: - 1.10.2010 – [P.U.(B) 414/2010] in the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends ss.2,9,11,23,53,98,146 - Inserts new ss.21A, Part IIIA (ss.24A-24J), Part XIA (ss.84A84D),New Sch. Deletes s.103 w.e.f.: - Not yet in force

ACT A1382

SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - General Amendment:- Deletes the words “or Penghulu’s Court” wherever they appear. - Amends ss.2,3,5,65,69,73,90,92,93 - Inserts new ss.5A,101A - Deletes ss.86,91,Part.VIII,100 w.e.f.:- Not yet in force

ACT A1383

COMPETITION ACT 2010 An Act to promote economic development by promoting and protecting the process of competition, thereby protecting the interests of consumers and to provide for matters connected therewith. w.e.f.: - 1.1.2012 – [P.U.(B) 410/2010]

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends s.3, w.e.f.:- Not yet in force.

ACT A1384

COMPETITION COMMISSION ACT 2010 An Act to provide for the establishment of the Competition Commission, to set out the powers and functions of such Commission, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. w.e.f.: - 1.1.2011 – [P.U.(B) 499/2010]

HIRE-PURCHASE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends long title, ss.4A,4B,5,16,31,3, 38,45,46,50,51,51 B,53,55,55A,56,57. - Inserts new ss.4E,4F,4G,17A,17B,30A,50A,50B,51C,51D,5 1E,55B,55C,56B. w.e.f.: - Not yet in force.

ACT A1385

ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 Notes: - Amends long title, ss.1,2,3,5,Part.II,6,7,15,23,25,27,35,Pa rt.V,44,51, 52,58,63,66 - Inserts new ss.15A,17A,Part.IIIA (ss.26A-26K),41A,61A w.e.f.: - 15.11.2010 – [P.U.(B) 500/2010]

Bank Simpanan Nasional (Amendment) Act 2010 [DR.32/2010]

28.10.2010

Fees (Malaysian Meteorological Department) (Validation) Act 2010 [DR.31/2010]

28.10.2010

Finance (No. 2) Act 2010 [DR.37/2010]

28.10.2010

Food Analysts Act 2010 [DR.34/2010]

28.10.2010

National Visual Arts Development Board Act 2010 [DR.33/2010]

28.10.2010

Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2010 [DR.35/2010]

28.10.2010

Supply Act 2011 [DR.36/2010]

28.10.2010

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2007 Act No: ACT 668

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2010 Act No: ACT 712

ACT 713

ACT 716

56

Title

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 2010 An Act to provide for the protection and conservation of wildlife and for matters connected therewith. w.e.f.: - N.Y.F

LATEST INDEX TO P.U.(A) SERIES 2010

.

[P.U.(A) 239/2010 - P.U.(A) 390/2010] As at August-November 2010

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2006

Title

P.U.(A) No.

Act No:

Title

373/2010

ACT A1267

MALAYSIAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ACT 2006 Notes: - Amends s.7, s.12A, s.26, s.28, and s.31 - Deletes s.30 w.e.f.: - 30.9.2010 – [P.U.(B) 415/2010]

ANIMALS ACT 1953 [ACT 647] ANIMALS (FEE FOR LICENSING OF DOG) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.38(4), Animals Act 1953 Notes: - The fee for the licensing of dog shall be RM20.00 per head. - Revokes the Animals (Licensing of Dogs) (Fee) Order 1953 [L.N. 848/1953] w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Bar Updates/Notices ANIMALS ACT 1953 [ACT 647] ANIMALS (IMPORT AND EXPORT EXAMINATION FEES) RULES 2010 Issued under s.86(2)(l), Animals Act 1953 w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011

374/2010

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING ACT 2001 [ACT 613] ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.85, Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 Notes:- Amends Sch.2,Anti-Money Laundering and AntiTerrorism Financing Act 2001 [Act 613] w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010

343/2010

BIOSAFETY ACT 2007 [ACT 678] BIOSAFETY (APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued Under S.69 (A), (B), (C), (G), (H) And (L) Biosafety Act 2007. w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

367/2010

CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (PRICE STABILIZATION MECHANISM) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.98(4)(e), s.180 and s.188(5), Capital Markets and Services Act 2007. Notes:- Amends reg.2, [P.U.(A) 8/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

335/2010

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1969 [ACT 3] CIVIL AVIATION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.3, Civil Aviation Act 1969 Notes:- Amends Sch.12, [P.U.(A) 139/1996] w.e.f.:- 15.8.2010

262/2010

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334] MOTOR VEHICLES (COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) RULES 2010 Issued under s.56(1), Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 Notes:- Amends Sch.5, [L.N. 175/1959] w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

311/2010

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334] MOTOR VEHICLES (COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) RULES 2010 Issued under s.56(1), Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 Notes:- Amends rule 41G, Sch.5, [L.N. 175/1959] w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

312/2010

COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998 [ACT 588] COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA (UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROVISION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under ss.16, 202(2) and 204(2), Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 419/2002] w.e.f.:- 10.5.2010

382/2010

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999 [ACT 599] CONSUMER PROTECTION (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE AND CONFORMITY MARK OF SAFETY STANDARDS) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under ss.19 and 150, Consumer Protection Act 1999 Notes:- Revokes the Consumer Protection (Certificate of Approval and Conformity Mark of Safety Standard) Regulations 2009 [P.U.(A) 276/2009] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

253/2010

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999 [ACT 599] CONSUMER PROTECTION (SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TOYS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.19, Consumer Protection Act 1999 Notes:- Amends reg.2, [P.U.(A) 275/2009] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

252/2010

CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.5, Control of Supplies Act 1961 w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010

285/2010

CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.4) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.5, Control of Supplies Act 1961 w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-17.9.2010

310/2010

CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO. 5) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.5 Control of Supplies Act 1961. w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010

366/2010

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1993 [ACT 502] CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ASSUMPTION OF CONTROL) (NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.64, Co-operative Societies Act 1993 Notes:- Encik Mohamad Zawawi b Mahmud to assume control of the whole of the property, business, activities and affairs of the Koperasi Serbaguna Felda Bukit Kuantan Berhad and its related corporations and carry on the whole of the business, activities and affairs. w.e.f.:- 26.7.2010 – 25.7.2012

242/2010

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1993 [ACT 502] CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ASSUMPTION OF CONTROL) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.69(2), Co-operative Societies Act 1993 Notes:- The Commission appoints Mohd Nasir b Mohd Nor (NRIC No.580928-11-5045) to assume control of the whole of the property, business, activities and affairs of the Koperasi Kakitangan Kerajaan Dan BadanBadan Berkanun Terengganu (KOKANUN) Berhad and its related corporation, and carry on the whole of its business, activities and affairs. w.e.f.:- 20.10.2010-19.10.2012

356/2010

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504] CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.28(6), Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967. Notes:- The period of effect of the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No.2) Order 2005 [P.U.(A) 414/2005] is extended and shall remain in force from 23 October 2010 to 20 April 2011. w.e.f.:- 23.10.2010

348/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends reg.3, Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 162/1977] w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

323/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends reg.3, Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 162/1977] w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

324/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.25, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993. Notes:- Amends Sch., [P.U.(A) 414/2005] w.e.f.:- 13.10.2009-22.10.2010

345/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.28(6), Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993. Notes:- The period of effect of the Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No.2) Order 2005 [P.U.(A) 414/2005] is extended and shall remain in force from 23 October 2010 to 20 April 2011. w.e.f.:- 23.10.2010

348/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued Under S.31(1), Customs Act 1967. Notes:- Amends Sch. [P.U.(A) 87/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

368/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.31(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch. [P.U.(A) 86/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

251/2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

57

Bar Updates/Notices

58

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.31(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.4, [P.U.(A) 86/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

258/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.15) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 29.7.2010 - 11.8.2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.34) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010 - 29.8.2010

284/2010

297/2010

247/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.35) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 30.8.2010-5.9.2010

268/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.36) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 6.9.2010-12.9.2010

315/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.16) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 12.8.2010 – 25.8.2010

289/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.37) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 13.9.2010-19.9.2010

318/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.17) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 26.8.2010-8.9.2010

316/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.38) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 20.9.2010-26.9.2010

320/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.18) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 9.9.2010-22.9.2010

321/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.39) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 27.9.2010-3.10.2010

325/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.19) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 23.9.2010-6.10.2010

342/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.40) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 4.10.2010-10.10.2010

339/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.20) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 7.10.2010-20.10.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.21) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 21.10.2010-3.11.2010

359/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.41) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 11.10.2010-17.10.2010

346/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.22) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 4.11.2010-17.11.2010

375/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.42) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 18.10.2010-24.10.2010

355/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.23) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 18.11.2010-1.12.2010

384/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.43) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 25.10.2010-31.10.2010

360/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.8) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010 – 31.8.2010

259/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO. 44) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010 – 7.11.2010

369/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.9) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010-30.9.2010

298/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.45) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 8.11.2010-14.11.2010

378/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.10) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010-31.10.2010

338/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.46) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 15.11.2010-21.11.2010

381/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO. 11) 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010 – 30.11.2010

370/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.47) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 22.11.2010-28.11.2010

385/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.30) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 26.7.2010-1.8.2010

243/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.48) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 29.11.2010-5.12.2010

390/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.31) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 2.8.2010 – 8.8.2010

260/2010

358/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.32) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010 – 15.8.2010

265/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES OF IMPORTED COMPLETELY BUILT-UP MOTOR VEHICLES) (NEW) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 108/2006] w.e.f.:- 22.10.2010

329/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.33) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 16.8.2010 - 22.8.2010

272/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE ASEANAUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND FREE TRADE AREA) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 484/2009] w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Bar Updates/Notices CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 441/2007] w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.

352/2010

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND LANDFILL) REGULATIONS 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 433/2009].

270/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.14(1), ustoms Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 410/1987] w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010

300/2010

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT) REGULATIONS 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 434/2009].

271/2010

353/2010

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (SEWAGE) REGULATIONS 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 432/2009].

269/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS OF ASEAN COUNTRIES ORIGIN) (ASEAN HARMONISED TARIFF NOMENCLATURE AND ASEAN TRADE IN GOODS AGREEMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 440/2007] w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.

273/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS OF ASEAN COUNTRIES ORIGIN) (ASEAN HARMONISED TARIFF NOMENCLATURE AND COMMON EFFECTIVE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- General Amendment- Substitutes for the name “Customs Duties (Goods of ASEAN Countries Origin) (ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature and Common Effective Preferential Tariff) Order 2007” wherever appearing the name “Customs Duties (Goods of ASEAN Countries Origin) (ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature and ASEAN Trade In Goods Agreement) Order 2007.” and - Substitutes for the word “CEPT” wherever appearing the word “ATIGA”. - Amends para.2, Sch.1 and 2, [P.U.(A) 440/2007] w.e.f.:- 17.5.2010

255/2010

EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT 1953 [ACT 17] EXCHANGE CONTROL (PRESCRIPTION OF TERRITORY AND MANNER OF PAYMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.26, Exchange Control Act 1953 Notes:- Revokes the Exchange Control (Prescription of Territory and Manner of Payment) Order 1998 [P.U.(A) 317/1998] w.e.f.:- 18.8.2010 EXCISE ACT 1976 [ACT 176] EXCISE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.6(1), Excise Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 5/2004] w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

337/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO FPG OLEOCHEMICALS SDN. BHD., KUANTAN, PAHANG) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010

380/2010

357/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS UNDER AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AMONG MEMBER STATES OF THE ASEAN AND JAPAN) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 476/2008] w.e.f.:- 19.8.2010

280/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS BERHAD GAS PROCESSING PLANT 2 COMPLEX A, KERTEH, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 22.10.2010

350/2010

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS UNDER THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND NEW ZEALAND) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

254/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO ETHYLENE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., KERTEH, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010

306/2010

DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51] DENTAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12(2), Dental Act 1971 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Dental Act 1971 [Act 51] w.e.f.:- 29.10.2010

363/2010

DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51] DENTAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) (NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12(2), Dental Act 1971 Notes:- Amends Sch.2 by adding “Vinayaka Missions University Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S).”, Dental Act 1971 [Act 51] w.e.f.:- 19.11.2010

383/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO SHELL MDS (M) SDN. BHD., BINTULU, SARAWAK) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 Notes:- All steam boilers and unfired pressure vessels registered with the Chief Inspector, with the registration numbers and description as specified in columns (1) and (2) of the Schedule, in the name of Shell MDS (M) Sdn. Bhd., Bintulu Sarawak are exempted from paragraphs 17(a) and (b) of the Factories and Machinery Notification, Certificate of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970 [P.U.(A) 43/1970]. w.e.f.:- 2.9.2010

304/2010

EDUCATION ACT 1996 [ACT 550] EDUCATION (TERMS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS YEAR 2011) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.130(2)(b), Education Act 1996. Notes:- These Regulations shall apply to attendance at educational institutions for the year 2011. w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010

351/2010

EDUCATION ACT 1996 [ACT 550] EDUCATION (INSTITUTES OF TEACHER EDUCATION) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under ss.49 and 130, Education Act 1996 w.e.f.:- 25.11.2010

388/2010

EMPLOYMENT ACT 1955 [ACT 265] EMPLOYMENT (PART-TIME EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.2(4A), Employment Act 1955 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

303/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO SHELL REFINING COMPANY (FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BERHAD, PORT DICKSON, NEGERI SEMBILAN) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 Notes:- All unfired pressure vessels registered with the Chief Inspector, with the registration numbers and descriptions as specified in columns (1) and (2) of the schedule, in the name of Shell Refining Company (Federation of Malaya) Berhad, Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan which have been issued with certificates of fitness, are exempted from the preparation required under paragraph 17(b) of the Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certificate of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970 [P.U.(A) 43/1970]. w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

59

Bar Updates/Notices

60

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO KANEKA PASTE POLYMERS SDN. BHD., GEBENG, PAHANG) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010

387/2010

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376] FEDERAL ROADS (WEST MALAYSIA) (AMENDMENT) (NO.7) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 401/1989] w.e.f.:- 27.7.2010

240/2010

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS BERHAD, CENTRALISED UTILITY FACILITIES (COGEN E, F), KERTEH, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010

386/2010

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376] FEDERAL ROADS (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959 Notes:- Revokes the Federal Roads (Kajang-Seremban Highway) Order 2010, [P.U.(A) 58/2010] w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010

263/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) ORDER 2010 Issued under art.122AB(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Tuan Abdul Rahman b Abdol, Tuan Samsudin b Hassan, Tuan Lee Swee Seng and Tuan Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera are appointed to be Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. w.e.f.:- 31.5.2010

347/2010

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE SECOND CROSSING BRIDGE AND EXPRESSWAY AND PERLING EXPRESSWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 97/1998] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

257/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] PUBLIC OFFICERS (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Notes:- Amends reg.21, [P.U.(A) 395/1993] w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

250/2010

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (SOUTH KLANG VALLEY EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

256/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] PROCLAMATION BY HIS MAJESTY THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG, BY THE GRACE OF ALLAH, SUPREME HEAD OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF MALAYSIA. Notes:- All citizens of Malaysia who, on the date of this proclamation, have attained the age of sixteen years and seven months but have not attained the age of eighteen years are directed to be liable to undergo national service training under the National Service Training Act 2003. w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010

244/2010

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) (JELEBU TOLL PLAZA) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 w.e.f.:- 20.9.2010

319/2010

FISHERIES ACT 1985 [ACT 317] FISHERIES (PROTECTED AREA FOR SEA-CUCUMBER) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.61(i), Fisheries Act 1985 w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

291/2010

274/2010

FOOD ACT 1983 [ACT 281] CONTROL OF TOBACCO PRODUCT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.36, Food Act 1983 Notes:- Amends reg.2,8A,9(2),11 and 15(1), [P.U.(A) 324/2004] w.e.f.:- 22.7.2010

239/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) ORDER 2010 Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Puan Supang Lian, Tuan Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham, Tuan Varghese a/l George Varughese, Tuan John Ko Wai Seng, Tuan Stephen Chung Hian Guan and Tuan Lee Heng Cheong are appointed to be Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. w.e.f.:- 28.10.2009

379/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) ORDER 2010 Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Tuan Mah Weng Kwai is appointed to be Judicial Commissioner for a period of two years. w.e.f.:- 4.1.2010

275/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010 INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) (NO.10) ORDER 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 473/2009]

246/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) ORDER 2010 Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Datuk Hasnah bt Dato’ Mohammed Hashim, Dato’ Ahmad Zaki b Haji Husin, Datuk Hanipah b Farikullah and Tuan Mohd Zaki b Abdul Wahab appointed to be Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. w.e.f.:- 3.5.2010

276/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

302/2010

295/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) ORDER 2010 Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Puan See Mee Chun, Tuan Gunalan a/l Muniandy and Puan Rosilah bt Yop appointed to be Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. w.e.f.:- 11.5.2010

277/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR COST OF PREPARATION OF CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE-BASED MASTER PLAN) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 419/2009] INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE ON ISSUANCE OF ISLAMIC SECURITIES) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 420/2009]

296/2010

261/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR INVESTMENT IN AN APPROVED CONSOLIDATION OF MANAGEMENT OF SMALLHOLDING AND IDLE LAND PROJECT) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 417/2009]

294/2010

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] RULES OF THE SPECIAL COURT (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) 2010 Notes:- Amends rule.14A, [P.U.(A) 525/1994] w.e.f.:- 6.8.2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Bar Updates/Notices INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR PROMOTION OF MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FINANCIAL CENTRE) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 416/2009]

293/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SEYCHELLES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

286/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

287/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (SPECIAL TREATMENT ON INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.36(1), Income Tax Act 1967. Notes:- Amends reg.5, [P.U.(A) 109/2009] w.e.f.:- y/a 2009-

288/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NOTHERN IRELAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010

322/2010

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] INCOME TAX (DETERMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE WORKER, QUALIFIED ACTIVITY AND SPECIFIED REGION) RULES 2010 Issued under s.154(1)(b), Income Tax Act 1967 w.e.f.:- y/a 2010-

344/2010

INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 2008 [ACT 686] INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.54(2)(e), International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 w.e.f.:- 23.7.2010

241/2010

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND STAMP DUTY) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 Notes:- Remits any tax payable under the Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] in full in relation to any income derived from the Islamic Medium Term Notes in the nominal value of eight thousand eight hundred million ringgit (RM8,800,000,000,00) issued by GovCo Holdings Berhad (“Issuer”) including the guarantee provided or to be provided by the Government of Malaysia (“Guarantee”). w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010

389/2010

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND STAMP DUTY) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 w.e.f.:- 29.7.2010

249/2010

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] LOANS GUARANTEE (DECLARATION OF BODIES CORPORATE) (PENGURUSAN AIR SPV BERHAD) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.3, Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 w.e.f:- 30.9.2010

330/2010

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 [ACT 171] ADVERTISEMENTS (FEDERAL TERRITORY OF PUTRAJAYA) BY-LAWS 2002 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 290/2002]

362/2010

PEMBANGUNAN SUMBER MANUSIA BERHAD ACT 2001 [ACT 612] PEMBANGUNAN SUMBER MANUSIA BERHAD (EXEMPTION) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.19, Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad Act 2001. Notes:- Exempts the employers who have registered with the Corporation under subsection 13(1) of the Act from the payment of the levy in respect of its part-time employees under subsection 14(1) of the Act. w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

361/2010

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2008 [ACT 685] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (REGISTRATION AND ISSUANCE OF KAD OKU) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under ss.21(2) and 22(2), Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010

349/2010

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX ANDSTAMP DUTY) (NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 Notes:- Any tax payable under the Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] shall be remitted in full in relation to any income derived from the Islamic Medium Term Note in nominal value of twenty billion ringgit (RM20,000,000,000.00) issued by Pengurusan Air SPV Berhad (“Issuer”) including the guarantee provided or to be provided by the Government of Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

331/2010

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] LOANS GUARANTEE (DECLARATION OF BODIES CORPORATE) (GOVCO HOLDINGS BERHAD) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.3, Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 Notes:- The body corporate known as GovCo Holdings Berhad is declared to be a body corporate to which the Act applies. w.e.f.:- 4.11.2010

377/2010

MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION ACT 2007 [ACT 665] MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION (CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FUND) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.42(3), Malaysia Co-operative Societies Commission Act 2007. w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010

292/2010

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 [ACT 645] NATIONAL HERITAGE (DECLARATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE) (HISTORICAL OBJECT) (NO.5) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.67(1), National Heritage Act 2005 Notes:- Personal letters of Zainal Abidin b Ahmad (ZABA)-SP.18, Personal letters of Tengku Omar Ibni Almarhum Sultan Ahmad Shah (Baginda Omar) SP.6, Proclamation of Malaysia 1963 (P.128), Kuala Lumpur Agreement 1974 (P. 3/74), Declaration of Federal Territory Kuala Lumpur 1974 (P. 1/74) and Labuan Agreement (P.24.84) are declared to be National Heritage. w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

328/2010

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 [ACT 645] NATIONAL HERITAGE (DECLARATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE) (HISTORICAL OBJECT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.67(1), National Heritage Act 2005 Notes:- Manuskrip Sejarah Melayu, is declared to be National Heritage. w.e.f.:- 13.8.2010

267/2010

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING ACT 2003 [ACT 628] NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING (PERSONS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.16, National Service Training Act 2003 Notes:- Persons who are liable to undergo national service training by virtue of the proclamation made under section 3 of the Act who are born in the year 1993 and have been selected through the computerizedselection system are required to undergo national service training. w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010

245/2010

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010

379/2010

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967and s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

302/2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

61

Bar Updates/Notices

62

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SEYCHELLES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

286/2010

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] LOCAL SPEED LIMIT (FEDERAL ROADS) (WEST MALAYSIA) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 462/1991] w.e.f.:- 8.9.2010

313/2010

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF KUWAIT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

287/2010

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (FEDERAL ROADS) (NO.3) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.70(1) and (2), Road Transport Act 1987 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

327/2010

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NOTHERN IRELAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010

322/2010

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] SPEED LIMIT (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987 w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010

264/2010

314/2010

PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] PRICE CONTROL (FIXING OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO.5) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.4, Price Control Act 1946 w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-17.9.2010

307/2010

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] ROAD TRAFFIC (PROHIBITION ON DRIVING OF GOODS VEHICLES) (NO.2) RULES 2010 Issued under s.88(1)(c) , Road Transport Act 1987 w.e.f.:- 8.9.2010

365/2010

SALES TAX ACT 1972 [ACT 64] SALES TAX (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.8, Sales Tax Act 1972 Notes:- Amends Sch.B, [P.U.(A) 91/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010

299/2010

PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] PRICE CONTROL (FIXING OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO. 6) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.4, Price Control Act 1946 w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010 – 9.11.2010 PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] PRICE CONTROL (LICENSING) (REVOCATION) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.29, Price Control Act 1946 Notes:- Revokes The Price Control (Licensing) Regulations 2000 [P.U.(A) 445/2000] w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010

309/2010

SALES TAX ACT 1972 [ACT 64] SALES TAX (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.5) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.8, Sales Tax Act 1972 Notes:- Amends Sch.A, [P.U.(A) 91/2008] w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.

354/2010

308/2010

SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1993 [ACT 498] SECURITIES COMMISSION (AUDIT OVERSIGHT BOARD) (FEES) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.159, Securities Commission Act 1993 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

336/2010

PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] PRICE CONTROL (PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS AND LABELLING OF PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.13, Price Control Act 1946 w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010 PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] PRICE CONTROL (PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS AND LABELLING OF PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO. 2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s 13, Price Control Act 1946 w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010 – 9.11.2010

364/2010

376/2010

PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS) (NO.6) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of The March To Putrajaya-Malaysia’s New Era Is At Hand is absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010

326/2010

STAMP ACT 1949 [ACT 378] STAMP DUTY (REMISSION) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.80(2), Stamp Act 1949 Notes:- Remits the duty on any instrument executed between a customer and a financier in accordance with the Shariah as approved by the Shariah Advisory Council on Islamic Finance as established under the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 [Act 701] pursuant to the change of scheme for financing an existing loan from conventional to Shariah to the extent of the duty that would be payable on the balance of the principal amount of the existing loan. - Revokes the Stamp Duty (Remission) (No.3) Order 2000 [P.U.(A) 315/2000] w.e.f.:- 5.11.2010

POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] POISON (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.35, Poisons Act 1952 Notes:- Amends reg.24(2) and Inserts new reg.23A, [L.N. 440/1952] w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010

248/2010

TABUNG HAJI ACT 1995 [ACT 535] TABUNG HAJI DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.14, Tabung Haji Act 1995. w.e.f.:- 24.8.2010

281/2010

282/2010

POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] POISONS (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.7(2), Poisons Act 1952 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010

340/2010

TABUNG HAJI ACT 1995 [ACT 535] TABUNG HAJI (DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES AND DISCIPLINARY APPEAL COMMITTEES) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.14, Tabung Haji Act 1995. w.e.f.:- 24.8.2010

290/2010

POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] POISONS (AMENDMENT OF POISONS LIST) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.6, Poisons Act 1952 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010

341/201

TOURISM INDUSTRY ACT 1992 [ACT 482] TOURISM INDUSTRY (TOUR OPERATING BUSINESS AND TRAVEL AGENCY BUSINESS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.34, Tourism Industry Act 1992. Notes:- Amends reg.9A, [P.U.(A) 333/1992] w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] LOCAL SPEED LIMIT (FEDERAL ROADS) (SPECIFIED TIME PROHIBITION) (NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987 w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-18.9.2010

301/2010

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010. Issued under s.38A, Trade Descriptions Act 1972 Notes:- Amends reg.2, Form 1 of Sch, [P.U.(A) 96/1994] w.e.f.:- 15.9.2010

317/2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (CHEAP SALE PRICE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.38A, Trade Descriptions Act 1972 Notes:- Amends reg.2,3,5,11,14,Sch and Inserts new reg.12A, [P.U.(A) 424/1997] w.e.f.:- 11.8.2010

266/2010

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (OPTICAL DISC LABEL) ORDER 2010 CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 142/2010]

279/2010

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES) (STATE OF JOHOR) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.184(2)(A) and 179(I), Water Services Industry Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

371/2010

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES) (STATE OF KEDAH) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

332/2010

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES) (STATE OF KELANTAN) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

333/2010

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES) (STATE OF MALACCA) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.184(2)(A) and 179(I), Water Services Industry Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

372/2010

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES) (STATE OF PENANG) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

334/2010

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1972 [ACT 71] WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.29, Weights and Measures Act 1972 Notes:- Amends Sch.9, [P.U.(A) 292/1981] w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

278/2010

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1952 [ACT 273] WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION (FOREIGN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SCHEME) (INSURANCE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.26(2), Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952 Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 45/2005] w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010

283/2010

LATEST INDEX TO SELECTED P.U.(B) SERIES 2010 As at August-November 2010

Title

P.U.(A) No.

ANTI-TRAFFICKING (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1385] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 15 November 2010 appointed as the date on which the Act [A1385] comes into operation. w.e.f.:- 15.11.2010

500/2010

BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT 1989 [ACT 372] NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION 12(4) Notes:- Surrender of licence by Fulton Prebon (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. w.e.f.:- 2.11.2009

474/2010

CHILD ACT 2001 [ACT 611] APPOINTMENT OF PLACE OF SAFETY Notes:- Rumah Perlindungan Ehsan, Batu 7½, Jalan Tuaran, 88300 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah appointed as a place of safety. w.e.f.:- 31.5.2010

496/2010

Intellect Book Marketing (since 1984)

• Leading stockist of local and foreign law books • Major importers of Indian Law Books • All India Reporter 1914–2010 – DVD Rom • Secondhand sets of major works • Subscription agents • Conveyancing forms – NLC 14A, 16A, 16N, 19B, 19G, 19D, 331(1) – PDS 15 – Power of Attorney 14, 1st Floor, Jalan Bunus Enam, 50100 Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03.2693.8260, 03.2698.7005, 03.2694.7206 Fax: 03.2693.1826 Email: [email protected]

Bar Updates/Notices

64

COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334] CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 [Act 334]. (a) Corrects by inserting after the definition of “employees bus” the following definition: “excursion bus” means a bus used exclusively for the conveyance of tourists on a single journey and in consideration of a single payment which has no fare stages;” (b) Corrects subparagraph 19(1)(a)(iv) by inserting after the words “and in the case of excursion buses also the itinerary” after the word “faretable” .

509/2010

COMPETITION ACT 2010 [ACT 712] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1 January 2012 appointed as the date on which the [Act 712] comes into operation. w.e.f.:- 1.1.2012

410/2010

COMPETITION COMMISSION ACT 2010 [ACT 713] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1 January 2011 appointed as the date on which the Act 713 comes into operation. w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011

499/2010

COPYRIGHT ACT 1987 [ACT 332] CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to the Copyright Act 1987 [Act 332]. - Corrects subsection 15(2) by substituting for the words “subsection 13(1)” the words “subsection (1)”.

508/2010

ISLAMIC FAMILY LAW (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1261] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1 November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act A1261 comes into operation w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

477/2010

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1383] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1 November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act A1383 comes into operation w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

478/2010

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 [ACT 166] NOTIFICATION UNDER SUBSECTION 76(1) Notes:- The persons named in the Schedule have been appointed as members of the Bar Council and members of the State Bar Committees for the year 2010/2011; and - Encik George Varughese a/l K.O. Varughese has been elected as the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar. w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010

331/2010

MALAYSIAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ACT 2006 [ACT A1267] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 30 September 2010 appointed as the date on which the [Act A1267] comes into operation. w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

415/2010

MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACT 1983 [ACT 295] DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3 Notes:- The Pulau Song Song Firing Ground (Yan, Kedah), which was declared to be a firing ground vide [L.N. 273/58], shall cease to be a firing ground from the date of this notification. w.e.f.:- 6.8.2010

344/2010

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTERCORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(B) 246/2010] - Delete the word “a” appearing immediately before the words “foreign serious offences” in para. (a)

338/2010

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER CORRIGENDUM Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(B) 247/2010] Substitute for the word “serious offences, that is offences” appearing in paragraph (a) the words “serious offence, that is an offence”.

339/2010

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER Notes:- The Minister responsible for legal affairs in Malaysia, do direct that the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 be applied in relation to the request for mutual assistance in relation to that criminal matter as if there was in effect in respect of the Republic of Poland an order made under section 17 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 without any restriction, limitation, exception, modification, adaptation, condition or qualification. w.e.f.:- 20.7.2010

305/2010

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER Notes:- The Minister responsible for legal affairs in Malaysia, do direct that the provisions of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 be applied in relation to the request for mutual assistance in relation to that criminal matter as if there was in effect in respect of Spain an order made under section 17 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 without any restriction, limitation, exception, modification, adaptation, condition or qualification. w.e.f.:- 20.7.2010

306/2010

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1994 [ACT 514] NOTIFICATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE Notes:- Industry code of practice known as the Occupational Safety and Health Industry Code of Practice for Road Transport Activities has been approved. w.e.f.:- 17.2.2010

377/2010

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT Notes:- The lock-up in the Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan Syariah Court to be a place for the confinement of persons remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment not exceeding one month. w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010

379/2010

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UPS TO BE PLACES OF CONFINEMENT Notes:- Lokap Balai Polis Menumbok, Sabah; Lokap Balai Polis Bergosong, Sabah; Lokap Balai Polis Bongowan, Sabah and Lokap Balai Polis Desa Cemerlang, Johor to be places for the confinement of persons remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment not exceeding one month. w.e.f.:- 31.8.2010

385/2010

RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1377] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 15 September 2010 appointed as the date on which the [Act A1377] comes into operation. w.e.f.:- 15.9.2010

386/2010

REGISTRATION OF ENGINEERS ACT 1967 [ACT 138] NAME OF REGISTERED ENGINEER WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER Notes:- Name of Pang Fook Sheng, registration number 4496 has been removed from the Register. w.e.f.:- 13.8.2010

471/2010

STAMP (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1380] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act A1380 comes into operation w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010

476/2010

YOUTH SOCIETIES AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT 2007 [ACT 668] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 1 October 2010 appointed as the date on which the [Act 668] comes into operation in the States of Sabah and Sarawak.. w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010

414/2010

Bar Updates/Notices

DISCIPLINARY ORDERS October – December 2009 STRUCK OFF

Muhamad Zakuan b Mokhtar

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Suziliayana bt Arifin

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Mizuraini bt Muhamad

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Ahmad Sofian b Mohd Nor

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

NAME

ORDER DATED

Liu Lee Ting

Johari b Ahmad

10 July 2009

Mohamed Suradi b Ismail

3 Oct 2009

RM 500

Vasanta a/l Amarasekara

23 Oct 2009

Mohd Amir Nor Rabi b Ibrahim

3 Oct 2009

RM 500

Haranay b Mohd Noor

5 Nov 2009

Azreen bt Abu Noh

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Kuppusamy a/l Maruthy

5 Nov 2009

Mohd Firuz b Jaffril

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Pathmanabhan a/l Nalliannen

5 Nov 2009

Ahmad Azli b Abdul Aziz

23 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Surendran a/l Nalliannen

5 Nov 2009

Idris b Idros

23 Oct 2009

RM 3,000

Jalidah bt Jalaludin

11 Dec 2009

Shahlawati bt Manap

23 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Ahmad Johari b Hamzah

24 Oct 2009

RM 5,000

Md Nor b Md Din

5 Nov 2009

RM 5,000

Loo Wi-Chung, Alvin

5 Nov 2009

RM 5,000

Lee Yee How

5 Nov 2009

RM 1,500

Kasturi Kesveren a/l Balasamy

5 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Fadzila bt Said

5 Nov 2009

RM 3,000

Nani Safinas bt Sulaiman

5 Nov 2009

RM 8,000

Muhamed Ariff Mahindar

5 Nov 2009

RM 10,000

Selvaratnam a/l Vellupillai

5 Nov 2009

RM 10,000

Mohamad Arfizi b Mohd Ramli

6 Nov 2009

RM 500

Chelvarajan a/l R Suppiah

6 Nov 2009

RM 500

Shaari b Haji Md Nor

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Robiha bt Mohamed

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Low Shih Yin

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Samry b Masri

6 Nov 2009

RM1,000

Johari b Baharuddin

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Jeyendran a/l Ramachandran

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

FINED NAME

ORDER DATED

FINE

Azmi b Juewani

2 Oct 2009

RM 5,000

Mohamad Hafidz b Abu Bakar

2 Oct 2009

RM 10,000

Nasarudin b Abdul Manaf

2 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Sivarajah a/l A Palanisamy

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Afzalina bt Abd Rani

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Nor Izawati bt Zainal

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Syed Fadzil b Syed Shamsuddin

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Mohd Rizaili b Sazali

3 Oct 2009

RM 2, 000

Inderjeet Singh a/l Gurdeep Singh

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Shenton Maniam a/l R Sivamaniam

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Kong Chee Phang

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Jimmy Goh Thian Szu

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Rosilawati bt Ahmad Basir

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Mohd Rosly Khady b Mohd Ayub Khan

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Rosina bt Zakaria

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Marina bt Abdul Muttalib

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Mohd Nawi b Ab Hamid

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Aida Naziaty bt Samingan

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Zainorah bt Hassan

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Aifa Hananoon bt Abdul Hamid

Fredah bt Kassim

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Ainul Wardah bt Shahidan

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,500

Zakiah bt Hj Ahmad

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Mohd Bashir b Abd Kadir

Sulaimi b Sulong

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Rezalman b Bahran

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Khairuddin b Abdullah

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,500

Sharifah Jaliha bt Tuanku Abdullah

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Jeeva Kumar a/l Marimuthu

Norhadiyatul Akma bt Jaafar

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Mohd Zulkifli b Mohd Rusad

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Abdul Ghany b Saad

3 Oct 2009

RM 1,500

Mohd Hanif b Abdul Rahman

6 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

6 Nov 2009

RM 5,000

Mohd Fauzi b Abdullah

3 Oct 2009

RM 500

Adura bt Dato’ Ibrahim

M. Tharuma Ratnam

3 Oct 2009

RM 2,000

Song Teik Kim

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

65

Bar Updates/Notices

Mohd Radzwan b Mohd Amin @ Mat Taib

6 Nov 2009

RM 2,00

Lee Ah Kau @ Lee Han Yen

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Tan Kim Minh Philip Sylvanus

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Palanimmah a/p Mutu

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Vickneswary a/p S Manickam

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Salmiah bt Salim

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Ramesh a/l K S Vasan

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Ahmad Nizam b Mohamed

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Saranjit Singh a/l Gurcharan Singh

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Yap Sze Yong

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

NAME

ORDER DATED

Ahmad Farid b Hj Zakaria

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Ibrahim b Soffian

22 Jan 2010

Che Zainol Rashid b Che Ahmad

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Norsalawati bt Hussin

22 Jan 2010

Marhaini bt Mat

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Lana Azman b Eli

6 Feb 2010

Selvadorai a/l Thandavan

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman

6 Feb 2010

Puvanendran Sivalingam

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Harriri b Md Noor

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman

6 Feb 2010

Nazri b Saad

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Chong Teck Hoi

19 Feb 2010

Zurina bt Hayati Meah

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Gabriel Rupananda Seneviratne

19 Feb 2010

Aini bt Othman

7 Nov 2009

RM 500

Chan Yoong Heng

20 Feb 2010

Chan Chui Peng

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Teh Hock Kee

19 Mar 2010

Iszam Kamal b Ismail

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Azmi b Juewani

19 Mar 2010

Oh Swee Kar

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,500

Marzaini bt Zainuddin

20 May 2010

Thashinamoorthy a/l Paramaguru

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Tan Wai Meng

6 Nov 2009

Wan M Razali b Wan A Kadir

6 Nov 2009

Wan Shahril b Wan Mamat

7 Nov 2009

Mimi Lim

7 Nov 2009

Loo Chea Chin

10 Dec 2009

20 May 2010 24 July 2010

January – October 2010 STRUCK OFF

Ilangovan a/l Dorairaj @ Suppiah

7 Nov 2009

RM 3,000

Tuah b Atan

Ling Yoke Hooi

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Hakiman Hafiz b Husain

23 July 2010

Lee Fong Ling

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,500

Low Chin Kiat

24 Sept 2010

Abdul Rauf b A Rahman

7 Nov 2009

RM 1,000

Suhairi b Sukor

8 Oct 2010

Nakaretanam a/l Narasamah

7 Nov 2009

RM 2,000

Zainudin b Maksom

7 Nov 2009

RM 5,000

Ong Swee Long

10 Dec 2009

RM 3,000

Teoh Boh Choon, Walter

11 Dec 2009

RM 2,000

Yeow Joo Ming

11 Dec 2009

Hamzah b Mohd Kassim Govindarajoo a/l R Muniandy

SUSPENDED NAME

ORDER DATED

RM 2,000

Gabriel Rupananda Seneviratne

19 Feb 2010 (Suspended for 1 month with effect 21 days from 19.2.10 and to expire on 12.4.10)

11 Dec 2009

RM 1,000

Tan Wai Meng

11 Dec 2009

RM 20,000

20 Mar 2010 (Suspended for 6 months with effect 21 days from 20.3.10 and to expire on 10.10.10)

Gunapati Suppiah

20 Mar 2010 (Suspended for 3 years with effect 21 days from 20.3.10 and to expire on 10.4.2013)

Pauline Sagau

24 July 2010 (Suspended for 3 years with effect 21 days from 24.7.10 and is to expire on 14.8.2013)

REPRIMANDED

66

Robiha bt Mohamed

NAME

ORDER DATED

Ooi Chok Siew

3 Oct 2009

Lee Lim Huat

3 Oct 2009

FINED

Mohd Aidil b Rusli

3 Oct 2009

NAME

ORDER DATED

FINE

Mohd Nizam b Khamis

3 Oct 2009

Wong Siew Nam

15 Jan 2010

RM 10,000

Abdul Halim b Said

6 Nov 2009

Suppiah a/l Palanisamy

15 Jan 2010

RM 3,000

Lee Yin Chuan

6 Nov 2009

Cheang Chu Yong, Benedict

15 Jan 2010

RM 3,000

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Bar Updates/Notices Ong Yoke Chan, Rebecca

15 Jan 2010

RM 3,000

Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid

20 Mar 2010

RM 20,000

Tay Hang Song

15 Jan 2010

RM 5,000

Govindarajoo a/l R Muniandy

20 Mar 2010

RM 2,000

So Chien Hao

15 Jan 2010

RM 5,000

Charlotte Jennifer Thomas

20 Mar 2010

RM 10,000

Tan Pean Khoon

15 Jan 2010

RM 3,000

Nora Hayati bt Ismayatim

23 Apr 2010

RM2,000

Mohamad Lusfi b Yaakob

22 Jan 2010

RM 1,000

Lew Onn Yap

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Tuah b Atan

22 Jan 2010

RM 1,5000

Annie Maria a/p Norman Gregory

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Mohamed Nordin b Hj Mohd Yusoff

23 Jan 2010

RM 2,000

Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Silvaraju a/l Ramu

23 Apr 2010

RM1,000

Noorzilan b Mohamed Noor

5 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Chan Wai Keong

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Suneth a/l A Nadesan

5 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Jayaprathap a/l Buloga Pothal

23 Apr 2010

RM3,000

Lee Pan Hai

5 Feb 2010

RM 10,000

Mohd Asri b Ahmad Rashidi

5 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Damian Pheny

5 Feb 2010

RM 2,000

Teoh Tai Eak

5 Feb 2010

RM 7,000

Lana Azman b Eli

6 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Lana Azman b Eli

6 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman

6 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman

6 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Mohd Azizan b Che Omar

6 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Sandosh a/l JN Anandan

6 Feb 2010

RM 10,000

Jagdeep Kaur Bhullar a/p Sulwant Singh

19 Feb 2010

RM 2,000

Chan Yoong Heng

19 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid

19 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Mohd Azizan b Che Omar

19 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy

19 Feb 2010

RM 2,000

Gooi Hock Seng

19 Feb 2010

RM 900

Abdul Shukor b Mohd Khalid

19 Feb 2010

RM 1,000

Mohd Faizal b Khalid

19 Feb 2010

RM 3,000

Kamar Ainiah bt Kamaruzaman

19 Feb 2010

RM 25,000

Mohd Azizan b Che Omar

20 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Rozy Chazriani bt Beddu

20 Feb 2010

RM 5,000

Hamidon b Hayon

19 Mar 2010

RM 2,000

Teoh Tai Eak

19 Mar 2010

RM 8,000

Dass K S (Susulin @ M Siladoss)

19 Mar 2010

RM 5,000

Azlinda bt Zakariah

19 Mar 2010

RM 5,000

Munawar b Hamim

19 Mar 2010

RM 5,000

Shivdev Singh

19 Mar 2010

RM 5,000

Ahmad Zolkifli b Ahmad Tabrani

19 Mar 2010

RM 5,000

Mohd Farid b Omar

19 Mar 2010

RM 3,000

Rozlina bt Abu Bakar

19 Mar 2010

Zulkiflee b Zainudin Azlan b Kamis

Chandra Mohan a/l Narayanasamy

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Yeoh Tai Chuan

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Tan Sui Lin Nicholin Imelda

23 Apr 2010

RM5,000

Azian bt Shaharum

20 May 2010

RM5,000

Raja Samsul Bahri b Raja Muhammad

20 May 2010

RM2,000

Ng Choo Hock

20 May 2010

RM5,000

Leslie Bala a/l Bala Gopal

20 May 2010

RM3,000

Andrew a/l Lourdusamy

20 May 2010

RM1,000

Majdah bt Idrus

20 May 2010

RM3,000

John Willibrod Concisom a/l Willie Brod

20 May 2010

RM8,000

Hadyati bt Harun

20 May 2010

RM8,000

Muhd Anuwar b Mustafa

21 May 2010

RM1,000

Hasnal b Lassim @ Hashim

22 May 2010

RM2,000

Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid

22 May 2010

RM5,000

Raja Segaran a/l S Krishnan

22 May 2010

RM3,000

Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh

22 May 2010

RM2,000

Zainal Fikri Ahmad

22 May 2010

RM3,000

Shaiful Omar b Ahmad

18 June 2010

RM3,000

R Vigneswaran a/l Raju

18 June 2010

RM1,000

Tan Chee Keong

18 June 2010

RM5,000

Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy

19 June 2010

RM3,000

Cedric Nigel Miranda

19 June 2010

RM1,000

Basri b Yusoff

19 June 2010

RM5,000

Brian Komathi @ S Komali

19 June 2010

RM500

Marliana bt Rahmad

23 July 2010

RM4,000

R Vigneswaran a/l Raju

23 July 2010

RM9,500

Mohd Azizan b Che Omar

23 July 2010

RM2,000

Mohd Azizan b Che Omar

23 July 2010

RM1,000

Brijnandan Singh Bhar a/l Gurcharan Singh

23 July 2010

RM5,000

RM 3,000

19 Mar 2010

RM 3,000

Selayamany a/l Muniandy

23 July 2010

RM5,000

19 Mar 2010

RM 3,000

Selvam a/l Shanmugam

23 July 2010

RM5,000

Ong Keh Keong

19 Mar 2010

RM 2,000

Chu Hon Fai Raymond

23 July 2010

RM500

Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah

20 Mar 2010

RM 3,000

Shahrul Nazim b Baharin

24 Sept 2010

RM3,000

Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah

20 Mar 2010

RM 3,000

Nur Addelene bt Mohd Nawi

24 Sept 2010

RM2,000

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

67

Bar Updates/Notices Ahmad Azli b Abdul Aziz

25 Sept 2010

RM3,000

Ekbal Singh Sandhu a/l Gorumak Singh

23 Jan 2010

Leong Mei Hing Richard

25 Sept 2010

RM10,000

Parvathi a/p Kandasamy

5 Feb 2010

Yoong Chee Min

25 Sept 2010

RM2,000

Sheela Menon a/p VK Girijan Menon

6 Feb 2010

Jagesh a/l Ponnaiha Mehalingam

24 Sept 2010

RM1,000

Jayaraj a/l Thurairaj

20 Feb 2010

Shanmugaraj a/l Chelliah Thamotherampillai

8 Oct 2010

RM3,500

Badrol Hisham b Mohamed Sani

19 Mar 2010

Hari Krishnan a/l Jeyapalan

19 Mar 2010

Chew Chin Thai

8 Oct 2010

RM2,000

Lee Khim Huei

19 Mar 2010

Thangadurai a/l Govindarajoo

23 Apr 2010

Saiful Adli b Hj Mohd Arshad

23 Apr 2010

Muhd Anuwar b Mustafa

21 May 2010

Tan Chee Keong

18 June 2010

Ameruddin b Yunus

23 July 2010

Chong Weng Kong

24 July 2010

REPRIMANDED NAME

ORDER DATED

Yau Lap Ho

15 Jan 2010

Leong Wey Pyu

15 Jan 2010

Fadzilah bt Hj Omar

15 Jan 2010

Sivanesan a/l Ramiah

23 Jan 2010

As at 21 Jan 2010

Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council’s Custody: Legal Firms in which Bar Council has Intervened When Bar Council intervenes in a legal firm pursuant to powers conferred by the Legal Profession Act 1976, it can take custody of documents that are within the control or possession of the firm. Subsequently, Bar Council takes steps to notify clients and/or interested parties to collect their documents within the stipulated time period. However, many documents are uncollected and remain in Bar Council’s custody, such as those taken from the legal firms listed below. Clients or interested parties who wish to claim documents that relate to cases that were handled by these legal firms are advised to contact the Bar Council’s Intervention Department at 03-2031 3003.

List of Firms whose Clients’ Files are with Bar Council (As at 28 Oct 2010) Kuala Lumpur Messrs KE Ooi & Partners Messrs Adi Azhar Messrs BC Low Messrs Sooriyar & Co Messrs YH Chan & Co Messrs Shaik Anwar Raja Messrs PL Low & Co Messrs Wan Nizar Rais Messrs Par Govind & Co Messrs Hadi & Co Messrs Michael Lim & Assoc Messrs Yusuf Abdul Rahman & Co Messrs Mohd Zawawi Amelda & Partners Messrs CK Kow & Co Messrs Nazli Ghazali & Cheong Messrs Zaim Al-Amin & Assoc Messrs Su How & Co

68

Praxis

Jan–mar 2011

Messrs MW Lian & Assoc Messrs Zihin Shariff & Partners Messrs Khalid Chung & Shankar Messrs Nordin Hamid & Co Messrs Raja Rohana & Co Messrs Abdullah-Haniff & Assoc Messrs Andrew Lee & Co Selangor Messrs Zainal Rashid & Partners Messrs Jaharberdeen & Ngo Messrs Jauhari & Assoc Messrs HK Teh & Assoc Messrs Sabri Nazli Lana & Azizan Messrs Penney Khoo Soh Ping & Co Perak Messrs Ravi Nair Maideen & Assoc Messrs Mohd Azhar & Co Messrs Khalil Samsuni & Co

Malacca Messrs Parthan & Associates Messrs YC Pok & Zurina Messrs Ganesan Mariapan & Co Pahang Messrs Zul & Co Johore Messrs Rosli Rahman & Co Messrs JL Lim & Co Messrs Ooi Sun Nee Messrs Mariam & Co Messrs KY Teo & Associates Negeri Sembilan Messrs M Kuppusamy & Co Messrs Sasi Kumar & Assoc Messrs SF Leow Messrs Azizi Nizam & Anwar

MALAYSIA

M

JL

C UN

I

L

A

IS P

E GU

AM

BAR

CO

Loading...

View - The Malaysian Bar

Jan–Mar 2011 www.malaysianbar.org.my Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar Unified in a Common Purpose PLUS PLUS Of Of Sunscreen, Sunscreen, BBs BBs and ...

4MB Sizes 53 Downloads 26 Views

Recommend Documents

View - The Malaysian Bar
Dec 30, 2012 - Keduanya, pemaju perumahan mempunyai kelebihan berbanding dengan pembeli rumah ... Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah

View - The Malaysian Bar
Apr 3, 2007 - Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and which formed the fundamental feature of international ..... Kemudian mere

THE JOURNAL OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR - Malaysian Bar Council
di dalam proses pengendalian kes-kes di mahkamah sivil dan jenayah di mana maklumat-maklumat ..... sebarang bentuk perha

The Malaysian Bar - Home
Malaysian Bar - the official website of the Malaysian Bar, a body of legal practitioners in Malaysia, represented by the

Editorial - The Malaysian Bar
Apr 28, 2006 - Pertandingan Menulis Makalah Undang-Undang 2005. 12 Debat Perdana 2005. 14 IPCMC or Ombudsman - The Bar M

The Malaysian Bar - Document details - Malaysian Bar Council
Details for Pertandingan Menulis Makalah Undang-Undang 2006. Property, Value. Name, Pertandingan Menulis Makalah Undang-

rao suryana - The Malaysian Bar
Please ensure that you have checklists in place for conveyancing matters. It will greatly assist you when there is a mal

Contents Contents - The Malaysian Bar
Apr 19, 2005 - Insurance. Risk Manager: Corrinne Wong ext 190 / DL: 03 - 2072 1614 [email protected] Corrinn

Download - Malaysian Bar Council
Notwithstanding the above rates, in the case of any transaction governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensi

8. Kebebasan Asasi & Kewarganegaraan - The Malaysian Bar
Seseorang yang dilahirkan di luar Malaysia dan bapanya pada ketika kelahirannya adalah:- • seorang warganegara yang la