Praixis Jan-June 2015

EDITOR’S NOTE

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BARFEATURES/ARTICLES23 Opening of the Legal Year 201526 The Offi ce of the President of the Malaysian Bar36 Interview with Christopher Leong, 30th President of the Malaysian Bar42 Citation for Dr Radhakrishna Ramani, Recipient of the Malaysian Bar

Lifetime Achievement Award 201545 Dr Radhakrishna Ramani: A Lifetime of AchievementEVENTS55 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar, Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (14 Mar 2015)58 Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2015 (14 Mar 2015)60 LEXPO Rocks Dataran Undergrnd (28 Feb 2015) 63 46th Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore (30 Apr to 2 May 2015)LIFESTYLE64 Netting the BallCASE NOTES — HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

STATE BAR NEWS ELEVATION OF JUDGES

NEWSCONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTBAR UPDATES/NOTICES85 New Admissions to the Malaysian Bar88 List of Departed Members88 Notice Regarding Bar Circulars and E-Blasts89 Summary of Circulars90 General Information on Matters Discussed at Bar Council Meetings90 List Of Struck Off Members Wherein Appeal/Reinstatement Allowed91 Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council's Custody: Legal Firms in

which Bar Council has Intervened91 Library Update99 Disciplinary Orders

26

45

36

70

CONTENTS

1JAN-JUN 2015 | PRAXIS

BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA

Bar Council15 Leboh Pasar Besar50050 Kuala LumpurTel No: (603) 2050 2050Fax No: (603) 2026 1313 / (603) 2034 2825 / (603) 2072 5818Email: [email protected]: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

MEMBERS OF BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA 2015/2016

President : Steven ThiruneelakandanVice-President : George VarugheseSecretary : Karen Cheah Yee LynnTreasurer : Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor

Abdullah Johari Hamzah | Ahmad Zaini Samsudin | Andrew Khoo Chin Hock | Brendan Navin Siva | Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid | Christopher Leong | Desmond Ho Chee Cheong | Hendon Mohamed | Honey Tan Lay Ean | Jeremiah R Gurusamy | Joseph Mathews PM Mathews | Kenny Lai Choe Ken | Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari | Low Beng Choo | Mudzafar Shah Mohd | Norazham Yahaya | R Jayabalan | Rajpal Singh Mukhtiar Singh | Ravi Nekoo | Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal | Richard Wee Thiam Seng | Roger Chan Weng Keng | Rosnah Zakaria | S Gunasegaran | Salim Bashir Bhaskaran | Salwa Mansor | Sarengapani K Rajoo | Shyama MM Narayanan Nair | Siti Hajar Che Ahmad | Sulaiman Abdullah | Surindar Singh Chain Singh | Syahredzan Johan | Thavamani Subramaniam | Victor Paul Dorai Raj

MEMBERS OF THE BAR COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 2014/2015

Raphael Tay (Chairperson), Aston Paiva, David Mathew, Gregory Vinesh Das, Janet Chai, KN Geetha, KS Shasha, Mariette Peters, Noor Arianti Osman, Alicia Tan

EDITORIAL BOARD

Bar CouncilRaphael Tay – Editor-in-ChiefBaizura Abd Razak, Joane Sharmila – EditorsNishta Jiwa, Sangheetha Kuppusamy – Marketing & Advertising

LexisNexisAmitabh Srivastava – Commercial Director, Southeast Asia Annie Yeoh – Managing Editor, Southeast AsiaJasmine Halili – Senior Legal EditorMohd Khairil Johari – Design & Production

LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn BhdT1-6, Jaya 33, 3, Jalan SemangatSeksyen 13, 46100 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul Ehsan, MalaysiaTel: (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. Bar Council Malaysia 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 personal 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.

© 2015 All rights reserved

Enquiries on advertising:Kajendran Arumugam — [email protected] Jiwa — [email protected]

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: 17,500

Printed in Malaysia by Atlas Cetak (M) Sdn Bhd (97608-X)Wisma Atlas, No.2, Persiaran IndustriBandar Sri Damansara, 52200Kuala Lumpur, MalaysiaTel: (603) 6273 3333, Fax: (603) 6073 3833

COVER STORY

The Offi ce of the President of the Malaysian Bar is a dignifi ed position, and one of great signifi cance. Nonetheless, beneath the limelight this position brings, it is demanding and bears great responsibility, not only to Members of the Malaysian Bar, but also to the public. This commemorative President's issue provides an in-depth look into how the Offi ce of the President is managed, how each President views his/her time in offi ce, and his/her contributions as President. Readers are in for a treat, as past Presidents — Ambiga Sreenevasan, Yeo Yang Poh, Mah Weng Kwai — are featured in the article. Furthermore, readers will get an inside look at the many tasks the President of the Malaysian Bar is expected to undertake. Read the full story on page 26. There’s more: Most Members of the Bar would only know Christopher Leong as the President who chaired the longest Annual General Meeting in recent times! But get to know the other side of him as he reveals his early years, his education, and his journey into law, in an Interview with

Christopher Leong, 30th President of the Malaysian Bar, on page 36. This issue, we also feature the late Dr Radhakrishna Ramani: A

Lifetime of Achievement. It is remarkable that the Malaysian Bar had been graced by such unusual genius, a lawyer and diplomat par

excellence, wholly dedicated to serving the profession and the nation. Read more on page 45. Read these and more in this issue of Praxis!

COVER STORY

2 PRAXIS | JAN-JUN 2015

The Importance of Sound and Sensible Leadership

When a country obtains independence from its colonial power, the country

is shrouded in a veil of uncertainty. While there is the promise of autonomy and the power to chart its own future, a paternal hand that has always had a fi rm grasp on the administrative aff airs is absent.

Questions abound about the country’s social, economic, military and foreign aff airs policies. Key decisions must be made, with costs and benefi ts carefully weighed. In this time of hope, and yet of uncertainty, the role of government in its stewardship of the nation is most direly felt. In such times, leadership is the most important quality that the people look to for inspiration to lift us from the depths of turmoil to great heights.

Malaysia has been in the position described. Pre- and post-independence, it had to suppress an internal Communist insurgency, and overcome racial division and economic malaise. We succeeded in defeating the Communists, prevented another May 13, and our economy has never collapsed, because of sound and sensible leadership demonstrated by our past leaders.

Fast-forward to today’s situation — we seem to take for granted what the value of unshakeable leadership is actually worth. Undoubtedly, Malaysia is much more developed and stable in terms of its economy and infrastructure, than when she was a much younger country. However, the political landscape of our nation seems to be heading in an unsavoury direction.

Being a leader involves making decisions. Decisions are choices involving values which we stand for, the ethical standards

we subscribe to and the purpose of our existence. The easy route is to pander to popular opinion, which may bring instant gratifi cation but have undesirable consequences in the long term. The harder route is to make sound decisions that, although unpopular with the masses, are those which are optimum in the long run. The latter is based on principles; the former on political expediency.

Leadership is also about being open to new ideas and the ability to listen. The immortal words of Voltaire — “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” — is a gold standard to which every leader must aspire. On this point, the present Government’s continued usage, and recent enhancement of the ambit and power of the Sedition Act 1948 reveals the Government’s inability and refusal to listen to dissent and criticism. This is a move that is repugnant in a democracy, and demonstrates that the Government is taking the convenient route of silencing dissent instead of engaging with the dissenters.

One must not forget that a true leader is one who sticks to his/her principles, no matter the cost. Principles are critical, because they embody your true colours and core values. Principles also allow for some measure of predictability and consistency in making decisions, which would reassure and give comfort to those under the leadership. More importantly, principles should never be sacrifi ced for the sake of expediency.

In this respect, the Malaysian Bar has shown remarkable resolve and resilience in standing by its principles — it has been unwavering in upholding the rule of law, defending the Federal Constitution, protecting the independence of the Judiciary, and championing human rights and the public interest.

The Malaysian Bar has consistently produced leaders who do not toe the line according to populist ideas and policies. Instead, the Presidents of the Malaysian Bar have unfailingly spoken out against any form of abuse of power. Raja Aziz Addruse and Ambiga Sreenevasan, to name but a few frontrunners, stuck by the Bar’s core positions even in times of crisis, refusing to acquiesce in decisions or proposals that were pernicious to Members and to the nation. In fact, who could forget the memorable episode where, at the 69th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Malaysian Bar held on 14 Mar 2015, then-

President Christopher Leong stood resolute in the course of the lengthy proceedings until the end — even when the motions being debated were directly disparaging of him, and accompanied by vitriolic outbursts. The manner in which he conducted himself will surely go down in history as one of the fi ner moments of Bar leadership, if not any leadership.

The current President, Steven Thiru, continues this noble tradition of defending the rule of law and the principles of democratic governance. Early on in his Presidency, Steven’s plate has already been overfl owing with a plethora of issues of concern, including the abuse by police of their investigative powers, the arrest of individuals exercising their right to peaceful assembly, the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 and amendments to the Sedition Act 1948, and most recently, the saga of the boat people off our shores, and the discovery of mass graves as well as “death camps” in Perlis near the border with Thailand. The sterling leadership qualities that Steven has demonstrated will ensure that the Malaysian Bar stays true to its course.

Then again, the Malaysian Bar has never lacked outstanding leadership. Among the most notable who have helmed the Bar, surely Dr Radhakrishna Ramani must be inducted in a Malaysian Bar Hall of Fame, if there were one. His was the fi nest example of integrity, intellect, acumen, and morality. Ramani served in many capacities, including as a lawyer, President of the Bar, and Chairman of the Malayan Branch of the International Commission of Jurists. He attained the peak of his career when he was appointed by Tunku Abdul Rahman, the fi rst Prime Minister of Malaya, and then Malaysia, as Permanent Head of the Malaysian delegation at the United Nations in 1963, and in 1965, he served as President of the United Nations Security Council. It is such individuals who have elevated the name of Malaysia, and the Malaysian Bar, within the international community. This is one of the hallmarks of true leadership.

At the end of the day, leaders are proven by their actions, and not mere rhetoric. If one wishes to be identifi ed as a true leader, he/she must abide by the principle of “doing the right thing, for the right reason, and with the right attitude”.

From the Editor´s Keyboard

Raphael TayEditor-in-Chief

EDITOR’S NOTE


In the fi rst Bar Council meeting held immediately after the Annual General Meeting, the following Offi ce Bearers were elected for the 2015/2016 term:

(1) Steven Thiruneelakandan (President, Malaysian Bar)(2) George Varughese (Vice-President, Malaysian Bar)(3) Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Secretary, Malaysian Bar; Malacca Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(4) Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor (Treasurer, Malaysian Bar; Penang Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(5) Andrew Khoo Chin Hock(6) Brendan Navin Siva(7) Christopher Leong (immediate past President)(8) Hendon Mohamed(9) Honey Tan Lay Ean(10) Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari(11) Low Beng Choo(12) Ravi Nekoo(13) Richard Wee Thiam Seng(14) Roger Chan Weng Keng(15) Sulaiman Abdullah(16) Syahredzan Johan(17) R Jayabalan (Chairman, Johore Bar Committee)(18) S Gunasegaran (Johore Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(19) Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid (Chairman, Kedah Bar Committee)(20) Victor Paul Dorai Raj (Kedah Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(21) Norazham Yahaya (Chairman, Kelantan Bar Committee)(22) Mudzafar Shah Mohd (Kelantan Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(23) Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Chairman, Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee)(24) Jeremiah R Gurusamy (Kuala Lumpur Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(25) Desmond Ho Chee Cheong (Chairman, Malacca Bar Committee)(26) Joseph Mathews PM Mathews (Chairman, Negeri Sembilan Bar Committee)(27) Thavamani Subramaniam (Negeri Sembilan Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(28) Sarengapani K Rajoo (Chairman, Pahang Bar Committee)(29) Abdullah Johari Hamzah (Pahang Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(30) Shyama MM Narayanan Nair (Chairman, Penang Bar Committee)(31) Kenny Lai Choe Ken (Chairman, Perak Bar Committee)(32) Surindar Singh Chain Singh (Perak Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(33) Ahmad Zaini Samsudin (Chairman, Perlis Bar Committee)(34) Siti Hajar Che Ahmad (Perlis Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(35) Salim Bashir Bhaskaran (Chairman, Selangor Bar Committee)(36) Rajpal Singh Mukhtiar Singh (Selangor Bar Representative on the Bar Council)(37) Rosnah Zakaria (Chairman,Terengganu Bar Committee)(38) Salwa Mansor (Terengganu Bar Representative on the Bar Council)

For more information about these Members, such as the fi rms they practise at, please refer to:http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_council_members.html

Click on the individual names to get the information you need.

Bar Council Members for the 2015/2016 Term


BAR COUNCIL MEMBERS

Upholding the Rule of Law

Dear Members of the Malaysian Bar,

Rule of law and Rule by law

10 June 2015 marked the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta. It is a document that heralded the demise of the divine rule of kings in England. The Magna Carta emphatically declared, inter alia, that:

39. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

The Magna Carta is a remarkable document. It was revolutionary. The recognition of fundamental liberties, which included the guarantee of access to justice and the right to a fair trial, was novel in the 13th century. The Magna Carta also cemented the concept of the supremacy of the law of the land over executive power. As Lord Bingham observed, one of the most enduring aspects of the Magna Carta is the lesson that “… no power is absolute; that all power, however elevated, is subject to constraint”; as was to be said by Dr Thomas Fuller some centuries later, “Be you never so high, the law is above you.” 1

The Magna Carta has enjoyed universal acclaim. It has become the foundation of written constitutions,2 the basis for

democracy and the gold standard for good governance. In Malaysia, the legacy of the Magna Carta is refl ected in the landmark Federal Court case of Sri Lempah Enterprise where Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as he then was) said:

Unfettered discretion is a contradiction in terms ... Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship ... In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene. The courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression.3

Today, the Magna Carta is widely regarded as being “the proclamation of the rule of law”.4 In this regard, it is now accepted that the ingredients of the rule of law are that the law be accessible, clear and predictable; that matters are decided by law and not normally by discretion; that there is equality before the law; that power be exercised lawfully, fairly and reasonably; that human rights are protected; that disputes are resolved without undue cost or delay; that trials be fair; and, fi nally that the state complies with its obligations in international law as well as national law.5

There are therefore four critical features to the rule of law: legality, certainty, equality and access to justice and rights.6 The last of these features enables individuals to challenge decisions made by the executives with a reasonable prospect of success in an appropriate case. Thus, whatever degree of legality and legal certainty there may be, if an individual is not

able to challenge the government to assert rights, including human rights, the rule of law would be absent.7 This is fundamental to distinguish the rule of law from rule by law, which are laws however unjust and oppressive that may be passed by Parliament.

The rule of law has evolved into the cornerstone of the administration of justice the world over. As Soli Sorabjee, the former Attorney General of India, said:

It needs to be emphasized that there is nothing Western or Eastern or Northern or Southern about the underlying principle of the rule of law. It has a global reach and dimension. The rule of law symbolizes the quest … to combine that degree of liberty without which the law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes license. In the words of the great Justice Vivien Bose of [the Indian] Supreme Court, the rule of law “is the heritage of all mankind because its underlying rationale is belief in … the human dignity of all individuals anywhere in the world”.6

It is ironic then that even as the Magna Carta is celebrated and extolled, the rule of law in Malaysia is today in peril, perhaps as never before in our history as a nation. In the past fi ve months of 2015, we have seen crippling assaults on the rule of law. There are widespread concerns that Malaysia is steadily eschewing the rule of law and tilting towards rule by law.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE


Misuse of Arrest and Investigative Powers by the Police

As at 30 May 2015, about 200 persons have been arrested for various alleged off ences under the Sedition Act 1948, Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, Penal Code, and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. They include members of Parliament, politicians, social activists, journalists, students, minors and Members of the Malaysian Bar. The reasons of their arrest have been questionable and the conduct of the police leaves much to be desired.

The police have grossly misconstrued their powers under our laws — such as the Criminal Procedure Code — and have exercised these powers in a repressive manner. It has been reported that the police employed heavy-handed tactics, openly displayed weaponry and used disproportionate force in eff ecting arrest.7 In some cases, the arrest has been preceded with, or followed by, intrusive raids by the police of the workplace of suspects, or premises of third parties.8 There have also been allegations that the police have denied or delayed suspects their constitutional right to legal representation upon arrest.9

The police have also unjustifi ably detained suspects overnight and unnecessarily sought remand orders for extended periods of detention. The overnight detention of suspects and extended remand orders without any basis would only serve to terrorise suspects, and is deplorable.

It is trite that investigative powers possessed by the police cannot be used to arrest or detain suspects, or to seek remand orders, only for the purpose of gathering evidence. Further, the detention of suspects overnight should only be to investigate based on evidence that the police have already gathered and a remand order should only be sought to complete investigations, where there is a risk that the individual may tamper with evidence, or where the individual is likely to be a fl ight risk. The use of investigative powers to detain suspects under any other circumstances is a blatant abuse of police powers and should be seen as an act of intimidation, harassment and oppression.

The misuse by the police of their

investigative powers is inimical to the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, and the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. These constitutional liberties are founded on the rule of law and cannot be ignored by the police with impunity.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 — The Revival of the ISA?

We then saw the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) rushed through the Dewan Rakyat and passed in the early hours of 7 Apr 2015. There was barely 14 hours of debate on this draconian law that purports to deal with counter-terrorism, which is an intractable and complex matter. POTA was subsequently passed by the Dewan Negara on 24 Apr 2015 despite concerns over the undue haste in which the Dewan Rakyat dealt with it.

POTA is clearly an attempt by the Government to resurrect the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”) as well as the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959, and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. It may be recalled that these legislation were repealed in 2012.

The concern that POTA is a revival of the ISA is borne out by the fact that we already have suffi cient laws to deal with the threat of terrorism.10 These are found in the Penal Code and Security Off ences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (“SOSMA”). POTA has therefore clearly been passed to restore detention without trial, as previously under the ISA, and to target persons other than terrorists, which was also the case with the ISA.

Phil Robertson, Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch Asia Division, has described POTA as “... a legal zombie returned from the grave of the discredited and abusive Internal Security Act. By proposing this legislation, the Malaysian government is signaling its willingness to return to Malaysia’s past policies of repression.”11

POTA is abhorrent as it is uncertain in its scope and in its sweep, POTA could apply to almost any citizen of this country. It does not clearly defi ne a “terrorist”. POTA gives the police

wide discretionary powers of arrest of suspects and allows for the detention of suspects up to 60 days for investigation purposes. The court [the Magistrate] grants the investigative detention orders at the dictates of the police or deputy public prosecutor, and is thus reduced to a mere rubber stamp in the investigative detention process. POTA creates a charade of judicial scrutiny over the investigative detention. The investigative authority (known as the “inquiry offi cer”) has enormous powers to investigate and gather evidence against suspects, including evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in law. In other words, evidence obtained by duress, undue infl uence or other forms of compulsion could be used adversely against the suspect.

POTA restricts or denies legal representation to suspects, except when the suspect’s evidence is recorded. It is important to note that POTA denies the suspect the right to be represented before the POTA Board, which is the administrative body that can order the suspect to be detained without trial for up to two years (or order restrictive residence of up to fi ve years), with indeterminate extensions. The detention order or restricted residence order is based purely only on the report of the inquiry offi cer. The suspect is not given the right to disabuse or challenge this critical report prepared by the inquiry offi cer.

The POTA Board is appointed by, and may be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (who would act on the advice of the Executive, here Minister of Home Aff airs). The Board is headed by someone who need not be a judge or a retired judge or even a person who is eligible to be a judge. The POTA Board is therefore, for all intents and purposes, an Executive-appointed, and Executive controlled-body that lacks autonomy or independence.

Critically, POTA exhaustively ousts all forms of judicial review of the detention order and the restrictive residence order. In this regard, it contains an ouster clause that is a reincarnation of section 88B of the ISA. Thus, POTA, like the ISA, places administrative detention without trial and restrictive residence orders beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny.

POTA bypasses and sidelines the



Judiciary, drastically impinges on the independence of the Bar and is a threat to the civil liberties of all citizens of Malaysia. Thus, POTA ignores due process, infringes upon our constitutional rights, and is repugnant to the rule of law.

Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948

The amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 were passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 10 Apr 2015 and by the Dewan Negara on 28 Apr 2015. This represents a complete and unabashed reneging of the promise made by the Government on 11 July 2012 that the Sedition Act 1948 would be repealed and replaced by a proposed National Harmony Act.

The Sedition Act 1948 is an archaic colonial law that was designed to stifl e dissent and seriously curtail the freedom of speech. It is a law that appears to have received a new lease of life after it was slated for repeal by the Government. Today we are faced with an amended version of the law that is far more drastic and oppressive.

The amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 reinforce the concern that the limits to freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia is today to be determined by those who are not open to adverse comments or contrary ideas, or who are easily off ended or angered. This nurtures an environment of intemperance and intolerance, and is inimical to maturity and progress in our society.

Despite the amendments, the off ence of sedition remains ill-defi ned and open to abuse. Intention or the motive of the suspect is still irrelevant and is not a defense to the charge. Thus, sedition remains a strict liability off ence. Oral sedition need not be corroborated and therefore the off ence can be prosecuted on the mere say-so of one accuser.

The sentence of a fi ne has been abolished. Upon conviction, a person will now face a minimum 3 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 7 years’ imprisonment, and in cases of “aggravated sedition” a minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment. The elements of the “aggravated sedition” are tenuous and easily open to abuse. In all, insofar as speech off ences are concerned, these

amendments are possibly unparalleled in any democracy.

For sedition committed by way of publication in electronic media, a prohibition order may be issued requiring the person making or circulating the seditious publication to remove the off ending publication. Thus, if a person posted a Facebook update, the order will require the person to delete the Facebook post.

What is more worrying is that the person making or circulating the seditious publication would also be prohibited from accessing any electronic device. Thus, if a person were to tweet something seditious and the Sessions Court issues a prohibition order against the person, the person would then be prohibited from using a smartphone, tablet, computer and any other electronic device. Such a prohibition order would have grave ramifi cations to a person’s ability to communicate, seek education or seek employment.

Judicial discretion in sentencing has been removed by the new minimum sentencing regime for sedition, and further in meting out the sentence, Judges are also prevented from taking into account fundamental factors such as fi rst-time off enders or young off enders, and the possibility of conditional discharge or binding over. There is provision for restriction in travel that the court orders on the application of the public prosecutor.

The amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 create a climate of fear and will have the eff ect of imprisoning thought, speech and expression. It renders our constitutional right to free speech and expression illusory. The erosion of judicial discretion is a serious blow to the independence of the judiciary, which is an essential element of the rule of law.

The Rule of Law Campaign

On 10 Apr 2015, the Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association issued a joint statement on POTA titled “Detention Without Trial is Oppressive and Unjust, and Violates the Rule of Law”.12

On 17 Apr 2015, the three Bars issued another joint statement on the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948

titled “Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 are Draconian, Militate Against the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary”.13

On 23 Apr 2015, the three Bars wrote to the President of the Dewan Negara to express our reservations over POTA and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948, where we jointly urged the Dewan Negara to reject these laws.14

The Bar Council has now embarked on a campaign to uphold, strengthen and preserve the rule of law in the face of the passing of the abovementioned oppressive laws. With the support of the State Bar Committees, a series of forums have been organised to brief Members of the Bar and the public on POTA and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948. Our goal is to create awareness of these laws and how they aff ect the independence of the Judiciary, the independence of the Bar and civil liberties in Malaysia.

To date, public forums have been held in Johor Bahru, Kota Bharu, Kuala Lumpur, Malacca and Seremban. More forums will be held in Alor Setar, Kuantan, Penang, Shah Alam and Taiping. In addition, the State Bars in each of the aforementioned states will organise public forums in other towns in their state so that awareness of these oppressive laws would reach the less urban areas.

The response to the public forums that have been held, thus far, has been very encouraging. Many of the attendees have provided feedback expressing their shock and concern that such oppressive laws have been introduced in Malaysia, and have expressed fears over the ramifi cations of these laws.

In addition, production is underway to shoot short, entertaining and educational videos on POTA and the Sedition Act 1948, with subtitles in Bahasa Malaysia, English, Mandarin and Tamil, which will be uploaded on YouTube so as to reach a mass audience.

The Malaysian Bar has also received letters of support for our rule of law initiative from law societies and bar associations from around the world, including the Australian Bar Association, Bar Association of Sri Lanka,



French National Bar Council, Union Internationale des Avocats and Union of Turkish Bar Associations.

Conclusion

I urge all Members of the Bar to join the Bar Council’s eff ort to uphold, strengthen and preserve the rule of law in Malaysia. It is, after all, the mandate of the Malaysian Bar to “uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest or that of its members, uninfl uenced by fear or favour”.15

We cannot be bystanders when the rule of law is trampled, distorted and ultimately ignored in our land. In this regard, I commend to you the timely reminder by Lord Neuberger that “ … legal practice has an important context not shared by other occupations. Lawyers have a special position in society not because they are loved or because they are particularly admirable people, but because they are responsible for the rule of law. That is true whether they administer law as judges, advise on law as legal advisers or act as advocates in courts and tribunals … ”.16

As Members of the Malaysian Bar, the fl ame and spirit of the rule of law must continue to burn in our hearts, illuminate our paths and direct all our actions.

Steven Thiru President Malaysian Bar

Notes

1 Tom Bingham, Lives of the Law: Selected Essays and Speeches 2000 – 2010, (Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 5.

2 “Why Commemorate the 800th Anniversary?” by Sir Robert Worcester, http://magnacarta800th.com/magna-carta-today/objectives-of-the-magna-carta-800th-committee/ (Accessed on 22 June 2015).

3 Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd [1979] 1 MLJ 135 at p. 148.

4 R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Offi ce [2001] QB 1067, para 36. This phrase was coined by the Canadian Supreme Court, which stated in Calder v Attorney-General of British Columbia (1973) 34 DLR (3d.) 145, 203 that “Magna Carta has always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire. It was a law which followed the fl ag as England assumed jurisdiction over

newly-discovered or acquired lands or territories.”

5 Jeff rey Jowell, The Rule of Law: A Practical and Universal Concept, Rule of Law Symposium 2014 (The Importance of the Rule of Law in Promoting Development), Academy Publishing (Singapore Academy of Law), p. 3.

6 Jeff rey Jowell, The Rule of Law: A Practical and Universal Concept, Rule of Law Symposium 2014 (The Importance of the Rule of Law in Promoting Development), Academy Publishing (Singapore Academy of Law), p. 4.

7 Malay Mail Online, “At 3am, cops haul in Shah Alam MP for #KitaLawan rally”, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/at-3am-cops-haul-in-shah-alam-mp-for-kitalawan-rally (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

8 The Malaysian Insider, “Police arrest TMI editors over hudud report”, 30 Mar 2015, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/police-arrest-tmi-editors-over-hudud-report#sthash.VPxFcKp3.dpbs (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

9 The Malaysian Insider, “2 MPs among 29 in remand for anti-GST protest”, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/pas-psm-reps-among-29-in-remand-for-anti-gst-protest (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

10 Press release issued by Human Rights Watch “Malaysia: Scrap Repressive Counterterrorism Bill” issued on 5 Apr 2015, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/05/malaysia-scrap-repress ive-counte r te r ro r i sm-b i l l (Accessed on 22 June 2015).

11 Joint press statement released by the Malaysian Bar, Advocates’ Assocation of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association. “Detention Without Trial is Oppressive and Unjust, and Violates the Rule of Law”, 10 Apr 2015, http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/joint_press_release_by_the_three_bars_of_malaysia_%7C_detention_without_trial_is_oppressive_and_unjust_and_violates_the_rule_of_law.html (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

12 Chapter VI A, Penal Code, Security Off ences (Special Measures) Act 2012.

13 Joint press statement released by the Malaysian Bar, Advocates’ Assocation of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association. “Detention Without Trial is Oppressive and Unjust, and Violates the Rule of Law”, 17 Apr 2015, http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/joint_press_release_%7C_amendments_to_the_sedition_act_1948_are_draconian_mil i tate_against_the_freedom_of_speech_and_expression_and_interfere_w i th_ the_ independence_o f_ the_judiciary_.html (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

14 Joint Open Letter to the President

of the Dewan Negara, http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/joint_open_letter_to_the_president_of_the_dewan_negara.html (Accessed on 23 June 2015).

15 Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

16 President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, speaking on “The Future of the Bar” at the Conference of the Bar Councils of Northern Ireland and Ireland in Belfast on 20 June 2014.

Know Your President

Steven Thiru was born in Kuala Lumpur, but spent most of his growing years in Klang. His father served as the manager of the engineering department in a private company, while his mother was a housewife.

Here are some quick facts about the President:

Education• LL.B. (Hons) (Leicester)• LL.M. (Malaya)• Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple

Career and Interests• Joined Shook Lin & Bok in 1992 as

an associate• Became a partner in 2000• Main areas of practice —

Employment Law, Administrative Law, Native Title Law, and General Litigation

• Currently heads the Family, Probate & Trusts and Tax & Revenue Departments, and the Competition and Anti-Trusts Law Departments

• Handles cases at all levels of the courts in Malaysia

• Has represented Orang Asli litigants in native land rights matters

• Currently also serves as Chairperson of the Bar Council Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course

• Also serves in other capacities: Council Member of the London-based Commonwealth Lawyers Association, and committee member of the LAWASIA Standing Committee on Labour Law

Trivia• He is married to Susheila Anne

Sreedharan, an in-house legal counsel

• They have a daughter, Sarah Priyanka

• Favourite football team: Manchester United

• Loves to read and run



Conduct of Bar Council Annual Election is in Full Compliance with the Law

The Bar Council refers to comments and questions reported in the news media regarding aspects of the annual election of 12 members to the Bar Council via a postal ballot.

The annual election of members of the Bar Council through a postal ballot is an election among the Members of the Malaysian Bar. It is an internal event that, as with similar events for most other organisations, is not a public general election for public offi ce.

The conduct of the annual Bar Council election is in full compliance with the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”), and has evolved over time within the ambit of the LPA.

In this regard the Bar Council had decided to provide for the opportunity for candidates and/or their representatives to observe the ballot-counting process. This is not provided for, nor required, under the LPA, but is something that we have provided for, on our own initiative and within the constraints that we face, in order to promote transparency. This was an initiative fi rst instituted by us for the annual election in 2013.

Each step of the election process is carried out with care and diligence, and three scrutineers who are senior Members of the Bar are appointed to oversee the process. During the ballot-counting process, the room in which the counting is carried out is secured, and the process is overseen closely by the three scrutineers. No third parties — particularly interested parties such as the candidates and/or their representatives — are permitted to be physically present in the ballot-counting room, in order to

preserve the security of the ballots, and to ensure there is no untoward incident in the ballot-counting room or any allegation of interference or tampering with the ballot papers.

The entire ballot-counting process can be observed by the candidates and/or their representatives through a live telecast (through live streaming) in an observation room. There are four cameras in the ballot-counting room, where ten teams of Bar Council Secretariat staff carry out the counting, and the cameras provide coverage of the entire room and the ballot-counting process. One camera is focused on one of the counting teams, to provide a close-up look at an example of the counting process. The camera footage is streamed live into the observation room.

In respect of the written undertaking, all candidates are informed in writing, approximately three weeks before the ballot-counting day, that they would be allowed to observe the ballot-counting process, and that to preserve the security and integrity of the process, they would be observing the counting in another room. The candidates are also informed that they must provide a written undertaking that they will not photograph, record or transmit by electronic means the footage they view via live streaming, and that this requirement would be strictly enforced.

Various candidates notifi ed the Bar Council in writing that they would like to take up the off er to observe the ballot-counting process, and duly provided the required documents. These candidates subsequently attended and observed the ballot-counting process in the observation room. No complaint was received from them in respect of the requirement to provide a written undertaking. However, one candidate turned up at the observation venue on the ballot-counting day and refused to provide the written undertaking not

to photograph, record or transmit by electronic means any footage of the live telecast, and would only provide a verbal assurance.

Unfortunately, we have had to specifi cally require a written undertaking from all candidates and representatives because we have experienced, in the past, that video recordings of other closed-door Bar events were made and released, despite the internal nature of such events and restrictions not to do so.

A few points should be borne in mind. Firstly, the opportunity for the candidates and/or their representatives to observe the ballot-counting process is not something provided for or required by the LPA. It is the Bar Council, on its own initiative, that decided to introduce this option for purposes of transparency.

Secondly, the annual election of Bar Council members is internal to the Malaysian Bar. The process is not a public election, and the staff who undertake this process are not public employees. It is therefore not appropriate for any photography, recording or transmission of an internal event to be made public, or for the staff carrying out their duty as employees to be subjected to being photographed or recorded. One would have thought that this is plain and obvious.

Finally, we have done everything required under the LPA, and we are doing more on our own initiative, in the interest of transparency. We will continue to evolve the process for the better, within the constraints that we have.

Christopher Leong President Malaysian Bar

4 December 2014

The Bar is Pro-Rule of Law and Justice, Not Pro-Opposition or Government

Much has been said of the prosecution of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and there appears to be some obfuscation. Those who are misconstruing or distorting the Malaysian Bar’s press release of 11 February 2015, which was plainly and clearly only in respect of the prosecutorial process, should cease doing so.

Without recapping the issues raised therein, the Malaysian Bar wishes to address some issues that have arisen in the past week.

The prosecutor-by-fi at in the Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim case has been reported to have been giving interviews, attending roadshows purportedly organised by a political party in Government, and with his name used in suggestions for debates. It was subsequently reported that the roadshows were not at the behest of or sanctioned by that political party.

Is such conduct befi tting or compatible with the dignity of a prosecutor or the offi ce of the Public Prosecutor? Is it appropriate or proper for a prosecutor to replay the prosecution by way of roadshows or public debates? Does a fi at given to a prosecutor to conduct a prosecution confer a licence to embark on a public tirade against a convicted and incarcerated person, or has the prosecutor-by-fi at been nevertheless authorised by the Public Prosecutor to undertake these activities?

PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR


A former Attorney General is reported to have said that such conduct is unprecedented.

The “Standards of professional responsibility and statement of the essential duties and rights of prosecutors” adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors on 23 April 1999 provide, amongst others, that prosecutors shall:

(1) at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession;

(2) always conduct themselves professionally in accordance with the law and the rules and ethics of their profession;

(3) at all times exercise the highest standards of integrity and care;

(4) strive to be, and to be seen to be, consistent, independent and impartial;

(5) always serve and protect the public interest; respect, protect and uphold the universal concept of human dignity and human rights;

(6) remain unaff ected by sectional interests and public or media pressures and shall have regard only to the public interest; act with objectivity; and

(7) preserve professional confi dentiality.

Furthermore, the “Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors” adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Off enders in 1990 provide, amongst others, that prosecutors shall:

(1) as essential agents of the administration of justice, at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession;

(2) in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently, and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system;

(3) carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kind of discrimination;

(4) protect the public interest and act with objectivity; and

(5) keep matters in their possession confi dential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice require otherwise.

Are prosecutors governed by a set of practice and etiquette rules established by the Public Prosecutor, who is also the Attorney General, in a similar vein to the standards and guidelines referred to above, or the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 that govern advocates and solicitors?

The Public Prosecutor should perhaps shed light on these matters.

The prosecutorial discretion pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution is vested in the Attorney General. However, as the late Sultan Azlan Shah once said, there is no such thing as an unfettered discretion, as every discretion has its legal limits. Thus, although the exercise of discretion may be vested in an offi ce, the exercise of it is accountable and is not beyond scrutiny.

There may thus be occasions when the Public Prosecutor or his offi ce may be required to render an account of the exercise or non-exercise of the prosecutorial discretion or conduct on certain matters raised by the public. We ought to bear in mind that, in any criminal prosecution, the Public Prosecutor’s offi ce represents the public interest, and not the Government. Criminal prosecutions are thus in the name of the Public Prosecutor, and not in the name of the Government of Malaysia.

The account or clarifi cation would usually be done in a clinical, measured and dispassionate manner, mindful that the offi ce is a public offi ce acting in furtherance of the public trust.

There certainly should be no place for roadshows or debates.

Any roadshow or public debate by a prosecutor with respect to a prosecution he had conducted, culminating in a conviction, would add nothing to the conduct of the prosecution, proceedings or conviction, but may potentially embarrass, or aff ect the public confi dence in or perception of, the offi ce of the Public Prosecutor.

It was also reported that the prosecutor-by-fi at had referred to, and revealed in public, matters or details of proceedings expressly held in camera.

Proceedings held in camera are proceedings that are not conducted in open court, and are without the presence

of the public. The court would usually make directions or set terms as to the ambit of the restriction in terms of any revelation or publication of the matters heard in camera. Whether it is improper or a contempt of court for a prosecutor (or a prosecutor-by-fi at) or any party to reveal or publish matters and evidence heard in proceedings held in camera would depend on the directions made or terms set, if any, by the court, and whether those directions or terms have been breached.

The directions or terms made with regard to any particular proceedings held in camera could only be ascertained from the notes of court proceedings on the matter, if available, and any breach thereof would be a matter for the parties involved in the criminal trial or the court itself to take up.

The media release dated 12 February 2015 by the Attorney General is an example of an account or response by the offi ce of the Public Prosecutor in a clinical, measured and dispassionate manner.

We thank the Attorney General for the statistics provided with regard to prosecutions undertaken between 2010 and 2014 pursuant to section 377B of the Penal Code. It would be informative to have the statistics, if any, for such prosecutions under section 377B from the 1990s to 2009.

The law is only as good and fair as if it is consistently and equally applied and enforced. Section 377B, read with section 377A, criminalises both sodomy and oral sex (fellatio). Section 377D has in the past been used to prosecute a participant or abettor in consensual sodomy. The off ences apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals. It would be instructive to see what the statistics are for prosecutions for consensual oral sex under section 377B, read with section 377A, and under section 377D.

An analogy was drawn in the Attorney General’s media release with a prosecution for a corruption off ence, to explain why the complainant was not charged as a participant for abetment in the prosecution for consensual sodomy against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Is it a matter of policy, in the overall and long-term public interest, to grant immunity to those who are participants in an off ence in order to prosecute other participants, instead of plea bargaining for an admission and lesser sentence, except where the participant is an agent provocateur acting with or emplaced by the authorities in a sting operation?

In line with the analogy drawn in the said media release, it is to be noted that section



11 of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 provides that a participant in an off ence cannot enjoy protection under the said Act, including the removal of any immunity from criminal action. Although this Act came into force subsequent to the charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and is largely concerned with corruption, it may said that section 11

of the said Act is a statutory codifi cation or refl ection of the public interest policy with respect to there being no immunity for participants in off ences.

The Bar raises these issues and asks questions because it is pro-rule of law and pro-justice. The Bar is neither pro-Opposition nor pro-Government.

Christopher Leong President Malaysian Bar

26 February 2015

Hudud is Unconstitutional, Discriminatory and Divisive

The Malaysian Bar views with concern the passing of the Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment by the Kelantan State Legislature yesterday, in the Kelantan State Government’s eff ort to implement hudud — the class of crimes prescribed under Syariah law — in the state of Kelantan.

The Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment goes against the secular structure of our Federal Constitution, which does not envisage a theocratic Islamic state, or a parallel criminal justice system where Muslims and non-Muslims are subjected to unequal treatment before the law.

In Che Omar Bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55, the then- Supreme Court held that laws in Malaysia do not have to conform to Islamic principles, and confi rmed that Malaysia is a secular state. Thus, if hudud were brought into the criminal justice system, it would result in the importation of Islamic penal law into a secular system. This would result in a rewriting of the Federal Constitution.

Hudud is also inconsistent with the following provisions of the Federal Constitution:

(1) Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution confers to all citizens the right to life or personal liberty, which cannot be deprived “save in accordance with law”. The word “law”, as defi ned in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, does not expressly mention Syariah as part of the defi nition of law;

(2) Article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution protects against repeated trials of accused persons in criminal off ences. A Muslim person, who is tried and convicted for an off ence under the Penal Code, may then be exposed to a second trial

for the same off ence and punished under hudud laws. This would be in breach of Article 7(2); and

(3) Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. It has been reported that the Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment passed by the Kelantan State Assembly would be applicable only to Muslims. This would off end Article 8(1), as it would result in divergent procedures, separate evidentiary rules and diff ering punishment being applicable to Muslims as compared to non-Muslims, in respect of criminal off ences. A Muslim off ender would also face heavier punishment under hudud laws for the same off ence, compared to a non-Muslim off ender who is not subject to hudud laws. Further, the hudud laws entrench, and result in, injustice and discrimination against women and this would be contrary to Article 8(2).

In any event:

(1) The framers of our Federal Constitution never intended for there to be a dual criminal justice system — one at the federal level for non-Muslims and the other at the state level for Muslims. Criminal law and procedure, and the administration of justice, fall under the Federal List (i.e. 9th Schedule, List 1 (Para 4)), and are exclusively within the legislative competence of Parliament. It is therefore a subject matter solely within the legislative jurisdiction and power of Parliament;

(2) Hudud is also beyond the legislative capacity of State Legislatures, as set out in the 9th Schedule, List 2 (Para 1) of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution only allows the States to enact laws to create off ences by persons professing the religion of Islam against the precepts of Islam, and the respective punishments for such off ences. These laws must be with

regard to explicitly provided areas of “Islamic law and personal and family law”. There is nothing in the State List that allows for the enactment and implementation of any form of criminal law including hudud, nor is this permitted under the jurisdiction and power of the State Legislatures;

(3) The scope of the punishments for off ences against the precepts of Islam must be conferred by Federal law. The Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 provides that the Syariah Courts in all States shall not exercise jurisdiction “in respect of any off ence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years or with any fi ne exceeding fi ve thousand ringgit or with whipping exceeding six strokes or with any combination thereof.” Hence, the penalties that the Syariah Courts can mete out are clearly circumscribed, and do not include the punishments provided under hudud; and

(4) There can be no replication of any of the off ences within any Federal law with a diff erent degree of punishment only for Muslims. Further, these laws, if enacted, must themselves be consistent with fundamental liberties guaranteed to all citizens, including Muslims, under Part II of the Federal Constitution.

The passing of the Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment by the Kelantan State Assembly yesterday demonstrates the State Legislature’s indiff erence and disregard for our constitutional scheme. The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Kelantan State Assembly to respect and abide by the Federal Constitution, and repeal the Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment immediately.


20 March 2015



Police Must Respect Constitutional Rights and Uphold the Rule of Law

The Malaysian Bar is aghast at the spate of arrests and detentions in the wake of various public rallies held in Kuala Lumpur over the past two weeks.

The arrests and detentions were reported to have been made pursuant to Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, which penalises the organisers of peaceful assemblies with a fi ne of up to RM10,000 if they fail to provide the specifi ed 10 days’ notice; and Section 143 of the Penal Code, which imposes a punishment of a term of up to six months’ imprisonment, or a fi ne, or both, on whoever is “a member of an unlawful assembly (as defi ned in Section 142 of the Penal Code).

It has been reported that the following three persons were arrested to assist the police in their investigations into the public rallies, and subsequently released without detention on remand:

(1) Saifullah Zulkifl i: Politician, arrested on 7 March 2015;

(2) YB Rafi zi Ramli: Member of Parliament for Pandan, arrested on 10 March 2015; and

(3) S Jayathas: Human rights activist, arrested on 17 March 2015.

It has been also reported that the following six persons were arrested to assist the police in their investigations into the public rallies, and subsequently detained on remand under Section 117(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code before being released:

(1) YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad: Selangor State Government Executive Council Member, arrested on 8 March 2015 and detained on remand for three days;

(2) Fariz Musa: Politician, arrested on 10 March 2015 and detained on remand for two days;

(3) Mohd Fakhrulrazi Mohd Mokhtar: Politician, arrested on 10 March 2015 and detained on remand for one day;

(4) Adam Adli: Student activist, arrested on 14 March 2015 and detained on remand for three days;

(5) Mandeep Singh: Staff member of a non-governmental organisation, arrested on 14 March 2015 and detained on remand for three days; and

(6) YB Teo Kok Seong: Member of Parliament for Rasah, arrested on 14 March 2015 and detained on remand for one day.

It has been further reported that YB Chua Tian Chang (commonly known as YB Tian Chua), Member of Parliament for Batu, was arrested on 20 March 2015 under Section 143 of the Penal Code, and released on 21 March 2015 when the police failed to obtain a remand order under Section 117(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The constitutional right to assemble peaceably and without arms is guaranteed under Article 10(1)(b) the Federal Constitution, subject to limited restrictions “in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order”, under Article 10(2)(b). The Court of Appeal in Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2014] 4 CLJ 944 unanimously reaffi rmed this constitutional liberty as a fundamental right of all Malaysians.

It is therefore untenable that the police have decided to ignore the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad case, and have arrested, and in several instances also detained on remand, the persons listed above. The decision of the Court of Appeal has a far-reaching impact on all forms of restrictions or limitations under our laws on the constitutionally safeguarded right to freedom of assembly.

A decision of the Court of Appeal, until reversed by the Federal Court, remains enforceable and binding. It is not open to anyone, including the police, to ignore the decision even if an appeal or a review of the decision is pending. As a law enforcement agency, the police must respect the law at all times, and not only when they wish or choose to do so. The police cannot be a law unto themselves.

Moreover, there appears to have been no reason for the police to arrest S Jayathas,

YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Fariz Musa, Mohd Fakhrulrazi Mohd Mokhtar, YB Teo Kok Seong and YB Tian Chua, as it was reported that they had voluntarily agreed to present themselves for questioning and to assist in the investigations. If the investigations could not be completed on the day they presented themselves, they should have been asked to return the next day, or on a date that was mutually agreed upon. Arresting persons who are willing to cooperate in investigations is a misuse of the power of arrest.

In addition, there appears to have been no basis whatsoever for the police to have sought remand orders for detention in the cases of YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Fariz Musa, Mohd Fakhrulrazi Mohd Mokhtar, Adam Adli, Mandeep Singh and YB Teo Kok Seong. A remand order — could lead to a detention of up to 14 days — is to enable the police to complete investigations, and not for the purpose of commencing investigations. It is imperative that the police show that they have pursued investigations diligently. The police cannot detain persons on remand in order to conduct investigations at their leisure. Further, a remand order should not be sought in the absence of a reasonable belief that the accused persons would tamper with or destroy evidence that is material to the investigations, harass potential witnesses, or pose a fl ight risk.

A remand order is a grave and harsh deprivation of an accused person’s liberty. It is not an order that the police should lightly or routinely seek unless it is fully justifi able. The police should certainly not seek a remand order to harass and intimidate accused persons. Such conduct would be unprofessional, deplorable and unlawful.

The Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned by the manner in which the police have chosen to exercise their powers to arrest and detain persons exercising their constitutional right to assemble peaceably. We urge the police to exercise restraint, and to respect constitutional rights and to uphold the rule of law.


22 March 2015



Investigative Powers of the Police Must Not be Abused to Intimidate, Harass, Oppress and Terrorise

The Malaysian Bar condemns the police dragnet that has continued unabated over the past two months.

As at 1 April 2015, about 159 persons have been arrested for various alleged off ences under the Sedition Act 1948, Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, Penal Code, and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. In many of these cases, the police unjustifi ably detained individuals overnight and unnecessarily sought remand orders for extended periods of detention. In some cases, the arrest was preceded with, or followed by, intrusive raids by the police of the workplace of the individuals, or premises of third parties. There have also been reports against the police for disproportionate use of force, as well as allegations that the police denied individuals legal representation upon arrest.

The police continue to grossly misconstrue their investigative powers under our laws — such as the Criminal Procedure Code — and to exercise these powers in an oppressive manner. Investigative powers are not meant to be used in order to begin gathering evidence against an individual. Further, investigative powers cannot be used to arrest or detain individuals, or to seek remand orders, only for the purpose of gathering evidence.

The detention of individuals overnight should only be to investigate based on evidence that the police have already gathered, and a remand order should only be sought to complete investigations, where there is a risk that the individual may tamper with evidence, or where the individual is likely to be a fl ight risk. The use of investigative powers to detain individuals under any other circumstances is a blatant abuse of these powers and should be seen as an act of intimidation, harassment and oppression. The overnight detention of individuals and extended remand orders without any basis would only serve to terrorise individuals, and would thus be wholly deplorable.

The conduct of the police over the past two months, and the slew of complaints

against them, give rise to an irresistible inference in the public mind that the police are abusing their investigative powers. The most recent occurrence was the police raid of the offi ce of The Malaysian Insider (“TMI”) news portal on 30 March 2015, which culminated in the arrest and overnight detention of managing editor Lionel Morais, Bahasa Malaysia news editor Amin Shah Iskandar, and features and analysis editor Zulkifl i Sulong, and the seizing of their laptops and mobile phones; as well as the arrest on 31 March 2015 and overnight detention of TMI chief executive Jahabar Sadiq and The Edge Media Group chief executive Ho Kay Tat after they had voluntarily presented themselves at Dang Wangi police station to assist in the police investigation. The police application for the remand of Lionel Morais, Amin Shah and Zulkifl i Sulong was refused at 12:45 pm on 31 March 2015, but they were only released at approximately 6:00 pm that day, which makes a mockery of the rejection by court of the remand application. The police did not seek a remand order for Jahabar Sadiq and Ho Kay Tat, who were then released on 1 April 2015.

It was reported that the police are investigating these fi ve individuals — under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 — over the publication of a news article by TMI on 25 March 2015 concerning a decision made by the Conference of Rulers on the implementation of hudud laws upon the passing of the Syariah Criminal Code (II) (1993) 2015 Enactment by the Kelantan State legislature. Subsequently, it was reported that a police report had been made by Dato’ Sri Syed Danial Syed Ahmad, Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, denying the said decision had been made by the Conference of Rulers. It was reported that TMI offi cials did not deny publishing the news article, and were willing to cooperate in the police investigation.

Thus, the action taken by the police against the fi ve individuals defi es logic, reason and credibility. If the article was erroneous, then all that was required was for TMI to make the necessary correction or clarifi cation and, if necessary, to withdraw or retract the article. There was no necessity for the police to arrest the fi ve individuals, detain them overnight and seek a remand order.

Further, with regard to the allegation that the said article published by TMI was seditious, TMI had reportedly identifi ed the author (and did not deny publishing the article). Accordingly, the police needed only to rely on the published version of the article for investigation purposes, since the intention of the author or publisher of the article, or the truth of what was published, are not defences under the Sedition Act 1948. However, this is one of the reprehensible and repressive features of the Sedition Act 1948. Again, there was thus absolutely no need for the police to arrest and detain the fi ve men overnight, and apply for remand orders, when all they needed was to ascertain that the article had been published by the fi ve men.

Moreover, as the subject matter of the allegation was the published article that was readily available to the police, there was also no basis whatsoever for the police to raid the offi ce of TMI and to seize property belonging to the TMI offi cials. This draconian exercise of power by the police is inexplicable, and raises the question of whether the raid and seizure were for reasons or purposes unrelated to the investigations under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. If the raid and seizure were actuated by ulterior motives, the conduct of the police would be decidedly objectionable and would smack of bad faith.

Apart from this incident involving TMI, there have been other recent troubling incidents that lend to the inference of widespread abuse of investigative powers by the police. Some of these are as follows:

(1) It was reported that YB Nurul Izzah, Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, was arrested on 16 March 2015 and detained overnight for an off ence under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948, for delivering an allegedly seditious speech in the Dewan Rakyat on 10 March 2015. It was also reported that she had voluntarily off ered to cooperate with the police in their investigation. Again, as the allegation was that she had committed sedition, all the police needed for their investigation was the verbatim recording of her speech in the Dewan Rakyat, which is contained in the relevant hansard of the Dewan Rakyat, and to view the video recording of her speech.



There was therefore no reason at all to arrest and detain her overnight;

(2) It was reported that Eric Paulsen, the Executive Director and Co-Founder of Lawyers for Liberty, was arrested at Dataran Merdeka on 22 March 2015 under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, had his mobile phone confi scated, and was detained overnight, over his tweets on the implementation of hudud laws. As the relevant tweets were easily ascertainable, as evidenced by the screenshots of his Twitter account, all that was required was for the police to confi rm that he had indeed sent out the relevant tweets, hence there was no justifi cation to arrest and detain him overnight;

(3) It was reported that over 80 anti-GST activists were arrested at the Kelana Jaya Customs Complex and taken to the Kelana Jaya police station on 23 March 2015. It was reported that the police did not inform them of the reason for their arrest, and that they were denied their right to legal representation for the entire period of their detention.

The next day, about 25 of the activists were taken to the Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (District Police Headquarters) Shah Alam for remand for off ences under Section 21of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and Section 447 of the Penal Code. It was also reported that the police sought remand orders for all 25 individuals — although the majority of them had already given their statement to the police — and the individuals were subsequently remanded for two days. The police reportedly denied the detainees their right to legal representation until just minutes before the remand hearings began. The reasons for the remand applications were unacceptable, and the refusal to disclose the grounds for the arrest and the initial refusal to allow for legal representation were a breach of Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution;

(4) It was reported that Rafi zi Ramli, Member of Parliament for Pandan and Vice President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (the People’s Justice Party; “PKR”), was arrested on 27 March 2015 under the Sedition Act 1948 over a circular he had issued about

the #KitaLawan rally, and was held in remand for three days. On 29 March 2015, it was reported that the police raided the PKR national headquarters, seized four computers, a copy of the circular, and a copy of the media statement Rafi zi had issued regarding the rally. Again, as the police already had the circular in their possession, all that was needed was for the police to ascertain whether he had issued the circular. Why was there then a need to arrest and seek an extended remand order, and in addition raid the headquarters of the political party as well as seize its property?;

(5) On 27 March 2015, Hishamuddin Rais, a political activist, was reportedly travelling in a taxi near Dataran Merdeka when he was followed by a silver-coloured Honda Civic and several motorcycles. It is alleged that six men wearing balaclavas grabbed him when he alighted from the taxi. One of them reportedly dragged him by his chest and covered his mouth to stop him from shouting, and they then forced Hishamuddin into another car, which sped off . His abduction was witnessed by several individuals. One eyewitness, Muhd Daniel, reportedly chased the vehicle and managed to grab one of the alleged kidnappers but was forced to let go as the kidnapper had pointed a pistol at him. Subsequently, when Hishamuddin’s friends contacted the police, they were informed that Hishamuddin was being detained at the Dang Wangi police station. He was reportedly detained for his alleged involvement in the #KitaLawan rally in Kuala Lumpur to be held on the next day, 28 March 2015. Hishamuddin was released on 29 March 2015;

(6) On 28 March, politician Mohamad Sabu (better known as Mat Sabu) was reportedly arrested by 20 police offi cers wearing balaclavas and bearing weapons at a restaurant in Butterworth, Penang at about 12:20 am, and taken to Seberang Jaya police station. At about 1:30 pm, the police reportedly took Mat Sabu to the Dang Wangi police station in Kuala Lumpur. He was also released on 29 March 2015; and

(7) At approximately 3:00 am on 29 March 2015, Khalid Samad, Member

of Parliament for Shah Alam, was reportedly arrested at his home in Shah Alam under Section 143 of the Penal Code, to assist in the investigation into the #KitaLawan rally that had taken place in Kuala Lumpur. Eyewitnesses alleged that the police turned up at Khalid’s home in fi ve cars, and that several of the police offi cers were brandishing M16 assault rifl es. Khalid was taken to the Dang Wangi police station for documentation and then to the Jinjang police station for further investigation. He was released on police bail at 8:30 pm.

The Malaysian Bar expresses deep and serious concern regarding the reports of how the police have acted, particularly in the incidents referred to above. The reported heavy-handed tactics, disproportionate use of force, and open display of weaponry by the police, under the cover of night, in eff ecting the arrests of Hishamuddin Rais, Mat Sabu and Khalid Samad beg the question whether this is now part of the police’s standard operating procedure for arrest.

The Malaysian Bar does not condone the exercise of police powers in arbitrary manner. Based on the media reports, the police have displayed a worrying lack of restraint and proportionality.

The Malaysian Bar strongly urges the police to respect the rule of law and to stop abusing its investigative powers to intimidate, harass, oppress and terrorise individuals. The abuse of investigative powers is inimical to the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the Federal Constitution; and the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. These constitutional liberties cannot be ignored by the police with impunity.

It is time — indeed it is long past the time — for the police to move away from a “police state” mindset, and to adhere to its own 208th Police Day Celebration theme, “Polis dan Masyarakat Berpisah Tiada” (“The Police and Community Never Divided”).


2 April 2015



Detention Without Trial is Oppressive and Unjust, and Violates the Rule of Law

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak vehemently oppose all forms of detention without trial, and view the passage into law of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) in the early hours of 7 April 2015 with grave concern.

POTA is clearly an attempt by the Government to resurrect the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”), Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959, and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. POTA is objectionable, ignores due process, infringes upon our constitutional rights, and is repugnant to the rule of law. POTA brings about the re-emergence of detention without trial laws, the limiting or denial of legal representation, and the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts.

POTA is unclear in its scope inasmuch as it is directed at an ill-defi ned group of persons. It is purportedly directed at persons who are “engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign country”. However, words like “engaged”, “commission”, “support” and “involving” have not been defi ned in POTA. Thus, the reach of the legislation is extremely wide and lends itself to abuse. It opens up the real possibility that almost anyone could be targeted under POTA. It cannot be conveniently seen as simply targeting “terrorists”. We have seen how the ISA, which had been meant to deal with the communist insurgency, was used to stifl e political dissent and imprison political opponents.

POTA gives false hope in the exclusion of “political belief and political activity” as a ground for detention. Organisations not registered as political parties under the Societies Act 1966, or not registered under the Societies Act 1966 at all, may be subjected to the wide powers of POTA. We also note that in the past, politicians and political activists had been detained under the ISA for activities that

were nonetheless viewed as prejudicial to national security or public order. We fear POTA will be similarly abused as a tool for political oppression.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are also very troubled by the encroachment into judicial discretion in criminal matters. Under POTA, a person can initially be remanded for investigative detention for a maximum of 60 days. A Magistrate has no discretion to refuse a request for remand, and is reduced to rubber-stamping requests by the police and Public Prosecutor. Likewise, a Sessions Court Judge has no discretion to refuse any application by the Public Prosecutor to order that an accused person be attached with an electronic monitoring device. Discretionary powers that exist to enable the Judiciary to confront the excesses of the Executive are now eff ectively extinguished. The intrusion on judicial discretion permitted by POTA is serious, as it is tantamount to vesting judicial power in the Executive. We remind the Government that under our constitutional scheme, judicial power is vested in the Judiciary, and the vesting of judicial powers in any other body is unconstitutional.

Further, there is no provision for the person remanded to be informed of the grounds of arrest, nor is there any guarantee that legal representation will be allowed. This is because the police are prone to applying the exclusion under section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to deny access to legal representation. This is another serious matter, as access to legal representation for persons facing serious allegations of terrorism and the prospect of loss of liberty should not be denied.

POTA also confers draconian powers on the Inquiry Offi cer — who is not expressly defi ned in POTA — tasked with investigating the allegations against the accused person and presenting the evidence to the Prevention of Terrorism Board (“POTB”). In this regard the normal rules of evidence and criminal procedure are excluded, and the Inquiry Offi cer may procure evidence by any means. The Inquiry Offi cer then presents his/her report to POTB and there is no provision

for POTB to inquire into the report or require further investigation. POTB has extensive powers — it may grant a detention order of up to two years, or a restricted residence order of up to fi ve years. These periods of detention or restricted residence may be subsequently renewed for an indeterminate period. These orders are to be made by POTB without due process, inasmuch as the accused person is denied the right to make any legal representation to the POTB.

Next, the argument that POTA cannot be compared with the ISA because it is no longer the Minister of Home Aff airs who decides on the detention or restriction order, is specious. Members of the POTB are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (but following convention, upon the advice of the Government) and can be dismissed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at any time. This absence of security of tenure undermines whatever independence POTB purports to have. Only the Chairman is required to have legal experience, and there is no provision that he or she must be, or must be qualifi ed to be, a Judge. We have seen from the practice of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 that the names of the members of the Prevention of Crime Board have not been made public. It is likely to be no diff erent for members of POTB. The fact that POTB hearings will not be held in public means, in eff ect, that POTA will allow secret hearings by a secret panel. There will be no transparency.

One of the most off ensive aspects of POTA is its absolute ouster of judicial scrutiny. No judicial review of the detention order or the restriction order is possible. This is an aff ront to the Judiciary and is further contrary to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law. The small concession that courts can review procedural compliance is illusory in practice since POTB determines its own procedures.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak take the view that the answer to the fi ght against terrorism does not lie in oppressive laws



that violate our adherence to the rule of law, due process and constitutional safeguards. The war against terrorism requires the strengthening of our ability to detect, gather evidence, investigate and deal with the threat of terrorism in a holistic manner. We must eschew shortcuts or quick fi xes that seemingly provide short-term solutions but no long-term result.

We are aware of the evolving threat of global terrorism and the eff orts by the Government to adapt in order to counter it domestically. We are supportive of these eff orts, but maintain that the

war on terrorism must be won without compromising the rule of law, human rights and principles of natural justice.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak reject this attempt by the Government to revive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention, the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Judiciary, and the limitation or denial of the rights of suspected persons to due process of law.

We urge the Government to withdraw POTA from being tabled in the Dewan Negara.


Datuk GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh President Sabah Law Association

Leonard Shim President Advocates’ Association of Sarawak

10 April 2015

Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 are Draconian, Militate Against the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary

The Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association are appalled by the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 passed by the Dewan Rakyat in the early hours of 10 April 2015. We are extremely disappointed that the Malaysian Government has not only reneged from the promise made in 2012 to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with the National Harmony Act, but has substantially strengthened the former with drastic and oppressive provisions.

The Sedition Act 1948 is an archaic, obsolete and regressive law that must be abolished. It severely restricts, or even extinguishes, the freedom of speech and expression, and hence tramples on the constitutional rights of Malaysians. It is the antithesis of democracy, justice and human rights.

The amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 have dealt a crippling blow to the rule of law in Malaysia, and lend weight to the widely held public perception that we are becoming an intolerant authoritarian state. The democratic space for frank, meaningful and robust discourse has been palpably

reduced. The amendments reinforce the concern that the limits to freedom of speech and expression are to be determined by those in our society who are not open to adverse comments or contrary ideas, or who are easily offended or angered. This nurtures an environment of intemperance and intolerance.

The amendments passed by the Dewan Rakyat will result in a false sense of unity and harmony that is actually created by intimidation and a climate of fear. This perpetuates insecurity and suspicion amongst our citizenry, and does not augur well for the growth and maturity of our nation.

The amendments do not deal with one of the most offensive elements of the Sedition Act 1948, namely that the intention of a person accused of sedition, whether noble or mischievous, is irrelevant. The offence of sedition therefore remains one of strict liability. Strict liability for criminal offences is an extreme exception in criminal law, and certainly not one that should be used in respect of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. The amendments also criminalise truth, inasmuch as the truth of the words that are said to constitute “seditious tendency” is not a defence to a sedition charge. This is another abhorrent aspect of the Sedition Act 1948.

The amendment to Section 3(1)(a) removes criticism “against any Government” as a ground for “seditious tendency”. While this is

a notable development, it should not be forgotten that adverse statements against the Government should never have been criminalised. The Government cannot place itself beyond public scrutiny or comment, nor can it insulate itself from criticism. As regards the deletion of Section 3(1)(c) concerning criticism on the administration of justice, it is a timely recognition that in a democracy no institution should be beyond the reach of constructive and honest comment. However, we remain concerned that such speech could still be prosecuted under other legislation. If the Government is to recognise the right of freedom of expression, it must do so consistently across all legislation.

The other amendments to Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 are very troubling. The inclusion of the word “hatred” in Section 3(1)(e) in respect of the different races or classes in Malaysia, and the new provision relating to seditious tendency in Section 3(2)(c)(ii) of producing “feelings of ill will, hostility or hatred” “between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”, or “between persons or groups of persons on the ground of religion”, are imprecise amendments. Criminal offences must have the hallmark of clarity and certainty, and not be open to inconsistent or arbitrary interpretation. It is unacceptable for criminal sanctions to be imposed based on unclear or ambiguous provisions of law. The life and liberty of accused persons cannot turn on, or be subject to, vague laws.



The amendment to Section 4(1) is also worrying. A person convicted of sedition is now liable to be imprisoned for a minimum term of three years and a maximum term of seven years. The sanction of a fine in lieu of imprisonment has been removed. The imposition of mandatory imprisonment for sedition is harsh and disproportionate to the purported offence. In the case of a Member of Parliament, it will result in automatic disqualification. Moreover, by prescribing a minimum term of imprisonment, the Government curtails the discretion of the Judiciary in sentencing matters.

It must be borne in mind that judicial discretion in sentencing is a critical aspect of judicial power of the Judiciary under our constitutional scheme. It allows Judges to decide on appropriate sentences on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This ensures justice is done in each case based on the particular facts of the case. The deprivation of such judicial discretion may be construed to mean that the Government does not trust, or has lost faith in, the ability of the Judiciary to discharge its constitutional role and function, and would be seen as an interference with the independence of the Judiciary.

Next, the new Section 4(1A) is an obnoxious amendment. It provides for what may be conveniently described as “aggravated sedition”. Thus, a person who is accused of committing sedition that causes “bodily harm or damage to property” will be liable for a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and a maximum term of 20 years. It is not apparent what is required in terms of a link or connection between the alleged sedition and the causing of bodily harm or damage to property. It is clear that the new Section 4(1A) can be easily abused. All that is needed is for an agent provocateur to provoke an unsuspecting person to utter or publish allegedly seditious words, and for another person to cause “bodily harm or damage to property” purportedly as a result of those words. The former would be liable and would face imprisonment due to the purported conduct of the

latter. It is to be noted that here again judicial discretion is curtailed as the Judge is obliged, upon a finding of guilt, to impose the minimum term of imprisonment. A further intrusion into judicial discretion is seen in the new Section 6A, which prohibits a Judge from discharging a person convicted of aggravated sedition either conditionally or unconditionally, or granting a binding over order or taking into account the fact that the person is a youthful offender or a first-time offender.

The amendment in new Section 5A, to allow for restriction on travel, impinges on the constitutional rights of citizens. By obliging the Judge to act on the application of the public prosecutor to restrict travel, the Judiciary has been relegated to being a rubber stamp of the public prosecutor. This is an added assault on the independence of the Judiciary.

Another serious amendment is the deletion of Section 6 of the Sedition Act 1948, which protects any person from being convicted of sedition on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness. In other words, where the alleged sedition is attributable to a spoken word or words, a person can now be convicted for sedition on the unconfirmed evidence of one witness. This amendment removes a possible safeguard to a sedition charge, and exposes accused persons to conviction on the mere say-so of one witness.

The amendments also seek — in the new Section 10A — to impose severe restrictions on electronic publications, such as publications on social media. Thus, where there is an allegedly seditious publication by electronic means, a prohibition order can be made to require the person making or circulating the publication to remove the said publication. Further, the person making or circulating the allegedly seditious publication will be prohibited from accessing “any electronic device”. While there is a case to be made for a more responsible and mature use of social media, the amendments goes well beyond that, and threaten the thriving

exercise of freedom of speech and expression online.

The Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association call on the Malaysian Government to heed the salutary words of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who said, “Silencing dissent does not nurture social stability, but an open democratic space does”.1 It is also noteworthy that the “High Commissioner urged Malaysia, as chair of ASEAN, to ensure that its leadership role at the regional and international levels is backed up by a firm commitment to ensure the human rights of all in Malaysia”.

The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently flawed, and the amendments serve to expose and exacerbate its weaknesses. It is a law that undermines genuine unity and harmony, and is counterproductive to lasting peace, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia. The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in our nation, which aspires to be a modern, moderate and progressive democratic society.

The Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association urge the Government to desist from pursuing the amendments in the Dewan Negara, and to instead keep its promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.


Leonard Shim President Advocates’ Association of Sarawak

Datuk GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh President Sabah Law Association

17 April 2015

1 Press statement issued by the Offi ce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Malaysia: Draft anti-terror and sedition laws seriously undermine freedom of expression and opinion – Zeid”, 9 April 2015.



Right to Peaceful Assembly Rendered Illusory by Arbitrary Arrests and Oppressive Remand Orders

The Malaysian Bar is very concerned over the police action against some of the participants of the “Bantah GST” (“Oppose the Goods and Services Tax”) public rally held in Kuala Lumpur on 1 May 2015.

The fundamental right to peacefully protest on a matter of public interest is a norm in any vibrant democracy. It is a recognised and legitimate form of public expression of concern, and must not be curtailed through harsh or punitive measures in order to stifl e contrary views. A modern and progressive nation must embrace peaceful expressions of dissent, and promote engagement and attempts at mutual resolution of the concerns.

It has been reported that the organisers gave prior notice of the rally to the police and obtained approval to hold it at Padang Merbok. The police were therefore not against the public assembly. The organisers decided that participants should gather at fi ve diff erent locations before marching to KLCC.

The rally was attended by approximately 10,000 persons. Apart from some alleged untoward incidents during which graffi ti was spray-painted, smoke bombs and fi recrackers were set off , and rubbish was burned — all of which were allegedly committed by a small minority of participants in a limited area — the rally was peaceful.

Regrettably, the police arrested approximately 38 rally participants for investigations for alleged off ences under the Sedition Act 1948, Penal Code, and Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Off ensive Weapons Act 1958. In many cases, the police detained the suspects overnight and then applied for remand orders for four days. The police should not routinely resort to detentions, which are dehumanising and degrading, to punish and intimidate suspects.

Twenty-nine out of the 38 rally participants

were arrested for allegedly releasing a smoke bomb at around 2:00 pm, as well as for unlawful assembly. However, they were only apprehended at 7:00 pm, well after the rally had ended. It is startling that the police waited several hours after the alleged off ences before arresting the alleged perpetrators.

There were six minors of 16 to 17 years of age among the 29 arrested participants. The minors were reportedly arrested and handcuff ed together with the adult suspects and taken to the Kuala Lumpur Police Headquarters and later transferred to Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters. On 2 May 2015, the minors were produced together with the 23 adult suspects before a Magistrate for the remand hearing. The police sought a four-day remand, and were granted a remand of one day. The minors were then detained at Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters until their release.

The Malaysian Bar is shocked at the manner in which the police treated these six minors, who fall within the defi nition of a “child” under the Child Act 2001. The Child Act 2001 recognises that a child, by reason of physical, mental and emotional immaturity, is in need of special safeguards, care and assistance. In this regard, it appears that the police ignored several applicable provisions of the Child Act 2001, including the following:

(1) Upon the arrest, the police “shall immediately inform a probation offi cer and the child’s parent or guardian of the arrest” (section 87(a));

(2) Appropriate arrangements shall be made to prevent a child who is being detained in a police station, being conveyed to or from any Court, or waiting before or after any attendance in any Court, from associating with an adult who is charged with an off ence (section 85(a)); and

(3) The arrested child shall be brought before a Court For Children (which is constituted under section 11) within 24 hours of the arrest (section 84(1)).

Further, Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — to which Malaysia is a State Party —

prescribes the manner in which a child accused of infringing penal laws is to be treated. The police appear to have been oblivious of these legal obligations, and have arguably exposed the minors to irreparable trauma, and long-term psychological scarring and damage.

It was also reported that the police had issued notices to several persons to present themselves at the Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters before 10:00 pm on 1 May 2105, failing which they would be arrested. There appears to have been no plausible reason for this urgency to commence investigations, and the threat of arrest was certainly unwarranted.

Indeed, in the recent protest in Taman Medan, Selangor on 19 April 2015, the police did not arrest any protestor, and only questioned one of the persons involved, for about three hours on 22 April 2015. Such seemingly inconsistent treatment by the police lends to the perception that the police practise selective or unfair policing.

Several of the persons who received the notice from the police voluntarily presented themselves at the Dang Wangi District Police Headquarters before 10:00 pm to assist in police investigations. Inexplicably, they were arrested before their statements were recorded, and detained overnight. The police subsequently sought remand orders for four days for some of them, which were refused by the Magistrate.

In addition, it has been reported that two other persons, who had also voluntarily presented themselves to assist in police investigations, were arrested and made to wait for as long as ten hours for their statement to be taken by the Investigating Offi cer. The actual recording of their statements then reportedly only took a mere 10 minutes. The apparent dilatoriness on the part of the police could be construed as harassment, abuse of power and an unwarranted deprivation of a person’s liberty.

It is diffi cult to fathom why the police would arrest and detain suspects who are willing to cooperate in investigations. Moreover, it is unacceptable for the police to have sought remand orders for four



days. It is alleged that these persons had committed off ences under section 4 of the Sedition Act 1948 and section 143 of the Penal Code. These alleged off ences do not require arrest and overnight detention, and certainly do not justify the excessive remand orders sought. The impression given is that detention was used to punish these persons, before any fi nding of guilt by a court of law.

There are also allegations that several police cars intercepted a suspect by surrounding his moving vehicle in the middle of a highway, forcing his car to a halt. The suspect was then allegedly

dragged out of the car by plainclothes policemen. The suspect has lodged a police report stating that he was verbally and physically assaulted before being pushed into one of the police cars and driven to the police station. These allegations are serious, and cast a pall over the reputation of the police. There must be a thorough investigation, as the alleged conduct is unbecoming of any enforcement agency. If there is any basis to the allegations, the persons involved must be prosecuted for criminal assault.

The Malaysian Bar reminds the police that the constitutional right to peaceful

assembly must not be thwarted by repressive police conduct. The police should be mindful that their role is to promote and facilitate the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly — before, during and after the assembly. The misuse of police powers renders the exercise of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly illusory.


7 May 2015

Rohingya and Bangladeshi Boat People Humanitarian Crisis: Prompt and Concrete Measures Needed

The Malaysian Bar is appalled by the ongoing saga of the fate befalling boatloads of thousands of people heading for our shores. It is a humanitarian catastrophe. The tragedy of suffering and even loss of life — through drowning and fights for survival on board boats left to drift on the high seas — is heart-rending.

Regardless of the identity and status of the people on board these many boats, the first order of priority must be to prevent further suffering and loss of human life, bearing in mind that there are pregnant women, women who are nursing infants, and children, on board the boats. This means the Malaysian Government must allow these boats to land, set up reception centres to receive the people on board, document them, and provide them with basic amenities. There is a precedent for doing this, in the way Malaysia treated the Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s.

The Malaysian Bar acknowledges that some of the people on the boats may well be nationals of Bangladesh looking for better economic prospects than those available in their home country. They will have to be identified

and, if necessary, repatriated. There are proper channels for dealing with the recruitment of foreign labour and other forms of legitimate migration from Bangladesh.

Be that as it may, there are also allegations that some of these nationals of Bangladesh on the boats have actually paid human traffickers to assist them to leave. This must be investigated and, if confirmed, the human traffickers must be apprehended and punished to the full extent of the law. Moreover, these victims of human trafficking should be accorded proper protection under our laws, including under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007.

However, many amongst the people on the boats are from the Rohingya community, fleeing from Myanmar due to religious persecution. While it may seem unneighbourly to accuse a fellow ASEAN Government of wrongful conduct, it cannot be disputed that the Rohingyas have not been granted citizenship in Myanmar, thereby rendering them stateless. Further, they have been deprived of all political rights and systematically displaced from their traditional places of abode.

Regrettably, Malaysia has indirectly contributed to the exacerbation of this problem involving the Rohingyas, by repeatedly ignoring the matter for many years. The misguided and undue respect for the hallowed principle of non-interference in the internal affairs

of a fellow ASEAN member state has meant that Myanmar has been allowed to pursue a domestic policy of persecution of the Rohingyas, and even to dispute the historical evidence of their presence in areas in present-day Myanmar. Malaysia and other ASEAN nations have the responsibility to protect the Rohingyas so as not to compound the issue of ethnic cleansing that is being allegedly carried out by Myanmar.

The Malaysian Bar welcomes the fact that the Malaysian Government has scheduled a meeting tomorrow with the Governments of Indonesia and Thailand to discuss the situation. However, the Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to do more than just convene discussions, and to do it quickly. It is critical to address this issue head-on, and Malaysia as the Chair of ASEAN must take the lead and show the way forward. The fact that Myanmar is reported as not being willing to attend tomorrow’s meeting with Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia means that the process already begins with a huge handicap, namely the refusal of the country of origin to participate in a process of finding a solution.

Ironically, 2015 is the onset of the much-touted ASEAN Economic Community. ASEAN cannot only be about the rich and well-off, the educated and the employed. An ASEAN community that has no room for, and which says nothing about, the poor and the downtrodden is a sad



shadow of a caring community. The manner in which this crisis is dealt with will define ASEAN, and a failure to satisfactorily address the problem will jeopardise the very integrity of ASEAN.

Malaysians are, by nature, a generous people. Blessed with relative peace and prosperity, we have reached out in the past and organised flotillas to assist the Palestinians, and have taken in Acehnese and Bosnian refugees fleeing persecution in their homeland. It is therefore somewhat perplexing that the same humanitarian spirit appears to be absent in the Malaysian Government’s response to the boatloads of Rohingyas coming to our shores.

The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government to immediately engage with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees here in Kuala Lumpur to put into place a system of receiving and registering this latest wave of boat people, and to find a place of transition where they can land and their claims for refugee status documented and determined, followed by either repatriation or resettlement.

Eradicate Rampant Corruption, and Stem the Loss of Lives

The Malaysian Bar refers to the astonishing article published in the New Straits Times (“NST”) of 3 June 2015 that discloses that “a staggering 80 percent of the nation’s security personnel and law officers at Malaysian borders are corrupt”.1

NST claims that evidence of this pervasive and systemic corruption is found in a “controversial report compiled by the Special Branch”, which is “the result of 10 years of covert, deep-cover surveillance and intelligence gathering by the Special Branch at the nation’s border checkpoints, and at different

As Malaysia is a member of the UN Security Council, we also call upon the Malaysian Government to move a resolution for intervention in this crisis of alleged ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas from Myanmar. In the past, the UN Security Council had passed specific resolutions for intervention regarding Mali, Sudan and South Sudan. It is timely as well for the Malaysian Government to consider enacting legislation that will grant recognition for refugees in Malaysia and give them legally-mandated protection and provision in line with international standards. Further, Malaysia should also accede to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

The Malaysian Bar calls on the Myanmar Government to put an end to the stigma of “statelessness” and recognise the Rohingyas’ long-overdue right to citizenship. This lies at the core of this crisis and unless it is addressed by Myanmar, the exodus of the Rohingyas is likely to continue unabated.

Finally, it is time for ASEAN to do away with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of an ASEAN

enforcement agencies throughout the country”. NST also stated that the personnel of the enforcement agencies “were not only on the take, but many were on the payroll of syndicates dealing with drugs, weapons and even human smuggling”.

The Special Branch is a unit of the Royal Malaysia Police and is responsible for collecting and assessing security intelligence. It is thus noteworthy that NST states that the Special Branch had “over the years, shared crucial information with [the enforcement] agencies. However, on many occasions, they were not followed through, for reasons known only to these agencies that were fed intel.”

member state. What this crisis clearly shows is that what happens in a neighbouring country can, and often does, have cross-border implications. Whether it is about the haze or human rights, it is plain for all to see that ASEAN’s aim to “prosper thy neighbour” must include intervening in situations in neighbouring countries that have the potential of affecting, even destabilising, the region as a whole. It is myopic to pursue economic progress in ASEAN without seriously considering social and political reforms.

The Malaysian Bar recognises that this humanitarian crisis requires prompt and concrete legal solutions. The pain, suffering and loss of life off our shores must end. It is time to stop the pretence and the piecemeal measures in this catastrophe, and to put in place a comprehensive and lasting solution. The Malaysian Bar stands ready to provide advice and assistance.


19 May 2015

The Malaysian Bar notes that, in an apparent response to the NST revelations, the Minister of Home Affairs, Dato’ Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, reportedly said, “The issue of institutionalised corruption, where these law enforcement officers know the syndicate members well, must be arrested once and for all”.2

The Malaysian Bar is extremely concerned by this alarming exposé of blatant corruption and other serious crimes that implicate our enforcement agencies. The Government’s response has been rather muted and lukewarm, although it has been five days since the NST report. It is not every day that Malaysians are told by the NST that the Special Branch has discovered such widespread corruption in our



enforcement agencies. Yet, apart from reports of the arrest of two police officers in connection with the discovery of mass graves, the proposed implementation of a rotation system of personnel, and the proposed involvement of the Armed Forces in securing the borders, little else has been heard in terms of concrete measures. There have also been some offensive statements that do not deserve to be dignified with a comment.3

The lack of prompt, tangible and decisive action by the authorities is all the more reprehensible given the recent discovery of a reported 139 grave sites found at up to 28 “death camps” in the state of Perlis,4 and the report that the skeletal remains of 99 victims of human trafficking have been found.5 It is unprecedented in Malaysia’s history to find mass graves and “death camps”. The report by NST points to unchecked and rampant corruption and crime within our enforcement agencies, which may well have been one of the proximate reasons for this unspeakable tragedy.

The NST report raises many vexing questions that must be answered, including:

(a) When the Special Branch fi rst discovered the commission of the crimes, and the extent of its knowledge;

(b) The actions taken by the Special Branch, including whom it informed, and the response received in each instance; and

(c) The types and quanta of benefi ts obtained through the commission of the crimes.

The answers to these — and many other — critical questions will assist in ascertaining the perpetrators of, as well as those complicit in, the commission of these crimes, and they

must be brought to justice without delay. There must be no cover-up for, or protection of, any wrongdoers.

The Malaysian Bar rejects the lame excuse given by the Special Branch, that the repeal of the Internal Security Act 1960, and the purportedly ineffective Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007 and Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (“SOSMA”), impeded its ability to deal with corruption amongst law enforcement officers. There are sufficient provisions in law to enable the Special Branch to discharge its functions. Moreover, the Special Branch’s responsibility is to investigate and gather evidence of the commission of a crime, not to decide whether a prosecution is warranted, or likely to succeed.

Corruption remains a dire problem in Malaysia. The Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015 by the World Economic Forum (WEF)6 notes that corruption remains a key barrier to business. It is widely felt that the levels of integrity and transparency in public institutions have not improved, and a sense of deep mistrust towards the police and enforcement agencies persists.7

The Malaysian Bar reiterates our call to the Malaysian Government to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) to investigate the existence of the “death camps”, and their perpetrators. This catastrophe is clearly the consequence of poor enforcement, and the RCI must promptly determine whether there is a vicious circle of complicity, collusion and corruption within our enforcement agencies that has caused it.

The Malaysian Bar also reiterates our call to the Malaysian Government to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”), an

independent, external oversight body tasked solely to receive and investigate complaints against the police. We recognise that there are many good police personnel, and it is imperative that their good name not be sullied by the misconduct of their colleagues.

The NST report is a crushing indictment of our enforcement agencies, and will cause incalculable loss of public confidence and trust in them. The horror of the “death camps” is a belated wake-up call to the Government to urgently address the scourge of corruption and to adopt a zero-tolerance policy towards corrupt practices that have been condoned, and have become rampant. The sanctity of life must not be jeopardised as a result of corruption.


8 June 2015

Notes

1 “EXCLUSIVE: 80 pc of enforcers manning borders on the take”, New Straits Times Online, 3 June 2015 (accessed on 7 June 2015).

2 ‘“I want army to man borders’: Zahid”, New Straits Times Online, 3 June 2015 (accessed on 7 June 2015).

3 “Shahidan: Turn human traffi cking camps into tourist attraction”, The Star Online, 31 May 2015 (accessed on 8 June 2015).

4 “Horrors unearthed at 28 sites used by human traffi ckers”, The Star Online, 26 May 2015 (accessed on 8 June 2015).

5 “Skeletal remains of 99 human traffi cking victims found”, The Malaysian Insider, 7 June 2015 (accessed on 8 June 2015).

6 Source: Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015 (accessed at on 8 June 2015).

7 “Corruption Perceptions Index 2013”, Transparency International (accessed on 8 June 2015).



For more press releases, please visit http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/

Press Statements (December 2014 – June 2015)*Title Date

(1) Conduct of Bar Council Annual Election is in Full Compliance with the Law 4 Dec 2014

(2) Halt Court Martial of Major Zaidi Ahmad Pending Judicial Review by High Court 8 Dec 2014

(3) As We Push Forward Abroad, Address the Human Rights Defi cit at Home 10 Dec 2014

(4) Public Forum on Police Accountability in Malaysia, Penang (13 Dec 2014) 11 Dec 2014

(5) Cease Use of Sedition Act 1948: We Should Not Have to Walk on Eggshells in Malaysia 15 Jan 2015

(6) Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or Persecuted? 11 Feb 2015

(7) Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Didakwa atau Dianiaya? 12 Feb 2015

(8) The Bar is Pro-Rule of Law and Justice, Not Pro-Opposition or Government 26 Feb 2015

(9) Hudud is Unconstitutional, Discriminatory and Divisive 20 Mar 2015

(10) Police Must Respect Constitutional Rights and Uphold the Rule of Law 22 Mar 2015

(11) Investigative Powers of the Police Must Not be Abused to Intimidate, Harass, Oppress and Terrorise 2 Apr 2015

(12) Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 Violates Malaysia’s Domestic and International Commitments, is an Aff ront to the Rule of Law and is Abhorrent to Natural Justice 5 Apr 2015

(13) Detention Without Trial is Oppressive and Unjust, and Violates the Rule of Law (Joint Press Release) 10 Apr 2015

(14) Penahanan Tanpa Bicara ialah Suatu Penindasan, Tidak Adil, dan Melanggari Kedaulatan Undang-undang (Kenyataan Media Bersama) 11 Apr 2015

(15) Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 are Draconian, Militate Against the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Interfere with the Independence of the Judiciary (Joint Press Release) 17 Apr 2015

(16) Pindaan kepada Akta Hasutan 1948 adalah Zalim, Memudaratkan Kebebasan Bersuara dan Mengeluarkan Pendapat, dan Mencampuri Kebebasan Badan Kehakiman (Kenyataan Media Bersama) 17 Apr 2015

(17) Parliamentary Committees Must Be Established to Strengthen the Legislative Process 24 Apr 2015

(18) Right to Peaceful Assembly Rendered Illusory by Arbitrary Arrests and Oppressive Remand Orders 7 May 2015

(19) Rohingya and Bangladeshi Boat People Humanitarian Crisis: Prompt and Concrete Measures Needed 19 May 2015

(20) Malaysian Government Must Bring the "Death Camps" Human Traffi ckers and Migrant Smugglers to Justice 28 May 2015

(21) Eradicate Rampant Corruption, and Stem the Loss of Lives 8 June 2015

*Only highlighted press statements are reproduced in full.



OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2015

The Opening of the Legal Year took place on 10 Jan 2015, at the Ministry of Finance Complex, in Putrajaya.

The ceremony was attended by the Chief Justice of Malaysia, YAA Tun Arifi n Zakaria; President of the Court of Appeal, YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus Sharif; Chief Judge of Malaya, YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefl i Ahmad Makinudin; Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum; as well as Attorney General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

The Malaysian Bar was represented by its then President, Christopher Leong, while the Sabah Law Association and Advocates’ Association of Sarawak were represented by their Presidents, Datuk Nandy Gaanesh and Leonard Shim, respectively.

The “star-studded” ceremony also saw the attendance of the following:

• Isomi Suzuki, President of LAWASIA

• Rozaiman Hj Abd Rahman, President of the Law Society of Brunei;

• Chia-Chin Lee, President of the Taiwan Bar Association;

• Mark Livesey QC, President of the Australian Bar Association;

• John Eades, President of the Law Society of New South Wales;

• Kelvin Wong, Vice-President of the Law Society of Singapore;

• Dhinesh Bhaskaran, Vice-President of the Inter-Pacifi c Bar Association;

• Stephen Dreyfuss, Immediate Past President of Union Internationale des Avocats;

• Fiona McLeod, Treasurer of the Law Council of Australia;

• Than Htay, Yangon Bar Association and Myanmar Bar Association; and

To view the speeches delivered by YAA Tun Arifi n Zakaria, Chief Justice of Malaysia; Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney General of Malaysia; and Christopher Leong, then President of the Malaysian Bar, please visit the following link, and select the speeches you wish to read:

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/speeches/

To read a version of Syahredzan Johan’s speech in the forum entitled “Evolving Legal Landscape of Social Media”, please click the following link:

http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Online-Exclusive/A-Humble-Submission/Profi le/Articles/2015/01/12/Striking-the-balance-on-social-media/

• Kei-Lin Ting Winarto, Director at the International Department of the German Federal Bar.

A forum in conjunction with the Opening of the Legal Year was held a day before the ceremony, on 9 Jan 2015. The topic was “Evolving Legal Landscape of Social Media”, and the speakers were:

• Hong-Eng Koh, Senior Director, Oracle Public Sector;

• Syahredzan Johan, Partner, Messrs RamRais & Partner; Chairperson, Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee; and

• YA Datuk Zaharah Ibrahim, Judge, Court of Appeal Malaysia.

The forum was moderated by Brenndon Keith Soh, Partner with Messrs Ronny Cham & Co, and Treasurer of the Sabah Law Association.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


FEATURES/ARTICLES


The Offi ce of the President of the Malaysian Bar

The Malaysian Bar is a creature of statute established under the Advocates and Solicito rs Ordinance 1947, which was subsequently repealed by the Legal Profession Act 1976. It is an independent Bar whose aim is to uphold the rule of law and the cause of justice, and protect the interest of the legal profession as well as that of the public. The Bar Council comprises 38 members who are elected annually to manage the aff airs and execute the functions of the Malaysian Bar. The Council consists of the immediate past President and Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar, the Chairman of each of the twelve State Bar Committees, one member elected by each of the twelve State Bar Committees to be its representative to the Bar Council, and twelve members elected from throughout Peninsular Malaysia by way of postal ballot. The Offi ce Bearers, namely President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer are elected annually by the Bar Council at its fi rst meeting which is traditionally held immediately after the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar.

Section 54 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 states that: Section 54. President, Vice-

President and Secretary of the Bar

(1) There shall be a President, a

Vice-President and a Secretary of the Malaysian Bar to be elected by the Bar Council from amongst its members; but no President, Vice-President or Secretary shall hold offi ce for more than two consecutive years, and in the event of any casual vacancy arising in respect of the offi ce of the President, the Vice-President or the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council shall at its next meeting or as soon as may be thereafter elect one of its members to fi ll the vacancy.

(2) The President or in his absence

the Vice-President shall be the Chairman of the Bar Council and shall preside at all meetings of the Bar Council and of the Malaysian Bar.

(3) In the absence of both the

President and the Vice-President, the Bar Council shall elect a Chairman from amongst its members.

In this regard, the President of the Malaysian Bar is clearly a busy person, juggling this role with his or her legal practice, resulting in an undoubtedly frenetic schedule. The role has become an increasingly high-profi le one, with the President frequently being called upon to attend to a myriad of matters spanning an extraordinarily wide range of issues, particularly those in respect of the legal profession, and the public interest.

But what does the role of the President actually involve? Or, in other words, what does the President really do? In an eff ort to demystify the role of the President and the tasks and responsibilities associated with it, Ding Jo-Ann ("DJA"), a writer and former Member of the Malaysian Bar, spoke to Chin Oy Sim, Deputy Chief Executive Offi cer of the Bar Council

Secretariat. Oy Sim has been working at the Secretariat for more than seven years and has served directly with fi ve diff erent Presidents thus far.

As part of this feature on the role of the President, Ding Jo-Ann also interviewed three former Presidents — Mah Weng Kwai (2001 to 2003), Yeo Yang Poh (2005 to 2007) and Ambiga Sreenevasan (2007 to 2009). Their brief take on their terms as the President is shown in the boxes found on pages 29 to 34.

Oy Sim provides a quick glimpse at a smattering of the innumerable duties and obligations that the President of the Malaysian Bar undertakes during his or her tenure. The list below is undoubtedly incomplete, not least because the role of the President has evolved, and continues to evolve, over the years:

Leading the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar

In a nutshell, the President is the principal representative of the Bar Council, and the Malaysian Bar.

The President takes the lead in formulating the stance of the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar on a plethora of issues, and is guided by the foremost purpose of the Bar as provided in section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, which is “to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfl uenced by fear or favour”.

Given the countless matters of concern that call for the Bar’s attention, the President also establishes priorities for the work of the Bar Council, sets the direction, and provides the impetus for execution and completion. The members of the Bar Council as well as of the Bar take their cue from the President, although there is no lack of robust disagreement. Presidents receive their fair share of bouquets and brickbats, sometimes in equal measure! Opponents, which include disgruntled Members, have even initiated legal proceedings against the Bar and the President, to seek redress for their grievances.

The fi rst president of the Malaysian Bar: E D Shearn.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Each President assumes the offi ce with his or her own aspirations and goals, and leaves a legacy that contributes to the rich collective history of the Bar. The demands and expectations placed on the President, and the burden of offi ce, are formidable and arduous, even unenviable.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the President serves in a voluntary capacity, but as indefatigable as he or she may be, the gruelling schedule leaves little room for legal practice or even a personal life. He or she is assisted and supported by fellow Offi ce Bearers (the Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer), 34 other members of the Bar Council, almost 50 committees, a 100-strong Secretariat, and numerous Members of the Bar who volunteer their time and skills to serve the Bar.

Speaking on behalf of the Malaysian Bar

The President of the Malaysian Bar is frequently called upon to speak on behalf of the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar, and is vocal in presenting the views of the Bar when the occasion calls for it.

Since I began working at the Bar Council in April 2008, approximately 315 press statements have been issued, which is an average of one every eight days! The press statements are often on matters concerning the rule of law, the public interest, human rights, and the legal profession and practice. A quick glance at the press statements section of the Bar website will immediately reveal the very wide spectrum of issues on which the Bar has made known its standpoint. It has also become much more common for the press to pro-actively contact the President to seek the Bar’s views, particularly on current aff airs.

The President is the key speaker at many of the Bar’s major events, as well as when roadshows are conducted to generate public awareness on matters of grave concern. Two recent examples are the Bar’s nationwide roadshow on the amendments to the Prevention of Crime 1959, and the ongoing state-by-state forums on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948.

In addition, the Offi ce of the President receives several invitations for speaking engagements — both domestically and abroad — throughout the year. Some of these are delegated to other Offi ce Bearers or to the committees, as the President’s schedule could not possibly accommodate the constant deluge of requests.

Carrying out advocacy on matters of concern

The Bar actively engages in advocacy on an array of topics of concern, many of which arise from current aff airs and/or the proposed amendment or introduction of legislation. A wide range of approaches is employed for such activism, including:

1. Submitting memoranda and open letters to the relevant authorities, occasionally in person, as a delegation from the Bar Council;

2. Participating in offi cial and informal meetings with, and providing briefi ngs to, policy makers, government leaders and stakeholders;

3. Organising roundtable discussions, public forums, seminars and workshops, in order to consult other stakeholders or raise public awareness;

4. Organising public assemblies, of which there have been three since 2007:

a. The Walk for Justice on 26 Sept 2007, which arose out of the release of a video

tape purportedly showing a prominent lawyer brokering the appointment of judges with a senior judge, which revealed serious issues concerning the appointment of judges;

b. The Walk for Freedom on 29 Nov 2011, to express its objections to the restrictive provisions of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, which infringes on the freedom of assembly; and

c. The Walk for Peace and Freedom on 16 Oct 2014, to protest the spate of investigations, arrests and prosecutions under the Sedition Act 1948 that occurred in August and September 2014 and were aimed at stifl ing speech and expression; and

5. Proposing motions during the Malaysian Bar’s Annual General Meetings (“AGMs”) and Extraordinary General Meetings (“EGMs”)

The President is at the helm of such advocacy initiatives and activities.

Chairing meetings of the Bar Council, Executive Committee, and Offi ce Bearers

The President chairs a number of signifi cant meetings each month.

The Bar Council has 38 members, and includes representatives from all the State Bars. It meets at least once a month, to discuss matters of relevance and concern to the Bar. The Bar Council also has almost 50 committees and task forces to carry out its work on various areas of practice (ranging from conveyancing law and criminal law, to Islamic fi nance law, and shipping and maritime law) as well as areas of interest and concern (stretching from advocacy training and environment and climate change, to rule of law, and human rights). All these committees report to the Bar Council and raise issues for discussion, decision and/or approval at the monthly meetings.

The President of the Malaysian Bar has to undertake adequate preparation, in order to be well-versed in the issues before each meeting. He or she will take the lead in setting and steering the agenda, and set the tone and direction of the meeting.

The demands and expectations placed on the President, and the burden of offi ce, are formidable and arduous, even unenviable.~ Chin Oy Sim

FEATURES/ARTICLES


In between Bar Council meetings, the President also chairs meetings of the Executive Committee of the Bar Council (“ExCo”). The ExCo comprises the four Offi ce Bearers, and all former Offi ce Bearers who are currently Bar Council members are invited to serve as ExCo members. There are currently nine ExCo members, who deal with any matter referred or delegated to it by the Bar Council, as well as make decisions on urgent matters that arise between Bar Council meetings.

The four Offi ce Bearers meet — along with the Chief Executive Offi cer (“CEO”) and Deputy CEO from the Secretariat — at least a couple of times a month, to deal with the management of the day-to-day aff airs of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and the Secretariat. Complex or controversial issues that require further deliberation are taken up during ExCo meetings, or ultimately at the Bar Council level.

Chairing AGMs and EGMs

AGMs and EGMs can be lengthy, lasting up to even eight hours, as evidenced by the most recent AGM on 14 Mar 2015. The President is in charge of presiding over the meetings, managing the debate and maintaining order, at times a daunting task in the face of diametrically opposed views, and strong, vociferous opinions.

Engagement with the primary stakeholders in the administration of justice

The relationship between the Bar and the Bench has improved over the course of the last few Presidencies, and this has seen an increase in the number of meetings held between the Bar Council and the Judiciary, which the President attends as head of the Bar Council delegation.

Meetings are also held with the Attorney General, and occasionally with representatives from his Chambers. In early June 2015, the Offi ce Bearers for this term, accompanied by the four former Presidents who are sitting Bar Council members, paid a courtesy call on the Attorney General and his core team.

Engagement with the Legislature and the Executive

Various Members of Parliament occasionally call on the Bar Council to provide briefi ngs on issues with legal and/or public interest signifi cance, chiefl y when Bills are being introduced in Parliament. Most often, the President heads the team on such occasions.

Meetings with diff erent ministries, and intermittently with the ministers themselves, are also commonly fronted by the President.

Engagement with the diplomatic corps

Ambassadors and High Commissioners based in Kuala Lumpur, or their representatives, pay courtesy calls to the Bar Council from time to time, and also request consultations with the President on matters of concern and mutual interest.

Furthermore, the President habitually receives invitations to attend festive or commemorative events hosted by embassies and high commissions.

Building relationships with Bar associations and law organisations

Over the years, the Bar has forged a strong bond and relationship with the Sabah Law Association and Advocates’ Association of Sarawak. We have also established good ties with an increasing number of foreign Bar associations, law societies and regional and international law organisations, and continue to enter into Memorandums of Understanding with them.

The President spearheads the missions to Sabah, Sarawak and abroad — such as to attend the Opening of the Legal Year in Sabah and Sarawak, Hong Kong, and Singapore, and to visit foreign Bar associations with which we have close links — as well as the meetings and events held when delegations from these associations visit the Bar Council.

Member of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board

The President of the Malaysian Bar, in his capacity as Chairman of the Bar Council, is also a member of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board,

which is responsible for, among others, prescribing the qualifi cations required for admission to the Malaysian Bar as an advocate and solicitor.

Member of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board

Where disciplinary action is concerned, all advocates and solicitors are subject to the control of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board, on which the President of the Malaysian Bar (or his representative) has a permanent seat.

Member of the Board of Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan

The President of the Malaysian Bar (along with the Presidents of the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association) serve on the Board of Directors of Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”), ie the National Legal Aid Foundation. The foundation, which commenced operations in April 2012, provides legal assistance to Malaysian citizens when they are arrested, detained and charged for a criminal off ence.

Co-Chairperson of the Selection Committee

With the liberalisation of legal services, foreign law fi rms and foreign lawyers are now permitted to practise in Peninsular Malaysia in the manner set out in the relevant legislation. The President serves as Co-Chairperson (together with the Attorney General) of the Selection Committee, whose responsibilities include the consideration of all applications by foreign law fi rms and foreign lawyers.

Other matters

The President’s time and energy are also taken up in dealing with a multitude of unforeseen issues as they arise. These are matters that cannot be anticipated, and each President has to deal with his or her share. It would take an entire issue of Praxis in order to provide even an outline of the hotchpotch of challenges that pop up ever so often!

All in all, it is diffi cult to imagine the work of the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar being accomplished in a manner that has come to be expected, without the fi rm leadership of the President.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Praxis talks to Mah Weng Kwai

Mah Weng Kwai (“MWK”) held offi ce as the 24th President of the Malaysian Bar from 2001 to 2003. Prior to that, he was the Vice-President from 1999 to 2001, and the Secretary from 1997 to 1999.

MWK was called to the English Bar as a Barrister-at-Law in 1971, and to the Malaysian Bar as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya in July 1972.

In 1973, he joined the Judicial and Legal Services of Malaysia. He also served as a Deputy Public Prosecutor and Senior Federal Counsel in the Attorney General’s Chambers.

MWK obtained his Master of Laws degree with Honours in 1985 from the University of Sydney, Australia and in 1999 was appointed a Fellow of the Senate of the University of Sydney.

He left the Judicial and Legal Services in 1985 and commenced private practice as an advocate and solicitor.

MWK is a past President of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacifi c (“LAWASIA”).

On 4 Jan 2010, he was appointed a Judicial Commissioner of the High Court of Malaya and on 10 Aug 2011, a Judge of the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur. He was elevated to the Court of Appeal of Malaysia on 21 Sept 2012.

MWK became a consultant to a law fi rm after his retirement as a Court of Appeal Judge in February 2015. He is on the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (“KLRCA”)’s panel of arbitrators and is a certifi ed mediator of the Malaysian Mediation Centre.

DJA: What do you think are the three most important roles of the President of the Bar?

MWK: As President, the fi rst role would be to uphold the cause of justice without any fear or favour;

the second, to represent, protect and assist Members of the Bar; and thirdly, to assist and protect members of the public in matters relating to the law.

Another role is in disciplinary proceedings. The Malaysian Bar is a professional body, and the Bar has grown to about 16,000 Members today. When I was President way back in 2001, it was no more than 3,000 to 4,000.

With more Members, invariably there will be more disciplinary problems. There will be delinquent Members, and there will be many complaints about money matters. I think the role of the President is to make it very clear that this sort of conduct is totally unacceptable. There must be a very strong message sent to Members of the Bar that we must maintain our professional ethics at all times and there must be 100% honesty in all matters.

The other important role of the President is as a member of the CLP (Certifi cate in Legal Practice) Qualifying Board. The Qualifying Board is tasked with maintaining the standards of those who qualify to be Members of the Bar. The President has an important role to play here because at Qualifying Board meetings, the President will have the opportunity to comment on the current standards of legal education.

DJA: How did you know what to do as President of the Malaysian Bar?

MWK: I belong to the old school and I think it is important that an Offi ce Bearer — meaning those who hold the top four posts of President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer — should have hands-on experience and rise through the ranks. It is good if a President starts fi rst as Secretary, or better still, as Treasurer, and works his or her way up the ranks. Then over time, he/she will really get to know the problems and have a better idea on how to solve those problems. I started off as a Secretary.

An important guiding factor on what to do as President must be the sense of justice. Something inside you will tell you to do the right thing and not to do something to the prejudice of others, or that is detrimental to somebody’s interest and most certainly, not to do something for personal gain.

DJA: Was there anything specific you wished to accomplish during your term as President?

MWK: As President of the Bar, I tried to establish more positive interaction with the Government. Many people think of the Bar Council as a non-governmental organisation (“NGO”). Worse, some think it is a political party. But those who keep abreast with what’s happening will know that the Bar Council is not a society registered under the Societies Act, and certainly not a political party. The Bar Council addresses many issues which are of a political nature but it is not a political body.

I think it is important that people in the Government change their mindsets and view the Bar as an independent professional body and not an anti-government organisation. Once the Government recognises that the Bar has a role to play, that it is independent and that we share common ideals but perhaps with a diff erent approach, then the public interest will be better served.

The President has a signifi cant role to play in the appointment and promotion of judges.

DJA: Do you think the role of the President has changed/evolved over the years? If so, how?

MWK: I think the role of the President has changed today because of the numbers. The majority of Members are young men and women below 35 years old. With the dare and dash of youth, they are more physical, more demanding, and they want quick action and immediate results.

During my time and earlier, people would probably be slower to have

FEATURES/ARTICLES


a march. We did have one, many years ago, about lawful assembly. But since then, until the 2007 Walk for Justice, there was none. Perhaps in those days the issues were not so hot and burning as they are now or the demand by the younger group was not so vocal. But now, you have this large number of young people, who want to see action, and talking about the issues is not good enough.

So that’s why, whoever is the President should be prepared to take off his/her jacket, roll up their sleeves, and be ready to march and be prepared to be arrested!

DJA: What would you wish Members of the Bar to know about the office of the President?

MWK: I would say to Members: give your considerable support to the Bar Council and President. Not blind support but considerable support. There should be unity in the Bar, speaking with one loud voice and knowing that the President is there to represent your best interests and the public interest without fear or favour. Members should do the right thing by making sure their houses are in order, and not breach the rules.

In other words, I would like Members to run a tight ship, professionally. That they represent their clients’ interests to the best of their ability and do their job well in court. It is important to ensure that discipline is good at all times. One must understand that the Bar is not a social organisation; it is not just for annual dinners, big walks and treasure hunts! It is a professional body and therefore, the conduct of Members is important.

Of course there is always room for dissent. If anyone is unhappy, they may raise it at the AGM (“Annual General Meeting”) or call for an EGM (“Extraordinary General Meeting”) and voice their dissatisfaction.

DJA: What did you find most challenging about being the President? What did you find most rewarding?

MWK: The biggest challenge was always to fi nd consensus on major issues and to keep the balance in the face of diff erences of opinion. It is rewarding to know that the Bar has grown in strength. I think the Presidents after me have done a marvellous job. Without mentioning anyone in particular, they have really highlighted the role of the President signifi cantly. More and more people know what the Malaysian Bar stands for. Being prepared to make statements and to put on record the Bar’s stand on many issues is really important. Such statements do not only go to the local press but also to international law organisations.

I also fi nd it rewarding when years on, people still come up to me and ask “Weren’t you the former President of the Bar?” and thank me for the work done by the Bar Council. It is a role that stays with you and that you can learn a lot from it.

Praxis talks to Yeo Yang Poh

Yeo Yang Poh (“YYP”) took offi ce as the 26th President of the Malaysian Bar in 2005, and served in this capacity until 2007. Prior to that, he was the Vice-President from 2003 to 2005.

Having been in active practice since 1984, YYP has undertaken litigation work of a diverse nature. He is also experienced in handling conveyancing, commercial and corporate matters. For the last 16 years, his main focus has been in civil litigation, particularly in the areas of contract; tort; company and commercial disputes; land matters; planning law; and administrative law. He is also a qualifi ed mediator.

YYP has written numerous articles on various subjects of law, which have been published in journals. He has also penned many articles on societal and human rights issues, which have appeared in both the electronic and print media.

YYP was commissioned by the International Bar Association (“IBA”) in two international fact-fi nding missions; one in Sri Lanka, and the other in Egypt, and co-authored the resultant two reports — Justice in Retreat: A report on the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law in Sri Lanka (2009), and Justice at a Crossroads: The Legal Profession and the Rule of Law in Egypt (2011).

He is presently the Chairman of the Planning Appeals Board in Penang.


YYP: The fi rst one would be to strengthen the two institutions that are dearest to lawyers, namely the Bar and the Judiciary. The second would be to promote fundamental freedoms that are necessary to allow the proper functioning of democratic institutions. This role is actually related to the fi rst because without all these freedoms, you cannot strengthen the institutions of the Bar and the Judiciary.

Thirdly, because we are a body of lawyers, I would say the role of the Bar, and the President as its leader, is to continuously promote good laws and eradicate bad laws. By that, I mean good laws that are fair and that promote democracy and freedom, and bad laws that tend to do the opposite.

[There are also many other daily functions that the President has to do] … like educating the public about various legal issues. This includes issues on their rights and also issues concerning the independence of the Judiciary and the Bar.

The President has to answer queries from the press, which is also important, as it is related to public education and the promotion of good laws.

There must be constant dialogues and consultations with Members and the head of the Judiciary, which

FEATURES/ARTICLES


unfortunately, in this country, is far from as frequent and as consultative as it ought to be. The Bar has continuously tried to suggest ways to improve how things are done concerning the Judiciary and so on; but in the recent past, many of our suggestions have not been taken up.

There is also the matter of the continuing education of lawyers. If you want a good and independent Judiciary, at the same time you must have a Bar that is independent and of high calibre. Education includes not just on the law; but also on professional ethics and human rights and so on.

DJA: How did you know what to do as President? Was there a manual, a job description, someone that briefed you on your role?

YYP: There is no manual, you just have to employ whatever you have learned in your life up to that point in time; and continue to learn on the job as you go along. My fi rst post on the Bar Council was as the Vice-President for two years, and then as the President.


YYP: Most Presidents will start off with some items that he or she wishes to push forward. It would not be good for any President to go into offi ce without any idea of what he or she hopes to do for the Bar.

So there were certainly some things that I wished to do, although I did not succeed in “accomplishing” all of them. It’s a bit diffi cult for a person to tell others about what he thinks he has succeeded in doing. That’s more for others to judge.

I’ll put it in a diff erent way — from my own standpoint, I think I had more successes in certain issues than in others. For example, I wanted to make the Bar less “elitist”. Before my time, the Bar had quite consistently taken the position that, whatever the Bar did, it did it on

its own. It didn’t really join hands with other organisations, or NGOs, except perhaps in organising certain academic seminars. Apart from that, at that time, the Bar was careful about joining hands with other organisations and NGOs in making statements, and in promoting certain views and positions. I consciously tried to change that, because I felt that the Malaysian Bar was just one organisation amongst many in our society, and I could not see why we should adopt the policy that “everything we want to do, we would do it alone”. I think the Bar since then has been much less “elitist” in this sense. It is now quite common for the Bar to lend their voice, together with other organisations.

I also wanted to modernise the [Bar Council] Secretariat; to make it more effi cient, more transparent, and more empowering to the staff who work in the Secretariat, so that they see that it is actually a career rather than just a job. I think I had made some headway there.

Issues where I didn’t succeed, even though I tried very hard — fi rst thing that comes to my mind would be advocating for the formation of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”). The Bar and I put a lot of eff ort into this at the time, because it was one of the biggest issues when I was the President. Unfortunately, until today, it has not been successfully set up, and that’s something I did not manage to do despite putting in what I thought was my best eff ort.


YYP: I do not think that the role has changed. I think other things have changed surrounding the President. For example, what is expected of the President of the Bar has changed a lot. And the ways in which the President would go about playing his or her role today have changed, compared to 20 years, or even 10 years, ago.

Today, there are many more issues, and the expectations are much higher, which is not a bad thing — it’s a good thing. It is testimony of the good work that a long string of Presidents have done in the past, that the expectations of the Malaysian public on the Bar and its President are very high nowadays. We are expected to have “an answer to everything”, and suggest a way to solve everyone’s problems.

The ways in which the Bar and the President interact with government agencies (such as the police), the press, and the public at large, have changed. There’s certainly more interaction now, especially with the press. For example, the President now receives calls from the press almost every day. It wasn’t like this 20 years ago. It’s a good thing, in a way, it means they value our views, and we can play a bigger role in shaping opinions. But of course, it makes the task of the President much more onerous.

DJA: What would you wish Members of the Bar to know about the office of the President?

YYP: I think the most important thing is for Members to know that their support is very crucial to any President. Each time there’s an important issue, Members of the Bar would come forward to support. But most of the time, it’s only about 10 to 15% of our membership. I think the Bar would be much stronger, and the voice of the President would be much more powerful, if instead of 10 to 15%, you have 50 to 60% of the Members coming out in support.

I think a lot of Members do not realise that this kind of support is what gives our collective voice its power.

DJA: What did you find most challenging about being President? What did you find most rewarding?

YYP: What was challenging was attempting to change the mindsets of various people. It can be the mindsets of our own Members, of the

FEATURES/ARTICLES


staff at the [Bar Council] Secretariat, or of government offi cers, judges, ministers, or the police. How do you go about doing that? Even if there is a societal shift, it would take years, if not decades, to change mindsets. It is extremely challenging.

What was rewarding was what I had mentioned just now. There are a lot of opportunities in the job for a President to emerge as a stronger and better leader at the end of the job compared to when he or she started. It is also rewarding to experience the warm support of Members, especially if you see them turning up, including those who are not personally known to you, in hundreds or thousands, to support a particular cause that you have advocated as the President. That’s very rewarding, and very humbling.

Praxis talks to Ambiga Sreenevasan

Ambiga Sreenevasan (“AS”) served as the 27th President of the Malaysian Bar, from 2007 to 2009. Prior to that, she was the Vice-President from 2005 to 2007, and Secretary from 2004 to 2005.

AS was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1980. She had the opportunity to work in two London fi rms before being admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya in 1982.

She has experience in a wide array of civil, commercial and corporate litigation matters. Specialising in commercial, intellectual property and industrial law matters, she has the distinction of numerous reported cases at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

AS is often called upon to speak at local and international conferences that tap into her expertise regarding specialised areas of the law.

Her track record in championing human rights and democracy led to international recognition: in March 2009, she received the US Secretary of State’s “International Women of Courage” award; in July 2011,

she was conferred an Honorary Doctorate of Laws (“Hon LLD”) by the University of Exeter for her work in advancing human rights; and in September 2011, she was awarded the Chevalier de Legion d’Honneur (Knight of the Legion of Honour) by the Government of France.

AS is active in civil society initiatives, and served as Chairperson, and later Co-Chairperson, of the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (“BERSIH 2.0”) from 2010 until 2013.

She is currently the President of HAKAM, the National Human Rights Society.


AS: The fi rst important role of the President is to safeguard the legal profession. By that, I mean safeguarding all the aspects of the legal profession as provided for under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”). This includes our role to ensure compliance with the rules under the Act and to ensure that we have the highest standards of integrity amongst members of the profession. Part of this is also to ensure that the public interest is protected in the manner in which we carry out our practice. There are many schemes in place to safeguard the profession and the public such as insurance and compensation schemes. And there is a separate disciplinary body, which deals with complaints. So, our fi rst priority is to ensure the legal profession upholds the highest standards of professionalism.

Then, there is section 42 of the LPA which sets out the objects and powers of the Bar. This includes upholding the cause of justice without regard to our own interests, uninfl uenced by fear or favour. Without a doubt, there is a public duty for the Bar to speak up on public interest and rule of law issues, and I think we have done that. This is our duty to the public.

Three, would be the education of our Members as well as the members of

the public, on matters involving the law and the rule of law.

DJA: How did you know what to do as President of the Malaysian Bar?

AS: I always tell Presidents who come after me that there is nothing that prepares you for that role. Even being Vice-President (“VP”) doesn’t prepare you. I was VP for two years. You learn while [being a] VP, and you can observe what the President is doing, but unfortunately, being President is very diff erent. When you step into the position, you hit the ground running.

There is no time to get used to the offi ce, you learn on the job because it’s a dynamic situation. No one stops and waits for you to get used to the offi ce. There is no training — the only training is working with the President, if you were VP. It is a convention that the President is someone who has previously served as the VP, but that is not cast in stone. There have been many cases where the VP does not eventually become President.

Nevertheless, you are also guided by precedent and previous positions taken by the Bar on any given issue.


AS: I remember when I came in as President, I had a list of things that I wanted to achieve. I tried to do what I had planned to, but you can get very distracted along the way because things are happening and changing in the country and within the profession which requires your immediate attention.

For example, during my time, we had the Walk of Justice in response to the serious issue of the Lingam video. It’s something you can’t anticipate.

I believe that if you can get 10 to 20% of your list done, you have done well!

FEATURES/ARTICLES


So anyone heading the Bar, will have to be totally transparent. That is the way the Bar runs. This is precisely why we fi nd it diffi cult to accept anything less in the leadership of the country.~ Ambiga Sreenevasan

DJA: Do you think two years is a long-enough term for the President of the Malaysian Bar?

AS: Two years is more than enough for one’s health and sanity. [laughs]

I think [having a two-year limit] is a very good thing. Any amount of time never seems enough, which is why it has to be stipulated. I think it is such a good system because no one can hog the post for too long. However good you are, the next person who comes up is given a chance, and they have always risen to the occasion.

I will tell you why Presidents always rise to the occasion. It is because they are constantly accountable to the Members and the public. There is no question of power over your Members. In fact, we are all a little scared of our Members [laughs]. They do not hesitate to query you and the decisions made by the Council. That is the beauty of the Bar; they are not afraid to query and challenge their leaders. So for me, if you want to see democracy in action, you should come to the Bar. Some of the most trying moments are when you are chairing a Bar AGM because you will get all kinds of things thrown at you.

Deliberate transgressions and things aff ecting integrity, are not tolerated at the Bar. So anyone heading the Bar, will have to be totally transparent. That is the way the Bar runs. This is precisely why we fi nd it diffi cult to accept anything less in the leadership of the country.

DJA: Was there anything on your list that you did manage to do?

AS: Seeing the Judicial Appointments Commission set up was one of those things. This is something the Bar Council was working on even before I became President. Christopher Leong was heading that project and we fi nally managed to get it through. That was after the Lingam video emerged and after the Walk of Justice.

I wanted to encourage more professional development and that is something that has grown over the years. This was a process, and a lot of work had been done before me in this area. The current President, Steven Thiru has worked for many years to enhance professional development.

I was also very keen on the Legal Aid Foundation and Ragunath Kesavan saw that through during his Presidency after me.

For me, one of the most signifi cant events during my time (apart from the Walk of Justice) was the re-examining of the events of the 1988 judicial crisis on its 20th anniversary, ie 2008. No one was prepared to reopen it or to re-examine what was clearly recognised as a travesty. The Bar, together with LAWASIA, IBA’s (International Bar Association) Human Rights Institute and Transparency International Malaysia, therefore proceeded to appoint our own panel of eminent persons and they looked into the 1988 crisis and issued a report. They found that the previous decision, which resulted in the judges’ sackings, were wrong.

Although it was 20 years since the 1988 judicial crisis, we were determined to correct a grave wrong perpetrated against these judges and the entire administration of justice. While we were talking about that, the 2008 general election took place, and [Dato’] Zaid Ibrahim came in as a minister. Credit must be given to him as he raised the issue of the 1988 crisis with the then-Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Credit is also due to Tun Badawi, when he offi cially expressed regret for what had happened. It was a very big step. For me, even if it was 20 years later, it was important to confront and acknowledge the wrongs of the past so that we could build the future.


AS: It’s getting tougher and tougher. When our democracy is under threat, the role of the Bar becomes tougher but more crucial. Look at the number of oppressive legislation that has recently been passed that have interfered with our fundamental liberties. The President of the Bar has had to deal with all those new laws being introduced. He needs to study the legislation and state the Bar’s position.

When it comes to the law, the Bar is in the best position to comment and educate the public as to its eff ects. You can also see the way in which the law is developing where the Federal Constitution is being challenged in ways that it has not been in the past. I see this is an increasing trend. The public then very often turns to the Bar for their views. In one sense the role of the Bar as defender of the rule of law has not changed. But the extent and complexity of the issues have increased dramatically.

DJA: What would you wish Members of the Bar to know about the Office of the President?

AS: Members need to know that it is a lonely job. The buck stops with the President. You have to be careful

FEATURES/ARTICLES


that everything that you say is legally correct. You have to be fair in your statements. When statements are made, a lot of research goes into it.

We do not just have to deal with issues in Malaysia, we also have to develop our international contacts. The President is invited to many functions overseas where you represent the Bar. During my time it was less so, but there is more and more of that now.

What I would like Members to know is that it is not an easy job. I think they probably know that already. You do get disgruntled Members who say the Bar is spending too much time on public interest issues and not enough time on the Bar.

What I would like them to know is that they are never forgotten. They are the fi rst item on the agenda. We have an entire administrative set-up to look after the interests of the Members of the Bar. When I say interests, it does not mean protecting them when they do something wrong. Interests in the sense of helping them to be better lawyers, making them better equipped. That’s what I would like Members to know. We are looking out for them. We have to look out for them.

Having said that, Members must know we also have a statutory duty to speak up on public interest and rule of law issues.

DJA: What did you find most challenging about being President? What did you find most rewarding?

AS: What I found challenging was standing up to the powers that be and still maintaining a position, knowing that it will not go down well with many.

But you draw strength from the fact that many illustrious Presidents before you have done it. I have said before in a speech, all I did was stand on the shoulders of giants. That is what is wonderful about the Bar — the example that was set by all those that came before us. You want to live up to that standard.

It is challenging, always having to soldier on, despite knowing that you are making enemies while standing your ground. The test is always to act according to the law, and the standards of the Bar. The rule of law, the independence of the Judiciary, those things never change. So, we act within those limits.

There were so many fulfi lling moments. For example, the setting

up of the Judicial Appointments Commission. It happened, maybe not in the form that we wanted, but it happened. And also, the 1988 judicial crisis report. When you see that positive change has happened because of something the Bar has done, that is really fulfi lling. Being able to reach out to our Members was also fulfi lling. I remember I started this walkabout, we went to as many states as we could to meet as many lawyers. So getting in touch with the Members, connecting with them, and hearing them out, to me that was very rewarding.

Most rewarding, however, is how much you learn in the two years you are the President. Your legal expertise increases, so do your diplomacy skills, your knowledge on human rights issues, professional practice at home and abroad, people skills, and communication skills. And it is a sharp learning curve. In my view, once you have been the President of the Malaysian Bar, you will be able to face anything.

Ding Jo-Ann Writer; Former Member of the

Malaysian Bar

Chin Oy Sim/Baizura Abd Razak Bar Council

Nine past Presidents posing for a photo with Kamal Malhotra, then-United Nations Resident Coordinator for Malaysia, during the symbolic presentation of the United Nations Malaysia “Organization of the Year 2012” Award to Lim Chee Wee (three from right) at the Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2013.

L to R: Yeo Yang Poh, Ragunath Kesavan, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Hendon Hj Mohamed, Chan Hua Eng, Christopher Leong, Kamal Malhotra, Lim Chee Wee, Mah Weng Kwai, Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Presidents’ Roll

NO NAME TERM

(1) E D Shearn 1947 – 1952

(2) R Ramani 1953 – 1960

(3) Morris Edgar 1960 – 1961

(4) R Ramani 1961 – 1963

(5) S M Yong 1963 – 1964

(6) R R Chelliah 1964 – 1973

(7) Chan Hua Eng 1973 – 1974

(8) VC George 1974 – 1976

(9) Raja Aziz Addruse 1976 – 1978

(10) Abdullah A Rahman 1978 – 1980

(11) G T S Sidhu 1980 – 1982

(12) S Sivasubramanian 1982 – 1984

(13) Ronald Khoo 1984 – 1986

(14) Param Cumaraswamy 1986 – 1988


(16) S Theivanthiran 1989 – 1991

(17) Manjeet Singh Dhillon 1991 – 1992


(19) Zainur Zakaria 1993 – 1995

(20) Hendon Hj Mohamed 1995 – 1997

(21) Cyrus V Das 1997 – 1999

(22) R R Chelvarajah 1999 – 2000

(23) Sulaiman Abdullah 2000 – 2001

(24) Mah Weng Kwai 2001 – 2003

(25) Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari 2003 – 2005

(26) Yeo Yang Poh 2005 – 2007

(27) Ambiga Sreenevasan 2007 – 2009

(28) Ragunath Kesavan 2009 – 2011

(29) Lim Chee Wee 2011 – 2013

(30) Christopher Leong 2013 – 2015

(31) Steven Thiru 2015 –

There are currently 17 living past presidents — 16 of whom are still practising, and four of whom are based outside of the Klang Valley.

National Young Lawyers Committee

Co-Chaipersons : Syahredzan Johan Ida Daniella bt Zulkifi liDeputy Chairpersons: Koh Mei Hui Yeoh Tung Seng Vivekananda s/o SukumaranOffi cer-in-Charge : Parvinder Kaur Harbindar Singh

The functions of the National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) are as follows:

• Provide a platform for young lawyers to voice their opinion on current issues including, but not limited to, issues relating to the legal profession;

• Facilitate the professional development of young lawyers;• Strive towards improving practice conditions at the Bar in order for Members to fi nd fulfi lment in active practice; • Promote understanding and intellectual development of the law; and • Nurture young lawyers who are responsive and understand the needs of Members of the Bar, and who will uphold the

cause of justice, uninfl uenced by fear or favour.

NYLC has over the years carried out various activities to facilitate the professional development of young lawyers, such as training for lawyers on the Sedition Act 1948, moot camp for law students, and Siri Pemikiran Kritis to promote discussion on civil liberties.

NYLC’s ongoing project is a campaign to abolish the 66-year old Sedition Act 1948. Known as #MansuhkanAktaHasutan and launched on 4 Sept 2014, the campaign aims to pressure the Malaysian Government to fulfi l its promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Interview with Christopher Leong, 30th President of the Malaysian Bar

Christopher Leong

Christopher Leong took offi ce as the 30th President of the Malaysian Bar on 16 Mar 2013. By way of introduction, Christopher Leong graduated in 1984 with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in Economics and Philosophy from Monash University, Australia, and completed reading law at the University of Nottingham in 1988. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1989 and was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya in 1990.

Christopher has experience in the fi elds of corporate and commercial litigation, shareholders’ disputes, banking litigation and insolvency. Additionally, he practises in the areas of constitutional and administrative law.

In addition to his involvement with the Bar Council and Malaysian Bar, Christopher is also the Vice-President of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacifi c (“LAWASIA”), a member of the editorial advisory board of All Malaysia Commercial Reports published by Sweet & Maxwell Asia, and an executive board member of the International Centre for

Law and Legal Studies (“I-CeLLS”).

What follows is an exclusive interview which took place towards the end of 2014, between Christopher and Ding Jo-Ann, a writer and former Member of the Malaysian Bar. Christopher’s term as President ended on 14 Mar 2015.

1. Where were you born and where did you grow up?

I was born in 1962 in Ipoh, Perak but lived at that time in a small town called Falim on the outskirts of Ipoh. There were no hospitals in Falim, it really was a one-street town back in the day.

There were shophouses fronting the main trunk road and behind them, was a row of one-storey terrace houses. In front of the houses was an open area which the residents converted into a playground, and beside that were the railway tracks. At the end of the row of terrace houses was the wet market. And that was Falim. If you were driving along the main road and you sneezed, you would miss it. It was a very small place.

2. What are the strongest memories of your childhood?

I was accident-prone as a child.

I lived in Falim until I was about three years old, and moved to Ipoh thereafter until six years old. I remember that we had a dog, an Alsatian. I used to run out of my house in Falim to play at the playground across the road next to the railway tracks. My grandmother and one aunty would be at home, but the dog was my companion every day while the other adults went about their business.

When I was about one-and-a-half years old, I had to have my stomach pumped. I was left to play by myself in the front yard, and foolishly started chewing on our dog’s rusted metal leash. My parents found me turning green in the middle of the night, and immediately rushed me on my father’s motorcycle to a doctor who fortunately had the right equipment to pump my stomach. My father was informed by the doctor that I would have died had he waited till the morning.

At age about two to three years, I found my dog one day in a fi ght with another dog in the playground and I went to help him. I picked up a stick and got involved. My dog ran home while the other dog jumped on me and bit a chunk out of my forearm. I remember walking back holding my forearm, and there was a pool of blood where the fl esh had been taken out. I was rushed to the doctors and stitched up. Till this day I have a faint scar on my forearm.

I grew up with that scar and carried a fear of dogs for many years, till I was about 12 or 13. I was living in SS3 Petaling Jaya by then, and I would constantly be late for dinner because I would take the long way home if I encountered a dog on the road. One day, I decided I had to overcome this fear so I carried on walking upon seeing a dog. Sure enough, the dog barked and lunged towards me. I got down on my knees, stood my ground preparing to wrestle with the dog and growled at it.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


I had intended to apply for and pursue a legal career as a deputy public prosecutor or federal counsel as a way to serve the country. However, the 1988 Judicial Crisis which saw the tribunalisation and “prosecution” of our Supreme Court judges changed my mind.

Eventually, the dog was a bit confused, decided it was too much trouble and turned away. From that day onwards, I lost my fear of dogs.

As a kid I was always made to take an afternoon nap, probably to give my parents some respite. At about age four, during my scheduled nap time, I was instead playing Superman on my bed. I tied a small blanket as a cape and launched myself off the bed, landed with my jaw hitting my knees and almost severing my tongue. I was rushed to the hospital and had my tongue stitched.

By the time I was about fi ve years old I was playing imaginary submarine games. I took the curtain rail and inserted one end into the wall socket to fi re torpedo one and inserted the other end to fi re torpedo two and pressed the switch. There was a loud explosion, the wall socket was completely burnt and melted, and I was sent to hospital to be treated for electrocution.

3. Are there any stories that you hold on to from your family?

My father’s side of the family was big. He had 11 siblings and he was the youngest. My paternal grandfather was a clerk and it was a challenge making ends meet. My father told us of how as a young boy he would attend school in the morning and was a street vendor in the afternoon to help the family fi nances. There were many stories told to us by our elders, and most of the stories were about the value of hard work and dignity in honest labour. We are able to trace our family tree to 1307 through a written record kept by monks at a monastery. All members of the Leong family since 1307, including me, are found in that record.

On my mother’s side, they were shoemakers in Ipoh. I used to go to my maternal great-grandfather’s shoe shop in Ipoh town, and sometimes spent time there watching elderly Chinese craftsmen making leather shoes from scratch.

My great-grand uncle Ho Weng Toh was a bomber pilot and fl ew with the Flying Tigers during the Second World War. I call him Grand Uncle Winky. After World War II, he became a commercial pilot and fl ew for Malaysia-Singapore Airlines, and later Singapore Airlines. He

became one of their chief instructors. I used to hear many stories about him and I grew up wanting to be a pilot. He is still hale and hearty at the age of 95.

4. What happened to becoming a pilot then?

My father happened. All through secondary school, I told my father I wanted to be a pilot. I was in the science stream and I enjoyed Physics, Maths and Biology immensely. I enjoyed them so much I would read ahead. So when I was in Form 4 or 5, I would be reading the Form 6 books.

When I fi nished Form 5, I told my dad I was going to enrol myself into pilot school and he said no. He wanted me to do my Higher School Certifi cate (“HSC”) and go to university. After that, he said, if I wanted to be a pilot, I could go ahead.

So I did the Victorian HSC at Taylor’s College because it was intended that I study in Australia. I continued in the sciences, and when it was time to apply for my university course, I fi lled in Bio-Physics in the application form. Again, my father objected.

My father is a typical parent who worked 16-hour days and denied himself luxuries and pleasures to ensure his children had the best opportunities he could aff ord. He said he didn’t want to spend all that money sending me abroad for me to qualify as a researcher or lecturer. As I didn’t know at that stage what else I wanted to do, he fi lled up the application form for me — Economics. He had gone into business by then. So three months before the HSC exam, I dropped Chemistry and took up Economics, and ended up in Monash University in Melbourne reading Economics.

5. And did you enjoy reading Economics?

It was not my cup of tea. Maybe because my brain wasn’t wired in that way. Within the fi rst month, I signed up for Philosophy and it opened the door to an entirely new world. It taught me the thinking process and that there may not be only one correct answer to every question. There could be multiple possible answers, and that is not a failing in our intellect but recognition that a matter can be approached from diff erent perspectives. The most counter-productive thing one could do is to approach any matter in a rigid manner. That is how I ended up graduating with a double major in Economics and Philosophy.

6. So, how did you end up as a lawyer?

My father intended for me to pursue a Master of Business Administration (“MBA”) in the United States (“US”) after Monash. It was all the rage then. That was not good news for me, it was just a continuation of something I did not have an interest in. I fi nished my degree at the end of 1984 and had about nine months, which I spent working at my father’s cafe in Sungei Wang Plaza, before the term started in the US.

Two weeks before I was due to leave for the US, I had drinks with a friend from Monash, Ravi Navaratnam, who was taking night classes for an LLB degree. He told me, “Chris, if you don’t have an interest in pursuing this line, why don’t you consider law?” I remember it was a Friday. I thought about it over the weekend, and on Monday, I asked my father, “I really don’t want to spend another two years doing something I don’t have an interest in, can I instead

FEATURES/ARTICLES


read law?” He said okay. My father is a traditionalist — you either be a doctor, lawyer, accountant, engineer or go into business.

7. And then what happened?

I found out I was too late to apply to the United Kingdom (“UK”) through the Universities Central Council on Admissions (“UCCA”) system, but I was determined to start that year. I obtained a visa by applying to a private college — Holborn Law Tutors — and I fl ew to London. After checking into a bed and breakfast upon arrival, I went straight

law there. So the next morning, I took a train to Nottingham. By the time I found the university’s law faculty, everyone was out for lunch. I walked around and happened to pass a door that said “Dean, Law Faculty”. I took a chance and knocked, and the dean was having a sandwich lunch in his offi ce.

I don’t know whether the Dean thought that such incidents were very normal or he was intrigued by my story, but he invited me into his offi ce for a chat. After some discussion, he asked whether I was willing to sit for an entrance exam. I said yes, and he fetched an exam

to Malaysia. I am a Malaysian, this is my country and home and I wanted to contribute. Malaysia was then only 26 years old. I had intended to apply for and pursue a legal career as a deputy public prosecutor or federal counsel as a way to serve the country. However, the 1988 Judicial Crisis which saw the tribunalisation and “prosecution” of our Supreme Court judges changed my mind. At that time, I fi nished my third year at the University of Nottingham and started the Bar course in London.

Thus, I opted to forge a career in private legal practice when I came back. I found

Christopher Leong leading Members of the Bar at the Walk for Peace and Freedom, on 16 Oct 2014 (Photo by Mohamed Azinuddin, Malay Mail)

to a red London phone booth, grabbed the phone directory and started calling up universities asking whether I could apply for a place. Most said I had to use the UCCA system and they would consider me for the next term. But three were willing to see me — East Anglia, Southampton and Leicester. So, the next day, I took a train up to Leicester and met with the dean of the law school. I was off ered a place to read law and came back happily to London.

That night, I met a friend and some other Malaysians for dinner and in the course of the night, I was told that if I had gone a little further, I would arrive at the University of Nottingham, which has a good law school, rated top fi ve in the UK and that Sultan Azlan Shah read

script with four questions. He left me in a room for three hours to complete the exam. Five days later, I got a call and Nottingham off ered me a place, which I subsequently took up.

It was circuitous and by chance that I did law. I didn’t realise that I would have an interest in law. I did it because I did not wish to continue reading Economics. It was purely by chance that I found out that law was my calling.

8. How did being a lawyer fit in with being a Malaysian and a citizen?

Although I spent quite a few years in Australia and England, I was always certain I would come back

myself in a law fi rm which believed in values, principles and the rule of law. However, in my fi rst few years as a lawyer, I was not much involved in the Bar’s activities. Like most lawyers, I was determined to learn as much as I could to become a sound commercial lawyer. Working long hours on weekends and public holidays was the norm.

This continued until as a young lawyer, I met Raja Aziz Addruse. We got along very well. He always had time for young lawyers. He involved me in some of his public interests cases. I used to junior for him and we would meet to discuss cases we were undertaking as well as things in general. The senior partners of my law fi rm were supportive of this, and encouraged its lawyers to undertake

FEATURES/ARTICLES


pro bono work, and to contribute to the profession and society.

Raja Aziz told me two things that have always stuck with me and continues to drive what I do today.

One, he said it was good to have a successful commercial practice as this would enable me to do my public interest work. So I didn’t have to choose between being a commercial practitioner and taking on public interest work. The two were not incompatible. He also encouraged me to get involved in the Bar’s activities, to serve on its committees and on the Bar Council.

The second thing he said to me was several years after I met him, when I was tired and exhausted after a sedition case in Penang. The nature of public interest cases is such that one tends to lose more than win, and I was tired of losing. It was emotionally and psychologically draining. I remember asking Raja Aziz, “Ungku, don’t you get tired? You are arguing things that are plain and yet you keep losing. Aren’t you just tired of losing?” He said to me, “Chris, one just has to do what one can to the limits of one’s energy, to the best of one’s ability and commensurate with one’s emotional and psychological reservoir.”

“You need to keep stepping up to the door and knocking on it in the hope that it will open one day, realising that very likely it will not open during your time in

front of the door. But it is important that you are there. It is also important that there are people lining up behind you, to step up when you are no longer able to keep knocking. When that day comes, you step to one side, and hopefully somebody steps up to take your place. As to how long a person can remain in front of that door knocking, it really is up to the individual.”

I learnt from Raja Aziz and my senior partners what being a lawyer was about.

9. The Bar Council has consistently spoken up on constitutional and human rights matters throughout the years. How has the Bar Council managed to remain independent?

The fi rst enactment which created a unifi ed Bar in Malaya was the Advocate & Solicitors Ordinance 1947. This Ordinance did not however have a section on the objects of the Bar, unlike the current governing legislation, the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”). The LPA’s section 42(1)(a) states that the purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be “to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfl uenced by fear or favour.”

It is sometimes thought that the Malaysian Bar does what it does because of section 42(1)(a) and other provisions that require us to protect and assist the public in all matters touching upon or incidental to the law. But curiously, I found out that the Bar has been speaking out on issues even before the 1976 legislation.

For example, on 8 Feb 1958, the Malayan Bar, regulated by the Bar Council, protested and condemned the practice of holding preliminary inquiries in camera for criminal cases on the grounds that it was undesirable to have secret proceedings. That practice was immediately discontinued. On 26 Oct 1958, the lawyers protested against the Public Order Preservation Bill which gave extensive powers to junior police offi cers. In 1965 and 1968, the Bar protested against amendments to the Courts of Judicature Act which would limit the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Both times, the amendments were withdrawn.

As I see it, it is not section 42 that defi nes or drives us, it is merely a product of the Bar’s professional self-expression and self-determination as to what we believe in and aspire to. We gave rise to section 42, it is not section 42 that made us. So it is diffi cult to pin down what makes us independent but we know that we have been doing it since before Malaysia came into being. The independent Bar is older than Malaysia.

The Bar’s independence is driven by its Members and its strength comes from its Members. I’m very proud of the Malaysian Bar Members who have consistently shown through the decades, that whenever they are called upon, they do stand up and do their duty under section 42.

10. What positive steps can be taken to ensure that the Malaysian Bar continues to be independent?

To maintain our independence, the Bar must continue to look after the welfare of its Members and the public. We must fearlessly take positions on and intelligently advocate issues of public interests. These positions and advocacy must be grounded in the law, the Federal

You need to keep stepping up to the door and knocking on it in the hope that it will open one day, realising that very likely it will not open during your time in front of the door.

Christopher Leong taking a break from serious matters at the Gala Dinner, Opening of the Sabah and Sarawak Legal Year 2014, in Kuching, Sarawak, on 17 Jan 2014

FEATURES/ARTICLES


and State constitutions and the rule of law. As long as we continue to operate in that ambit, we will be independent.

If we continue to be guardians of the Federal Constitution, defenders of the rule of law, and advocates for the public interest, we will enjoy the confi dence of the public, and we will have our independence. In other words, the public must see us as independent. If they do, then they will support us, and will oppose any eff ort to try and destroy or take away that independence.

11. While taking these public stands that affect all Malaysians, how does the Bar Council remain relevant to its own members, such as conveyancing and commercial practitioners, who make up a large proportion of the Malaysian Bar?

The Bar Council has a total of 14 objects listed in the LPA, and 47 committees to carry out those objects. About 10 to 11 committees are concerned with the public interests aspects. The other three quarters concentrate on matters directly relevant to our Members including welfare, practice areas and regulation. So, for instance, we have committees on corporate and commercial practice, conveyancing practice, personal injuries, arbitration, family law, intellectual property, information technology, professional standards and development and so forth. These committees take up approximately 60 to 70% of our resources in terms of

manpower, time and funds. But it is not readily known or apparent because they are not high profi le and do not attract media attention, unlike the public interests activities. This therefore gives the impression that the public interests aspect is what the Bar is entirely about, which is not the case.

12. How is the Bar Council responding to the needs and demands of younger Members?

With every successive generation of lawyers, there is always an issue of whether the profession is moving on and responding to younger lawyers. It is sometimes said that the environment has changed, but the Bar has not changed in tandem. This was the case when I fi rst joined the profession and it will continue to be an issue.

However, the truth is that change is inevitable, we recognise it and the Bar is constantly changing. It may not be described as revolutionary changes but is evolutionary instead. Change requires time; it requires a lot of articulation. For instance, some senior Members, till this day, are uncomfortable with using the Internet. There was a time when responding to a letter in two days was considered quick. Now, with email, the expectation is for a reply within the hour, or at the latest, by the end of the working day. Most lawyers have now learned to adapt to the environment, some reluctantly, some less successfully, but they have adapted.

Each successive wave of young lawyers enters into an environment in which they need to work and adapt. It is not always about the environment suddenly having to change to accommodate each wave of new entrants. With each year of new lawyers’ progression and development within the profession, they will be pushing for change in the environment in which they fi rst entered. It is a living environment. As new entrants advance through the years, their presence, their thought processes and their demands will feed into the ecosystem. The ecosystem will eventually evolve and that’s how change is eff ected. People like to see results immediately. But we must realise that change doesn’t happen that way. The Bar does not respond in an earth-shattering way, but it does respond.

13. What do you see as your main role as President of the Malaysian Bar?

“President of the Malaysian Bar” and “Chairman of the Bar Council” sound like impressive titles. The reality is that you are at the service of the entire profession. We have approximately 16,000 Members of the Bar. The President bears the responsibility of ensuring that the objects of the Malaysian Bar are observed and carried through, that the values, principles and standing of the Bar are never compromised; and to ensure the Bar is ever reaching for higher standards. More than 80% of my time was devoted to Bar activities. The Presidency of the Malaysian Bar cannot be a part-time endeavour.

I try to ensure that I write my own speeches and statements, with input from the other Offi ce Bearers and several members of the Bar Council. I hope that people learn to identify with what I say, not just on an intellectual level but also on an emotional level, so a cut and paste job will not do.

As President, it is important to encourage participation by other members. It cannot be just about the one person who holds the position. At the same time, that is not licence to delegate and divert responsibility. The buck stops with the President. The President must be open to input, to look for and allow for support, and at the same time, be able to lead and make diffi cult decisions.

Christopher Leong with YAM Tunku Zain Al-'Abidin ibni Tuanku Muhriz, Founding President of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Aff airs (“IDEAS”), at the International Malaysia Law Conference 2014, on 24 Sept 2014 2014

FEATURES/ARTICLES


14. How has being President of the Malaysian Bar affected your life?

I was frequently warned by past Presidents that nothing prepares you for the presidency. I thought I had a fairly good idea since I had served the Bar for 18 years and I was the Vice-President. But they were right, nothing prepares you, it is overwhelming and demanding.

I was elected in March 2013. Two months later, my daughter, who was then eight, said to me, “Papa, you’re famous. Everybody in school tells me you are President of the Bar.” A few months later, while watching television one evening, she turned to me and said, “Papa, I wish you were not President of the Malaysian Bar.” When I asked her

why, she replied, “You don’t spend time with me anymore.”

That’s what the presidency is.

15. What would you like to see in the future for the Malaysian Bar?

I would like to see what was told to me when I was a young lawyer by the late Raja Aziz Addruse. That there will be a continuous unbroken line of our members waiting in the queue to step up to that door, and to knock on that door. If that continues, then by the end of my term, I will rest assured that the work of the Bar and the standards set by the Bar will continue moving forward.

Christopher Leong began his career in Chooi & Company as a pupil in chambers in 1989 and became its Managing Partner in 2007.For more regaling stories about Christopher Leong, please read “Christopher Leong: From rock band manager to Malaysian Bar chief”, by Boo Su-Lyn.

www.themalaymailonline.com/features/article/christopher-leong-from-rock-band-manager-to-malaysian-bar-chief

With the liberalisation of legal services, foreign law fi rms and foreign lawyers are now permitted to practise in Peninsular Malaysia in the manner set out in the relevant legislation. TiLS representatives played an active role in reviewing the application from Trowers & Hamlins LLP for a licence — which was granted in April 2015 — to operate as a Qualifi ed Foreign Law Firm (“QFLF”) and to practise in the permitted practice areas.

Christopher Leong was actively involved in this process, particularly as Co-Chairperson (together with the Attorney General) of the Selection Committee, a position held in his capacity as President of the Malaysian Bar. The Selection Committee is responsible for, among others, considering all applications by foreign law fi rms and foreign lawyers.

He also served as the Chairperson (for three terms, from 2007 to 2010) and Deputy Chairperson (from 2011 to 2012) of the Trade in Legal Services Committee.

Trade In Legal Services Committee Chairperson: Andrew Khoo Chin Hock Deputy Chairperson: Michael Soo Chow Ming Offi cers-in-charge: Roobalavaniah Rengasamy and Nurul Hafi ka Noor Hamid

The Trade in Legal Services Committee (“TiLS”) is involved in a wide array of issues in relation to trade in legal services, particularly the liberalisation of the Malaysian legal profession.

The objectives of TiLS are to:

• monitor the developments of the trade in services industry, and educate and update Members of the Bar on these developments;

• liaise with, and assist, government departments, international bodies and foreign Bar associations, in matters aff ecting the legal profession in Malaysia;

• help increase specialisation and expertise in the permitted practice areas;• facilitate the transfer of technology from foreign legal experts to domestic lawyers; and• “rebrand” domestic law fi rms.

On behalf of the Bar Council, TiLS continues to collaborate with the Attorney General’s Chambers on matters of liberalisation and to address or improve issues arising.

It’s also about quality. The Malaysian Bar must continue to produce members who embrace the right values, and who have the ability to develop empathy and high intellectual capacity. Very often, it is our advocacy — the manner in which we express and conduct ourselves — that furthers the cause. What we say must not only make sense to people who agree with us, more importantly, it must give those who do not yet agree with us reason to pause. That can only come about if we develop a heightened intellect that allows us to sharpen our advocacy.

Ding Jo-Ann Writer; Former Member of the

Malaysian Bar

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Citation for Dr Radhakrishna Ramani, Recipient of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015(This citation is reproduced verbatim)

The Malaysian Bar Council is wedded to the concept of democracy. Its discussions are learned, multi-faceted and, oftentimes, heated.

Yet this body of lawyers to whom disputation and debate are the very stuff of life came to a unanimous decision a few weeks ago. That decision was that the Malaysian Bar would award this year’s Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award to a lawyer who died 45 years ago in 1970: the late R Ramani.

Once the matter had been discussed, it was abundantly clear that Ramani clearly stood for the achievements and values that this Lifetime Achievement Award commemorates and celebrates.

As a man, a lawyer, a diplomat and a Malaysian, Ramani exemplifi ed what every Malaysian lawyer seeks to achieve, at least in some small measure, in his life and practice.

The man himself was simple in his habits, austere in his life and superb as a lawyer. He was born in Madras on 21 October 1901. After obtaining the degree of Master of Arts at Madras University, he was appointed a lecturer in English at that University. He also read for the degree of Bachelor of Law, which he obtained in 1927.

In 1928, he was called to the English Bar as an Utter Barrister of the Middle Temple.

Boldly, in 1929 he left Madras and came to Malaya, and worked with the fi rm of Shook Lin and Co. By 1930, by dint of hard work, sustained application and outstanding advocacy, Ramani gloried in being a member of the fi rm of Shook Lin and Ramani.

His brilliance and industry quickly became apparent to the profession and the premier law fi rm of the day, Braddell Brothers, persuaded him to join them, and in time he became a partner there.

Ramani as a child had been quick-witted and spoke most convincingly. His family were convinced that they had a budding legal luminary in their hands and did not hesitate to tell the young boy about their predictions. Thus encouraged, Ramani, throughout his life, lived up to and exceeded the expectations of his relatives.

He worked extremely hard as a lawyer. He read widely in the law as well as history and the classics. But he also had another side to his reading. According to a lawyer who worked closely with him, Zain Azahari bin Zainal Abidin, Ramani also indulged in detective novels, particularly those of Peter Cheyney, which had a fair element of thud and blunder about them.

Zain recollects that Ramani was such a prodigious worker that he had diffi culty sleeping. Ramani, a vegetarian, teetotaller and non-smoker, was reputed to eat one sparse meal a day and sleep not at all. He was said to be a devout

Haji Sulaiman Abdullah delivering his citation

FEATURES/ARTICLES


coff ee drinker. At the weekend, his doctor would give him a jab and he would sleep over the whole weekend. But once at work, he was inexhaustible. Zain says they would work together at the offi ce till 4:30 every morning when Ramani would say, “Right Zain, you can go back. See you at 8:30 am.”

We are fortunate to have the words of Chief Justice H T Ong to encapsulate the image of Ramani in court. Speaking at the Reference for Ramani on 6 October 1970, His Lordship said that he had been asked by the Lord President of the Federal Court, Tun Azmi bin Haji Mohamed, to be the spokesman for the Judiciary as he was the Judge who had known Ramani the longest and best.

The Chief Justice said, inter alia:

It was eight and thirty years ago that I fi rst saw Dr Ramani in Ipoh and was impressed hearing him in the High Court there. Of course then I was then a mere novice, knowing but little law and less of the subtleties of practice and procedure. Such impressions can hardly be said to count. Later however, in the pre-war and especially the post-war years we found ourselves in opposite camps. I was then better able to appreciate the talents of this formidable opponent, where each day in court was clouded by an ineradicable feeling of inward anxiety which refused to be stilled until the case was over. When I attained to the Bench in 1958, Dr Ramani had already for several years been a recognised leader of the Bar, among the select few with Sir Roland Braddell (the most distinguished of them all) in Kuala Lumpur and the Das Brothers in Ipoh. To hear him expound the law was for me a real pleasure — undiluted by any form of anxiety — which then fell to be entertained in other breasts but mine. In the thrust and parry of debate, it was fascinating to watch and wait for his reply to any uncalled-for remark which savoured of a personal nature. It was vitriolic and devastating since it was invited. Yet withal, he was the soul of kindness and generosity, as many a junior practitioner can testify, who had sought his advice and assistance. No one is known to have knocked at his door in vain.

The Chief Justice then added a splendid tribute:

I have no doubt that, had it been possible for him to be appointed Chief Justice after Merdeka, he would have discharged the duties of that offi ce with rare distinction.

Ramani also gave back to his beloved profession and to the public.

When the Bar Council was formed in 1947 under the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, Ramani became a member of the Bar Council. He was Bar Council Secretary from 1947 to 1952 and then served as Bar Council Chairman from 1953 to 1960 and then, again, from 1961 to 1963.

In the wider public domain, he was a member of the Malayan Union Advisory Council. He was then nominated as a member of the Federal Legislative Council till 1954.

Further, he was a member of the Kuala Lumpur Town Board. He was also Chairman of the Malayan Red Cross Society; Selangor Gandhi Memorial Trust; and Malayan Branch of the International Commission of Jurists from 1959 to 1963.

As Chairman of the Bar, Ramani spoke at many functions. At the elevation of Mr Justice M Suffi an, Ramani spoke from the heart when he told M Suffi an (later Tun) that the British had left two

invaluable legacies, ie the Common Law and the English Language.

Ramani was a master of both those legacies and he used them well. As was said by the then-Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusuf, at Ramani’s Reference: “We meet this morning to pay tribute to the memory of a great man and an outstanding lawyer. With the passing away of Dr R Ramani, Malaysia has lost one of her most brilliant lawyers.”

It was in recognition of his brilliance as a lawyer and his outstanding command of English that in 1963, the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, appointed him to the post of Ambassador and Permanent Head of the Malaysian Delegation at the United Nations (“UN”). In May 1965, Ramani was elected President of the UN Security Council. He was outstanding at the job and years later, Mr Adlai Stevenson of the US still insisted on addressing him as “Mr President” and said that he would always be “Mr President” for him.

Ramani presided over a large number of debates as the US and the USSR were locked in dispute over the situation in the Dominican Republic. He was adroit in his chairmanship and brought much glory to Malaysia in the process.

Perhaps his fi nest performances were in rebutting the Filipino and Indonesian challenges to the formation of Malaysia. In the Bangkok talks to look into the Philippine claim to Sabah, Ramani, as

Mrs Ramamurthi delivering the acceptance speech

FEATURES/ARTICLES


leader of the Malaysian delegation, eff ectively demolished the claim by Manila. As a columnist in the Manila Times wrote, Ramani was “a one-man demolition squad”.

Once again, Ramani proved that when you are in trouble, you get a sound lawyer who speaks good English and knows his law.

In June 1969, the University of Malaya conferred on him an Honorary Doctorate in Letters for his services to the Law, Diplomacy, the Nation and the University.

In March 1970, when the former Lord President, Tun Syed Sheh Barakbah,

vacated his seat in the Senate to become Governor of Penang, Dr Ramani was nominated by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to become a Senator.

Ramani felt that Malaysia had done so much for him that he owed it to this country to serve her in whatever way he could. Though he had suff ered a heart attack and had sought treatment in the US, he never spared himself in the service of Malaysia.

In September 1970, though he had returned to Malaysia, he went back to New York to attend the UN Debates in case the Sabah Claim was brought up again.

On 1 October 1970 while in New York in the service of Malaysia, he suff ered a fatal heart attack.

R Ramani — lawyer, diplomat, Malaysian — is truly more than worthy of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award. He has set a high bar for the rest of us to seek to attain.

Haji Sulaiman Abdullah Bar Council Member/ President of the Bar (2000-2001)

Mrs Ramamurthi accepts the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015 on behalf of her late father-in-law, from Christopher Leong, immediate past President of the Malaysian Bar

Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award

The Bar Council instituted the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award in 2011 as a form of recognition of and appreciation for outstanding Members of the Malaysian Bar who have demonstrated particular dedication and exemplary lifetime service, and made invaluable and outstanding contributions, to the Bar.

The Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award was fi rst conferred (posthumously) on Raja Aziz Addruse, at the Malaysian Bar’s Annual Dinner & Dance on 10 Mar 2012. The second and third recipients were Peter Mooney and Mahadev Shankar, who received the Award at the Bar’s Annual Dinner & Dance on 16 Mar 2013 and 15 Mar 2014, respectively.

Dr Radhakrishna Ramani is the fourth recipient of the Award, which was presented at the Bar’s Annual Dinner & Dance on 14 Mar 2015.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Dr Radhakrishna Ramani: A Lifetime of Achievement

“If something c omes to life in others because of you, then you have made an approach to immortality” ~ Norman Cousins

Dr Radhakrishna Ramani (“Ramani”) was awarded the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015 at the Bar’s Annual Dinner and Dance on 14 Mar 2015 in recognition of his services to the Bar and to the country.

To explore the life of this illustrious Member of the Bar, who perhaps came as close to immortality as envisioned by Norman Cousins, interviews were conducted with several individuals who knew him. Among them were YBhg Tan Sri Datuk Wira Lal Chand Vohrah, YB Dato’ Mahadev Shankar, Zain Azahari b Dato’ Zainal Abidin (from Zain & Co), and N Chandran (Albar & Partners). Dato’ Din Merican, the former Assistant Secretary (Political) at the United Nations' Southeast Asia Desk also shared some comments (by email) about the time he worked with D Ramani.

This article consolidates the interviews, press and other articles, and commentaries to provide readers with

insights into Ramani’s eventful life as a Member of the Bar and his immense contributions to the legal profession and the nation.

Ramani was born in Madras, India on 21 Oct 1901. That aside, not much information is available about the early years of his life. Among the scattered details that are known are that he was fi rst in matriculation at his school in Madras; he secured a Master of Arts degree from the University of Madras; and that he began his early career as a lecturer in English Literature at the same university.

Zain Azahari confi rms this: “He was [a] professor of English Literature in India before he read law. Sometimes he would quote Shakespeare even in court and privately as well. I loved having private conversations with him because he could be funny.”

As the story goes, while he was a professor, Ramani compiled notes on English poetry, which he sold as teaching aids to undergraduate students at the university. The proceeds from this was used to supplement his

meagre income, and to pay for him to read for the Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Madras, which he undertook in 1927. He then set off to England and was called to the English Bar on 18 Nov 1929 by The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.

After completing the English Bar, instead of returning to India, he came to Malaya.

Part I: Ramani — The Advocate

Ramani began his legal career with Shook Lin & Co in 1929. By 1930, the fi rm had become Shook Lin & Ramani. One of the leading law fi rms at the time, Braddell Brothers, recognised his talent and extraordinary legal acumen, and saw fi t to draw him into their fold, fi rst as a member, and then as a full partner, and the fi rm became known as Braddell & Ramani.

Ramani’s legal career spanned more than three decades, and during his long and illustrious legal career, he handled hundreds of cases including some 93 cases that were reported in the Malayan Law Journal between 1933 and 1969.

Princess Margaret (right) shaking hands with R Ramani, Malaysia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at a reception held in her honour for delegates and dignitaries in the lounge outside the General Assembly, 19 Nov 1965, United Nations, New York (Source: UN Photo)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


Amongst the cases that continue to be cited today are:

• The Motor Emporium v Arumugam [1933] MLJ 276; [1933/4] FMSLR 21;

• Abu Bakar bin Imam Idris v PP [1947] MLJ 133;

• Veerasingam v PP [1958] MLJ 76; [1957] 1 LNS 93;

• Leong Cheong Kweng Mines Ltd v Kok Hoong [1962] 1 MLJ 224, CA; and

• Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52, PC.

Dato’ Mahadev Shankar commented on the case of Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam & Ors [1969] 2 MLJ 52: “What happened here was the head lessor of the mining lease and the sub-sub-lessor managed to enter into some sort of arrangement which resulted in the middle lessor being prised out of the land in Botak, which was valuable as they had discovered a lode there. This was an all-out fi ght on third party procedure and bringing in additional parties. [The question was] whether there was a right on the part of the mid-lessor to inject himself into that case to preserve his interest. It went up all the way to the Privy Council, came down and went up all the way again. This was a case in which Ramani distinguished himself.”

Dr E S S R Krishnan, former State Director of Medical and Health Services, Negeri Sembilan, himself now 93 years of age, cited an interesting case that Ramani took on in 1937. The case concerned Samy, a Hindu Brahmin, who had arrived in Ipoh and joined the Electric Distributors and Supplies Company there. His supervisor was a British gentleman who, one day in late 1937, asked Samy to bring him some records. Samy inadvertently brought the wrong documents and was scolded by his supervisor, who called him “bugger”. As the term bothered him, Samy looked up the meaning of the word at the Ipoh Public Library, and when he found out what it meant, he was very off ended. He went to see his supervisor the next day, arguing that he (the supervisor) should retract his statement. In the course of the argument, Samy picked up a letter opener, and there was a brief struggle between the two men. The letter opener

pierced Samy’s supervisor’s neck, killing him.

The Public Prosecutor sought the death penalty. Ramani acted for the accused and obtained a judgment of culpable homicide, and Samy was jailed for life. In jail, the orthodox Brahmin refused to eat on grounds that he was a strict vegetarian. Ramani obtained a court order that allowed Samy to be served vegetarian food daily through a fellow Brahmin. Ultimately, luck was on Samy’s side, as the war broke out and the Japanese invaded Malaya, resulting in all inmates being freed.

Sir Roland Braddell 1

There is much to be said about the close relationship between Sir Roland Braddell and Ramani.

In remembering Ramani, Dato’ Mahadev Shankar recalled: “… I remember my father telling me this story. Ramani said to him, ‘You know Mr Mahadevan, my lifetime ambition is to sit in the offi ce of Braddell even if it were only for one day, and all my ambitions as a lawyer would be gratifi ed.’ And he did, certainly for more than just a day.”

During the Japanese Occupation, Sir Roland and Ramani left Malaya and went to Madras, where they practised law together in the High Court of Madras. They returned to Malaya together after the war was over.

Zain Azahari had this to say about them: “They were very great friends. They liked to go and see the movies occasionally, especially if Ava Gardner was acting ... One day I saw the two of them help one another — because Sir Roland was much, much older, and Ramani helped Sir Roland up the steps of the Rex Cinema on Jalan Sultan …”

On Ramani and Sir Roland’s enduring friendship, Zain Azahari reminisced: “… I think it was in 1960, Sir Roland decided it was time to go back. He sold his last property in Cameron Highlands, and he moved to London. Ramani, whenever he was there, would go and look him up. He told me that it was sad to see the old man living in a basement fl at. So, because of their long association, and also I think by nature, Ramani liked the old man and as they were friends, Ramani would help out. He would write a note to Sir Roland and say ‘I have this problem and I am not sure how to deal with it. Would you like to tell me what your thoughts are?’ Sir Roland would write something by return post, and this gave Ramani the excuse to send him money – £500 or £1,000. And this is full credit to Ramani, he did not send the money to Sir Roland like it was charity. It was as if Sir Roland earned the money, and [this] saved the old man’s face. I thought it was wonderful!”

First Impressions

Dato’ Mahadev Shankar recalls, “My earliest memory of Ramani was going

R Ramani making a statement as President of the United Nations Security Council, calling for a truce in in the Dominican Republic, 19 May 1965, United Nations, New York (Source: UN Photo/TC)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


to his house on Perak Road. He had a double-storey bungalow there with very large grounds. His children had toys which I could only dream of, and bicycles with balancing wheels. My dad went to see him, to persuade him to take a role in the Selangor Indian Association.”

Casting his mind back to their fi rst meeting, Zain Azahari said, “I fi rst met him when I applied to read in his chambers. I came back home towards the end of 1958 and I started on 1 Dec 1958. I went to see him and the fi rst thing he said to me was, ‘You better go home because you are not wearing a coat’. I was wearing a normal shirt and tie, and he did not like that. He was very formal. He said, ‘You go home and

actually working for him as a legal assistant, I learnt that the only thing that is important is to work hard. He made you work because he himself, I could almost say, hardly stopped working. … [He] required an injection to go to sleep [and] [t]his would be done to him … on a Saturday after lunch, and he would not get up until Monday morning. He did not sleep during the week.”

On the issue of his insomnia, a newspaper article where he was interviewed stated, “For years, he has been suff ering from insomnia, and he sleeps only when sheer physical exhaustion forces sleep on him. Yet he looks remarkably fi t.” 2

N Chandran refl ected on his encounter with Ramani: “He assigned me a piece of work which I think related to judicial review. I turned the whole library upside down [doing research], and I walked up to him with all the research materials I had unearthed on the point he had asked me to look into. He said, ‘Yes, young man, sit down’. Of course he knew all the cases. He complimented me and we had a discussion for about 20 minutes. After that he said, ‘You are on the right path.’ ”

Zain Azahari highlighted a particular story: “I cannot forget the case of the two Shaw brothers — Runme Shaw and Run Run Shaw, who came to see him. He always made me sit by the side and take notes. Those two brothers brought along with them the Time magazine of those years, [containing] an article about the[m]. It showed the two brothers in shark skin suits … [each] holding a drink and facing one another. The caption

at the bottom of this photograph read ‘Sharks in Shaw Skin’. They wanted to sue. In that magazine as well, there was a story about them — some of which was not very complimentary. Ramani told them, ‘Don’t sue, because don’t forget, the Time magazine is a big magazine and they do research and they would not write something like this for fun. My advice to you is to forget it. No one will remember it after three months. You sue and it will be there forever.’ He fi nally persuaded them to forget it.

After they left, Ramani said to me, ‘Zain, in the course of your practice, if ever anybody comes to you to sue for libel, be very careful because it is a double-edged sword and can cut your throat as well.’ ”

The Bar Council

After the Second World War, Ramani was elected to serve on the predecessor of the present-day Bar Council, which was established under the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1947.

Ramani served the Bar Council in the following capacities:

• Secretary (1947– 1952); • Chairman (1953–1960); and• Chairman (1961–1963).

Ramani made many more contributions to the Bar, both while he held offi ce and as an ordinary Member. Examples of this abound and include the matter that arose on 8 Feb 1958. On that date, while he was Chairman, the Bar Council

I am quite aware of that, but to me you will always be Mr President.

~ Adlai Stevenson, fi fth United States Ambassador to the United Nationscome back tomorrow at eight o’clock in a suit’. … When I came back the next day, he spoke to me and pretended that what happened the previous day had not taken place.”

N Chandran recalled: “Whilst I was about to complete my fi nals course, I had a letter from my dad … a very close friend of the late Ramani, [who had] amongst themselves [decided] that when I came back, I should join the fi rm of Braddell & Ramani as a pupil.”

Working with Ramani

For the people who had the opportunity to work with Ramani, the experience left an indelible impact on their lives.

Zain Azahari remembered what it was like to work with Ramani: “When I was

R Ramani at the University of Malaya convocation, where he received his Honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters, for his services to the Law, Diplomacy, the Nation and the University, June 1969 (Source: Family collection)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


unanimously condemned the notion that preliminary inquiries could be held in secret. This problem had arisen with the introduction of the jury system under the Criminal Procedure Code. Under Ramani’s Chairmanship, the Bar Council took the view that it was undesirable that anything alluding to “secret courts” or “secret proceedings” should exist. As a result, the practice was immediately discontinued.

During the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Malaysian Bar in February 1967, there was a debate on whether to bar Singaporean lawyers from legal practice in Malaysia. Two reports had been prepared on the matter — the Majority Report recommending that Singaporean lawyers be barred, and the Minority Report recommending the retention of the status quo. Ramani was instrumental in diff using the uncertainty of the situation by recommending that the view of the entire membership of the Bar be sought before a decision was taken. The outcome was, a survey was posted to all Members and a total of 157 Members voted for the Minority Report, which allowed Singaporean lawyers to continue practising in Malaysia.3

During his lifetime, Ramani also served in the following capacities:

• Member of the Malaysian Union Advisory Council;

• Nominated member of the Federal Legislative Council (that accepted the Carr-Saunders Report, which subsequently established the University of Malaya);

• Member of the Kuala Lumpur Town Board;

• Chairman of the Selangor Gandhi Memorial Trust; and

• Chairman of the Malayan Branch of the International Commission of Jurists (1959–1963).

Part II: Ramani — The Diplomat

It was in the international arena, between 1964 and 1970, that Ramani perhaps made the greatest impact. In recognition of his brilliance as a lawyer, and his excellent command of the English Language, in 1963, the Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman,4 appointed him to the post of Ambassador and Permanent Head of the Malayan Delegation to the United Nations (Permanent Representative). In May 1965, Ramani was elected President of the United Nations Security Council. During that time, Ramani presided over many debates on a variety of issues, including the United States and the USSR5 dispute over the situation in the Dominican Republic, the Filipino and Indonesian challenges to the formation of Malaysia and a host of other matters. With regard to this, Haji Sulaiman Abdullah, Member of the Bar, in his citation for Ramani for the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015, said: “He was adroit in his chairmanship and brought much glory to Malaysia in the process.”

Appointment as First Permanent Representative to the United NationsN Chandran explained Ramani’s foray into the international scene: “One day he [Ramani] walked into the offi ce, and

as he was walking in, he said, ‘I know I promised Narayanan [N Chandran’s father] that you will be under me, but I now have a problem. The Tunku wants me to go to the United Nations as the Permanent Representative, and I have agreed to that.ʼ ” It was learnt that it was at Tunku’s insistence that Ramani was granted Malaysian citizenship for this purpose (he had until then an Indian passport).

K A Menon, the then-Bar Council Secretary revealed:6 “Very few people realise what a tremendous sacrifi ce Mr Ramani made when he temporarily retired from practice to go to the UN [United Nations] as Malaysia’s Permanent Representative, but he did so because he genuinely felt that he should off er his services to the country in which he made his life as a lawyer a success”. Ramani himself said when asked what made him accept this appointment, “I have benefi ted a great deal from the opportunities this country has provided for me. In return, I feel proud to be given this opportunity to serve it and do what I can in however small a way. It is a welcome change from my work and it will be interesting.”7

Ramani was directly involved in several watershed moments in international law — tasks that he took on with exemplary skill that can only be attributed to his ingenuity, and tireless and fervent involvement with the law.

The Philippines Claim (1963)

In 1963, several months into Ramani’s appointment as Malaysia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, the Philippines raised the issue of Sabah at the United Nations Security Council meeting.8 Tunku’s trust in Ramani paid off as he defended the issue well. In this regard, a correspondent of the Manila Times described him as “a one-man demolition squad”9 because of his ability to obliterate arguments that did not withstand the rigours of his own arguments.

Dato’ Mahadev Shankar further illustrated this matter: “That case was ventilated in the International Courts of Justice at the Hague. … After the arguments were over, he came back and entertained us [Members of the Bar] to a résumé of what the whole case was about at the Selangor Club. … It

The United Nations Security Council considering the situation in the Dominican Republic. R Ramani, as President of the Security Council (centre), discussing a document with Dr J G de Beus (Netherlands, left) and Platon D Morozov (USSR, right), 13 May 1965, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York (Source: UN Photo/TC)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


was good and I think he re-established himself in our eyes as a lawyer of whom we were all very proud.”

Dominican Republic Crisis (1965)

The deft and prodigious manner in which Ramani, as President of the United Nations Security Council, handled the Dominican Republic crisis between the United States and Russia, with a fi rm hand, sublime tact, and yet with a touch of humour, was widely acclaimed the world over.

Under his leadership, this crisis was resolved speedily. On 14 May 1965, during a discussion of this crisis, Ramani read out a telegram from the Republic’s Minister for Foreign Aff airs, and stressed the urgency of this matter. Ramani also noted that “eff orts were being made behind the scenes to have some sort of consensus on a resolution which might meet the immediate present situation.” This led to a submission of a draft resolution requesting the United Nations Secretary General to send a representative to the Dominican Republic for the purpose of reporting to the United Nations Security Council on the situation. Without much ado, the draft resolution was put to the vote and unanimously adopted.10

United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Vienna (1969)

Ramani’s eloquence and ability to make cohesive and irrefutable arguments were key factors in his success internationally.

Tan Sri Datuk Wira Lal Chand Vohrah related Ramani’s popularity in the international arena: “At the United Nations Conference on Law Treaties in Vienna in 1969, it was customary then to indicate when one would speak on behalf of his country. Ramani indicated his preferred slot, and when his turn came, the hall was full. All delegates made it a point to be present when he spoke.”

India-Pakistan Dispute, 1965

Dato’ Mahadev Shankar provided some perspective about Ramani’s handling of the India-Pakistan dispute about Kashmir: “Ramani was very eloquent. In fact he loved that job and he got a great deal out of it. This is pure hearsay, what I am going to say now. His major

speech in the United Nations was on the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, and the line that he took was that Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir was off -site and not in accordance with the requirements of international law. His speech earned him great plaudits and accolades … but the reaction from the Pakistan Government was the very opposite … but Tunku always supported his people and stood by what Ramani had said.”

Nations truce supervisors, repeated violations by Pakistani infi ltrators preceded Indian counter-action; and (2) India had twice expressed willingness to obey the Security Council’s call for an unconditional ceasefi re, while Pakistan responded negatively.11

In contrast with most Muslim nations at that time, including Indonesia, Malaysia had sided with India in the India-Pakistan dispute in 1962 and 1965. Tunku defended Ramani against Pakistan’s criticism, stating that there was a need for “brotherly ties” between fellow Muslim countries, but relations with nations were framed “regardless of their religious status”.12

President of the United Nations Security Council

In May of Ramani’s third year as Permanent Representative to the United Nations, he became President of the United Nations Security Council. During his tenure, he convened 25 meetings of the Security Council, the second highest in number in the 19 years of the Security Council until that time.

When Ramani stepped down as President of the Security Council at the end of his month in offi ce, his successor, J G de Beus (from the Netherlands), said this of him at a meeting on 3 June 1965:13

I think that we can say with confi dence that rarely in the history of the United Nations has the Security Council had more reason to honour its past President than we have today to honour Mr Ramani for the way in which he conducted our debates during the month of May.

… In those very diffi cult circumstances you, Mr Ramani conducted the debates with the legal clarity of an experienced lawyer, the impartiality of a judge, and with a sense of humour such as only wise men possess. Furthermore, those of us who have cooperated closely with you in informal discussions outside this chamber have had an opportunity to admire your unrelenting eff orts and perseverance in trying to obtain solutions to almost insoluble situations and your gift in drafting formulas for that purpose.14

Since he became a citizen of this country, he has dedicated his entire energy and services unselfi shly and untiringly despite his health, to his country, which, I know, he loved and to which, he told me, he owed so much.

~ The Honourable Tan Sri Abdul Kadir b Yusoff , Att orney General of Malaysia (1963–1977)

Ramani had been accused by Pakistan to be biased on the basis that the Malaysian Government sided with India in the confl ict. Nonetheless, Tunku stated that the position of Malaysia was one of neutrality, and gave positive support to the eff orts of the United Nations to restore peace. Ramani, in his speech with regard to the confl ict, pointed out two facts: (1) in the view of the United

FEATURES/ARTICLES


So consequential a mark did Ramani leave in the United Nations, that long after his term as President, at a chance meeting in a lift at the United Nations building with Adlai E Stevenson II (the fi fth United States Ambassador to the United Nations), the latter addressed him as “Mr President”. The embarrassed Ramani quickly pointed out that his term had ended. Stevenson responded, “I am quite aware of that, but to me you will always be Mr President.”15

Ramani: Lessons in Passing

There has been much said about Ramani’s commitment to the law, including the fact that he worked long hours, was meticulous and that he was an erudite exponent of the law.

Speaking of Ramani’s perspective on ouster clauses and his commitment to ensure the rule of law in a budding Malaya, Zain Azahari recalled: “There was the Road Traffi c Ordinance 1958. They introduced a new provision to say a decision of the Licensing Board shall be fi nal and cannot be questioned in any court of law. Ramani said to me, ‘Zain, you are a Malayan. This you must fi ght. This is the fi rst sign of erosion of democracy in the country, the fi rst sign subsequently of a dictatorship. You all must fi ght this at the early stage’.”

Ramani’s excellent command of the English Language and the law was often refl ected in his precise use of the language, and his quick wit and repartee.

Dato’ Mahadev refl ected: “The only occasions when I met him in court was to observe his style of advocacy, to observe his cases and his fl ights of oratory, and his mastery of the subject. His manners in court — he had excellent manners. And his voice — he never had a big voice, but it was very melodious and he had a very pleasing way of putting things across. His vocabulary was extensive and he was never short of the right word at the right time. So it was altogether quite a delight to be present and to watch the maestro in action”.

Ramani, an orthodox Brahmin, led a life of supreme simplicity and was a vegetarian and teetotaler.

N Chandran accented the simplicity of the man: “He had always been a very simple person … [b]ut he was very much respected by the [Brahmin] community and he was there to give his helping hand whenever his assistance was needed. I found him to be such an amenable person wanting to share his knowledge with the person with whom he is conversing. That was a great treat to me, as a beginner at the Bar.”

Zain Azahari highlighted the same, adding that, “… You’ll be surprised to know that if you had rung him up and said, ‘Mr Ramani, I have this problem and I don’t know how to deal with this’, that … sometimes he would do the research himself, and the next day, tell the young lawyer what to do.”

Tan Sri Datuk Wira Lal Chand Vohrah pointed out the ingenuity of the man: “He had a photographic memory. I remember he wrote some notes for his speech for the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Vienna (1969) but gave me the paper before going up. I followed what he said from the paper he left behind. It was word for word, and he did this off the cuff !”

Dato’ Din Merican commented on working with Ramani during this period: “He was well organised, and a thorough researcher who perused documents in great detail; raising questions and demanding answers and documents to support his arguments. It was like preparing a legal brief for the Supreme Court. He was a slave driver, but a gentle one. He was a brilliant legal mind with a powerful command of the English Language, and he enjoyed the confi dence of the Tunku. As it was well known, the Tunku had a special gift for choosing the people who work for him.”

In recognition of his services to the country, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong16 appointed him as an honourable member of the Senate on 7 Mar 1969, and in June the same year, he was awarded an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters by the University of Malaya at its convocation.

Death

Dr Radhakrishna Ramani passed away at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on 1 Oct 1970, at the age of 69.

His remains were brought home to Subang Airport on 3 Oct 1970.

At a reference in his honour, held at the High Court, Kuala Lumpur on 6 Oct 1970, the then Chief Justice of Malaya, the Honourable Tan Sri H T Ong said:

… he was the soul of kindness and generosity, as many a junior practitioner can testify, who had sought his advice and assistance. No one is known to have knocked at his door in vain. … In his conduct of litigation, an outstanding feature was that he was at all times content to rest his case on one main ground, or at most two or three. That gave the true measure of his acuity and confi dence.

The arrival of the remains of R Ramani at the Subang Airport, 3 Oct 1970. The dignitaries that were present to receive his remains included Tan Sri Mohd Ghazali Shafi e, Minister with Special Duties; Dato’ Abdul Ghani Gilong, Minister of Transport; Chief Justice Tan Sri H T Ong; as well as offi cers from the Foreign Ministry (Source: Arkib Negara Malaysia)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


The then Attorney General of Malaysia, the Honourable Tan Sri Abdul Kadir b Yusoff , said of him:

We meet this morning to pay tribute to the memory of a great man and an outstanding lawyer … Malaysia has forever lost one of her most brilliant lawyers. Since he became a citizen of this country, he has dedicated his entire energy and services unselfi shly and untiringly despite his health, to his country, which, I know, he loved and to which, he told me, he owed so much. His death is a great loss to our nation. … Dr Ramani had the rare distinction of being a lawyer held in high esteem by lawyers both in his country and abroad. It is a

distinction which many may aspire to but few can achieve.

The then Chairman of the Bar Council, R R Chelliah, noted:

… He was a fearless fi ghter but he treated with kindness and sympathy the weak and the poor, and often took up the cudgel on their behalf. … His achievements both in and out of our country was [sic] a source of inspiration to us the Members of the Bar and we took great pride in him.

The then Lord President of the Federal Court, the Honourable Tun Azmi b Haji Mohamed concluded the reference proceeding with these words:

… the death of Dr Ramani has deprived this country of one of her greatest lawyers — born with fi rst class brains and endowed by nature with a tireless energy in pursuit of knowledge and in the execution of his duties.

He was posthumously conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws by the University of Plano in Dallas, Texas.

Epilogue

In reminiscing about Ramani, each of the people interviewed shared their perspectives about their relationship with him, and what they think he would have said to lawyers today.

Dato’ Mahadev refl ected: “I can tell you what his advice to me was when I was beginning my years at the Bar, and he constantly lamented the disinterest that the judges were showing on what the law really was. He felt that the spirit of the law, and the beauty of the law, and what the law should really be, was something that was disappearing. It was a constant lament.”

N Chandran recalled the advice that Ramani gave: “His advice ‘… be honest, be straightforward and treat this as a profession. I know you have to make money but be professional about it’. He never departed from that till his last day … .”

Zain Azahari noted: “I think he would tell you to be ethical. I think that was very important to him. Be correct, be ethical, be honest and work hard of course. … He could be a diffi cult person but I actually had a great time in the fi rm. It was an experience of a lifetime. I can’t think of anybody with that kind of mind, after more than 50 years in the Bar.”

Perhaps the life of this giant of the Malaysian Bar is best summed up as follows by Dato’ Mahadev Shankar who said: “Bacon, in one of his short essays, had written about the role of a lawyer. I remember that at the conclusion of that essay, he said, ‘Do everything and live your life in such a way that you become an ornament to the community in which you are living’. What is that? That lawyers should be exemplars — we should conduct our lives in such a way that people look at us and say that this is the way it should be. Ramani certainly lived his life like that. …[Y]ou could not fault him on his private life or the way he lived his life. He was impeccable, a legal aristocratic gentleman.”

Truly, the life of Ramani is a beacon that should inspire us all, and he will forever be immortalised in our minds.

Santhi Latha/Anneliz George Bar Council

Notes1 Dato’ Sir Roland Braddell (1880¬–1966)

was the fi rst Attorney-General of the Straits Settlements. He was a prominent lawyer in the Straits Settlements, Johore, and the Federated Malay States, and served as legal adviser to the Conference of Rulers from 1948 to 1951. He was also a member of the Council of

R Ramani was awarded a medal by Buckingham Palace to be worn at the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth, 2 June 1953

R Ramani (centre, in coat) with Jawaharlal Nehru, the fi rst Prime Minister of India, 1955 (Source: Family collection)

FEATURES/ARTICLES


the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and had himself produced a number of history-related articles and journals under the Society.

2 “Malaya’s new envoy to U.N. — ‘miracle’ man RAMANI”, Sunday Mail, 21 Apr 1963.

3 Source: Bar Council Annual Report 1967/1968, pages 9-10.

4 Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah (1903–1990). He was the fi rst Prime Minister of Malaysia, serving from 1957 to 1970.

5 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

6 “Ramani Dies in New York: Death ‘Great Loss’”, Malay Mail, 1 Oct 1970.

7 “Malaya’s new envoy to UN — ‘miracle’ man RAMANI”, Sunday Mail, 21 Apr 1963.

8 The Philippines had claimed Sabah as part of its territory since the establishment of Malaysia in 1963. The status of Sabah is still a thorny issue.

9 “Ramani the one-man demolition squad”, Malay Mail, 1 Oct 1970.

10 Paths to Peace: The UN Security Council and its Presidency. Nicol, Davidson (ed). USA: Pergamon Press Offi ces, 1981, page 51.

The Story of Shook Lin & BokShook Lin & Bok was established in 1918 by Yong Shook Lin and Tan Teow Bok. Yong Shook Lin was the fi rst local Malayan Chinese who was called to the Bar of the Federated Malay States. The fi rm was located on Cross Street (today Jalan Silang) in Kuala Lumpur.

In 1964, the fi rm expanded to Singapore. However, with the departure of Singapore from Malaysia, the Malaysian and Singaporean branches of the fi rm parted ways and became separate entities in 1970.

Shook Lin & Bok is currently located on Jalan Raja Chulan, and celebrates its 97th anniversary this year.

A young R Ramani (left) in London, circa 1926 (Source: Family collection) R Ramani, date unknown (Source: Family collection)

11 “Off ended Friend”, The Straits Times, 28 Sept 1965.

12 Explaining Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: Escaping India. Aparna Pande. Great Britain: Routledge, 2011, page 145.

13 United Nations Security Council Offi cial Records, 3 June 1965.

14 Ibid.15 “Ramani the one-man demolition

squad”, Malay Mail, 1 Oct 1970.16 Sultan Ismail Nasiruddin Shah ibni

Almarhum Sultan Zainal Abidin III (1907-1979) served as the fourth Yang di-Pertuan Agong from 1965 to 1970.

FEATURES/ARTICLES


ABDULLAH B DATO HAJI ABDUL RAHMANChairman, Johore Bar Committee (1970–1981)President, Malaysian Bar (1978–1980)

Abdullah b Dato Haji Abdul Rahman (11 Oct 1919 to 16 Apr 1987) was aff ectionately known to all and sundry as “Che Lah”. He was

a Barrister-at-Law of The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, London, and was called to the Bar States of Malaya on 21 Oct 1963. He practised at the Bar from the date of his call until illness prevented him in 1987.

Che Lah was not an enigma. He was open and transparent as much as he was opulent, sophisticated and anglicised. The family of Che Lah is a most distinguished Johore family with Buginese ancestry. His father, Dato Haji Abdul Rahman b Yasin, was a direct Buginese descendant and was, in his time, the fi rst President of the Senate and the fi rst Chairman of Malayan Banking Berhad. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman had married (after Che Lah’s mother Zahara passed on), Kamariah, a sister of Dato’ Seri Onn Jaafar of UMNO [United Malays National Organisation] fame who was then Chief Minister of Johore. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was groomed to be Chief Minister but as he would not be a privy to political and palace intrigues, he stepped aside. He then became Johore State Treasurer.

Che Lah’s brother, Dato Sulaiman was an economist and a member of the fi rst Malayan cabinet (1955) and later a High Commissioner. Another brother, Tun Dr Ismail, went on to become Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Tun Dr Ismail was from King Edward VII College of Medicine and was the fi rst Malay eventually to obtain the MBBS from Melbourne. Another brother, Dato Mohd Yassin did political science in Melbourne and went on to become the fi rst Secretary General of UMNO and later on a Johore State Exco Member. Che Lah and his brother Yassin married two sisters, Che Lah to Tengku Esah and Yassin to Tengku Azizah. The noble ladies were from the Johore Royal lineage.

After being called to the Bar in 1963, Che Lah set up practice in Johor Bahru and practised under the name and style of Messrs Abdullah A Rahman & Co. The most popular and aff able Hendon Mohamed (who was called to the Malaysian Bar on 18 Apr 1963 at the Johor Bahru High Court before Azmi J, later Tun and Lord President) who was the fi rst lady President of the Malaysian Bar, was a confi dante of Che Lah and practised with him in his Johor Bahru offi ce.

The Chairmanship of the Johore Bar was held by Che Lah from 1970 to 1981. He then went on to become the President of the Malaysian Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council Malaysia from 1978–1980. He was the fi rst Johorean to achieve this. He was a Senator in the Malaysian Dewan Negara from 1968–1974. Che Lah was a Director, inter alia, of the Cold Storage Group of Companies and was also the fi rst Chairman of Johor Tenggara. He was a part-time Judicial Commissioner of the High Courts, Malaya, in the 1970s.

Che Lah, Justice Dato Ali Hassan, ACP XA Nicholas (father of YA Indran Nicholas of Ipoh) who was then the Johore Police CID Chief and the then-Deputy Public Prosecutor of Johore, Kadir Kassim (presently of Messrs Kadir, Andri & Partners, Kuala Lumpur) started the Johore Bench and Bar vs Johore Police games in 1967, which are played until today for the coveted Ali Hassan Trophy for cricket. They were cricket lovers and relics of the colonial past, one might say.

Che Lah was a strict disciplinarian. He was unassuming and unrivalled for his humility but he had the temerity to correct the most pugnacious of judges in his own inimitable style. There was a Bar Dinner, either in 1975 or 1976, when he gave such a bold speech protecting the Members of the Bar and took the local Judge and Bench to task so much so that the Judge (Justice Dato Syed Othman Ali) was so embarrassed that he walked out of the dinner. The docile

State Bar Committee subsequently pondered if the Committee should have a preview and vet and veto all the Chairman’s future speeches! But Che Lah would have none of it. He was bold, upright and honest. He even felt that Members’ subscriptions could not be used to defray the coff ee and kuih muih served at the monthly meetings as it was trust monies, and so we, the Committee members, took turns to pay for the refreshments at the monthly Bar Committee meetings! He was not parsimonious but was cautious of the trust imposed on him by Members. He was fearless, sturdy and independent. He never towed to the rich, famous and powerful. It was during his time that the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (“Rules”) was formulated and gazetted. He was a strict adherent of the Rules.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Johore Bar was inundated with weekend lawyers from Singapore. Che Lah almost single-handedly caused legislation to be passed by way of amendment to the then-Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1947 to encapsulate citizenship, special qualifi cation and residency status for lawyers to practise in Malaysia. This put an end to the weekenders preying our catch and ploughing our fi elds. Che Lah was a quiet, unassuming person but never compromised on principles. He always upheld the high standing and image of the Bar. He was a true British barrister. He brought fame and name to the Johore Bar, and always had the best interest of its Members at heart.

Che Lah was my mentor at the local Bar. I was the Johore Bar Secretary from 1973–1975 when he was Chairman and I was a member of the Bar Committee for a number of years after that under his Chairmanship. It was during this period that we brought out the Johore Bar “Law List”, a legal directory of members and a cyclostyled newsletter, which has now been transformed to the Info Johore Bar. The annual dinners in his time were formal dinners (with fi ne French vintage wines and cheese boards,

OBITUARY


and when his Havana cigar is lit the evening is deemed brilliant!). He was of the view that professionals should dress and behave as professionals to maintain and uphold the high standing of the Bar and its image. He would not compromise on this stand. It was to him non-negotiable. He expected lawyers to dress appropriately in jackets even when attending the AGMs [Annual General Meetings] and the Annual Dinners. Che Lah’s Hari Raya gatherings were wonderful and Tengku Esah’s Johore Laksa was out of this world!

In 1965, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong bestowed upon Che Lah the title of Johan Mangku Negara (“JMN”). He also had the Johore State honour of SMJ. Che Lah had an indulgent eye and a forgiving mind but he never sought fame and name, which with his pedigree and connections he could have achieved in

a whisper. He carried on life very much like an English squire. He was bold upright and fearless. He had priceless integrity and sturdy independence. A rare breed indeed. One could say that he was the pride of the Johore Bar.

Che Lah’s only child, Muthanna b Abdullah (Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, a Barrister-at-Law) was until recently the Managing Partner of Messrs Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Kuala Lumpur. He now practises in the fi rm of Messrs Abdullah Chan & Co in Kuala Lumpur.

One could assert with unabashed pride that Abdullah b Dato Haji Abdul Rahman is to the Johore Bar what YM Raja Aziz Addruse is to the Malaysian Bar. It is only just and proper to adhere to and comply with the wishes of the members of the Johore Bar to name the main hall at the

Abdullah b Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was the 10th President of the Malaysian Bar (1978–1980). On 15 June 2015, the Johore Bar Auditorium was renamed the Abdullah A Rahman Auditorium, in honour of his services.

Johore Bar Secretariat as the “Abdullah A Rahman Hall”. Generation after generation of lawyers will remember this good man and lawyer who always had the best interests of the lawyers in general, and Johore Bar in particular, embedded in his breasts. Abdullah b Dato Haji A Rahman lived respected and died regretted.

S Balarajah 21 Jan 2015 Johore Bar

Lexis® MalaysiaYour Online Library at your fingertips

For enquiries, please contact our Regional Contact Centre at: MALAYSIA Tel: 1800.88.8856 Email: [email protected] @HelpLNMYSINGAPORE Tel: +65.6349.0110 Email: [email protected] @HelpLNSG

Malayan Law Journal Reports(Now Available: MLJ Cases in PDF format from 1932 until current)

Malayan Law Journal Unreported

Malayan Law Journal Articles

Unannotated Statutes of Malaysia

Case Analysis Malaysia (CAMY)

Annotated Statutes of Malaysia

Halsbury’s Laws of Malaysia

Atkin’s Court Forms Malaysia

Malaysian Precedents & Forms

Malaysian Court Practice

National Land Code

Malaysian Conveyancing

Companies Act of Malaysia

Industrial Law Journal

Words, Phrases & Maxims

International Content

Middle East Content

Shariah Law ReportsIndian Content

Sabah and Sarawak LegislationMLJournal in Focus NEW

NEW

The most powerful legal research engine, now with enhanced features and functionalities like case search suggestion, fast track on legislation and hyper-linking. Check out the latest content:

Call us for a

7-day FREE trial

OBITUARY


69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar, Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (14 Mar 2015)

The 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (“AGM”) was held at the Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel on 14 Mar 2015.

As usual, the exhibitors were the ones who arrived the earliest. Some had even set up their booths the day before, while the rest were up and about early in the morning to prepare their booths by 7:30 am outside the AGM venue, the Grand Ballroom of the hotel’s Convention Centre on the fi rst fl oor.

This year saw exhibitors from a range of industries participating, such as legal publishers Legal Review, CCH, LexisNexis, and CLJ; insurance broker JLT; Australian judicial cartoonist Elizabeth Spencer; property developers SP Setia and Central Equity; and IT solutions for case management provider Lex10.

If last year’s number of attendees was impressive, this year’s was surely a sight to behold. By 9:43 am, the number of Members who had registered was 506, thereby achieving quorum. By 9:56 am, the number swelled to 731.

At 10:35 am, the Chairman, Christopher Leong (President of the Malaysian Bar),

called the meeting to order. By then, an unprecedented 1,325 Members had registered their presence, and the hall was fi lled to capacity. There was standing room only, and latecomers had to squeeze in at the back and along the sides of the hall.

The AGM commenced with a minute of silence for Members (and former Members) of the Bar who had passed away during the 2014/2015 term, with the President reading out the names of the deceased Members. Another minute of silence was next observed for the victims of Malaysian Airlines fl ight MH17, which was shot in Ukrainian airspace on 17 July 2014, and AirAsia fl ight QZ8501, which crashed on 28 Dec 2014.

Even while the AGM was going on, more Members could be seen entering the already overcrowded hall.

The fi rst item on the agenda — the minutes of the 68th AGM held on 15 Mar 2014 — were discussed, considered and adopted. This was followed by matters arising from the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) held on 19 Sept 2014, the President’s Report, the 39 committee reports, and the audited accounts of the

Malaysian Bar for the year ended 31 Dec 2014, which were also discussed, considered, and adopted.

This year, 12 motions were proposed for consideration at the AGM, some of which were related to current aff airs in the country that were of interest and concern to Members, while others aff ected Members more directly:

1. “Motion against Shafee Abdullah”, proposed by Tommy Thomas and seconded by V C George;

2. “A Motion to call upon Mr Christopher Leong to retract the Press Release dated 11 February 2015 titled “Press Release: Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or Persecuted?” issued by him as President of the Malaysian Bar and to further call upon him to tender a Public Apology to the Judiciary in respect thereof for bringing the Judiciary into contempt and misleading the Malaysian public”, proposed by Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi and seconded by Aidil bin Khalid;

3. Motion regarding the Sedition Act 1948, proposed by Ambiga

The President speaking his mind

EVENTS


Sreenevasan and seconded by Ragunath Kesavan;

4. “A Motion to revoke the Resolution proposed by Christopher Leong, as Chairman of the Bar Council and on behalf of the Bar Council in relation to the Sedition Act 1948 passed and adopted by the Malaysian Bar at its Extraordinary General Meeting on 19 September 2014”, proposed by Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi and seconded by Nurrul Nadia binti Norrizan;

5. “A Motion to call upon the Malaysian Bar for transparency in respect of the election of the Bar Council members pursuant to sections 49, 50 and 51 of the Legal Profession Act 1976”, proposed by Hanif Abdul Rahman and seconded by Azril Mohd Amin;

6. “Motion for the Provision of Legal Aid and Assistance to Workers”, proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez;

7. “Motion on Royal Pardon and the Death Penalty”, proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez;

8. Motion “regarding the Monopoly of the Provision of the Professional Indemnity Insurance by Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd (Underwritten by Pacifi c & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad)”, proposed by Steven Hoe and seconded by Vengetraman Manickam;

9. “Motion on the Bar Council’s Proposed Legal Profession (Group Practice) Rules 2013”, proposed by Edmund Bon Tai Soon and seconded by Amer Hamzah bin Arshad, Foong Cheng Leong, Yudistra Darma Dorai, Abdul Rashid bin Ismail, Ong Yu Jian and Jamie Wong Siew Min;

10. Motion “regarding the minimum standards and fair remuneration for Chambering Students / Pupils in Chambers”, proposed by Steven Hoe and seconded by Ashwin Kumar;

11. “Motion on TPPA and ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (ISDS) Provisions”, proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez; and

12. “Motion to increase Building Fund levy from RM100 to RM250 per annum for a period of 15 years”, proposed by Christopher Leong (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council.

The fi rst two motions presented heated issues, and were obviously the main draw to this year’s AGM. In respect of the fi rst motion — regarding the conduct of senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah following the conviction of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim — many Members spoke out against the court injunction that the lawyer had obtained, on the previous day, in order to prevent the AGM from addressing the motion. There were several calls for the Bar to

consider the motion and not be cowed by the injunction, but other Members disagreed strongly. The Chairman stated that the Bar would abide by the injunction, and the fi rst motion was thus taken off the agenda. Some Members proposed that the motion be discussed at a later date, as the injunction would expire in 20 days from the date it was fi led.

Debate on the second motion, which called for the President to retract his press statement entitled “Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or Persecuted?”, was vehement and consumed a signifi cant amount of time at the AGM. Both sides — in support of and against the motion — took to the microphone. Some Members in support of the motion insisted that the President recuse himself from chairing the discussion on this motion, with the argument that there was a confl ict of interest as the motion was directed at the President himself. However, the President declined to yield the chair. While salvo upon salvo of strong views was exchanged between both sides, it was clear that the President had the overwhelming support of the attendees. In defusing the allegation that the President’s statement undermined the Judiciary, the President clarifi ed his press statement, yet stood his ground and said he would not apologise for the misunderstanding of others. Finally, a vote was taken, and the motion was overwhelmingly defeated, with 161 votes in favour, 1,194 votes against, and no abstentions.

The last motion, pertaining to an increase of the Building Fund levy, was next deliberated. While a few Members objected to an increase in the Building Fund levy, a majority of Members supported the increase, mainly for economic reasons, as the increase would save the Bar a substantial sum in rental costs per year. Some Members went to the extent of pointing out the poor working conditions at the Secretariat, and drummed up the support for a bigger building. This motion was carried, with 404 votes in favour, 26 votes against, and nine abstentions.

In short, after a gruelling eight hours of intense discussion and often impassioned debate, four resolutions were adopted:

The hall was packed to capacity

EVENTS


(1) “Resolution to increase Building Fund levy from RM100 to RM250 per annum for a period of 15 years”;

(2) Resolution regarding the Sedition Act 1948 (after amendment);

(3) “Resolution for the Provision of Legal Aid and Assistance to Workers” (after amendment); and

(4) “Resolution on royal pardon and the death penalty” (after amendment).

A total of 1,906 Members registered their attendance at the AGM. The AGM — the longest one in recent years — was adjourned at 6:34 pm.

Chin Oy Sim/Joane Sharmila Bar Council

The President reading the names of deceased Members

An overwhelming show of hands

Lawyers queue up to speak their minds

Democracy in action

The press conference after the conclusion of the AGM. The newly-elected President, Steven Thiru, speaking at the press conference. He is fl anked by: (far left) Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor (Treasurer), (left) George Varughese (Vice-President), and (right) Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Secretary)

EVENTS


Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2015 (14 Mar 2015)

The Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2015 was held at the Majestic Ballroom of The Majestic Hotel Kuala Lumpur on 14 Mar 2015. Although the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar ended at 6:34 pm, the elegant foyer of the modern colonial-style hotel received guests arriving as early as 7:00 pm, in glamourous fl apper dresses and fi ne suits in line with the theme for the night’s event, “The Great Gatsby: Bringing Back the 1920s”.

It was the perfect opportunity for everyone to unwind after the day-long meeting and to just enjoy each other’s company. A photo booth backdrop was set up near the registration counters — complete with 1920s-themed props such as feather wraps, fans and eyeglasses.

This year’s dinner saw almost 1,000 persons in attendance, the highest turnout in many years, including the presence of distinguished guests such as the guest of honour YAA Tun Arifi n b Zakaria, Chief Justice of Malaysia; YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus b Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia; Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court Judges; former Judges of Federal Court and Court of Appeal; Judicial Commissioners; Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin b Haji Abdullah, former Chief

Justice of Malaysia; members of the Judicial Appointments Commission; Michael Hwang SC, Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts and former President of the Law Society of Singapore; Datuk GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh, President of Sabah Law Association; Leonard Shim, President of the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak; past Presidents of the Malaysian Bar; representatives from various Bar Associations; ambassadors and High Commissioners; and deans of law faculties. Several Members of the Bar as well as non-practitioners also graced the event, donning outfi ts inspired by old Hollywood glam.

At about 9:00 pm, the emcee, Louis the Maestro addressed everyone in the hall and kick-started the event by inviting the outgoing President of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong, to the stage.

In his speech, Christopher Leong recalled how the past Presidents had warned him — before he assumed the offi ce of the presidency of the Malaysian Bar — that “nothing prepares one for presidency”. He noted that he should have heeded those warnings and by the end of the fi rst term, it was already taking a toll on him. However, at that point, he was reminded of the poem by Robert Frost entitled “Stopping by

Woods on a Snowy Evening”, of which he quoted the last stanza:

The woods are lovely, dark and deep,

But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep.

He remarked that to him, the poem was a reminder that his work was still unfi nished. He then continued to recall that the second term was equally memorable and challenging. Now, as outgoing President, when asked what were his accomplishments and achievements, he reiterated that “the presidency is not about the person’s achievements; it is not about any one person for the time being. … It is about the continuity of the work and responsibilities of the Bar in meeting the demands and expectations of its Members and the public.”

He then thanked his fellow Offi ce Bearers — Steven Thiru, Richard Wee Thiam Seng and Karen Cheah Yee Lynn — during his term, and made a special mention of appreciation to Rajen Devaraj and Chin Oy Sim, Chief Executive Offi cer (“CEO”) and Deputy CEO of the Bar Council Secretariat, respectively. He ended his speech by congratulating the Offi ce Bearers of the Malaysian Bar for the 2015/2016 term.

After his speech, Christopher Leong invited Steven Thiru, the newly-elected President of the Malaysian Bar for the 2015/2016 term, onto the stage, and presented to him the fl ag of the Malaysian Bar, to symbolise the handing over of the presidency. This was a historic moment, as it had never been done before. Steven Thiru then awarded a token of appreciation to Christopher Leong, who received a standing ovation. The video montage, comprising photos of Christopher Leong in action throughout his years as Bar Council member and Offi ce Bearer of the Malaysian Bar, received loud applause and enthusiastic laughter when photos of him in a superhero outfi t fl ashed across the screen.

David Gomes (at keyboards) and his band entertain the crowd.

EVENTS


The guests of honour included (middle) YAA Tun Arifi n b Zakaria, Chief Justice of Malaysia; and YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus b Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia

The recipients of the Sports Personality of the Year award for 2015 were Mohd Rasheed Hassan (extreme left), a representative of Manmohan Singh Kang a/l Sukhbir Singh (second from left), Sanjay @ Jegathesan a/l S Mohanasundram (third from right), and Yeoh Cho Kheong (second from right). Immediate past President, Christopher Leong, stands in the middle, while Anand Ponnudurai, Chairperson of the Sports Committee, stands on the far right

The symbolic handing-over of the Malaysian Bar fl ag to the newly-elected President, Steven Thiru. A historic moment, which further cemented the importance and signifi cance of the Offi ce of the President

The dinner began with a food presentation. A few courses into the dinner, Anand Ponnudurai, Co-Chairperson of the Bar Council Sports Committee, took to the stage to present the Sports Personality of the Year Award. The four recipients for 2015, who each received the signature jacket and a certifi cate, were Manmohan Singh Kang a/l Sukhbir Singh, Mohd Rasheed Hassan, Sanjay @ Jegathesan a/l S Mohanasundram and Yeoh Cho Kheong.The revelry continued with M Ramachelvam, Chairperson of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award Selection Committee, presenting a brief introduction about the Award. After the video presentation on Dr Radhakrishna Ramani, the deserving recipient of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award 2015, Sulaiman Abdullah — who had penned the citation — then delivered the citation for Dr Radhakrishna Ramani. Dr Radhakrishna

Ramani’s daughter-in-law accepted the award, which was bestowed posthumously.

As dinner resumed, guests were entertained by David Gomes, a local jazz pianist and vocalist singer who rendered jazz versions of classics such as I’ve Got You Under My Skin, Blue Suede Shoes, Can’t Buy Me Love and Get Here (If You Can), to name a few. Also performing that night was Junji Delfi no, also local jazz vocalist and spouse to David Gomes, who sported diff erent costumes for each song she sang, and was accompanied by four dancers in fancy and sparkling costumes.

It was well into the night when the lucky draw commenced. Prizes for the draw included a day spa package for two at The Banjaran Hotsprings Retreat (sponsored by The Banjaran Hotsprings Retreat), one Apple iPad

Sports Personalities of the Year 2015

The Sports Personalities of the Year 2015 are as follows:

(1) Manmohan Singh Kang a/l Sukhbir Singh — volleyball(2) Mohd Rasheed Hassan — golf/tennis(3) Sanjay @ Jegathesan a/l S Mohanasundram — cricket(4) Yeoh Cho Kheong — tennis

Please visit www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/sports_personalities_of_the_year_2015.html to read more about the sports personalities.

mini 3 (sponsored by the Penang Bar Committee) and the grand prize: a four-day, three-night stay in a luxurious two-bedroom serviced apartment in Melbourne, Australia (sponsored by Central Equity).

The dinner-and-dance bash would not have been possible without the tireless commitment of the Organising Committee, headed by Richard Wee Thiam Seng, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar for the 2014/2015 term. The Bar Council records its thanks to the Secretary and the members of the Organising Committee — Anne Andrew, Lily Aw, Rajen Devaraj, Sangheetha Kuppusamy and Suriati Dalilan — for the enjoyable and festive gala.

Baizura Abd Razak Editor/Writer Bar Council

EVENTS


In June 2014, the Bar Council Secretariat (“Secretariat”) was tasked to undertake what was to be its very fi rst legal career fair. This event would have Member fi rms’ need in recruiting legal talent as its key objective. The Secretariat team formed to carry out this project quickly expanded the idea of a simple career fair to a full-blown career and education exposition, amplifying its original objective in the process.

Moving the Plan Forward: The Name, Theme, Venue

We (the Secretariat team) kick-started the process by deliberating on the project name and theme. It was no easy feat as the name had to have the potential of being a brand name in itself. The theme, on the other hand, had to encompass all the objectives and concepts that befi tted the team’s visualisation, both of which remained sketchy at this juncture.

We realised that the main hurdle was the moderate budget allocated for this project, and that Bar Council’s future plans to have its own career fair aimed at benefi tting its Members as it is statutorily bound to do, depended on the success of this inaugural career and education exposition. We were therefore under pressure to produce the best result.

We considered a few possible dates before fi rming up 28 Feb 2015 as the event date. Venue “recces” were made of several locations before fi nally settling on Dataran Undergrnd, in Merdeka Square.

Back to the name of the event — after several brainstorming sessions, the team fi nally decided to call the event “Malaysian Legal Expo”. However, in a sudden pike of creativity, the name “LEXPO” was blurted out by one of the team members — “LEX” being “law” in Latin, while “PO” is just one half of the word “expo”. With the name decided,

we now needed a theme. A branding professional was engaged to work with the team on the event theme, conceptualisation and marketing. For the latter two, we put all our faith in the Internet and social media. We also engaged a website designer to create the LEXPO website, which allowed reservation of booths online.

Moving the Plan Forward: Space and Programme

Deciding on the number of booths was no less than daunting. Too few booths, and the event halls would look

LEXPO Rocks Dataran Undergrnd (28 Feb 2015)

Santhi Latha (left) speaking at the talk, while Steven Thiru (right) looks on

Eager participants queueing up to register for LEXPO

EVENTS


bare; too many booths, and we faced the possibility of not being able to sell all the booth space. The LEXPO team recognised that the way forward was ensuring that the desired crowd was drawn to this event.

With this in mind, we decided that the main highlights of the day were the talks related to legal career and education. And to make the talks meaningful for the visitors, these talks would have to incorporate the transitioning periods, from deciding on embarking on a legal education to choosing law as a career. Therefore we lined up talks that covered the following subjects:

• The various pathways towards obtaining a qualifi cation in law;

• The Common Bar Course mooted by the Bar Council;

• The objects and functions of the Malaysian Bar;

• How to embark on a career in law; and

• Academic independence.

Moving the Plan Forward: Publicity

This inaugural legal exposition marked a series of many fi rsts for the organising team. We were aware that as part of the LEXPO branding exercise, we needed to reach out to schools and universities. In view of that, we wrote to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education for support, endorsement and permission to approach government universities. We also wrote to individual State Education Departments of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Putrajaya for their consent to allow us to promote the event in selected secondary schools. We were elated to receive positive responses from all of them.

Two weeks leading to the actual date of the event, we visited several schools in the Klang Valley to promote LEXPO. There, we were given opportunities

to address students during school assemblies and to do quick pitches in Form 5 and Form 6 classes, besides distributing promotional materials and fl yers to the students. The idea was to create a foothold in branding LEXPO to our targeted captive audience. We are thankful to the management of these schools for the opportunities and their cooperation.

The next task was putting up the publicity materials. We set up banners at selected courts in Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur, and a day before LEXPO, we hung our own banners and buntings at Dataran Undergrnd, working from early morning until late that night.

The Day of Reckoning: LEXPO!

The day we looked forward to, and worked so hard for, had fi nally arrived. At 10:00 am on 28 Feb 2015, LEXPO 2015 offi cially opened to the public with 30 booths consisting of law fi rms, public universities, private law schools, exhibitors off ering services relating to legal works, legal publishers, and our very own Bar Council committees.

In spite of the team being ab le to accomplish its targets and tasks thus far, we still had our fears. The persistent concern in our minds was that visitor turnout would be low. Nevertheless, this fear was allayed when we received a group of students from Terengganu who had chartered a bus to visit LEXPO. We also found out that there were at least three other groups of students in chartered buses from the University of Malaya and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia who were making their way to LEXPO.

We were also delighted and gratifi ed that we achieved a full house audience for all the talks at LEXPO 2015. The complete list of topics and speakers who took time off to participate in LEXPO are as follows:

• “Legal Education: Pathway to the Legal Profession” by Santhi Latha, Director of the Bar Council Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Department;

• “Common Bar Course” by Steven Thiru, President of the Malaysian Bar (then Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar); Chairperson of the

Participants briefed by exhibitors

EVENTS


LEXPO a success. Last but not least, we acknowledge the exhibitors who signed up for this inaugural LEXPO and the visitors for making this event a successful one.

See you at LEXPO 2016!

Kenneth Ang Bar Council

Bar Council Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course;

• “The Malaysian Bar: Its Objects and Functions” by Ravi Nekoo, Member of the Bar;

• “Coff ee Table Talk: Law Practice as a Career Option” by HR Dipendra and Firdaus Husni, Members of the Bar. This session was moderated by Richard Wee Thiam Seng, then Secretary of the Malaysian Bar;

• “Practising Law: Where Do I Begin?” by SM Shanmugam, Member of the Bar; and

• “Academic Independence: How Much, How Far?” by Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom, from University of Malaya.

By the time LEXPO came to a close, we managed a conservative number of 500 visitors for this one-day event, based on the actual number of registrations.

In order to gauge whether LEXPO had indeed achieved its intended objectives, we gathered views from the exhibitors via our post-event survey questionnaire as well as from visitors. In general, all the exhibitors were satisfi ed with the venue due to its accessibility as well as crowd turnout, bearing in mind that this was a

career and education exposition with its own captive audience.

Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom holds the audience captive

An exhibitor reported having over 80 enquiries/job applications.

Feedback

A private college registered eight students for their Certifi cate in Legal Practice (“CLP”) programme.

A visitor suggested that the LEXPO team expand the talks to cover environmental law issues.

Several visitors asked whether there were plans to take LEXPO to diff erent states.

Their feedback and suggestions truly encouraged us, and as organisers, we look forward to enlarging the scope of this initiative. In fact, we have already started working on the next LEXPO!

In conclusion, we thank Bar Council, in particular the Offi ce Bearers, for believing in us, and the management of the Bar Council Secretariat for their support, which was crucial in making

EVENTS


For more reports on the Games, please read the following:

(1) “Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore — Day 1” http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/malaysia/singapore_bench_and_bar_games_2015_singapore_day_1.html

(2) “Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore — Day 2 (30 Apr to 2 May 2015)” http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/malaysia/singapore_bench_and_bar_games_2015_singapore_day_2_30_apr_to_2_may_2015.html

(3) “Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore — Day 3” http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/malaysia/singapore_bench_and_bar_games_2015_singapore_day_3.html

(4) “Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore (30 Apr to 2 May 2015) (Golf: Day One)” http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/malaysia/singapore_bench_and_bar_games_2015_singapore_30_apr_to_2_may_2015_golf_day_one.html

(5) “Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore (30 Apr to 2 May 2015) (Squash: Day Three)” http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/sports/malaysia/singapore_bench_and_bar_games_2015_singapore_30_apr_to_2_may_2015_squash_day_three.html

46th Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, Singapore (30 Apr to 2 May 2015)The 46th edition of the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015 was held in Singapore from 30 Apr to 2 May 2015. This time, the Singaporean team emerged victorious, with an overall score of 9.5 points against 5.5 points.

Congratulations to the Singaporean team! To the Malaysian team, defeat does not mean the end. Let us look forward and set our sights on the next Bench and Bar Games!

The results of the individual sports are as follows:

SportScore

WinnerMalaysia Singapore

Badminton 4 1 Malaysia

Basketball* 48 46 Malaysia

Boat Race* - - Singapore

Bowling 7.5 5.5 Malaysia

Cricket 100 all out 101 for 4 Singapore(by 4 wickets)

Cross Country 277 143 Singapore

Darts* 2 3 Singapore

Golf 15.5 7.5 Malaysia

Hockey 2 2 Draw

Ladies Soccer 0 1 Singapore

Netball 32 38 Singapore

Pool 3 5 Singapore

Premier Soccer 1 2 Singapore

Squash 0 7 Singapore

Table Tennis 2 3 Singapore

Tennis 1 6 Singapore

Veterans Soccer 2 1 Malaysia

Volleyball 3 2 Malaysia

Total Points 6.5 11.5 Singapore

*Non-competitive

EVENTS


Netting the Ball

Slippers are cast aside as ankle and knee guards and various muscle plasters emerge; the smell of muscle ointment, topical pain relief and mosquito repellent fi lls the air …

After a long and hard day at work, the Malaysian Bar Netball team fulfi l their commitment to their teammates and their coach for their training sessions, even if that sometimes means they have to highlight bundles of authorities in their cars before netball practice!

Despite their busy schedules, one is in awe of how the team manages to fi nd the time to work and play and pursue their passions. With unerring accuracy and veracity, Deepa Nambiar explains: “Do it now, not tomorrow, not next year. It’ll get harder as you mature into practice and start having more and more commitments. As the saying goes, the time is always right to do what is right.”

From the dream and ambition of changing the world, to actually helping people, giving back to society, or just in admiration of their role models, the members of the Netball team heeded the call to the Bar. Although their early years of practice proved to be an eye-opener

that was exciting, challenging, stressful, tough, all bundled in one, the intensity of it all was priceless. It was such training and experience that instilled good training foundations and principles. Noortasha Devi Paramaswaran (Tasha) who only started playing netball while chambering, puts it this way: “Life is not always about the law and work. Sometimes we need to build diff erent kinds of relationships outside of work, to gain a more wholesome look of life. There’s not enough time to do everything, but there is enough time to do something.”

Be they fi rst-timers or experienced players, netball has served as an ice-breaker and stress reliever, and has given the players carefree happiness and memorable moments. For Wong Keat Ching, she would never forget the night she won an inter-hall netball tournament while studying overseas: “For a foreign student from a faraway place, they made me feel totally at home and part of their sports family.”

Indeed, their captain described the team well. “The Netball team is like a small family comprising many talented women. The team is so diverse but

we have one thing in common — our commitment to netball — and one aim, which is to win! The care, bond, support and spirit of the team is quite spectacular, and I am proud to be in this team,” said Syarihah Razman, beaming with pride. She added that though the ladies are in their uniforms while playing, it is perhaps the diversity of the team that has contributed to its success over the years. “For this game it is not about individual performance, but it is unique as you need to connect with all players in order to score a goal,” explained Syarihah.

It brings a warm and fuzzy feeling that not only were the players happy to be interviewed, but also during the interview, the interviewer was invited to join the Netball team! So it seems that they can really make one feel welcome and at home. This brings back memories for Natalie Tan, who recalled watching the team play when she heard Christina Knew Lit Fong ask “Is there a lawyer? Are you a lawyer?” Those questions were Natalie’s stepping stone to the game, and on hindsight, helped unearth her talents, which she said she “inherited” from her grandmother, who was a netballer as well. A point to note

The Malaysian Bar Netball team (in dark blue) pose with their Singaporean counterparts (in light blue) at the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, 1 May 2015

LIFESTYLE


The Malaysian Bar Netball team shares great camaraderie

The Malaysian Bar Netball team at the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015, 1 May 2015

though, as welcoming as they are, their training practice can be quite gruelling, as it is “fast, strict and non-forgiving”, and injuries are the real enemy in this game.

There is much to appreciate and admire about these players, as they juggle their time between legal work, raising families, as well as their personal lives, with netball practice. Keat Ching explained their dedication to the game: “Work will always be there and can never fi nish, so for me, it is about making a commitment to take two or three hours off twice or three times a week to play netball, like one would take the time off to watch a

movie or television. It is whether you want to make the time for it.”

Deepa added: “The best part about the Netball team is — we’re really friends over and above everything else, and that’s what keeps us strong and coming back for more and more pain!” They are very much like sorority girls; there is obviously a very close bond among them, and this bond is further strengthened through the vigour of practice where the players train, sweat, get injured and compete together. Best of all, after their games, they dress up for gala dinners, practise for performances, organise birthday parties, and in true Malaysian

fashion, patronise the “mamak” to celebrate successes and farewells.

Such moments of fellowship are strong enough to transcend the demands of everyday life, and foster understanding and build great friendships, proving that no matter how hectic they are with work, netball practice, family or children, or even personal matters, they always make time to be there for their fellow players, on or off both courts. To drive this point, Kathleen Nunis noted: “The women in my life that I can count on are my schoolmates and the Netball team.”

Christina recalled her fi rst defeat with the team in the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2013: “After the fi nal whistle, we hugged and gave courage to one another and we stayed strong. None of our players shed a tear. We thought we could have won but that’s how a match is; you win some, you lose some. In that moment, I knew my team was extraordinary and that nothing could break us. The team spirit, friendship and good sportsmanship were values within us which no opposing team could beat out of us. I was so proud of us at that moment even though we lost.”

Having teammates who are lawyers have allowed them the “privilege” of bouncing ideas off each other. This has helped not just in developing more confi dence and contacts within the legal community, but just knowing seniors who are kind, compassionate and who are always willing to teach and share, has inspired the team to keep playing and reaching out to the juniors. “Being in the team has helped me push myself more than I would have. To always know that when you have reached your maximum and when you think you cannot do any further, there is still a bit more you can go. It is true of netball and being a lawyer,” Syarihah mused.

With greater maturity and experience, members of the Netball team have learnt to focus better on their tasks, whether in the legal court or on the netball court. Kathleen ended with these wise words: “You have to be certain that that particular passion is what you really want, and if so, to strive to achieve that goal and to realise that in the end, it is the good old-fashioned principles of responsibility, integrity, commitment, teamwork, and sheer hard work that will allow one to reach that goal.”

LIFESTYLE


The Malaysian Bar Netball team personally thanks its stalwart sponsors, namely Messrs Mohanadass Partnership, Messrs Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Messrs Thomas Phillip, Omesti, and Datin Noreen Ahamad who have with their support and sponsorship, made the victories and training sessions of the netball team possible.Any individual who wishes to join or sponsor the Netball team are welcome to contact Syarihah Razman, captain of the team and convener for the Malaysian Bar and Kuala Lumpur Bar, via email at [email protected].

The team has several training sessions each week at the following venues and times:• Tuesdays at 8:00 pm at Taman

Tasik Titiwangsa;• Thursdays at 8:00 pm at Garden

International School;• Saturdays at 8:00 am at SMK Sri

Aman; and • Sundays at 8:00 am at Kelab

Rakan Muda, Bukit Kiara.

The Netball team comprises the following members:

Cassandra Lim Jen Nie, Christina Knew Lit Fong, Deepa Nambiar, Dhayalini PG Doraisamy, Diana Hazari, Eliv Lau Hiang Ping, Kathleen Nunis, Khor See Yimn, Marie-Julie Wan Ullok, Maya Gayathri Devaruban, Nadira Adline

Rosman, Natalie Tan, Noortasha Devi Paramaswaran, Syarihah Razman, Shazana Binti Shaharudin, Wong Chooi Mey, and Wong Keat Ching

KS Shasha Advocate and Solicitor Jayadeep Hari & Jamil

Group photo of the Malaysian Bar Netball team at the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2015

All smiles and beaming faces

LIFESTYLE


CASE NOTES – HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

Case Notes — Highlights from the Federal CourtPlanning Law: Construction of Boom Gates and Guard Houses Tort: Nuisance — Obstruction on Road

The Federal Court in Au Kean Hoe v Persatuan Penduduk D’Villa Equestrian [2015] 3 CLJ 277 delivered a landmark decision related to gated communities and the right of Residents’ Associations to erect a guard house with boom gates with the approval of the local authority.

The Appellant was the co-owner of a house in a housing estate in Petaling Jaya. The housing estate had only one entrance and exit road on which the developer of the estate constructed a guard house and two boom gates. The Respondent was the Residents’ Association of the housing estate and, in 2011, it issued a circular to all the residents of the residential area that stated that those who failed to pay the requisite security and maintenance charges would be required to operate the boom gates themselves and without the assistance of the guards on duty. The Appellant had, by the time of the issuance of the circular, ceased paying the security and maintenance charges

The Appellant then initiated a suit in nuisance against the Respondent on the grounds, amongst others, that the boom gates constituted an obstruction under section 46(1)(a) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (“the SDBA”) as the Appellant was required to operate the said gates himself and without the assistance of the guards. It was also argued that the boom gates and the guard house were illegal as they were built without the prior approval of the local authority, Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (“the MBPJ”). The Respondent counterclaimed for the arrears of the Appellant’s security and maintenance charges and also sought an injunction to restrain the Appellant from harassing the Respondent and the security guards on duty.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s claim. The Appellant was thereafter granted leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Federal Court.

The Federal Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and held that the

guard house and boom gates were duly authorised structures under the SDBA, the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 and the Local Government Act 1976 and could not therefore amount to an obstruction under section 46(1)(a) of the SDBA. In this regard, it was found that the developer of the housing estate had obtained the approval of the MBPJ to construct the guard house in 2002 and, subsequently, in 2012, the MBPJ had retrospectively approved the construction of both the guard house and the boom gates.

The Federal Court proceeded to fi nd that the Appellant’s complaint in the appeal was founded exclusively on the inconvenience that he experienced from having to operate the boom gates himself. In this regard, Zulkefl i Makinudin CJM classifi ed the Appellant’s claim as a complaint of inconvenience and not a complaint against an obstruction. Accordingly, it was held that the Appellant’s claim did not amount to an actionable nuisance nor did it constitute an actionable obstruction. In this connection, the Federal Court accorded due recognition to the “underlying rule … that individuals live within a community and it is always the balancing of the individuals’ inconvenience against the communities’ interest that is of paramount concern.”

Contract: Breach — Recovery of Vacant Possession/Automatic Termination of Sale and Purchase AgreementContract: Breach — Remedies/Unjust Enrichment/Account of Profits

In Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd [2015] 2 MLJ 441, [2015] 2 CLJ 453, the Federal Court was invited to decide upon the application of the principle of the automatic termination of a contract and, further, the remedy of unjust enrichment in Malaysian contract law.

The dispute between the parties concerned the termination of a sale and purchase agreement for a plot of land (“the SPA”), where the Respondent was the vendor and the Appellant was the purchaser.

Prior to the execution of the SPA, the Respondent and Appellant were aware

that there were forty squatters and a school on the land. The Respondent was to grant vacant possession of the land by removing the squatters and relocating the school within the time period provided in the SPA. The Appellant was then obliged to complete the SPA by paying the balance purchase price. The time period to complete the SPA was to be computed from the date on which the Respondent delivered vacant possession of the land.

Upon signing the SPA, the Appellant paid 10% of the purchase price to the Respondent as deposit. Further, the SPA and a Power of Attorney (granted to the Appellant under the SPA) also gave the Appellant immediate access to the land to begin the construction of a shopping mall (“the Mall”).

The Respondent’s position in the case was that the school was relocated and vacant possession had been delivered on 21 Nov 2005. Thus, the balance purchase price became payable on 21 Mar 2006 (or on the extended date of 21 May 2006) as per the SPA. However, the Appellant took the view that vacant possession had only been delivered on 28 Feb 2006 and, therefore, the balance purchase price was only to be paid on 30 June 2006 or on 30 Aug 2006.

The Appellant failed to pay the balance purchase price on any of the completion dates mentioned above and the SPA was thereafter terminated.

The Respondent then commenced a claim in the High Court for the recovery of vacant possession of the land. It is important to note that by the conclusion of the High Court trial, the Appellant had completed the construction of the Mall and a fully operational commercial complex occupied a portion of the land.The Respondent’s suit was premised on the Appellant’s breach of the SPA due to the Appellant’s failure to pay the balance purchase price within the time contemplated under the contract, which warranted the latter’s return of the land and, further, the Appellant’s account for the profi ts that it had obtained from the Mall since its occupation on the land. The Appellant counterclaimed to, amongst others, be adequately compensated for its establishment of the Mall in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment.


CASE NOTES – HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

The High Court allowed the Respondent’s claim and ordered the return of the land to the Respondent and, further, that Appellant was to pay the Respondent the profi ts that it had derived from the land and, lastly, that the Respondent was to pay the Appellant the costs of construction of the Mall. The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision but clarifi ed the order relating to the account of profi ts and ruled that the Appellant is only to pay the profi ts derived from its use and occupation of the land.

The Appellant was then granted leave to challenge the majority decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal in part. In this regard, the fi ndings of the majority of the Court of Appeal on the liability of the Appellant in acting in breach of the SPA were upheld. However, the Federal Court allowed the appeal on the relief awarded by the majority of the Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court held that the Appellant had breached the SPA by failing to pay the balance purchase price on the completion dates suggested by the Respondent and therefore ordered the return of the land to the Respondent. The Appellant’s failure to pay the balance purchase price amounted to a breach of a fundamental term of the contract and it also brought into operation the “automatic termination” clause of the SPA (ie Clause 12), which resulted in the automatic termination of the SPA. In this connection, the Federal Court held that Clause 12 of the contract was enforceable as the parties had expressly agreed to the automatic termination of the SPA upon the failure of the remittance of the balance purchase price within the stipulated time frame.

The Federal Court then set aside the order for the Appellant to account for the profi ts that it had derived from the Mall. The Court instead ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent the market rent of the unimproved land following the assessment of the same by the High Court. This ruling was made on the premise that, amongst others, an order for an account of profi ts could only be awarded where it had been established that there had been a breach of a fi duciary duty, which was not the case in the instant appeal.

The Federal Court also set aside the order that the compensation payable

to the Appellant was to be limited to the costs of construction of the Mall. The Federal Court instead ordered that the Appellant be paid a monetary sum equivalent to the current market value of the Mall. This was awarded in accordance with the principles of unjust enrichment as the Federal Court accepted the argument that the Respondent had been unjustly enriched in view of the recovery of its land that now contained a fully functional Mall, the market value of which far exceeded the value of the land. Further, it was held that the Respondent had been enriched at the expense of the Appellant who had expended time, eff ort and expertise in establishing the Mall in its present state. Therefore the Federal Court decided that it was unjust to allow the Respondent to be enriched to the extent of the full commercial value of the Mall while having only to pay for its costs of construction.

Civil Procedure: Appeal — Whether the Court of Appeal can Reverse a Trial Judge’s Findings of Fact Where the Defendant Had Failed to Tender Any Evidence at TrialCivil Procedure: Res Judicata

The primary issue for determination in Syarikat Kemajuan Timbermine Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim [2015] 2 CLJ 1037 was whether an appellate court was precluded from reversing the fi ndings of a trial judge where the defendant to the suit had elected not to tender any evidence at trial.

The Respondent granted the Appellant the right to log and extract timber in Kelantan pursuant to a series of concession agreements. The Respondent terminated the concession agreements due to the Appellant’s failure to meet certain milestones under the agreements. The Appellant challenged the termination of the agreements and the parties thereafter entered into negotiations to settle the dispute. The negotiations did not produce a resolution of the dispute and the Appellant then instituted a suit against the Respondent.

In the suit, the Appellant alleged that the Respondent had unlawfully terminated the agreements and, further, that the Respondent had breached a purported settlement agreement between the parties that resulted from the settlement negotiations. The Respondent argued

that the Appellant’s claim was time-barred as the concession agreements were terminated in 1975. The Respondent also contended that the concession agreements had been validly terminated and, further, that the parties had not executed a settlement agreement as alleged.

The Respondent elected not to tender any evidence at the trial. The High Court then allowed the Appellant’s claim. The Court of Appeal thereafter allowed the Respondent’s appeal and set aside the fi ndings of the High Court.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and held that the Appellant’s claim was barred by limitation as the Respondent’s decision to terminate the concession agreements was made in 1975 and the instant suit was only fi led in 2004. Further, the Federal Court found that the Respondent did not make any representations during the settlement negotiations that indicated that it would waive its reliance on the defence of limitation in the event the settlement discussions fell through.

The Federal Court also held that the High Court’s dismissal of an application, fi led by the Respondent, to strike out the Appellant’s claim on the grounds of limitation did not preclude the Respondent from raising the limitation defence in the main suit. This was because the decision of the High Court, which was made by a Registrar, “lacked the essential element of fi nality” as it was based on the “limited material then available” at the interlocutory (pre-trial) stage.

Further, the Federal Court held that the Appellant had failed to discharge its burden of proof as to the existence of the purported settlement agreement. This was notwithstanding the Respondent’s election not to lead any evidence or call any witnesses at trial as it remained imperative for the Appellant to tender suffi ciently cogent evidence to prove its case. This led to the Federal Court’s fi nding that an appellate court was not precluded from reversing the fi ndings of fact of a trial court in instances where the defendant had failed to call any evidence at the trial.

Gregory Das Advocate and Solicitor Messrs Shook Lin & Bok


Workshop on “Billing & Collections” The “Billing & Collections” workshop was jointly organised by the Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development Committee and the Bar Council PII and Risk Management Department, at the Johore Bar Auditorium on 5 Dec 2014. The workshop was attended by 56 participants. The speakers were Tony Woon and Balbir Singh.

Talk on “Good Conscience in Legal Practice and Professionalism” A seminar on “Good Conscience in Legal Practice and Professionalism” was held on 15 Dec 2014 at the Johore Bar Auditorium. The seminar was presented by Tuan Roslan b Mat Nor, Chairman of the Industrial Court in Johor Bahru, and attended by 41 participants.

Farewell Dinner in Honour of YA Tuan Gunalan Muniandy On 22 Dec 2014, a farewell dinner in honour of former Johor Bahru High Court Judicial Commissioner, YA Tuan Gunalan Muniandy (who was transferred to the High Court in Shah Alam, Selangor) was organised by the Social Committee of the Johore Bar, held at Puteri Pacific Hotel, Johor Bahru. The dinner was attended by 71 members of the Johore Bar.

Farewell High Tea in Honour of YA Dato’ Hj Zainal Azman bin Ab Aziz On 23 Dec 2014, a farewell high tea in honour of former Muar High Court Judge, YA Dato’ Hj Zainal Azman b Ab Aziz (who was transferred to the High Court in Kuala Terengganu) was organised by the North Johore Aff airs Committee of the Johore Bar held at Muar Traders Hotel in Muar, Johore.

Johore Bar CommitteeSeminar on “An Overview of Sale and Purchase of Shares and Businesses” The Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development Committee organised a seminar that was conducted by Sheba Gumis on 14 Nov 2014 at the Johore Bar Auditorium. The seminar provides a preliminary overview on the fundamental aspects of transactions involving the sale and purchase of shares and businesses. A total of 86 participants were present.

Seminar on “Recent Developments in Contract Law” On 25 Nov 2014, the Continuing Professional Development Committee organised a seminar on “Recent Developments in Contract Law” at the Johore Bar Auditorium. Sudharsanan Thillainathan spoke at the seminar which was attended by 80 participants.

2nd Johore Bar Paintball Tournament 2014 On 6 Dec 2014, the Young Lawyers and Chambering Pupils Committee of the Johore Bar organised the 2nd Annual Paintball Tournament at Dynamic Paintball Speedball Field, Johor Bahru. The event

Welcome High Tea in Honour of YA Dr Sabirin b Ja’afar On 26 Nov 2014, the Social Committee of the Johore Bar organised a high tea at Grand BlueWave Hotel, Johor Bahru, to welcome YA Dr Sabirin b Ja’afar, who was posted as Judicial Commissioner to Johor Bahru on 13 Oct 2014. The event was attended by 57 members of the Johore Bar and four Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the High Court in Johor Bahru.

43rd Annual Johor Bench and Bar vs Police Games 2014 The 43rd Annual Johor Bench and Bar vs Police Games 2014 (“Games”) was held from 21 to 27 Nov 2014. Twelve sports were played at this year’s edition of the Games, namely cricket, hockey, table tennis, netball, volleyball, badminton, futsal, tennis, golf, football, sepak takraw, pool, and darts, at several sporting venues. The Games were jointly offi ciated by YA Dato’ Mohd Sofi an b Tan Sri Abd Razak, Senior High Court Judge in Johor Bahru, and YDH Dato’ Mohd Mokhtar b Hj Mohd Shariff , Chief Police Offi cer of Johore, followed by a game of cricket at Johor Cricket Council, Mutiara Rini, Johor Bahru. The Games ended with a closing ceremony and dinner hosted by the Police at Dewan Dato’ Onn, IPK Johor Bahru on 30 Nov 2014. The police team emerged as winners of the Games.

enjoyed a good turnout with about 20 young lawyers participating in the event.

Group photo of the cricketers

Anand Raj addressing the participants

The girls posing with their weapons

Seminar on “An Introduction on GST”

On 28 Nov 2014, Johore Bar and the Bar Council Continuing Professional Development Committee jointly organised a seminar on “An Introduction to GST” at Berjaya Waterfront Hotel, Johor Bahru. The speakers were Anand Raj and Benedict Francis, and the seminar was attended by 248 participants.

STATE BAR NEWS


Johore Bar Gala Dinner & Dance 2015 The Johore Bar Gala Dinner & Dance 2015 was held on 14 Feb 2015 at Renaissance Hotel Johor Bahru. The event was graced by the presence of the two Judges of the Johor Bahru High Court, YA Dato’ Mohd Sofi an b Tan Sri Abd Razak and his spouse Datin Norhuda bt Hussin, and YA Tuan Teo Say Eng.

The dinner commenced with a welcome speech by the Johore Bar Social Committee Chairperson Fadhil Ihsan (Dale). This was followed by a sumptuous fusion-course menu dinner, accompanied by a live band performance by The Jazz Clique and stand-up comedy by Harith Iskander, while the master of ceremonies for the night was Suriakala Sivalingam fromFly FM.

Seminar on “Handling Drug Trials and Appeals” On 7 February 2015, the Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development Committee invited Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to deliver a talk on “Handling Drug Trials and Appeals”. The talk was attended by 50 participants. A small token of appreciation was presented to the speaker at the end of the seminar.

Annual General Meeting of Johore Bar On 14 Feb 2015, the Johore Bar’s Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) was held in the JOTIC Auditorium with 70 members in attendance. R Jayabalan was re-elected as the Chairman of the Johore Bar and S Gunasegaran as representative on the Bar Council.

Nine members were nominated and elected as Committee members — Andrew Wong Fook Hin, Shahareen Begum bt Abdul Subhan, Hardip Singh, Mathews George, Santhi Balachandran, Punitha Mariappan, Gun Huei Shin, Fadhil Ihsan b Mohamad

Seminar on “Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials” The Continuing Professional Development Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar on the “Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials”. The seminar was conducted by Brendan Navin Siva

The pupils posing after their exams with Santhi Balachandran (centre), CPD Chairperson of Johore Bar

A group shot of the Bench and Bar

Professional Standards Course On 27 and 28 Jan 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Committee together with the Johore Bar Social Committee, jointly organised the Professional Standards Course that was attended by 50 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at KSL Resort, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was Andrew Wong Fook Hin who shared his experience with the Bar and Bench.

Reference Proceeding A Reference Proceeding was held at the Johor Bahru High Court on 4 Feb 2015 in memory of fi ve departed members of the Johore Bar. They were — Zainuddin b Embong (passed away on 5 Mar 2014), Lau Koh Kong (passed away on 11 Aug 2014), Loh Song Chuan (passed away on 4 Nov 2014), Ravindran s/o GS Paramasivan (passed away on 7 Dec 2014), and Norisah bt Abu Aman (passed away on 18 Dec 2014).

YA Dato’ Mohd Sofi an b Tan Sri Abd Razak, High Court Judge in Johor Bahru, presided over the proceeding. Senior Federal Counsel Tuan Lee Chee Thim represented the Attorney General’s Chambers and S Gunasegaran represented the Bar Council. Members of the Bar and family members of fi ve departed lawyers including retired Judge of the Court of Appeal, Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, the elder brother of the late Lau Koh Kong, were present at the proceeding. The Reference Proceeding was followed by light refreshments at Bilik Persidangan at Johor Bahru Court Complex.

Hassan, and Ng Kai Choy.

Nik Raihan bt Nik Ja’afar was appointed Hon Secretary of the Johore Bar.

Men of the hour

Lucky draw session in place

Stand-up comedian, Harith Iskandar, in action

and held at the Johore Bar Auditorium on 9 Feb 2015. The seminar was attended by 74 participants.

STATE BAR NEWS


A Trip to FRIM to Explore the Canopy Walk Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee, the trip took place on 30 Nov 2014 at the Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (“FRIM”). It was attended by 12 participants.

Kuala Lumpur Bar CommitteePupils Introduction Session (November) Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee, the pupils introduction session for November was held on 6 Nov 2014. The session, attended by 64 pupils, was led by Shashi Devan. Pupils were briefed on the structure of the Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar, the election to both the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (“KLBC”), and the highlights of the Malaysian Bar. It included a session for pupils to raise issues and problems faced by them during their pupillage period, and members of KLBC were on hand to provide input and possible solutions. The pupils were also shown a video montage of the history of the Malaysian Bar.

PDC Seminar on “Competition Act and Competition Commission” Organised by the KL Bar Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Harleen Kaur (Leena) on 7 Nov 2014 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and attended by 43 participants. The seminar covered a basic overview of the Competition Act 2010 (“CA 2010”) that answers queries such as “What is the process of competition?”, “How to escape liability under the CA 2010?”, “What is anti-competitive conduct?”, “Who enforces the CA 2010?”, “How does the Leniency Regime work?”, and “What is the diff erence between the Competition Commission and the Competition Appeal Tribunal?”.

Civil Litigation Workshops for Pupils The KL Bar Pupils Committee organised a civil litigation workshop specifi cally for pupils on 26 Nov 2014, focusing primarily on the practical aspects of handling a brief, covering the following areas — “Opinion writing exercise”, “Drafting of pleadings exercise”, and “Presenting a case in Court”. The workshop, conducted by Colin Andrew Pereira and Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah, was attended by 51 pupils.

The Luncheon: A Taste of the Bar V Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee, the luncheon was held on 29 Nov 2014 at the President’s Room of the Royal Selangor Club at Dataran Merdeka, Kuala Lumpur.

Practical Workshop on Conveyancing Practice Organised by the KL Bar Corporate and Conveyancing Practice Committee, this workshop was presented by Lee Peck Ha on 11 and 12 Dec 2014 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and attended by 63 participants. The seminar covered these topics — “Are options really crucial and necessary? Why?”, “Why do some transactions end up in the trash?”, “What should you look out for when transacting for your clients?”, “How is it that despite the ‘standard’ terms and conditions in SPAs, conveyancers still can disagree on certain issues?”, “When does a confl ict of interest arise for you to worry about?”, and “How do you safeguard yourself against a complaint being lodged against you in a conveyance?”.

Legal Career Forum Jointly organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee and Young Lawyers Committee in collaboration with eLawyer, a legal recruitment and consultancy fi rm, this forum was held on 6 Dec 2014 at the Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Straits Trading Building. The aim of the forum was to address the relationship between employers and Generation Y employees and seek to bridge the gap between them. The forum was attended by 71 participants.

Skytrex Adventure Jointly organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee and the Young Lawyers Committee, the event was held on 14 Dec 2014 at Skytrex Adventure Park, Taman Pertanian Malaysia. Twenty members from the KL Bar including pupils, participated in this adventure.

YLC Seminar on “An Introduction to Employment Law” Organised by the KLBC Young Lawyers Committee (“YLC”), this seminar was presented by Vinu Kamalananthan on 9 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and attended by 33 participants.

PDC Seminar on “Accounting and Finance for Lawyers (Part 1)” Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Lim Kien Chai on 13 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar, attended by 81 participants, covered these topics — “Roles of Accounting in the Legal Profession”, “Law and Accounting”, “Financial Accounting”, and “Management Accounting”.

Pupils Introduction Session (December) Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee, the pupils introduction session for December was held on 4 Dec 2014. The session, attended by 73 pupils, was led by Shashi Devan. Pupils were briefed on the structure of the Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar, the election to both the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (“KLBC”) and the highlights of the Malaysian Bar. It included a session for pupils to raise issues and problems faced by them during their pupillage period and members of KLBC were on hand to provide input and possible solutions. The pupils were also shown a video montage of the history of the Malaysian Bar.

Leena Kaur conducting the seminar The panellists at the forum

STATE BAR NEWS


Pupils Introduction Session (January) Organised by the KLBC Pupils Committee, the pupils introduction session for January was held on 15 Jan 2015. The session, attended by 85 pupils, was led by Shashi Devan. Pupils were briefed on the structure of the Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar, the election to both the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (“KLBC”) and the highlights of the Malaysian Bar. It included a session for pupils to raise issues and problems faced by them during their pupillage period and members of KLBC were on hand to provide input and possible solutions. The pupils were also shown a video montage of the history of the Malaysian Bar.

YLC Seminar on Understanding GST Organised by the KLBC Young Lawyers Committee (“YLC”), this seminar was presented by Dr Arjunan Subramaniam on 16 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and attended by 152 participants. Among the topics covered at the seminar were — "Taxable Periods”, “Scope of GST”, “Input Tax — Meaning”, “Output Tax — Meaning”, “Operation of GST”, “Fees”, “Deposits”, “Clients’ Money on Deposit for Earning Interest”, “Costs”, “Reimbursements”, “Disbursements”, “Selling a Law Firm as a Going Concern — Section 68”, “Credit Note/Debit Note”, and “Out of Court Settlements”.

PDC Seminar on “Accounting and Finance for Lawyers (Part 2)” Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Lim Kien Chai on 20 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and attended by 84 participants. The seminar covered these topics — “The Diff erences between Turnover, Gross Profi t, Net Profi t, Retained Earnings, Profi t & Cash and Concept of Liquidity”, “Working Capital”, “Financial Management”, “Accounting, Auditing and Fraud”, and “Investigation and Forensic”.

KL Bar Run Organised by the KLBC Sports & Recreation Committee, the inaugural KL Bar Run was held on 25 Jan 2015 at Lake Gardens, and participated by 58 teams comprising members of the Bar and pupils. It was a huge success and everybody had a great time competing.

Meeting with the Managing Judges of the Kuala Lumpur High Court This meeting on 23 Jan 2015, was by invitation from the Managing Judges and was held at Bilik Gerakan Khas, Palace of Justice, Putrajaya. The KLBC was represented by HR Dipendra, Goh Siu Lin, Jacky Loi Yap Loong, Shashi Devan Thalmalingam, Lim Chi Chau, Foong Cheng Leong and Civil Practice Committee member, Ajeet Kaur. The Judiciary was respresented by Managing Judges YA Tan Sri Hasan b Lah, YA Dato’ Azahar b Mohamed, YA Datuk Zaharah bt Ibrahim, Puan Al Baishah bt Haji Abd Manan, Tuan Che Wan Zaidi b Che Wan Ibrahim, Tuan Mohd Khairi b Haron, Puan Hilmiah bt Yusof, Puan Nor Rajiah bt Mat Zin, and Puan Nor Aini bt Yusof. Among the issues raised at the meeting were hasty disposal of cases, written submissions, general lack of appreciation of subject matter and understanding of the law, fi xing of trial/hearing dates, e-fi ling, hearing of remand applications by Registrars and Senior Assistant Registrars of the Lower Courts, conduct of court staff at the RKKK Petition Registry, mediation, transcribing, and the Criminal Courts.

PDC Seminar on “Termination for Convenience Clause in Construction Contracts: A Matter of Good Faith?”

Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Dr Cheong May Fong on 14 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. It was attended by 66 participants.

Kuala Lumpur/Selangor Bar Games The 14th Kuala Lumpur/Selangor Bar Games for the Lall Singh Muker Challenge Trophy was held on 16 and 17 Jan 2015 with the Selangor Bar playing hosts. Kuala Lumpur Bar defeated Selangor Bar 4-2, winning at badminton, futsal, veterans’ soccer and volleyball, to become the overall champion. Selangor Bar won at golf and premier soccer.

Participants paying full attention at the seminar

KL Bar Chairman, HR Dipendra, with the trophy

The participants at the fi nishing line

STATE BAR NEWS


PDC/AWL Series of Seminars on “Legal Case Management Support for Victims of Human Trafficking” Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”) in collaboration with the Association of Women Lawyers (“AWL”), this seminar was presented by Daniel Lo on 27 Jan 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar was attended by 51 participants.

Reference Proceedings A Reference in respect of the memory of 10 departed members of the KL Bar was held at the Technology Court on 30 Jan 2015. The Reference was presided by YA Dato’ Asmabi bt Mohamad. The departed members were Suraeisan ST Mani, Chong Kim Weng, Ngan Siong Hing, Thomas Mariasoosay, Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh, Sharifah Zubaidah bt Wan Yep Mohdzar, Cheah Kam Chiew, Ganesa Kumar Sinnadurai, Rosli b Abu Zarim and Abu Bakar b Abdullah.

Pupils Introduction Session (February)

Organised by the KLBC Pupils Committee, the pupils introduction session for February was held on 5 Feb 2015. The session, attended by 85 pupils, was led by Shashi Devan. Pupils were briefed on the structure of the Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar, the

YLC Seminar on “Advocacy for Young Lawyers”

Organised by the KLBC Young Lawyers Committee (“YLC”), this seminar was presented by Brendan Navin Siva on 6 Feb 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar was attended by 102 participants.

Annual General Meeting of the Kuala Lumpur Bar

The 23rd Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Kuala Lumpur Bar, held on 12 Feb 2015, kicked off with a short briefi ng on “GST: An Overview for Law Firms” by Anand Raj. The Offi ce Bearers of the KLBC for 2015/16 elected at the AGM were:

Chairman — Ravin SinghCommittee members — Goh Siu Lin, Harleen Kaur (Leena), Vinu Kamalananthan, Foong Cheng Leong, Choo Dee Wei, Lim Chi Chau, Siti Munirah Maarof, Alwin Rajasurya, Alex Anton Netto, and Shashi Devan Thalmalingam.

Jeremiah R Gurusamy was elected as the KL Bar Representative on the Bar Council.

PDC Talk on the “Future of the Legal Practice”

Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Abdul Kadir Kassim and Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin on 10 Feb 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar was attended by 52 participants.

iCPD Programme on Civil Litigation

On 22 Nov 2014, the Malacca Bar Committee, in collaboration with the Bar Council Continuing Professional

PDC/AWL Seminar on “UPR: Promoting, Protecting and Fulfilling Human Rights in Malaysia”

Jointly organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”) and the Association of Women Lawyers (“AWL”), this seminar was presented by Honey Tan Lay Ean on 13 Feb 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar was attended by 32 participants.

PDC Seminar on “Drafting Commercial Contracts”

Organised by the KLBC Professional Development Committee (“PDC”), this seminar was presented by Jeremiah R Gurusamy on 17 Feb 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. Attended by 69 participants, the seminar covered these topics — “Dealing with Compliance & Regulatory issues”, “Scoping the Transaction”, “Drafting Techniques”, “Understanding Key Provisions”, “Boiler Plate Clauses”, and “Common Mistakes & Pitfalls”.

YB Lim Kit Siang and Param Cumaraswamy were present at the Reference Proceedings

Anand Raj providing a short briefi ng on GST

Anand Ponnudurai’s lone hand up

Malacca Bar Committee

Development Department, organised a seminar on civil litigation as part of the intensive CPD (“iCPD”) programme for Members of the Bar. The seminar was held at the Eco Tree Hotel, Malacca.

The fi rst part of the seminar emphasised on the practical applications of the Rules of Court 2012, from commencement of proceedings until full trial, as well as its

election to both the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (“KLBC”) and the highlights of the Malaysian Bar. As tradition goes, the session also gives an opportunity for pupils to raise issues and problems faced by them during their pupillage period and members of KLBC were on hand to provide input and possible solutions. The pupils were also shown a video montage of the history of the Malaysian Bar.

usage in interlocutory applications.

The second part of the seminar addressed the basic types of appeals and the procedures for applications. The Malacca Bar thanks Ravi Nekoo for conducting the seminar, which was attended not only by members of the Malacca Bar, but also members of the Selangor and Johore Bars.

STATE BAR NEWS


Re: Lex 2.0

On 13 Feb 2015, the Publication Sub-Committee of the Malacca Bar published the second issue of the Malacca Bar newsletter, Re:Lex 2.0 for the 2014/2015 term. The newsletter featured Wong Fook Meng and Chia Cheng Wee, who received the Malacca Bar Outstanding Personality Awards for the years

2013 and 2014, respectively. Copies of the newsletter were distributed to more than 700 members of the Malacca Bar, pupils, sponsors, other State Bars and Bar Council members.

Professional Development Events To wind down the year, there were just two professional development events in December 2014, namely a workshop on “Billing and Collections” on 4 Dec 2014 and a talk on “What In-House Counsel Look for in External Counsel” on 5 Dec 2014.

Farewell Dinner The Penang Bar hosted a farewell dinner for High Court Judge, YA Tuan S Nantha Balan on 11 Dec 2014 as His Lordship would be assuming duties at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in January 2015. The dinner was well attended, with more than 100 lawyers and pupils present at the event which took place at the Penang Club. Members of the Penang Bar were pleasantly surprised when YA Tuan Nantha Balan gave the Penang Bar a gift after delivering his speech — a set of framed legal prints which will soon grace the walls of the Penang Bar offi ce. The dinner was also

Annual General Meeting of the Malacca Bar On 13 Feb 2015, more than 100 members of the Bar attended the Annual General Meeting of the Malacca Bar. Two candidates each were nominated for the post of Chairman and Representative on the Bar Council. The members voted, and Desmond Ho Chee Cheong was elected as the new Malacca Bar Committee Chairman, whereas Karen Cheah Yee Lynn was elected as the Representative on the Bar Council for the 2015/2016 term.

Eight more members were nominated and elected as Committee Members: Leong Zhi Hong, Mohamed Musthafa, Jason Kay Kit Leon, Ahmad Soleh b Yusof, Chan Chee Yuan, Rosfi nah bt Rahmat, Benjamin Tay Hanyi, and Andrew Law Ching Hui.

Ahmad Soleh b Yusof was later appointed as the Honorary Secretary of the Malacca Bar, while Amber Foo Qiao Wei was co-opted as a Committee Member.

Penang Bar Committee

The Re:Lex 2.0 cover depicting Wong Fook Meng (left) and Chia Cheng Wee

Public Forum on Police Accountability On 13 Dec 2014, the Bar Council Task Force on Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) and Penang Bar Committee jointly organised a public forum on police accountability. The event was offi ciated and graced by the Right Honourable Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng and attended by members of the Bar, chambering pupils, representatives from non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”), and other agencies.

The President of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong delivered the keynote address at the forum. The panel discussion at the forum comprised panellists Christopher Leong, Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, V Sithambaram and Yap Swee Seng of SUARAM, and was moderated by Andrew Khoo. The participants were presented with alarming statistics and fi gures, and a common theme at the forum was the indiff erence of authorities to stop incidents of police brutality and deaths in police custody and how diffi cult it is for the

Criminal Trial Workshop

To start off the year, a Criminal Trial Workshop was held on 10 and 11 Jan 2015. Hisyam Teh Poh Teik and Dato’ Ranjit Singh s/o Mahinder Singh spoke to the participants, consisting of lawyers, pupils and law students on topics that dealt with the basics of criminal law practice. They proceeded to the Mock Trial segment which dealt with armed robbery and murder, carrying the theme “PP v Sanjay Dutt”. Senior members of the Penang Bar were roped in to play the role of judge and adviser to the participants, who thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng opening the public forum

Seminar on “Recent Developments in Contract Law”

The Malacca Bar organised a seminar on 24 Nov 2014, entitled “Recent Developments in Contract Law: With Focus on Recent Malaysian, Singaporean and English Case Law”. The speaker was T Sudharsanan.

YBGK Training

In 2013, the Malacca Bar YBGK volunteers attended to 3,127 cases. To encourage more members to volunteer in providing legal aid to members of the public, a Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) training was organised on 6 and 7 Dec 2014 in Malacca.

“An Introduction to GST”

Following a seminar on the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) on 1 Oct 2014, conducted by an offi cer from the Customs and Excise Department, the Malacca Bar welcomed Anand Raj of the Kuala Lumpur Bar to conduct a seminar entitled “An Introduction to GST” on 17 Dec 2014. The seminar was held at UTC Melaka and was attended by 51 members and 15 legal fi rm staff .

Session on “Accounting for Lawyers”

On 1 Oct 2014, the Malacca Bar Committee invited Lim Kien Chai from the Kuala Lumpur Bar to share his experience and views concerning “Accounting for Lawyers”.

Talk on GST To enhance its members’ understanding of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”), the Malacca Bar organised a session with Choo Choon Beng and Vincent Koh on 23 Jan 2015, both of whom are chartered accountants, to discuss GST-related issues in legal practice. A total of 66 participants attended the session held at UTC Melaka.

attended by other Penang High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners, as well as the State Legal Adviser.

victims and their families to obtain any form of redress.

STATE BAR NEWS


Perak Bar Committee

Courts, YA Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi Ali and all Penang High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners. The Judiciary had several issues to raise, most of which were administrative in nature and the Bar responded with our own issues and concerns as informed to us by members. Unfortunately the main issue which did not seem to have a solution was the e-fi ling system that is a constant cause of complaints.

Talk on Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Being the hot topic at the moment, a GST talk was held on 27 Feb 2015 entitled “The Practical Aspects of the Goods and Services Tax for Lawyers” by the President of Sabah Law Association, Datuk GBB Nandy@Gaanesh. The talk was well received and went on well past the allocated time due to numerous questions and concerns raised by members.

Seminar on GST: “Essential Principles & Key Considerations” In light of the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”), the Perak Bar organised a seminar on GST on 19 Dec 2014 at Syeun Hotel, Ipoh. It was the most well-attended talk and recorded an attendance of 230 members. It is hoped that this seminar has created greater awareness of the implications of GST with regard to legal fi rms.

The Perak Bar AGM 2014/2015 The Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Perak Bar was held on 13 Feb 2015 at Syuen Hotel, Ipoh. The following are the duly-elected and co-opted committee members of the Perak Bar Committee for the year 2015/2016:Chairman: Lai Choe Ken, KennyPerak Bar Representative on the Bar Council: Surindar Singh s/o Chain SinghHonorary Secretary: Chiang Mei WanFinance/Secretariat: Danial Rahman b Yang RazaliPerak Bar Development/Library: Vivekanandan AMS PeriasamySocial: Domnic Selvam GnanapragasamProfessional Development/ADR: Varpal Singh s/o Menender SinghLegal Aid/YBGK: Balakrishna Balaravi PillaiPublicity/IT: Nurul Jannah bt Khairul AnuarSafer Malaysia & Human Rights: Ashwin KumarYoung Lawyers/Chambering Pupils: Babu Raj Raja GopalCorporate & Conveyancing: Rahimi bt RamliSyariah: Noran Asma bt Abu Bakar Sports: Lai Choe Ken, KennyCourts: Navit Kaur Randhawa

Annual General Meeting The Penang Bar’s Annual General Meeting was held on 25 Feb 2015 at the Bayview Hotel Georgetown, and attended by 396 members. Shyama Nair was elected as the new Chairman and Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor as the Penang Bar Representative on the Bar Council. The members of the Penang Bar Committee elected for the new term were J Theeba Jothi, Palaniappan Ramasamy, Habib Rahman Seeni Mohideen, Jo-Anne De Vries, Nicholas Tan Soon Teik, Lee Guan Tong, Ravi Chandran Subash Chandran, Muneer Mohamed Farid, Ramesh Rajadurai, and Beh Hong Shien.

Perak Bar 50th Anniversary Annual Dinner 2014

This year marked the 50th Anniversary of the establishment of the Perak Bar. The dinner was held on 8 Nov 2014 at the Casuarina @ Meru, a newly established hotel in Amanjaya.

To mark this memorable and historic event, the Perak Bar invited and honoured all past Chairmen and Chairwoman of the Perak Bar in recognition of their selfl ess services. A photo montage was screened and a token of appreciation was presented to all past Chairmen and Chairwoman by the current Chairman of the Perak Bar.

The emcee for the evening was the beautiful Miss Earth Malaysia 2012, Deviyah Daranee. World-class entertainment and a belly full of laughs were provided by comedian Douglas Lim. The music for the night was great — it was fusion-based and provided by various artistes from Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur.

Meeting with Georgetown Subordinate Courts Civil Division

On 27 Jan 2015, the Penang Bar Committee attended a meeting with the Georgetown Subordinate Courts Civil Division whereby several administrative and housekeeping issues were discussed.

Employment Law Seminar

An Employment Law Seminar was held on 5 Feb 2015, jointly organised by the Bar Council Industrial and Employment Law Committee and Penang Bar Committee. This was followed by a seminar on the “Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials” by Brendan Navin Siva and Fahri Azzat on 13 Feb 2015.

On the same day, members of the Penang Bar Committee were invited to attend a meeting with the Courts led by Chief Judge of Malaya, YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefl i Ahmad Makinudin. Also in attendance were Managing Judge for the Penang

Cake-cutting ceremony with all the past Chairmen and Chairwoman

Dressed to impress

Anand Raj presenting at the seminar

The Penang Bar Committee in action at the AGM

STATE BAR NEWS


Perlis Bar CommitteeCPD Talks The Perlis Bar Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Committee organised two talks delivered by the husband-and-wife team of Ravi Nekoo and Pushpa Ratnam. “The Art of Cross-Examination” was presented by Ravi Nekoo on 19 Nov 2014, and “Family Law” was presented by Pushpa Ratnam on 20 Nov 2014. Both talks were held at the Perlis Bar Offi ce premises, and were well-attended.

Back to School 2014 The Perlis Bar Welfare Committee organised a shopping trip with seven needy children aged 7 to 12 years at C-Mart Hypermarket, Arau on 22 Dec 2014. The aim of this event was to assist the families of the children to get the necessary school uniforms, bags and stationeries to start off their 2015 school year.

Flood Relief Fund for Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang Bars The Perlis Bar organised a fund-raising drive among its members to assist members of the Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang Bars in view of the severe damage caused by the fl oods that hit the East Coast in December 2014.

Following the drive, a sum of RM4,000 was handed over to the Kelantan Bar (as Kelantan was the worst hit), and RM2,000 each to the Terengganu and Pahang Bars.

Courtesy Visit on Tuan Mohd Rosli b Osman The Chairman of the Perlis Bar and its committee members paid a courtesy visit on the Pengarah Mahkamah Negeri Perlis Mahkamah Sesyen, Tuan Mohd Rosli b Osman, on 27 Mar 2015 prior to his retirement and to wish him well.

Perlis Bar AGM The Perlis Bar’s 3rd Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) was held at its offi ce on 12 Feb 2015. It was attended by 35 members, and Ahmad Zaini Shamsuddin was elected as the Chairman of the Perlis Bar, while Siti Hajar bt Ahmad was elected the Bar Representative on the Bar Council. The attendees were treated to a lunch after the AGM.

“Towards a Safer Malaysia” Perlis Bar in collaboration with Bar Council Safer Malaysia Committee, organised a forum entitled “Towards a Safer Malaysia” at Terinai Lakeview Resort, Perlis on 19 Dec 2014. It was conducted by the then Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, Richard Wee Thiam Seng, together with Mark Soh, founder of Malaysian Crime Awareness Campaign (“MCAC”) and Saha Deva Arunasalam, Member of the Bar. This forum was organised to introduce the workings of the Safer Malaysia Committee, and

Outing and Meeting in Langkawi

The Perlis Bar Conveyancing, Banking and Corporate Committee organised a three-day two-night outing-cum-monthly committee meeting in Langkawi, Kedah from 28 to 30 Nov 2014. The committee members brought along their family members and it was a lively and fun-fi lled outing for all. Among the activities held were a three-hour cruise and sunset dinner on board the Laksamana Cheng Ho; an island tour, which included a visit to the majestic Galeria Perdana, Oriental Village and Langkawi Cable Car; and an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) ride through the village to witness the sunset. The day ended with a sumptuous traditional Malay dinner at a fl oating restaurant, only accessible by boat.

Workshop on “Billing & Collections” The Perlis Bar Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Committee together with the Bar Council Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee, jointly organised a “Billing & Collections” workshop at the Perlis Bar premises on 5 Mar 2015. A total of 30 participants attended the workshop. The workshop commenced with a session entitled “Filing for Better Billing”, presented by Ezri Abd Wahab, and a session on “Understanding Your Cost”, presented by Abdul Murad Che Chik.

Courtesy Call on DYTM Tuanku Raja Muda Perlis On 25 Mar 2015, the Perlis Bar paid a courtesy call on DYTM Tuanku Raja Muda and DYTM Raja Puan Muda Perlis. The Perlis Bar was represented by its Chairman, Ahmad Zaini Samsudin, the Bar Representative, committee members, and senior lawyers. It was a very memorable event for the Perlis Bar as this meeting was to bring to the attention of the Crown Prince the existence of the Perlis Bar. The Tuanku Raja Muda off ered valuable advice to the Perlis Bar, such as to uphold the dignity of the legal profession, to co-operate with the judiciary and legislative, to be honest at all times, and to carry out public service and take up pro bono matters.

Participants pose with Richard Wee, Mark Soh, and Saha Deva Arunasalam

Members look on as Tuanku and Raja Puan Muda cut the cake

Farewell, Tuan Rosli!

Members on board the Laksamana Cheng Ho

included a workshop and short training. The forum was attended by 15 members of the Perlis Bar, as well as 14 participants from agencies such as the Royal Malaysia Police, Jabatan Agama Islam Perlis, the Royal Malaysian Customs, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, and Universiti Teknologi MARA. The event was an eye-opener to the participants and we hope that the participants would now view incidents of crime diff erently and appreciate the importance of crime prevention.

STATE BAR NEWS


Selangor Bar CommitteeHi-Tea and Get-Together On 15 Oct 2014, the Conveyancing Practice Sub-committee organised a hi-tea and get-together with representatives from the Selangor Lands and Mines Offi ce, Federal Territories Director of Lands and Mines Offi ce, Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (“LHDN”), Bahagian Pinjaman Perumahan Perbendaharan Malaysia (“BPP”), and Malaysian Department of Insolvency (“MdI”). This event provided members an opportunity to air their grievances and obtain clarifi cation on problems related to conveyancing practice. More than 60 members attended the event, held at Kelab Golf Negara, Subang.

Meeting with PTGS Representatives from Bar Council and Selangor Bar Committee had a meeting with representatives from the Selangor Lands and Mines Offi ce (“PTGS”) and Selangor District/Land Offi ces on 23 Dec 2014 to discuss issues faced by members of the Bar and PTGS. The meeting was chaired by Dato’ Haji Kamarulzaman b Jamil, Director of PTGS.

50th AGM of the Selangor Bar The Selangor Bar held its 50th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) on 11 Feb 2015 at Kelab Shah Alam. The AGM commenced with a quorum of 150 members, and various issues were raised and addressed accordingly.

The new Chairman and Committee members were elected on that respective day.

KL vs Selangor Bar Games 2014 The eagerly-awaited annual KL vs Selangor Bar Games 2014 (“Games”) took place on 17 Jan 2015.

It was Selangor Bar’s turn to host this great tradition and by the same token, maintain our healthy sporting relationship with our friends

Reference Proceedings The Welfare & Human Rights Sub-committee in collaboration with the Courts, organised a Reference Proceedings on 5 Dec 2014 at the Shah Alam High Court in memory of the following departed Selangor Bar members: the late Chau Yam Yean, the late Che Khalid b Md Ali, and the late Imran Hadzalie b Abdul Hamid.

The Reference Proceedings was presided by three High Court Judges. The three Judges —YA Dato’ Suraya bt Othman, YA Tuan Collin Lawrence Sequerah, and YA Tuan Mohamed Zaini b Mazlan — each spoke and gave a

Members of the Judiciary and the Bar sharing a conversation

AGM: Question time

Selangor Bar Chairman, Vishnu Kumar, presenting the trophy to HR Dipendra, Chairman of the KL Bar

personalised address to the members of the Bar and more importantly, to the family members of the departed members. The High Court judges graced a small reception after that, and spoke to the family members of the departed members.

from KL Bar. The games played were Golf, Premier Soccer, Volleyball, Badminton, and Male Futsal. The post-Games dinner was held at Shah’s Village, where the Lall Singh Muker Challenge Trophy was presented to the Champions — KL Bar.

The Games were fi ercely contested by both Bars but at the end of the day, fair play and tired limbs (not to mention a few bad backs) won the day. We congratulate KL Bar for their win, but we remind KL Bar to assemble a better football team, as the Selangor Bar, despite having more senior players compared to KL Bar, were victorious by 4-1!

We hope that the Games will fl ourish even more in years to come, and would include more sports to further forge the friendship between both Bars.

STATE BAR NEWS


PRAXIS | OCT-DEC 2014X

The table below summarises the elevation of Judges from the months of September 2014 to March 2015, and the appointment of Judicial Commissioners in April 2015.

Elevation of Judges and Appointments of Judicial Commissioners

The Malaysian Bar congratulates the following Judges for their recent elevation.

Federal Court Judges

YA Dato’ Azahar b Mohamed, DIMP, KMN YA Datuk Zaharah bt Ibrahim, PJN, DPMS, SMS, KMN

Court of Appeal Judges

YA Dato’ Ahmadi b Haji Asnawi, PPT, SMS, DSSAYA Tan Sri Idrus b HarunYA Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, PMWYA Dr Badariah bt SahamidYA Tuan Ong Lam Kiat VernonYA Dato’ Abdul Rahman b Sebli, DIMP, PPBYA Dr Prasad Sandosham AbrahamYA Dato’ Zamani b A Rahim, DPMP

High Court in Malaya / Sabah and Sarawak

YA Datuk Abdul Karim b Abdul Jalil, DMSMYA Dato’ Wira Kamaludin b Md Said, DCSM, DMSM, DIMP, JSM, DSM, AMNYA Dato’ Haji Ahmad Nasfy b Haji Yasin, DIMP, PCMYA Tuan Teo Say Eng, KMN, AMNYA Puan Rosilah bt Yop, DJNYA Dato’ Hashim b HamzahYA Datin Hajah Azizah bt Hj NawawiYA Tuan Vazeer Alam b Mydin MeeraYA Datuk Douglas Cristo Primus Sikayun, PGDK

The Malaysian Bar congratulates the following for their recent appointment as Judicial Commissioners.YA Dr Haji Alwi b Haji Abdul Wahab YA Tuan Ahmad b BacheYA Dato’ Mohd Firuz b Jaff rilYA Tuan Mohd Nazlan b Mohd GhazaliYA Tuan Gabriel Gumis Humen

The Federal Court

No Name of Judge Date of Appointment

1 YA Dato’ Azahar b Mohamed 12 Sept 2014

2 YA Datuk Zaharah bt Ibrahim 16 Feb 2015

Court of Appeal

1 YA Dato’ Ahmadi b Haji Asnawi 12 Sept 2014

2 YA Tan Sri Idrus b Harun 12 Sept 2014

3 YA Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan 12 Sept 2014

4 YA Dr Badariah bt Sahamid 12 Sept 2014

5 YA Tuan Ong Lam Kiat Vernon 12 Sept 2014

6 YA Dato’ Abdul Rahman b Sebli 12 Sept 2014

7 YA Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham 12 Sept 2014

8 YA Dato’ Zamani b A Rahim 16 Feb 2015

High Court in Malaya / Sabah and Sarawak

1 YA Datuk Abdul Karim b Abdul Jalil 12 Sept 2014

2 YA Dato’ Wira Kamaludin b Md Said 12 Sept 2014

3 YA Dato’ Haji Ahmad Nasfy b Haji Yasin

12 Sept 2014

4 YA Tuan Teo Say Eng 12 Sept 2014

5 YA Puan Rosilah bt Yop 12 Sept 2014

6 YA Dato’ Hashim b Hamzah 12 Sept 2014

7 YA Datin Hajah Azizah bt Hj Nawawi 12 Sept 2014

1 YA Tuan Vazeer Alam b Mydin Meera 16 Feb 2015

2 YA Datuk Douglas Cristo Primus Sikayun

16 Feb 2015

No Judicial Commissioner Date of Appointment

1 YA Dr Haji Alwi b Haji Abdul Wahab 10 Apr 2015

2 YA Tuan Ahmad b Bache 10 Apr 2015

3 YA Dato’ Mohd Firuz b Jaff ril 10 Apr 2015

4 YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan b Mohd Ghazali

10 Apr 2015

5 YA Tuan Gabriel Gumis Humen 10 Apr 2015

EEEELLLLEEEVVAATTIIOONN OOFF JJUUDDDGGGEEESSSS


Cops Will Use Old Sedition Act till Amendments Gazetted, IGP Says

Under a barrage of criticism over recent arrests under the Sedition Act 1948,Inspector-General of Police (“IGP”) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar clarifi ed that the police will continue to take action based on the 1948 law until the amendments passed in Parliament on 9 Apr 2015, are gazetted.

The Bill to amend the Sedition Act 1948 was passed on a simple majority following a voice vote at 2:30 am, after a record marathon debate for over 14 hours. It was subjected to one bloc vote at the second reading that ended with 108 Members of Parliament for and 79 against. The amendments grant the authorities wider jurisdiction to take action on speech or activities that are seen as seditious in nature. ~ Malay Mail Online

Malaysia Prime Minister Defends Himself against Mounting Criticism

Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak has defended himself against a slew of criticisms over corruption scandals and a crackdown on civil liberties, brushing aside suggestions that he should step down. In an interview on TV3’s Soal Jawab talk show late Thursday night, Dato’ Sri Najib stated: “I was elected by my party, and by the people of this country, to lead them. As such, I am answerable only to the people — not to any one individual.”

Dato’ Sri Najib answered questions, including those raised by former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, such as the controversial 1Malaysia Development Board (“1MDB”), the case of murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) and the economy, during the one-hour interview. ~ AFP/Business Times/Star Online

1MDB Not Facing Insolvency, Najib Tells Parliament

According to Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Razak, the issue of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (“1MDB”) going bankrupt does not arise because the Finance Ministry-owned investment fund has paid off its recently due loans.

Dato’ Sri Najib provided a parliamentary written reply, stating that 1MDB has repaid its RM2 billion loan to Malayan Banking Bhd (“Maybank”) and RHB Bank Bhd in February.

A special task force was formed on 25 Mar 2015, with regard to the RM42 billion debts accumulated by 1MDB. Its formation came after the Ministry of Finance admitted to have extended a RM950 million line of credit to 1MDB and that “of the RM950 million, RM600 million had been used” ~ The Malaysian Reserve

Bank Negara, MIT Sloan to Set Up Business School in KL

Bank Negara Malaysia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management (“MIT Sloan”) have entered into a 10-year collaboration to establish Asia School of Business (“ASB”) here.

In a statement, Bank Negara said that ASB was envisioned to be a premier business school, and would off er both degree and non-degree programmes to serve the needs of Asia and the broader global economy.

A permanent ASB campus would be built in the heart of Kuala Lumpur’s business district, but in the meantime, ASB would be located in Bank Negara’s Sasana Kijang. ~ Bernama/Star Online

Petronas, Bank Negara Top Ideal Employers

Petronas and Bank Negara Malaysia ranked as top ideal employers in Malaysia for those studying engineering and business respectively, according to Universum Top 100 Ideal Employers student survey.

Other top ideal employers in the engineering category following Petronas are Shell, Sime Darby Bhd, SapuraKencana Petroleum Bhd, Schlumberger, Tenaga Nasional Bhd, Malaysia Airlines, Gamuda Bhd, Google and the BMW Group.

While in the business category following Bank Negara Malaysia are Petronas, Lembaga Tabung Haji, Sime Darby, Google, Maybank, AirAsia, Malaysia Airlines, Bursa Malaysia and Khazanah Nasional Bhd. ~ Star Online

NEWS


Malaysia News

India’s Supreme Court Strikes Down Law that Led to Facebook Arrests

India’s Supreme Court has struck down a provision of a law that made it illegal to spread “off ensive messages” on electronic devices such as posts on Facebook and other social media.

Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman, in his landmark decision, ruled that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was among others, unconstitutional, and had a “chilling” eff ect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.

The arrest of two young women in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook stating that Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader, inspired young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the law. She became the chief petitioner for the case, and was joined by other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology fi rm. ~ The Washington Post

Pakistani Court Orders Release of Main Suspect in 2008 Mumbai Attacks

The Lahore High Court has ordered the release of the main suspect in the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, drawing angry reaction from India. His release came less than a month after Pakistan authorities reordered his detention.

The High Court suspended his detention under the Maintenance of Public Order after the Pakistan Government failed to present sensitive records against him in court. Lakhvi was ordered to pay two surety bonds valued at 1 million rupees each (roughly USD $16,000) for his release.

Lakhvi and six others were charged with planning and executing the Mumbai attacks in November 2008 that left 166 people dead. ~ JURIST/The Hindu

Judge, Two Others Gunned Down in Milan Court Shooting

A judge, lawyer and co-defendant in a Milan Court were gunned down by an armed man on trial for bankruptcy fraud.

Claudio Giardiello, 57, escaped on a scooter but was captured by police in Vimercate, outside Milan. The dead were Judge Fernando Ciampi, and Giardiello’s former lawyer, Lorenzo Alberto Claris Appiani, who was in court as a witness in the case.

It was likely that Giardiello used a false pass to enter the court through a side door reserved for judges and lawyers. He then fi red at his lawyer and one of his co-defendants during the hearing, before heading to the fl oor below. There, he shot dead the judge, who had been trying to protect a female colleague.

The attack sent shockwaves across Italy. ~ AFP/Malay Mail Online

$135m Remains Unclaimed with Courts, Ministries

The Singapore Ministry of Finance (“MOF”) recently revealed that $134.5 million of uncollected pensions, immigration deposits and inheritance from relatives were among the types of unclaimed money left in a growing pile held by government agencies. That sum excludes money held by statutory boards.

The bulk of the monies — about $122.8 million at the end of last year — are held by the Ministry of Law on behalf of benefi ciaries of deceased estates, pawnbrokers and creditors of insolvent estates.

An MOF spokesman told The Straits Times that all government agencies, including statutory boards, are required to make all reasonable eff orts to return monies to the rightful owners promptly. ~ The Straits Times

Oklahoma Nitrogen Gas Execution Bill Gets Unanimous Yes Vote in State Senate

In the midst of a shortage of deadly drugs in US death penalty states, Oklahoma legislators believe they have found a foolproof and humane execution method: nitrogen gas hypoxia.

The Oklahoma Senate gave fi nal legislative approval and sent its governor a bill that would allow the new method to be used if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional or if the deadly drugs become unavailable. Critics however pointed out its concern that the method is untested, and its use to put animals to sleep is banned in some states.

Currently, executions are on hold in Oklahoma while the US Supreme Court considers whether the state’s current three-drug method of lethal injection is constitutional. Oklahoma and other death penalty states have been forced to look for new drugs or new sources of drugs, as many pharmaceutical companies — many of which are based in Europe — have stopped selling drugs for executions. Other death penalty states such as Tennessee passed a law last year to reinstate the electric chair if it can’t get lethal drugs, while Utah has reinstated the fi ring squad as a backup method. ~ The Guardian

Regional NewsNEWS


Data of Number of Events Organised by Bar Council/State Bar Committees

Organiser Cycle 2

Bar Council 67

Johore 15

Kedah 11

Kelantan 3

Kuala Lumpur 35

Malacca 8

Negeri Sembilan 2

Pahang 4

Penang 11

Perak 4

Perlis 2

Selangor 24

Terengganu 0

PSDC Advocacy Training

0

CPD Regional Training Series

9

Online Training 25

YBGK Training 24

TOTAL 244

Report on CPD Cycle 2: 1 July 2014 – 30 June 2016Data presented is based on information provided by organisers, that was processed and recorded as at 31 Mar 2015 by the CPD Department. This data may be subject to adjustment/modifi cation from time to time, based on updates provided by the diff erent providers. A total of 68 attendance records out of 477 events have been received to date (until 31 Mar 2015). A total of 409 events are pending receipt of the attendance data from organisers and are not included.

Data presented is based on recorded data for 18,694 Members and 1,990 pupils in chambers as at 31 March 2015.

Bar C

ounc

il

Joho

re

Kedah

Kelant

an

Kuala

Lum

pur

Mala

cca

Neger

i Sem

bilan

Pahan

g

Penan

gPer

akPer

lis

Selang

or

Tere

ngga

nu

PSDC Advo

cacy

Train

ing

CPD Reg

ional

Traini

ng S

eries

Online

Train

ing

YBGK Train

ing

67

15

11

3

35

8

2

4

11

4

2

24

0 0

9

25 24

CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (“CPD”)


Data of Number of Participants at Events Organised by Bar Council/State Bar Committees

Organiser Cycle 2

Bar Council 2,668

Johore 818

Kedah 100

Kelantan 0

Kuala Lumpur 708

Malacca 393

Negeri Sembilan 0

Pahang 0

Penang 428

Perak 178

Perlis 0

Selangor 443

Terengganu 0

PSDC Advocacy Training 0

CPD Regional Training Series 629

Online Training 165

YBGK Training 685

TOTAL 7,215

Bar Council

Johore

Kedah

Kelantan

Kuala Lumpur

Malacca

Negeri Sembilan

Pahang

Penang

Perak

Perlis

Selangor

Terengganu

PSDC Advocacy Training


Online Training

YBGK Training

2,668

818

100

0

708

393

0

0

0

0

0

428

178

443

629

165

685

Data of Number of Events Organised by Provider Categories

Accredited Courses Cycle 2

Commercial course providers

65

International organisations

0

Government organisations

18

Academic institutions 7

Non-governmental organisations

3

Professional bodies 16

In-house legal training 124

Legal Aid Centre 24


9

Bar Council, State Bars including Advocacy Training and Online Training

211

Total 477

Commercial course providersInternational organisationsGovernment organisationsAcademic institutionsNon-governmental organisations

Professional bodies

211

65

0187316

124

24

9

In-house legal trainingLegal Aid CentreCPD Regional Training SeriesBar Council, State Bars includingAdvocacy Training and Online Training



1

164

828790

165

357315

142

115

147

49

7042 28 25 22 37

18

193

267

83

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Data of Number of Participants at Events Organised by Provider Categories

Data of Member Participation based on Attainment of CPD points

No of CPD Points No of Members only

1 164

2 828

3 790

4 165

5 357

6 315

7 142

8 115

9 83

10 147

11 49

12 70

13 42

14 28

15 25

16 22

17 (17-20) 37

18 (21-30) 18

19 (31-40) 193

20 (41-50) 2

22 (more than 60 points) 67

Zero CPD points 15,035

Total 18,694

Accredited Courses Cycle 2

Commercial course providers 1,658

International organisations 0

Government organisations 8

Academic institutions 30

Non-governmental organisations

47

Professional bodies 251

In-house legal training 1,090

Legal Aid Centre 685

CPD Regional Training Series 629

Bar Council, State Bars including Advocacy Training and Online Training

5,901

Total 10,299

5,901

1,658

083047

251

1,090

685

629Commercial courseprovidersInternationalorganisationsGovernmentorganisationsAcademic institutionsNon-governmentalorganisationsProfessional bodiesIn-house legal trainingLegal Aid CentreCPD RegionalTraining SeriesBar Council,State Bars includingAdvocacy Trainingand Online Training

Total Members who have attained one CPD point or more: 3,659 which amounts to 19.5%Total number of Members who have attained 16 or more CPD points on Cycle 2 based on recorded data: 339



Data of Pupil Participation based on Attainment of CPD points

1

6

106

73

27

22

87

14

32

26

1314

6

18

7

10

40 08

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

No of CPD Points

No of Pupils in

Chambers only

1 6

2 106

3 22

4 73

5 27

6 87

7 14

8 32

9 26

10 8

11 9

12 13

13 14

14 6

15 18

16 7

17 (17-20) 10

18 (21-30) 6

19 (31-40) 4

20 (41-50) 0

22 (more than 60 points)

0

Zero CPD points

1,502

Total 1,990

Total pupils in chambers who have attained one CPD point or more: 488 which amounts to 24.5%Total number of pupils in chambers who have attained 16 or more CPD points on Cycle 2 based on recorded data: 27

If you would like to know more about the activities carried out by the CPD Department,please visit their website:

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cpd/



New Admissions to the Malaysian Bar(As at time of publication)

NO NAME FIRM NAME DATE CALLED

TO THE BAR

1 Aadilah Binti BaharudinMarina Mohamed & Associates

31-Oct-14

2 Aaron Siva JR Vaitilingam Edwin Lewis 14-Nov-14

3 Abdul Faizzani Bin Abdul Aziz Taqrir Akramin & Co 22-Jan-15

4 Abdul Hakim B Ab. KeramEdlin Ghazaly & Associates

30-Jan-15

5 Abu Arsalnaa Bin Zainal Abidin Gulam & Wong 16-Jan-15

6 Adelin Phung Pui Lin Rashid Zulkifl i 12-Dec-14

7 Adi Farris Bin Abdul MuradMah Weng Kwai & Associates

24-Oct-14

8 Ahmad Idzfar Bin Che Azhar Idzhar Azhar & Associates 16-Nov-06

9 Ahmad Mukmin Aimi Bin Azmi Hafi z Zabir & Partners 25-Jul-14

10Ahmad Sarjie Izmal Bin Ahmad Mustafa Kamal

Lavinia Dell Akbar Tee & Associates

9-Jan-15

11 Ahmad Shahrir Bin BaharuddinThe Law Offi ces of Shahrir & Co

29-Nov-13

12 Ahmad Sukeri Bin MohamedAhmad Sukeri & Associates

30-Jan-15

13 Ahmad Zulfi kri Bin Ibrahim Raja Darryl & Loh 19-Sep-14

14 Aieshah Nadia Bt Masdar Adam Abdullah & Mani 13-Feb-15

15Ajay Sharma Thakur a/l Rumesh Kumar

Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

13-Dec-13

16 Amirah Hamizah Binti Abdul Halim Dennis Nik & Wong 12-Oct-14

17 Amirul Asraf Bin Adam Faizah Bazid & Partners 31-Oct-14

18 Andrea Eva WambeckDamian S L Yeo & L C Goh

17-Jul-14

19 Anthony Tan Choon Ann Michael Chen & Co 12-Dec-14

20 Aqeeb Lizalman Nordin B Zamery Aqeeb & Co 5-Dec-14

21 Arielle Chong Lynn Wei Gan & Zul 21-Nov-14

22 Asiah Binti Bin Yamin Adham & Associates 22-Jan-15

23 Asmira Binti MahmudTawfeek Badjenid & Partners

18-Jul-14

24 Athina Klaywa Sim Gibb & Co 13-Aug-14

25 Atiqah Binti Abu Hassan Cheow Wee & Mai 24-Oct-14

26 Ayuni Binti Azman Yee How & Tan 13-Mar-15

27 Azamuddin Bin Abd Aziz Azamuddin & Co 26-Mar-94

28 Azreen Binti Shahri Nazri Azmi Islinda 7-Nov-14

29 Balakrishnan a/l Raman Kutty R K Bala & Associates 7-Dec-14

30 Banu Priya a/p Chandran Nor Affi za & Co 18-Sep-14

31 Bavani a/p Kasivan Imavathi & Company 11-Dec-14

32 Cassandra Soo Jien Li Adnan Sundra & Low 14-Nov-14

33 Chai Phing Zhou Shearn Delamore & Co 12-Dec-14

34 Chan Seok Peng Adnan Sundra & Low 7-Nov-14

35 Chan Seok Peng Adnan Sundra & Low 7-Nov-14

36 Chang Yen May Skrine 9-Jan-15

37 Chen Yu Szen Peter Ling & Co 7-Nov-14

38 Cheng Stephanie Raja Darryl & Loh 12-Dec-14

39 Cheong Pui Mann Soo & Co 29-Aug-14

40 Chin Ee Lin Raja Darryl & Loh 5-Dec-14

41 Chu Yun Ling Eunice Raja Darryl & Loh 14-Nov-14

42 Connie Lau Suang Suan Wong & Partners 5-Dec-14

43 Daniel Bock Jr WeiYC Pang Chong & Gordon

16-Jan-15

44 Daniel Tang Mun Kin Grace & Co 24-Oct-14

45 Derren Kuan Yong ChienTan Choon Hong & Associates

31-Oct-14

46 Dev Sundram P S Ranjan & Co 30-Jan-15

47 Diana Tan Koon FongMimirahayu Hanief Heng & Partners

27-Feb-15

48 Dinesh a/l Muthal Thillainathan & Associates 5-Dec-14

49 Ding Cheng Law Tay Ibrahim & Partners 12-Dec-14

50 Eow Ee Von C.S. Tang & Co 31-Oct-14

51 Esther Hii Kim Hui Gan & Zul 14-Nov-14

52Fahrhanah Nisshaa Bt S. K. Syed Ambrul Zaman

Palani 28-Nov-14

53 Fakhrul Redha Bin Paridul Adras Scivetti & Associates 16-Jan-15

54 Farah Nadira Binti Abdul Ghani Hazerah & Partners 31-Oct-14

55 Farah Nasuha Binti Sudarman Shearn Delamore & Co 13-Feb-15

56 Farhana Binti TupaniNor Shahid Abd Malik & Associates

25-Jan-15

57 Farhanna Binti Mizei @ Termizi Joe Shahrul Husni & Co 4-Apr-14

58 Fariza Milaqurshiah Binti Mahmud Siti Munirah & Co 22-Jan-10

59 Fatin Afi qah Binti mohamad Shah Othman Hashim & Co 30-Jan-15

60 Fieza Fazlin Binti Fandi Fieza Fazlin Fandi & Co 11-Dec-14

61 Gan Hwee Theng Chiong & Partners 19-Jan-15

62 Gan Li Von Ferida Hassan Low & Ng 22-Aug-14

63 Gayatri a/p Ganason C.C.Choo Hazila & Teong 12-Dec-14

64 Giffi n Lee Weon Li Azmi & Associates 12-Dec-14

65 Goh Chin Han Azim Tunku Farik & Wong 27-Feb-15

66 Gwee Chai Lian Raja Darryl & Loh 30-Jan-15

67 Haajar Binti Mohd PuadAbdul Raman Saad & Associates

12-Feb-15

68 Hafi zah Binti Hanapi Nik Saghir & Ismail 30-Jan-15

69 Hafi zul Faris Bin Che Razlan Ghazali Ismail & Co 26-Feb-15

70Halimah Saadiyah Binti Abdul Rahman

Mohamed Ridza & Co 16-Jan-15

71 Harish Nair Raja Darryl & Loh 27-Feb-15

72 Hasnida Binti Ismail @Nawang Zuraidah Naziha & Fadly 15-Jan-15

73 Hee Hui Ting Shearn Delamore & Co 13-Mar-15

74 Hisyam Hedzril Bin Nor HashimThe Law Chambers of Hedzril

9-Jan-15

75 Hoo Ee Leen Naqiz & Partners 16-Jan-15

76 Ily Zalikha Binti ShahrinanBasharuddin Fa'izie Iskandar

30-Jan-15

77Intan Noornazreen Masliana Binti Mohd Nazari

Fazlina Amalina & Co 28-Aug-14

78 Intan Suraiya Binti Abu BakarMurali B Pillai & Associates

9-Jan-14

79 Ismail Bin BadiuzzamanIsmail Badiuzzaman & Associates

14-Dec-09

80 Iylia Afi qah Binti Ismail Iylia Ismail & Co 5-Jul-13

81 Izzati Maria Binti Othman Dennis Nik & Wong 21-Sep-14

82 Jacenta James Azman Davidson & Co 9-Jan-15

83 Jasmit Singh a/l Kaka Singh Sudesh & Associates 16-Jan-15

84Jasrinderjit Singh Dhillon a/l Gurmel Singh

Wong & Partners 5-Dec-14

85 Jauhariatul Amira Binti Johar Raziah & Partners 18-Dec-14

86 Jeremy Chong Jan Wai Chris Lim Su Heng 9-Jan-15

87 John Rolan Fernandez Christopher & Lee Ong 16-Jan-15

88 Joshua Rishi AndranJerald Gomez & Associates

12-Dec-14

89 Khairul Anwar Bin Jamil Zulpadli & Edham 12-Dec-14

90 Khairunnisa Binti Abdul Malek Zafri & Partners 31-Oct-14

91 Kharen jit Kaur A/P La Chin SinghRohani Soon & Associates

24-Jun-14

92 Khazatul Naima Binti Abd Talib Sarina Anija & Co 12-Feb-15

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


93 Khor Wan Yin Jeff Leong Poon & Wong 16-Jan-15

94 Ko Jie Yang Gan Partnership 7-Nov-14

95 Kodimalar a/p RajagopalKhairil Sani, Gobal & Beng Tatt

5-Dec-14

96 Koh Goh Yuan Zain & Co 21-Nov-14

97 Koh Wen Xin Tan & Ng 24-Oct-14

98 Kong Huey Teing Azhar & Wong 27-Feb-15

99 Ku Muhammad Bin Ku Cheek Noraisyah Asreen & Co 6-Dec-13

100 Lai Chai Voon Chooi & Co 27-Feb-15

101 Lai Jian Yi Adnan Sundra & Low 30-Jan-15

102 Lai Kin Loong Alan Lai & Co 15-Aug-14

103 Lai Man Cheah MC Lai & Co 13-Jan-15

104 Lau Cia LengKoh Kim Leng & Company

24-Jun-14

105 Lau Jian Quan Wong 31-Oct-14

106 Lau Yin Chuen Y N Foo & Partners 13-Feb-15

107 Lee Boon Koon Raja Darryl & Loh 20-Aug-10

108 Lee Pei Yin Jeff Leong Poon & Wong 10-Oct-14

109 Lee Theng Ying Dennis Nik & Wong 7-Nov-14

110 Lian Wai Hsian Jeff Leong Poon & Wong 5-Sep-14

111 Liew Wee NieLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

9-Jan-15

112 Lim Chia Tchi Audrey Raja Darryl & Loh 5-Dec-14

113 Lim May Zhen Zaid Ibrahim & Co 16-Jan-15

114 Lim Si Qin M K Chen & Leong 10-Oct-14

115 Ling Leun Lee Ferida Hassan Low & Ng 23-Jul-14

116 Ling Yih MingRavi Moorthi, Noriza Mala & Partners

9-Jan-15

117 Lisa Khalilah Binti Khalili Hamidi Izwan & Co 27-Jul-12

118 Liyana Farhana Binti Mohd Padzli Apandi Ali & Co 21-Nov-14

119 Lo Mei Na W D Loh & Associates 11-Nov-11

120 Lo Siaw Ching B L Chong & P Y Tay 20-Jun-13

121 Low Huey Theng Adnan Sundra & Low 12-Dec-14

122 Low Shing Wei Adnan Sundra & Low 5-Dec-14

123 Low Wei Kah Kenny & Low 1-Oct-12

124 Low Yu Jie Yu Jie 7-Nov-14

125 Low Zhen Yee Crystabel Kadir Andri & Partners 12-Dec-14

126 Luqman Hakim Bin Azaharin Abu Bakar & Yong 28-Nov-14

127 Marieta Binti Abdull Hamid PW Tan & Associates 10-Feb-12

128 Masni Binti Mohd Adnan Mushida & Co 9-Jan-15

129 Mazlinda Binti Mahmud Karthig Shan 22-Jan-15

130 Michelle Marie MamanLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

9-Jan-15

131 Michelle Wong Sook KingLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

21-Nov-14

132 Mohamad Affan Bin Mohd YaakobTawfeek Badjenid & Partners

22-Jan-15

133 Mohamad Raimi b Ab Rahim Anwar Ismail & Associates 3-Aug-12

134 Mohamad Zamzam Bin Ramli Zaid Ibrahim & Co 25-Jan-15

135Mohamed Nizam Bin Mohamed Fazil

Abdul Rahman & Partners 17-May-13

136 Mohammad Izwan Bin AzmiKhairul Mukhtar & Izwan Azmi

5-Nov-12

137 Mohd Afi f Sham Bin ShamsuriKamaruzaman Arif Amran & Chong

10-Oct-14

138 Mohd Fakhrul Fikri Bin Mokhtar Fikri & Associates 18-Dec-14

139Mohd Hanafi Firdhaus Bin Abd Latif

Syed Ibrahim & Co 6-Dec-13

140 Mohd Khairul Azly Bin NasarudinManjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners

31-Oct-14

141Mohd Khairul Azri Bin Mohd Badroldin

S Ravichandaran & Anuar 16-Jan-15

142Mohd Roshan Bin Noor Hadi Prebagaran

Saranjit Singh 31-Oct-14

144 Mohd Shahril Bin Madisa Syahrul & Hamidi 10-Oct-14

145 Mohd Syaufi q Bin Abdul Latif J. Lee & Associates 5-Dec-14

146 Muhamad Afi q Bin Abu Bakar Jacob Goldie S.S. Chew 14-Nov-14

147 Muhamad Hisham Bin Marzuki C.Sukumaran & Co 16-Jan-15

148Muhamad Rifhan Bin Mohamed Khan

Wrigglesworth & Co 30-Oct-14

149Muhammad Abbad Bin Abdul Wahid

Aziz Hon Annuar 9-Jan-15

150 Muhammad Aiman Bin AbdullahAbu Zahar, Syed Mohd Fuad & Partners

30-Jan-15

151 Muhammad Akmal Bin AzmiS. Ravichandaran & Anuar

22-Jan-15

152Muhammad Dwi Harsanto Bin Djamal

Yap Liew & Partners 19-Sep-14

153Muhammad Ezzaq Emir Bin Mokhtar

Azilan Suhaila & Associates

18-Dec-14

154 Muhammad Faiz Bin Abdullah Gan & Zul 22-Feb-13

155Muhammad Fuad Syazwan Bin Ramli

Shukor Baljit & Partners 26-Jun-14

156Muhammad Habibullah Bin Mohammad Shah

Jamadi Fauzi Firdaus Abdullah

21-Nov-14

157Muhammad Izzat Asyraf Bin Maswar

Kesavan 10-Oct-14

158 Muhammad Izzat Bin Fauzan Mureli Navaratnam 27-Feb-15

159 Muhammad Siddiq Bin Masror Kadir Andri & Partners 14-May-10

160Muhammad Syafi q Amani Bin Md Sabri

C N Rajan & Co 16-Jan-15

161 Nabilah Binti Din Hazwan & Co 16-Jan-15

162 Nadia Azreen Binti Azizi Azhar & Wong 9-Jan-15

163 Nadiatul Najwa Binti JalaldinLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

13-Feb-15

164 Narinder Singh A/L Kishmira Singh YY Tan & Partners 30-Jan-15

165 Nashvinder Singh Gill Sharif & Khoo 7-Nov-14

166 Nelson Wong Yi Hau Abraham Ooi & Partners 9-Jan-15

167 Ng Bee Ya Beh & Associates 30-Jan-15

168 Ng Han Teong Jasbeer Nur & Lee 13-Nov-14

169 Ng Sey Ming Christopher & Lee Ong 4-Oct-07

170 Ng Wei Rong Aisya-Toon & Co 6-Mar-15

171 Ng Wei Ying Gideon Tan Razali Zaini 18-Dec-14

172 Ng Woan Na Azmi & Associates 18-Dec-14

173 Ng Zhi YingArthur Wang Lian & Associates

9-Jan-15

174 Nicholas Lai Yip Soon Ewe Chong & Khoo 9-Jan-15

175 Nik Suhanis Binti Nik Ishak Zamri Anuar & Norsiah 8-May-14

176 Nishawani a/p PaskaranLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

14-Nov-14

177 Noor Adlina Binti Hj Badri Natasha & Co 10-Oct-14

178 Noor Aini Binti Zainal Azlan & Partners 7-Nov-14

179 Noor Nadira Binti Rosnan Taye & Co 25-Sep-14

180 Noor Nasyrah Binti Samir Kanesalingam & Co 5-Dec-14

181 Noor Raihan Binti Abd Talib NS Leong & ST Low 11-Oct-13

182 Noor Shakinah Binti SamianFirdaus Zakaris & Associates

7-Aug-14

183 Nor Armiza Binti Norkamal Zamri Idrus & Co 4-Jul-14

184 Nor Armiza Binti Norkamal Zamri Idrus & Co 4-Jul-13

185 Nor Balqis Binti ArdiansaThomas Ong Leong & Associates

31-Oct-14

186 Nor Emellia Binti Mohd Shariff Arianti Dipendra Jeremiah 27-Feb-15

187 Nor Izdiyani Binti Musawir Alvin John & Partners 30-Jan-15

188 Nor Lyiana Asyeken Binti Hasadid Nagarajan Peri & Co 18-Jul-14

189 Noradibah Binti Khalidin Norasmadi & Noraini 16-Jan-15

190 Noraidah Binti Mohmad NorSoo Thien Ming & Nashrah

16-Jan-15

191 Norain Binti Md AdibFatimah Yong & Associates

30-Sep-14

192 Norashida Bt Pandi Nik Saghir & Ismail 31-Jan-15

193 Noraziah Binti Abdul Aziz Kean Chye & Sivalingam 30-Jan-15

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


194 Norfarah Binti Zulkornain M.Sia Naqiz & Partners 5-Dec-14

195 Nur 'Aqeela Binti Faisal Izral Partnership 22-Aug-14

196 Nur Ashikin Binti Azid Wong Law & Ti 18-Jul-14

197 Nur Atiqah Binti Ahmad ZairulLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

13-Feb-14

198 Nur Ellina Binti Jefri DinEdlin Ghazaly & Associates

5-Dec-14

199 Nur Farahana Binti Said Zalil Mohd & Partners 30-Jan-15

200 Nur Izzati Binti Kamarul Zaki T.Vijay & Co 10-Oct-14

201 Nur Shuhadah Binti Safruddin Norasmadi & Noraini 18-Jul-14

202 Nur Syazwani Binti Azlan B C Tan & Co 7-Nov-14

203 Nur Wahidah Binti Alis Lee Boon Peng & Co 30-Jan-15

204 Nur Zakiyah Binti ShamsudinAznur Mazwin & Associates

3-Dec-08

205 Nuraini Binti Daud Ali Cheah Teh & Su 9-Jan-15

206 Nurdiana Binti Zainal Azahar Zainal Azahar & Co 19-Dec-14

207 Nurfazreen Hazrina Binti Rahim Scivetti & Associates 16-Jan-15

208 Nurhidayu Binti Ngatderi Sahril Niza & Co 21-Sep-14

209 Nurul Adeela Syafi qa Binti AnnuarAbdul Raman Saad & Associates

8-Jan-15

210 Nurul Akrimi Binti Shukri Faridzah & Co 30-Jan-15

211 Nurul Athirah Binti Ramli Azhar Wan Tariq & Co 18-Dec-14

212 Nurul Azira Binti Abdul Aziz Lalchand & Nawawi 22-Jan-15

213Nurul Fadhilah Binti Che Mahmood

Zameri & Associates 30-Oct-14

214 Nurul Hafi zah Binti DamanhuriAniza Varghese & Partners

7-Nov-14

215Nurul Hidayah Binti Mohammad Asri

Mohd Ali & Co 11-Sep-14

216 Nurul Intan Syafi naz Binti Razali Manjit & Co 30-Jan-15

217 Nurul Kamilah Binti Hanif Kondon GH Tee &Co 12-Dec-14

218 Nurul Nadia Binti Shariful Azman Jahaverdeen & Co 28-Mar-14

219 Nurul Najwa Binti A Hamid Imavathi & Company 6-Feb-15

220 Nurul Sakinah Binti MazlanMimirahayu Haniff Heng & Partners

16-Nov-14

221 Nurul Shakila Binti Ibrahim Low & Lee 22-Jan-15

222 Patrick Peck Chee Yang L Y Lu & Co 14-Nov-14

223 Pauline Teh Li Lin Kadir Andri & Partners 9-Jan-15

224 Pavitra Shankar Ranjit Singh & Yeoh 19-Dec-14

225 Premalosani a/p Arivanthan Arnold Andrew & Co 21-Nov-14

226 Pung Qing Wei Azmi & Associates 12-Dec-14

227Radhiah Hanim Binti Mohd Naim Junahur Ridzar

PS Wong & Co 21-Jan-15

228 Rafeeqa Isma Binti Rahmad Lee Ong & Partners 13-Jan-15

229 Rafi nie Binti Ramli Koo Chin Nam & Co 16-Jan-15

230 Raja Irfan Rithwan Bin Raja Badrol Zul Rafi que & Partners 16-Jan-15

231 Rajsurian Pillai a/l Chellappa Pillai Jenny Yap & Associates 5-Dec-14

232 Rasyidatul Nur Rusydiah Bt Rashid Rithaudeen & Aziz 11-Feb-15

233 Raymond a/l Sabastian F L Foo & Co 31-Oct-14

234 Rayna Jayant GandhiLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

14-Nov-14

235 Saipul Baharim Bin Abd Rahman Omar Affandi & Teh 16-Jan-15

236 Sajani a/p Kasavan Desmond Chan & Co 5-Sep-14

237 Sandhya a/p Gopi Pillay Kadir Andri & Partners 9-Jan-15

238Sarifah Norhafi shah Binti Said Abas

Adenan & Associates 9-Jan-15

239 Sarina Binti MohamedMohamed Noor Amran & Yoon

17-Jun-94

240 Sashi a/p Ganesan G.Sashi & Associates 5-Dec-11

241 Sathiya Laksmi a/l GunasakaranChambers of Jesvant Singh

24-Jan-14

242 Shafi naz Binti Abdul RaniKamaruzaman Arif Amran & Chong

28-Nov-14

243 Shahril Azmi Bin Ab Aziz Mohd Amin & Chin 11-Jul-14

244 Shanaz Azwin binti MuztazaLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

9-Jan-15

245 Sharan Kaur GillLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

24-Oct-14

246Sharifah Nor Azizah Binti Syed Abdul Rahman

Sharifah Azizah & Co 28-Nov-14

247 Sharifah Nur Ashiqin Bt Syed Alwi Keh Yen Ng & Partners 7-Nov-14

248Sharifah Zuraidah Bt Syed Kamarul Bahrin

Presgrave & Mathews 9-Jan-15

249 Sharon Koh Chih Ling Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong 19-Sep-14

250 Shazlinaah Binti Kamaludeen Azmi & Associates 19-Sep-14

251 Siti Khadijah Bt Bahaudin Khadijah Bahaudin 7-Dec-14

252 Siti Mardhiana Binti Mohammad Mardhiana & Associates 11-Oct-13

253 Siti Norhafi fi e Binti Mohd Samri Khamdan & Co 9-May-14

254 Siti Nur Amirah Binti ShamsuddinAbdul Razak Muhidin & Associates

11-Feb-15

255 Siti Nur Hasnas Bt Jaffri Azra & Associates 6-Feb-15

256 Siti Syarfa' Alhabashi LC Ng & Associates 30-Jan-15

257 Siti Zubaidah Binti Jemadi Farid Wong & Wee 7-Aug-14

258 Stephanie Khaw Chia Ling Khaw Ewe Seng & Co 28-Nov-14

259 Sudhir Kumar a/l Raj Kumar Azim Tunku Farik & Wong 5-Dec-14

260 Suhaidah Binti Sulong Toong & Co 21-Sep-14

261Sukhjit Singh Gill a/l Darshan Singh

Darshan Syed Amarjit & Partners

19-Jun-14

262Suraya Azizah Binti Ahmad Nasaruddin

Edlin Ghazaly & Associates

21-Nov-14

263 Sutina Binti Sujeno Tan Chap & Associates 24-Oct-14

264 Syafi qah Binti Abdul Ghafar Wong Beh & Toh 16-Jan-15

265 Syafi qah Binti Mohamed Teo Lim & Comi 26-Feb-15

266 Syazwani Binti Rozlan Rao & Kamal 6-Feb-15

267Syed Muhammad Adeeb Barakbah

Low Vignesh & Co 22-Aug-14

268 Tan Chiew May Zul Rafi que & Partners 12-Dec-14

269 Tan Hao Wei Zul Rafi que & Partners 27-Feb-15

270 Tan Jin Yee Wong & Partners 12-Dec-14

271 Teh Peik Yee Sheng Lee Law Offi ce 9-Jan-15

272 Tan Soon Ying Sitham & Associates 28-Nov-14

273 Tan Xian BingPearly Ng Soh & Associates

5-Sep-14

274 Tan Xiang Yi Lee Sok Wah & Co 5-Dec-14

275 Tan Yao Feng Teh Kim Teh Salina & Co 16-Nov-14

276 Tan Yen HongLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

16-Jan-15

277 Tatvaruban a/l Subramaniam Skrine 30-Jan-15

278 Tatyana Aspen Abdul RahmanLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

12-Dec-14

279 Teeba a/p Solamalai @ Solaimalai Simon Tong & Partners 25-Jul-14

280 Teh Wei Hong Tan Ng & Ong 21-Nov-14

281 Teh Yu Yu Zaid Ibrahim & Co 30-Jan-15

282 Teh Yue WenLee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

9-Jan-15

283 Teh Yun Siew Naqiz & Partners 16-Jan-15

284 Teo Hock Song Jacqueline Lee & Co 15-Aug-14

285 Teong Yee Lin YM Chin & Partners 5-Dec-14

286 Tham Kar Mun N K Tan & Rahim 31-Oct-14

287 Tharrsynee Subramaniam Joseph & Partners 27-Feb-15

288 Thulasy Suppiah a/p Suppiah Rashid Zulkifl i 21-Nov-14

289 Tracy Tan Shuk Sien Christopher & Lee Ong 12-Dec-14

290 Tuang Geng Yong Kadir Andri & Partners 9-Jan-15

291 Umi Farhanah Binti Mohd Nasir Raja Riza & Associates 9-Jan-15

292 Ummi Haterah Binti Mat Desa Azmi Rahim & Co 13-Jan-15

293 Viknesvaran a/l Purnshatman P.V. Esvar & Co 16-May-08

294 Wafa Binti Zainal Abidin Rithaudeen & Aziz 11-Feb-15

295 Wan Masni Binti Wan Ismail Aisyah Alami 29-Aug-14

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


List of Departed Members(As at time of publication)

SĲ IL

ANNUAL

NO

DEPARTED MEMBERS DATE OF DEATH

Y/28 Yeoh Kian Teik 5 Nov 2014

S/1816 Samsulbahri Bin Setaffa 25 Nov 2014

R/874 Ravindran G S Paramasivan 7 Dec 2014

S/1093 Suresh Thanabalasingam 13 Dec 2014

N/1453 Norisah Binti Abu Aman 18 Dec 2014

M/1686 Mohd Rosalman Fithri Bin Salim 31 Dec 2014

A/131 Abdul Malik Bin Mohd Salleh 31 Dec 2014

T/827 Tay Siang Hong 30 Jan 2015

M/1018 Mazni Binti Hassin 1 Feb 2015

M/495 M Mogan Mariappan 13 Feb 2015

S/231 Sethu Arumugam 24 Feb 2015

A/30 Ahmad Nordin Bin Md Amin 28 Feb 2015

T/1357 Tan Zhi Chao 6 Mar 2015

M/1300 Mohanapi @ Sauffee Afandi B Mohamad 11 Mar 2015

S/2356 Shamsufl an Shamsuddin Bin Alias 12 Apr 2015

M/63 Mohd Nashir B Hussin 7/5/2015

M/366 Mohamad Bustaman Bin Abdullah 23/5/2015

Y/49 Yip Fook Thai 23/5/2015

M/623 Mohd Khairol Bin Mohd Ariff 11/5/2015

S/2880S Atthiyasilan A/L S A Shamugam 24/5/2015

C/117 Choong Phooi Ying 29/5/2015

A/992 Adri Amrul Bin Ariffi n 10/6/2015

Notice Regarding Bar Council Circulars and E-BlastsThe Bar Council Secretariat issues approximately 30 circulars and e-blasts each month. Because of the high cost involved, the practice of issuing hard-copy circulars came to an end in 2008. Today, we issue less than fi ve hard-copy circulars a year; the rest are sent by email alone.

Based on our records, there is still a large number of Members who are not on our e-mail mailing list, and hence not receiving the Bar Council circulars and e-blasts. This is an issue of concern since circulars are the

primary means by which we communicate with Members, to keep you informed of important developments aff ecting the legal profession, as well as information on events and benefi ts for Members.

Similarly, the Malaysian Bar website contains a wealth of information for Members. Certain areas of the website are only accessible if you have a login ID and password.

In order to be added to our e-mail mailing list and to register for full access to the website, please

send an email to us at [email protected] or contact us by telephone at 03-2050 2021.

296 Wan Fazila Salmi Bt Wan Yaacob Rashid Asari & Co 28-Feb-14

297 Wan Munira Binti SharudinMohd Yusof Endut & Associates

15-Aug-14

298 Wan Najla Binti Ahmad Yuri Kevin & Co 9-Jan-15

299 Wan Nor Idayu Binti Wan Jusoh Adli Aznam & Akram 4-Sep-14

300Wan Nur Fariha Najwa Wan Azaham

No Firm 10-Oct-14

301Wan Nurul Jannah Binti Wan Mohamad Azmi

Wan Zainuddin & Co 18-Jun-14

302 Wee Xu-Yee Soh Hayati & Co 13-Feb-15

303 Wong Jing Yun Albar & Partners 21-Nov-14

304 Wong Kah MingDavid Gurupatham & Koay

21-Nov-14

305 Wong Ling Yah Wong & Partners 5-Dec-14

306 Yap Han-Yuan Gan Partnership 9-Jan-15

307Yap Kim Mui @ Sarah Margaret Yap

Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners

27-Feb-15

308 Yap Pak ChungTng Liew David Leon & Co

31-Oct-14

309 Yasmin Binti Omar Ramli Yusuf & Co 9-May-14

310 Yee Poh Choo Dennis Nik & Wong 30-Jan-15

311 Yee Xin Qian Skrine 30-Jan-15

312 Yuean Jin Han Tan Norizan & Associates 27-Aug-14

313 Yuvaraj a/l Sugapathy Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

7-Nov-14

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


Circular No 002/2015 | Qualifi ed Lawyers Transfer Scheme — An Overview and How to ApplyThe Qualifi ed Lawyers Transfer Scheme (“QLTS”) is a fast-track route that enables lawyers from other jurisdictions to be admitted as solicitors of England and Wales, by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”). Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 003/2015 | Arahan Penangguhan Pertukaran Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Bil 1/2015Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 004/2015 | Appeal for Donations to Assist Persons Aff ected by FloodsThe fl oods that hit several states caused tremendous devastation to the lives of hundreds of thousands in our country. Members of the Bar, particularly in Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu, were not spared, as many were adversely aff ected by the fl oods. We also received numerous reports of Members who have had to be evacuated and/or have suff ered loss, both professionally and personally. Due to the urgent nature of the need of aff ected Members for assistance, the Bar Council organised emergency supplies and funds to be sent to Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 005/2015 | Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2014 and Stamp Duty (Remission) (No 2) Order 2014Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 008/2015 | Amendment to Section 21B(1) of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 011/2015 | BNM’s Dedicated Website on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of TerrorismBank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”) informed us that it now has a dedicated website which provides the latest information on the law, subsidiary legislation, guidelines with regard to Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) policies, circulars, and relevant forms related to the AML/CFT framework. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 012/2015 | Compliance with Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Disclosure Requirements for Trust Accounts and Joint Accounts) Regulations 2012 Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 018/2015 | Invitation to Contribute to the Bar Council Orang Asli Defence FundThe Bar Council Committee on Orang Asli Rights (“COAR”) was established in 2010 to advocate the rights of the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli, particularly with respect to their customary lands, territories and resources. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 021/2015 | Amendment to Ruling 7.03 of the Rules and Rulings of the Bar CouncilAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 027/2015 | Service Bureaus E-Filing Charges at the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 029/2015 | Register of Mentors for Issues Relating to Practice ManagementThe Bar Council Small Firms Committee has compiled a Register of Mentors, which is now accessible on the Malaysian Bar website. The Register of Mentors contains names of senior Members of the Bar, who have agreed to share their wealth of knowledge and experience from years of running a legal practice. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 034/2015 | Notifi cation from the Court of Appeal to Criminal Law PractitionersAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 038/2015 | Arahan Pertukaran Yang Arif Hakim / Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Bil 1/2015Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 043/2015 | Application for Stamp Duty Remission under the Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2014 and Stamp Duty (Remission) (No 2) Order 2014Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 046/2015 | Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Rayuan Bil 2 Tahun 2015 | Pengkelasan Semula Kod bagi Rayuan Jenayah bagi Kod 05, 06A, 06B dan 09Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 047/2015 | Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Rayuan Bil 1 Tahun 2015 | Pengkelasan Semula Kod bagi Rayuan Sivil Bicara Penuh (FT)Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 048/2015 | Members Struck Off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors in 2014Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 049/2015 | Agenda and Motions for the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian BarAccess this circular to view the agenda and motions for the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar.

Circular No 051/2015 | Imposition by Local Councils of Requirement of Licences for Premises and/or SignboardsAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 052/2015 | Update on the Proposed Legal Profession (Group Practice) Rules 2013Access this circular for more details.

Summary of Circulars(October 2014 to March 2015)

Circular No 053/2015 | Expansion of E-Filing to Kota Bharu Court ComplexAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 055/2015 | Resolutions Adopted at the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar on 14 Mar 2015Access this circular to view the adopted resolutions.

Circular No 065/2015 | Questionnaire for Watching Brief LawyersAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 066/2015 | Arahan Amalan Bil 1 Tahun 2015 | Kes-Kes Anti PencatutanAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 002/2015 | Qualifi ed Lawyers Transfer Scheme — An Overview and How to ApplyThe Qualifi ed Lawyers Transfer Scheme (“QLTS”) is a fast-track route that enables lawyers from other jurisdictions to be admitted as solicitors of England and Wales, by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”). Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 003/2015 | Arahan Penangguhan Pertukaran Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Bil 1/2015Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 004/2015 | Appeal for Donations to Assist Persons Aff ected by FloodsThe fl oods that hit several states caused tremendous devastation to the lives of hundreds of thousands in our country. Members of the Bar, particularly in Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu, were not spared, as many were adversely aff ected by the fl oods. We also received numerous reports of Members who have had to be evacuated and/or have suff ered loss, both professionally and personally. Due to the urgent nature of the need of aff ected Members for assistance, the Bar Council organised emergency supplies and funds to be sent to Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 005/2015 | Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2014 and Stamp Duty (Remission) (No 2) Order 2014Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 008/2015 | Amendment to Section 21B(1) of the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 011/2015 | BNM’s Dedicated Website on Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of TerrorismBank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”) informed us that it now has a dedicated website which provides the latest information on the law, subsidiary legislation, guidelines with regard to Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism (“AML/CFT”) policies, circulars, and relevant forms related to the AML/CFT framework. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 012/2015 | Compliance with Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Disclosure Requirements for Trust Accounts and Joint Accounts) Regulations 2012 Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 018/2015 | Invitation to Contribute to the Bar Council Orang Asli Defence FundThe Bar Council Committee on Orang Asli Rights (“COAR”) was established in 2010 to advocate the rights of the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli, particularly with respect to their customary lands, territories and resources. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 021/2015 | Amendment to Ruling 7.03 of the Rules and Rulings of the Bar CouncilAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 027/2015 | Service Bureaus E-Filing Charges at the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 029/2015 | Register of Mentors for Issues Relating to Practice ManagementThe Bar Council Small Firms Committee has compiled a Register of Mentors, which is now accessible on the Malaysian Bar website. The Register of Mentors contains names of senior Members of the Bar, who have agreed to share their wealth of knowledge and experience from years of running a legal practice. Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 034/2015 | Notifi cation from the Court of Appeal to Criminal Law PractitionersAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 038/2015 | Arahan Pertukaran Yang Arif Hakim / Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Bil 1/2015Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 043/2015 | Application for Stamp Duty Remission under the Stamp Duty (Remission) Order 2014 and Stamp Duty (Remission) (No 2) Order 2014Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 046/2015 | Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Rayuan Bil 2 Tahun 2015 | Pengkelasan Semula Kod bagi Rayuan Jenayah bagi Kod 05, 06A, 06B dan 09Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 047/2015 | Arahan Amalan Mahkamah Rayuan Bil 1 Tahun 2015 | Pengkelasan Semula Kod bagi Rayuan Sivil Bicara Penuh (FT)Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 048/2015 | Members Struck Off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors in 2014Access this circular for more details.

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


General Information on Matters Discussed at Bar Council Meetings(January to March 2015)Inaugural Malaysian Legal Expo 2015 (28 Feb 2015)The Bar Council is proud to organise the inaugural Malaysian Legal Expo (“LEXPO”), which will be held on 28 Feb 2015 (Saturday) at Dataran Undrgrnd, Merdeka Square, Kuala Lumpur.

LEXPO 2015 seeks to bring together all aspects of a career in law — from options in education to job prospects in the legal services and related sectors. This event will provide law fi rms with concrete and targeted opportunities to network and increase exposure, while establishing an advantageous platform to connect with, and put a face to, potential talent.In addition to law fi rms, there will be a strategic array of exhibitors, including a range of corporate and other entities, which have openings for individuals with legal training and experience.

We invite you to give your law fi rm the leading edge in recruitment, by participating as an exhibitor in this groundbreaking event. For more details, please visit the LEXPO 2015 website at www.lexpo.my, or contact Nishta Jiwa, Public Relations Offi cer (03-2050 2037; [email protected]) or Sangheetha K, Marketing Offi cer (03-2050 2038; [email protected]).

Appeal for Donations to Assist Persons Aff ected by FloodsThe recent fl oods that hit several states have caused tremendous devastation to the lives of hundreds of thousands in our country.

Members of the Bar, particularly in Kelantan, Pahang and Terengganu, were not spared, as many were adversely affected by the fl oods. We also received numerous reports of Members who have had to be evacuated and/or have suffered loss, both professionally and personally.The Bar Council has initiated a donation drive to assist affected Members and others in need.

We appeal to the kindness and compassion of Members to contribute to this collective effort, and thank you in advance for your generosity.

Donations can be made by:(a) direct deposit to HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad, No 2 Leboh Ampang, 50100 Kuala Lumpur (Account: 301-022166-001; SWIFT code: HBMBMYKL); or(b) cheque or bank draft, payable to “Bar Council”; or(c) cash, at the Ground Floor of the Bar Council Secretariat.

To contribute, please complete and submit the attached reply slip, together with proof of payment, to Suvitha Marimuthu by fax at 03-2050 2133 or by email at [email protected]. Please indicate “Natural Disaster and Flood Relief Fund” on the back of the cheque or on the bank-in slip.

Memorandum of Understanding between Malaysian Bar and Australian Bar AssociationThe Bar Council has signed, on behalf of the Malaysian Bar, a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) with the Australian Bar Association to promote and maintain close cooperation between the two Bar Associations, for the benefi t of the lawyers they represent and to promote the rule of law. The MoU, which is for an initial period of two years, is also aimed at deepening mutual knowledge and developing a positive and mutually benefi cial relationship.

A few other Bar Associations have also expressed interested in entering into MoUs with the Malaysian Bar in the near future.

The list above highlights some items featured in Bar Council’s “General Statements”, which were sent out to Members of the Bar from January to December 2015. Access the Malaysian Bar website at www.malaysianbar.org.my to view these in full. Please note that “General Statements” are only accessible if you are a registered user of the Malaysian Bar website.

Circular No 049/2015 | Agenda and Motions for the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian BarAccess this circular to view the agenda and motions for the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar.

Circular No 051/2015 | Imposition by Local Councils of Requirement of Licences for Premises and/or SignboardsAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 052/2015 | Update on the Proposed Legal Profession (Group Practice) Rules 2013Access this circular for more details.

Circular No 053/2015 | Expansion of E-Filing to Kota Bharu Court ComplexAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 055/2015 | Resolutions Adopted at the 69th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar on 14 Mar 2015Access this circular to view the adopted resolutions.

Circular No 065/2015 | Questionnaire for Watching Brief LawyersAccess this circular for more details.

Circular No 066/2015 | Arahan Amalan Bil 1 Tahun 2015 | Kes-Kes Anti PencatutanAccess this circular for more details.

The list above highlights some of Bar Council’s circulars that were sent out to Members of the Bar from October 2014 to March 2015. Access the Malaysian Bar website at www.malaysianbar.org.my to view these, and other circulars, in full. Please note that some circulars are only accessible if you are a registered user of the Malaysian Bar website.

List Of Struck Off Members Wherein Appeal/Reinstatement AllowedReinstatement

NO MEMBER DATE OF ORDER REMARKS Practice Status

1. Dharshan Singh a/l Atma Singh 11 Oct 2002 24 Nov 2014 — Application for reinstatement allowed by the High Court

2. Khong Jin Teong 4 Aug 2004 26 Sept 2014 — Application for reinstatement allowed by the High Court

Note: In possession of SA/PC 2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council’s Custody: Legal Firms in which Bar Council has Intervened(As at 30 Apr 2015)When Bar Council intervenes in a legal fi rm 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 fi rm. 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 fi rms listed below.

Clients or interested parties who wish to claim documents that relate to cases that were handled by these legal fi rms are advised to contact the Bar Council’s Intervention Department at 03-2050 2159.

Kuala Lumpur

Messrs Herlina & Co

Messrs Rina Noor & Co

Messrs Kushairi & Co

Messrs Loh & Co

Messrs Yusof Abdullah & Partners

Messrs R K Nandy & Associates

Messrs Badri Kuhan Yeoh & Ghandi

Messrs K E Ooi & Partners

Messrs Anuar S J Ong & Co

Messrs Adi Azhar

Messrs B C Low

Messrs Sooriyar & Co

Messrs Y H Chan & Co

Messrs Shaik Anwar Raja

Messrs P L 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 C K Kow & Co

Messrs Nazli Ghazali & Cheong

Messrs Zaim Al-Amin & Assoc

Messrs Su How & Co

Messrs M W Lian & Assoc.

Messrs Zihin Shariff & Partners

Messrs Khalid Chung & Shankar

Messrs Nordin Hamid & Co

Messrs Raja Rohana & Co

Messrs Abdullah-Haniff & Assoc

Selangor

Messrs Donald Lai & Associates

Messrs Irzuan

Messrs Sajali & Co

Messrs J M Zain & Associates

Messrs Loh & Co

Messrs Bagia Sri Devi & Co

Messrs Noi

Messrs Zubaidah Mukhtar Ahmad

Messrs S. Letchumanan & H. Nizam

Messrs Bhaarathee & Associates

Messrs Zainal Rashid & Partners

Messrs Jaharberdeen & Ngo

Messrs Jauhari & Assoc

Messrs H K Teh & Assoc

Messrs Sabri Nazli Lana & Azizan

Messrs Penney Khoo Soh Ping & Co

Messrs Umar Baki & Co

Messrs Cheong & Chong

Messrs Hassan Kuldeep & Co

Messrs Khalil Samsuni & Co

Malacca

Messrs Ang Kwee Thian & Associates

Messrs Tuah Hilmy & Hazudin

Messrs Parthan & Associates

Messrs YC Pok & Zurina

Messrs Ganesan Mariapan & Co

Pahang

Messrs Yum Ng & Stanley

Messrs Zul & Co

Messrs Zachery & Co

Johore

Messrs Razak & Fakrul

Messrs Baharuddin & Partners

Messrs Rosli Rahman & Co

Messrs J L Lim & Co

Messrs Mariam & Co

Messrs K Y Teo & Associates

Negeri Sembilan

Messrs M. Kuppusamy & Co

Messrs Sasi Kumar & Assoc

Messrs S F Leow

Messrs Azizi Nizam & Anwar

Perak

Messrs J S Olikh & Co

Messrs Ravi Nair Maideen & Assoc.

Messrs Mohd Azhar & Co

Kedah/Perlis

Messrs Jamaludin Amin & Co

Penang

Messrs A J Hamzah & Co

As at 6 Apr 2015

Library Update(1 Oct to 31 Dec 2014)

BILLS 2014

TITLE PUBLICATION DATE

Architects (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.21/2014] 27 November 2014

Companies Commission Of Malaysia (Amendment) 2014 [DR.16/2014] 20 October 2014

Control Of Supplies (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.28/2014] 1 December 2014

Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2014 [DR.24/2014] 1 December 2014

Education (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.29/2014] 1 December 2014

Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 [DR.19/2014] 20 October 2014

Financial Procedure (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.11/2014] 20 October 2014

Housing Loans Fund (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.14/2014] 20 October 2014

Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.26/2014] 1 December 2014

Limited Liability Partnerships (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.18/2014] 20 October 2014

Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2014 [DR.31/2014] 1 December 2014

Members Of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.23/2014]

1 December 2014

National Trust Fund (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.13/2014] 20 October 2014

Netting Of Financial Agreements Act 2014 [DR.25/2014] 1 December 2014

Prison (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2014 [DR.10/2014] 20 October 2014

Quantity Surveyors (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.22/2014] 27 November 2014

Registration Of Businesses (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.17/2014] 20 October 2014

Registration Of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.20/2014] 27 November 2014

Supply Act 2015 [DR.15/2014] 20 October 2014

Technologists And Technicians Act 2014 [DR.30/2014] 1 December 2014

Unclaimed Moneys (Amendment) Act 2014 [DR.12/2014] 20 October 2014

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2008

ACT NO: TITLE

ACT 689GEOLOGISTS ACT 2008Notes: - An act to establish the Board of Geologists and to provide for the registration of geologists, the regulation of geological practice and for related matters.w.e.f.:- 28.11.2014 – [P.U. (B) 521/2014]

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


PRINCIPAL ACTS 2013

ACT NO: TITLE

ACT 758 FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 An Act to provide for the regulation and supervision of fi nancial institutions, payment systems and other relevant entities and the oversight of the money market and foreign exchange market to promote fi nancial stability and for related, consequential or incidental matters.

Notes:- Repeals the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 [Act 372], Exchange Control Act 1953 [Act 17], the Insurance Act 1996 [Act 553] and the Payment Systems Act 2003 [Act 627]- Nothwithstanding the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 under s.271 --- ss.147(4) ,147(5),150 and 151 of the repealed Insurance Act 1996 shall continue to remain in full force and eff ect until such date to be appointed by the Minister in accordance with subsection 1(2) for the coming into operation of section 129 and Sch.9- ss.144 and 224 of the repealed Insurance Act 1996 shall continue to remain in full force and eff ect until such sections are repealed by the Minister by notifi cation in the Gazette; and - an insurance fund established and maintained under section 38 of the repealed Insurance Act 1996 shall be deemed to have established and maintained under s.81- Revokes the following subsidiary legislations:-- Banking and Financial Institutions (Single Customer Credit Limit) Order 2000, [P.U. (A) 352/2000]- Banking and Financial Institutions (Minimum Amount of Capital Funds) (Licensed Discount Houses and Licensed Money-Brokers) Order 2001, [P.U. (A) 63/2001]- Banking and Financial Institutions (Scheduled Institutions) (Regulation of Credit Token Institutions) Order 1999, [P.U.(A) 327/1999]- Banking and Financial Institutions (Acquisition and Holding of Shares and Interests in Shares) (Licensed Banks, Licensed Finance Companies and Licensed Merchant Banks) Regulations 1991, [P.U. (A) 189/1991]- Exchange Control (Scheduled Territories) Order 1973, [P.U. (A) 119/1973] - Authorisation to Compound Off ences, [P.U. (B) 163/1979] - Exchange Control (Specifi ed Currency) Order 1986, [P.U. (A) 463/1986] - Appointment under subsection 3(2), [P.U. (B) 504/1998] - Exchange Control (Money-Changing Business) (Exemption) Order 2000, [P.U. (A) 186/2000] -. Authorization under subparagraph 8(1) of Part II of the Fifth Schedule, [P.U. (B) 58/2001] - Appointment under subsection 3(2), [P.U. (B) 206/2007] - Payment Systems (Remittance System Approved under the Money Services Business Act 2011) (Exclusion) Order 2011, [P.U. (A) 399/2011] - Insurance Guarantee Scheme (General Insurance Business) Fund Regulations 1990, [P.U. (A) 8/1990] - Insurance Guarantee Scheme Fund (General Insurance Business) (Restriction on Payment) Regulations 1994, [P.U. (A) 377/1994] - Insurance Guarantee Scheme (General Insurance Business) Fund (Amendment) Regulations 1990, [P.U. (A) 278/1994]w.e.f.:- 30.6.2013 – all sections except s.129 and Sch.9 – [P.U.(B) 276/2013]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015 – s.129 and Sch.9 – [P.U.(B) 552/2014]

ACT 759 ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 An Act to provide for the regulation and supervision of Islamic fi nancial institutions, payment systems and other relevant entities and the oversight of the Islamic money market and Islamic foreign exchange market to promote fi nancial stability and compliance with Shariah and for related, consequential or incidental matters.

Notes:- Repeals the Islamic Banking Act 1983 [Act 276] and the Takaful Act 1984 [Act 312]- Nothwithstanding section 282 –- any rule, regulation, order, notifi cation or other subsidiary legislation made and any approval, authority, consent, decision, direction, exemption, notice, order, permission, recommendation, requirement, specifi cation or other executive act granted or done under the repealed Acts and in force or having eff ect before the appointed date, shall be deemed to have been made, granted or done under a corresponding provision in this Act or a corresponding provision in any direction issued pursuant to section 168, subsection 225(6) or section 227, and shall continue to remain in full force and eff ect in relation to the person to whom it applied until amended or revoked, except those subsidiary legislation set out in Schedule 16 which are deemed to have been revoked;- Revokes the following subsidiary legislations:-- Takaful (Operators Registration) Regulations 1985, [P.U. (A) 308/1985]- Takaful (Statutory Deposits) Regulations 1985, [P.U. (A) 310/1985]- Takaful (Power to Compound) Regulations 1985, [P.U. (A) 314/1985]- Takaful (Prescribed Loan) Regulations 1990, [P.U. (A) 337/1990]- Takaful (Prescribed Loan) Regulations 1991, [P.U. (A) 93/1991]- Takaful (Prescribed Loan) Regulations 1995, [P.U. (A) 435/1995]- Takaful (Prescribed Loan) Regulations 1997, [P.U. (A) 237/1997]- Takaful (Prescribed Financial Institution, Loan and Investment) Regulations 2003, [P.U. (A) 17/2003]- Notifi cation under subsection 40c(2), [P.U. (B) 465/2008]w.e.f.:- 30.6.2013, all sections except paras.1 to 10 and 13 to 19 of Sch.9 – [P.U.(B) 277/2013] w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015, paras.1 to 10 and paras.13 to 19 of Sch.9 – [P.U.(B) 553/2014]

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2014

ACT NO: TITLE

ACT 764 FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2014 An Act to amend the Income Tax 1967, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976.w.e.f.: - 31.12.2014 and various dates as specifi ed in the respective chapters for each act amended.

ACT A1469

SUPPLY ACT 2015An Act to apply a sum from the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2015 and to appropriate that sum for the service of that year.w.e.f.: - 31.12.2014

AMENDING ACTS 2006

ACT NO: TITLE

ACT A1265 ROAD TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ACT 2006 Notes: - Amends ss.3,127- Inserts new Part IIIA (ss.88A, 88B, 88C, 88D, 88E,88F)w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015 – [P.U.(B) 548/2014]

AMENDING ACTS 2014

ACT NO: TITLE

ACT A1471 PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2014Notes:- Inserts new ss.52A,52B,75A,130QA,130X,130Y,130Z,130ZA,130ZB,130ZC,203A,326A,352A,375B, 411A, amends ss.107,130U,130V,176,223,320,322,324,326,376,376B,377CA,377E,426,427,428, 430,430A,435,436 and deletes s.429w.e.f.: 31.12.2014

ACT A1472 SECURITY OFFENCES (SPECIAL MEASURES) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2014Notes:- Amends ss.6,30 and Sch.1w.e.f.: 31.12.2014

LATEST INDEX TO P.U.(A) SERIES 2014[P.U.(A) 261/2014 – P.U.(A) 364/2014]

As at 31 Dec 2014

TITLE P.U.(A) NO

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (AMENDMENT OF FIRST SCHEDULE) ORDER 2014Issued under s.85, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 w.e.f.:- 6.11.2014

291/2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2014Issued under s.85, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 w.e.f.:- 8.11.2014

294/2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) (N0.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.85, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 w.e.f.:- 9.12.2014

325/2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (CASH AND BEARER NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS DECLARATION) ORDER 2014Issued under s.28B(1), 28C(1) and 28E(1), Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001Notes:- Revokes the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing (Cash and Negotiable Bearer Instruments Declaration) Order 2009, [P.U. (A) 464/2009]w.e.f.:- 1.10.2014

265/2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (DECLARATION OF SPECIFIED ENTITIES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.66B and 66D, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing And Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities (Declaration Of Specifi ed Entities And Reporting Requirements) Order 2014, [P.U. (A) 93/2014]w.e.f.:- 13.11.2014

301/2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001 [ACT 613]ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (INVOCATION OF PART IV) (NO. 2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.8(1), Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001w.e.f.:- 9.12.2014

324/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671]CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (CAPITAL MARKET COMPENSATION FUND) (CONTRIBUTION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.160(1), Capital Markets And Services Act 2007Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Capital Markets and Services (Capital Market Compensation Fund) (Contribution) Regulations 2012, [P.U. (A) 482/2012]w.e.f.:- 12.12.2014

328/2014

CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671]CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (REPORTING OF SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING) (REVOCATION) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.378, Capital Markets And Services Act 2007 Notes:- Revokes the Securities Industry (Reporting of Substantial Shareholding) Regulations 1998, [P.U. (A) 174/1998] w.e.f.:- 7.11.2014

292/2014

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1993 [ACT 502]CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ASSUMPTION OF CONTROL) (APPOINTMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.69(2), Co-Operative Societies Act 1993w.e.f.:- 10.10.2014

269/2014

CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122]CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.5) ORDER 2014Issued under s.5, Control Of Supplies Act 1961w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014 – 27.10.2014

279/2014

CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122]CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.6) ORDER 2014Issued under s.5, Control Of Supplies Act 1961w.e.f.:- 23.12.2014 – 27.12.2014

341/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]CUSTOMS (CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (NO.4) ORDER 2013) (REVOCATION) ORDER 2014Issued under s.25, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Revokes the Custom (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No.4) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 390/2013] w.e.f.:- 5.1.2014

286/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) ORDER 2014Issued under s.24, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 17.10.2014 – 13.2.2015

276/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.24, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 w.e.f:- 1.4.11.2014 – 13.3.2015

302/2014

CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES ACT 2010 [ACT 710]CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.72(2)(d), Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010w.e.f.:- 16.10.2014

275/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) (NO.5) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Customs Regulations 1977, [P.U. (A) 162/1977]w.e.f.:- 19.11.2014

312/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (NO.4) ORDER 2013) (REVOCATION) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.25, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993Notes:- Revokes the Custom (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No.4) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 390/2013] w.e.f.:- 5.1.2014

286/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2014Issued under s.31(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Customs (Prohibition Of Imports) Order 2012, [P.U. (A) 490/2012] w.e.f.:- 30.9.2014

264/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.24, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 w.e.f.:- 17.10.2014 – 13.2.2015

276/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL SAFEGUARDS DUTIES) ORDER 2014Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.22, Safeguards Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 14.12.2014 – 1.7.2015

327/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.24, Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 w.e.f.:- 14.11.2014 – 13.3.2015

302/2014

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS UNDER AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AMONG MEMBER STATES OF THE ASEAN AND JAPAN) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Customs Duties (Goods under Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Among Member States of the ASEAN and Japan) Order 2008, [P.U. (A) 476/2008] w.e.f.:- 1.10.2014

266/2014

DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51]DENTAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) (NO.4) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 12(2), Dental Act 1971Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Dental Act 1971 w.e.f.:- 11.11.2014

295/2014

DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51]DENTAL (EXEMPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE PERIOD) ORDER 2014Issued under s.49(1)(a), Dental Act 1967Notes:- The Minister grants a complete exemption to Dr. Ahmad M. Daood, Dr. Resha Adnan Malik, Dr. Laith Mahmoud Abdul Hadi, and Dr. Yap Tsen Wei from undergoing the period of public service required under section 48 of the Act.w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014

277/2014

DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51]DENTAL (REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE PERIOD) ORDER 2014Issued under s.49(1)(a), Dental Act 1971Notes:- The Minister grants a reduction from the public service period required under section 48 of the Act from three (3) years to two (2) years to the persons named in Schedule I and from three (3) years to one (1) year to the persons named in Schedule II.w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014

278/2014

DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT 2002 [ACT 618]DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (SMALL MEDIUM ENTREPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD) (EXEMPTION) ORDER 2014Issued under s.122, Development Financial Institutions Act 2002Notes:- Exempts Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad (Company Number: 49572-H), a company incorporated under Companies Act 1965 [Act 125] and having its registered offi ce at Level 22, Menara SME Bank, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, from the application of paragraph 28(3)(b) of the Act.w.e.f.:- 18.11.2014

311/2014

EDUCATION ACT 1996 [ACT 550]EDUCATION (TERMS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS YEAR 2015) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.130(2)(b), Education Act 1996Notes:- These Regulations shall apply to attendance at educational institutions for the year 2015w.e.f.:- 17.12.2014

333/2014

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127]ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DELEGATION OF POWERS) (INVESTIGATION ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.49(1), Environmental Quality Act 1974Notes:- Amends para.1 and Sch, Environmental Quality (Delegation Of Powers) Investigation On Erosion And Sediment Control) Order 2012 [P.U. (A) 436/2012]w.e.f.:- 15.10.2014

274/2014

EXCISE ACT 1976 [ACT 176]EXCISE (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.85, Excise Act 1976Notes:- Inserts new Part XD (reg.59R) and amends Sch.1, Excise Regulations 1977, [P.U. (A) 161/1977]w.e.f.:- 15.12.2014

322/2014

EXCISE ACT 1976 [ACT 176]EXCISE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 6(1), Excise Act 1976Notes:- Amends Sch, Excise Duties Order 2012, [P.U. (A) 350/2012] w.e.f.:- 1.11.2014

287/2014

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139]FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO BASF PETRONAS CHEMICALS SDN. BHD., KUANTAN, PAHANG) ORDER 2014Issued under s.55(3), Factories And Machinery Act 1967w.e.f.:- 4.10.2014

267/2014

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139]FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS BERHAD, GAS PROCESSING PLANT (GPP5), PAKA, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2014Issued under s.55(3), Factories And Machinery Act 1967w.e.f.:- 4.12.2014

323/2014

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139]FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS BERHAD, KERTIH, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 55(3), Factories And Machinery Act 1967w.e.f.:- 13.11.2014

300/2014

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139]FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS BERHAD, PAKA, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 55(3), Factories And Machinery Act 1967w.e.f.:- 14.11.2014

303/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139]FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (PERSONS-IN-CHARGE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.56(1), Factories And Machinery Act 1967 Notes:- Amends regs.4,5,6,10,11,12,13,15,20,21 and Sch. and inserts new Part IA(regs.18A,18B,18C), Factories And Machinery (Persons-In-Charge) Regulations 1970, [P.U. (A) 112/1983]w.e.f.:- 15.10.2014

270/2014

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957]CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER) (NO.5) ORDER 2014Issued under Art.122AB(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Tuan Mohamed Zaini bin Mazlan is appointed to be Judicial Commissioner for a period of two years with eff ect from 6 August 2014.w.e.f.:- 6.8.2014

263/2014

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN(NS)885/1957] PROCLAMATIONBY HIS MAJESTY THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG, BY THE GRACE OF ALLAH, SUPREME HEAD OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF MALAYSIA. Issued under art.55(2), Federal ConstitutionNotes:- Parliament prorogued with eff ect from the second day of March, two thousand fi fteen.w.e.f.:- 2.3.2015

348/2014

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN(NS)885/1957] PROCLAMATIONBY HIS MAJESTY THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG, BY THE GRACE OF ALLAH, SUPREME HEAD OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF MALAYSIA. Issued under art.55(1), Federal ConstitutionNotes:- Parliament summoned and the ninth day of March, two thousand fi fteen and the hour of ten in the morning appointed as the date and time for the First Meeting of the Third Session of the Thirteenth Parliament of Malaysiaw.e.f.:- 9.3.2015

349/2014

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376]FEDERAL ROADS (EAST COAST EXPRESSWAY-PHASE 2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959w.e.f.:- 21.11.2014

314/2014

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376]FEDERAL ROADS (NEW NORTH KLANG STRAITS BYPASS EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959Notes:- Revokes Federal Roads (New North Klang Straits Bypass Expressway) Order 2002, [P.U. (A) 192/2002]w.e.f.:- 23.12.2014

339/2014

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376]FEDERAL ROADS (WEST MALAYSIA) (AMENDMENT) (NO.8) ORDER 2014Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (West Malaysia) Order 1989, [P.U. (A) 401/1989]w.e.f.:- 23.9.2014

262/2014

FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376]FEDERAL ROADS (WEST MALAYSIA) (AMENDMENT) (NO.9) ORDER 2014Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (West Malaysia) Order 1989, [P.U. (A) 401/1989]w.e.f.:- 10.10.2014

268/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (CHERAS-KAJANG HIGHWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (Cheras-Kajang Highway) Order 1999, [P.U. (A) 15/1999]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

353/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (DAMANSARA-PUCHONG HIGHWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (Damansara-Puchong Highway) Order 1999, [P.U. (A) 27/1999]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

359/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (GUTHRIE CORRIDOR EXPRESSWAY) (NO.2) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (Guthrie Corridor Expressway) (No.2) Order 2005, [P.U. (A) 298/2005]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

357/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (KL-KUALA SELANGOR EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Revokes Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (KL-Kuala Selangor Expressway) Order 2011, [P.U. (A) 263/2011]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

344/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (NEW NORTH KLANG STRAITS BYPASS EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984Notes:- Revokes Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (New North Klang Straits Bypass Expressway) Order 2002, [P.U. (A) 194/2002]w.e.f.:- 23.12.2014

340/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (SENAI-PASIR GUDANG-DESARU EXPRESSWAY) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (Senai-Pasir Gudang-Desaru Expressway) Order 2011, [P.U. (A) 231/2011]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

352/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (SOUTH KLANG VALLEY EXPRESSWAY) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (South Klang Valley Expressway) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 309/2013]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

351/2014

FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306]FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (WESTERN KUALA LUMPUR TRAFFIC DISPERSAL SCHEME HIGHWAY – KERINCHI LINK AND DAMANSARA LINK) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (Western Kuala Lumpur Traffi c Dispersal Scheme Highway – Kerinchi Link And Damansara Link) Order 2001, [P.U. (A) 274/2001]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

358/2014

FEES ACT 1951 [ACT 209]FEES (MEDICAL) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.3, Fees Act 1951Notes:- Amends paras.1,2,16,17, deletes paras.8A,Schs.FA,FB,FC and inserts new para.11A, Fees (Medical) Order 1982, [P.U. (A) 359/1982]w.e.f.:- 31.12.2014

364/2014

FEES ACT 1951 [ACT 209]FEES (MEDICAL) (COST OF SERVICES) ORDER 2014Issued under ss.3 and 10, Fees Act 1951Notes:- This Order shall apply to foreign persons only.w.e.f.:- 31.12.2014

363/2014

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 758]FINANCIAL SERVICES (FEES) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.26(1) and para.260(2)(c), Financial Services Act 2013w.e.f.:- 15.12.2014

331/2014

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 758]FINANCIAL SERVICES (MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CAPITAL FUNDS) (APPROVED PERSON) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.12(1), Financial Services Act 2013Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Financial Services (Minimum Amount Of Capital Funds) (Approved Person) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 204/2013]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

355/2014

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 758]FINANCIAL SERVICES [INSURANCE REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) 2014] REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.260(1), Financial Services Act 2013Notes:- Deletes Part IV, Insurance Regulations 1996, [P.U. (A) 653/1996]w.e.f.:- 15.12.2014

329/2014

FOOD ACT 1983 [ACT 281]CONTROL OF TOBACCO PRODUCT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.36, Food Act 1983Notes:- Amends regs.2 and 11, Control Of Tobacco Product Regulations 2004, [P.U. (A) 324/2004]w.e.f.:- 26.11.2014

316/2014

GAS SUPPLY ACT 1993 [ACT 501]GAS SUPPLY (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.39, Gas Supply Act 1993Notes: - General Amendment, Gas Supply Regulations, [P.U. (A) 287/1997]: - Amends by substituting for the words “Director General” the words “the Commission”, wherever appearing, and - Amends in the national language text, by substituting for the word “fee’ the word “fi ”, wherever appearing. - Amends regs.15,16,94,118, Sch.3 and inserts new reg.114A, Gas Supply Regulations, [P.U. (A) 287/1997]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2016

321/2014

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762]GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (EXEMPT SUPPLY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.18(2), Goods And Services Tax Act 2014Notes:- Exempts the supply of goods as specifi ed in the First Schedule and the supply of services as specifi ed in the Second Schedule.w.e.f.:- 13.10.2014

271/2014

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762]GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (RELIEF) ORDER 2014Issued under s.56, Goods And Services Tax Act 2014w.e.f.:- 13.10.2014

273/2014

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762]GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (ZERO-RATED SUPPLY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.17, Goods And Services Tax Act 2014w.e.f.:- 13.10.2014

272/2014

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR COST RELATING TO TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) RULES 2014Issued under paras.154(1)(b),33(1)(d), Income Tax Act 1967w.e.f.:- y/a 2014-y/a 2015

334/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES IN RELATION TO SECRETARIAL FEE AND TAX FILING FEE) RULES 2014Issued under paras.154(1)(b),33(1)(d), Income Tax Act 1967w.e.f.:- y/a 2015 in respect of deduction under paragraph 2(1)(a) and subparagraph 2(1)(b)(ii)w.e.f.:- y/a 2016 in respect of deduction under subparagraph 2(1)(b)(i)

336/2014

INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FROM REMUNERATION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) RULES 2014Issued under s.154(1)(a), Income Tax Act 1967Notes:- Amends r.2,3,10,13,Sch, and deletes r.2A, Income Tax (Deduction from Remuneration) Rules 1994, [P.U.(A) 507/1994]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

362/2014

ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 759]ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES (FEES) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.23(1) and para.271(2)(c), Islamic Financial Services Act 2013w.e.f.:- 15.12.2014

330/2014

ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 759]ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CAPITAL FUNDS) (APPROVED PERSON) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.12(1), Islamic Financial Services Act 2013Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Islamic Financial Services (Minimum Amount Of Capital Funds) (Approved Person) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 210/2013]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

356/2014

LABUAN COMPANIES ACT 1990 [ACT 441]LABUAN COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.146(1), Labuan Companies Act 1990Notes:- Amends Sch.3, Labuan Companies Regulations 2010, [P.U. (A) 414/2010]w.e.f.:- 18.11.2014

309/2014

LABUAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES ACT 2010 [ACT 704]LABUAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.196, Labuan Financial Services And Securities Act 2010Notes:- Amends Sch.3, Labuan Financial Services and Securities Regulations 2010, [P.U. (A) 416/2010]w.e.f.:- 18.11.2014

310/2014

LABUAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY ACT 1996 [ACT 545]LABUAN FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (PROCESSING AND APPROVAL FEES) (LABUAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2014Issued under s.32A, Labuan Financial Services Authority Act 1996 Notes:- Amends Schs.3,4,5 and 6, Labuan Financial Services Authority (Processing And Approval Fees) (Labuan Financial Institutions) Order 2012, [P.U.(A) 495/2012]w.e.f.:- 11.12.2014

326/2014

LABUAN ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES ACT 2010 [ACT 705]LABUAN ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.156, Labuan Islamic Financial Services And Securities Act 2010Notes:- Amends Sch.3, Labuan Islamic Financial Services and Securities Regulations 2010, [P.U. (A) 417/2010]w.e.f.:- 18.11.2014

308/2014

LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 2010 [ACT 715]LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT [COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD (RATES OF FARE) (AMENDMENT) RULES 2014] REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.252(1)(t), Land Public Transport Act 2010Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Rates Of Fare) Rules 2000, [P.U. (A) 242/2000]w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

354/2014

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96]LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND STAMP DUTY) (NO.4) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965w.e.f.:- 17.12.2013

297/2014

MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION ACT 2007 [ACT 665]MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION (CO-OPERATIVE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s. 43(2), Malaysia Co-Operative Societies Commission Act 2007w.e.f.:- 11.11.2014

296/2014

MALAYSIAN BIOFUEL INDUSTRY ACT 2007 [ACT 666]MALAYSIAN BIOFUEL INDUSTRY (BLENDING PERCENTAGE AND MANDATORY USE) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under ss.4(a) and (b), Malaysian Biofuel Industry Act 2007Notes:- Revokes the Malaysian Biofuel Industry (Blending Percentage and Mandatory Use) Regulations 2011, [P.U. (A) 203/2011]w.e.f.:- 30.11.2014

320/2014

MEDICAL ACT 1971 [ACT 50]MEDICAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 12(2), Medical Act 1971Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Medical Act 1971 w.e.f.:- 8.11.2014

293/2014

NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 [ACT 645]NATIONAL HERITAGE (DECLARATION OF LIVING PERSON AS NATIONAL HERITAGE) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.67(1), National Heritage Act 2005Notes:- Nyonya Tan binti Abdullah and Eyo Hock Seng has been declared as National Heritage in the fi eld of Dondang Sayang and Shadow Play respectively. w.e.f.:- 24.12.2014

346/2014

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING ACT 2003 [ACT 628] PROCLAMATIONBY HIS MAJESTY THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG, BY THE GRACE OF ALLAH, SUPREME HEAD OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF MALAYSIA. Issued under s.3, National Service Training Act 2003 Notes:- All citizens of Malaysia who, on the date of this proclamation, have attained the age of sixteen years and six 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.:- 13.6.2014

298/2014

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING ACT 2003 [ACT 628]NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING (PERSONS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING) ORDER 2014Issued under s. 16, National Service Training Act 2003Notes:- The persons who are liable to undergo national service training pursuant to the proclamation made under section 3 of the Act who are born in the year 1997 and have been selected through the computerized selection system are required to undergo national service training.w.e.f.:- 1.12.2014

299/2014

NATIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ACT 2006 [ACT 652]NATIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT (WAIVER OF FEE TO MEMBER OF SOCIETY OF THE BLIND IN MALAYSIA, SARAWAK BRANCH) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.72(2)(d), National Skills Development Act 2006w.e.f.:- 19.12.2014

337/2014

NATIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ACT 2006 [ACT 652]NATIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT (WAIVER OF FEE TO TRAINEE AT MONTFORT BOYS TOWN, SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.72(2)(d), National Skills Development Act 2006w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014

282/2014

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543]PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) (ACCELERATED CAPITAL ALLOWANCE) (PETRONAS MARGINAL FIELD) RULES 2014Issued under s. 83(1)(a), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967w.e.f.:- 30.11.2010

304/2014

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543]PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) (EXEMPTION) ORDER 2014Issued under s.65C(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967Notes:- Exempts PETRONAS in the basis period for a year of assessment from the payment of petroleum income tax in respect of statutory income derived from petroleum operations in a PETRONAS marginal fi eld- Subject to paragraph 5, the statutory income referred to in subparagraph (1) shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: A x CBWhere A is the chargeable tax of PETRONAS in respect of its petroleum operations in a PETRONAS marginal fi eld which is equal to thirty-eight per cent of its chargeable income reduced by the chargeable tax which is equal to twenty fi ve per cent of its chargeable income; B is the chargeable tax of PETRONAS in respect of a PETRONAS marginal fi eld which is equal to thirty-eight per cent of its chargeable income; and C is the amount of such chargeable income. This Order shall not apply to PETRONAS in a basis period for a year of assessment where PETRONAS carries on petroleum operations in an area under any agreement or arrangement made by the Government with the government of any territory outside Malaysia for the joint exploration and exploitation of petroleum overlapping areas. w.e.f.:- 30.11.2010

305/2014

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543]PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) (PETRONAS MARGINAL FIELD) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.22A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967w.e.f.:- 30.11.2010

317/2014

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723]PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO.5) ORDER 2014Issued under s.4, Price Control And Anti-Profi teering Act 2011w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014 – 27.10.2014

280/2014

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723]PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO.6) ORDER 2014Issued under s.4, Price Control And Anti-Profi teering Act 2011w.e.f.:- 23.12.2014 – 27.12.2014

342/2014

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723]PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (MECHANISM TO DETERMINE UNREASONABLY HIGH PROFIT) NET PROFIT MARGIN) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.15, Price Control And Anti-Profi teering Act 2011w.e.f.:- 27.12.2014

347/2014

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723]PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (PRICE MARKING OF PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO.5) ORDER 2014Issued under s.10, Price Control And Anti-Profi teering Act 2011w.e.f.:- 18.10.2014 – 27.10.2014

281/2014

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723]PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (PRICE MARKING OF PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO.6) ORDER 2014Issued under s.10, Price Control And Anti-Profi teering Act 2011w.e.f.:- 23.12.2014 – 27.12.2014

343/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301]PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS) (NO.9) ORDER 2014 Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of the ‘Primbon Mujarobat Ketabiban Dalam Islam’ by Ust. T.M Sanihiyyah Mz./Ust. Labib Mz, ‘Ilmu Pengasihan Sejati’ by S. Rahayu Wibowo, ‘Ilmu Kharang Tinggi’ by L.T.Prabowo and ‘Aji Mantra Cinta dan Peraih Cinta’ by Fuad Kauma are absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 23.9.2014

261/2014

PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301]PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS) (NO.10) ORDER 2014 Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of the ‘Kisah Paling Menarik yang Pernah Diceritakan’ is absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 25.10.2014

283/2014

RENEWAL ENERGY ACT 2011 [ACT 725]RENEWABLE ENERGY (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.63, Renewal Energy Act 2011Notes:- Amends Sch., Renewal Energy Act 2011w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

335/2014

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333]ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (CITY OF KUALA LUMPUR) (NO.3) ORDER 2014Issued under ss.70(1) and (2), Road Transport Act 1987w.e.f.:- 1.12.2014

318/2014

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333]ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (CITY OF KUALA LUMPUR) (NO.4) ORDER 2014Issued under ss.70(1) and (2), Road Transport Act 1987w.e.f.:- 1.12.2014

319/2014

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333]ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (FEDERAL ROADS) (NO.3) ORDER 2014Issued under s.70, Road Transport Act 1987w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

350/2014

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333]SPEED LIMIT (KL-KUALA SELANGOR EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

345/2014

SAFEGUARDS ACT 2006 [ACT 657]CUSTOMS (PROVISIONAL SAFEGUARDS DUTIES) ORDER 2014Issued under s.22, Safeguards Act 2006 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967w.e.f.:- 14.12.2014 – 1.7.2015

327/2014

SAFEGUARDS ACT 2006 [ACT 657]SAFEGUARDS (SAFEGUARD MEASURE) (AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE ASEAN-AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND FREE TRADE AREA) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.40A(2), Safeguards Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

332/2014

SAFEGUARDS ACT 2006 [ACT 657]SAFEGUARDS (SAFEGUARD MEASURE) (AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AMONG JAPAN AND MEMBER STATES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.40A(2), Safeguards Act 2006w.e.f.:- 1.12.2014

315/2014

SAFEGUARDS ACT 2006 [ACT 657]SAFEGUARDS (SAFEGUARD MEASURE) (AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS UNDER THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AMONG THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s. 40A(2), Safeguards Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.12.2014

306/2014

SOCIETIES ACT 1966 [ACT 335]ORDER UNDER SECTION 5Issued under s.5(1), Societies Act 1966Notes:- The Pasukan Peronda Sukarela Pulau Pinang (PPS) has been declared as an unlawful society.w.e.f.:- 3.11.2014

288/2014

SOCIETIES ACT 1966 [ACT 335]ORDER UNDER SECTION 5Issued under s.5(1), Societies Act 1966Notes:- Sarawak Association for Peoples’ Aspiration (SAPA) have been declared as an unlawful society with eff ect from 14 November 2014.w.e.f.:- 14.11.2014

307/2014

STAMP ACT 1949 [ACT 378]STAMP DUTY (REMISSION) ORDER 2014Issued under s.80(2), Stamp Act 1949Notes:- Remits a sum of fi fty per cent from the stamp duty chargeable on any loan agreement to fi nance the purchase of only one unit of residential property the value of which is not more than fi ve hundred thousand ringgit (RM500,000.00) executed between an individual who is a Malaysia citizen named in a sale and purchase agreement and –a) a licensed bank under the Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 758];b) a licensed Islamic bank under the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 759];c) a development fi nancial institution prescribed under the Development Financial

Institutions Act 2002 [Act 618];d) a licensed insurer under the Financial Services Act 2013;e) a licensed takaful operator under the Islamic Financial Services Act 2013;f) a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1993 [Act

502]g) any employer who provides an employee housing loan scheme;h) the Malaysian Building Society Berhad incorporated under the Companies Act

1965 [Act 125]; ori) the Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Berhad incorporated under the Companies

Act 1965.

The remission of stamp duty under subparagraph (1) shall only apply if-a) the sale and purchase agreement for the purchase of the residential property is

executed on or after 1 January 2015 but not later than 31 December 2016; andb) the individual has never owned any residential property including a residential

property which is obtained by way of inheritance or gift, which is held either individually or jointly.

w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

360/2014

STAMP ACT 1949 [ACT 378]STAMP DUTY (REMISSION) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.80(2), Stamp Act 1949Notes:- Remits a sum of fi fty per cent from the stamp duty chargeable on any instrument of transfer for the purchase of only one unit of residential property the value of which is not more than fi ve hundred thousand ringgit (RM500,000.00) by an individual who is a Malaysia citizen provided that –a) the sale and purchase agreement for the purchase of the residential property is

executed on or after 1 January 2015 but not later than 31 December 2016; andb) the individual has never owned any residential property including a residential

property which is obtained by way of inheritance or gift, which is held individually or jointly.

w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

361/2014

STRATEGIC TRADE ACT 2010 [ACT 708]STRATEGIC TRADE (DELISTING OF PROHIBITED END-USERS) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.8 and s.55(1), Strategic Trade Act 2010w.e.f.:- 5.11.2014

289/2014

STRATEGIC TRADE ACT 2010 [ACT 708]STRATEGIC TRADE (RESTRICTED END-USERS AND PROHIBITED END-USERS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2014Issued under s.8, Strategic Trade Act 2010Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Strategic Trade (Restricted End-Users And Prohibited End-Users) Order 2010, [P.U. (A) 484/2010]w.e.f.:- 21.11.2014

313/2014

STRATEGIC TRADE ACT 2010 [ACT 708]STRATEGIC TRADE (UNFREEZING OF PROPERTY IN RELATION TO PROHIBITED END-USERS) REGULATIONS 2014Issued under s.55(1), Strategic Trade Act 2010w.e.f.:- 5.11.2014

290/2014

TRADE DESCRIPTION ACT 2011 [ACT 730]TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (MARKING OF REPLACEMENT BRAKE LINING ASSEMBLY) ORDER 2014Issued under s.29(1)(b), Trade Description Act 2011Notes:- Revokes the Trade Descriptions (Marking of Replacement Part of Brake Lining) Order 2013, [P.U. (A) 330/2013]w.e.f.:- 1.11.2015

285/2014

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 2010 [ACT 716]WILDLIFE CONSERVATION (OPEN SEASON, METHODS AND TIMES OF HUNTING) ORDER 2014Issued under s.35(a), (c) and (d), Wildlife Conservation Act 2010Notes:- Revokes the Wildlife Conservation Order 1972, [P.U.(A) 409/1972]w.e.f.:- 3.11.2014

284/2014

LATEST INDEX TO SELECTED P.U.(B) SERIES 2014As at 31 Dec 2014

TITLE P.U.(B) NO

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF SARAWAK [GN.S.163/1963]APPOINTMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE ACTING YANG DI-PERTUA NEGERI OF THE STATE OF SARAWAKw.e.f.:- 11.12.2014 – 9.1.2015

547/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF HOT ROLLED COILS ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND REPUBLIC OF KOREA (AD 02/14)w.e.f.:- 17.10.2014

483/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND REPUBLIC OF KOREA (AD 01/14)w.e.f.:- 14.11.2014

505/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR MAKING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION (AD 01/14)w.e.f.:- 15.10.2014

455/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME REPIOD FOR MAKING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION (AD 03/14) w.e.f.:- 30.12.2014

554/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF NEGATIVE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF SEVEN WIRES PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE STRAND ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (AD 03/13)w.e.f.:- 6.11.2014

495/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF STEEL WIRE RODS ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM JIANGSU SHAGANG INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD AND JIANGSU YONGGANG GROUP CO., LTD, THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (AR 01/14)w.e.f.:- 11.12.2014

541/2014

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504]REVOCATION OF NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE FINAL DETERMINATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO IMPORTS OF SEVEN WIRES PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE STRAND ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (AD 03/13)w.e.f.:- 1.11.2014

494/2014

COURTS OF JUDICATURE ACT 1964 [ACT 91]COURTS OF JUDICATURE (COURT OF APPEAL) (VACATIONS) RULES 1994 [P.U. (A) 539/1994] DECLARATION OF COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF VACATIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL Notes:- The vacations of the Court of Appeal for the calendar year 2015 shall be-(a) from Monday, 1 June 2015 to Friday, 12 June 2015; and(b) from Monday, 14 December 2015 to Thursday, 31 December 2015.w.e.f.:- 17.11.2014

510/2014

COURTS OF JUDICATURE ACT 1964 [ACT 91]COURTS OF JUDICATURE (FEDERAL COURT) (VACATIONS) RULES 1996 [P.U. (A) 150/1996] VACATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COURTNotes:- The vacations of the Federal Court for the calendar year 2015 shall be-(a) from Monday, 1 June 2015 to Friday, 12 June 2015; and(b) from Monday, 14 December 2015 to Thursday, 31 December 2015.w.e.f.:- 17.11.2014

511/2014

COURTS OF JUDICATURE ACT 1964 [ACT 91]COURTS OF JUDICATURE (HIGH COURT IN MALAYA) (VACATIONS) RULES 1985 [P.U. (A) 326/1985] DECLARATION OF VACATIONS OF THE HIGH COURT IN MALAYANotes:- The vacations of the High Court in Malaya for the calendar year 2015 shall be-(a) from Monday, 1 June 2015 to Friday, 12 June 2015; and(b) from Monday, 14 December 2015 to Thursday, 31 December 2015.w.e.f.:- 3.12.2014

534/2014

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957]FEDERAL ORDER OF PRECEDENCENotes:- The Federal Order of Precedence in the First Schedule has been approved by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and is published for general information- This Federal Order of Precedence is subject to the notes in the Second Schedule- Revokes the Federal Order of Precedence, [P.U.(B) 29/1998] as published on 22 January 1998 w.e.f.:- 14.11.2014

506/2014

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 758]APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATIONNotes:- 1 January 2015 appointed as the date on which section 129 and Schedule 9 of the Act come into operationw.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

552/2014

GEOLOGISTS ACT 2008 [ACT 689]APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATIONNotes:- 28 November 2014 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Geologists Act 2008. w.e.f.:- 28.11.2014

521/2014

ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT 2013 [ACT 759]APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATIONNotes:- 1 January 2015 appointed as the date on which paragraphs 1 to 10 and paragraphs 13 to 19 of Schedule 9 of the Act come into operationw.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

553/2014

MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE 1952 [ORDINANCE 70/1952]DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE 1952Notes:- For the purpose of defi ning the port limit, the Legal Notifi cation No.73 of 1953 [L.N. 73/1953] is amended in the First Schedule by inserting after item 88 the item 89.w.e.f.:- 11.10.2014

448/2014

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621]SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTERNotes:- The Minister responsible for legal aff airs 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 is in eff ect in respect of Republic of Latvia an order made under section 17 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 without any restriction, limitation, exception, modifi cation, adaptation, condition or qualifi cation.w.e.f.:- 25.9.2014

426/2014

PINEAPPLE INDUSTRY ACT 1957 [ACT 427]PERIOD OF APPLICATION FOR PLANTING GRANT AND REPLANTING GRANT Notes:- The Board appoint the period of application for a planting grant and replanting grant for the year 2015.w.e.f.:- 1.10.2014 – 31.3.2015

492/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The Lock-up at the Batu Kurau Police Station, Perak to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 23.9.2014

421/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT Notes:- The Lock-up at the Jeniang Police Post, Kedah to be a place for the confi nement of persons remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 23.9.2014

424/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The lock-up at the Kampung Baru Subang Police Station, Shah Alam, Selangor to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 12.11.2014

498/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT Notes:- The Lock-up at the Kulim Hi-Tech Police Station, Kedah to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 23.9.2014

422/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The lock-up at the Pagoh Police Station, Muar, Johor to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 12.11.2014

499/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The lock-up at the Sungai Buloh Police Station, Sungai Buloh, Selangor to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 12.11.2014

501/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 [ACT 694]APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The lock-up at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Crystal Bay, Alai, Melaka to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 12.11.2014

500/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]MALAYSIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION ACT 2009 [ACT 694] APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The lock-up at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Kuching, Sarawak to be a place for the confi nement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment, not exceeding one month.w.e.f.:- 12.11.2014

502/2014

PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537]APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UPS TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENTNotes:- The Lock-ups at the places specifi ed in the schedule to be the place for the confi nement of person remanded under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 [Act 297]w.e.f.:- 25.9.2014

427/2014

ROAD TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ACT 2006 [ACT A1265]APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATIONNotes:- 1 January 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Road Transport (Amendment) (No.2) Act 2006 w.e.f.:- 1.1.2015

548/2014

STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 [ACT 318] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION OF COMPUTERIZATION SYSTEM OF STRATA TITLESNotes:- 2 January 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Computerization System of Strata Titles in the Offi ce of the Land Administrator in the State of Selangorw.e.f.: 2.1.2015

555/2014

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


NEW BOOKS

51%! Is it a level playing fi eld?: baseline study on the working conditions of male and female lawyers in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor: a summary report. Kuala Lumpur: Association of Woman Lawyers, 2014.

A basic understanding of the Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand. Bangkok: Offi ce of the Constitution Court, 2011.

Abdul Majid Nabi Baksh and Krishnan Arjunan. Business law in Malaysia. 2nd ed. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.

Arjunan Subramaniam. Understanding GST. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.

Arun Kasi. Arbitration: stay of court proceedings and anti-suit injunctions. Ampang: CLJ Publication, 2014.

Balai Ikhtisas Malaysia. The book of professionals. Petaling Jaya: Balai Ikhtisas Malaysia, 2014.

Cheah, Foo Seong. A practical guide for company directors in Malaysia. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

Chen, Thim Wai. The law on shareholders' meetings – AGM and EGM. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.

Choong, Kwai Fatt. GST handbook for legal practice. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

Chow, Kok Fong. Construction contracts dictionary. 2nd ed. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

Coroner's practice in medical cases. Singapore: Subordinate Courts, Singapore: Academy Pub., 2008.

Dear editor...: a collection of Sisters in Islam's statements and letters to the editor. Petaling Jaya: SIS Forum (Malaysia), 2014.

Enduring truths from statements and words of Al-marhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Bapa Malaysia and our beloved founder of our nation. Penang: Persatuan Melayu Pulau Pinang (PEMENANG), 2014.

Foong, Cheng Leong. Compendium of Malaysian intellectual property cases – Trade marks: Volume 1. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2013.

Griffi th-Jones, Robin. Ed. Islam and English law: rights, responsibilities and the place of shari’a. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer. Janab’s key to the law of evidence. Kuala Lumpur: Janab (M) Sdn Bhd, 2014.

Hill, Mark. Religion and law in The United Kingdom. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2014.

Hisyam Abdullah @ Teh Poh Teik. Drugs traffi cking and the law. Johor Bahru: Hisyam Abdullah @ Teh Poh Teik, 2014.

Ho, Mooi Ching. Sentencing practice in Malaysia. 2nd ed. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

In memoriam: Kuala Lumpur Bar 2012/13. Kuala Lumpur: Kuala Lumpur Bar, 2013.

Naban, D.P. CCH GST case summaries. Kuala Lumpur: CCH, 2014.

Noriswadi Ismail & Lee, Edwin Yong Cieh. Eds. Beyond data protection: strategic case studies and practical guidance. New York: Springer, 2013.

Sabah Land Ordinance (Cap 68): [With relevant subsidiary legislation]. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.

Sarawak Land Code: Chapter 81 (1958 edition). Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.

Sarvaria, S.K. Commentary on the prevention of money-laundering act. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co., 2014.

Shaari Isa. Pembalasan dendam dan penyalahgunaan kuasa: perjuangan menuntut keadilan di Negeri Di Bawah Bayu: dendam politik dan serangan peribadi ke atas Syed Kechik Di Sabah (1975-2013). Petaling Jaya: MPH Group Pub., 2013.

Srimurugan Alagan. Jurisdiction of courts in Malaysia. 2nd ed. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

Ratanlal, Ranchhoddas. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s the law of crimes. 27th ed. New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2013.

Report of the people's tribunal on Malaysia's 13th General Elections. Petaling Jaya: EMPOWER, 2014.

Thavarajah, Thavalingam C. & Low, Raymond T C. Employment and industrial relations law Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: CCH, 2014.

The Court of Appeal Malaysia 20th Anniversary: 1994-2014. Putrajaya: Federal Court of Malaysia, 2014.

The Malaysian judiciary yearbook 2013. Putrajaya: Federal Court of Malaysia, 2014.

Traimas, Chaowana. The Constitutional court rulings 2010. Bangkok: Offi ce of the Constitution Court, 2012.

Traimas, Chaowana & Udchachon, Punya. Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Bangkok: Offi ce of the Constitution Court, 2007.

Venugopal, A Vijayalakshmi. Casebook on contempt of court in Malaysia. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

Venugopal, A Vijayalakshmi. Contempt of court in Malaysia. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2014.

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


Disciplinary Orders(July 2014 to March 2015)FINED

NAME ORDER DATED FINED (RM)

Nur Azhan binti Ahmad Pauzi

(N/1960)

19 July 2014 2,500

Fatihah binti Zubir (F/566) 21 Aug 2014 2,500

Wu Tern Yue (W/122) 21 Aug 2014 2,500

Atiza Nur Binti Abd Rahman

(A/1792)

21 Aug 2014 2,500

Basri Bin Yusoff (B/108) 12 Sept 2014 20,000

Haslinda Bt Mokhtar (H/348) 12 Sept 2014 3,000

Halimatusa'diah Binti Mukhatar

(H/394)

12 Sept 2014 15,000. Further ordered

to refund RM27,500 to

the complainant within

three months from date

of Order and in default

thereof to pay a further

sum of RM7,500 being the

increased penalty pursuant

to section 103D(5)

Hanipi Bin Zakaria (H/561) 12 Sept 2014 3,000

Mohd Azfar Anton B Abdullah @

Anton D' Silva (A/107)

12 Sept 2014 5,000

Jamilah Bt Haji Mohd Radzi

(J/213)

13 Sept 2014 15,000

Jayaraj a/l Thurairaj (J/215) 12 Sept 2014 10,000

Loh Chin Hau (L/1299) 12 Sept 2014 5,000

Mohd Nashir B Hussin (M/63) 12 Sept 2014 5,000

Dato’ Theng Book (T/518) 12 Sept 2014 5,000

Tengku Asnipuspa Laily Binti

Tengku Abdullah (T/834)

12 Sept 2014 5,000

Zalina Bt Hashim (Z/122) 12 Sept 2014 3,000

Zainal Bin Said (Z/279) 12 Sept 2014 10,000

Fadzila Binti Said (F/198) 13 Sept 2014 10,000

Norhasliza Binti Ghapa (N/2429) 13 Sept 2014 500

Ong Sun Juan (O/76) 13 Sept 2014 5,000

Siti Nor Ashikin Binti Zaki (S/1827) 13 Sept 2014 2,000

Fadzirulhisham Bin Mohamad

(F/158)

17 Oct 2014 5,000

Habibah Bt Ismail (H/336) 17 Oct 2014 5,000

Syed Ahmad Shahabuddin Bin

Syed Nong Mohamad (S/1103)

17 Oct 2014 5,000

Shamshawal Azraai Bin Ahmad

(S/1151)

17 Oct 2014 5,000

Arizal Bin Mohd Arshad (A/681) 18 Oct 2014 5,000

Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos

(J/141)

18 Oct 2014 8,000

Roslie Bin Sulle (R/775) 18 Oct 2014 3,000

Shaik Saleem @ Sh Adam B Sh

Mohd Daud (S/1812)

18 Oct 2014 5,000

Vincent Lawrence (V/37) 18 Oct 2014 2,000

Louis Wong Kok Heng (W/29) 18 Oct 2014 4,000

Sukanthan a/l M Pasupathy

(S/830)

21 Nov 2014 50,000

Zahiah Bt Nasir (Z/64) 21 Nov 2014 1,000

Marian Anthony a/l A Arokiasamy

(A/981)

11 Dec 2014 3,000

Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah (B/91) 11 Dec 2014 15,000

Tan Chee Keong (T/185) 11 Dec 2014 2,000

Lee Yin Shaiur (L/955) 12 Dec 2014 5,000

Teh Hock Leng (T/438) 12 Dec 2014 5,000

Wirawati Binti Kamarulzaman

(W/486)

12 Dec 2014 3,000. Further ordered

to pay the sum of

RM25,075.89 in restitution

to the complainant within

one month from date of

Order and in default to pay

a further sum of RM1,500

being the increased

penalty pursuant to section

103D(5)

Dato’ Kamalanathan Ratnam

(K/3)

13 Dec 2014 5,000

Jaya Purushothaman @ J. J.

Naidu A/L R. J. Naidu (J/70)

15 Jan 2015 5,000

Maria Stanislaus A/L S.

Vethanayagam (M/868)

15 Jan 2015 5,000

Tia Poh Loong (T/952) 15 Jan 2015 3,000

Alexander S/O Vareed Charles

(A/144)

16 Jan 2015 10,000

Loh Chin Hau (L/1299) 16 Jan 2015 10,000. Further ordered

to make restitution to

the complainant the sum

of RM30,159 within one

month from date of order.

Noraini Binti Mohamed Jalil (N

/750)

16 Jan 2015 2,500. Further ordered



of RM950 within one

month from date of order

and in default thereof the

respondent shall pay a

further sum of RM2500

being the increased


103D(5).

Rosnita Binti Yahaya (R/575) 16 Jan 2015 2,500. Further ordered



of RM950 within one





being the increased


103D(5).

Seah Leng Lee (S/497) 17 Jan 2015 8,000

Abdul Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz

(A/941)

13 Feb 2015 20,000. Further ordered

to make restitution to the

Insolvency Department for


of RM50,000.00 within one

month from date of order.

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


Albert a/l Antoni Tass (A/936) 13 Feb 2015 5,000

Ding Ngik Eng (D/210) 13 Feb 2015 3,000

Sam Chee Hoi (S/1556) 13 Feb 2015 1,000

Siew Wai Kit (S/1699) 13 Feb 2015 1,000

Yusran Bin Zain (Y/458) 13 Feb 2015 5,000

Gowri A/P Govinda Raju (G/351) 12 Mar 2015 5,000

Jamaludin Bin Ibrahim (J/162) 12 Mar 2015 5,000

Kamar B Othman (K/219) 12 Mar 2015 5000. Further ordered



of RM10,000 within one





being the increased


103D(5).

Moi Soey Hun (M/354) 12 Mar 2015 3,000

Ng Cheng Keat (N/385) 12 Mar 2015 5,000

Sanisah Bt Abdul Sani (S/870) 12 Mar 2015 20,000

Sanisah Bt Abdul Sani (S/870) 12 Mar 2015 15,000

Sarina Bt Jusoh (S/915) 12 Mar 2015 15,000

Shahnaz Zuriati Bt Sabri (S/486) 12 Mar 2015 15,000

Tia Poh Loong (T/952) 12 Mar 2015 10,000

Tong Kuan Ling (T/1236) 12 Mar 2015 10,000

Fadzilah Bte Hassan (F/49) 13 Mar 2015 5,000

Vrnda Sre A/P Naginder Rao

(V/276)

13 Mar 2015 2,000

REPRIMANDED

NAME ORDER DATED

Jayamurugan a/l Vadivelu (J/258) 12 Sept 2014

Teh Beng Chneah (T/169) 12 Sept 2014

Vijayandran a/l K Thanigasalam (V/60) 12 Sept 2014

Allen Choong Ching Yet (C/824) 13 Sept 2014

Wong Sau Bing (W/358) 13 Sept 2014. Further ordered to

refund RM17,588 to the complainant

within three months from date of Order

Nazirah Binti Mannan (N/1368) 21 Nov 2014

Lee Kim Noor (L/395) 22 Nov 2014

Suayri a/l Ayyapan (S/2358) 22 Nov 2014

Rajadevan a/l Vamadevan (R/128) 12 Dec 2014

Liew Lee Mei (L/574) 13 Dec 2014

Tan Derek @ Tan Boon Chong (T/333) 13 Dec 2014

Wong Chim Yiam (W/384) 13 Dec 2014

David Leow Chee Siong (L/1360) 15 Jan 2015

Umi Kalsom Binti Mohamed Sidek

(U/69)

16 Jan 2015

K. Manoharan (M/110) 14 Feb 2015

Ritahaizora Binti Ibrahim (R/599) 14 Feb 2015

Gavin Low Peng Kuan (G/353) 12 Mar 2015

Kuan Chee Yoon (K/806) 12 Mar 2015

R. Vigneswaran A/L Raju (R/526) 12 Mar 2015

Chan Chin Chye (C/618) 13 Mar 2015

Manoharan Malayalam (M/384) 13 Mar 2015

Dato' Nagarajan A/L Periasamy (N/

563)

13 Mar 2015

Sanjev Kumar S/O Maniam (S/1463) 13 Mar 2015

Srimurugan A/L Alagan @ Alake

(S/1592)

13 Mar 2015

Vijayasundra Thevar A/L Kuppumuthu

(V/251)

13 Mar 2015

SUSPENDED

NAME ORDER DATED

Loh Chin Hau (L/1299) 13 Dec 2014. Suspended for 12

months with effect from 21 days from

date of Order and to expire on

STRUCK OFF

NAME ORDER DATED

Kamarulzaman Bin Mohamad Buhari

(K/332)

12 Sept 2014

Fadzila Binti Said (F/198) 18 Oct 2014. Further ordered to refund

to the complainant a sum of RM65,000

within three months from date of Order.

Asmahan Binti Haji Sulaiman (A/306) 12 Dec 2014. Further ordered to pay

the sum of RM110,170 in restitution to

the complainant within one month from

date of Order.

Hidayat Bin Mohd Nor (H/458) 15 Jan 2015. Further ordered to make

restitution to the complaint the sum of

RM36,200 within one month from date

of order.

Loh Chin Hau (L/1299) 17 Jan 2015. Further ordered to make

restitution to the complaint the sum of

RM168,838.84 within one month from

date of order.

Mohd Nawi B Ab Hamid (M/277) 13 Feb 2015

Wan Jasmira Binti Wan Ibrahim (W/643) 13 Feb 2015

Robin Low Kok Ming (L/1408) 12 Mar 2015. Further ordered to make

restitution to the complainant the sum

of RM250,528 within one month from

date of order.

Teoh Tai Eak (T/676) 12 Mar 2015

Outcome of Appeals against Disciplinary Orders

1) Poh Chee Seng (P/57)Fined RM5,000 by Order dated 9 Dec 2011. High Court dismissed appeal on 13 Mar 2013. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 13 Aug 2014.

2) Molly Margrete a/p Andrew Gomez (M/1149)Fined RM3,000 by Order dated 12 Apr 2012. High Court dismissed appeal on 4 Apr 2013. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 3 July 2014.

3) Ramasamy Amaippan (R/388)Fined RM30,000 by Order dated 7 Sept 2012. High Court dismissed appeal on 28 Oct 2013. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 19 June 2014.

4) R Sivabalan a/l A Ramiah (S/541)Fined RM10,000 by Order dated 6 Dec 2012. High Court allowed appeal on 21 Mar 2014 and set aside DB Order.

5) R. Sivabalan a/l A Ramiah (S/541)Fined RM5,000 by Order dated 7 Dec 2012. High Court allowed appeal on 9 June 2014.

6) Jagmohan Singh a/l Bhupinder Singh (J/293)Suspended for 18 months by Order dated 8 Mar 2013 and is to expire on 29 Sept 2014. Stay allowed by the High Court on 16 Apr 2013. Appeal withdrawn on 13 Jan 2014.

7) Lee Chee Keong (L/20)Fined RM20,000 by Order dated 20 July 2013. High Court dismissed appeal on 3 July 2014.

8) Tan Hui Chuan (T/150)Fined RM10,000 by Order dated 15 May 2014. High Court dismissed appeal on 14 Nov 2014.

BAR UPDATES/NOTICES


Praixis Jan-June 2015

Documents

Transcript of Praixis Jan-June 2015