JULDEC

For Malaysian Bar circulation only

CHRONICLE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR www.malaysianbar.org.my

PAGE 17

PAGE 34
THE TRAN
TRANSBOUNDARY HAZE CRISIS IN MALAYSIA:
A CLEAR TRANSGRESSION OF INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

PAGE 41
In collaboration with
PETER MOONEY:
MOO
MORE THAN A MEMBER OF THE BAR
 CONTENTS

17
EDITORS NOTE
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
FEATURES/ARTICLES
17 The Oce of the Attorney General Part I: A Constitutional Conundrum
19 The Oce of the Attorney General Part II: The Constitutional Validity
of the Termination of the Services of Tan Sri Abdul Gani B Patail as the
Attorney General
23 Constitutional Patriotism: Towards Civic Nationalism vs Ethnic
Nationalism
26 The Special Position of Sabah and Sarawak in Our Federal Set-Up
31 Sedition Act An Assault on Freedom of Speech and Expression
34 The Transboundary Haze Crisis in Malaysia: A Clear Transgression of

31
International Environmental Law
36 The Malaysian Environmental Court: The Need to Extend its Reach to
Civil Liability
39 The Role of the Malaysian Bar in Environmental Law
41 Peter Mooney: More than a Member of the Bar
EVENTS
44 Upcoming Events
46 Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (12 Sept 2015)
LIFESTYLE
57 Paving the Way for a Crime-Free Malaysia
CASE NOTES HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL
COURT
STATE BAR NEWS
41 NEW APPOINTMENTS
NEWS
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
79 New Admissions to the Malaysian Bar
80 List of Departed Members
80 Notice Regarding Bar Circulars and E-Blasts
80 Summary of Circulars
81 General Information on Matters Discussed at Bar Council Meetings
82 Library Update
87 Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council's Custody: Legal Firms in
which Bar Council has Intervened

46
87 List Of Struck O Members Wherein Appeal/Reinstatement Allowed
87 Disciplinary Orders

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 1

 COVER STORY

BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA

Bar Council
15 Leboh Pasar Besar
50050 Kuala Lumpur
Tel No: (603) 2050 2050
Fax No: (603) 2026 1313 / (603) 2034 2825 / (603) 2072 5818
Email: council@malaysianbar.org.my
Website: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

MEMBERS OF BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA 2015/2016

President : Steven Thiruneelakandan

Vice-President : George Varughese
Secretary : Karen Cheah Yee Lynn
Treasurer : 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 COVER STORY

Bar Council
Raphael Tay Editor-in-Chief
Baizura Abd Razak, Joane Sharmila Editors
Nishta Jiwa, Sangheetha Kuppusamy Marketing & Advertising
This issue of Praxis covers the ever-relevant topic of constitutional law
LexisNexis as well as the environment. Even as Malaysia sees and experiences
Amitabh Srivastava Commercial Director, Southeast Asia
Annie Yeoh Managing Editor, Southeast Asia wave after wave of attempts to undermine the Constitution of
Jasmine Halili Senior Legal Editor
Mohd Khairil Johari Design & Production Malaysia, a bulwark of defence arises to the fore, to clarify the abuse
of the Constitution. While the most pressing matter with regard to
the environment is the haze issue, which seems to be spiralling out of
LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd
T1-6, Jaya 33, 3, Jalan Semangat
control, Malaysians need to realise that the environmental issue is far
Seksyen 13, 46100 Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia and above battling and complaining about the haze.
Tel: (603) 7882 3500, Fax: (603) 7882 3506

Praxis is the official publication of Bar Council Malaysia, published quarterly in collaboration
with LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, for circulation to Members of the Malaysian Bar. The Constitutional Validity of the Termination of the Services
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 of Tan Sri Abdul Gani b Patail as the Attorney General questions
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. the constitutional validity of the removal of Tan Sri Abdul Gani as the
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
Attorney General. Each point is presented succinctly and tersely, so
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, there is no question of obscurity.
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

The Transboundary Haze Crisis in Malaysia: A Clear Transgression
Enquiries on advertising:
Kajendran Arumugam kajendran.arumugam@lexisnexis.com of International Environmental Law thrashes out the issues and
Nishta Jiwa nishta@malaysianbar.org.my

Article contribution:
questions in respect of the haze crisis enveloping the Southeast Asian
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 region.
or to edit those published for content, clarity, style and space considerations. Contributions
and enquiries may be directed to praxis@malaysianbar.org.my.

Circulation: 17,500 On a lighter note, Peter Mooney: More than a Member of the Bar is
Printed in Malaysia by Atlas Cetak (M) Sdn Bhd (97608-X)
Wisma Atlas, No.2, Persiaran Industri a tribute to the man himself, who had a wealth of experience serving
Bandar Sri Damansara, 52200
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as Crown Counsel in Sarawak, and later in the Peninsula. He passed
Tel: (603) 6273 3333, Fax: (603) 6073 3833
away on 27 Apr 2015.

Read these and more in this issue of Praxis.

2 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


From the Editors Keyboard
The Importance of Impartial
and Effective Enforcement
Institutions
T his bumper issue of Praxis highlights
two critical issues firstly, a
major lacuna in our Constitutional and
regulatory framework in relation to the
Oce of the Public Prosecutor and
secondly, the ever-pressing subject of
our environment.
With regard to the first matter, it is trite
that if a holder of high political oce who
wields vast influence and power is under
investigation, and can eect a removal
of key personnel within investigative
bodies, it is the nation that will become
the primary victim when high crimes are
alleged to have been committed.
The controversies arising from
the investigations of 1Malaysia
Development Berhad (1MDB) and
the purported donation in the sum of
around USD700 million (RM2.6 billion)
that is held in the personal account
of the Prime Minister, is well known.
Therefore, these controversies will not
be repeated in this editorial. Instead,
this editorial will calibrate its focus on
institutions and the weaknesses they
face.
In conjunction with the Extraordinary
General Meeting (EGM) of the
Malaysian Bar held on 12 Sept 2015,
Praxis supports the motions proposed
by Steven Thiru, President of the
Malaysian Bar and Chairman of the
Bar Council, and the resolutions which
were passed at the said EGM. The
resolutions serve as public records of
the deep unease and feeling of disquiet
of the legal fraternity as to how these
investigations have been handled. It is
ironic that during the same period when
the media carried reports of conviction
and sentencing of government ocials
for bribery, that the elephant in the room
of the so-called donation is set aside
by the government of the day.
The legal literature on corruption
distinguishes between petty and grand
corruption. Grand corruption involves
two major activities: (i) bribery and
embezzlement; and (ii) abuse of power.
Asif Zadari, husband of the late Benazir
Bhutto and former President of Pakistan
himself, was convicted in Pakistan for
taking secret commissions from power
stations and pipeline projects, airlines,
rice deals and defence contracts. The
late President Sani Abacha of Nigeria
misappropriated state assets taking
huge kickbacks from state contracts,
siphoning hundreds of millions from
sales of Nigerian crude oil, a sad
example of grand corruption.
Within the common law tradition, which
finds its way to our penal code and also
anti-corruption laws, grave oence is
taken against those who abuse the
powers entrusted to them by the people.
The great judge Lord Mansfields
magisterial ruling rings true still through
the annals of history:
The duty of the defendant is obvious;
he was a trustee for the public and
the paymaster, for making every
charge and every allowance he
knew of; If the defendant knew of
the omission and if he concealed
it, his motive must have been
corrupt. That he did know was fully
proved, and he was guilty therefore,
not of an omission or neglect, but
of a gross deceit. The object could
only have been to defraud the
public of the whole, or of part of
the interest. A man accepting an
oce of trust concerning the public,
especially if attended with profit, is
answerable criminally to the King
for misbehaviour in his oce; this is
true, by whomever and in whatever
way the ocer is appointed.
(R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Doug 327)
EDITORS NOTE
On a related matter, the dismissal of
former Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul
Gani b Patail (Tan Sri Gani) is also
highlighted in this issue of Praxis to
discuss the legal position of Tan Sri
Ganis removal with clarity and with
incisive analysis.
By now, it should be common
knowledge that corruption defiles
democracy. As a result of corruption,
parliamentary democracy is diminished
and is substituted by a system which
defies the rule of law. In order for
parliamentary democracy to thrive and
to work eectively, corruption must be
stamped out and one of the ways to do so
is to vigorously adhere to the principles
of separation of powers. According
to Australias Parliamentary Education
Oce, the separation of powers works
together with another principle known
as responsible government, to guide the
way law is made and managed.
Lord Bingham, in his book titled The
Rule of Law, quoted Professor A V Dicey,
the Vinerian Professor of English Law at
Oxford, who coined the expression rule
of law in his book An Introduction to
the Study of the Law of the Constitution
(1885). Lord Bingham clarified that the
expression means that if anyone you
or I is to be penalised it must not be
for breaking some rule dreamt up by an
ingenious minister or ocial in order to
convict us.
Another hallmark of democracy in
any country is the fourth estate the
media. Scottish philosopher Thomas
Carlyle said in his book On Heroes,
Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in
History (1841): Burke [Edmund Burke,
Anglo-Irish statesman] said there were
Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the
Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a
Fourth Estate more important than they
all are.
The fourth estate plays an important role
and in this respect, we salute the brave
editors, newsmen, and journalists of The
Edge and other national newspapers
and media agencies that despite facing
numerous limitations, are trying their
best to uphold their responsibilities. We
are heartened to hear of the High Courts
order to review the decision that sets a
three-month suspension order against
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 3
 EDITORS NOTE
The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge
Weekly and to reject the stay application
by the Home Ministry to stay the same.
The second core matter which, this issue
of Praxis highlights is environmental
matters the perennial haze problem,
the Malaysian Environmental Court, as
well as the role of the Malaysian Bar in
environmental law.
I believe I speak for all Malaysians when
I say that I am fed up with the haze
problem. Although I will not deny that
the blame falls on oil palm plantations
owned by Malaysian and Singaporean
companies, besides Indonesian
companies (according to Wall Street
Journals blog at http://blogs.wsj.com/
briefly/2015/09/25/5-things-to-know-
about-the-haze-shrouding-southeast-
asia/, those companies earned about
$18.4 billion in revenue in 2014),
and that this years haze is the worst
because of severe drought caused by
El Nino, Indonesia ought to do more in
strengthening enforcement measures
4 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
by, for example, prosecuting these
companies, as the large-scale burning
takes places in its jurisdiction. After
all, isnt Indonesia suering the most?
Arent Indonesian lives being sacrificed
for the sake of profit? It surprises me
that in Indonesia, where the haze has
the highest air pollution index (API),
even hitting a ridiculous level of between
1,000 and 2,000 API in Kalimantan, its
Government has not demonstrated
serious eorts to resolve this cyclical
problem. In the meantime, it is the
hapless citizens who suer, the most
vulnerable being the infirm, pregnant
women, and young children.
What does the recent fiasco bode for
Malaysia? Economically, our ringgit
has shrunk, with some countries even
refusing to accept the Malaysian ringgit.
Will our leaders wait till the ship has
finally sunk, before trying to bring it back
to shore? Or with regard to the haze,
do ASEAN leaders wait till the situation
abates, and leave everything as status
quo, until this same occurrence repeats
the next year? At the end of the day, as
we have often highlighted in this editorial
page, this country especially, sorely
needs upright leaders and leadership
with integrity. Otherwise this nation will
continually be in decline.
What this country needs above all, are
leaders with genuine love for the nation,
who do the best for the nation, not for
themselves. Nelson Mandela had this to
say about leadership in April 1998, real
leaders must be ready to sacrifice all for
the freedom of their people.
We do have people of character who can
rise to the top and maturely address the
concerns beleaguering the country. For
them to be given a chance to do so, we
must first fix the endemic weaknesses
aecting our core institutions.
Raphael Tay
Editor-in-Chief

The Untimely Demise of a
Doyen of the Malaysian Bar,
Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh
(19402014)*
Dengan izin, Yang Arif-Yang Arif.
Nama saya adalah Steven Thiru dan saya
mewakili Bar Malaysia. Rakan-rakan
bijaksana saya, Dato K Kumaraendran,
mewakili keluarga mendiang Karpal
Singh, Puan Shyama Nair, mewakili
Jawatankuasa Peguam Pulau Pinang,
dan Tuan Zaharuddin Mohd Isa, mewakili
Peguam Negara Malaysia.
Saya memohon kebenaran Yang Arif-
Yang Arif untuk meneruskan ucapan
saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
May I begin by thanking your Lordships
for agreeing to this reference and making
time to preside over it. This is a solemn
and meaningful occasion that is unique
to the legal profession. It is a time when
the Bar recognises, as a matter of formal
record, one of our very own who is no
longer with us.
In the finest traditions of the Bar,
we gather to pay tribute and record
for posterity the achievements of a
learned friend and colleague at the Bar
that should be emulated and forever
cherished. Karpal Singh was an eminent
and distinguished Member of the Bar,
and one of our foremost and leading
advocates.
Your Lordships would permit me at
the outset to tender the Malaysian
Bars heartfelt condolences to Karpals
immediate family, Madam Gurmit Kaur,
Jagdeep Singh Deo, Gobind Singh Deo,
Ramkarpal Singh Deo, Sangeet Kaur
Deo and Mankarpal Singh Deo, and his
loved ones. We can only imagine their
deep loss, for Karpal was a giant of a
man, a devoted husband, father and
grandfather, and a towering Malaysian.
We are saddened. As it is in your lives,
Karpal has also left a large void and
vacuum in the legal profession that will
not be easily or quickly filled. Karpal
once said that even if he were gone,
there would be hundreds of Karpals to
take his place. We can only wish that
this will come true as he was indeed a
special and rare breed amongst us, a
man of unshakeable principles.
My Lords, inasmuch as I am both
humbled and singularly honoured to
speak in these proceedings, my task
today is quite daunting. How does one
compress and portray justly a successful
life in the law that has spanned more
than four decades? My burden is made
slightly lighter by the comprehensive
and eloquent speech of my learned
friend, Dato K Kumaraendran, who
knew Karpal better than most of us
here today, and who has done immense
justice to his memory. I gratefully
associate myself with his speech.
On my part, I wish to focus on some of
Karpals enduring qualities at dierent
stages of the passage of his life, which
will honour him, and which I hope will
serve as a lesson and guide for the rest
of us at the Bar as we continue in our
journey in this noble and honourable
calling in the law.
Karpal was born in Penang on 28 June
1940, to Ram Singh Deo and Kartar Kaur.
Despite the dicult and debilitating
wartime conditions, his parents imbued
in him an incorrigible and adventurous
spirit.1 He inherited tenacity and
courage from his parents, which became
some of the most enduring qualities that
Karpal exuded as a lawyer.
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
His early education was at St. Xaviers
Institution, here in Penang. He excelled
in English and History, which are the
seeds of knowledge for anyone who
pursues the law as a vocation.2 His
parents wanted him to take up medicine
but it was always clear that his calling
was elsewhere. As a young man, he had
a reputation for speaking his mind3, a
trait that defined him both at the Bar and
later in the thrust and parry of politics.
Karpal read law at the University of
Singapore in 1961, and was in the first
batch of law students at the University.
He was a resident at Dunearn Road
Hostel and became President of the
Hostel. Karpal was active in University
politics and later rose to be President
of the Student Union Council. He was
well-known for his ragging4 skills,
which was then part of the traditional
induction or indoctrination to University
life. Few of our judges may have
had special cause to remember their
introduction to University life by Karpal
through ragging, such that perhaps
later when he appeared before them,
not all marginal decisions went his way.5
Karpal took his time seven years to
finish his law degree. There is a story
that Professor Tommy Koh, Karpals
law lecturer and later Dean of the Law
Faculty, once asked Karpal, Look here,
Karpal, dont you want to go home?,
to which Karpal responded Well, if you
fellows will not let me go home, what
can I do about it? 6 We are glad today
that Professor Koh took it upon himself
to ensure that Karpal came home to
Malaysia. He made him sit in the front
of the class and according to Karpal, I
could not play the fool anymore.7 He
graduated with an LLB Honours degree
in 1968.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 5
 PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
Karpal was called to the Bar in 1969 and
set up his legal firm, Karpal Singh & Co,
in 1970. He rapidly established himself
as formidable litigator, with an expertise
in criminal law, constitutional law and
administrative law. He was renowned as
a firm and fair lawyer, with a reputation
for presenting arguments that had the
merit of brevity, force and focus. His
strong conviction for equality for all,
particularly justice for the downtrodden
was evident from the very beginning of
his practice. He has been called the
peoples lawyer8. He was also our own
Attorney for the damned9, which was
a distinctive honour conferred on the
legendary early 20th-century US lawyer,
Clarence Darrow.
Karpal enjoyed tremendous respect from
the Bench. Immediately after his earliest
appearance before Tun Mohamed
Suan Hashim, (who subsequently
became Lord President), His Lordship
remarked that Karpal was a lawyer to
watch as a person destined for legal
pre-eminence.10 Later, Dato Mahadev
Shankar, a former Judge of the Court of
Appeal, described Karpal as follows:
To say that the man had charisma
would be a gross understatement.
From start to finish, he left nothing
to speculation. He had the unique
ability of penetrating the faade
and get into the core of the material
issues without beating about the
bush. What stood out was his
transparent honesty together with
his powerful voice and command
of the language, never faltering
as he moved like a juggernaut to
the inexorable conclusion of his
submission. Indeed he was a
colossus who was greater than the
sum of his parts.11
Karpal was involved in a number of
landmark cases, and over 600 of his
cases have been reported. He was a
pioneer in drug tracking cases and a
staunch opponent of the death penalty.
Among his early high-profile death
penalty cases were those involving
the Australian Kevin Barlow, and later
the New Zealanders Lorraine and
Aaron Cohen. In Public Prosecutor v
Lau Kee Hoo,12 Karpal argued that the
imposition of the death penalty was
unconstitutional. The challenge failed
but the case remains a leading authority
on the constitutional approach to the
death penalty. 13
6 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
His other landmark cases included:
Johnson Tan Heng Seng v Public
Prosecutor,14 where Karpal
raised Article 8(1) of the Federal
Constitution to challenge the
Attorney Generals power to
discriminate in the way he preferred
charges and prosecuted accused
persons under dierent provisions
of the law.
Teh Cheng Poh v Public
Prosecutor,15 which was one of
several cases Karpal argued before
the Privy Council. It clarified the
reversion of powers to Parliament
post-Emergency, and the
availability of judicial review in the
form of mandamus against Cabinet
decisions.
Arulpragasam v PP,16 where a
full bench of the Supreme Court
decided that the prosecution in
criminal cases was obliged to prove
the guilt of an accused person
beyond a shadow of a doubt at the
close of the prosecutions case,
before defence is to be called.
Ng Chuan Hock v Tan Sri Musa bin
Dato Hj Hassan,17 one of the many
cases in which Karpal appeared and
argued for a member of the public
service that he had not received
procedural fairness in the hands of
the disciplinary authority.
More recently, in PP v Kok Wah
Kuan,18 where Karpal argued that
the power vested by the Child Act
2001 in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,
to detain at his pleasure a child
convicted of an oence carrying the
death penalty, violated the doctrine
of separation of powers. He argued
that as the power to determine guilt
and the measure of punishment is
a judicial power, the vesting of a
sentencing power in the Head of
State constituted a violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
The Federal Court rejected that
argument and held that as there
was no specific provision in the
Constitution incorporating the
doctrine of separation of powers,
it was not unconstitutional for
Parliament to vest sentencing power
in the Executive. However, Karpals
argument was later vindicated by
the decision of the Privy Council
in State of Mauritius v Khoyratty,19
where Lord Mance observed
that new constitutions based on
the Westminster model would
not usually contain any express
provision incorporating the doctrine
of separation of powers but that
the doctrine was nevertheless an
integral part of such a constitution.20
A whole host of other leading
criminal cases, including his
defence in the recently concluded
Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim case.
Karpal was also an uncompromising
and dogged defender of the Federal
Constitution against those who have
tried to misconstrue or change its
fundamental provisions and structure. In
particular, he was a steadfast advocate
against attempts to change the original
and fundamental secular structure of the
Constitution. He felt strongly about civil
liberties, independence of the Judiciary,
freedom of belief and religion, and about
being true to the founding principles
underpinning the Constitution.21
In this regard, it was also Justice
Shankar who observed in his tribute to
Karpal:
Good and responsible judges
appreciate courageous lawyers
who undertake unpopular causes
even at the risk of courting ocial
disapproval. Such persons are as
much ocers of the court as they
are defenders of the interests of their
clients. They are an instrument in
the search for truth and justice and a
bulwark against bias, prejudice and
perjury not to mention manipulators
of the justice system and vested
interests. 22
The same sentiments were expressed
by my learned friend, Gobind Singh
Deo, Karpals second son:
He was a man who always defended
the Federal Constitution. Towards
the end, he paid a heavy price
for speaking up in defence of the
Federal Constitution. But this didnt
discourage him from soldering on.
He would help anyone who needed
help and throughout his years, he
touched the hearts of many. 23
My Lords, Karpal was also committed
to the activities and functions of the

Bar, and supported the work of the Bar
Council. He was a leading opponent
of the Governments proposal for the
Essential (Security Cases) Regulations
1975 (ESCAR), which amended the
law for the trial of oences against
national security. Prominent amongst
the proposals were changes in the basic
rules of evidence and the removal of the
Judges discretion in passing sentences
in such cases. At the Extraordinary
General Meeting convened by the Bar,
Karpal and Datuk R Rajasingam, also of
the Penang Bar, moved a resolution to
condemn the attempts by the executive
to diminish the rule of law and to
interfere with the independence of the
Judiciary in sentencing.24 We see today
vestiges or manifestations of ESCAR in
the Prevention of Crime Act 2013 and
the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015.
Karpal would have been with the Bar in
our opposition to these repugnant and
abhorrent laws.
I do not wish to dwell too much on
Karpals incarceration under the Internal
Security Act 1960 (in October 1987),
the charges under the Sedition Act
1948 and the serious spinal injuries
he suered that left him wheelchair-
bound. But I wish to say that in all
these challenges, his indomitable
spirit, in the face of adversity, never
flagged. His commitment to justice,
freedom and, above all, the rule of law,
remained unabated, and his passion for
the law and the well-being of his fellow
citizens has inspired many generations
of Malaysians. Karpal personified the
immortal words of Sir Winston Churchill,
All great things are simple, and many
can be expressed in a single word;
freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy,
hope.
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
The Malaysian Bar today fondly 8 Lawyers
remembers Karpal Singh, a legend of
the Bar in our time. Karpals name will
be mentioned over and over again for
generations to come for the times
9 Darrow, Clarence, Attorney for the
when we need encouragement and
for the times when we need to draw
strength to do what we must. He may
no longer be with us but he will never 10
be forgotten by the Malaysian Bar. As
Thomas Carlyle said, No great man
lives in vain. The history of the world is
but the biography of great men.
11
My Lords, may I now respectfully move 12
for the record of these proceedings to 13
be preserved in the archives
of this honourable court, and for a copy
to be extended to the family of the late
Karpal Singh. 14
15
I am obliged to your Lordships. 16
17
Steven Thiru
18
President
19
Malaysian Bar
20
* This speech was delivered by Steven
Thiru, President of the Malaysian Bar,
at the Reference Proceeding for Karpal
21
Singh s/o Ram Singh at the Penang Court
Complex, Penang on 4 Sept 2015.
22
Notes
1 Tim Donoghue, Karpal Singh: Tiger of
Jelutong, Marshall Cavendish, 2013, p. 6.
2 Ibid, p. 15.
3 Ibid, p. 16. 23
4 Ibid, p. 20.
5 Ibid, p. 20.
24
6 Ibid, p. 27.
7 Shanker, Mahadev, A Man who Touched
Many Minds and Many Hearts, The
Commonwealth Lawyer, Journal of the
Commonwealth Lawyers Association,
Vol 23 No 2 (August 2014), p. 29.
Rights Watch Canada,
Canadian Lawyers Defend the
Independence of the Bar in Malaysia,
19 March 2002 (http://www.lrwc.org/
canadian-lawyers-malaysia/).
Damned: Clarence Darrow In The
Courtroom, University of Chicago Press,
1989.
Shanker, Mahadev, A Man who Touched
Many Minds and Many Hearts, The
Commonwealth Lawyer, Journal of the
Commonwealth Lawyers Association,
Vol 23 No 2 (August 2014), p. 29.
Ibid, p. 30.
[1983] 1 MLJ 157.
Sri Ram, Chandra, A Tiger at Rest The
Commonwealth Lawyer, Journal of the
Commonwealth Lawyers Association,
Vol 23 No 2 (August 2014), p. 22.
[1977] 2 MLJ 66.
[1979] 1 MLJ 50.
[1997] 1 MLJ 1.
[2013] 3 MLJ 805.
[2008] 1 MLJ 1.
[2006] 2 WLA 1330.
Sri Ram, Chandra, A Tiger at Rest, The
Commonwealth Lawyer, Journal of the
Commonwealth Lawyers Association,
Vol 23 No 2 (August 2014). p. 22-23.
Christopher Leong, The Presidents
Tribute to Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh,
Praxis, April June 2014, p. 4.
Shankar, Mahadev, A Man who touched
Many Minds and Many Hearts, The
Commonwealth Lawyer, Journal of the
Commonwealth Lawyers Association,
Vol 23 No 2 (August 2014), p. 30.
Gobind Singh Deo, The Man, My
Father, Praxis, April June 2014, p. 11.
Bar Council Malaysia, Justice Through
Law, 1997, p. 61.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 7
 PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
Respect the Rights
and Dignity of Asylum
Seekers and Refugees,
and Eliminate Human
Trafficking and Migrant
Smuggling
The Malaysian Bar acknowledges the
indomitable spirit and courage of all
refugees on World Refugee Day 2015.
The United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) in Malaysia
reported that as at July 2014 there were
47,352 asylum seekers (pending cases),
98,207 refugees, 40,000 stateless
persons, and 80,000 individuals who
do not fall into any of these other
categories, residing in Malaysia. This
brings the population of concern to a
staggering total of 265,559.1
Unlike economic migrants, asylum
seekers and refugees in Malaysia
are often victims of various forms
of persecution, oppression and
deprivation. They are subjected to
harassment, extortion, physical abuse
or assault and ill treatment. These
persons live in an environment of fear,
and insecurity.
Our laws do not accord asylum seekers
and refugees due recognition, care and
protection. They are treated as illegal
immigrants under the Immigration Act
1959/1963.2 Thus, they are exposed
to arrest, detention, whipping and
deportation. This unacceptable state
of aairs is compounded by Malaysia's
obdurate reticence to ratify the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees (the 1951 Convention)
and the 1967 Protocol Relating (the
1967 Protocol) to the Status of
Refugees, both which are instruments
encapsulating customary international
law in relation to the recognition of the
socio-economic rights of refugees and
the provision of humanitarian assistance
and social integration.
Thus, asylum seekers and refugees
are prohibited from seeking lawful
employment. They are therefore forced
to support themselves on a casual
engagement basis without any lawfully
binding employment contract. This
makes them vulnerable to exploitation
8 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
and discrimination as regards the non-
payment of wages, long working hours,
and harsh working conditions.
The Malaysian Bar renews its call to
the Government to ratify the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol;
to put in place a suitable legal and
administrative framework for dealing
with refugees and asylum seekers;
and to work closely with stakeholders
such as UNHCR Malaysia, civil society
organisations, and the Bar towards
achieving holistic and humane solutions
for them.
The Malaysian Bar also calls on the
government to ensure that a proper
recruitment and monitoring system
under the Ministry of Human Resources
is put in place to ensure that asylum
seekers and refugees are accorded
basic employment rights in respect of
wages, fair working hours, o-days,
medical benefits, and workplace health
and safety protection. In this regard, the
various measures and recommendations
contained in the proposal entitled
Developing a Comprehensive Policy
Framework for Refugees and Asylum
Seekers, which was prepared by
the Malaysian Bar in 2011, should
be immediately implemented.3 This
will lead to an overall improvement in
the treatment of asylum seekers and
refugees.
The Malaysian Bar also wishes to
highlight the importance of a regional
approach in dealing with concerns
regarding asylum seekers and refugees.
In this connection, a deeply worrying
aspect of the problem is that of human
tracking and migrant smuggling. All
nations in this region share a common
responsibility to confront and deal
with this scourge. The recent reported
allegation that the Government of
Australia paid human trackers to return
65 asylum seekers to Indonesia is very
shocking.4 Such irresponsible conduct,
if proven, deserves condemnation and
must attract criminal prosecution. It
certainly militates against the fight to
eradicate human tracking and migrant
smuggling in this region.
World Refugee Day assumes particular
significance to Malaysia this year due
to the recent boat-people saga o
our shores and the discovery of mass
graves as well as death camps at the
Perlis-Thailand border.5 This was an
unmitigated tragedy of human suering
and loss of lives. It has brought into sharp
focus Malaysias approach towards
asylum seekers, refugees, as well as
the perpetrators and victims of human
tracking and migrant smuggling. It is
a timely reminder to the Government to
respect the rights and dignity of asylum
seekers and refugees.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
20 June 2015
Notes
1 2015 UNHCR subregional operations
profile South-East Asia, UNHCR: The
UN Refugee Agency (accessed on 17
June 2015).
2 Immigration Act 1959/1963 [Act 155]
section 55E(7).
3 Bar Council Malaysia Memorandum on
Developing a Comprehensive Policy
Framework for Refugees and Asylum-
Seekers in Malaysia dated 20 June
2011, developed at the Roundtable on
Developing a Comprehensive Policy
Framework for Refugees and Asylum-
Seekers organised by the Bar Council
on 23 June 2009.
4 Prime Minister Tony Abbott dodges
questions on people-smuggler payment
claims, Sydney Morning Herald, 14
June 2015 (accessed on 18 June 2015);
People smuggler cash: Stacks police
say were paid to send asylum seekers
on a suicide mission, Sydney Morning
Herald, 16 June 2015 (accessed on 19
June 2015).
5 Rohingya and Bangladeshi Boat
People Humanitarian Crisis: Prompt and
Concrete Measures Needed, Malaysian
Bar, 19 May 2015 (accessed on 15
June 2015); Malaysian Government
Must Bring the Death Camps Human
Trackers and Migrant Smugglers to
Justice, Malaysian Bar, 28 May 2015
(accessed on 15 June 2015); Eradicate
Rampant Corruption, and Stem the Loss
of Lives, Malaysian Bar, 8 June 2015
(accessed on 15 June 2015).

At the Crossroads
of the Rule of Law:
Malaysia Must
Confront Challenges
to International and
Domestic Justice Now
Tomorrow, 17 July 2015, marks the
Day of International Criminal Justice,
which commemorates the anniversary
of the adoption of the Rome Statute
on 17 July 1998, the founding treaty of
the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The Rome Statute seeks to protect
people from genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and the crime of
aggression, and the ICC has proven itself
to be an eective mechanism to address
international crimes.
In this regard, the first-year anniversary of
the shooting down of MH17 on 17 July
2014 serves to focus eorts to bring the
perpetrators of an international crime to
justice. It also raises the question of how,
and where, they are to be prosecuted
once they are apprehended.
Eorts are ongoing this week at the United
Nations Security Council in New York to
gather support for Malaysias proposal
to establish an international tribunal
to prosecute those responsible for the
downing of MH17 over eastern Ukraine
last year.[1] This will see the participation
of the Netherlands, Australia, Britain and
the Ukraine, who are all members of the
Joint Investigation Team.
The Malaysian Bar supports the principle
that the perpetrators of this heinous act
must be brought to justice. However,
the government has not explained why
it has chosen the route of an ad hoc
international tribunal instead of the well-
established ICC system.
Interference into
1MDB Investigations
Shields Wrongdoers and
Conceals Wrongdoing
Many burning questions in respect of
allegations of financial impropriety in
1MDB remain unanswered. There are
also serious concerns that the evidence
or statements of critical witnesses or
suspects, including the Prime Minister,
have apparently not been recorded, and
that relevant documents have not been
promptly (or at all) secured.
PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
It is noteworthy that the Malaysian
Government had announced, in April
2011, a Cabinet decision to join the
ICC. This has not been acted upon. 123
Member States of the United Nations
have joined the ICC. The apparent
refusal to join the ICC signals a worrying
u-turn on the part of our Government.
The Malaysian Bar is also surprised by
the reports that Malaysia has refused
to entertain a formal request by the
Australian Attorney-Generals oce
for information relating to the alleged
corruption scandal surrounding the
award of a contract to print Malaysian
polymer banknotes. Victorias Supreme
Court recently revoked a suppression
order that had prevented the publication
of any information aired in the ongoing
Australian Reserve Bank bribery court
proceedings.[2] The request was made
pursuant to the Mutual Cooperation in
Criminal Matters arrangements between
Malaysia and Australia. It has been
reported that the Malaysian Government
has declined to cooperate.
The Governments vacillating stand on
cooperating with friendly countries in
the quest for cross-border justice is
quite inexplicable. It does not bode
well for our standing in the international
community in an area that requires close
cross-border cooperation. Moreover,
Malaysia has already been wrong-footed
with the recent discovery of the death
camps at our border with Thailand,
where the remains of many victims of
human tracking have been unearthed.
[3] This is yet another reminder that we
cannot turn a blind eye to international
criminal activities.
It should not be forgotten that today, 16
July 2015, marks the 6th anniversary of
the death of Teoh Beng Hock.[4] Six
years on, we are not even close to seeing
In this regard, the Malaysian Bar is
astounded by the news reports today
regarding the Governments removal
of the Attorney General, Tan Sri Abdul
Gani Patail, who is a key member of
the Special Task Force investigating
the 1MDB matter. This lends to the
perception of interference by parties
with vested interests such as the
Executive, or even the Prime Minister
himself in the work of the Special Task
Force.
The abrupt removal, and the manner
of removal, of the Attorney General are
shocking. It has been reported that
a prosecution of those responsible for
his death. Notwithstanding the Court of
Appeal decision that Teoh did not commit
suicide[5] and a financial settlement
by the Malaysian Government and the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
with his family[6], the seeming lack of
interest and urgency in pursuing the
criminal investigation and prosecution is
extremely alarming.
As a non-permanent member of the United
Nations Security Council and current
chair of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations, Malaysia must do more in
establishing exemplary credentials as an
upholder and respecter of justice, both
internationally and domestically. If we are
to take our place as a strong, trustworthy
and dependable regional pillar, we need
to rearm our commitment to the rule of
law and reinforce our foundations of law
and order.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
16 July 2015
Notes
[1] Najib reiterates push for international
tribunal to seek justice for MH17 crash,
The Malaysian Insider, 16 July 2015.
[2] Bribery scandal linked to Malaysian
Prime Minister Najib Razak, Sydney
Morning Herald, 14 July 2015.
[3] Horrors unearthed at 28 sites used by
human trackers, The Star Online, 26
May 2015.
[4] Six years on, family of slain Teoh Beng
Hock travels to Sabah in pursuit of
justice, Malay Mail Online, 9 July 2015.
[5] Court overturns open verdict on Beng
Hock, Malaysiakini, 5 September 2014.
[6] MACC to pay RM660k for Teoh Beng
Hock death, Malaysiakini, 12 May 2015.
the Attorney Generals services were
terminated on 27 July 2015 on health
reasons and that he will remain as a
Judicial and Legal Services ocer until
his retirement on 5 October 2015. It
would seem unprecedented for a senior
civil servant, let alone one with the rank
of the Attorney General, to be removed
so close to his ocial retirement.
Moreover, his removal and reduction in
rank are unconstitutional, inasmuch as
there appears to be non-compliance
with Articles 135(2) and 145(5) of the
Federal Constitution, which include the
requirement for reasonable opportunity
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 9
 PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
to be heard. The position of the Attorney
General is constitutionally mandated,
and any removal must comply with
stringent standards of due process.
Further, the Bar Council has frequent
and direct engagement with the
Attorney General and, to the best of our
knowledge, his recent health has not
hindered the performance of his duties.
The reason given for his removal is
therefore questionable.
The unwarranted termination of the
Attorney Generals services is in sequel
to a series of administrative orders that
have impeded and undermined the
investigations into 1MDB. The latter
seriously curtails fundamental rights
such as the freedom of information,
movement and expression.
Administrative orders are made by the
Government and its agencies pursuant
to discretionary statutory powers. The
exercise of this governmental discretion
is subject to overarching principles
of fairness and natural justice. It
would be a stark abuse of power if
administrative orders were exercised in
a biased manner or for ulterior purposes,
including to shield wrongdoers or to
conceal wrongdoing.
The recent actions by the authorities
appear to demonstrate a pattern of
abuse of power to impose dubious
administrative orders. Instances include
the following:
(1) The Malaysian Communications
and Multimedia Commissions
decision to issue an administrative
order under the Communications
and Multimedia Act 1998 to block
Comprehensive Reform
to the MACC Needed
to Strengthen the Fight
Against Corruption in
Malaysia
The Malaysian Bar, in collaboration
with the Institute for Democracy and
Economic Aairs (IDEAS), the Centre scourge of corruption through a viable
to Combat Corruption and Cronyism
(C4), Citizens Network for a Better
Malaysia (CNBM), and Transparency
International Malaysia (TI-M),
submitted a joint memorandum to the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(MACC) on 28 July 2015 setting out our
proposals to reform the MACC, for it to
10 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
the Sarawak Report website, due
to perceived threats to national
security. Sarawak Report has been
one of the sources of allegations
of wrongdoing involving 1MDB,
which has also implicated the Prime
Minister. Naturally, the common
perception would therefore be
that the order is an attempt to
suppress the flow of, and access to,
information on the allegations.
(2) The administrative orders imposed
by the Director General of
Immigration, under the Immigration
Act 1959/63, on Tony Pua (Member
of Parliament for Petaling Jaya
Utara), Mohd Rafizi Ramli (Member
of Parliament for Pandan) and Datuk
Tong Kooi Ong (owner of The Edge
Media Group), which ban overseas
travel without any reasons. The
freedom of movement of these
persons has been infringed, and
they seem to have been targeted
because of their strident criticism
of 1MDB or the expos of alleged
wrongdoings concerning 1MDB.
Ironically, the very persons who
have been implicated in these
allegations such as the Prime
Minister and some of the ocers
of 1MDB have not been similarly
barred from travel.
(3) The three-month administrative
suspension order imposed by the
Ministry of Home Aairs, under the
Printing Presses and Publications
Act 1984, on The Edge Weekly and
The Edge Financial Daily, on grounds
of possible public alarm over the
publication of reports concerning
1MDB and allegations in them that
implicate the Government and
comprehensively address and deal with
corruption.
We hold the view that MACCs limited
success in its attempts to eradicate
corruption in Malaysia is a result of
corruption not having been addressed in
a comprehensive and consistent manner.
Thus, our reform proposals are aimed
at ensuring a holistic treatment of the
We also take the position that
constitutional and legislative framework.
needed to the following legislation:
The reform proposals are:
(1) to create an Independent Anti-
Corruption Commission (IACC),
a constitutionally mandated
commission, beyond the scope,
national leaders. These grounds
are irrational, as the public alarm is
in fact due to the failure to answer
satisfactorily the allegations and
the reports in the publications. The
suspension order stifles freedom
of expression, and can easily be
perceived as a blatant attempt to
silence a contrary voice on a matter
of grave public interest.
The resort to such administrative orders
fuels the growing perception that critics
in the 1MDB matter are being victimised
and muzzled, whilst their allegations are
being ignored and the persons against
whom the allegations have been levelled
are not being investigated fully.
The Malaysian Bar condemns the
ostensible interference, through
unconstitutional and unlawful conduct,
with the ongoing investigations in
the 1MDB matter. There must be no
meddling with the Special Task Force,
particularly the work of the MACC, since
the nature of the allegations largely
involves corruption.
The acid test of the integrity and
credibility of any investigation is how
allegations against persons in high
oce are dealt with. The abuse of
administrative powers, and now the
removal of a key member of the Special
Task Force, threaten to cripple the
investigations into 1MDB and render the
entire exercise a meaningless charade.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
28 July 2015
control and influence of the
Executive;
(2) to ensure the independence
of Commissioners serving the
commission; and
(3) to ensure security of tenure for the
Chairman and Commissioners.
consequential amendments will be
(1) Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission Act 2009;
(2) Ocial Secrets Act 1972;
(3) Whistleblower Protection Act 2010;
and

(4) Witness Protection Act 2009.
We propose the establishment of a
constitutionally mandated IACC in the
mould of the Election Commission,
but with a unique structure, and the
substance befitting its position as an
institution with sucient powers of
oversight and accountability. This
would involve amendments to the
Federal Constitution in the form of the
introduction of a standalone provision to
cater for the new body.
The IACC is to have full autonomy and
power over anti-corruption policies,
practices and directives; recruitment and
discipline of ocers; as well as powers
of oversight and supervision. The IACC
would be headed by a constitutionally
recognised and mandated Chairman
with security of tenure and security
from dismissal, akin to a Judge of the
Federal Court. Additionally, the IACC
Parliament Must Not
Countenance Any Delay
or Interference in PACs
Investigation into 1MDB
The Malaysian Bar is disturbed by
the media statement by the Speaker
of the Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Datuk
Seri Panglima Pandikar Amin Haji
Mulia, of 30 July 2015, stating that the
proceedings of the Public Accounts
Committee (PAC) must be postponed.
The Speakers reasoning was that the
PAC can only meet after a new Chairman
has been appointed. His statement
came after four members of the PAC,
including the Chairman, had been
appointed to government positions in
the recent Cabinet reshue announced
by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2015.
According to Standing Order 77(4) of
the Dewan Rakyat, a Minister (which
includes a Deputy Minister) cannot
be the Chairman or a member of the
PAC. As such, Datuk Nur Jazlan bin
Mohamed, the Chairman, is ineligible
by virtue of his recent appointment as
Deputy Minister of Home Aairs; so too
are Datuk Wilfred Madius Tangau (now
the Minister of Science, Technology
and Innovation), Datuk Mas Ermieyati
Samsudin (now the Deputy Minister of
Tourism and Culture), and Dato Seri
Reezal Merican Naina Merican (now the
Deputy Minister of Foreign Aairs), who
were members of the PAC.
PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
would be composed of independent
commissioners to be voted in by
Parliament, and with at least 40% of
them coming from civil society.
Further, as part of the structural
reforms, we propose that the statutorily
established MACC be renamed the Anti-
Corruption Agency (ACA), to avoid
confusion. The ACA will be responsible
for operational matters involving
detection and investigation of corrupt
practices or activities.
The fight against corruption must be
addressed in a comprehensive manner
through these reforms, in order to make
genuine progress towards a corruption-
free Malaysia.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat has
misconstrued the Standing Orders.
Standing Order 82(1) states that any
Select Committee (such as the PAC)
shall, so far as practicable, reflect
the balance between the parties within
the Dewan Rakyat. Thus, the provision
clearly does not prohibit a Select
Committee, which is not reflective of
the composition of the Dewan Rakyat,
from functioning. The PAC still has
nine members, four from the Barisan
Nasional, and five from the Opposition.
The fact that the PAC is still composed
of members from both sides of the aisle
is sucient to allow it to continue.
Further, Standing Order 77(3) states
that a Select Committee cannot meet
in the absence of the Chairman or
Vice-Chairman due to illness or for
any other reason whatsoever. In the
present case, while there is no longer a
Chairman of the PAC, a Vice-Chairman
remains. Therefore, Standing Order
77(3) is not contravened, and the PAC
can still function.
Standing Order 83(3) states that the
quorum for a Select Committee to meet is
three members, including the Chairman.
However, the reference to Chairman
in this Standing Order must refer to
a Chairman of the meeting, and not
necessarily the Chairman of the Select
Committee himself or herself. This is
because Standing Order 77(3) states
that in the absence of the Chairman or
Vice-Chairman, the remaining members
Wan Saiful Wan Jan
Chief Executive Ocer
Institute for Democracy and
Economic Aairs (IDEAS)
Cynthia Gabriel
Director
Centre to Combat Corruption &
Cronyism (C4)
Dr Loi Kheng Min
Deputy President
Transparency International
Malaysia (TI-M)
Dr Ho Chai Yee
Chairman
Special Interest Group on Anti-
Corruption and Good Governance
Citizens Network for a Better
Malaysia (CNBM)
31 July 2015
can still proceed to meet so long as
they elect a Chairman from among their
number to preside over the Committees
meeting. Therefore, there is no necessity
for the Chairman of the PAC himself or
herself to be present at a PAC meeting
in order for it to proceed. If the Vice-
Chairman is present, he or she is fully
able to act as Chairman of the meeting,
and the quorum requirement would be
satisfied.
It is also to be noted that Standing
Order 83(7) states that in the event of
the death or unavoidable absence of
a member of the Select Committee,
the Committee of Selection of the
Dewan Rakyat maynominate another
member of the [Dewan Rakyat] to fill
that vacancy, and that this nomination
shall be announced to the Dewan Rakyat
at its next meeting. Again, the Standing
Order does not suggest that the work
of the Select Committee should cease
pending that vacancy being filled.
It is therefore the spirit underlying
the Standing Orders, that a Select
Committee should be able to continue
to function, notwithstanding any
vacancies. It cannot be that the
important work of Parliament could be
brought to a grinding halt whenever
there is a vacancy. If this were the case,
the work of Parliament could easily be
frustrated by merely engineering one or
more vacancies in any Select Committee
in order to prevent it from functioning.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 11
 PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
The proceedings of the PAC which
have already been scheduled for this
coming week starting on 4 August,
as well as later this month and in
September 2015 to hear from both
past and present 1MDB executives,
auditors and other persons connected
with this aair, must therefore proceed,
and any absence by the summoned
witnesses from these proceedings
would be contempt of Parliament.
The imbroglio surrounding 1MDB is a
serious matter. There is already much
public disquiet that the investigations
by the Special Task Force are being
hindered or impaired, including by
various actions directed at members of
the Special Task Force.
Let the MACC
Investigate Without
Impediment, and Allow
the Truth to Emerge
The Malaysian Bar denounces the
current unrelenting onslaught against the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(MACC) in connection with its
investigation into the flow of funds from
SRC International Sdn Bhd (a former
subsidiary of 1MDB), as well as funds of
RM2.6 billion, into the Prime Ministers
private bank accounts.
It cannot be denied that, since 28 July
2015, MACC personnel have been
the focus of a police investigation into
allegations of leaking of confidential
information and involvement in a
supposed conspiracy to overthrow the
Government, purportedly in violation of
Section 124B of the Penal Code.
In particular, we have seen in recent days
the arrest and questioning of Tan Sri
Rashpal Singh, a former adviser to the
MACC, and Ahmad Sazilee Abdul Khairi,
a Deputy Public Prosecutor seconded to
the MACC, before they were released.
The latters oce and home were
raided, and documents were reportedly
removed.
The police have also questioned senior
MACC ocers, including Dato Hj
Bahri Mohamad Zain (Director, Special
Operations Division), Datuk Tan Kang
Sai (Deputy Director, Special Operations
Division), Datuk IG Chandran (Director,
Forensic Division), and Tuan Roslan Tuan
Mat (Ocer, Special Operations Division).
12 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
A number of incidents this past week
lend further credence to the perception
of interference into the probe being
conducted by the Special Task Force,
particularly the abrupt termination of
the services of the former Attorney
General, and the arrest by the police
of two individuals an ocer from
the Attorney Generals Chambers, and
a Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP)
seconded to the Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission (MACC)
as well as the reported raid by the
police on the DPPs home and oce
in the MACC, and the alleged removal
of documentary evidence relating to
MACCs investigations into 1MDB.
In addition, the Inspector General of
Police is reported to have said that
ocials from Bank Negara Malaysia and
They reportedly arrested two ocers
one of whom was the investigator
looking into SRC International Sdn Bhd
who were subsequently released. In
addition, the police raided the MACCs
Special Operations Division and
reportedly removed documents which
may well consist of crucial evidence,
particularly concerning the investigation
into SRC International Sdn Bhd from
the possession of MACC personnel.
Other recent developments include the
following:
(1) In an unprecedented move, all five
panels that have oversight over the
MACC issued a joint press statement
on 29 July 2015 appealing for the
MACC to be allowed to undertake
its work as part of the Special Task
Force without any interference or
pressure from third parties;
(2) On 30 July 2015, MACC issued
another press statement reportedly
denying that its ocers were
involved in a conspiracy to topple
the Government, and were instead
only carrying out their duties without
fear and favour, in spite of anyone
involved;
(3) MACC Special Operations Division
Director Dato Hj Bahri Mohamad
Zain has been reported as saying he
was baed by the arrest of Deputy
Public Prosecutor Ahmad Sazilee
Abdul Khairi, and raised the ominous
spectre of hidden hands at work;
(4) On 4 August 2015, it was reported
that the MACC held a special solat
commercial banks will be called in to
assist in investigations.
The Dewan Rakyat, as its name reflects, is
the forum where elected representatives
of the people convene. The Government
must be held accountable to Parliament
for its conduct. It is therefore critical
that Parliament, and particularly the
PAC, must not countenance any delay
or interference in their investigation into
1MDB. The proceedings of the PAC
must proceed expeditiously.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
2 August 2015
hajat session to pray for MACC
sta, their families, their community
and for a corruption-free country;
(5) Datuk Hj Mustafar Ali (MACC Deputy
Chief Commissioner (Prevention))
has been reported to have said on
5 August 2015 that when action
is taken on an investigating ocer
[during an ongoing investigation],
it somewhat jeopardises the
investigation;
(6) Senator Datuk Paul Low, Minister in
the Prime Ministers Department in
charge of governance and integrity,
reportedly stated yesterday that
the police are showing high-
handedness, and that it is
important that [MACC] do what they
need to do; and
(7) Also yesterday, Tan Sri Johan Jaafar
(Chairman of MACCs Consultation
and Corruption Prevention Panel)
reportedly expressed dismay over
the spate of raids and arrests by the
police, and reiterated the need for
the agency to be allowed to execute
its duties unhindered.
It is quite telling, and extremely
disconcerting, that the beleaguered
MACC as well as a Minister in the
Prime Ministers Department has had
to make these statements and express
indignation, as well as hold special
prayers. It compounds the commonly
held fear that the MACCs investigation
is being seriously derailed, and that there
are strong forces at work to curtail the
MACCs eorts. Astoundingly, at this
critical time, MACC Chief Commissioner
Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed is on leave.

The investigation being conducted by
MACC was part of the work of a Special
Task Force that had been set up to look
into allegations of financial impropriety
involving 1MDB. It is thus shocking
to learn that the Attorney General has
reportedly advised that the Special Task
Force should be disbanded.
The reported incidents are wholly
inconsistent with the Governments
publicly declared aim to uncover the
unvarnished truth behind the alleged
deposit of funds into the personal bank
accounts of the Prime Minister, and
to unearth dishonest dealings, if any,
associated with that deposit, and other
irregularities concerning 1MDB. The
actions by the police, which have the
appearance of an assault on the MACC,
have seemingly caused irreparable harm
to the standing of MACC as an agency to
combat corruption.
The launch of the investigation into the
MACC, and the allegation of a plot to
overthrow the Government, could be
seen as a thinly-disguised attempt to
block the truth from emerging. Moreover,
the investigation into allegations of
leaking of confidential information and
the purported breach of Section 124B
of the Penal Code are not carte blanche
Section 124B of the Penal
Code Must Not Be Used
to Curb Freedom of
Assembly
The Malaysian Bar deplores the arrest
and detention on 25 August 2015 of 17
persons 16 of whom are reportedly
university students for participating in
a peaceful sit-in outside the Parliament.
They were remanded overnight and the
police subsequently sought a seven-day
extension of the remand. The Magistrate
granted a remand of three days. The
revision application was heard by the High
Court yesterday, and the remand period
for 16 of the detainees was reduced to
two days.
It has been reported that the detainees are
being investigated, inter alia, for an activity
detrimental to parliamentary democracy,
under Section 124B of the Penal Code
(Section 124B). The phrase activity
detrimental to parliamentary democracy
is defined in Section 130A(a) of the Penal
Code as an activity carried out by a
person or a group of persons designed
to overthrow or undermine parliamentary
democracy by violent or unconstitutional
means.
PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
for the police to intrude into, and interfere
with, the MACCs investigation, and/or
to remove or compromise vital evidence
collated by MACC. It must be borne in
mind that interfering with or obstructing
an ongoing MACC investigation is in
itself an oence under Section 48 of the
MACC Act 2009.
Thus, the announcement by the MACC
on 3 August 2015 that the RM2.6 billion
allegedly deposited into the personal
bank accounts of the Prime Minister did
not comprise monies from 1MDB but
was instead a donation, raises more
questions than provides answers. The
events preceding as well as following
it, as set out above, give rise to the
inference that the announcement was
a result of external interference, or was
made to relieve the pressure faced by the
MACC.
The MACC Act 2009 provides that even if
the alleged deposit into the personal bank
accounts of the Prime Minister may have
been a donation, it does not necessarily
mean that no corrupt act had occurred.
The term gratification in section 3 of the
MACC Act 2009 includes a donation, and
does not exclude a political donation.
MACC should also look into section
17 (regarding the oence of giving or
When Section 124B was tabled in
Parliament in 2012 as an amendment to
the Penal Code, the Government declared
that it would be used to deal with violent
oences such as the assassination of a
head of state, a coup dtat, an armed
insurgency, or guerrilla warfare, and
breaches of constitutional provisions.1
There was no intention to inhibit political
dissent or peaceful assembly, and a
Member of Parliament had observed,
Kalau nak buat perhimpunan aman
atau bersih pun, itu tidak detrimental to
Parliamentary Democracy.2
The resort to Section 124B against the 17
persons, who had assembled peaceably,
is therefore unjustifiable. This provision
cannot be misused to erode or dilute the
constitutional right enshrined in Article
10(1)(b), read with 10(2)(b), of the Federal
Constitution to assemble peaceably
and without arms. Further, it would be a
gross abuse of Section 124B if it were to
be used to cause fear or anxiety among
members of the public.
In any event, the constitutional validity of
Section 124B is questionable. Malaysia
is a constitutional democracy, where the
Federal Constitution is the supreme law of
the land.3 The concept of parliamentary
accepting gratification by an agent), read
with section 50 (regarding a presumption
in certain oences) of the MACC Act
2009.
It is therefore still imperative that the
MACC identify the purpose, if any, of
the donation, the conduct and activity
of the recipient in relation to the use of
that donation, and the reason why the
donation was deposited into a private
account of the recipient. Donations
of this nature are seldom made for
charitable purposes.
The Malaysian Bar demands that
the MACC to be allowed to conduct
its investigation independently and
comprehensively, without any external
threat, pressure or influence. The flagrant
level of intimidation inflicted on, and the
climate of fear foisted upon, the MACC
must stop. The role and responsibility
of the MACC must not, and cannot
be, perverted to excuse or exculpate
anyone including politicians from
allegations of corruption.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
7 August 2015
democracy is only applicable in countries
where the Parliament is supreme, such as
the United Kingdom.
Thus, Section 124B purports to cover
a subject matter parliamentary
supremacy that is unknown to our
constitutional scheme. It further oends
two cardinal principles: criminal law
must be clear and precise, and the
subject matter of criminal sanction must
be known. The uncertainty in Section
124B is exacerbated by the oppressive
penal sentence for the oence, which is
imprisonment for a term that could extend
to 20 years.
Moreover, it is unacceptable for the
police to have sought remand orders
of one week. The duration sought was
excessive, and lends to the widely held
perception that the police are freely
seeking remand orders to punish persons
involved in peaceful assemblies, even
before any finding of guilt by a court of
law, as well as to further intimidate others
who may wish to participate in any public
assembly.
The Malaysian Bar strongly urges the
police to cease misusing Section 124B,
and to respect the right of all Malaysians
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 13
 PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
to assemble peaceably. Democracy
is strengthened not threatened
when Malaysians who wish to assemble
in peace may do so without threats of
reprisal or unjustified arrest.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
28 August 2015
Notes
Bar Council will send a monitoring team
to observe the BERSIH 4 rally, which is
scheduled to take place in Kuala Lumpur on
29 and 30 Aug 2015 (Saturday and Sunday).
The Police Must Not
Misuse SOSMA, and
Must Not Ignore
the Solicitor-Client
Relationship
The Malaysian Bar is outraged over the
detention of Matthias Chang a Member
of the Malaysian Bar and one of the
lawyers representing Dato Sri Khairuddin
Abu Hassan (Dato Sri Khairuddin), a
politician and vocal critic of 1Malaysia
Development Berhad (1MDB)
under the Security Oences (Special
Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA). The
detention is reportedly for investigations
into allegations of having committed
oences under Sections 124K (sabotage)
and Section 124L (attempt to commit
sabotage), both under the Penal Code.
Matthias Chang was arrested by the
police yesterday after visiting his client,
who is currently being detained at the
Dang Wangi District Police Station. It
has been reported that Matthias Chang
is now to be detained for up to 28 days.
It had been earlier reported that Matthias
Chang and his client had both been
barred from travelling outside Malaysia
on 18 September 2015, and that they
were about to travel to New York for
the purpose of meeting with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in relation to
allegations of financial impropriety
concerning 1MDB.1 Subsequently,
Matthias Chang was questioned by the
police on 28 September 2015 and 2
October 2015, as a witness in respect of
the allegations levelled against his client.
It is inexplicable that the police have now
detained Matthias Chang under SOSMA,
as he has been cooperative in presenting
14 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
The monitoring team will look out for, and
document, possible violations of human
rights by any individual or group during
the event.
In addition, a team of lawyers from the Bar
Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur),
known as the urgent arrest team, will
provide legal assistance in the event of
arrests. The team can be contacted by SMS
at the following telephone numbers:
(1) 018-321 1506
(2) 011-1214 0877
Members of the public can send a SMS to
one of these numbers, with the following
information:
(1) Name of sender;
himself for questioning by the police thus
far. His arrest is an absolute misuse of
the power of arrest and detention under
Section 4 of SOSMA.
The Malaysian Bar expressed reservations
over the use of SOSMA on Dato Sri
Khairuddin in our press release dated 2
October 2015.2 These same concerns
apply to Matthias Chang. SOSMA was
legislated to address terrorism threats
and violent conduct. SOSMA must not
be misused as a replacement for the
repealed Internal Security Act 1960
(ISA). The manner in which the police
have resorted to SOSMA against Dato
Sri Khairuddin and Matthias Chang is
disquieting, as it appears that SOSMA is
becoming the new ISA.
The Malaysian Bar denounces the
intimidation, harassment, arrest or
detention of any Member of the Malaysian
Bar in the discharge of his or her duties
or obligations for and on behalf of any
client. Every Member of the Malaysian
Bar is obliged to, and must be allowed to,
act without fear or favour in the clients
interest, with due regard to the rule of law
and the administration of justice.
The Chief Justice of Malaysia, The
Right Honourable Tun Arifin Zakaria,
has observed that the lawyer does
not merely carry out the duties he is
professionally trained for, but assumes a
special role in safeguarding the sanctity
of the legal system and more importantly
to uphold the rule of law.3
It is also important to note that Articles 16
and 18 of the Basic Principles on the Role
of Lawyers, adopted by the Eighth United
Nations Congress on the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Oenders in
1990, state that:
(2) The name, IC number and telephone
number of the arrested person; and
(3) The police station to which the arrested
person has been taken (if known).
The urgent arrest team will try to contact
the arrested person and to arrange legal
assistance as quickly as possible.
1 Penyata Rasmi Parlimen Dewan Rakyat,
17 April 2012, page 120, quoting the
then-de facto Law Minister Dato Seri
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.
2 Ibid., page 73, quoting the Member of
Parliament for Rembau, Tuan Khairy
Jamaluddin.
3 Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution.
16. Governments shall ensure that
lawyers (a) are able to perform all of
their professional functions without
intimidation, hindrance, harassment
or improper interference; (b) are
able to travel and to consult with
their clients freely both within their
own country and abroad; and (c)
shall not suer, or be threatened
with, prosecution or administrative,
economic or other sanctions for
any action taken in accordance
with recognized professional duties,
standards and ethics.
18. Lawyers shall not be identified
with their clients or their clients
causes as a result of discharging
their functions.
The Malaysian Bar further condemns
any attempt to transgress or erode the
principle of legal professional privilege or
solicitor-client privilege, in the guise of a
purported investigation of a lawyer. The
rationale underpinning the principle of
legal professional privilege is that:
(a) it is of fundamental importance,
for the proper administration of
justice, that clients should enjoy
absolute confidence in respect of all
communications with their lawyers
for the provision of legal advice and/
or representation;
(b) the principle promotes the
public interest, because it assists
and enhances the administration
of justice by facilitating the
representation of clients by their
legal advisors; and
(c) the system of administration of
justice depends for its vitality on

full, free and frank communication
between those who need legal
advice and those who are best able
to provide it.
The principle of legal professional privilege
must remain inviolate and absolute, as
it protects all information provided by a
client to the lawyer for the purposes of
legal advice or representation, whereby
the information cannot be divulged by
the lawyer to anyone, unless the client
waives the privilege. This principle is
codified in Section 126 of the Evidence
Act 1950, with two limited exceptions
that render the privilege inapplicable,
namely, where there is (a) any such
communication made in furtherance of
any illegal purpose; (b) any fact observed
by any advocate in the course of his
employment as such showing that any
Respect the Rule of
Law and Release Dato
Sri Khairuddin and
Matthias Chang
The Malaysian Bar deplores the misuse
of the Penal Code and the Security
Oences (Special Measures) Act 2012
(SOSMA) by the authorities in the recent
arrest, detention and prosecution of
Dato Sri Khairuddin Abu Hassan (Dato
Sri Khairuddin), and his lawyer, Matthias
Chang, a Member of the Malaysian Bar.
Dato Sri Khairuddin and Matthias
Chang were arrested and detained under
SOSMA on 18 September 2015 and 8
October 2015, respectively. It is reported
that they were being investigated under
Section 124K (sabotage) and Section
124L (attempt to commit sabotage) of the
Penal Code. Dato Sri Khairuddin filed a
habeas corpus application, which was
fixed for hearing on 13 October 2015. It
was reported that Matthias Chang was
about to file a habeas corpus application
as well.
However, both men were charged on 12
October 2015 in the Magistrates Court,
for the oence of attempting to commit
sabotage under Section 124L of the Penal
Code. It has been alleged that the act of
sabotage is in relation to the lodging of
reports about possible corrupt practices,
with law enforcement agencies in five
foreign countries France, the United
Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong
and Singapore that was purportedly
intended to be a conspiracy to cause
harm to the banking and financial system
of Malaysia. If convicted, they could be
PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
crime or fraud has been committed since
the commencement of his employment.
The police must scrupulously adhere to
this salutary principle well-entrenched
in both statute and common law of
legal professional privilege, and must not
seek to obtain from Matthias Chang any
information given to him by his client,
Dato Sri Khairuddin, by ignoring or
breaching this long-standing principle.
Any interference with the principle is
wholly abhorrent, and obverse to the
administration of justice.
The Malaysian Bar demands that the
police recognise and respect the role
and responsibilities of Matthias Chang
as a lawyer, release him immediately,
and refrain from any action that is likely
to harass, impede or obstruct him from
sentenced for up to 15 years in jail. Both
men have applied to the High Court to
challenge the prosecution against them.
Section 124L of the Penal Code is within
Part VI of the Penal Code. Under SOSMA,
all oences under Part VI and Part VIA of
the Penal Code are considered security
oences, triable in the High Court.
It is therefore inexplicable that both
men were charged in the Magistrates practices at the highest levels of the
Court. Further, it is disconcerting that
the prosecution then sought a further
period of detention of 30 days pending
an application to transfer their cases to
the High Court. The Magistrate allowed
a detention of 14 days.
Detention of an accused person
subsequent to charge pending the
prosecutions transfer application is
unjust and unlawful. In this case, it
appears to be an undisguised attempt to
detain both men for an additional period
not sanctioned by law.
In any event, it is perplexing that the
prosecution would see this case as
involving a security oence. Part VIA
of the Penal Code was introduced to
combat security oences arising out of
acts of terrorism. An action to expose
possible corruption within the corridors
of government cannot, by any stretch of
the imagination, fall under Part VIA of the
Penal Code, and neither is it a security
oence under international law.
The international law element cannot
be ignored. Malaysia has signed the
United Nations Convention against
Corruption. It therefore recognises that
performing his duties to his client.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
9 October 2015
1 Malaysia Blocks Critic of Prime Minister
From Taking Case to U.S. , New York
Times, 18 September 2015.
2 Press release by the Malaysian Bar
entitled SOSMA Must Not be Misused
to Silence Critics of 1MDB, 2 October
2015.
3 Opening Address by The Right
Honourable Tun Arifin Zakaria, Chief
Justice of Malaysia at the International
Malaysia Law Conference 2014 (24
September 2014).
international cooperation is necessary
in combatting corruption, terrorism and
other international crimes. It has also
launched numerous national initiatives
calling on individuals to partner in the
eort to end corruption.
As such, it beggars belief that when
a person exercises his own personal
initiative to ask overseas law enforcement
agencies to investigate possible corrupt
Government, it is seen by the authorities
as an attempt to sabotage the banking
and financial system of Malaysia.
In this borderless world, transboundary
corruption is a major scourge that requires
global partnership and worldwide
eorts. Malaysia regularly asks law
enforcement agencies from foreign
countries for assistance. Here is a case
of a Malaysian citizen seeking help
from law enforcement agencies in foreign
countries to address alleged cross-
border corruption. Some of the parties
allegedly involved in this nefarious web of
transactions operate in the jurisdictions
in which reports were lodged.
We are already witnessing cross-
currents between the Attorney Generals
Chambers and Bank Negara Malaysia
about whether or not 1Malaysia
Development Berhad (1MDB) had
violated Malaysian law in terms of
exchange control permission for overseas
investments. We saw similar attempts
to interfere with the Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission in its attempts
to investigate the transfer of MYR2.6
billion and MYR42 million into the Prime
Ministers private bank accounts.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 15
 PRESS RELEASES FROM THE BAR
When credible concerns are raised
about whether our own mechanisms
to investigate corruption have been
crippled or compromised, it is
understandable that recourse is had to
overseas law enforcement agencies.
The Governments response is therefore
highly questionable.
The charge against Matthias Chang
attracts additional opprobrium because
he has consistently stated that his actions
were in his capacity as an advocate and
solicitor advising his client. His arrest,
detention and prosecution are therefore in
clear violation of the United Nations Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which
mandates that lawyers not be identified
with their clients or their clients causes
simply by the act of representing them.
It would appear that the chilling eect
sought to be achieved by the authorities
is to discourage lawyers from acting for
known critics of the Government.
Moreover, the decision to charge both
men on the eve of Dato Sri Khairuddins
habeas corpus application (and before
Matthias Changs intended habeas
corpus application) could easily be
construed as an attempt to avoid judicial
scrutiny into the merits of the cases
against them. It would appear that the
prosecution was suciently concerned
that the habeas corpus applications
would be allowed by the court, such that
it took steps to pre-empt them. In this
regard, it would be pertinent to know
whether Bank Negara Malaysia filed
any adavit in Dato Sri Khairuddins
habeas corpus application confirming
that the purported conduct by him (and
Matthias Chang) was indeed an attempt
to sabotage the banking and financial
system of Malaysia.
The conduct of the authorities in Dato Sri
Khairuddins and Matthias Changs case
leaves much to be desired. The misuse
of SOSMA and criminal procedures for
the purposes of alleged Penal Code
oences is unacceptable. The Malaysian
Bar demands that the rule of law be
respected, and urges that the prosecution
against both men be withdrawn and they
be released forthwith.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
15 October 2015

Press Statements (December 2014 October 2015)*

Title Date
Respect the Rights and Dignity of Asylum Seekers and Refugees, and Eliminate Human Tracking and
(1) 20 June 2015
Migrant Smuggling
(2) Harmony and Unity in Our Schools Cannot be Achieved by the Curtailment of Rights 24 June 2015

(3) Rein In Overzealous Dress Code Enforcement and Reject Clothing or Moral Policing 4 July 2015
Conduct Independent Investigation into Disclosures Relating to 1MDB Comprehensively and with
(4) 9 July 2015
Integrity
At the Crossroads of the Rule of Law: Malaysia Must Confront Challenges to International and Domestic
(5) 16 July 2015
Justice Now
Untimely and Unwarranted Upgrade in the Tracking in Persons Report Compromises the Fight
(6) 22 July 2015
Against Human Tracking
(7) Interference into 1MDB Investigations Shields Wrongdoers and Conceals Wrongdoing 28 July 2015

(8) Appointment of New Attorney General of Malaysia 29 July 2015

(9) Comprehensive Reform to the MACC Needed to Strengthen the Fight Against Corruption in Malaysia 31 July 2015

(10) Parliament Must Not Countenance Any Delay or Interference in PACs Investigation into 1MDB 2 Aug 2015

(11) Let the MACC Investigate Without Impediment, and Allow the Truth to Emerge 7 Aug 2015

(12) Respect and Facilitate and Not Deter the Right to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms 22 Aug 2015

(13) Section 124B of the Penal Code Must Not Be Used to Curb Freedom of Assembly 28 Aug 2015
Malaysian Bar Expresses its Condolences on the Untimely Demise of Anthony Kevin Morais, and Calls
(14) 17 Sept 2015
for a Full Investigation
(15) Reject the Racism and Violence that Occurred on 16 September 2015 21 Sept 2015

(16) SOSMA Must Not be Misused to Silence Critics of 1MDB 2 Oct 2015

(17) The Police Must Not Misuse SOSMA, and Must Not Ignore the Solicitor-Client Relationship 9 Oct 2015

(18) Respect the Rule of Law and Release Dato Sri Khairuddin and Matthias Chang 15 Oct 2015
*Only highlighted press statements are reproduced in full.

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

16 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


The Office of the Attorney General
Part I: A Constitutional
Conundrum1
Article 145 of the Federal Constitution
sets out the Oce of the Attorney
General (AG).
He is an appointee of the Yang di-
Pertuan Agong (YDPA) who acts upon
the advice of the Prime Minister (PM).
The Attorney Generals oce must be
held by a person who is qualified to be
judge of the Federal Court.
His duties as conferred by the
Constitution is twofold: (A) that of a
constitutional ocer vested with legal
advisory role to the YDPA, the Cabinet
of the day, and any Minister for legal
matters and performance of duties of
legal character; and (B) that of Public
Prosecutor:
(i) As legal adviser to the Government,
the AGs duties are as set forth
under Article 145 (2) in the following
terms:
(a) To advise the YDPA, the
Cabinet, or any Minister upon
such legal matters;
(b) To perform such other duties
of a legal character, as may
from time to time be referred or
assigned to him by the YDPA or
the Cabinet; and;
(c) To discharge the functions
conferred on him by or under
this Constitution or any other
written law.
(ii) As Public Prosecutor, Article 145 (3)
lays down that:
(a) the AG shall have power,
exercisable at his discretion, to
institute, conduct or discontinue
any proceedings for an oence,
other than proceedings before
the Syariah Court, a native
court or a court martial; and
(b) in the performance of his
duties, the AG is the first legal
ocer of the Federation and he
has the right of audience in,
and shall take precedence over
any person appearing before,
any court or tribunal in the
Federation (see Article 145 (3)).
The hybrid nature of the AG as
Constitutional Officer
The historical antecedents of the AGs
oce have been charted out by various
commentators. The dual roles of the AG
in Malaysia owed its origin from English
practice. As Sir Elwyn Jones described
it since 1900, the position in England is
that,2 now the outstanding function and
the main duty of the Attorney-General is
to be legal adviser of the Government
as a whole, and of various government
departments.
Professor S A de Smith puts it
succinctly,3
Under the British constitution
the Attorney-General occupies a
peculiarly delicate position. Himself
a politician, he must divest himself
of political partisanship in carrying
out a number of important functions
in appearing as guardian of the
public interests at a judicial tribunal
of inquiry, in deciding whether to
give leave or instructions for certain
classes of prosecutions nolle
prosecui to be instituted, in deciding
whether to enter a nolle prosecui to
stop a trial on indictment.
In English practice, the role is bifurcated
and occupied by two individuals whilst in
Malaysia, it is vested in a single person.4
The dilemmas of decision-making
to prosecute or not to prosecute is former AG was taking steps to exercise
therefore heightened in Malaysia.
The hybrid nature of the Malaysian AGs
oce is constitutionally demarcated
under Article 145. He is not normally
a member of the Cabinet and therefore
the discharge of oce is expected to
be non-partisan politically. However
realistically politics is pervasive and
inescapable, Sir Elywn Jones, a former
Attorney General of the United Kingdom
puts it well,5
You may think that the Attorney
General is some sort of detached
creature who has nothing to do with
politics. But that would be highly
FEATURES/ARTICLES
disingenuous. In fact, the Attorney-
General, when he is acting in political
matters, is a highly political animal
entitled to engage in contentious
politics. I suppose the only thing
one can say is that some Attorney-
Generals are more contentious than
others as politicians. But the basic
requirement of our constitution is
that however much a political animal
he may be when he is dealing with
political matters, he must not allow
political considerations to aect his
actions in those matters in which he
has to act in an impartial and even
quasi-judicial way.
In one recent Canadian Supreme Court
decision, it was observed tersely,6
It is a constitutional principle
that the Attorneys General of this
country must act independently of
partisan concerns when exercising
their delegated sovereign authority
to initiate, continue or terminate
prosecutions.
The vulnerability of the AGs decision-
making power to prosecute is now
demonstrated by recent events that
led to the termination of Tan Sri Abdul
Gani b Patail, the AG who had served
13 years in oce. The government has
stated that the early termination of Tan
Sri Gani as AG is for health reasons.7
The events that led to the termination
is now shrouded by denials and
announcements that appear to obscure
rather than illuminate. Was it that the
his Public Prosecutorial powers that
he was taken out8? If so, who made
that decision which would constitute as
serious abuse of powers of public oce
ie the removal of a Public Prosecutor
who was vested with clear constitutional
powers which have been judicially
recognised as unfettered in a host of
cases. The circumstances that led to
the AGs unceremonious termination
is a serious matter which merits
investigation, and the disquietude that
attends to its aftermath cannot be
quelled as it involves questions of grave
national import. Urgent restoration of
the protection of the oce tenure as
equivalent to a judges tenure is called
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 17
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
for and clear answers as to why and
what happened to the former AG is the
sine qua non to restore legitimacy to the
public governance of the nation.
Philip Koh Tong Ngee
Advocate & Solicitor
Co-editor, Sheridan & Groves,
The Constitution of Malaysia
(5th edition) (2004) (LexisNexis)
Notes:
1 Sir Elwyn Jones citing Patrick Hastings
in The Oce of the Attorney General,
Cambridge Law Journal, 27 (1) April
1969, pp 4353, characterises the AG's
Oce as being "... from hell".
2 Infra, p 46.
3 See SA de Smith, The New
Commonwealth and Its Constitutions
(1964) (Stevens & Sons) at
p 143.
4 See English practice in John LL J
Edwards, The Attorney General, Politics
and Public Interest. The American
experience where the AGs oce is the
principal legal adviser to the President
and the Executive branch is ably
highlighted in Chapter 3.
5 (1969) Cambridge Law Journal, 27 (1)
April 1969, p 50.
6 Krieger v Law Society of Alberta [2002]
SCC 65; see article discussing the case
by Lori Sterling and Heather Mackay,
Constitutional Recognition of the
Role of Attorney General in Criminal
Prosecutions: Krieger v. Law Society of
Alberta, Supreme Court Law Review
(2003), 20 SCLR (2d), pp 169195.
7 See the arguments in the article entitled
The Constitutional Validity of the
Termination of the Services of Tan Sri
Abdul Gani b Patail as the Attorney
General in this issue of Praxis that give
rise to serious issues of dismissal of a
public servant without adherence to
natural justice.
8 An interview with Datuk Abdul Rahman
Dahlan, the newly-appointed Barisan
Nasionals Strategic Communications
Director, who alluded to pre-emptive
steps which resulted in the untimely
removal of the former AG, in The Star,
titled Swimming against the tide to get
to the truth, dated 16 Aug 2015.

Lexis Afnity

Lexis Afnity is the only Practice Management system that seamlessly

integrates Legal Research to client les, capturing the cost of the research at the
same time!
Connect your business practices with a single streamlined practice
management solution.

18 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


The Office of the Attorney General
Part II: The Constitutional
Validity of the Termination
of the Services of Tan Sri
Abdul Gani b Patail as the
Attorney General
On the 28th of July 2015, the Chief
Secretary of the Government, Tan Sri
Dr. Ali Hamsa, announced that the
services of Tan Sri Abdul Gani b Patail
(Tan Sri Gani) as the Attorney General
of Malaysia had been terminated on
medical grounds with eect from the
27th of July 2015. It was also announced
that Tan Sri Gani would remain in service
as a Judicial Services Ocer until his
retirement on the 6th of October 2015.1
The sudden decision to terminate
the services of Tan Sri Gani, a central
member of the Special Task Force that
was investigating the allegations of
financial impropriety related to 1Malaysia
Development Berhad (1MDB) and the
deposition of funds related or otherwise
into the Prime Ministers private bank
accounts, has caused much public
disquiet. Tan Sri Gani was also about
66 days away from his retirement.
The Malaysian Bar2 and several other
parties3 have taken the position that
Tan Sri Ganis removal as the Attorney
General was unconstitutional. However,
the new Attorney General has argued
that the removal was constitutional.4
This article proposes to briefly examine
the constitutionality of Tan Sri Ganis
removal as the Attorney General.
Article 135(2) of the Federal
Constitution and the
Requirement for Procedural
Fairness
Tan Sri Gani was a member of the
judicial and legal services when he
was removed as the Attorney General.
This is confirmed by the decision of the
Government that he is to remain as a
member of the judicial and legal services
until the date of his retirement.
Articles 132(1) and (2A) in Part X of the
Federal Constitution provide that;
132. Public services
(1) For the purposes of this
Constitution, the public services
are
(a) the armed forces;
(b) the judicial and legal
service;
(c) the general public service
of the Federation;
(d) the police force;
(e) (Repealed);
(f) the joint public services
mentioned in Article 133;
(g) the public service of each
State; and
(h) the education service.
(2a) Except as expressly provided
by this Constitution, every
person who is a member of
any of the services mentioned
in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),(f)
and (h) of Clause (1) holds oce
during the pleasure of the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong, and, except
as expressly provided by the
Constitution of the State, every
person who is a member of the
public service of a State holds
oce during the pleasure of the
Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri.
Thus, members of the judicial and legal
services are part of the public services
of the country. They are public servants.
Next, Articles 135(1) and (2) in Part X
stipulate that;
135. Restriction on dismissal and
reduction in rank
(1) No member of any of the services
mentioned in paragraphs (b) to
(h) of Clause (1) of Article 132
shall be dismissed or reduced in
rank
(2) No member of such a service as
aforesaid shall be dismissed or
reduced in rank without being
given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard:
Provided that this clause shall
not apply to the following
cases: (not applicable)
FEATURES/ARTICLES
Accordingly, a member of the public
services, or a public servant, listed in
paragraphs (b) to (h) in Article 132(1) in
Part X, cannot be dismissed or reduced
in rank without first being accorded a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Article 135(2) therefore clearly requires
that any action to dismiss and/or reduce
in rank a public servant must be eected
in accordance with the principle of
procedural fairness or natural justice.
This entrenched right to due process
has been recognised by our courts on
numerous occasions.5
However, there are constitutional
limitations to the concept of procedural
fairness in Article 135(2). This is
reflected in Article 132(4)(b) which reads
as follows:
(4) References in this Part, except
in Articles 136 and 147, to
persons in the public service or
to members of any of the public
services shall not apply to
(b) the Attorney General or, if
provisions for the manner
of his appointment and
removal from oce is
specifically included in
the Constitution of the
State, or if he is appointed
otherwise than from
among the members of the
judicial and legal service
or of the public service of
the State, the legal adviser
of any State;(emphasis
added)
The eect of the exclusionary provision
in Article 132(4)(b) would very much
depend on the occupational background
of the person appointed as the Attorney
General.
It is to be noted that since independence
in 1957 we have had three classes of
persons who have been appointed as
the Attorney General. First, there have
been Attorneys General who were
members of the Cabinet or Members
of Parliament,6 secondly, there have
been those who were appointed under
contract,7 and, thirdly, there have been
appointees from the judicial and legal
services.8
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 19
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
In this respect, the following table sets out the backgrounds of the past Attorneys General:

Attorney General Tenure of Position prior to appointment as Attorney General

service
Thomas Vernor Alexander Brodie 19551959 Legal department in Kuala Lumpur as legal draftsman
Tan Sri Dato Cecil M Sheridan 19591963 Solicitor General
Tan Sri Datuk Haji Abdul Kadir b 19631977 Solicitor General
Yusof
Tan Sri Datuk Haji Hamzah b Datuk 19771980 Minister of Commerce and Industry
Abu Samah
Tan Sri Datuk Abu Talib b Othman 19801993 Solicitor General
Tan Sri Dato Seri Mohtar b Abdullah 19942000 High Court Judge
Tan Sri Dato Seri Ainum bt 2001 Deputy Chief Executive of the Securities Commission, Malaysia
Mohamed Saaid
Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail 20022015 Head of the Prosecution Division, Attorney Generals Chambers

Now, pursuant to Article 145(5) read with
Article 132(4)(b), Attorneys General who
have been appointed from the Cabinet
or who are Members of Parliament, hold
the oce during the pleasure of the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any
time resign his oce.9 Further, it is
open to debate whether Article 145(6)
requires the requisition of a tribunal (of
the kind contemplated under Articles
125(3) and (4)) for the removal of an
Attorney General with such a ministerial
and/or parliamentary background. The
doubt arises because it would then
seem that latter Attorneys General
enjoy less protection of tenure than the
transitional Attorney General.10
However, Attorneys General who are
appointed by a contract of service
have tenure that operate on a fixed-
term basis. In this regard, a termination
of service for such Attorneys General
may be eected in accordance with
the termination clauses in the said
contracts.
However, and critically, Tan Sri Gani
was appointed as the Attorney General
from the judicial and legal services. In
this connection, he held the position of
Head of the Prosecution Division within
the Attorney Generals Chambers prior
to his appointment as the Attorney
General. He continued as a member of
the judicial and legal services throughout
his tenure as Attorney General.
It is clear as a matter of ordinary
interpretation that the exclusion in
Article 132(4)(b) would not apply to
Attorneys General who have been
appointed from the judicial and legal
service, such as Tan Sri Gani. This
arises from a plain interpretation of the
phrase appointed otherwise than from
among the members of the judicial and
legal service in Article 132(4)(b).
and natural justice is not solely and
In other words, the exclusion of
procedural fairness in Article 132(4)(b)
would only be applicable to Attorneys
General who were appointed to the
oce from their position as a member
of the Cabinet, or as a Member of
Parliament or, alternatively, as an
external appointment (ie by contract).11
By virtue of Article 132(4)(b), such
appointments (of appointees from such
backgrounds) would not carry with them
the procedural safeguards enshrined
within Article 135(2) as such appointees
are not from the judicial and legal
services.
Therefore, in view of his pre-appointment
position within the judicial and legal
services, it is indisputable that the
exclusionary provisions under Article
132(4)(b) would not apply to an Attorney
General of Tan Sri Ganis professional
background.
Accordingly, the requirements of
procedural fairness within Article 135(2)
would still apply to the termination of
the services of Tan Sri Gani and his
simultaneous reduction in rank.
The Constitutionally-
Guaranteed Right to Procedural
Fairness
In any event, it is important to note
that the concept of procedural fairness
exclusively contained within Article
135(2).
Rather, the concept originates from,
and is firmly entrenched within, Articles
5(1) (Right to life) read with 8(1) (Equality
before the law) in Part II of the Federal
Constitution.
In fact, Articles 5(1) and 8(1) have been
accorded a wide interpretation to require
that all forms of state action must be
eected with the requisite levels of
fairness and justice (most prominently
procedural fairness). The following
authorities are particularly instructive on
this point:
(1) The Federal Court in Lee Kwan Woh
v Public Prosecutor [2009] 5 MLJ
301:
It is clear from this passage that the
rules of natural justice, which is the
procedural aspect of the rule of law,
is an integral part of Articles 5(1) and
8(1). In short, procedural fairness is
incorporated in these two Articles.
(emphasis added)
(2) The Court of Appeal in Hong Leong
Equipment Sdn. Bhd. v Liew Fook
Chuan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 481:
I have made these observations in
order to emphasize the existence
in the Federal Constitution of
provisions, such as arts 5(1) and

20 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


8(1), which are of wide import
and contain principles that are
capable of meeting any issue of
public law that arises for decision.
The combined eect of these two
articles is to require all state action
to be fair and just; and they strike at
arbitrariness even in the discharge of
administrative functions. Procedural
fairness is accordingly part of our
law, not by reason of the application
of English cases, but because of
the terms of arts 5(1) and 8(1). See
Raja Abdul Malek Muzaar Shah v
Setiausaha Suruhanjaya Pasukan
Polis [1995] 1 MLJ 308; Tan Tek
Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan
Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ
261. (emphasis added)
(3) The Court of Appeal in Tan Tek
Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan
Pendidikan [1996] 1 MLJ 261:
As I have earlier said, the
expression law which appears
in arts 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal
Constitution includes procedural
law, and in particular, any procedure
prescribed by written law. If a
particular procedure prescribed by
written law is found to be arbitrary or
unfair or the procedure adopted in a
given case is held to be unfair, then,
generally speaking, it must be struck
down as oending art 5(1) read with
art 8(1). (emphasis added)
Therefore, Articles 132(4)(b) and/or
145(5) would be subject to the overriding
application of Articles 5(1) and 8(1)
and the embedded rule of procedural
fairness.
Further, it is significant that Articles
5(1) and 8(1) in Part II have not been
excluded by any provision in Part X, and
therefore remained as a safeguard in the
present situation.
The Doctrine of Pleasure
It has been contended that the Attorney
Generals services were terminated
under Article 145(5).12
Article 145(5) provides, amongst others,
that the Attorney General holds his
oce during the pleasure of the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong
Now, the doctrine of pleasure has been
defined to mean that the tenure and the
conditions of employment of a public
servant are subject to the pleasure of
the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Yang
di-Pertuan Agong as a constitutional
monarch acts (except in certain defined
circumstances) at all times on the advice
of the Cabinet.13 As an executive act,
it has nevertheless to comply with
constitutional safeguards. The following
judicial observations of high authority
are important on this point:
(1) The Privy Council in Mahan Singh
v Government of Malaysia [1978] 2
MLJ 133:
By Article 132(2A) of the
Constitution, which applies to the
appellant, it is provided
Except as expressly provided by
this Constitution, every person who
is a member of any of the services
mentioned in paragraphs of
Clause (1) holds oce during the
pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong
So prima facie, the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong, and during the emergency
the Director of Operations under his
delegated powers, can terminate
the employment of any public
servant without notice and at any
time he pleases; but this right is
subject to the express provision of
the Constitution contained in Article
135(2) that a public servant may not
be dismissed without being given
a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.(emphasis added)
(2) The Federal Court in Pengarah
Pelajaran Wilayah Persekutuan v
Loot Ting Yee [1982] 1 MLJ 68:
In our view, as a civil servant holds
oce during pleasure, not only the
length of his service is subject to
pleasure but the place and time of
his service is also similarly subject to
pleasure. The only dierence is that
as regards dismissal and reduction
in rank, procedural safeguards
contained in Article 135 must be
observed, whereas in cases of
transfer and other matters no such
safeguards need be followed.
However, as observed in the judicial
statements above, the doctrine
of pleasure is subject to certain
constitutional limitations such as the
principles of natural justice.
FEATURES/ARTICLES
In view of the principles set out above, it
is clear that Articles 135(2), 5(1) and 8(1)
and the inherent procedural safeguards
therein apply to Article 145(5).
Further, Article 145(5) cannot be read as
giving the Executive an unfettered power
of termination. It must be noted that there
is a dierence between the doctrine of
pleasure of yesteryears and the doctrine
of pleasure in a democracy governed
by the rule of law where arbitrariness in
any form is eschewed. In any country
where the rule of law prevails, unfettered
discretion does not exist. This was the
position adopted recently by the Indian
Supreme Court in Narula v Union of India
[2015] 1 LRC 355 where it was held that
provisions akin to Article 145(5) ought to
be read subject to the fundamentals of
constitutionalism.14
On this point, it is also important to note
the following oft-quoted observation of
Raja Azlan Shah CJ in the Sri Lempah
Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. case [1979] 1 MLJ
135 on the non-existence of the concept
of the unfettered discretion of power in
Malaysian jurisprudence:
Unfettered discretion is a
contradiction in terms. Every
legal power must have legal limits,
otherwise there is dictatorship.
In particular, it is a stringent
requirement that a discretion should
be exercised for a proper purpose,
and that it should not be exercised
unreasonably. 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.(emphasis added)
Further, and in any event, it should
be noted that the termination of
the Attorney Generals services was
eected for a stated reason or cause
(ie on grounds of health). This ex facie
is inimical to invoking the termination at
pleasure doctrine.
In this regard, it is must be noted that a
termination and/or dismissal pursuant to
the doctrine of pleasure is understood to
be a termination and/or dismissal that is
eected without cause (see Lord Reid in
Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66).
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 21
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
It would follow that in these
circumstances (where a cause has
been provided for the termination of
services), the concept of procedural
fairness or due process (in Articles 5(1)
read with 8(1) of Part II) would remain
to be applicable to the termination and
reduction in rank of the former Attorney
General.
The Adherence to the Medical
Boarding-Out Procedures
As the cause relied on to terminate Tan
Sri Ganis services was predicated on
the grounds of health, it is pertinent to
note that procedural fairness or due
process requires compliance with the
medical boarding-out procedures for
persons engaged in the public services.
These procedures can be found in, for
example, the Pekeliling Perkhidmatan
Bilangan 10 Tahun 1995: Prosedur
Membersarakan Pegawai Atas Sebab
Kesihatan dated 10 Nov 1995 (issued
pursuant to section 10(5) of the Pensions
Act 1980).
The said procedures require the
establishment of a Medical Board to,
amongst others, receive representations
as to the health of the public servant in
question to enable a determination to be
made as to whether the public servant is
able to discharge the functions required
of his/her position.
The medical boarding-out procedures
were not invoked in respect of the
removal of Tan Sri Gani and he was
therefore deprived of the right to
disabuse the contention that he was
medically inept to continue in the oce
of Attorney General.
22 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
In the result, questions abound whether
the termination of the services of
Tan Sri Gani as the Attorney General
and, further, his reduction in rank, was
unconstitutional.
Gregory Das
Advocate & Solicitor
Messrs Shook Lin & Bok
Notes:
1 See Kenyataan Akhbar: Jabatan Perdana
Menteri Malaysia, Pusat Pentadbiran
Kerajaan Persekutuan, Putrajaya titled
Pelantikan Peguam Negara Malaysia,
dated 27 July 2015.
2 See the Press Release of the Malaysian
Bar President, Steven Thiru dated 28 July
2015 entitled Interference into 1MDB
Investigations Shields Wrongdoers and
Conceals Wrongdoing.
3 See the Press Release of Lawyers for
Liberty dated 28 July 2015 entitled Gani
Patails removal as AG reckless and
unconstitutional; the Legal Bureau Chief
of the Democratic Action Party (DAP),
Gobind Singh Deo, was reported to
have said that Tan Sri Ganis removal
may be unconstitutional (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/ganis-removal-as-a-g-may-be-
unconstitutional-says-dap); several other
lawyers were reported to have held the view
that the removal was unconstitutional
(http://www.themalaymailonline.com/
malaysia/article/ags-sudden-removal-
unconstitutional-lawyers-suggest).
4 See the Press Release of the newly-
installed Attorney General dated
29 July 2015: http://www.agc.
gov.my/pdf/L atest%20Info/press/
TERMINATION%20OF%20THE%20
APPOINTMENT%20OF%20TAN%20
SRI%20ABDUL%20GANI%20
PATAIL%20AS%20ATTORNEY%20
GENERAL.pdf
5 See the Federal Court decisions of Yusof
bin Sudin v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan
Polis [2011] 5 MLJ 465 and Abdul Aziz
bin Mohd Alias v Timbalan Ketua Polis
Negara [2010] 4 MLJ 1.
6 Such as Tan Sri Datuk Haji Hamzah b
Datuk Abu Samah.
7 Such as Tan Sri Dato Seri Ainum bt
Mohamed Saaid and the present Attorney
General, Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed
Apandi bin Haji Ali.
8 Such as Thomas Vernor Alexander
Brodie, Tan Sri Dato Cecil M Sheridan,
Tan Sri Datuk Haji Abdul Kadir b Yusof,
Tan Sri Datuk Abu Talib b Othman, Tan Sri
Dato Seri Mohtar b Abdullah, and Tan Sri
Abdul Gani Patail.
9 See Article 145(5) of the Federal
Constitution.
10 The term transitional Attorney General
here is used in reference to the Attorney
General specifically referred to in Article
145(6) as The person holding the oce
of Attorney General immediately prior
to the coming into operation of this
Article
11 However, it is to be noted that the pre-
amendment version of Article 145(1)
required the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to,
after consultation with the Judicial and
Legal Service Commission, appoint
an Attorney General from among the
members of the judicial and legal service.
The rationale behind this version of Article
145(1) was to ensure that the oce of the
Attorney General was of a non-political
character (see the Federation of Malaya
Constitutional Proposals, p 17, para 52
(Government Printer, 1957) and The
Oce of Attorney General, Malaysia
[1977] 2 MLJ xvi by Tan Sri Datuk Haji
Abdul Kadir b Yusof.
12 See the Press Release of the newly-
installed Attorney General dated 29 July
2015.
13 See the Federal Court in Abdul Ghani bin
Ali v PP [2001] 3 MLJ 561.
14 See also the Indian Supreme Court case
of BP Singhal v Union of India [2010] 6
SCC 331. The cases of Narula and BP
Singhal relate to the doctrine of pleasure
as contained in Article 156(1) of the
Constitution of India which provides that
the Governor of each State in India shall
hold oce during the pleasure of the
President.

Constitutional Patriotism: Towards Civic
Nationalism vs Ethnic Nationalism1
A patriot is one who cares for her nation.
The Oxford English Dictionary puts it
succinctly as one who defends or is
zealous for his countrys prosperity,
freedom, or rights.
Patriotism as a concept is highly
bastardised. It has been said that the
cry of patriotism is the last refuge of
scoundrels.
Its retrieval in a constitutional version
is the object of this introductory essay.
That far from being scounderalism2,
the constitutional version exemplifies
a defence of virtues of honourable
citizenry and may be (with hope) be a
bulwark against unethical behaviour that
damages the body politic.
Of late there has been an outpouring
of voices of groups representing the
broken middle of Malaysia who showed
they care.
The institutions of post-Merdeka Malaya
and 1963 Malaysia have been besieged
by ambitious political actors. The civil
service appears to be hapless against
the sheer use of power that cynically
negates the rule of law.3
These voices go beyond the categories
of ethno-identities that tend to divide
and estrange a nations citizenry. There
are passionate yearnings for a fresh
approach that transcends our communal
discourse. Diering solutions are being
proered. But the idea of constitutional
patriotism is worthy to be pursued and
defended.
Who then is a constitutional patriot?
The idea of constitutional patriotism
designates the idea that political
attachment ought to centre on the
norms, values and procedures of a
liberal democratic constitution.4
Jan-Werner Mller has articulated and
defended this concept well. In the
words of a reviewer, Constitutional
patriotism finds its distinctive voice
not in relation to the state and its
veneration but in civil society and its
protean capacities for transparency,
engagement, contestation, and self-
overcoming.5 This notion is best
placed to overcome the fragilities of
post-colonial nation states that are but
imagined communities and subject to
its social fabric being torn by primordial
sentiments of blood, kinship and tribes.6
When independence was declared by
Tunku Abdul Rahman, he articulated
clearly that the birthing of the Federation
is one founded which with Gods
blessing shall be for ever a sovereign
democratic and independent State
founded upon the principle of liberty
and justice and ever seeking the
welfare and happiness of its people
(Proclamation of Independence, 31 Aug
1957).
Tunkus vision of peoplehood united
under one sovereign democratic nation
taking her place amongst the comity of
nation is a laudable one.7
No less when Sabah and Sarawak
became part of the nation in 1963 and
Malaysia was formed.
What are the norms and values of
constitutional patriotism? Of late there
has been much contestation in the
public sphere. The acute problem of
minority identities being subjugated
by the majority has been accentuated
by problematic construction by judicial
and law enforcement authorities. The
Executive has often chosen the path
of ignoring the Constitutional norms
that conduce to promoting democratic
governance in its desire to hold power
or to deny accountability.
Race and Religion and competing
sovereignties are paraded out to trump
the plain meaning of the text and the
structure of the Constitution.
Ocers at government and law
enforcement agencies refuse to subject
themselves to the bar of public reason8
and rule of law. Seizures of religious
materials, prohibition of usage of
terminology declaring the same as being
the monopoly of one community, abuse
of executive discretion in circumscribing
freedom of expression and movement
by suspending The Edge are disturbing
FEATURES/ARTICLES
trends of refusal of accommodation to
the foundations of a constitutional polity.
A nations Constitution is not just the
textual proposition found within the
printed page. It must inform, instruct
and instigate adherence and compliance
by both citizenry and those who wield
authority. It is not malleable at the
whims and dictates of political actors
who cynically negate its meaning on
grounds of expediency and power play.
Statements by groups of concerned
citizenry lamenting the erosion of
constitutional norms have now elicited
much support and contestations. This
is a sign of health as democracy is
not just about the ballot box but also
what happens within the practices of
institutions and public discourse.
It is a continuous struggle to remind
ourselves that our political system will
adhere to the substance and strength of
the Merdeka cry of a sovereign people.
And that our nations birthing is based
upon principles of liberty and justice9. As
Tunku articulated it with the objective of
ever seeking the welfare and happiness
of its people and the maintenance of a
just peace among all nations.
So first of all, we became a nation state
composed of equal citizenship and not
pendatangs or merely people from
diaspora.10 We are not just a pastiche
of tribal groups, ethnic or religious
communities. This nation states
foundational document is the Merdeka
Constitution which was reinstated
with the formation of Malaysia. Being
a foundational text, it operates as
supreme law which must govern the
aairs, administration of laws and the
executive, legislative and judicial powers
of a nation. Its liberal secular nature was
emphasised when Sabah and Sarawak
were admitted into our polity. In all
the founding documents (the Reid and
Cobbold Commission and together with
the twenty-point agreement, with the
Borneo States) this reassurance was
reiterated.
The Federal Constitution sets out the
parameters of our nations governance
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 23
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
and delineates the equilibrium of
Federal-State power and also minority
rights in relationship of the majority.
Construction has now been placed
upon the constitution that completely
defies the logic and grammar of the
text extrapolating upon it ideological
elements that trump its basic structure.
Our Constitution has now been defiled
and defaced.
The unceremonious termination of the
Attorney-General on spurious grounds
of medical condition (without due
process), the dismantling of the Task
Force that was investigating the 1MDB
controversies and alleged financial
improprieties, and the neutralising of the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
(MACC) and its ocers are naked
examples of negation of constitutional
governance.
Will you be a Constitutional Patriot to
restore the fundamental norms of our
polity as a healthy democratic nation
giving recognition of equality to all and
ruling with fairness and equity for all?
Will we reject wholly attempts at
usurpation of power by the Executive
whose concern is the holding on to
power and position?
The wider ramifications of Constitutional
patriotism must be teased out to address
the legitimacy and constitutional deficit
that now besets Malaysia. It urges
loyalty and sense of belonging to all
communities, not ignoring shared
24 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
histories and problematic of identities
but cleaving to the aspiration of a
more inclusivist agenda. We need
to set forth to build a constitutional
culture centred on Universalist liberal-
democratic norms and values, refracted
and interpreted through particular
historical experiences.11 Joseph M
Fernando has argued that the legitimacy
of the constitutional structure from its
beginnings is based on civic and not
ethnic nor religious nationalism. Only
if our patriotism is based on this sound
and wise foundation will it continue to
be the conscience of the nation. 12
Philip Koh Tong Ngee
Co-editor, Sheridan & Groves,
The Constitution of Malaysia
(5th Edition) (2004) (LexisNexis)
Notes
1 These distinctions and models of
nationalism as stated by Anthony D
Smith, National Identity (1991) (Penguin),
was appropriated with historical finesse
and care to the Federal Constitution by
Joseph M Fernando, The Making of the
Malayan Constitution (2002) (MBRAS)
Monograph No 31 Chapter 6.
2 See the witty but insightful essay of
being a scoundrel by CS Lewis, The
Inner Ring, at http://www.lewissociety.
org/innerring.php.
3 See Rais Yatim, Freedom under
Executive Power in Malaysia: A
Study of Executive Supremacy (1995)
(Endowment); the learned author wrote
this treatise when out of political power.
See also Amanda Whiting, Emerging
from emergency rule? Malaysia Law
Reform 2011-2013, Australian Journal
of Asian Law (2013), Vol 14, No 2, Art
9:1-55.
4 Jan-Werner Mller, Constitutional
Patriotism (2007), Princeton University
Press.
5 Steven Johnston, Political Theory,
(December 2008), Vol 6, No 4, pp 827-
828.
6 See Benedict Anderson, The Spectre of
Comparisons (1998) (Verso); and Cliord
Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures
(1973) (Basic Books).
7 See also notion of peoplehood defended
by John Rawls in his Law of Peoples
(1999), Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.
8 The notion of public reason has been
best articulated by John Rawls in his Law
of Peoples, ibid; see also Rex Martin and
David A Reidy, Rawlss Law of Peoples:
A Realistic Utopia (Blackwell) (2006).
9 For a magisterial statement of what
liberty and justice can mean in a polity,
see John Rawls, Justice as Fairness:
A Restatement (2001) (Harvard) which
refines Rawls classic work, A Theory of
Justice (1971).
10 A new phrase being wielded by certain
groups (eg race-based NGO, Perkasa)
in the wake of the Low Yat incident
where strident polemic of radical ethnic-
religious sentiments was expressed
to provide an irrational apologetic to a
theft.
11 Jan-Werner Mller at p 136 cited in
Christopher J Hilsons Towards a
Thicker Constitutional Patriotism?,
The Review of Politics, Vol 71, No 1
(winter 2009), pp 159-162. See also
Patchen Markell, Making Aect Safe
for Democracy? On Constitutional
Patriotism, Political Theory, Vol 28, No
1 (Feb 2000), pp 38-63.
12 See Joseph M Fernando, The Making
of the Malayan Constitution (2002)
(MBRAS) Monograph No 31, concluding
Chapter 7.
 FEATURES/ARTICLES

RakyatGuides

TheRakyatGuides, totalling nine in a series, are produced by the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee. First launched
in 2009, theRakyatGuidesare aimed at introducing to the public in simple terms, the essence of the Constitution of Malaysia.

The Rakyat Guides simplify the main themes of the Constitution and are written in a non-legalistic style, to enable any
layperson to understand the content of the Constitution.

The content of theRakyatGuidesis drafted carefully and meticulously by a panel of highly-qualified lawyers and academics.

The Rakyat Guides comprise the following:

1. What is the Federal Constitution

2. Constitutional Institutions & the Separation of Powers
3. Federal-State Relations
4. Parliament
5. The Executive
6. The Judiciary
7. Sabah & Sarawak
8. Fundamental Liberties & Citizenship
9. Elections & Democracy

The Rakyat Guides are available in English, Bahasa Malaysia, and most recently, Mandarin. They are sold as a set for RM6.40
(inclusive of 6% GST). You may obtain your copies of the Rakyat Guides from:

Bar Council
No 15 Leboh Pasar Besar
50050 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-2050 2050

You may also download copies of the Rakyat Guides from the Malaysian Bar website, at
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, and you will see icons of
the Rakyat Guides, in English, Bahasa Malaysia, and Mandarin, at the bottom right-hand side.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 25

 FEATURES/ARTICLES
The Special Position of Sabah and Sarawak in
Our Federal Set-Up
When Malaya re-constituted into
Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak were
constitutionally oered many special
terms. The special provisions for
them were based on a number of
historical events, among them the Inter-
Governmental Committee Report and
the Malaysia Agreement.
The sanctity of the Inter-Governmental
Committee Report and the Malaysia
Agreement has been reiterated by our
apex court in Pihak Berkuasa Negeri
Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan [2002]
3 MLJ 72; Datuk Hj Mohammad Tufail v
Dato Ting Check Sii [2009] 4 MLJ 165;
and by the High Court in Robert Linggi
v Government of Malaysia [2011] 2 MLJ
741.
Fifty-two years down the road, the
conviction remains strong in our East
Malaysian states that due to their
cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic
diversity, Sabah and Sarawak should
continue to enjoy greater autonomy than
the Peninsular Malaysian states. This is
seen as justifiable due to a number of
socio-political, economic, geographical
26 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
and legal factors. Among them are the
following:
Sabah and Sarawaks special
position in our federal set-up is not
unique to world federations. To
accommodate diversity, the State
of Kashmir in India and Quebec in
Canada have similar unique rights;
Sabah and Sarawak have cultural
and religious distinctiveness from
Peninsular Malaysia;
They contribute huge territories and
massive resources to the federation.
Their combined area is 198,069
sq km, exceeding Peninsular
Malaysias 131,681 sq km. The
coastline of the two States is 2,607
km compared to the peninsulas
2,068 km;
There are problems of poverty and
underdevelopment in these two
states; and
The 1963 pact between the
Federation of Malaya, United
Kingdom, North Borneo, Sarawak,
and Singapore had international
participation. Therefore there
is international law basis to the
guarantees for Sabah and Sarawak.
ALLOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER
The Legislative List
The legislative powers of the federal
parliament and the State legislative
assemblies are specified in five
legislative lists in the Ninth Schedule
of the Constitution of Malaysia. Under
Articles 95B to 95E, there is special
provision for the States of Sabah and
Sarawak relating to the distribution of
legislative power.
Sabah and Sarawak have a
Supplementary State List and a
Supplementary Concurrent List
conferring on them many legislative
powers not allocated to the peninsular
states.
The Supplementary State List for Sabah
and Sarawak confers additional powers
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
on these States in seven matters JUDICIAL POWERS
including native law and custom, ports
Parliament
Native Courts
and harbours and, in Sabah, the Sabah
Railway.
may legislate In Sabah and Sarawak, besides the

The Supplementary Concurrent List

for Sabah and Sarawak extends the
legislative competence of these states
to cover nine matters including shipping
under 15 tonnes, charities and theatres.
Uniformity of Laws
Parliament may legislate on state
matters like land and local government
for the purpose of promoting uniformity
of laws of two or more states: Article
76(1)(b). However, this power of the
federal Parliament is not applicable
to Sabah and Sarawak: Article 95D.
Land, agriculture, forestry and local
government remain exclusive to Sabah
and Sarawak.
International Treaties
Under Article 76(1)(a), Parliament may
make laws with respect to any matter
enumerated in the State List for the
purpose of implementing any treaty with
a foreign nation, or any decision of an
international organisation. If the law
aects Islamic law, or the custom of
the Malays, or native law and custom in
Sabah and Sarawak, then there is a duty
to consult with the States concerned:
Article 76(2). But the duty to consult
does not impose a duty to obey.
POWER TO AMEND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION
The power of amending the Constitution
belongs largely to the federal Parliament,
which can exercise this power sub ect
to procedures provided in Articles 2(b),
159 and 161E. It is noteworthy that
except in relation to territorial changes
to the boundaries of the States under
Article 2(b), the est Malaysian States
have absolutely no power to prevent a
constitutional amendment from going
through.
The Constitution does not re uire
consultation with or consent of the
States in the amendatory process of
Article 1(1) and (2) the articles that
describe the name and territories of the
ederation. The point was dramatically
illustrated in the case of Government
of Kelantan v Government of the
Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul
Rahman (196 ) ML 55.
on state matters
like land and
local government
for the purpose
of promoting
uniformity of
laws However,
this power of the
federal Parliament
is not applicable
to Sabah and
Sarawak: Article
95D. Land,
agriculture,
forestry and local
government remain
exclusive to Sabah
and Sarawak.
However, the power of amending the
Constitution which belongs to the
federal Parliament is not as extensive
in relation to Sabah and Sarawak as
it is in relation to the est Malaysian
States: Article 161E(2). The consent of
the over nors of Sabah and Sarawak is
re uired to a constitutional amendment
under Article 161E aecting the special
position of these states: Robert Linggi
v Government of Malaysia 2 11 2 ML
7 1. It is notable that the consent of
the over nors, and not the Assemblies,
is re uired. The overnors are federal
appointees and unlikely to side with the
States against the federal government
despite a constitutional obligation to
follow the advice of the Chief Ministers.
ote also that the alteration of the
boundaries of a State re uire the
consent of the legislature of the state
plus the consent of the Conference of
Rulers: Article 2(b). id the Labuan
amendment Act A5 5 of 19
meet these mandatory procedural
re uirements
Syariah Courts, there is a system of
native law and native courts.
High Court for Sabah and Sarawak
The federal High Court has two wings
one in Malaya and the other in the
States of Sabah and Sarawak: Courts
of udicature Act 196 (Act 91). The
appointment of the Chief udge of the
Sabah and Sarawak High Court re uires
consultation with the Chief Minister of
these States: Article 122B( ).
REPRESENTATION IN
PARLIAMENT
Dewan Negara (Senate)
The initial safeguard built into the ederal
Constitution of 1957 was that State
Senators outnumbered the federally
appointed Senators by a margin of 22:16.
This proportion gave some semblance
of a restraining safeguard against
constitutional amendments. But with
subse uent constitutional modi cations
in 196 , 196 , 1965, 197 , 197 , 19
and 2 1 which were necessitated due
to the enlargement of the territories
of the federation, the separation of
Singapore and the creation of the
ederal Territories of uala Lumpur,
Labuan and Putra aya,the proportion of
elected Senators to appointed Senators
now stands at 26: .
Dewan Rakyat (House of
Representatives)
Sabah has 25 Members of Parliament
(MPs) Sarawak 1. Together, Sabah
and Sarawak have 56 out of a total
222 or 25.2 of the MPs in the ewan
Rakyat. This is disproportionately large
based on their population.
However, it must be noted that this
number is lesser than the envisaged
for Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore in
196 in order to accord these States
protection against amendments
re uiring two thirds ma ority.
PROTECTION AGAINST
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
POWERS
hile a proclamation of emergency is
in force, the executive authority of the
federation may extend to any matter
within the legislative authority of a
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 27
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
State: Article 150(4). The federal system
can operate as a unitary system, and
Parliament can enter the State List. It
can amend the State Constitution as
for example the Emergency (Federal
Constitution and Constitution of
Sarawak) Act 1966.
It is under emergency provisions that
the removal of Dato Stephen Kalong
Ningkan as Chief Minister of Sarawak
was accomplished in 1966. Dato
Ningkans challenge of the proclamation
of emergency on the ground of mala fide
failed in the courts Stephen Kalong
Ningkan v Government of Malaysia
[1968] 2 MLJ 238
However, even during an emergency
under Article 150, the native law or
customs of Sabah and Sarawak cannot
be extinguished by emergency law:
Article 150(6A).
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
In relation to national development
plans, Article 92(1) empowers the ang
di Pertuan Agong to proclaim an area
of a State as a development area .
Thereupon Parliament has power to
give e ect to the development plan
notwithstanding State powers on the
matter. nder Article 95E(3), Sabah
and Sarawak are excluded from
national plans for land utilisation, local
government and development, unless
the consent of the ang di Pertua Negeri
is obtained.
NATIONAL COUNCILS
Policies of the National Land Council
are not binding on Sabah and Sarawak
except with the consent of the ang di
Pertua Negeri. Policies of the National
Council for Local over nment are
not binding on Sabah and Sarawak
except with the consent of the State
Assemblies: Article 95E(2).
FISCAL FEDERALISM
According to Professor H Hickling,
money represents power, and is at the
heart of government . An e uitable
distribution of nancial resources
between the federation and the states
is the ultimate test of a true federation.
As Harding says: Finance is obviously
crucial to a federal system, since both
the federal and state governments are
only able to do that which their resources
28 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
permit them .
The federal governments stranglehold
over most of the lucrative sources of
revenue is not as strong in relation to
Sabah and Sarawak as it is in relation
to other states. In some areas that are
noted below, Sabah and Sarawak en oy
scal privileges that are not available to
the Peninsular States:
Loans
The Constitution sub ects the est
Malaysian states to scal control by
the centre in another way. A state is
not allowed to raise or borrow money
except from the federation or a federally
approved bank: Article 111(2) and (3)
and the case of Government of Malaysia
v Government of the State of Kelantan
(1968) 1 MLJ 129.
nder Article 112 , Sabah and Sarawak
are allowed to raise loans for their
purposes with the consent of the Central
ank of Malaysia ( ank Negara ).
Special Sources of Revenue
Sabah and Sarawak are allocated
special revenues to meet their needs
above and beyond what other States
receive: Article 112C(1)(b).
Sabah and Sarawak are assigned eight
sources of revenue not permitted to
other States. These include import and
excise duty on petroleum products,
export duty on timber and forest
produce and, sub ect to a ceiling, export
duty on minerals. Sabah and Sarawak
are also entitled to earnings (taxes, fees
and dues) from ports and harbours and
state sales tax: Article 112C and Part
of Schedule 10.
Special Grants
Sabah and Sarawak en oysome special
grants: Articles 112C(a) and 112D.
Audits
There are special rules about audits in
Sabah and Sarawak: Article 112A.
ARTICLE 153: SPECIAL
POSITION AND PROTECTION
ACCORDED TO THE NATIVES
OF SABAH AND SARAWAK
nder Article 153, the natives of Sabah
and Sarawak en oy a special position
similar to that of the Malays of Peninsular
Malaysia. Article 153 is, however, silent
about whether the special protection
for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak
applies throughout Malaysia or has
limited territorial reach only within Sabah
and Sarawak.
IMMIGRATION
The mobility of non residents to Sabah
and Sarawak is restricted: Article
161E(4) and Part II of the Immigration
Act (Act 155). There is also restriction
on non residents practising before the
courts of Sabah and Sarawak: Article
161B. Sabah and Sarawak lawyers
have exclusive right to practise law
in their states and in relation to cases
originating there.
ENGLISH AND NATIVE
LANGUAGES
Sabah and Sarawak en oy special
protection in relation to the use of English
and native languages, as enshrined in
Article 161.
MALAY RESERVES
There is non application of Malay
eserves to these States: Article 161A(5).
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1963
Fifty two years down the road, not all
is well with the (former) or neo states
relationship with the centre. In many
areas, Sabah and Sarawaks autonomy
has su ered retreat due to constitutional
developments. A case in which Sabahs
grievances were unsuccessfully sought
to be articulated is Fung Fon Chen @
Bernard & Anor v The Government of
Malaysia and Anor [2012] 6 MLJ 24.
Governors and Chief Ministers
There is discontent about arisan
Nasionals choice of overnors and
Chief Ministers.
Labuan
Labuans federalisation is a sore point
in Sabah. Labuan was ceded to the
federal government in 1984 through an
amendment inspired by the then Sabah
government.
No State Religion in 1963
At the time of the formation of Malaysia in
1963, there was no state religion in these
two states. The Inter overnmental
Committee (1962) had recommended
that there should be no state religion in
Sabah and Sarawak.

No restriction on the propagation of
religion (which restriction is permitted by
Article 11(4)) should be enacted except
by a two-thirds majority in the State
Assembly. No federal funds should be
used for religious purposes in Sabah and
Sarawak, and these two States should
receive for welfare purposes an amount
equal to what the federal government
spends in West Malaysia for religious
purposes.
These principles were incorporated
into Articles 161C and 161D, but
were repealed by the Constitution
(Amendement) Act 1976. Islamisation in
Sabah and Sarawak is now a significant
phenomenon. Due to an amendment to
the Sabah Constitution by its Assembly,
Islam is now the ocial religion of
Sabah.
Article 153
There are many significant criticisms
about the application of Article 153
to East Malaysia. It is alleged that
the rights of the natives of Sabah and
Sarawak are not being enforced in the
same spirit as the rights of the Malays
under Article 153.
It is a matter of contention whether
the rights of the natives of Sabah and
Sarawak apply only in their respective
States or throughout the Federation.
There are grumblings that the real
natives are being displaced by the
new Bumiputeras.
Other misgivings are that the term
native ignores the aborigines of
Sabah and Sarawak. Under Article
160(2), aborigine is confined to the
Malay Peninsula.
The constitutional definition of native of
Sarawak in Article 161A(7) includes 28
indigenous races and persons of mixed
blood deriving exclusively from these
(28) races. This leaves out children
of mixed marriages where one parent
belongs to one of the 28 indigenous
races but the other parent does not.
For Sabah, the definition of a native in
Article 161A(6) suers from gender bias
in that it emphasises the domicile of the
father and not the mother contrary to
Article 8(2).
Native Custom Versus Syariah Law
There is an intense but silent jurisdictional
conflict between native law and Native
Courts on the one hand, and Syariah
Law and Syariah Courts on the other,
when a native who is also a Muslim is
subject to court proceedings.
Petroleum
There is an ongoing debate about how
much Sabah and Sarawak must receive
for the oil and gas being extracted o its
shores. This question raises engaging
issues of constitutional law, federal-
state relations, and of the interpretation
of the Petroleum Development Act
1974, the Petroleum Mining Act 1966
and the Assignment Deed between
the signatory states and Petronas.
What is noteworthy is that oil and
oilfields, petroleum products and
safety in mines and oilfields are in the
Federal List in Schedule 9, List I, Item
8(j). Extra-territorial jurisdiction is in
the Federal List, Item 8(g). This means
that prospecting for oil in the Economic
Zone or the revenue from any oil found
on land or in or outside of territorial
waters is the exclusive right of the
federal government.
The States are merely entitled to
(i) Import duty and excise duty on
petroleum products: Schedule 10, Part
V, Item 1; and (ii) a maximum of 10 per
cent ad valorem of royalty on any mineral
oils: Schedule 10, Part V, item 3.
In Schedule 9, List II, Item 2, States
are in control of permits and licences
for prospecting for mines. However,
oilfields are unlikely to be regarded as
mines.
All this means that the state share
of petroleum income is not well
protected constitutionally. The matter
is one of contract under the Petroleum
Development Act 1974, the Petroleum
Mining Act 1966 and the Assignment
Deed between the signatory states and
Petronas.
Federalisation of Critical State
Matters
Tourism used to be a State matter.
By the Constitution (Amendment)
Act A885, tourism is now a federal
matter. Disputes are also brewing over
production, distribution and supply of
water which are covered by the Federal
List Para 11(b) and the federally-enacted
Water Services Industry Act 2006 (Act
655). The problem is that subject to the
Federal List, water (including rivers and
canals but excluding water supplies and
services) is in Para 6(c) of the State List.
FEATURES/ARTICLES
Emergency
The federal declaration of emergency
in Sarawak in 1966 and the subsequent
dismissal of its Chief Minister Stephen
Kalong Ningkan, indicates that state
autonomy is rather frail and cannot
withstand the onslaught of emergency
powers.
Strength in Parliament
With the separation of Singapore and
the creation of several Federal Territories
Kuala Lumpur with 13 MPs, Labuan
with one MP, and Putrajaya with one
MP the relative strength of Sabah
and Sarawak in the Dewan Rakyat has
undergone significant diminution from
35% in 1963 to 25% in 2014.
Federal Political Interference
Interference by federal politicians
in Sarawaks politics in 1966 and in
Sabahs politics in 1994 led to the
replacement of popularly elected local
leaders. This underlines the ability of the
federal government to dictate political
outcomes.
Illegal Immigrants
The influx of illegal immigrants and the
alleged naturalisation of thousands of
them are being regarded as violations
of Sabah and Sarawaks rights over
immigration.
Twenty-point Manifesto and 18-point
Agreement
In opposition to the Peninsulars views
against special treatment for Sabah
and Sarawak, some voices from across
the South China Sea assert that the
constitutional safeguards of 1963 have
been whittled down. Specifically they
point to violations of the Twenty-point
Manifesto of the Sabah Alliance and
the 18-point Agreement of Sarawak.
A scrutiny of Sabahs Twenty-Point
Manifesto indicates that 13 out of 20
points show complete or substantial
compliance. But there are grouses
about the following seven clauses of the
manifesto:
Religion (para 1)
Sabah was supposed to have no
state religion. During Tun Datu
Haji Mustaphas (popularly known
as Tun Mustapha) tenure as third
Chief Minister of Sabah, the Sabah
Constitution was amended by the
State Assembly to adopt Islam as
the state religion and to appoint the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head
of the religion of Islam, in 1973.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 29
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
Language (para 2)
While Malay was to be the national
language, English could be used
in Sabah for all purposes, State or
Federal, without limitation of time.
Sabah amended this to adopt Malay
as the language of the Cabinet and
the Assembly subject to some
exceptions.
Amendments to the Federal
Constitution touching on Sabah and
Sarawaks rights (paras 3 and 16)
Immigration
Para 6 on Sabahs rights over
immigration is intact but the influx of
illegal immigrants and their alleged
naturalisation has changed the
ethnic landscape of Sabah.
Borneonisation (para 8)
There is strong discontent that
this is not proceeding vigorously
enough.
Education system under state
control (para 15)
Policies relating to Bahasa
Malaysia and common, nationally-
recognised examinations, while
good for national integration, pose
a challenge to the idea of state
control over education.
What is noteworthy is that paras 1 and
2 were tinkered with by Sabah itself.
Likewise, the federalisation of Labuan
by the federal government was with the
consent of the Sabah executive. Clearly,
there is some barking up the wrong tree
by angry Sabahans.
The Allah Issue
The Court of Appeals decision on the
Allah issue seriously impacts on the
rights of Sabah and Sarawak Christians
to preach and worship their religion in
Bahasa Malaysia and to use the term
Allah in their worship as they have
done for centuries.
Environment
This is in the Federal List. But as
environment is a generic term involving
many specific matters that are clearly in
state hands (eg land, forests and rivers),
questions of conflict of jurisdiction are
inherent in this area. The Bakun decision
(Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar v
Kajing Tubek [1997] 3 MLJ 23) illustrated
this dramatically.
30 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Constitutional Amendments
Article 161E(2)(b) states that no
amendment shall be made to the Federal
Constitution without the concurrence of
the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Sabah and
Sarawak, if the amendment is such as to
aect the operation of the Constitution
as regards some matters including the
constitution and jurisdiction of the High
Court in Sabah and Sarawak and the
appointment, removal and suspension
of judges of that court.
Prior to 24 June 1994, the appointment
of Judicial Commissioners (JCs) to together forming the third unit.
the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak
was made by the Governors (Yang di-
Pertua Negeri) on the advice of the Chief
Judge of the High Court of Sabah and
Sarawak. However, on 24 June 1994,
the constitutional amendment to Article
122A(3) and (4) transferred this power
from the Yang di-Pertua Negeri to the
Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The right of
the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak
to advise was transferred to the Prime
Minister and the Chief Justice of the
Federal Court.
In Robert Linggi v Government of
Malaysia, the plainti argued, and
rightly so, that the concurrence of the
Governors of Sabah and Sarawak
was mandated to the insertion of the
new Article 122AB. The Government
conceded that no consent had been
obtained, but amazingly argued that no
such consent was needed. Rightly, the
learned judge gave short shrift to this
audacious argument and held that the
1994 amendment was invalid as far as
Sabah and Sarawak were concerned.
Similar issues arise under the Judicial
Appointments Commission Act 2009
(JACA 2009). While the Act is is paramount. And there is a need to
supportable in its content, its procedure
appears contrary to Article 159(3). As a
surreptitious constitutional amendment,
that not only supplements but supplants
the procedures of Article 122AB and
122B, it required a two-thirds majority.
For the reason that JACA 2009 aects
the appointment process of Sabah-
Sarawak judges and the exercise of the
discretion of the Chief Judge of Sabah
and Sarawak, the Act should have been
submitted to the Governors of Sabah
and Sarawak for their consent. One
must note with regret that the Robert
Linggi decision has been overruled by
the Court of Appeal.
CONCLUSION
Malaysias federal model provides for
a heavy central bias. But in relation
to Sabah and Sarawak, the federal
governments powers are not so
pronounced.
Professor Harry E Groves has
commented that for many significant
purposes, the federation has the
appearance of a three-unit entity
Sabah being one, Sarawak the second,
and the eleven Peninsular states
The disparity of powers between the
West Malaysian states on the one hand,
and Sabah and Sarawak on the other,
is indeed very striking and one can
appreciate it only by bearing in mind
the favourable geographical size, wealth
and the dierent religious and racial
composition of the peoples of Sabah
and Sarawak.
espite the constitutional grant to Sabah
and Sarawak of considerable autonomy,
some dissatisfactions seem to be boiling
over. This is not surprising as tensions
between federal and state governments
are common in most federations. For
example, petrol royalty issues have
triggered separatist movements in many
federations.
What is important is that tensions
need to be kept in check and the
embers of controversy doused as
when fires flare. Leaders of the federal
government must recognise that Sabah
and Sarawaks restiveness is real and
must be addressed. Balancing the
concerns of equity and e ciency in
inter-governmental financial relations
strengthen institutional mechanisms for
regular, non-partisan dialogue between
the centre and the states.
There is no reason to believe that the
spirit of accommodation that animated
the body politic in 1957 and in 1963
cannot continue for a long, long time.
Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr
Shad Saleem Faruqi
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law
niversiti Teknologi MARA

Sedition Act An Assault on Freedom of Speech
and Expression
A call for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948, Walk for Peace and Freedom, 16 Oct 2014
The easiest criticism one can level on
the Sedition Act 1948 is in the way the
Act has been used. One can recall, the
incredulous charge against a university
lecturer for a comment he made to an
online news portal. Most will agree that
the comments are his academic opinion
on what is essentially a constitutional
issue, yet for some reason the Public
Prosecutor proered a charge of
sedition against him.
Compare that with a politician, who
some years ago made a call to
adherents of a particular faith to search
and burn the holy book of another faith.
But for some reason, the said politician
was not charged. Instead, the Public
Prosecutor gave a statement to justify
why the politician was not charged.
Reasons given were, amongst others,
that what the politician said was not a
statement with seditious tendency as
he had no intention to create religious
disharmony.
Selective prosecution is but one issue
with the Act. There are other more
fundamental issues with the Act that
necessitates its repeal.
The Sedition Act 1948 must be one of
the most maligned laws in our statute
books. Again and again, calls are made
to abolish the Act. It appeared at one
point that the Government would finally
do so when in 2012, the Prime Minister
himself has stated that the Act will be
abolished and replaced with a National
Harmony Act. Two years later, the Prime
Minister reneged on his promise. Instead
of a repeal, the Act was strengthened
and made more draconian.
The oence of sedition originated in
England some time in the 17th century.
According to Jeyaseelan Anthony in
his book Seditious Tendency?: Political
Patronisation of Free Speech and
Expression in Malaysia, sedition was
born in a time when the absolute right
of the Ruler was divine and cannot
be criticised or questioned, let alone
opposed. Criticisms and opposition
towards the Ruler was a sin and thus
must be punished.
Our Act is a colonial vestige. It was
enacted before the Federation of Malaya
achieved independence and it was
largely used by the British to deal with
militant communists insurgents at the
time.
The Act criminalises sedition by
making it an oence to do anything
FEATURES/ARTICLES
which has a seditious tendency or to
utter any seditious words. Seditious
is defined in the Act as any act, speech,
word, publication or other thing qualifies
as one having a seditious tendency.
A seditious tendency meanwhile is
defined as, amongst others, a tendency
to bring into hatred or contempt or to
excite disaection against any Ruler or
to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the
inhabitants of any territory governed by
any Government to attempt to procure in
the territory of the Ruler or Government,
the unlawful alteration of any matter
established by law.
A seditious tendency can also be
a tendency to bring into hatred or
contempt or to excite disaection
against the administration of justice or to
raise discontent or disaection amongst
the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong or of the Ruler of any State or
amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia.
A seditious tendency can also be a
tendency to promote feelings of ill will
and hostility between dierent races or
classes of the population of Malaysia
and to question certain constitutional
provisions such as Articles 152 and 153
of the Federal Constitution.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 31
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
Clearly, the list of what can constitute
seditious tendency is wide. Almost
anything can and would have a seditious
tendency by the Acts definition. Any
criticism of the Government would
be seditious. Any comment made
can raise ill will and hostility within the
population. What is said or done may
even be justified, yet would still fall foul
of the Act.
Earlier this year, the Parliament passed
several amendments to the Act. At the
time of writing, the amendment bill has
been gazetted, but is not yet in force.
Under the amendments, criticisms of
any Government or of the administration
of justice are no longer seditious
tendencies. But that is of little comfort
to any of us, as the other listed seditious
tendencies are wide enough to cover
almost anything that is said or done.
The amendments have taken away
judicial discretion in sentencing. The
Court no longer has the option to
impose fines upon conviction of a
sedition oence. Instead, there is now
an imprisonment sentence of three
years. The maximum sentence will be
increased to up to seven years.
There is absolutely no justification for
this. For an Act as wide as the Sedition
Act 1948, with no element of intention
that must be proven, as well as the
disproportionately high conviction
rate, judicial discretion in sentencing
may at least cushion some of the more
draconian aspects of the law. It may be
dicult for the Court to acquit a person
as the Act casts a wide net on what is
deemed to be seditious, but at the very
least the Court has options when it
comes to sentencing. The amendments
have taken away that option.
The amendments also empower the
Court to prevent a person who is
charged with a sedition oence from
leaving Malaysia. It provides that if
an application is made by the Public
Prosecutor, the Court shall order the
person to surrender his travel documents
such as his or her passport or order the
Director General of Immigration not to
issue any travel documents to the said
person. The keyword here is shall,
which suggests that the Court has no
discretion on the granting of such an
order once an application is made.
32 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
The amendments also introduce a
new oence an aggravated oence electronic means, a prohibition order
where the seditious act causes bodily
injury or damage to property. The
sentence upon conviction is a minimum
of three years, and maximum 20 years,
imprisonment.
The amendments also insert a new
seditious tendency of promoting
feelings of ill will, hostility and hatred
between persons or groups of persons
on the ground of religion. The words
used mirror sections 298 and 298A of
the Penal Code; the oences of uttering
words and others with deliberate intent
to wound the religious feelings of any
person and causing disharmony, disunity,
enmity, hatred or ill will on grounds of
religion. The crucial dierence is that
unlike the Penal Code oences, the
element of intention need not be proven,
as long as it can be shown that there is
the requisite seditious tendency.
The amendments also empower the
Sessions Court to make what is known
as a prohibition order for publication
which is likely to lead to bodily injury
or damage to property; appears to
promote feelings of ill will, hostility or
hatred between races or classes of
persons; or appears to promote feeling
of ill will, hostility or hatred between
people on grounds of religion.
Unlike many other provisions of the
amendments, it appears that the
Sessions Court does have some
discretion in granting the order.
However, the threshold will be low as
the bill uses words such as likely or
appears.
This articles writer, Syahredzan Johan speaking during the Walk for Peace and Freedom, 16
Oct 2014
For seditious publication by way of
shall require the person making or
circulating the seditious publication to
remove the said publication. The person
making or circulating the seditious
publication will also be prohibited from
accessing any electronic device. So,
if a person tweets something deemed
to be seditious and a prohibition order
is issued against the person, he will be
prohibited from using a smartphone,
tablet, desktop and any other electronic
device. Failure to comply is in itself a
criminal oence.
It is also now an oence to propagate
seditious publication. Propagation
is not defined in the bill; the ordinary
meaning of the word would be to
reproduce, disseminate or spread the
publication.
There are other worrying aspects of
the amendments which shall not be
delved into here. Suce to say, the
State will have in its arsenal, tools to
severely restrict freedom of speech
and expression. If the Act is bad in
its present form, the amendments will
make it much worse.
If a person is charged for sedition,
the prosecution does not even have
to prove that the words uttered or the
act done is actually seditious. All that
needs to be established is a tendency to
be seditious. Even the intention of the
accused is irrelevant, as long as the act
done or words uttered have a seditious
tendency, it would be enough to fulfil the
elements of the oence and to establish
the guilt of the accused.

With such a wide definition and such an
easy oence to establish guilt in Court,
it is no wonder that the Act has been
used to stifle political opposition and
dissidents.
When the police cannot find an oence
in other Acts of Parliament to investigate
a person, they will fall back on the Act.
That is why for example, we see the Act
being used against those who allegedly
insult the Rulers, in the absence of
lse-majest laws specifically for that
purpose.
The imprecise nature of what constitutes
seditious tendency, and the width of the
provisions resulted in the Act being used
to harass, intimidate and detain citizens.
This restriction on free speech does
not uphold the spirit of democracy
which forms the basis of our countrys
constitutional framework. Freedom of
speech and expression is protected
by the Federal Constitution, and the
interpretation of the law as it currently
stands is that any form of restriction
placed by the State on fundamental
liberties must be reasonable. The
criminalisation of those matters listed
as seditious tendency in the Act
should not measure up to the standard
of reasonableness when it comes to
restricting fundamental liberties. The
Act severely encroaches upon the public
enjoyment and exercise of fundamental
civil liberties and has no place in our
maturing and modern society.
FEATURES/ARTICLES
We should be freed from such archaic
laws laws promulgated by our colonial
masters that no longer can stand the test
of time. Even the British have discarded
the law long ago; the last documented
prosecution for sedition in the United
Kingdom was in 1972. It is time for us
to follow suit.
Syahredzan Johan
Partner
RamRais & Partners

The #MansuhAktaHasutan Campaign What is it?

The #MansuhAktaHasutan campaign is a nationwide campaign by the Bar Council spearheaded by the National Young
Lawyers Committee. The campaign is pursuant to the position of the Malaysian Bar as expressed through the Malaysian Bar
resolution dated 19 Sept 2015.

The campaign seeks the following through this campaign:

To repeal the Sedition Act 1948;

To call for the Attorney General to withdraw all pending charges, cases and appeals, and to concede to all pending
appeals, under the Sedition Act 1948 in the courts of Malaysia;
To call for the Malaysian Government to impose a moratorium on the use of the Sedition Act 1948 pending its repeal; and
To call for the police to cease all investigations pursuant to the Sedition Act 1948.

The Rakyat Guides #1 What is the Federal Constitution?

The Federal Constitution (Constitution) is the supreme law of Malaysia. It is the most important document of our country
because it determines the kind of country we live in:

It sets up our democratic system;

It limits the power of government; and
It sets out our rights.

The Constitution consists of 16 parts:

Part 1: The States, Religion and Law of the Federation

Part 2: Fundamental Liberties
Part 3: Citizenship
Part 4: The Federation
Part 5: The States
Part 6: Relations between the Federation and the States
Part 7: Financial Provisions
Part 8: Elections
Part 9: The Judiciary
Part 10: The Public Service
Part 11: Special Powers Against Subversion, Organised Violence, and Acts and Crimes Prejudicial to the Public and
Emergency Powers
Part 12: General and Miscellaneous
Part 12A: Additional Protections for States of Sabah and Sarawak
Part 13: Temporary and Transitional Provisions
Part 14: Saving for Rulers Sovereignty, etc
Part 15: Proceedings against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 33

 FEATURES/ARTICLES
The Transboundary Haze Crisis in Malaysia:
A Clear Transgression of International
Environmental Law
Malaysia is in the middle of an
environmental haze crisis for weeks.
The air quality no less has deteriorated
to such an extent that it is unhealthy
to venture outdoors. The word crisis
is deliberately used to show that if
this perennial problem is not handled
properly it may spiral out of control to
become an environmental catastrophe.
The haze by the way is only an individual
environmental issue, discounting all
other sources of pollution such as those
emitted daily from industries, private
and commercial vehicles, that most of
us have to put up with daily.
The haze is not peculiar to the South
East Asian nations alone as Japan
experiences wind-blown haze from
the factories in mainland China, and
even Hong Kong encounters haze from
industrial activity in the nearby Shenzhen
region. But that is no reason to be smug.
The haze that we experience here in
the ASEAN region, though dierent in
particulate matter, is aecting the health
of over one hundred million people
almost perennially and is substantially
damaging the environment.
The Regional and International
Dimensions of the Haze Problem
The haze originates from Indonesia.
It is due to open burning of forests
and peat-land. Open burning can be
controlled through deployment of water
bombers whereas peat-land fires are
more dicult to control as these fires
are subterranean in nature. As the haze
is carried by the seasonal monsoon
winds, the haze problem assumes both
regional and international dimensions.
Here is where domestic environmental
laws are limited in their capacity to deal
with the problem. We need some kind
of regional environmental mechanism
in place and this brings into focus the
ASEAN Transboundary Haze Pollution
Agreement (THPA).
The ASEAN Transboundary Haze
Pollution Agreement (THPA)
The THPA was signed by all ASEAN
member states on 10 June 2002 in Kuala
34 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Lumpur during the World Conference on
Land and Forest Fire Hazards. It came
into force on 25 November 2003, sixty
days after the deposit by Thailand of the
6th instrument of ratification by Thailand
with the Secretary-General of ASEAN.
But strange to say it took another eleven
years for the tenth and final ASEAN
member, Indonesia, to ratify the THPA
on 20 January 2015.
That being the case, it does not mean
that nothing was done about the haze
problem over the years before the THPA.
In fact a lot has been done; the only
question remaining is whether those
eorts were sucient or eective. It
started in 1985 where ASEAN began
to acknowledge the haze problem
by adopting the Agreement on the
Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, which included a reference
to air pollution and transfrontier
environmental eects. This was
followed the Kuala Lumpur Accord
on Environment and Development
1990 and the Singapore Resolution on
Environment and Development 1992,
both making references to transfrontier
pollution. Then ASEAN member states
adopted the Cooperation Plan on
Transboundary Pollution in 1995, as a
result of which a Haze Technical Task
Force (HTTF) was set up to put into
operation the measures included in the
cooperation plan, one of which was the
activation of an alert system.
In 1997, the haze in ASEAN was edging
to catastrophic proportions. The
ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Haze was
established the same year to give haze
a special importance in the organisation.
The Meeting formulated the Regional
Haze Action Plan (RHAP) whose
primary objectives includes inter alia,
establishing operational mechanisms
to monitor land and forest fires, and
strengthening of regional monitoring
mechanisms. In 1998, the ASEAN
Summit issued the Hanoi Plan of Action
which called for the full implementation
of the RHAP by 2001, and in 1999,
ASEAN adopted a zero-burning
policy, following which dialogues and
workshops were convened to promote
such policy among plantation owners
and timber concessionaires. However,
there was no regional enforcement
mechanism and RHAP was not binding
on ASEAN states.
Hence, the THPA was proposed in 2001
with the goal of having a full-fledged
treaty with binding obligations to solve
the transboundary haze issue.
Some Important Features of the
THPA
Is the THPA consistent with the no
harm principle under International
Environmental Law? This principle
was articulated in clear terms in
the famous Trail Smelter Case 1941
following complaints from the residents
of the State of Washington of sulphur
dioxide emissions from a smelter in
Trail, British Columbia. The arbitral
tribunal enunciated the principle that
no state has a right to permit the use
of its territory in such a manner as to
cause injury by fumes to the territory of
another. The THPA addresses crucial
issues of monitoring and prevention that
relate to haze pollution through Article 7
and 9 respectively. These Articles use of
the word shall reflect a commitment to
the no harm principle, and that sounds
encouraging.
Article 3 Para 1 states: The Parties
have, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations and the principles
of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental
and developmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction or control do
not cause damage to the environment
and harm to human health of other
States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction. The wording is
a reflection of the core environmental
law principle under Principle 21 of the
1972 Stockholm Declaration of the
United Nation Conference on Human
Environment. States therefore are not
free to act on their territory but bear
responsibility to ensure that activities
within their jurisdiction do not cause

damage to the environment and harm to
human health of other states.
Article 5 of the THPA provides for an
ASEAN Centre whose purpose is to
facilitate cooperation and coordination
among the Parties in managing the
impact of land and/or forest fires in
particular haze pollution arising from
such fires. However, the ASEAN
Centre shall work on the basis that the
national authority will act first to put out
the fires. When the national authority
declares an emergency situation, it may
make a request to the ASEAN Centre
to provide assistance. So the ASEAN
Centre cannot act on its own accord if a
member state chooses to act unilaterally
though the Centre can be an eective
tool if assistance is requested.
Apart from the ASEAN Centre, request
and oer of assistance may not be a
smooth process in view of the wording
of Article 12 (2) which states that
Assistance can only be employed at
the request of and with the consent of
the requesting Party, or, when oered
by another Party or Parties, with the
consent of the receiving Party. It means
that assistance can be refused even if a
member states choose to oer.
The Failure of the THPA in
Addressing Haze Pollution
In the last haze crisis of 1997,
unprecedented damage for the region
was estimated at USD 9 billion. The
losses arose from the destruction of
crops, land and decline in tourism and
foreign investment not to mention loss
of biodiversity, reduced photosynthesis
and impairment in the state of health of
hundreds of millions of people. How
much damage this region will sustain
this time around is left to be seen.
Judging from the present crisis, the
THPA has failed to respond swiftly.
Though the THPA refers to fundamental
principles of international environmental
law such as the no harm rule and
the precautionary principle, no swift
concerted regional action seems to
have been taken under the THPA. On
the other hand, a case can be made
out against Indonesia (the source
state) in transgression of international
environmental law. Yet again, no action,
and why is that so? one may ask. We
only have to examine the root cause.
The Root Cause of Failure of the
THPA
Many reasons can be given as to why the
THPA fails and the list seems to be long.
We need not go into that. It is sucient
and relevant to identify the root cause
that presents a major stumbling block
for a regional treaty so painstakingly
written, to be eective and it is this.
There is the ASEAN way of doing things
when it comes to regional aairs. This
ASEAN way is normally prescribed in
the various ASEAN treaties including the
1967 Bangkok Declaration. It means a
set of norms to search for consensus, the
principle of non-interference in internal
aairs of a member state. It also means
politeness and non-confrontational
attitudes and approaches, behind-
doors discussions, and informal and
non-legalistic procedures. Hence it is
not surprising that no formal sense of
urgency is felt at least at the regional
level.
To elucidate the point further, diplomatic
tension occurred in 2006 when
Singapore raised the haze issue at the
General Assembly of the United Nations,
calling for international support and
The people
of this region
have a right to
environmental
justice for
themselves and
posterity, and
to be protected
from those who
are incrementally
destroying the
world. Who
will choke to
death first?
FEATURES/ARTICLES
expertise. Indonesia reacted by stating
the move as tantamount to interference
in the domestic aair and sovereignty
of Indonesia. Singapore however
contended that there was intrusion in its
domestic environment and pointed to the
Article 2 of the ASEAN Transboundary
Haze Pollution Agreement (THPA)
which mentions that transboundary
haze pollution should be prevented and
monitored by domestic eort as well as
international cooperation.
Can We Rely on ASEAN and the
Governments to Solve the Haze
Pollution Problem for Us?
Not totally. Besides, to be realistic,
an individual environmental issue like
the haze cannot and should not be
treated in isolation. It fits into the larger
context of Climate Change and Goals
of Sustainable Development, and that
context is already indicating a very
frightening picture. The problem is
too important to be left to ASEAN and
the respective governments alone. In
the final analysis, we are the ones who
are breathing in the haze. We have
to take action ourselves too in terms
of awareness campaigns, public or
strategic interest litigation, education,
name-and-shame campaigns, peaceful
protests and assemblies and refrain
from unethical purchases until the whole
idea of environmental protection sinks
in. The people of this region have a right
to environmental justice for themselves
and posterity, and to be protected from
those who are incrementally destroying
the world. At one point in the Riau
province of Indonesia this year, it was
reported that the Air Pollutant Index
(API) hit 1,000 points. That is more
than three times the hazardous level of
300 points. Who will choke to death
first?
This article is the personal opinion of
the writer and does not necessarily
represent the views of the Bar Council.
Roger Chan Weng Keng
Chairperson
Bar Council Environment and
Climate Change Committee
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 35
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
The Malaysian Environmental Court: The Need to
Extend its Reach to Civil Liability
A Working Definition
An environmental court is a specialised
court dealing with all issues relating to
the environment, and could cover many
dimensions. The details and functionality
of such a court vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction, though dealing with the
same subject matter. For example, an
environmental court could envisage both
judicial and scientific experts on the
Bench so that the court is vested with
the discretion to make the best choices
based on existing scientific knowledge
that is presented to it. Such expertise
could be in the field of ecology, hydrology,
geotechnical science, environment
biology, forest hydrology and the
ecosystem. This is due to the fact that
in some environmental cases, complexity
and uncertainty can underpin two or
more sets of scientific evidence. Such
a specialised court can also be known
and referred to as a Green Court or a
National Green Tribunal or by whatever
name that connotes a nexus with the
environment. Malaysia is no dierent in
this regard, and has what is called the
Malaysian Environmental Court.
The Prelude to the Malaysian
Environmental Court
On 14 Jan 2012, the Chief Justice, in
his speech at the Opening of the Legal
Year 2012, invited the attention of his
audience to a glaring disproportionality
in sentencing between the case of a man
found in illegal possession of a dead tiger
and walked out a free man after having
paid a fine of RM7,000 as compared to
the case of a man who was convicted
of theft of 11 cans of Tiger Beer and
Guinness Stout worth RM70, and was
subsequently sentenced to five years
imprisonment. This statement tells of the
misplacement of our values that seem
to make light of the importance of the
environment. With respect, perhaps the
Chief Justice left something out of the
story. There are cases in the Malaysian
environment that reflect something even
worse than killing. Massive clearing of
lands and deforestation, for instance,
have threatened endangered species
driving them almost to extinction, and
have caused destruction of ecosystems.
Little do the perpetrators realise that
they are also destroying themselves in
that intricate web of relationships that is
Mother Nature. It therefore came as no
surprise that plans were made to set up an
environmental court in Malaysia.
36 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
The Establishment of the
Malaysian Environmental Court
The Malaysian Environmental Court
(MEC) was therefore established on
3 Sept 2012 vide the Chief Registrars
Practice Direction No 3 of 2012.
The MEC is based on the existing
environmental legislative framework
covering all aspects of land, air and
water. (Please see sidebar for the
existing environmental framework).
The Objectives of the MEC
The objectives of MEC are:
1. To expand and improve access to
environmental justice.
2. To provide an expeditious disposal
of environmental related cases.
3. To harness expertise relevant to the
specialised field.
4. To monitor environmental cases
closely and to ensure that
environmental cases are not taken
lightly.
5. To ensure uniformity of decision-
making in environmental cases.
6. To increase public participation and
confidence.
The MEC is Functional Only at
the Sessions and Magistrates
Court Level
The structure of the MEC involves the
assignment of environmental cases to
the designated courts at the Sessions
Courts and the Magistrates Courts
level (42 Sessions Courts and 53
Magistrates Courts). It also Involves 38
Acts and Ordinances, 17 Regulations,
Rules and Orders. Environmental
cases are being given priority under this
structure, and special codes are given
for certain oences registered in the
respective courts. Speedy disposal of
environmental cases is also an important
feature, ranging to three months or six
months depending on whether it is in
the Sessions or Magistrates Court, and
also whether the jurisdiction concerned
is in Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah and
Sarawak. Any appeal will lie in the High
Court.
Will the MEC Solve Our
Environmental Problems?
Though objectives 2 to 5 regarding
disposal, expertise, monitoring and
uniformity of environmental cases
are laudable, it must be remembered
that it is only of limited application
as environmental civil cases are
still within the civil courts exclusive
domain. Properly considered, these are
grounds that the MEC or an exclusive
environmental High Court should cover.
However, the important question to ask
at this stage is whether the objectives
of the MEC reflect the standards as set
out under international and domestic
environmental law and policy as
enunciated under the Rio Declaration
1992. This declaration is an important
milestone in the development of
international environmental law, and
by using this internationally accepted
benchmark, one can somehow gauge
the ecacy of the MEC to address
complex problems of environmental
protection. However, this is in no way to
suggest that the MEC is not important.
The other reason to use this benchmark
is because Malaysia is a party to the
declaration. Many principles there
set out the benchmark that are now
widely established in law and court
practice such as the precautionary
principle, polluter pays principle, inter-
generational equity and sustainable
development. However, it is proposed
to evaluate the ecacy of the MEC by
taking into consideration Principle 10 of
the Rio Declaration 1992 as this principle
has three pillars of right to relevant
information, grassroots participation,
and access to judicial remedies.
Principle 10 states:
Environmental issues are best
handled with participation of all
concerned citizens, at the relevant
level. At the national level, each
individual shall have appropriate
access to information concerning
the environment that is held
by public authorities, including
information on hazardous materials
and activities in their communities,
and the opportunity to participate in
decision-making processes. States
shall facilitate and encourage public
awareness and participation by
making information widely available.
Eective access to judicial and
administrative proceedings,
including redress and remedy, shall
be provided.
Objectives 1 and 6 of the MEC seem to
accord with the provisions of Principle

10 in terms of access to justice and
public participation. However on
closer examination, the issue of public
participation and ambit of peoples
access to environmental justice in
Malaysia could face practical problems.
For one, the MEC is solely a court for
environmental cases of a criminal
nature. Therefore, environmental cases
of a civil nature cannot find their way to
the MEC. Litigants will have to access
the civil courts and face the hurdle of
locus standi before being able to have
their cases heard on the merits. As
for prosecutorial powers in respect of
environmental oences, they are vested
solely with the Attorney General.
The Way Forward
It can be argued simply that it is in the
realm of environmental civil cases where
the maximum adverse impact can be
done to the environment. Massive
land development for mega projects
such as dams, housing developments,
plantations and logging need closer
scrutiny because of the scale of its
potential to wreak damage, and it is here
that easier citizens access to the MEC or
FEATURES/ARTICLES
a specialised environmental High Court
would be a useful proposal to consider.
In this regard, it is time to review of
our environmental laws with a view to
extend the reach of the MEC to include
civil liability. Such review could include
possible law reforms to incorporate a
specialised environmental High Court to
hear all environmental cases exclusively
and to bolster the structure of the MEC.
Roger Chan Weng Keng
Chairperson
Bar Council Environment and
Climate Change Committee

The MEC is based on the existing environmental legislative framework, which can suciently, though not exhaustively, be
represented as follows:

Existing Environmental Framework

1. Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127)
i. Environmental Quality (Licensing) Regulations 1977 [P.U. (A) 198/77]
ii. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) Order 1977 [P.U. (A) 199/77]
iii. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Crude Palm Oil) Regulations 1977 [P.U. (A) 324/77]
iv. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Raw Natural Rubber) Order 1978 [P.U. (A) 250/78]
v. Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 1978 [P.U. (A) 280/78]
vi. Environmental Quality (Compounding of Oences) Rules 1978 [P.U. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises)
(Raw Natural Rubber) Order 1978 [P.U. (A) 250/78] (A) 281/78]
vii. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Raw Natural Rubber) Regulations 1978 [P.U. (A) 338/78]
viii. Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Euents) Regulations 1979 [P.U. (A) 12/79]
ix. Environmental Quality (Control of Lead Concentration in Motor Gasoline) Regulations 1985 [P.U. (A) 296/85]
x. Environmental Quality (Motor Vehicle Noise) Regulations 1987 [P.U. (A) 244/87]
xi. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987 [P.U. (A) 362/87]
xii. Environment Quality (Schedule Wastes) Regulations 1989 [P.U. (A) 139/89]
xiii. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Schedule Wastes Treatment and Disposal Facilities) Regulations
1989 [P.U. (A) 141/89]
xiv. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Schedule Wastes Treatment and Disposal Facilities) Order 1989 [P.U.
(A) 140/89]
xv. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Premises) (Delegation of Power on Marine Pollution Control) Order 1993 [P.U.
(A) 276/93]
xvi. Environmental Quality (Prohibition on the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons and other Gases as Propellants and Blowing
Agents) order 1993 [P.U. (A) 434/93]
xvii. Environmental Quality (Delegation of Power on Marine Pollution Control) order 1994 [P.U. (A) 537/94]
xviii. Environmental Quality (Prohibition on the Use of Controlled Substances in Soap, Synthetic Detergent and Other
Cleaning Agents) Order 1995 [P.U. (A) 115/95]
xix. Environmental Quality (Control of Emission from Diesel Engines) Regulations 1996 [P.U. (A) 429/96]
xx. Environmental Quality (Control of Emission from Petrol Engines) Regulations 1996 [P.U. (A) 543/96]
xxi. Environmental Quality (Refrigerant Management) Regulations 1999 [P.U. (A) 451/99]
xxii. Environmental Quality (Halon Management) Regulations 1999 [P.U. (A) 452/99]
xxiii. Environmental Quality (Delegation of Power) Order 1999 [P.U. (A) 501/99]
xxiv. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Open Burning) Order 2000 [P.U. (A) 308/2000]
xxv. Environmental Quality (Clean Air) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 [P.U. (A) 309/2000]
xxvi. Environmental Quality (Compounding of Oences) (Open Burning) Rules 2000 [P.U. (A) 310/2000]
xxvii. Environmental Quality (Delegation of Power) (Investigation of Open Burning) order 2000 [P.U. (A) 311/2000]
xxviii. Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Euents) (Amendments) Regulations 2000 [P.U. (A) 398/2000]
xxix. Environmental Quality (Control of Emission from Diesel Engines) (Amendments) Rules 2000 [P.U. (A) 488/2000]
xxx. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Order 2000 [P.U.
(A) 489/2000]
xxxi. Environmental Quality (Delegation of Power) (Halon Management) Order 2000 [P.U. (A) 490/2000]
xxxii. Environmental Quality (Delegation of Power) (Perbadanan Putrajaya) Order 2000 [P.U. (A) 233/2000]
xxxiii. Environmental Quality (Appeal Board) Regulations 2003
xxxiv. Environmental Quality (Declared Activities) (Open Burning) Order 2003

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 37

 FEATURES/ARTICLES

xxxv. Environmental Quality (Dioxon and Furan) Regulations 2004 [P.U. (A) 104/2004]
xxxvi. Environmental Quality (Prescribed Conveyance) (Schedule Waste) Order 2005 [P.U. (A)293/2005]

2. Atomic Energy Licensing Act

3. Biosafety Act 2007
4. Drainage Works Act 1954
5. Fisheries Act 1985
6. International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008
7. Irrigation Areas Act 1953
8. Land Conservation Act 1960
9. Local Government Act 1979
10. Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1994
11. National Forestry Act 1984
12. National Park Act 1980
13. Parks Enactment 1984
14. Plant Quarantine Act 1976
15. Pearl Oyster Shell Fishery Ordinance (Sabah Ordinance)
16. Pesticides Act 1974
17. Protection of Wildlife Act 1972
18. Radioactive Substance Act 1968
19. Sewerage Services Act 1993
20. Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974
21. Town and Country Planning Act 1974
22. Water Enactment 1920 (Revised) Act 1979
23. Water Services Industries Act 2006
24. Wildlife Conservation Act 2010
25. Sabah Animal Ordinance 1962
26. Sabah Biodiversity Enactment 2000
27. Sabah Drainage and Irrigation Ordinance 1956
28. Sabah Environment Protection Enactment 2002
29. Sabah Forest Enactment 1968
30. Sabah Mining Ordinance 1960
31. Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997
32. Sarawak Biodiversity Centre Ordinance 1997
33. Sarawak Forest Ordinance 1954
34. Sarawak Natural Resources and Environment (Amendment) Ordinance 2001

Environment and Climate Change Committee

Chairperson: Roger Chan Weng Keng
Ocer-in-Charge: Shegi Nair

The Environment and Climate Change Committee (ECCC) was formed to address issues in respect of environmental
rights and protection in general.

The mainstreams that characterise the work of ECCC, can be broadly identified as those that relate to the following:

(1) Environmental rights explicitly as governed by Malaysian environmental laws under framework legislation; and
(2) Already existing rights in relation to the environment, eg rights to life and health, the protection of which are found in
global human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and sources
other than human rights instruments, such as Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

The ECCC focuses on a myriad of issues at local, regional and international levels, such as the controversy involving alleged
radioactive waste disposal from the Lynas plant in Kuantan; the issue of massive deforestation in Gua Musang and Lesong,
in Kelantan and Pahang, respectively; the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA); and the haze and our right to
better air quality.

The ECCC also engages with stakeholders on the eectiveness of regulatory and legal framework matters in addressing
environmental issues aecting all segments of society.

38 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


The Role of the Malaysian Bar in Environmental
Law
The Purpose of the Existence of
the Malaysian Bar
The answer to that question is spelt out
in section 42 of the Legal Profession Act
1976 (LPA) and the key word seems to
be cause of justice.
Section 42(1)(a) of the LPA says that the
purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be
to uphold the cause of justice without
regard to its own interest or that of
its members, uninfluenced by fear or
favour.
Section 42(1)(g) of the LPA further points
out that one other purpose is to protect
and assist the public in all matters
touching ancillary or incidental to the
law.
Arguably cause of justice includes rule
of law, right to life, liberty and even
environmental justice. And the term
law must include environmental law
which is the determinant of our survival
in a world of finite resources. Imagine
that we managed to solve all problems
related to civil liberties, but commit
massive environmental degradation
to the land, air and water; it would be
like having solved one problem without
solving another. Besides, there is
always another stakeholder organised
around environmental rights: Mother
Earth. She must not be abandoned.
Her rights are slowly being whittled
away and it is argued that just as every
self-respecting, sentient, Malaysian
lawyer has a duty to salvage and restore
whatever is left today of Malaysian
liberty, he or she plays the same role in
respect of environmental rights.
The Nature of Environmental
Rights
Lord Hope in Walton v Scottish Ministers
[2012] UKSC 44 says environmental
law proceeds on the basis that the
quality of the natural environment is of
legitimate concern to everyone. It is
upon this basis that environmental rights
are born and developed.
This area of law, at least from an
international perspective, was in full
swing in the 1990s with the enunciation
of the Rio Declaration in 1992. Today,
a huge amount of literature on this has
proliferated and the momentum is still
taking hold.
Environmental rights have a peculiarity
because many a time it does not
recognise territorial boundaries.
Therefore, they are organised spatially
into their local, regional and international
dimensions. So it can all at once be in
the same spatial dimension or bear that
distinction depending on a particular
environmental context. For example,
climate change laws can assume the
form of national legislative framework,
regional environmental instrument, or a
United Nation Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) all at
once, or bear that same distinction.
But How are Environmental
Rights Engaged by Lawyers?
There are a number of tools or models
that can be employed and this article
will discuss some of the important ones
only.
The use of these tools may depend on
the issues ranging from components
of land and air, to water, all of which
have been cropping up relentlessly over
recent years. The issues invariably fall
into a list that includes radioactive waste
disposal, massive deforestation, illegal
logging, endangered species, climate
change, solid waste management,
bio-diversity, displacement of people
due to flood disasters, constructions
of highways, building of dams, land
clearing and hill slope development,
pollution of lakes, rivers and waterways,
haze and poor air quality.
The Legislative Framework Tool
We have a plethora of environmental
laws, enactments, ordinances and
regulations to govern almost every
conceivable aspect of the environment,
and it is within this framework that
environmental advocacy is carried out.
To get an idea on the environmental
laws of Malaysia within this tool or
model, it is suggested that reference be
FEATURES/ARTICLES
made to Practice Direction of the Chief
Registrar of the Federal Court (No 3 of
2012): Establishment of Environmental
Court (Arahan Amalan Ketua Pendaftar
Mahkamah Persekutuan Bil 3 Tahun
2012: Penubuhan Mahkamah Alam
Sekitar) dated 27 August 2012.
The nature of environmental rights can
also be argued as being protected by
Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution
which says No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty save in
accordance with law. In the case of Tan
Teck Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan
Pendidikan [1996] 1 MLJ 261, the Court
of Appeal says:
The expression life appearing
in Article 5 does not refer to mere
existence. It incorporates all those
facets that are an integral part of life
and those matters that go to form
the quality of life itself. Of these are
the rights to seek and be engaged in
lawful and gainful employment and
to receive those benefits that our
society has to oer to its members.
It includes the right to live in
reasonably healthy and pollution
free environment.
These dynamics of environmental rights
which are based on the framework
legislative tool can be seen in motion
almost every day both inside and
outside our courts, where environmental
lawyers play their role.
The broad view is that environmental
activism is covered too in this approach,
and there is no short supply since the
days of alleged radioactive poisoning
in Bukit Merah and the Bakun Dam
environmental fiasco. But one
interesting feature of this development
is the emergence of the Malaysian Bar
that is seen as carving out a role for itself
on environmental issues.
On 15 March 2014, the Malaysian
Bar unanimously passed a resolution
on environment and climate change,
which inter alia strongly called on the
Government to:
take immediate action to ensure
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 39
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
eective enforcement of environmental
laws, and to undertake urgent law
reform, where required, including
ensuring transparency and proper public
consultation with all stakeholders and
independent specialised assessment
of safety aspects of industrial
processes, and not allowing ouster
clauses to prevent judicial review for
better enforcement and more eective
punishment for oences against the
environment, which increase global
warming and threaten Planet Earth.
Regionalisation and
Internationalisation as Tools
of Environmental Rights
Engagement
Environmental rights can be engaged by
environmental lawyers through both the
regional and international environmental
governance tools. For example,
paragraph 28(f) of the ASEAN Human
Rights Declaration incorporates the
right to a safe, clean and sustainable
environment as an ingredient to
adequate standard of living.
The ASEAN Agreement on
Transboundary Haze Pollution that
entered into force on 25 November
2003 is another such regional tool.
The Rio Declaration of 1992, of which
Malaysia is a party, provides an
international governance tool to engage
environmental rights upon the polluter
pays principle, precautionary principle,
intergenerational rights principle, right
to information, and public participation
in environmental decision-making.
The other environmental instruments are
the many outcomes of the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) and Rio+20 that have
consistently maintained focus on
sustainable development.
The Environmental Human
Rights Tool for Malaysian
Lawyers
What the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) is to human
rights, the Stockholm Declaration of
1972 is to environmental rights. In
the 1968 resolution to convene the
Stockholm Conference, the United
Nations General Assembly noted its
concern about the eects of the
continuing and accelerating impairment
of the quality of the human environment
40 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
just as every
self-respecting,
sentient, Malaysian
lawyer has a duty
to salvage and
restore whatever
is left today of
Malaysian liberty,
he or she plays the
same role in respect
of environmental
rights.
on the condition of man, his physical,
mental and social well-being, his
dignity and his enjoyment of basic
human rights, in developing as well as
developed countries. This concern led
to the Stockholm Declaration of 1972
which states that both the natural and
man-made environment are essential to
the well-being and to enjoyment of basic
human rights.
This in turn led to a new set of rights
known as environmental rights which
are being enacted in the constitutions of
many countries. Portugal became the
first country, not long after the Stockholm
Declaration, to adopt a constitutional
right to a healthy and ecologically-
balanced human environment. Since
then, more than 90 countries have
followed suit by adopting similar rights
in their constitutions.
In the meantime, the United Nations
was not prepared to formulate a new set
of rights. Rather, it expanded human
rights in two directions, namely human
rights vulnerable to environmental harm,
and human rights vital to environmental
policymaking.
The first direction means that the
enjoyment of human rights depends on
a supportive environment, though some
human rights are more susceptible to
certain types of environmental harm, for
example environmental degradation,
desertification and global climate
change are exacerbating destitution and
desperation, causing a negative impact
on the realization of the right to food,
in particular in developing countries
(see Human Rights Council Resolutions
7/14, 10/12 and 13/4).
The second direction identifies rights
whose implementation is vital to
environmental policymaking, such as
freedom of expression, and freedom
of peaceful assembly and association.
These rights are stipulated in the UDHR
and elaborated in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), some of which found their
way into our own constitution, though
with qualifications.
Conclusion
The Malaysian Bar necessarily means
and includes the Malaysian lawyer
as well as the collective Malaysian
lawyers. Their tools of environmental
rights engagement do not fall within
the very narrow confines of just tortious
liability. Around 25 years ago before
the Rio Declaration of 1992, there was
hardly any literature in international
environmental law. However, in this day
and age, the environmental rights tools
for engagement have increased and
are at the service of every Malaysian
environmental lawyer. This trend, while
consistent with the very objective upon
which the Malaysian Bar is set up,
also represents hope for a sustainable
future in the management of our finite
environmental resources.
This article is the personal opinion of
the writer and does not necessarily
represent the views of the Bar Council.
Roger Chan Weng Keng
Chairperson
Bar Council Environment and
Climate Change Committee

Peter Mooney: More than a Member of the Bar
Peter Mooney, with Lim Chee Wee, President of the Malaysian Bar, at the conferment of the Lifetime
Achievement Award 2013, during the Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance 2013.
Background and Early Years
Born in Ballybrack in Donegal, Ireland
in 1923, Peter Mooney attended the
University of Glasgow between 1940 and
1942, obtaining an education steeped in
the classics learning about the Greco-
Roman world, alongside the study of
Greek, Latin, French, Mathematics, and
English. After serving in Burma with
the Royal Scots Regiment, the oldest
regiment in the British Army, as Captain,
he returned to the University of Glasgow
to complete his Master of Arts in History
in 1948.
He only decided to pursue law after
completing this qualification, and went
on to read for the Bachelor of Laws
degree at the University. He graduated
in 1951 having received numerous prizes
for his academic abilities, including Firsts
for Forensic Medicine, Jurisprudence,
Evidence and Procedure, and Scots
Law.
Upon graduation, he was awarded a
Legal Scholarship by the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, and he accepted
a series of dierent appointments,
including Extramural Lecturer in Law,
Lecturer in Law to the Institute of
Company Accountants, and Lecturer in
Mercantile Law to Glasgow and West of
Scotland Commercial College.
The Illustrious Sarawak Years
In 1952, Peter Mooney was admitted to
the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland,
and shortly thereafter, having had a
taste of legal practice as illustrated in
his book1, he made the crucial decision
to accept an appointment as Crown
Counsel in Sarawak. This appointment,
by the Secretary of State for the
Colonies was, at the time, considered a
tremendous honour, and allowed Peter
Mooney to continue his Southeast Asian
journey that began when he had served
in Burma from 1942 to 1947.
His early years in Sarawak were a time
of discovery, and the development
of what would become a deep and
passionate understanding of the people
of Sarawak their dierent cultures
and perspectives, strengths and
weaknesses, and an overall appreciation
of the beauty of Sarawak as a country.
His penchant for languages served him
well during this time, allowing him to
easily pick up on the Malay language as
well as the dierent languages spoken
by the natives of Sarawak.
His early years there were spent
traversing the inlands of Sarawak
by boat and car as part of his
responsibilities. His keen sensitivity
to the people and his strong sense of
justice was rewarded when he was
FEATURES/ARTICLES
appointed Acting Attorney General and
Public Prosecutor in Sarawak between
1956 and 1959, as well as a member of
the Supreme Council of Sarawak (the
cabinet) and a member of the Council
Negri (the legislature) during the same
period. His deep abiding love for the
people of Sarawak is best manifest in
his own words, I had become familiar
and at home in Sarawak. I had no home
elsewhere.
His approach and attitude to the peoples
of this diverse land is best described
by Philip Koh Tong Ngee, Member of
the Bar, who, in his citation for Peter
Mooney when he was conferred the
Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement
Award 2013, said:
His contribution to the land of
Sarawak and his benevolent
disposition towards its indigenous
people was a rare occurrence in
those colonial times. As famously
depicted in EM Forsters Passage to
India and George Orwells Burmese
Days, members of the colonial
establishment haughtily disdained
involvement with the lives and
culture of the natives, and were
inclined to ostracise those who did
so. Peter Mooney was an exception
to such attitudes. Forgoing
opportunism and careerism, he
invariably placed integrity above
fear or favour.
These early years established not only
the beginnings of a lifelong dedication
to Sarawak and its people, but also
developed Peter Mooneys perspectives
on key legal issues. Amongst his many
contributions to Sarawak were the
crucial role he played as Chairman of
the Select Committee of the Legislature
on the Land Code, which amended,
consolidated and codified the Land
Law of Sarawak. He also represented
the Sarawak Government at the United
Nations Conference in Sri Lanka on
Administrative Power and its Abuse in
1959.
During his time in Sarawak, there were a
number of distinguished visitors whom
he met. These included HRH Princess
Marina, Duchess of Kent and the widow
of the Duke, who was the younger
son of King George V; the Secretary
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 41
 FEATURES/ARTICLES
on the decision by the Ministry of Law
in Singapore to reduce the number of
lawyers in the country (at the time, 77
per 100,000 in Singapore, compared
to 23 per 100,000 in Malaysia), and
considered whether it would be
necessary to do the same for Malaysia
at some point.

He emphasised the point by stating

strongly,

The standard of the profession is

very important for the well-being
of the country. For the profession
to function well and to serve the
country as it should, we need a
high standard of ability, a high
standard of academic training, a
A younger Peter Mooney at a dinner at John Skrines house, undated
high standard of professionalism
Move to Malaya and a high ethical standard. The
of State for the Colonies, the Earl of
present system is not producing a
Selkirk; HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, the
In 1960, Peter Mooney made the high standard in any of these areas.
Consort of Queen Elizabeth II; and the
dicult decision to move to Malaya. Perhaps the time has come to stop
Commissioner-General for Southeast
The need to do this arose because of
Asia, Malcolm MacDonald; all of whom
visited Sarawak briefly and with whom the possibility that the Colonial Oce
would probably transfer him to another In a reflective article about Judgments
Peter Mooney spent time in his ocial
British territory outside Southeast Asia, and their Backgrounds published on
capacity.
taking into account the fact that Malaya the Malaysian Bar website in July 2005,
had become independent. Determined he outlined the standards of conduct to
Peter Mooney travelled through the
not to leave this part of the region, and be expected of judges. He noted,
interior of Sarawak extensively, often
armed with a camera, and in his book with many oers to join law firms in
either Singapore or Malaya, he resigned A judges conduct on the Bench
A Servant of Sarawak: Reminiscences
from his responsibilities in Sarawak and is of great importance. Fairness
of a Crown Counsel in 1950s Borneo,
moved to the Peninsula. and courtesy to all, patience,
there are countless photographs of
forbearance, the capacity to
the peoples of this land that reflect
This move resulted in him being called listen with an open mind and, not
his fascination and respect for their
to the Sarawak Bar, Malayan Bar and unimportant when so many people
way of life, and the protection of their
Singaporean Bar in 1961, and in 1963, are involved in the proceedings
indigenous rights.
he became a founding partner in Skrine before him, punctuality in sitting and
& Co with the late John Skrine. rising, all these are very necessary if
On his exposure to the Ibans, he said of
the public, the litigants and counsel
them,
Between 1978 and 1997, his are to feel that proper consideration
contributions to the law extended is being given and justice is being
I had met many Ibans. They were
directly to the legal community where done. Most important of all is the
egalitarian, unimpressed by rank or
he served first as an elected Bar Council responsibility to arrive at the right
titles; to them one man was as good
member and later as Vice-President. He decision according to law. This,
as another. They were courteous
also served indefatigably as Chairperson ultimately, is both the test and the
and considerate. They said what
of the Legal Profession Committee, and justification of the judiciary.
they thought and were as good as
their word. If they made a promise the Complaints Committee.
Commenting on how judges should
they kept it. No matter their wild
It was also during this time that Peter make decisions on appeal cases, he
past, I had always found them
Mooney articulated many of his views said in the same article,
friendly and likeable.
about the progress and growth of the
legal profession in Malaysia, with regular Two considerations have to be
In his interactions with the dierent
contributions to a variety of publications, balanced. On the one hand, it is
communities in Sarawak, the relationship
including Insaf. important that judicial time should
was one of sharing Peter Mooney
not be wasted and that reasonable
learnt to appreciate the dierent cultures
The Bar Council Years and Other expedition should prevail in the
and lifestyles of the people of these
Involvements disposal of appeals. On the other
diverse communities, and shared with
hand, it is important that the
them where possible, the developments
In April 1993, in an Insaf article titled, Are submissions of Counsel should have
outside their own personal experience.
Lawyers Underqualified, he reported a patient and courteous hearing and

42 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


that, particularly in the final court of
appeal, any fundamental issues of
law, should be given unhurried and
patient examination. The very
essence of justice is to give each
party a fair hearing. Someone has
to lose and it is important that he
should leave the Court knowing
that his case has been fairly and
patiently heard and not dismissed
without any proper consideration on
the basis of a misconception or an
over-hasty preconception.
As Chairman of the Professional Liability
Committee2, the work Peter Mooney
and his committee did resulted in the
Peter Mooney Memorandum of 1992.
The Committee was responsible for the
setting up of the Professional Indemnity
Insurance Scheme for the Malaysian
Bar. In an interview with Peter Mooney3,
he explained that the rationale for
the Scheme was to protect Members
against claims of negligence.
Peter Mooney explained that at the
time, it would not have been possible
to set up a self- insurance scheme,
although he clearly hoped that with
accumulated figures, and experience
on the administration of the Scheme,
the Malaysian Bar would be able to
consider self- insurance at some point
in the future. He took the view that this
would be justified on the basis that it
would then be possible to tailor it to
accord closely with the wishes of the
Bar, economise on the expenses of
running the scheme and hope to have
a scheme all round more satisfactory to
all members.
Peter Mooney at a forum, undated
In explaining the value of the Scheme
and the need for risk management for
Members of the Bar, he highlighted
that, it rapidly became evident that
protection for members required not
insurance alone but education in risk
management. The two go together.
Awareness of the importance of risk
management and setting up ecient
system in all firms greatly reduces the
volume and amount of claims on the
insurance fund and this in turn enables
premiums to be reduced.
Peter Mooney was conferred the title
Dato Bergelar (Dato DiRaja) by HRH
the Sultan of Selangor then, Sultan
Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, with the
personal title of Dato Kurnia Bakti DiRaja
in 1985, and made Knight Commander
of the Order of St Gregory the Great by
His Holiness Pope John Paul II in 2003.
During his lifetime, Peter Mooney served
on various hospital boards, including
the Assunta Hospital in Petaling Jaya,
Mt Miriam Cancer Hospital in Penang,
the Fatima Hospital in Ipoh, and the Tun
Hussein Onn Eye Hospital in Petaling
Jaya. In addition, he was involved
with the Befrienders and Hospis
Malaysia, and was was the catalyst for
the establishment of the Seri Seronok
Retirement Home and Stella Maris
schools and an inspiration for the setting
up of the Catholic Lawyers Society.
In his citation for Peter Mooney at the
Malaysian Bar Lifetime Award, Philip
Koh Tong Ngee said,
His conduct of court cases and
advisory work bears the hallmarks
FEATURES/ARTICLES
of courtesy and grace found solely
in those for whom law is a genuine
vocation rather than a trade or
business.
Professor Dr Ghazali Musa, one of
Peter Mooneys adopted sons, wrote a
touching poem titled My Dad, which was
read at a celebration of Peter Mooneys
90th birthday in May 2013, organised by
the Catholic Lawyers Society, of which
he was its advisor. The poem reads:
My Dad is the source of my
knowledge, power and wisdom
My Dad anticipates my every need
and always puts me first in his lifes
agenda
My Dad empathises with my every
grief and sadness and rejoices in my
every dream and achievement
My Dad is my lifes greatest blessing.
My Dad is the wind beneath my
wings.
Santhi Latha
Bar Council
Notes
1 Mooney, Peter. A Servant of Sarawak:
Reminiscences of a Crown Counsel in
1950s Borneo. Singapore: Monsoon
Books, 2011.
2 The forerunner of the present Bar Council
Professional Indemnity Insurance
Committee
3 The interview was published in Jurisk!
March 2009, Volume 5, Issue 1; published
by the Bar Council Professional
Indemnity Insurance Committee; http://
w w w. p r a k t i s . c o m . m y / C M S P a g e s /
GetFile.aspx?guid=d3827f87-cf90-
467b-bebb-14f3d1f7771a
The founding of Skrine & Co:
I have been pondering on why
Providence has been so kind to
Skrine & Co up to date, and how
this firm founded by a polo-playing
Anglican Englishman, a bridge-
playing Presbyterian Scotsman,
a piano-playing Roman Catholic
Irishman, a north country beer
connoisseur Englishman (religion
unknown) and an Ipoh Chinese
Methodist managed to cohere as
well as it did and to attract a string of
Asian partners, and to keep and then
expand its clientele.
~ John Skrine (1922-1993)
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 43
 EVENTS

Upcoming Events
January to May 2016
21 and 22 Jan 2016
International Conference and Launch of the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) | Doing Business Across Asia: Legal Convergence in an Asian Century,
Singapore

Venue: Raes City Convention Centre, 80 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189560
Date: 21 and 22 Jan 2016 (Thursday and Friday)

This conference is organised by the Singapore Academy of Law. The stellar cast of speakers will address the need for increased convergence of cross-border business laws, improved
legal infrastructure and harmonisation of regulatory standards across Asia. Register soon as the closing date is on 6 Jan 2016 (Wednesday). Members of the Bar are entitled to a 15%
online discount (key in the discount code: LCMYBAR). For more details, please visit its website at www.legalconvergenceasia.com.

17 and 18 Mar 2016

Global Pound Conference Series 2016-17, Singapore

Venue: Auditorium, Supreme Court of Singapore, 1 Supreme Court Lane, Singapore 178879
Date: 17 and 18 Mar 2016 (Thursday and Friday)

The Global Pound Conference Series (GPC Series) is organised by the International Mediation Institute. The GPC Series aim to facilitate the development of 21st century commercial and
civil dispute resolution tools, at domestic, regional and international levels. Please visit its website at http://singapore2016.globalpoundconference.org, for more details about this event.

13 to 16 Apr 2016
IPBA 26th Annual Meeting and Conference, Kuala Lumpur

Venue: Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre

Date: 13 to 16 Apr 2016 (Wednesday to Saturday)

The 26th Annual Meeting and Conference of the Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) is organised by a host committee of 26 law firms. The conference is themed Diverse Challenges,
Global Situations, and centres on the international flavour and global nature of business transactions. Members of the Bar are entitled to an early bird rate, which is valid till 15 Jan 2016.
IPBA is also accepting applications for the IPBA Scholarship Programme to enable practising lawyers to attend this event. Please contact Ida by telephone at 03-6205 3389 or by
email at ipba2016@crystaledge.net, or visit www.ipba2016.com for more details.

19 and 20 May 2016

CLA Finance and Banking Master Workshop 2016, Cyprus

Venue: Limassol, Cyprus

Date: 19 and 20 May 2016 (Thursday and Friday)

This workshop is organised by the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) and the Cyprus Bar Association. This master workshop will provide participants with a fresh view of finance
and banking practices, while engaging with lawyers from within the Commonwealth and internationally. Members of the Bar are entitled to special reduced rates (Developing Country
registration fees). For more information, please contact Janine Koeries of Paragon Group (+972(0)3-576-7737; secretariat@claworkshops.com), or visit www.claworkshops.com, for more
details.

44 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 EVENTS

Constitutional Law Committee

Co-Chairpersons: Roger Chan Weng Keng

Firdaus Husni

Deputy Chairpersons: Elaine Gan Peay Er

Melissa Sasidaran

Ocer-in-Charge: Anusha Gopala Krishnan

In 2009, Bar Council formed the Constitutional Law Committee to promote constitutional
awareness and constitutionalism amongst Malaysians. The Committee consists of lawyers,
pupils in chambers, academics, students, media personnel, and activists.

A nationwide programme by the Committee is the ongoing MyConstitution Campaign (Kempen

Perlembagaanku), which aims to bring the content of Malaysias Federal Constitution to all
Malaysians in a summarised and simplified format. This Campaign is Bar Councils commitment
to improve public awareness of the Constitution and promote constitutionalism amongst all
Malaysians.

The MyConstitution Campaign is the first of many initiatives by the Committee and it seeks to
achieve the following goals:

Increased public awareness and understanding of the nature and content of the Constitution;
Recognition and acceptance of the role and importance of constitutionalism in national
governance and the social structure; and
Promotion of the study of the Constitution amongst youths and young adults.

In addition to the Campaign, the Committee carries out various activities and events with diverse
sections of the Malaysian community, including holding forums and workshops, to promote the
aims of the Campaign.

Search for the Will of the Late LEOW TOOK HING

The late LEOW TOOK HING (NRIC no: 480102-10-5758 / 3300602) passed away on 22 May 2015.

Any legal firm that has knowledge about her WILL, please contact Leong Ooi Seong of M/S Leong Ooi Seong &
Co. by telephone at 012-206 8889 or 03-4297 2889, by fax at 03-4297 6889 or by email at los8889@gmail.com.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 45

 EVENTS
Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian
Bar (12 Sept 2015)
At the Extraordinary General Meeting
(EGM) on 12 Sept 2015 held at the
Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel
quorum was achieved at 9:59 am, with
502 Members signed in. The number
picked up quickly, with 871 Members
signed in at 10:38 am.
The Chairman, Steven Thiru (President
of the Malaysian Bar), called the EGM
to order at 10:43 am, and proceeded
directly to the heart of the issue.
One motion had been proposed for
consideration at this EGM:
Motion proposed by Steven
Thiruneelakandan, as Chairman of
the Bar Council and on behalf of the
Bar Council, at the Extraordinary
46 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
General Meeting of the Malaysian
Bar to be held on 12 September
2015.
Steven Thiru drew the attention of
Members to the amendment he wished
to make to the title of the motion, as
follows:
Motion on the allegations of
financial impropriety concerning
1MDB and its related companies,
the transfer of MYR2.6 billion and
the flow of MYR42 million into the
Prime Ministers personal bank
accounts, and matters in connection
therewith, proposed by Steven
Thiruneelakandan, as Chairman of
the Bar Council and on behalf of the
Bar Council, at the Extraordinary
General Meeting of the Malaysian
Bar on 12 September 2015;
as well as various amendments to the
content of the motion.
After almost two hours of debate,
which included additional proposals
for amendments to the motion, the
vast majority of the Members adopted
the resolution that is reproduced in the
following pages
1,040 Members registered their
attendance at the EGM, which was
adjourned at 12:47 pm.
Joane Sharmila /
Chin Oy Sim
Bar Council

Resolution Adopted at the Extraordinary
General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Held at
Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel
(Saturday, 12 Sept 2015)
Resolution on the Allegations
of Financial Impropriety
Concerning 1MDB and its
Related Companies, the
Transfer of MYR2.6 Billion and
the Flow of MYR42 Million into
the Prime Ministers Personal
Bank Accounts, and Matters in
Connection Therewith
WHEREAS:
1. There have been numerous media
reports on allegations of serious
financial impropriety concerning
1Malaysia Development Berhad
(1MDB), a company wholly owned
by the Government of Malaysia.
2. On 11 May 2015, the then-
Chairman of the Public Accounts
Committee (PAC) of Parliament
and Member of Parliament for Pulai,
Datuk Nur Jazlan bin Mohamed,
issued a statement stating that
the PAC would start its inquiry
into 1MDB and that it intended to
question several persons, including
the present Chief Executive Ocer
of 1MDB, Arul Kanda Kandasamy,
as well as his predecessor, Datuk
Shahrul Ibrahim Halmi.1 Both were
initially scheduled to give evidence
on 26 May 2015.2 This was later
adjourned to 4 and 5 August
20153 at their request (but did not
ultimately take place).
3. On 2 July 2015, the Wall Street
Journal (WSJ)4 and Sarawak
Report (SR)5 reported that
government investigation
documents had disclosed that:
a. funds amounting to
approximately USD700
million (MYR2.6 billion) were
transferred into the personal
bank accounts of the Prime
Minister of Malaysia, Dato Sri
Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak
(Prime Minister), in AmIslamic
Bank Berhad in March 2013.
WSJ also reported that the
original source of the funds was
unclear and the subsequent
use of the funds was unknown;
and
b. another set of funds totalling
MYR42 million was transferred
from SRC International Sdn Bhd
(SRC, a former subsidiary of
1MDB) to Gandingan Mentari
Sdn Bhd, then to Ihsan Perdana
Sdn Bhd, and finally to the
personal bank accounts of the
Prime Minister.
4. On 3 July 2015, the Prime Minister
responded to the aforementioned
reports by WSJ and SR, stating,
I have never taken funds for
personal gain as alleged by my
political opponents whether
from 1MDB, SRC International or
other entities, as these companies
have confirmed.6 On 8 July 2015,
the Prime Minister issued another
statement reiterating, I have never
taken 1MDB funds for personal
gain.7
5. The Prime Ministers solicitors
wrote a letter to WSJ seeking
clarification of the aforementioned
report.8 WSJs publisher replied
stating, We stand behind our
fair and accurate coverage of this
evolving story.9
6. The Prime Minister has not expressly
denied that MYR2.6 billion and
MYR42 million were deposited into
his personal bank accounts, as
reported by WSJ and SR.
7. On 4 July 2015, the then-Attorney
General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul
Gani bin Patail (Tan Sri Gani)
announced that a multi-agency
task force (Special Task Force)
had commenced investigation into
the allegations of funds transferred
to the Prime Ministers personal
bank accounts.10 The Special
EVENTS
Task Force consisted of Tan Sri
Gani; the Governor of Bank Negara
Malaysia (BNM), Tan Sri Dato Sri
Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz (Tan Sri Zeti);
the Inspector General of Police
(IGP), Tan Sri Khalid bin Abu
Bakar; and the Chief Commissioner
of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC), Tan Sri Abu
Kassim bin Mohamed.
8. On 7 July 2015, in a joint media
statement, the Special Task Force
announced that based on the
investigations undertaken by the
agencies represented in the Special
Task Force, an order to freeze six
bank accounts of suspected parties
was issued on 6 July 2015.11 In
addition, investigators seized
documents relating to 17 bank
accounts from two banks to facilitate
the investigation. Investigators also
seized documents pertaining to
non-compliance of BNMs rules and
procedures by the banks involved.
8A. On 8 July 2015, the Special Task
Force raided the oce of 1MDB
in Kuala Lumpur and seized
documents and computers. Earlier,
on 3 July 2015, the Special Task
Force had also raided the oces of
SRC, Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd
and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd, and
also seized documents.
9. On 8 July 2015, the Malaysian Bar
issued a press statement12 urging:
a. The Special Task Force to
conduct a comprehensive,
detailed, and unfettered
investigation into the allegations
made by WSJ and SR; and
b. The Prime Minister to take a
leave of absence from oce
pending the outcome of the
ongoing investigation of the
Special Task Force, to avoid
any perception of interference
by him in the investigation,
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 47
 EVENTS
as the Attorney General is
the chief legal adviser to the
Government, the MACC is
under the purview of the Prime
Ministers Department, and
BNM falls under the portfolio of
the Minister of Finance (who is
the Prime Minister).
10. Between 21 to 26 July 2015, five
individuals were detained by the
MACC over the investigation into
1MDB, and subsequently released.
They were Jerome Lee, group
executive director of Putrajaya
Perdana Berhad, Datuk Shamsul
Anwar Sulaiman of Ihsan Perdana
Sdn Bhd, and three other individuals
Arin Ismail Shahul Hameed,
Datuk Rosman Abdullah and Tazri
Talib.13
11. Various actions, including
administrative action, have been
taken to harass and intimidate those
who have been critical of 1MDB and
the Prime Minister:
a. On 24 June 2015, the Minister
of Home Aairs, Dato Seri
Dr Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi,
accused The Edge Media
Group (the publisher of The
Edge Financial Daily) and its
owner Datuk Tong Kooi Ong,
of publishing inaccurate reports
and false information relating
to 1MDB.14 On 29 June 2015,
the Ministry of Home Aairs
issued a show-cause letter to
The Edge Financial Daily over
its reports on 1MDB,15 giving it
seven days to provide a written
explanation on why action
should not be taken against it
under the Printing Presses and
Publications Act 1984;
b. On 1 July 2015, the publisher
and Chief Operating Ocer of
The Edge Media Group, Ho Kay
Tat, in response to the show-
cause letter, sought clarification
as to which were the oending
articles relied upon by the
Ministry of Home Aairs, and
reiterated that all their articles
were based on carefully
evaluated evidence and were
truthful;16
c. On 19 July 2015, the
Malaysian Communications
48 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
and Multimedia Commission
issued an administrative order17
under Section 211 and Section
233 of the Communications
and Multimedia Act 1998 to
block the SR website, due to
perceived threats to national
security. SR has been one of
the sources of allegations of
wrongdoing involving 1MDB,
which has implicated the Prime
Minister;
d. On 20 July 2015, subsequent
to the said disclosure by WSJ
and SR, The Edge Financial
Daily, which had been
publishing a series of articles
critical of financial transactions
involving 1MDB, published
a flow-chart detailing the
money trail involving global
banks in an article entitled
How Jho Low & PetroSaudi
schemed to steal money from
the people of Malaysia via
1MDB.18 In an accompanying
note, the publisher stated
that its report was based on
evidence that included bank
transfer documents and bank
statements, and that they
would be handing over these
documents, and the hard disk
that contained them, to the
investigators. The publisher
maintained that their reports
on 1MDB had exposed how
a group of individuals
Malaysians and foreigners
schemed a multi-billion ringgit
fraud against the people of
Malaysia;
e. On 22 July 2015, it was
discovered that the Director
General of Immigration, under
the Immigration Act 1959/63,
had imposed a ban on overseas
travel on Member of Parliament
for Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony
Pua Kiam Wee; Member of
Parliament for Pandan, Mohd
Rafizi Ramli;19 and Datuk Tong
Kooi Ong;20 without providing
any reason. These persons had
been at the forefront of criticism
of 1MDB or in the expos of
alleged wrongdoing concerning
1MDB;
f. On 23 July 2015, the Ministry
of Home Aairs, under Section
7(1) of the Printing Presses and
Publications Act 1984, imposed
a three-month suspension
order on The Edge Weekly
and The Edge Financial Daily,
on grounds of possible public
alarm over the publication
of reports concerning 1MDB
and allegations in them that
implicate the government and
national leaders.21 The Edge
has commenced a judicial
review action against the
Minister of Home Aairs, and
has been granted leave to
challenge the suspension order
but has failed to obtain a stay
against the order;22 and
g. On 23 July 2015, Ho Kay Tat
was summoned for questioning
by the Royal Malaysian
Police (Polis DiRaja Malaysia,
PDRM) over articles relating
to 1MDB that were carried in
The Edge Financial Daily, for
an oence under Section 124B
of the Penal Code.23 On 28
July 2015, it was reported that
PDRM had summoned Ho Kay
Tat for questioning again, and
further, Datuk Tong Kooi Ong as
well.24
12. During the UMNO Cheras Division
gathering held on 26 July 2015,
the then-Deputy Prime Minister Tan
Sri Dato Haji Muhyiddin bin Mohd
Yassin (Tan Sri Muhyiddin), said,
I must speak the truth. I cannot
blu because I know millions of
people. Berjuta rakyat bersamamu.
Apakah ada di dalam kerajaan yang
rasa bertanggungjawab dan mahu
berbuat sesuatu dan pecahkan
sesuatu supaya satu pembetulan
mesti dibuat. Sebab itu saya kata,
apa hal 1MDB. Kalau mereka
sudah membawa beban besar
kepada negara 42 billion lebih,
katanya tanggungan, maka ahli-
ahli Lembaga Pengarah harus
bertanggungjawab. Betul? Dan
saya beritahu Perdana Menteri, sack
them, remove them. Sepatutnya
you sack them. Saya kata kalau saya
ada sebuah syarikat, saya tak ada
syarikat, dulu saya punya dan saya
tahu bisnes dan sebab tunggang
terbalik, rugi begitu banyaknya, apa
saya buat? What you do? Stay?
Dont stay. Go. Resign. Leave.
You are responsible. You have to

bear the responsibility. Tapi saya
minta maaf. I am sorry to say Prime
Minister, maybe he listen but that is
not important. Saya sebut di sini
sebab inilah pertama kali, platform
yang saya cakap dalam parti.25
13. On 28 July 2015, the following
events occurred:
a. Tan Sri Gani, the then-Attorney
General and a pivotal member
of the Special Task Force,
was abruptly removed from
oce, barely 69 days from his
retirement date, purportedly
due to his failing health. In
his place, the Government
appointed Federal Court Judge
Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed
Apandi bin Haji Ali (Tan Sri
Apandi);26
b. The Director of the Special
Branch (SB) of the PDRM,
Datuk Seri Akhil Bulat, was
abruptly replaced, three weeks
before his contract expired, and
put on retirement leave;27
c. The then-Deputy Prime
Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin;
and the then-Minister of Rural
and Regional Development,
Dato Seri Haji Mohd Shafie
bin Haji Apdal (both of whom
had publicly called on the
Prime Minister to explain the
scandal engulfing 1MDB) were
dismissed from Cabinet by the
Prime Minister;28 and
d. Four of the 13 members of
the PAC which had been
investigating the 1MDB
allegations including its
Chairman, were appointed
Minister or Deputy Minister, in
eect disqualifying them from
membership of the PAC and
crippling the PACs ongoing
investigation into 1MDB.29 The
PAC proceedings scheduled on
4 and 5 August 2015, for the
evidence of the present and
former CEO of 1MDB to be
taken, were postponed by the
Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat,
who said the PAC could not
proceed until the new Chairman
is selected.30
14. On 29 July 2015, the five MACC
oversight panels issued a joint
press statement appealing for the
Special Task Force to be allowed to
conduct the investigation without
any interference or pressure from
third parties.31
15. On 30 July 2015, SR disclosed two
purported draft charge sheets in an
article entitled Arrest Warrant for the
Prime Minister The Real Reason
the Attorney General Was Fired,
and alleged that the purported draft
charge sheets were the reasons for
the removal of Tan Sri Gani.32 The
first alleged charge sheet stated
that the Prime Minister and other
persons had committed corruption
oences under the MACC Act 2009.
The second alleged charge sheet
stated that the Prime Minister, as
Finance Minister and Ameritus [sic]
Advisor to SRC, had committed
criminal breach of trust under the
Penal Code. Both Tan Sri Apandi33
and the MACC34 have denied the
existence of these alleged charge
sheets.
16. On 30 July 2015, MACC issued a
press statement,35 denying that its
ocers were involved in a conspiracy
to topple the Government, and that,
as an independent commission,
it is responsible for conducting
investigation freely, transparently
and professionally, without fear and
favour, regardless of the persons
involved.
17. On 1 August 2015, a former adviser
to the MACC, Tan Sri Rashpal
Singh; a member of the secretariat
for administration and finance of the
anti-money laundering task force at
the Attorney Generals Chambers
(AGC), Jessica Gurmeet Kaur;
and a Deputy Public Prosecutor
seconded from the AGC to the
MACC, Ahmad Sazilee Abdul Khairi;
were arrested, and subsequently
released.36 The oce and home of
at least one of them were raided,
and documents related to MACCs
investigation were reportedly
removed.37
18. As at early August 2015, MACC
personnel became the focus
of police investigation into
allegations of leaking of confidential
information and involvement in a
EVENTS
supposed conspiracy to overthrow
the Government, purportedly in
violation of Section 124B of the
Penal Code. These actions taken
by the authorities against the MACC
are listed in Appendix A. In this
regard:
a. Minister in the Prime Ministers
Department in charge of
governance and integrity,
Senator Datuk Paul Low Seng
Kuan, reportedly stated on 6
August 2015 that PDRM are
showing high-handedness,
and that it is important that
[MACC] do what they need to
do.38
b. The Chairman of MACCs
Consultation and Corruption
Prevention Panel Tan Sri Johan
Jaaar expressed dismay over
the spate of raids and arrests
by the police, and reiterated
the need for the agency to be
allowed to execute its duties
unhindered.39
19. On 3 August 2015, the MACC
issued a statement stating that
the MYR2.6 billion in the Prime
Ministers personal bank accounts
did not originate from 1MDB but
was a donation.40 The MACC
also announced that it intended to
question the Prime Minister on the
donation.41 To date, there has
been no indication that the MACC
has indeed questioned the Prime
Minister.
20. On 5 August 2015, PDRM obtained
a warrant of arrest42 against Clare
Rewcastle-Brown @ Clare Louise
Brown, a journalist based in the UK
who runs the SR website, in relation
to investigation under Sections
124B and 124I of the Penal Code,
for publishing a false report on the
purported draft charge sheets in
the article entitled Arrest Warrant
for the Prime Minister The Real
Reason the Attorney General Was
Fired in order to implicate the
Prime Minister for criminal oences.
PDRM subsequently submitted a
request for a red notice to Interpol.
The request was reviewed by
Interpol, and subsequently refused
on 9 August 2015.43
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 49
 EVENTS
21. On 5 August 2015, the Special
Task Force was disbanded by Tan
Sri Apandi Ali.44 Further, it was
reported that a new task force
named the National Revenue
Recovery Enforcement Team
(NRRET) consisting of the
AGC, BNM, PDRM, Customs
Department, and Inland Revenue
Board was set up by the AGC.45
The Acting Chief Commissioner of
the MACC reportedly said that the
MACC had been excluded from the
NRRET but it will continue with its
investigation.46 Subsequently, on 25
August 2015, the AGC announced
that the MACC is one of the eight
entities in NRRET, and that NRRET
is not in any way involved with any
investigations involving 1MDB and
its related companies.47
22. On 9 August 2015, the IGP
announced that the investigation
into the MACC has been temporarily
postponed to avoid various
assumptions that were made that
had altered public perception,48 and
the MACC has recently announced
that it is still investigating the
donation49 as well as the funds
transferred from SRC into the Prime
Ministers personal bank accounts.
23. On 13 August 2015, the IGP
stated that PDRM had questioned
seven BNM ocers under the
Financial Services Act 2013 over
the leak of confidential information/
documents.50 He had earlier said
that PDRM would haul up several
ocers from BNM and other
commercial banks for questioning
in its investigation into the leaking
of confidential information/
documents.51 PDRM has also taken
action against the ocers of BNM.
24. On 13 August 2015, Tan Sri Zeti
stated that BNM had completed
its investigation, which was relating
to transactions by 1MDB, and
had submitted its investigation
papers to the Attorney General
with recommendations for the
appropriate enforcement action.52
She also said, I have to be very
careful with what I say that it has
to be within the confines of the
law. Otherwise, the moment I step
out of this door, I will face arrest for
talking about an individual account.
I am sure you dont want that to
happen.53
50 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
24A. Also on 13 August 2015, Tan
Sri Zeti is reported to have
said that investigating MYR2.6
billion in donations to the
Prime Ministers personal bank
accounts is not within BNMs
purview.54
25. Subsequent to the replacement of
the Director of the Special Branch
of the PDRM on 28 July 2015, the
Deputy Director of the Special
Branch, Datuk Abdul Hamid Bador,
was abruptly transferred out of the
Special Branch on 19 August 2015
to the Prime Ministers Department.55
He has since alleged that there
was a secret Hang Tuah gang
behind moves to hide information56
and witnesses57 relating to 1MDB,
and that his transfer to the Prime
Ministers Department was to put
him in cold storage in a post that
was non-existent.58 He has also
alleged that witnesses are hiding
abroad with the help of certain
parties.59 He has since been issued
with a show-cause letter.60
25A. On 20 August 2015, it was
reported that the AGC had
terminated the services of
Jessica Gurmeet Kaur, and
there were subsequently issues
concerning the revocation of
her permanent residency status
in Malaysia.61
26. In an interview to the press on 16
August 2015,62 the Urban Wellbeing,
Housing and Local Government
Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman
Dahlan appeared to imply that the
Prime Minister had interfered in
the MACCs investigation into the
deposit of funds from SRC and
the transfer of MYR2.6 billion, into
the Prime Ministers personal bank
accounts.
27. In the said interview, Datuk Abdul
Rahman Dahlan spoke of an alleged
deliberate attempt to criminalise
the Prime Minister and force him out
of oce. It was also reported that
he had stated that drastic action
was needed to take these people
out first, and there was a
flurry of action taken by the Prime
Minister.
28. On 30 August 2015, former Prime
Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
held a press conference, where he
is reported to have said, He (The
Prime Minister) had no proof so to
tackle the PAC, Public Accounts
Committee, he oered them jobs
to become Deputy Minister. This
is a kind of bribery. And now the
PAC is not functioning. The other
agencies also cannot work because
whenever you make a report, the
police will not take action. And the
new AG will not take action. So, he
has undermined the constitution
and the legal system of this country.
There is no more rule of law ... He
created 1MDB to borrow money and
then the money disappeared. And
suddenly 2.6bil ringgit appeared in
his account. Not in UMNO but in his
account. He is using this money to
bribe people. So, we want to ask,
why did you stop the investigation
on your 2.6bil. Where did this
money come from? Dont tell lies
about Arabs giving 2.6bil. No Arab
will give to anybody that kind of
money. Nobody will give a lot of
money to anybody, not that amount,
2.6bil. So, where does the money
come from? The only money that
can come maybe through 1MDB.63
29. The categorisation of the funds as
a donation raises more questions
than answers. There has been
further varying and contradictory
accounts or explanations as to
the origin and purpose of the
donation, as seen in Appendix B.
Questions also abound as to why
a substantial part of the funds was
subsequently remitted out of the
country to Singapore. The Prime
Ministers personal bank account
was then closed.64
30. The series of events since the
disclosure by WSJ and SR has
given rise to the inference that
there has been interference in, and
obstruction of, the investigation to
the point where investigation has
been compromised.
31. The drastic, oppressive and chilling
measures taken since 28 July 2015
appear to have derailed, hindered
or obstructed the investigations or
inquiries into 1MDB, the remittance
of MYR2.6 billion, and the remittance
of MYR42 million by SRC into the
personal bank accounts of the
Prime Minister.

32. The far-reaching actions taken
since 28 July 2015 have been an
assault on the independence of the
Special Task Force that had been
investigating the allegations made
by WSJ and SR that implicated
the Prime Minister, and these
actions have further impaired or
compromised the integrity of the
investigation by the Special Task
Force.
32A. The abovementioned
measures and actions have
been attributed to the Prime
Minister, the Government,
and/or agencies under the
Government.
33. The manner in which the PAC has
been crippled and its investigation
stymied gives rise to serious
questions about the ongoing
proceedings of the PAC and the
ability of the Legislature to act as an
eective check and balance on the
activities of the Executive.
34. The action taken by PDRM against
the MACC was intimidatory and
oppressive, and is widely seen
as having interfered with, and
obstructed, MACCs investigation
into the transfer of funds into the
Prime Ministers personal bank
accounts, as well as an attack on
the independence of the MACC and
its emasculation as a corruption-
combating agency.
35. The abrupt and unexplained
disbanding of the Special Task
Force which was established to
solely focus on investigating the
allegations of funds transferred to
the Prime Ministers personal bank
accounts, and issues relating to
1MDB before the completion of
its tasks casts doubt on the sincerity
and commitment on the part of the
Government to investigate the said
allegations. The announcement by
Tan Sri Apandi that the individual
agencies that were represented
in the Special Task Force would
continue carrying out their individual
investigations within their respective
purview detracts from the original
focus and coordinated collaboration
between the heads of the agencies
of the Special Task Force.
36. In light of the action taken
against ocers of BNM, and the
statements made by Tan Sri Zeti,
there are serious concerns raised
as to whether the investigation by
BNM, as a member of the Special
Task Force, has been thwarted
and compromised. Further it
is inexplicable that BNM has
concluded that the donation of
MYR2.6 billion is not within its remit,
despite the relevant provisions in
the Central Bank of Malaysia Act
1958; Financial Services Act 2013;
Exchange Control Act 1953; Capital
Markets and Services Act 2007;
and Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-
Terrorism Financing and Proceeds
of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
37. The replacement of the Director of
the Special Branch and now the
transfer of the Deputy Director of the
Special Branch suggest that there
has also been interference with,
and obstruction of, the investigation
conducted by the Special Branch of
the PDRM.
38. Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlans
statements in reference to the pre-
emptive measures taken by the
Prime Minister appear to validate
the already pervasive public
perception that there had been
active and deliberate steps taken by
the Prime Minister or the authorities
to interfere, impede and derail the
investigation, to mask wrongdoings,
and to exculpate wrongdoers.
39. In light of Datuk Abdul Rahman
Dahlans statements, it can be
inferred that the Prime Minister
or the authorities under his
instruction or the instruction of his
subordinates have undermined
and subverted the investigation into
the transfer of funds into the Prime
Ministers personal bank accounts.
40. There appears to be a concerted
eort to weaken and compromise
various institutions involved in
the investigation into the transfer
of funds into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts.
41. There are grave concerns that there
would be a cover-up or whitewash
of wrongdoing, and the exoneration
or exculpation of wrongdoers.
EVENTS
42. In light of the above, and the
tremendously grave concerns
that have arisen, and recalling the
objects of the Malaysian Bar as set
out in Section 42(1) of the Legal
Profession Act 1976, in particular:
Section 42(1)(a): to uphold the
cause of justice without regard
to its own interests or that of its
members, uninfluenced by fear
or favour;
Section 42(1)(d): where
requested so to do, to
express its view on matters
aecting legislation and the
administration and practice of
the law in Malaysia;
Section 42(1)(g): to protect and
assist the public in all matters
touching ancillary or incidental
to the law;
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved
that:
a. The Malaysian Bar condemns the
interference with, and the subversion
of, the cause and administration
of justice, and the investigation
and inquiry into the allegations of
financial impropriety concerning
1MDB and its related companies,
and the transfer of MYR2.6 billion
and the flow of MYR42 million from
SRC, both into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts.
b. The Malaysian Bar condemns the
abrupt removal of Tan Sri Gani;
the crippling of the PAC; and the
harassment, intimidation and
oppression of investigating ocers
or personnel of the AGC, MACC,
BNM, and the Special Branch of the
PDRM.
c. The Malaysian Bar demands
that the Malaysian Government
immediately advise the Yang di-
Pertuan Agong to establish a Royal
Commission of Inquiry (RCI),
which should comprise members
who are independent, impartial
and of unimpeachable integrity, to
inquire into and investigate:
i. the allegations of financial
impropriety concerning 1MDB
and its related companies;
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 51
 EVENTS
ii. the transfer of MYR2.6 billion
into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts; and
iii. the flow of MYR42 million from
SRC into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts;
and to report on, and make public,
its findings and recommendations,
including any further action that
needs to be taken.
d. The Malaysian Bar notes that several
members of the administration are
advocates and solicitors of the High
Court of Malaya, and the Malaysian
Bar reminds such members of the
administration that, whether in
active practice or not, all advocates
and solicitors are expected at all
times to protect and further the
rule of law and to uphold justice.
The Malaysian Bar further reminds
such members of the administration
that the failure to maintain the core
values of the legal profession would
render them liable to disciplinary
action under the Legal Profession
Act 1976.
e. The Malaysian Bar mandates the
Bar Council to take any and all steps
that it deems appropriate in order to
arm and preserve the rule of law,
to uphold the Federal Constitution,
and to protect the administration
of justice, including but not limited
to, instituting a legal suit(s) against
any person(s) responsible for the
interference with, impediment to,
or obstruction or perversion of, the
administration of justice, and the
investigation into:
i. the allegations of financial
impropriety concerning 1MDB
and its related companies;
ii. the transfer of MYR2.6 billion
into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts; and
iii. the flow of MYR42 million from
SRC into the Prime Ministers
personal bank accounts.
Notes
1 Press statement entitled KENYATAAN
MEDIA YB DATUK NUR JAZLAN
TAN SRI MOHAMED, PENGERUSI
JAWATANKUASA KIRA-KIRA WANG
NEGARA (PAC) PARLIMEN MALAYSIA
52 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
MENGENAI PROSIDING SYARIKAT
1MALAYSIA DEVELOPMENT BERHAD
(1MDB) KEMENTERIAN KEWANGAN
MALAYSIA, issued by Chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
of Parliament, Datuk Nur Jazlan bin
Mohamed on 11 May 2015
( h t t p : / / w w w. p a r l i m e n . g o v. m y /
images/webuser/pac/kenyataan%20
media/110515-1MDB.pdf).
2 (a) Arul, Shahrol no show at PAC
inquiry on 1MDB, The Star Online, 25
May 2015 (http://www.thestar.com.my/
Business/Business-News/2015/05/25/
Arul-Shahrul-no-show-at-PAC-inquiry-
on-1MDB/?style=biz).
(b) Arul Kanda explains why he
could meet Shahrir but not PAC,
The Malaysian Insider, 29 May 2015
(http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/
malaysia/article/arul-kanda-explains-
why-he-could-meet-shahrir-but-not-
pac).
3 1MDBs Arul, ex-CEO to face PAC in
early August, New Straits Times Online,
17 June 2015
(http://www.nst.com.my/
news/2015/09/1mdb%E2%80%99s-
arul-ex-ceo-face-pac-early-august).
4 Investigators Believe Money Flowed to
Malaysian Leader Najibs Accounts Amid
1MDB Probe, Wall Street Journal, 2
July 2015 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10130211234592774869404581083
700187014570)
5 SENSATIONAL FINDINGS! - Prime
Minister Najib Razaks Personal
Accounts Linked To 1MDB Money Trail
MALAYSIA EXCLUSIVE!, Sarawak
Report, 2 July 2015 (http://www.
sarawakreport.org/2015/07/sensational-
findings-prime-minister-najib-razaks-
personal-accounts-linked-to-1mdb-
money-trail-malaysia-exclusive/).
6 Najib: I have never taken funds for
personal gain, The Star Online, 3 July
2015 (http://www.thestar.com.my/News/
Nation/2015/07/03/PM-statement-on-
allegations/).
7 Press statement entitled Kenyataan
YAB Dato Sri Mohd Najib Razak, issued
by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato
Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak on
8 July 2015 (https://najibrazak.com/bm/
blog/kenyataan-yab-dato-sri-mohd-
najib-razak/).
8 Najibs lawyers ask WSJ for
clarification, Free Malaysia
Today, 8 July 2015 (http://www.
f re e m a l a y s i a t o d a y. c o m / c a t e g o r y /
nation/2015/07/08/najibs-lawyers-ask-
wsj-for-clarification/).
9 Dow Jones stands by WSJ reports, The
Star, 8 July 2015 (http://www.thestar.
com.my/News/Nation/2015/07/08/Dow-
Jones-stands-by-reports/).
10 Press statement entitled Media
Statement: Special Task Force
Investigates Allegations of Funds
Transferred to the Prime Ministers
Account, issued by Tan Sri Abdul
Gani Patail on 4 July 2015 (http://
www.bnm.gov.my/documents/2015/
statement_20150704.pdf).
11 Press statement entitled Special Task
Force Investigation on Allegations of
Transfer of Funds Into Prime Ministers
Accounts, issued by Tan Sri Abdul
Gani Patail, Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz,
Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, Tan Sri
Abu Kassim Mohamed on 7 July
2015 (http://www.bnm.gov.my/index.
p h p ? c h = e n _ p re s s & p g = e n _ p re s s _
all&ac=3225&lang=en).
12 Press statement entitled Conduct
Independent Investigation into
Disclosures Relating to 1MDB
Comprehensively and with Integrity,
issued by the Malaysian Bar on 8 July
2015 (http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/
press_statements/press_release_%7C_
conduct_independent_investigation_
into_disclosures_relating_to_1mdb_
comprehensively_and_with_integrity.
html).
13 (a) In 1MDB-linked case, Jerome Lee
freed on RM100,000 bail, The Malaysian
Insider, 24 July 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/in-1mdb-linked-case-jerome-lee-
freed-on-rm100000-bail).
(b) Datuk from 1MDB-linked company
second person remanded, The
Malaysian Insider, 22 July 2015 (http://
w w w. t h e m a l a y s i a n i n s i d e r. c o m /
malaysia/article/datuk-from-1mdb-
linked-company-second-person-under-
remand).
(c) 3rd person linked to 1MDB case
remanded, The Malaysian Insider, 24 July
2015 (http://www.themalaysianinsider.
com/malaysia/article/3rd-person-linked-
to-1mdb-case-remanded).
(d) 4th person remanded in 1MDB
probe, court allows bail for another,
The Malaysian Insider, 25 July 2015
(http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/
malaysia/article/1mdb-investigators-
arrest-4th-suspect-bail-for-another).
(e) Despatch rider latest to be remanded
in 1MDB probe, The Malaysian
Insider, 26 July 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/despatch-rider-latest-to-be-
remanded-in-1mdb-probe).
14 Zahid: The Edge must be held
responsible for inaccurate reports,
The Star Online, 24 August 2015
(http://www.thestar.com.my/News/
Nation/2015/06/24/Zahid-on-incorrect-
news-reports).
15 The Edge gets show-cause letter over
1MDB reports, MalaysiaKini, 1 July
2015, (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/303691).
16 The Edge wants Home Ministry to
specify oending articles on 1MDB, The
Malay Mail Online, 1 July 2015 (http://

www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/the-edge-wants-home-ministry-
to-specify-oending-articles-on-1mdb).
17 Press statement entitled MCMC Sekat
Laman Sesawang Yang Mengganggu-
gugat Kestabilan Negara, issued by
the Malaysian Communications and
Multimedia Commission on 19 July
2015 (http://www.skmm.gov.my/Media/
Press-Releases/MCMC-Sekat-Laman-
Sesawang-Yang-Mengganggu-gugat-
Ke.aspx).
18 How Jho Low & PetroSaudi schemed
to steal money from the people of
Malaysia via 1MDB, The Edge Financial
Daily, 20 July 2015 (http://www.
theedgemarkets.com/my/article/how-
jho-low-petrosaudi-schemed-steal-
money-people-malaysia-1mdb).
19 Pua and Rafizi barred from leaving
country, MalaysiaKini, 23 July
2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/305833).
20 The Edges boss faces travel ban, too
MalaysiaKini, 22 July 2015 (http://www.
malaysiakini.com/news/305851).
21 (a) The Edge Weekly, daily suspended
for 3 months from July 27, The
Malaysian Insider, 24 July 2015 (http://
w w w. t h e m a l a y s i a n i n s i d e r. c o m /
malaysia/article/the-edge-weekly-daily-
suspended-for-3-months-from-july-27).
(b) Letter from Kementerian Dalam
Negeri to Ketua Pengarang The Edge
Malaysia & The Edge Financial Daily
dated 23 July 2015.
22 The Edge publisher fails to get stay
on suspension order, The Malaysian
Insider, 14 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/the-edge-publisher-fails-to-get-
stay-on-suspension-order).
23 The Edges Ho Kay Tat summoned
for questioning over 1MDB reports,
The Malay Mail Online, 23 July 2015
(http://www.themalaymailonline.com/
malaysia/article/the-edges-ho-kay-tat-
summoned-for-questioning-over-1mdb-
reports).
24 The Edge group owner, publisher
summoned by police again, New Straits
Times Online, 28 July 2015
(http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/
e d g e - g ro u p - o w n e r- p u b l i s h e r-
summoned-police-again).
25 Muhyiddin reiterates 1MDB board
should be sacked, The Star
Online YouTube Channel, 26 July
2015 (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?t=21&v=ZqfYfUJrfYk).
26 Press statement entitled PELANTIKAN
PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA,
issued by Tan Sri Dr Ali bin Hamsa on
27 July 2015 (http://www.pmo.gov.
my/ksn/dokumenattached/media_
statement/files/KENYATAAN_AKHBAR_
PELANTIKAN_PEGUAM_NEGARA.pdf).
27 Home Ministry appoints new Special
Branch director eective today,
The Malaysian Insider, 28 July 2015
( h t t p : / / w w w. t h e m a l a y s i a n i n s i d e r.
com/malaysia/article/home-ministry-
appoints-new-special-branch-director-
eective-today).
28 Malaysian PM reshues cabinet,
dumps deputy after 1MDB criticism,
Reuters, 28 July 2015 (http://uk.reuters.
com/article/2015/07/28/uk-malaysia-
politics-idUKKCN0Q206V20150728).
29 PAC members elevation
Cabinet puts 1MDB probe in doubt,
The Malaysian Insider, 28 July 2015
( h t t p : / / w w w. t h e m a l a y s i a n i n s i d e r.
com/malaysia/article/pac-members-
elevation-into-cabinet-puts-1mdb-
probe-in-doubt).
30 Pandikar: No PAC hearing till new
chair appointed, MalaysiaKini, 30 July
2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/306725).
31 Press statement entitled 1MDB:
MACC INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT
PANELS WANT INVESTIGATION TO
BE INDEPENDENT AND FREE FROM
INTERFERENCE, issued by the five
MACC Independent Oversight Panels
on 29 July 2015 (http://www.sprm.
gov.my/files/1MDB%20MACCS%20
O V E R S I G H T % 2 0 PA N E L S % 2 0
WANT%20INVESTIGATION%20TO%20
BE%20INDEPENDENT%20AND%20
FREE%20FROM%20INTERFERENCE.
pdf)
32 ARREST WARRANT FOR THE
PRIME MINISTER! - The Real Reason
The Attorney General Was Fired -
EXCLUSIVE!, The Sarawak Report, 30
July 2015 (http://www.sarawakreport.
org/2015/07/arrest-warrant-for-the-
prime-minister-the-real-reason-the-
attorney-general-was-fired-exclusive/).
33 Malaysia says charge sheet against
Najib is false, an attempt to topple
PM, Channel News Asia, 31 July 2015
(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/
news/asiapacific/malaysia-says-charge-
shee/2021350.html).
34 MACC lodges police report denying
draft charge sheet against Najib, The
Malay Mail Online, 3 August 2015 (http://
www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/macc-lodges-police-report-
denying-draft-charge-sheet-against-
najib).
35 Press release entitled SPRM
NAFI PEGAWAI SPRM TERLIBAT
KONSPIRASI JATUHKAN KERAJAAN,
issued by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption
Commission on 30 July 2015 (http://
www.sprm.gov.my/files/SPRM%20
NAFI%20PEGAWAI%20SPRM%20
T E R L I B AT % 2 0 K O N S P I R A S I % 2 0
J AT U H K A N % 2 0 K E R A J A A N % 2 0
300715.doc.pdf).
36 Police arrest DPP in todays 1MDB
sweep, The Malaysian Insider, 1 August
2015 (http://www.themalaysianinsider.
com/malaysia/article/police-arrest-dpp-
EVENTS
in-todays-1mdb-sweep-say-sources).
37 Special Branch raids deputy public
prosecutors oce at MACC for
1MDB documents, The Malaysian
Insider, 2 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/special-branch-raid-deputy-
public-prosecutors-oce-at-macc-for-
1mdb-docum).
38 Police crackdown on MACC high-
into handed, says Paul Low, The Malaysian
Insider, 6 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/police-crackdown-on-macc-
high-handed-says-paul-low).
39 Allow MACC to do its work to allay
public distrust, says commissions
panel, The Malaysian Insider, 6 August
2015 (http://www.themalaysianinsider.
com/malaysia/article/allow-macc-to-
do-its-work-to-allay-public-distrust-
says-commissions-panel).
40 Press statement entitled HASIL
SIASATAN BERKAITAN DANA RM2.6
BILION, issued by the Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission on 3 August
2015 (http://www.sprm.gov.my/files/
HASIL%20DANA%20RM%202.6%20
BILION.pdf).
41 Press statement entitled PENJELASAN
MENGENAI ISU DANA RM2.6 BILION
DAN SIASATAN SRC INTERNATIONAL,
issued by the Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission on 5 August
2015 (http://www.sprm.gov.my/files/
PENJELASAN%20MENGENAI%20
ISU%20DANA%20RM2.6%20
BILION%20DAN%20SIASATAN%20
SRC%20INTERNATIONAL.pdf).
42 Cops obtain arrest warrant for Sarawak
Report founder, The Malay Mail
Online, 4 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/cops-obtain-arrest-warrant-for-
sarawak-report-founder).
43 No Red Notice on Clare Rewcastle-
Brown, Free Malaysia Today, 9 August
2015 (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.
com/category/nation/2015/08/29/no-
red-notice-on-clare-rewcastle-brown/).
44 1MDB special task force disbanded,
says MACC, The Malaysian
Insider, 5 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
a r t i c l e / 1 m d b - s p e c i a l - t a s k - f o rc e -
disbanded-says-macc).
45 New task force minus MACC set
up to probe 1MDB, Free Malaysia
Today, 21 August 2015 (http://www.
f re e m a l a y s i a t o d a y. c o m / c a t e g o r y /
nation/2015/08/21/new-task-force-
minus-macc-set-up-to-probe-1mdb/).
46 MACC excluded from new task force
probing 1MDB, MalaysiaKini, 20 August
2015 (https://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/309333)
47 Press statement entitled NATIONAL
REVENUE RECOVERY ENFORCEMENT
TEAM (NRRET), issued by the Attorney
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 53
 EVENTS
Generals Chambers on 25 August 2015
(http://www.agc.gov.my/pdf/Latest%20
Info/press/PRESS%20RELEASE%20
N AT I O N A L % 2 0 R E V E N U E % 2 0
RECOVERY%20ENFORCEMENT%20
TEAM%20NRRET.pdf).
48 IGP: Cops postpone probe on MACC
info leak, Free Malaysia Today, 9 August
2015 (http://www.freemalaysiatoday.
com/category/nation/2015/08/09/igp-
cops-postpone-probe-on-macc-info-
leak/).
49 MACC says it again: Probe on
RM2.6b, SRC still ongoing, Malay Mail
Online, 23 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/macc-says-it-again-probe-on-
rm2.6b-src-still-ongoing).
50 IGP: Bank Negara ocials probed
under FSA, MalaysiaKini, 13 August
2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/308474).
51 IGP: Cops to question Bank Negara
ocers next over Sarawak Report info
leak, Malay Mail Online, 1 August 2015
(http://www.themalaymailonline.com/
malaysia/article/igp-cops-to-question-
b a n k - n e g a r a - o f f i c e r s - n e x t - o v e r-
sarawak-report-info-lea).
52 1MDB: Probe by Bank Negara done,
says Zeti, Astro Awani, 13 August
2015 (http://english.astroawani.com/
malaysia-news/1mdb-probe-bank-
negara-done-says-zeti-69652, on 3
September 2015).
53 Dr Zeti: Bank Negaras 1MDB probe
finished, The Star Online YouTube
Appendix A: Action Against MACC by the Authorities
1. On 4 August 2015, it was reported
that the MACC held a special solat
hajat session to pray for MACC
sta, their families, their community
and for a corruption-free country.1
2. On 5 August 2015, MACC Special
Operations Division Director Dato
Haji Bahri Mohamad Zin reportedly
said that he was baed by the arrest
of Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad
Sazilee Abdul Khairi, and raised the
ominous spectre of hidden hands
at work. He also reportedly said,
You may have (political) powers,
but I have Allah.2
3. As at 5 August 2015, the police
had questioned senior MACC
ocers, including Director of the
Special Operations Division, Dato
Haji Bahri Mohamad Zin; Deputy
Director of the Special Operations
Division, Datuk Tan Kang Sai;
Director of the Forensic Division,
54 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Channel, 12 August 2015 (https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=eHCInPG9ChU).
54 RM2.6 billion donation to Najib not
within Bank Negaras purview, says
Zeti, The Malaysian Insider, 13 August
2015 (http://www.themalaysianinsider.
com/malaysia/article/rm2.6-billion-
donation-to-najib-not-within-bank-
negaras-purview-says-zeti).
55 Now Special Branch deputy director
transferred to Prime Ministers
Department, The Malaysian Insider,
19 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/special-branch-deputy-director-
gets-transfer-letter-after-weeks-of-
rumours).
56 SB man to expose brains behind
1MDB clampdown, Free Malaysia
Today, 22 August 2015, (http://www.
f re e m a l a y s i a t o d a y. c o m / c a t e g o r y /
nation/2015/08/22/sb-man-to-expose-
brains-behind-1mdb-clampdown/).
57 Man wanted by MACC in SRC probe
hiding in New Zealand, ex-SB deputy
claims, Malay Mail Online, 23 August
2015 (http://www.themalaymailonline.
com/malaysia/article/man-wanted-
by-macc-in-src-probe-hiding-in-new-
zealand-ex-sb-deputy-claims).
58 Ex-Special Branch No. 2 finally receives
letter from Bukit Aman, The Malaysian
Insider, 2 September 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/ex-special-branch-no.-2-finally-
receives-show-cause-letter).
Datuk IG Chandran; and Ocer in
the Special Operations Division,
Tuan Roslan Tuan Mat. 3 The police
reportedly arrested two ocers
who were investigating the SRC,
who were subsequently released.
In addition, the police raided
the MACCs Special Operations
Division and reportedly removed
documents from the possession of
MACC personnel.4
4. On 5 August 2015, MACC Deputy
Chief Commissioner (Prevention),
Datuk Hj Mustafar Ali, was reported
to have said that when action is
taken on an investigating ocer
[during an ongoing investigation],
it somewhat jeopardises the
investigation.5
5. On 7 August 2015, two MACC
ocers, Director of Special
Operations Division, Dato Haji
Bahri Mohamad Zin, who was key
59 Certain parties helping witnesses in
SRC probe hide abroad, says ex-SB
man, The Malaysian Insider, 23 August
2015 (http://www.themalaysianinsider.
com/malaysia/article/certain-parties-
helping-witnesses-in-src-probe-hide-
abroad-says-ex-sb-man).
60 Ex-SB deputy given two weeks to
explain media remarks on transfer,
Malay Mail Online, 3 September 2015,
(http://www.themalaymailonline.com/
malaysia/article/ex-sb-deputy-given-
two-weeks-to-explain-media-remarks-
on-transfer).
61 Former A-G ocer in 1MDB probe
faces deportation, The Star Online, 20
August 2015 (http://www.thestar.com.
my/News/Nation/2015/08/20/ex-ag-
lawyer-faces-deportation/).
62 Swimming against the tide to get to the
truth, The Star Online, 16 August 2015,
(http://www.thestar.com.my/News/
Nation/2015/08/16/Swimming-against-
the-tide-to-get-to-the-truth-Barisan-
Nasional-strategic-communications-
director-Da/).
63 HANGAT! Tun Dr Mahathir sertai Bersih
4, Taiping kiniTV YouTube Channel, 30
August 2015 (https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=l_mKmWFHuho).
64 PMs Anonymous Donation Was
Transferred Back To Singapore! MAJOR
EXCLUSIVE, Sarawak Report, 14
August 2015 (http://www.sarawakreport.
org/2015/08/pms-anonymous-
donation-was-transferred-back-to-
singapore-major-exclusive/).
to the investigation into SRC (and
who had protested that hidden
hands6 were behind the arrests
of MACC ocers), and Strategic
Communications Director Datuk
Rohaizad Yaacob were abruptly
transferred into the Prime Ministers
Department.7 The transfer orders
were subsequently rescinded on
10 August 2015 after widespread
criticism. The two ocers were
reinstated to their previous positions
in MACC.8
Notes
1 MACC holds solat hajat for their
sta, The Star Online, 4 August 2015
(http://www.thestar.com.my/News/
Nation/2015/08/04/MACC-prayers-
recent-events/).
2 MACC director: By God, Ill find
the culprits, Malaysiakini, 5 August
2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/307499).
3 (a) MACC Special Operations deputy
director hauled up over 1MDB probe,

Astro Awani, 5 August 2015 (http://
english.astroawani.com/malaysia-
news/macc-special-operations-
deputy-director-hauled-over-1mdb-
probe-68562).
(b) Another two MACC ocers give
police statements, The Star Online, 4
August 2015 (http://www.thestar.com.
my/News/Nation/2015/08/04/1mdb-
two-more-macc-officers-give-
statements-to-police/).
4 Cops disrupted or SRC probe, decries
MACC, MalaysiaKini, 6 August 2015
Appendix B: Donations
1. The Minister in the Prime Ministers
Department, Dato Seri Azalina binti
Dato Othman Said was reported, on
31 July 2015,1 to have said:
Bagi saya kalau orang derma duit
kat saya suruh jaga anda semua dan
simpan atas nama saya, itu hubungan
saya dengan penderma apa
salahnya.
Kecuali orang kata, Datuk saya
derma duit ini untuk Umno, untuk
Parlimen, untuk NGO, saya kena ikut
cakap penderma.
Dalam isu duit (RM2.67 bilion), saya
tak melihatnya sebagai isu besar
bagi saya itu budi bicara orang yang
derma duit,.
2. The Minister for Urban Wellbeing,
Housing and Local Government,
Datuk Haji Abdul Rahman bin Haji
Dahlan was reported, on 1 August
2015,2 to have said:
I wish to inform that the Umno
constitution provides for the party
president to have a trust account on
behalf of the party. It is not impossible
or surprising if the (current) Umno
president and previous presidents
have a trust account for the party.
It was further reported that Datuk
Abdul Rahman Dahlan and fellow
party members felt more confident
with the donations being placed in the
presidents account as it was safer
there, further stating, in fact it is the
responsibility of the party president to
find funds for party activities.3
3. The Minister for Youth and Sports,
Khairy Jamaluddin was reported, on
4 August 2015,4 to have said:
Not only Umno and BN, every
politician receive donations from their
(www.malaysiakini.com/news/307509).
5 Arrest of MACC ocers jeopardises
investigation MACC deputy chief,
Astro Awani, 6 August 2015 (http://
english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/
arrest-macc-officers-jeopardises-
investigation-macc-deputy-
chief-68650).
6 Hidden hands behind arrests, hints
MACC man, MalaysiaKini, 8 August
2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.com/
news/307222).
supporters to help them in political
works So theres nothing to prohibit
an individual from receiving it as long
as he receives it in trust for the party.
Khairy Jamaluddin was further
reported to have said that he was
made to understand the contribution
came from supporters and donors.
We hold to MACCs statement that
the donation came from one donor
and supporter.5
4. A statement by Member of Parliament
for Johor Bahru, Tan Sri Datuk Seri
Shahrir bin Abdul Samad who, in
a report dated 8 August 2015,6 in
response to questions posed by the
Chief Minister of Johor, Datuk Seri
Khaled Nordins son, Akmal Saufi,
was reported to have said:
As stated by MACC, the money
was a donation. Were these donations
contributed to the government,
for UMNOs purpose or personal
purposes?
Answer: For politics - UMNO and
BN...
. reasons the first because Malaysia
5. Further statements made by Datuk
Abdul Rahman Dahlan in a report
dated 11 August 2015 state that
there are donors out there who
believe in certain objective that they
want to donate and in this case, they
donated to UMNO. He added, [t]hey
(donors) do want orang kampong
houses and rural roads to be fixed,
giving better access to education and
raise the quality of lives.7
6. The Minister of Tourism and Culture,
Dato Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul
Aziz, stated in a report dated 11
August 2015, that [t]he donation
was given to us by a friendly nation,
a nation which is not much stronger
EVENTS
7 Two MACC directors transferred to
PMs Department over disciplinary
issues, source confirms, MalayMail
Online, 7 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/two-macc-directors-transferred-
to-pms-department-over-disciplinary-
issues-s).
8 Reinstated Two directors remain in
MACC, The Star Online, 10 August
2015 (http://www.thestar.com.my/
News/Nation/2015/08/10/MACC-
ocers-transfer/).
than us. Not like the US that can
influence us. He went on to state
that this is just a brotherly nation
which wants to see certain parties win
in the general election because we
are friendly to them. Theres nothing
wrong. He also said that the money
[was] a donation for the election.8
7. A statement by UMNO Kuantan
division chief, Dato Wan Adnan bin
Wan Mamat, saying that the money
was a form of appreciation to Malaysia
stating that [i]t was an appreciation
to Malaysia for championing Islam
and for practising Sunni Islam (Ahli
Sunnah Wal Jamaah), as reported on
17 August 2015.9
8. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of Home Aairs, Dato Seri Dr Ahmad
Zahid bin Hamidi confirmed, in a
report dated 22 August 2015, that
the donation was from the Middle
East because I saw the documents
and met with the chief investment
ocer of the donor and the financial
trustee of the family of the donor. As
to why the money was donated to
Malaysia, he added, He gave three
is fully committed to anti-terrorism
and Malaysia had the Prevention
of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Penal
Code and the Security Oences
(Special Measures) Act 2012, as we
do not want terrorists to disrupt (the
nation).10
9. A statement by the Deputy Minister
of Transport, Datuk Abdul Aziz bin
Kaprawi, who claimed that DAP was
funded by the Jews during the 13th
General Election in 2013, saying [i]f
we loose [sic], DAP will be in power.
DAP with its Jewish funds will control
the country. He then went on to say
that it was [b]ased on this fact, [that]
our friends in the Middle East saw the
Jewish threat through DAP.11
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 55
 EVENTS
10. According to Kepong UMNO Division
Chief, Datuk Haji Rizuan bin Abdul
Hamid, in a report dated 23 August
2015, the donation was donated by
an Arab king and prince, stating that
it was because of the Prime Ministers
anti-Jewish stance that the Arab royal
family decided to make the large
contribution. He went on to state that
it was [b]ecause of that, the Arab
king, Arab prince generously made
the political donation for use during
the 13th general election.12
Notes
1 RM2.6 billion masuk akaun Najib bukan
isu besar, kata menteri, The Malaysian
Insider, 31 July 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/
rm2.6-bilion-masuk-akaun-najib-bukan-
isu-besar-kata-menteri).
2 Umno allows trust account under
presidents name, Malaysiakini, 1
August 2015 (http://www.malaysiakini.
com/news/306984).
3 Rahman: Safer if funds in Najibs
account, The Star Online, 4 August
56 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
2015 (http://www.thestar.com.my/
News/Nation/2015/08/04/rahman-
dahlan-umno-members-agree-funding-
goes-to-president-account/).
4 No law against political donations
in Malaysia, Khairy says, MalayMail
Online, 4 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/
article/no-law-against-political-
donations-in-malaysia-khairy-says).
5 Khairy: RM2.6b came from supporters,
Malaysiakini, 4 August 2015 (http://www.
malaysiakini.com/news/307272).
6 RM2.6 billion donation: Shahrir
responds 15 questions by Johor MBs
son, Astro Awani, 8 August 2015 (http://
english.astroawani.com/malaysia-
news/rm2-6-billion-donation-shahrir-
responds-15-questions-johor-mbs-
son-68947).
7 Abdul Rahman defends RM2.6b
donation by overseas donors to Umno
president, The Sun Daily, 11 August
2015 (http://www.thesundaily.my/
news/1516733).
8 Donation came from brotherly
nation, says Nazri, The Malaysian
Insider, 11 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/donation-came-from-brotherly-
nation-says-nazri).
9 Najibs RM2.6 billion is from Saudi
Arabia as thanks for fighting Isis,
claims Umno leader, The Malaysian
Insider, 16 August 2015 (http://www.
themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/najibs-rm2.6-billion-is-from-
saudi-arabia-as-thanks-for-fighting-isis-
claim).
10 Zahid: RM2.6b donation was for Msias
anti-terrorism eorts, The Sun Daily, 22
August 2015 (http://www.thesundaily.
my/news/1527589).
11 RM2.6b donation given is help UMNO
fight Jewish influenced DAP Aziz
Kaprawi, Astro Awani, 22 August
2015 (http://english.astroawani.com/
malaysia-news/rm2-6b-donation-given-
help-umno-fight-jewish-influenced-dap-
aziz-kaprawi-70842).
12 RM2.6b a political donation from Arab
king, prince, Umno leader reveals,
The Malay Mail Online, 23 August 2015
(http://www.themalaymailonline.com/
malaysia/article/rm2.6b-a-political-
donation-from-arab-king-prince-umno-
leader-reveals).

Paving the Way for a Crime-Free Malaysia
Safer Malaysias Candlelight Vigil outside the Bar Council building, 27 Apr 2013
Living in fear is not living. With that
realisation in mind, coupled with the
feeling of helplessness of seeing loved
ones becoming victims of crime, as well
as the unending and constant news
reports of crime occurrences, the Safer
Malaysia Committee (Safer Malaysia)
was birthed. Helmed by a group of
lawyers, the very life of this committee
revolves around the participation of the
general public in a collective eort to
fight crime.
The group of lawyers who helm this
committee whether they chose the
legal profession out of custom, the
desire to correct injustice, as an act
of rebellion, or passion for logical and
legal strategising, or even out of the
influence of a music teacher the idea
of contributing to a safer Malaysia where
her people are able to walk without fear,
drew them to join Safer Malaysia. These
unsung heroes Darren Lai, Saha
Deva, Sarah Kambali, Richard Wee,
and Yip Huen Weng are the lawyers
who uphold the highest law by ensuring
the safety of Malaysians through Safer
Malaysia.
So, what led to the birth of Safer
Malaysia?
In the words of Richard Wee, the idea
was to stop Botak Chin from becoming
Botak Chin. The logic was that there is
no use just complaining about the state
of things, and it is better to have a plan
to change the way things are done with
regard to crime-fighting.
We should stop blaming the victim
and start to ask why did the crime
happen and how do we prevent it from
happening. That would be a better
solution, added Richard Wee. In short,
Safer Malaysia strongly advocates the
messages Dont Rob instead of Dont can be an agent of change who will
Get Robbed; Dont Rape instead of
Dont Get Raped. This is the basis of
Safer Malaysia, Richard Wee said.
Crimes often thrive under the cover of
darkness, but where there is light, there
is hope and evildoers are exposed.
As philosophical as it may sound,
Safer Malaysia traces its beginnings
to a purchase of a 20 sen candle for a
candlelight vigil which was organised by
Richard Wee and Yip, and took place on
27 Apr 2013. That simple purchase lit
the path for Darren Lai to join this group
(it was not a committee then), which
culminated in him becoming the current
Co-Chairperson of Safer Malaysia. Well
worth the 20 sen spent for providing
Darren with a candle, quipped Yip.
In the beginning we had no clout, and
nobody paid attention to us. Although
the candlelight vigil led to Safer Malaysia
being interviewed by the papers, it was
only until Bar Council adopted Safer
Malaysia that it all took o, noted Yip.
We forget that as lawyers we have the
means and access to make a change,
but for lay people they need an avenue
to make a change. With Safer Malaysia,
we can see that people make their own
eort and sacrifice their time, even
though they have full time jobs. These
LIFESTYLE
people really opened my eyes that we
can do so much in improving matters.
It just shows that although we think
society is getting more selfish, there
is a silver lining on how much we can
achieve if we all took the eort to help
each other, continued Yip.
Darren Lai recalled the first Safer
Malaysia meeting that he attended,
which was held at Old Town White
Coee where he met Auntie Eileen
(Eileen Lim Thong), Mark Soh and Fong
Peng Lim all concerned citizens who
came together from dierent walks of
life to achieve a change.
Buoyed by the encouraging response
from the public, Safer Malaysia
embarked on training programmes to
educate the public on their handbook,
called the Rakyat Module.
Sarah expounded: If we can activate
the mind of just one person, that person
tell their friends. It is just like throwing
a pebble into the water; two or three
pebbles are enough to create a ripple.
Another example would be Facebook
pages. It is clear to see that the eect
of one persons post can become viral
almost instantly, and subsequently
become a force to be reckoned with; a
force that could aect change; a force to
make the Government take action.
The Rakyat Module encapsulates the
three principles of Vigilance, Deterrence
and Prevention, which is widely
advocated by Safer Malaysia during
their training sessions. According to
them, Vigilance is what we can do
to protect ourselves from becoming
victims of crime; while Deterrence is
the co-operation between each vigilant
person to create a deterrence to the
occurrences of crime. Lastly, Prevention
is the importance of policy changes and
education, as well as the promotion of
expanding the study of criminology, in
order to find the root cause of a person
becoming a criminal and stopping that
process before it happens.
Apart from conducting training, Safer
Malaysia has worked alongside the
National Defence University of Malaysia
(Universiti Pertahanan Nasional
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 57
 LIFESTYLE
The first-ever Safer Malaysia Conference, titled Crime Prevention is Everyones Business, held
at National Defence University of Malaysia, 22 Jan 2015
Malaysia) to organise the first-ever
Safer Malaysia Conference, on 22 Jan
2015. The conference was a success,
and it was attended by the relevant
government departments, Prison
Department of Malaysia, Royal Malaysia
Police (Polis Diraja Malaysia, PDRM),
Malaysian Armed Forces, town
planning units of Jabatan Perancangan
Pembangunan and Majlis Bandaraya
Petaling Jaya, and others.
Saha reminisced: It is amazing that,
as young as Safer Malaysia is, we not
only managed to reach out to such
departments, and get them all in one
place to hear what Safer Malaysia had
to say, but also, the measures proposed
in our memorandum, as well as the
principles of Vigilance, Deterrence and
Prevention, were adopted.
Richard Wee added: We have seen
some of our ideas being adopted by the
police, which is good, as it is proven that
58 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
our proposal can turn things around,
and that is a testament to our work, and
how we have played a part.
Although Safer Malaysia provides a
path for those who are interested in
their cause, it is merely a platform for
people who wish to make Malaysia safe.
Safer Malaysia would not be possible
if not for the people of Safer Malaysia.
They all run on pure passion; they are
people who genuinely want to make a
dierence, noted Saha.
The same can also be said of the lawyers
who drive Safer Malaysia. Juggling
legal practice with commitments to the
committee, Yip sheepishly admitted
that he totally failed in this aspect
as his involvement in Safer Malaysia
diminishes as the years go by. But
Richard pointed out that Yip was the
co-founder of Safer Malaysia, and while
he was heavily involved with Safer
Malaysia, Yip on the hand, held fort at
the firm. Co-finding a firm and partners
in crime-fighting, they have mastered
the art of good partnership with respect
and gratitude for each other.
For Sarah, her motivation to work on
the Safer Malaysia projects comes from
finding time. She said: It is where there
is a will that there is a way. You have
to organise your time and the timelines,
put across what needs to be done, and
ensure that the members are synergised
and synced accordingly.
There speaks the conveyancing
lawyer, Saha joked, but also noted
that Sarah is the one who gets things
organised and up to speed. Indeed,
even getting these practising lawyers in
one room is no mean feat, even with the
assistance of technology. That is how
busy they are.
Despite their hectic schedules, their
commitment to Safer Malaysia is never
diminished. Darren Lai noted: We
understand how legal practice can
be overbearing sometimes, but dont
let work drown you out. If you are
passionate about a cause, take the time
out and work on it, and you will find that
legal practice is not all about staying
back late in the oce and working
overtime. There is a bigger picture to
being a Member of the Bar. So, to those
who are interested to join us, just follow
your passion and you can help make
Malaysia a safer place.
KS Shasha
Advocate and Solicitor
Any individual who wishes to join
Safer Malaysia or contribute to make
Malaysia a safer place to live in, may
contact Sarah Kambali from Messrs
Richard Wee & Yip or Anusha Gopala
Krishnan from Bar Council via email
at safermsia@gmail.com. You may
also visit Safer Malaysias Facebook
page at https://www.facebook.com/
SaferMalaysia?fref=ts.
 LIFESTYLE

Safer Malaysia Committee

Co-Chairpersons: Richard Wee Thiam Seng

Darren Lai Xuenwei
Deputy Chairperson: Sarah Kambali
Ocer-in-Charge: Anusha Gopala Krishnan

The Safer Malaysia Committee (Safer Malaysia) is a unique committee as it was originally a
community project established back in June 2012. The community project was the brainchild
of a few concerned individuals who were determined to counter the menace of crime which
seemed to be rapidly increasing by the day. The project became a full-fledged committee when
Bar Council adopted it in March 2013. Today, Safer Malaysia subcommittees are established in
most states, including Malacca, Perlis, Perak, Kedah and Pahang.

Safer Malaysia is an initiative to push for security reforms within the country, and to help
Malaysians reclaim the ownership of safety in Malaysia. This Committee was specifically set up
to propose suggestions on ways to curb crime eectively. The ultimate goal of this Committee is
to make Malaysia a safer place, and the committee is robustly thriving to achieve this.

Safer Malaysia also oers ideas to minimise the opportunities of crime. This includes awareness
campaigns and dialogues with the relevant government authorities to stop the criminal itself.
One of our themes is Stop the criminal, and we stop the crime.

Among the initiatives taken to battle crime is by educating the younger generation on delinquency
and crime. Safer Malaysia has embarked on a project with emphasis on educating children about
crime, and it aims to promote safety awareness in children through this project, called Safer
Malaysia Kids. Among others, Safer Malaysia Kids oers guidance for parents, and provides
information and solutions to common crimes against children. Parents are also given handy
safety tips as well as pointers on how to eectively exercise parental control.

The long-term goals of Safer Malaysia Kids are to introduce crime awareness in schools across
the country to educate children on crime, and to raise crime awareness among this group. The
final objective is to convince the Ministry of Education to adopt this project and implement it
on a national level so that crime awareness can be raised among students. The Performance
Management and Delivery Unit under the Prime Ministers Department (PEMANDU) is working
very closely with Safer Malaysia to make this project a reality.

In addition, Safer Malaysia carries out various activities and events with diverse sections of the
Malaysian community all over the country, including holding forums and workshops, to promote
crime awareness.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 59

 CASE NOTES HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT
Case Notes Highlights from the Federal Court
Tort: Duty of Care Pure
Economic Loss
The Federal Court in Loh Kok Beng
& Ors v Loh Chiak Eong & 1 Other
(Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-4-02/2013) was
required to decide if a project architect
owed a duty of care to the purchasers of
units in a building project and was liable
to them for the financial loss caused by
his alleged negligence.
The Appellants were the purchasers
of industrial units in a building project.
They each entered into a sale and
purchase agreement with the developer
(the SPAs). The Respondents were
appointed as the project architects by
the developer and, under the SPAs, they
were required to prepare and submit the
building plans for the project. The SPAs
also provided that vacant possession of
the units was to be delivered within 24
months from the date of the approval
of the building plans. There was a
delay of eight years in the delivery of
vacant possession. This was caused
by amendments that were made to the
building plans and also the delay in the
Department of Environments (DOE) Act 1965
grant of the Certificate of Fitness for
Occupation (CFO) for the units.
The Appellants sued the Respondents in
negligence for causing the delay. The
relief claimed by the Appellants were
purely financial in nature and it included
loss of rental profits, loss of use of the
units and the costs that they incurred for
having to use alternative buildings. In
response, the Respondents argued that
they were not the cause of the delay and,
further, that they should not be under a
duty of care to the Appellants to deliver
vacant possession within the stipulated
period under the SPAs, to which they
were not a party.
The High Court found the Respondents
liable for the delay in the completion
of the project. The Court of Appeal
reversed the High Courts decision and
held that there was no duty of care owed
by the Respondents to the Appellants
and, further, that the Respondents were
not liable for the financial loss suered
by the Appellants.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal
and decided that the Respondents
60 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
could not have reasonably foreseen
that the delay in the submission of
the building plans would cause the
Appellants the financial loss that they
claimed. Further, Zainun Ali FCJ found
that the matters that occasioned the
delay were not within the scope of duty
of the Respondents but were rather
obligations required of the developer (ie
the securing of the CFO for the units and
the matters that gave rise to the required
amendments to the building plans).
The appeal was also dismissed on the
grounds that it was improper to allow
an action against an architect if the
remedy sought by the purchaser was
contractually provided for in the sale and
purchase agreement with the developer.
Further, it was observed that it would
not be fair, just and reasonable under
the Caparo principle (Caparo Industries
Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605) to
impose a liability for economic loss on
professionals acting under a contract.
Company Law: Scope of an
Oppression Petition under
Section 181 of the Companies
and Sejahtera, seeking a declaration
In Looh Siong Chee v Numix
Engineering Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors (Civil
Appeal No: 02(f)-75-10/2012 and Civil
Appeal No.: 02(f)-77-10/2012) and
Sejahtera Saluran Sdn Bhd v Numix
Engineering Sdn Bhd & 2 Ors (Civil
Appeal No: 02(f)-76-10/2012 and Civil
Appeal No: 02(f)-78-10/2012), the
Federal Court was invited to reconsider
the applicable test for an oppression
petition under section 181 of the
Companies Act 1965 in view of recent
developments in the law of oppression
in England.
The appeals arose from an oppression
petition and a related civil suit that
were jointly heard by the High Court.
The actions resulted from the breach
of a set of agreements entered into
between one Looh Siong Chee (Mr
Looh), Numix Engineering Sdn Bhd
(Numix), and Magic Telecom Sdn
Bhd (Magic), which was a subsidiary
of Numix. The agreements were
executed to enable Mr Looh to assist
Numix with its application to procure a
particular telecommunications licence
for its satellite transmission business.
Pursuant to the agreements, Mr
Looh was to, amongst others, secure
the requisite approval for the said
telecommunications licence, and invest
RM1 million in Magic for 35% of its
shares. Conversely, Numix agreed to
approve a budget of RM1 million for Mr
Loohs future utilisation at his discretion
and, further, transfer its satellite
transmission business to Magic.
Mr Looh failed to fulfil his obligations
under the agreements and Magic was
thereafter placed in a critical financial
condition. The shareholders and
directors of Numix, at the instance of
Mr Looh, then issued 4 million shares in
Magic to a company named Sejahtera
Saluran Sdn Bhd (Sejahtera) for the
latters grant of a RM4 million loan to
Magic. Sejahtera then requisitioned an
Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM)
to appoint two additional directors
to the Board of Directors of Magic.
Numix and its directors opposed these
appointments.
Accordingly, Numix and its directors filed
an oppression petition against Mr Looh
that the allotment of the 4 million shares
to Sejahtera was void, and further, to
injunct Mr Looh and Sejahtera from
taking further steps in the conduct of the
aairs of Magic.
In turn, Mr Looh and Sejahtera filed a
civil suit against Numix and its directors
claiming specific performance of the
agreements.
The High Court allowed the oppression
petition and dismissed the civil suit. In
this regard, the High Court found that the
allotment of the 4 million shares to Magic,
at the instigation of Mr Looh, amounted
to an act of oppression under section
181 as it diluted Numixs shareholding
in Magic from 65% to 13%. Further, it
was held that the appointment of the
two additional directors was prejudicial
to the rights of Numix and its directors
as members of Magic, as it eectively
wrested control of the company away
from them to Sejahtera. The High
Court thereafter ordered that Magic be
wound up. The Court of Appeal upheld
the findings of the High Court, and Mr
Looh and Sejahtera were subsequently
granted leave to appeal to the Federal
Court.
 CASE NOTES HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE FEDERAL COURT
On appeal, Mr Looh and Sejahtera
argued that the test for what constitutes
oppressive conduct under section
181 should be redefined in the light of
recent developments in the English
law of oppression. This, it was argued,
would result in the breaches of private
shareholder agreements, such as the
impugned conduct in the instant case,
being deemed to be beyond the scope
of reviewable conduct under section
181.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeals
and held that the recent developments
in the English law of oppression had
been previously examined in full in the
context of a section 181 oppression
petition in the Federal Court cases of
Pan-Pacific Construction Ltd v Ngiu
Kee Corporation (M) Bhd [2010] 6 CLJ
721 and Jet-Tech Materials Sdn Bhd
v Yushiro Chemical Industry Co Ltd
[2013] 2 CLJ 277.
Further, it was observed that section
994 of the United Kingdoms Companies
Act 2006 (which formed part of the
English developments upon which the
Appellants relied in the appeals) was
not in pari materia with (or identical
to) Malaysias section 181. Therefore,
Apandi Ali FCJ (as he then was) held it to
be improper to transpose the legal tests
connected with the United Kingdoms
section 994 onto Malaysias statutory
law of oppression as contained in
section 181.
The Federal Court proceeded to arm
the operative test to be that under Re
Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd
v Ling Beng Sung [1978] 2 MLJ 227
and that fairness was commercial
fairness as defined by Homann LJ
(later Lord Homann) in Re Saul D
Harrison & Sons Plc [1995] 1 BCLC 14.
Lastly, the Federal Court decided
against interfering with the concurrent
findings of fact of the High Court and
the Court of Appeal on the oppressive
conduct that led to the decision to wind
up Magic in the case.
Probate and Administration:
Sale of Estate Property Pursuant
to an Impugned Consent Order
Sections 39 and 60 of the
Probate and Administration Act
1960 Validity of Sale of Estate
Property Pursuant to a Will
Declared to be a Forgery
The appeal in Poraviappan a/l
Arunasalam Pillay v Periasamy a/l
Sithambaram Pillai & 1 Other (Civil
Appeal No: 02(f)-6-02/2013) concerned
the validity of the sale of estate property
pursuant to a consent order entered
into by the legal representative of the
deceased.
In 1982, one Mr Nadarajah died
intestate. Among his assets were an
oil palm and coconut estate in Teluk
Bharu, Perak. In August 1983, the
Appellant, who was the brother in
law of Mr Nadarajahs only nephew,
obtained Letters of Administration over
Mr Nadarajahs estate. Subsequently, in
1984, the first Respondent, who was Mr
Nadarajahs younger brother, produced
an alleged Will of Mr Nadarajah wherein
he was named as the Executor and a
beneficiary of the estate. This led to the
first Respondent obtaining a grant of
probate over the estate of Mr Nadarajah
in August of 1984. Then, in 1997, in
separate proceedings, the Federal Court
declared the Will to be a forgery and
thereby revoked the probate obtained
by the first Respondent.
Now, in February 1982, Mr Nadarajah
had entered into an agreement with
one Madam Ponnamal pursuant to
which the oil palm and coconut estate
was to be transferred to the latter (the
sale agreement). Following the death
of Mr Nadarajah, Madam Ponnamal
commenced a suit against the first
Respondent and her former solicitors
seeking specific performance of the
sale agreement. In 1985, the first
Respondent entered into a consent order
under which the oil palm and coconut
estate was to be transferred to Madam
Ponnamal (the Consent Order).
In 1985, the Appellant filed the instant suit
to, amongst others, seek a declaration
that the Consent Order was a nullity and
that the sale agreement was a sham
and, further, that the Respondents be
ordered to deliver the title and transfer
documents related to the oil palm and
coconut estate.
The High Court dismissed the Appellants
claim and the Court of Appeal armed
the High Courts decision. The
Appellant was granted leave to appeal
on questions of law that related to the
validity of the consent for the sale of
estate property under a will that has
subsequently been declared to be a
forgery, the sustainability of a consent
order for the sale of estate property
where an interpleader summons1 that
challenged the legitimacy of the sale
had not been disclosed to the Court
and, further, the propriety of a sale of
estate property under sections 39 (which
relates to the vesting of property of an
intestate) and 60 of the Probate and
Administration Act 1960 (which relates
in part to the sale of estate property by
an administrator of an estate) without an
empowering court order.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.
In so doing, it was held that the first
Respondent had not consented to the
sale of the oil palm and coconut estate as
the executor of Mr Nadarajahs Will, but
rather as the legal representative of his
estate. In this regard, the Federal Court
noted that Madam Ponnamals suit (in
which the Consent Order was entered)
included a prayer for an order to appoint
the first Respondent to represent Mr
Nadarajahs estate (under Order 15 Rule
6A of the Rules of the High Court 1980).
Therefore, Madam Ponnamals suit
was not predicated on Mr Nadarajahs
Will or the probate obtained by the first
Respondent (both of which had been
revoked by the Federal Court in 1997).
Accordingly, the Federal Court found it
unnecessary to answer the questions
of law that pertained to the forged Will
or the propriety of the sale under the
Probate and Administration Act 1960.
On the question of the non-disclosure of
the interpleader summons, Ahmad Haji
Maarop FCJ held, amongst others, that
the Appellant had not pleaded the said
non-disclosure as a separate and/or
alternative ground to nullify the Consent
Order in the High Court suit.
Gregory Das
Advocate and Solicitor
Messrs Shook Lin & Bok
Note
1 Where a defendant to a suit files a
summons against multiple claimants
to determine the issue of ownership of
goods or the proceeds from a sale.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 61
 STATE BAR NEWS
Johore Bar
Committee
Seminar on Family Law
On 9 Apr 2015, the Johore Bar Continuing
Professional Development (CPD)
Committee, together with the Bar Council
CPD Department, jointly organised a
seminar on Family Law as part of the CPD
Regional Training Series. Pushpa Ratnam
was the invited speaker and she gave a
lively and engaging talk to members of the
Johore Bar. A total of 33 participants were
present.
Seminar on Milestone Cases in
the North vs South Johore Bar Games
2015 on 6 June 2015 at Batu Pahat, after Malaysian Land Law
the event went on hiatus in 2007. Five
games were played namely golf, netball,
futsal, table tennis and badminton.
The Johore Bar Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) Committee organised a
seminar that was conducted by Sudharsanan
The games ended with a prize-giving Thillainathan on 11 June 2015 at the Johore
ceremony, followed by high tea at Bar Auditorium. A total of 90 participants
Pinetree Hotel in Batu Pahat, Johore. attended.
Advocacy Training Course
On 12 and 13 June 2015, the Advocacy Training Course (ATC) was conducted at the
Johor Bahru Court Complex. Jointly organised with the Bar Council Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) Department, the ATC saw the participation of eleven members. The
trainers involved were Shahareen Begum, Ooi Huey Miin, Jaspal Singh and T Sudhar.

Seminar for Lawyers on

Managing Office and Client
Account(s)

On 8 May 2015, the Johore Bar Continuing

Professional Development (CPD)
Committee organised a seminar for
lawyers on Managing Oce and Client
Account(s). Presented by Lim Kien Chai@
KC, the seminar was held at the Johore Bar Group photograph of the members and trainers involved in the ATC
Auditorium with a total attendance of 90
participants. Naming Ceremony of the Johore Bar Auditorium

Talk on Procedures in
Industrial Court
On 12 May 2015, the Johore Bar Continuing
Professional Development (CPD)
Committee invited Tuan Roslan b Mat Nor,
Chairman of the Industrial Court of Malaysia,
Johor Bahru, to give a talk on Procedures
in Industrial Court to members of the
Johore Bar. The talk drew the attendance
of 30 participants.
The Johore Bar held a naming ceremony of its auditorium on 15 June 2015. The Johore
Bar Auditorium was renamed the Abdullah A Rahman Auditorium, after the late Abdullah A
Rahman who was the longest serving Chairman of the Johore Bar, and the first Chairman of
the Johore Bar who was elected as President of the Malaysian Bar.
The ceremony was graced by his family and past Chairmen of the Johore Bar. S Balarajah
gave a citation for the late Abdullah A Rahman, and Steven Thiru, President of the Malaysian
Bar, ociated the ceremony.

Seminar on Technology for Law

Firms: Revised To Cover GST
Accounting

The Johore Bar Continuing Professional

Development (CPD) Committee organised
the above seminar on two dierent dates.
Conducted by Ng Sheau Feng, the first
instalment of the seminar took place at
Hotel Pelangi in Muar, Johore, on 27 May
2015, while the other instalment was held at
the Johore Bar Auditorium on 28 May 2015.
The total number of participants in Muar
was 70, and 90 participants in Johor Bahru.
North vs South Johore Bar
Games 2015
The Johore Bar Sports and North Johore
Aairs Sub Committees jointly organised
Family members of the late Abdullah A Rahman (middle) stand with members of the Johore
Bar at the naming ceremony
Public Forum on the Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2015 (Revival
of ISA?); and Amendments to the
Sedition Act 1948
On 15 June 2015, the Johore Bar
Human Rights Sub Committee and Bar
Council, jointly organised the above
forum at Tropical Inn Johor Bahru.
The forum featured three eminent
speakers Steven Thiru, President of
the Malaysian Bar; Yeo Yang Poh, Past
President of the Malaysian Bar; and
Syahredzan Johan, Co-Chairperson of
the Bar Council National Young Lawyers
Committee. The forum was moderated
by R Jayabalan, Chairman of Johore Bar.
The forum kicked o at 5:30 pm with a
welcoming speech by Mathews George
of the Johore Bar Human Rights Sub

62 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015


Committee, followed by presentations
from the three speakers. The forum was
attended by members of the public and
Members of the Bar, as well as members
of the press.
Kuala Lumpur
Bar Committee
Conveyancing Workshop for
Pupils
Organised specifically for pupils by the KL
Bar Pupils Committee, this workshop was
held on 4 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium.
The workshop, which was presented by
Michael Leow Yon Meng, focused primarily
on the practical aspects of handling a
conveyancing brief covering the following
areas: Overview of the conveyancing
process, Essential clauses found in a
Sale & Purchase Agreement, How to fill
up the relevant NLC Forms, and Practical
pointers for the conveyancing lawyer. A
total of 50 pupils attended this workshop.
Seminar on Goods and Services
Tax (GST) and Business
Contracts
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Thenesh Kannaa
on 9 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium.
Attended by 150 participants, the seminar
covered these topics: The Malaysian GST
model and its mechanism, An overview of
the GST Act 2014 and the Ministerial Orders
issued, Existing contracts who bears
the tax?, GST-related issues to be stated
on future business contracts, and Does
GST apply to disbursements?.
The topic of GST drew the crowd.
Seminar on Companies Bill
2013: Highlight on Key Changes
Organised by the KL Bar Corporate
and Conveyancing Practice Committee
(CCPC), this seminar was presented by
Chong Kok Seng and Lim Siew Ming on
Welcoming High Tea for YA Tuan
Mohd Nazlan b Mohd Ghazali
On 16 June 2015, the Johore Bar Social
Committee organised a High Tea at Grand
BlueWave Hotel, Johor Bahru to welcome
YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan b Mohd Ghazali, who
10 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The
seminar was attended by 76 participants.
Pupils Introduction Session
Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee,
the pupils introduction session for March
was held on 12 Mar 2015. The session,
attended by 67 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 other members of the
KL Bar Committee were also present to
provide input and possible solutions. The
pupils were also shown a video montage of
the history of the Malaysian Bar.
Seminar on the Law of Joint
Ventures
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Lim Kien Chai
on 17 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium.
Attended by 86 participants, the main
objective of the seminar was to share with
the participants, in a practical context, the
variety of dierent legal arrangements within
which entrepreneurs describe or hold them
out as being in a joint venture. The seminar was attended by 36 participants.
Introduction to the Legal Profession of Law Undergraduates at Taylors
Law School
Organised by the KL Bar Young Lawyers Committee (YLC), this event was held on 21 Mar
2015 at the Lakeside Campus of Taylors University, and was attended by 40 students.
A group photo of aspiring lawyers.
STATE BAR NEWS
had been posted as Judicial Commissioner in
Johor Bahru on 20 Apr 2015. The event was
attended by 50 members of the Johore Bar
and four Judges and Judicial Commissioners
of the High Court in Johor Bahru, the Director
of Johore Courts, as well as the Chairman of
the Industrial Court, Johor Bahru.
Seminar for Lawyers on Managing
Office and Client Accounts
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Lim Kien Chai on
24 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The
objective of the seminar was to introduce
and familiarise lawyers with the world of
accounting and finance of a legal firm, which
is so intertwined. It gave a general yet practical
insight into the following areas: Accounting
for legal firm and practices, Specific to
oce and client accounts, Pitfalls to avoid,
Revenue and expenses and its taxability
or allow-ability, The capital and current
accounts of a partnership accounts, and
Eective supervision of accounting sta and
sta dealing with monies. The seminar was
attended by 98 participants.
Seminar on the Personal Data
Protection Act 2010 (PDPA)
This seminar was organised by the KL Bar
Professional Development Committee (PDC),
and presented by Jeremiah R Gurusamy,
on 26 Mar 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium.
The seminar covered the following topics:
Overview of the PDPA, Understanding
key provisions in the Act, Dealing with the
various parties data user, data processor
and data subject, How to deal with sensitive
personal data, PDPA compliance, Who
does the PDPA apply to?, Processing of
personal data in a commercial transaction,
What is personal data?, Definition of a
commercial transaction, Dealing with the
7 data principles, Obtaining consent from
the data subjects, Privacy notification prior
to data processing, Data subject request,
Data correction request, and Dealing with
data transfer outside Malaysia Sec 129.
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 63
 STATE BAR NEWS
Pupils Workshop on Civil
Litigation
The KL Bar Pupils Committee organised
a civil litigation workshop specifically
for pupils on 2 Apr 2015. Presented by
Colin Andrew Pereira and Sanjeev Kumar
Rasiah, the workshop focused 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.
A total of 50 pupils attended the workshop.
Pupils Introduction Session
Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee,
the Pupils Introduction Session for April
was held on 9 Apr 2015. The session,
attended by 82 pupils, was led by Shashi
Devan. Similarly like at previous sessions,
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),
as well as 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 other members of
the KL Bar Committee were also present to
provide input and possible solutions. The
pupils were also shown a video montage of
the history of the Malaysian Bar.
SARC Trail Running
Organised by the KL Bar Social, Arts and
Recreation Committee, the trail run was
held on Saturday, 18 Apr 2015 at Taman
Rimba Kiara, Taman Tun Dr Ismail (on Jalan
Haji Openg). Twelve Members of the Bar
and pupils participated in this run.
KL Car-Free Morning
On 19 Apr 2015, the KL Bar Environmental
Committee (KLBC EC) participated in
the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL)s
initiative in dedicating the first and third
Sunday mornings of the month as car-free
mornings.
Cycling to raise awareness
64 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Seminar on Trending Cases
in the Malaysian Intellectual
Property Landscape
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Professor Ida
Madieha Azmi on 21 Apr 2015 at the KL
Bar Auditorium. The seminar covered the
following topics: Copyright over computer
programme, The boundary and interface
between copyright and privacy rights, What
amounts to an invented word capable of
trade mark registration?, Who is the rightful
proprietor of a mark?, Can the patent
owner apply for the amendment of his patent
claims during infringement proceedings?,
Invalidation of patents, Registrability of
car parts for industrial design, Power of
the court to issue injunctive relief for breach
of confidential information, and Duty of
employee to maintain the confidentiality of
the employers trade secrets. The seminar
was attended by 36 participants.
Annual Kuala Lumpur-Selangor
Bar Committees Get-Together
Hosted by the Selangor Bar Committee
(SBC) this term, the annual get-together
between the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee
(KLBC) and SBC was held on 24 Apr 2015
at the Merchant Lounge, Armada Hotel,
Petaling Jaya. This annual meet was for the
oce bearers of the new term of both the
KLBC and SBC to get to know each other
and to discuss how to work closely to cater
to the mutual needs of members of both the
Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Bars.
Pupils Introduction Session
Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee,
the Pupils Introduction Session for May was
held on 7 May 2015. The session, attended
by 80 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 other
members of the KLBC were also present to
provide input and possible solutions. The
pupils were also shown a video montage of
the history of the Malaysian Bar.
Seminar on Equity and Trusts in
Malaysia: Profits from Bribes and
Construction Trusts Personal or
Proprietary Claims
This seminar was organised by the KL Bar
Professional Development Committee
(PDC), and presented by Harcharan Singh,
on 8 May 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. The
seminar covered the following topics: When
a fiduciary accepts a bribe, what is, or ought
to be, the response of Malaysian Equity?,
and Should an institutional constructive
trust be imposed on the bribe in the hands
of the fiduciary in favour of the party with
whom he stands in a fiduciary position (the
Beneficiary), or should the Beneficiary be
limited to a personal claim for the recovery
from the fiduciary of an amount equivalent to
the bribe?. The seminar was attended by
28 participants.
Meeting with the Police in
Dang Wangi Police District
Headquarters (IPD)
A meeting was held on 8 May 2015 between
the KL Bar Criminal Practice Committee
(CPC) and police ocers from IPD Dang
Wangi to discuss various issues, in particular,
the issue of lawyers access to their clients/
accused persons at the Dang Wangi
Remand Centre.
Kuala Lumpur Bar Grand Prix
2015
Organised by the KL Bar Social, Arts and
Recreation Committee, the Kuala Lumpur
Bar Grand Prix 2015 was held at the Shah
Alam Stadium Go Kart Circuit on 9 May
2015. A total of seven teams comprising four
drivers each participated in this event.
Future F1 drivers on the podium?
Seminar on the Law of Parallel
Imports in the Context of
Trademark Infringement and
Passing Off
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Ng Kim Poh on 12
May 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium. Attended
by 41 participants, the seminar covered
the following topics: "What does Parallel
Imports mean?, Trademark Infringement,
Passing O, Parallel Imports Cases, and
Potential Instances of Infringement and/or
Passing O.
Seminar on Understanding
Annual Reports and its Financial
Statements
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Lim Kien Chai on

19 May 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium, and
attended by 62 participants. The seminar
covered, among others, the following topics:
Introductory on its importance, Accounting
jargons made understandable for lawyers,
What are the components of an annual
report?, What are these: ledger accounts,
journal entries, double-entries, T-accounts?,
Why this term Trial Balance?, Why this
term Balance Sheet?, What are the salient
features of a Balance Sheet?, What are
and the types of assets?, What are and
the types of Liabilities?, and Are Balance
Sheets liabilities an indication of not good
financial position and/or poor financial
management?.
Corporate Workshop for Pupils
The KL Bar Pupils Committee organised a
corporate workshop specifically for pupils
on 20 May 2015. Presented by Sheba
Gumis and attended by a total of 52 pupils,
the workshop focused primarily on the
practical aspects of handling a brief covering
the following areas: Overview: Negotiation,
due diligence and drafting process,
Commercial considerations, Practical
pointers including common mistakes
when drafting, Salient clauses including
consideration, conditions precedent,
completion etc, Covenants and warranties
by both Vendors and Purchasers, Boiler
plate clauses, and Remedies for breach
of contract.
Seminar on Islamic Wills
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC), this
seminar was presented by Amir Bahari on
22 May 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium,
and attended by 24 participants. As a brief
introduction to Islamic Wills, the seminar
covered the following topics: Key Objectives
in Estate Planning, Legal Framework of
Estate Administration, Faraid Islamic
Laws of Inheritance, Sources of Islamic
Will, 6 Steps in Estate Planning, Issues
in Islamic Estate Planning, and Sample of
Islamic Basic Will.
Seminar on Insights to
GST Appeal Processes and
Jurisprudence of Tax Statute
Interpretation
This seminar was organised by the KL Bar
Young Lawyers Committee (YLC), and
presented by S Saravana Kumar and Siti
Fatimah Mohd Sharom, on 25 May 2015
at the KL Bar Auditorium. The seminar
covered the following topics: An overview
of the Goods and Services Tax (GST)
regime in Malaysia, The GST appeals
process, including appearances before the
GST Appeal Tribunal, Judicial review as
a remedy to resolve GST controversies,
Application for an error or mistake and
the relief available, Challenging adverse
advance rulings and technical rulings
by the Royal Malaysian Customs, and
Appreciating the judicial developments in
Malaysia in respect of interpreting taxing
statutes. The seminar was attended by 15
participants.
the 3rd KL Bar Futsal Competition 2015
was held at Sports Arena@Sentosa, Taman
Saravana Kumar speaking at the seminar
Annual Blood Donation Drive
The annual blood donation drive was jointly
organised by the KL Bar Social, Arts and
Recreation Committee and Kelab Sukan
Kebajikan dan Rekreasi Mahkamah Kuala
Lumpur (KESMA), with the assistance of
the National Blood Bank, on 27 May 2015.
The blood donation drive was held at Level
2 of the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex on
Jalan Tuanku Abdul Halim (formerly known
as Jalan Duta). This years event saw the
support of 113 people.
For a good cause
Two-Day Practical Workshop on
Conveyancing Practice
Organised by the KL Bar Corporate
and Conveyancing Practice Committee
(CCPC), this workshop was presented by
Dennis Teoh, Susan Joseph, Nahzatul Ain
and Sarah Kambali on 28 and 29 May 2015
at the KL Bar Auditorium. The workshop
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 conflict of
interest arise for you to worry about?, and
How do you safeguard yourself against
STATE BAR NEWS
a complaint being lodged against you
in a conveyance?. The workshop was
attended by 57 participants.
3rd KL Bar Futsal Competition
2015
Organised by the KL Bar Sports Committee,
Sri Sentosa on 30 May 2015. A total of
22 teams participated in the event and the
winners are as follows:
Mens Category
Victorious Secret 2 (1st placing); Victorious
Secret 1 (2nd placing); TRG Bar (3rd
placing); Zaid Ibrahim & Co (4th placing)
Men's (Plate)
Wakeel FC (1st placing); CPD (2nd placing)
Ladies Category
The Kickers (1st placing); Boomfica (2nd
placing)
Best Firm Team
Zaid Ibrahim & Co
Best Player
Tay Zi Li (Zaid Ibrahim & Co)
Happy winners!
Pupils Introduction Session
Organised by the KL Bar Pupils Committee,
the Pupils Introduction Session for June
was held on 4 June 2015. The session,
attended by 76 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 other members of
KLBC were also present to provide input
and possible solutions. The pupils were
also shown a video montage of the history
of the Malaysian Bar.
KL Bar Bowling Tournament
Organised by the KL Bar Sports Committee,
the KL Bar Bowling Tournament was held at
Sunway Megalanes, Sunway Pyramid on 6
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 65
 STATE BAR NEWS
June 2015. A total of 19 teams participated
in the event and the winners are as follows:
TRG Bar A (1st placing); Icepick Willie (2nd
placing); Rilek Je (3rd placing)
Best Male Player: Mohammad Afiq Ammar
(Rilek Je)
Best Female Player: Ghasidah bt Jusoh
(TRG Bar A).
Best Firm Team: Rilek Je from Khairul A &
Co; Spare Rib from Chooi & Co (2nd placing);
Alley Gator from Lee Hishammuddin Allen &
Gledhill (3rd placing)
The bowlers in action
Social Get-Together
Organised by the KL Bar Social, Arts and
Recreation Committee, the first social get-
together for the 2015/16 term was held on 12
June 2015 at Rils, Bangsar. Approximately
30 Members of the Bar turned up for this
event, and everyone had a great time.
Malacca Bar
Committee
Dock Brief Training
On 8 May 2015, the Malacca Bar Legal
Aid Sub-Committee organised a dock brief
training for 22 pupils in chambers. The trainers
Courtesy Calls
On 9 Apr 2015, Malacca Bar Committee members paid a courtesy call on YA Datuk Abdul
Karim b Abdul Jalil, followed by a meeting with the Judges, Registrars and Magistrates at the
Malacca Court Complex. The committee also paid a courtesy call on the newly-appointed
Judicial Commissioner of the Malacca High Court, YA Dato Mohd Firuz b Jaril, on 22 Apr
2015.
Meeting between the Bench and the Bar
66 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Event at Asian Water Sports
Village, Puchong
Sixteen young lawyers took part in various
water activities at the Asian Water Sports
Village in Puchong on 13 and 14 June 2015.
This event was organised by the KL Bar
Young Lawyers Committee (YLC).
Having a blast of a time
Volunteering at the Pertiwi Soup
Kitchen
Twenty-five lawyers volunteered to help
serve some 450 people on the streets of
Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman and Jalan
Tun Tan Cheng Lock in Kuala Lumpur,
on 26 June 2015. The programme,
organised by the KL Bar Young Lawyers
Committee, ran from 9:00 pm to
midnight.
were Jason Kay, Ahmad Soleh Yusof, Fadil
Mohd Yusof and Jessie Koh Mei Hui. Pupils
were introduced to ethics and traditions of
the Bar, the structure of legal aid in Malaysia,
followed by training sessions on interviewing
legal aid applicants, interviewing the accused
and their family for bail and mitigation, and
finally practising doing mitigation and bail
application. These sessions will be repeated
as and when new batches of pupils start their
pupilage at the Malacca Bar.
Pupils Workshop: Criminal
Litigation
The KL Bar Pupils Committee organised
a Criminal Litigation Workshop
specifically for pupils, on 29 June
2015. The workshop focused primarily
on the practical aspects of handling a
brief and covered the following areas:
Client Interview, Mitigation, Bail
Application, and Trial Process. The
workshop was conducted by Lim Chi
Chau and Farhan Read, and attended
by 31 pupils.
PDC-AWL Series: Seminar on
an Introduction to Childrens
Rights in Malaysia
Organised by the KL Bar Professional
Development Committee (PDC) in
collaboration with the Association of
Women Lawyers (AWL), this seminar
was presented by Sharmila Sekaran on
30 June 2015 at the KL Bar Auditorium.
Attended by 51 participants, the seminar
covered these topics: Understanding
Childrens Rights, Issues aecting
Children, and Development and
Protection of Children.
Billing and Collections
Workshop
The Bar Council Professional Indemnity
Insurance Committee conducted a
workshop on Billings & Collections on 22
May 2015 at UTC Melaka. 2 CPD points
were given to participants who attended
the whole session of the workshop.
Malacca Bar Futsal Tournament
2015
The Malacca Bar Sports Sub-Committee
successfully organised the Malacca Bar
Futsal Tournament 2015 at SP Futsal
Centre, Taman Teknologi Cheng on 23 May
2015. More than 30 members and pupils in
chambers participated in the tournament.
Public Forum on Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2015 (Revival
of ISA?); and Amendments to
Sedition Act 1948
On 10 June 2015, this public forum was
organised by the Malacca Bar Young
Lawyers and Chambering Pupils Sub-

Committee at La Boss Hotel, Malacca. The
speakers were Steven Thiru, President of
the Malaysian Bar; Syahredzan Johan, Co-
Chairperson of the Bar Council National
Young Lawyers Committee, as well as
Prof Dr Myint Zan from the Faculty of Law,
Multimedia University, Malacca.
The panellists at the forum
Malacca Bench and Bar Games
2015
The Malacca Bench and Bar Games for
2015 were held at SMK Seri Kota Melaka on
13 June 2015. The games played were table
tennis, netball, badminton, futsal, football,
volleyball and the 4x100 m relay. Malacca
Bar emerged the champion this year.
The futsal team photograph
Penang Bar
Committee
Courtesy Calls
To start o the newly-elected committees
term, the Penang Bar Committee paid
courtesy calls on the Penang High Court
and Subordinate Courts between the
months of March and April 2015. The
issues raised by the Committee during
these meetings were based on members
feedback; many of which were amicably
resolved with the cooperation and
assistance of the Courts.
Farewell Dinner
A farewell dinner was organised on 9 Apr
2015 at the Penang Club in honour of YA
Datuk Zamani A Rahim who had been
elevated to the Court of Appeal in February
Courtesy Call on the Chief Police
Officer
On 23 June 2015, Malacca Bar Committee
members paid a courtesy call on the Chief
Police Ocer of Malacca, Datuk Chua Ghee
Lye, followed by a meeting with police ocers
from various departments.
Courtesy call on Datuk Chua and the
Malacca police force
Majlis Berbuka Puasa
The Malacca Bar Social and Charity Sub-Committee organised a Majlis Berbuka
Puasa Bersama at Kings Hotel Malacca on 1 July 2015. More than 70 members
and pupils attended and broke fast together with 21 orphans from Malacca. The
Chairman of the Malacca Bar presented Raya gifts to the orphans before breaking
fast together.
Raya gifts for the children
this year. The Dinner was attended by
Penang High Court Judges, members of
the Bar and chambering pupils.
The Karpal Singh Forum 2015
Following the untimely passing of Karpal
Singh s/o Ram Singh on 17 Apr 2014,
the Penang Bar Committee had been in
discussion with his family to organise a
memorial lecture named after him.
After close to eight months of planning,
the Karpal Singh Forum 2015 finally came
to fruition and was held on 18 Apr 2015
at Dewan Sri Pinang to coincide with his
first death anniversary. The theme for the
inaugural forum was The Sedition Act
and Human Rights in Malaysia, a topic
that was close to the late Karpals heart.
Dewan Sri Pinang was chosen as the
venue due to its location which is a stones
throw away from Karpal Singh & Co, and
STATE BAR NEWS
Training for Watching Briefs
On 11 July 2015, the Malacca Bar
Human Rights and Contemporary
Issues Sub-Committee conducted a
special training in Malacca for lawyers
who are interested in holding watching
briefs on behalf of the Bar Council for
inquests involving deaths in police
custody and police shootings. Ravi
Nekoo was the trainer for the training
session, which was held in Malacca
Bar premises.
it also served as the venue for Karpals
State-honoured funeral just a year earlier.
Co-organised by the Penang State
Government and the Penang Institute,
the forum saw some 460 attendees
consisting of Members of the Bar
and pupils, politicians, academics,
representatives from non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), members of
the public, law students, as well as
Karpals family members and friends. It
was launched by the Chief Minister of
Penang, Lim Guan Eng, while the keynote
address was delivered by Mark Trowell
QC who travelled to Penang especially
for the event. The second part of the
forum was a panel discussion moderated
by immediate past President of the
Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong, who
was accompanied by a panel comprising
President of the Malaysian Bar, Steven
JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 67
 STATE BAR NEWS
Thiru; Ambiga Sreenevasan; retired Judge of the Court of Appeal, Dato Mahadev
Shanker; and Mark Trowell QC.
In concluding the event, a plaque signed by the Chief Minister to launch the forum was
handed over to Karpals widow, Gurmit Kaur, by the Co-Chairperson of the forums
Organising Committee, Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor, who is also Treasurer of the
Malaysian Bar.
The panellists at the forum
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng signs the plaque. The widow of the late Karpal Singh, Gurmit
Kaur, stands beside him
Penang Legal Aid Centre Annual
Review
The Penang Legal Aid Centre (PLAC) held
its Annual Review on 24 Apr 2015 at the
new Penang Bar Auditorium. Attended by
members and pupils, the past years activities
were presented and upcoming events and
projects were proposed and discussed.
Connect @ The Bridge
An after-work social event themed Connect
@ The Bridge was held on 28 Apr 2015 at
the refurbished and revamped Loke Thye
Kee, known as the oldest restaurant in
Penang. The gathering was well attended by
both senior and junior members, as well as
pupils. The refreshments and snacks were
sponsored by the proprietors of the venue.
An Evening with the Doyens
The Penang Bar Criminal Law
Subcommittee organised a social event
68 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
Ethics and Professional
Standards Course
The Ethics and Professional Standards
Course for chambering pupils was held
on 12 and 13 June 2015 and attended
by participants from the Penang Bar as
well as Kedah, Perak and Terengganu.
The pupils at the course
Breaking of Fast Event
On 6 July 2015, the Penang Bar Syariah and
Islamic Finance Subcommittee organised
a breaking of fast event at Masjid Melayu
Lebuh Acheh. This event was attended by
members, pupils, Court Ocers from the
Civil and Syariah Courts, and other invited
guests. Donations collected in conjunction
with the event were channeled to the less
fortunate.
Other Programmes
The following Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) programmes
were either organised, co-organised
or participated in, by the Penang Bar
Committee from April to July 2015:
entitled An Evening with the Doyens on
22 May 2015, featuring CV Prabhakaran, Shades of Conveyancing
Baldev Bhar, K Kumaraendran, V Practice and An Introduction to
Sithambaram, and Ang Chun Pun. These the Companies Bill 2013 (14 May
senior members shared their experiences 2015);
of practice at the Criminal Bar through
a series of anecdotes and humorous RTS 2015 | Exclusive Preview on
narratives that spanned several decades, Associate Qualifications in Islamic
involving fellow Members, the Bench, Finance (21 May 2015);
clients and witnesses. It is hoped that Workshop on Handling Inquests
their commitment and passion for the law (organised by Suara Rakyat
and legal practice will serve as a source of Malaysia, Suaram) (23 May 2015);
inspiration and encouragement for young
practitioners and pupils. RTS 2015 | Seminar on Unjust
Enrichment Law (28 May 2015);
RTS 2015 | Technology for Law
Firms (4 June 2015);
Seminar on the Law of Joint
Ventures (5 June 2015);
Seminar on Islamic Wills (8 June
2015); and
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of
Some of the doyens, in photograph
Criminal Practice (9 July 2015).
 STATE BAR NEWS
Talk on 7 Tips for an Effective Negotiation
Perak Bar This talk was presented by Amir Bahari, the former Chairperson of the Kuala Lumpur Bar

Committee Committee 2014/2015s Corporate and Conveyancing Committee, on 7 May 2015. His
presentation was conducted creatively by inviting the participants to take part in the activities
that he had prepared that day.
Talk on Criminal Advocacy

On 14 May 2015, the Perak Bar Young

Lawyers and Chambering Students
Committee held a talk on criminal advocacy
by Ipoh Judicial Commissioner, YA Noorin
bt Badaruddin. Although the target
group of this talk was young lawyers and
chambering pupils, senior members also
came to listen to this inspiring talk. She
shared her experiences not only when she
served behind the Bench but also when
she was in the Prosecution Department. Group photo with the speaker, Amir Bahari (middle)

Talk on How to Protect Company Intellectual Property Assets

On 17 Apr 2015, the Perak Bar Committee organised a talk entitled How to Protect
Company Intellectual Property Assets. The talk was presented by former Perak Bar
Committee Honorary Secretary, Hemalatha Parasa Ramulu, and Noel J Akers, a Chartered
Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney. While both speakers covered the topic
on protecting company intellectual property assets, Noel Akers thoroughly discussed the
topic and highlighted the dierences in Malaysia and other countries.
A token of Appreciation from Kenny Lai,
Chairman of the Perak Bar

Talk on Family Law: Grounds

for Divorce and Basic
Procedure

The Perak Bar Professional Development

Committee held a talk on 4 June 2015
on Family Law: Grounds for Divorce
and Basic Procedure. The speaker was
Pushpa Ratnam. Her talk enlightened the
participants, especially young lawyers, on
the basic procedure for divorce. Noel Akers explaining what is patent

Selangor Bar by Saravana Kumar and Siti Fatimah

Committee
The Committee organised the following
talks during this quarter:
Advocacy, Decorum in Court and
Ethics by George Varughese (6 Mar
2015);
How to Conduct a Retrenchment
Exercise and a Voluntary Separation
Scheme by Kavitha Guna Segaran
(13 Mar 2015);
Human Rights Protecting
Children by Sharmila Sekaran (27
Mar 2015);
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
Mohd Sharom (10 Apr 2015);
Lawyers As Change Agents: the
Curious Case of Corporations by
Kiu Jia Yaw and Adrian Yaw (22 Apr
2015);
Goods and Services Tax (GST)
by LexisNexis (24 Apr 2015);
Family Law-Contested Divorce
Proceedings (1): From Interviewing
to Filing the Petition by Honey Tan
Lay Ean (15 May 2015);
Domain name as Shield and Sword:
Empire Strikes Back | Fundamentals
of IP rights and Overview of Domain
Name Strategy by Eugene Roy
Joseph (22 May 2015);
Legal Training Workshop | Child
and Youth Justice within the
Malaysian Legal System by Voice
of the Children (23 and 24 May
2015);
Syariah Law: Islamic Wills by Amir
Bahari (5 June 2015);
Remand, Bail and Mitigation
Proceedings by KA Ramu (12 June
2015);
Winding Up Companies under
Section 218(1)(e) of the Companies
Act 1965 by Tieh Siaw Siong (19
June 2015);
PDPA Act 2010 by Jeremiah R
Gurusamy (26 June 2015); and
Syariah Law: Anak Tak Sah Taraf
dan Implikasi Hukum Syara by
Saadiah bt Din (3 July 2015).

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 69

 STATE BAR NEWS
Meetings Attended by the
Selangor Bar Conveyancing
Practice Sub Committee
The Chairperson of the Conveyancing
Practice Sub Committee, Nurul Muhaniza,
attended the following meetings to
highlight the concerns and problems faced
by conveyancers with the authorities:
16 Feb 2015: Meeting on Secured Land
Management System (SELAMAT);
22 Apr 2015: Meeting with the Kuala
Lumpur Federal Territory Department
of Lands and Mines; and
29 Apr 2015: Meeting with the
Selangor Lands and Mines Oce.
Selangor Bar Members Night
Meeting with the Director
of the Selangor Subordinate
Courts and Sub-Court Judges/
Magistrates
The Selangor Bar Committee attended a
meeting with the Director of the Selangor
Subordinate Courts on 15 May 2015.
The meeting was chaired by YA Datuk Wira
Mohtarudin b Baki, Managing Judge of the
Sub-Courts in Selangor, and held with Datin
Siti Mariam bt Haji Othman in her capacity
as the Director of the Selangor Subordinate
Courts. The meeting recorded good
attendance from the Bench comprising
approximately 50 Magistrates and Judges
from almost all sub-courts in Selangor.
Selangor Law Shield 2015
The Selangor Bar hosted the inaugural
Selangor Bar Shield, on 5 and 6 June
2015, at Persada PLUS, Subang.
The Selangor Law Shield pits the Selangor
Bar against the Selangor Judiciary team in
sporting events such as Bowling, Soccer,
Futsal (men and women), Volleyball,
Badminton, and Netball.
The Selangor Bar was declared the overall
winner of the tournament. The games
ended with a closing ceremony and lunch,
also hosted by the Selangor Bar.

The Selangor Bars first social event for 2015

was Members Night, which was held at
Lake Club View, Subang Jaya on 16 May
2015. The Selangor Bar celebrated 60 years
in style, and enjoyed a good turnout of almost
300 members.
The highlights of the evening were the
performance by Michael Jackson, a Michael
Jackson dance competition, and lucky draws.
During the meeting, the Selangor Bar
Committee highlighted issues and
grievances faced by members, including the
delay in extractions of e-filing documents, The badminton team
striking out cases, judicial temperament, and
so forth. With regard to criminal practice,
the Committee raised matters such as the
refusal of judicial ocers to meet lawyers
and deputy public prosecutors in chambers,
and trial proceedings without counsel.

Civil and Criminal Meet-Up

On 11 June 2015, the Selangor Bar
hosted a Civil and Criminal Meet-up
at the cafeteria of the Shah Alam High
Court. The purpose of this was to gather
feedback and issues/complaints directly
from Members of the Bar in relation to the
Really into the Michael Jackson vibe! courts in Selangor.
Chinese New Year Open House
The Selangor Bar Committee ushered in Chinese New Year 2015 with an open house on 6
Mar 2015. The event was fully sponsored by members of Selangor Bar, and the Selangor
Bar Secretariat building was transformed with Chinese New Year trimmings and decorations.
Happy victors!
Breaking Fast with
Underprivileged Children
For the first time, the Selangor Bar hosted a
breaking-fast event with 100 underprivileged
children from four orphanages, on 3 July 2015.
The children are from Rumah Amal Limpahan
Kasih (Puchong), Rumah Amal Kasih Bestari
(Kg Melayu Subang), Rumah Amal Al-Firdaus
(Denai Alam, Shah Alam), and Shelter Home
(Petaling Jaya). This event was fully sponsored
by Selangor Bar members.

There was an abundance of food and the lion dance troupe made its way right up to the third
floor of the secretariat building.

Delighted children at the event

Ushering the New Year with lion dance Members and children take a group photo

70 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 NEW APPOINTMENTS

Attorney General of Malaysia

Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi b Haji Ali

Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi was born on 11 Feb
1950 in Kota Bharu, Kelantan. He received his LLB (Hons)
degree from the University of London in 1972, is a barrister-
at-law of the Inner Temple London, and pursued studies at the
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London.

Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi has vast experience
in the legal field. He served as a Magistrate at the Kuala
Terengganu Magistrates Court from 1973 to 1975; and as a
Director of the Legal Aid Bureau for the State of Kelantan from
1975 to 1977. From 1977 to 1980, he was appointed a Deputy
Public Prosecutor for the State of Kelantan and Terengganu.
In 1980, his career took him to serve in Kuala Lumpur, as Legal
Adviser for the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

In 1982, Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi returned

to legal practice, establishing his firm, Apandi Ali & Co, and
serving as an advocate and solicitor till 2003.

On 1 May 2003, he was appointed a Judicial Commissioner at

the High Court of Malaya in Kuantan. He was next elevated
as a High Court Judge of Malaya in Kuantan, serving in that
capacity from 21 Dec 2004 to 14 February 2007.

He was next transferred to Kuala Lumpur, serving as High

Court Judge of Malaya from 15 February 2007 till 13 Apr 2010.
His final appointment before his appointment as the ninth
Attorney General of Malaysia was as Judge of the Court of
Appeal, in Putrajaya, on 14 Apr 2010.

Tan Sri Dato Sri Haji Mohamed Apandi is married to Puan Sri
Datin Sri Dato Faridah Begum bt KA Abdul Kader, and they
are blessed with seven children.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 71

 NEWS

Malaysia News
Mohamed Apandi Replaces Gani Patail
as Attorney-General
Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patails tenure as Attorney-General
has been terminated with immediate effect, due to health
reasons. According to Chief Secretary to the Government,
Tan Sri Dr Ali Hamsa in his statement, former Federal Court
Judge, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, has been appointed
the new Attorney General, effective on 27 July 2015.

According to the statement, Tan Sri Abdul Gani would

continue to serve as Judicial and Legal Service Officer until
his mandatory retirement on 6 October this year.

The termination however comes in the midst of a high-profile probe led by Tan Sri Abdul Gani on troubled state investor 1Malaysia Development
Berhad (1MDB). This investigation has also put allegations against Prime Minister Dato Sri Najib Razak in the spotlight.

Tan Sri Abdul Gani, in his capacity as Attorney General, had led a Special Task Force which incorporates the police, the Malaysian Anti-
Corruption Commission (MACC) and Bank Negara Malaysia.

This Task Force sprang into action, raiding offices and making arrests following a Wall Street Journal report on 3 July that alleged the deposit of
US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) in 1MDB-linked funds into the Prime Ministers personal accounts over the past two years, an allegation that the
Prime Minister has denied. ~ Adapted from The Star/The Straits Times

Malaysian PM reshuffles cabinet, dumps deputy after 1MDB criticism

Prime Minister Dato Sri Najib Razak reshuffled the Cabinet on Tuesday (28 July 2015), dropping his Deputy and four other Ministers.

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin fell out of favour and was dropped days after publicly calling on the Prime Minister to satisfactorily
explain the scandal enveloping 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB). He is replaced by former Home Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid
Hamidi.

Dato Sri Najib claimed that the unity of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition would be strengthened, as it prepares for elections in 2018.

In a related development, the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index (KLCI) fell by 10.06 points at the end of trading, hours after Dato Seri Najib
announced the Cabinet reshuffle. ~ Adapted from Reuters/Malay Mail Online

Trowers & Hamlins is First to
Receive Qualified Foreign
Law Firm Licence in
Malaysia
In April 2015, Trowers & Hamlin became
the the first foreign law firm to be granted a
Qualified Foreign Law Firm (QFLF) licence
in Malaysia. Licences for QFLFs are valid
for a three-year period and are renewable.
Trowers & Hamlins announced on its
website that the QFLF licence will allow
[the firm] to operate independently in
Malaysia and advise on international legal
issues, subject to certain restrictions, and
follows numerous years of working with
Malaysian clients on their activities outside
Malaysia.
Prior to being awarded this licence, the firm
had operated a non-trading representative
regional office in Kuala Lumpur since mid-
2012.
The Edge files for Judicial
Review over Ban
An application has been filed by The Edge
Media Group to seek a judicial review of
the Home Ministrys decision to ban two of
its publications, at the Kuala Lumpur High
Court.
The Home Ministry had suspended The
Edge Weekly and The Edge Financial
Daily, for three months, beginning 27 July.
The Edge believes that the suspension
of the permits is a result of its report on
1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
~ Adapted from The Star
IGP: Cops Back Death
Sentence Review, But
Total Scrapping a Step
Backward
Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri
Khalid Abu Bakar said the police supports a
review of the mandatory death sentence for
drug-related offence, but stopped short at
calling for its abolition.
In an interview with The Star, the IGP said that
abolishing the death sentence would sent the
wrong signal to drug dealers, and is equivalent
to taking a step backward in the war against
drugs. He also noted that the police preferred
to keep the death sentence as an option in
courts.
This statement was in contrast to the view of
Former IGP, Tun Hanif Omar, who was quoted
to back a complete review of the death penalty
for drug offences, as the death sentence had
failed to deter people from taking the risk.

The firms regional managing partner, Nick Even Minister in the Prime Ministers
White, and firm partner, Nick Edmondes, Department, Datuk Paul Low had called for
are registered to practise as foreign lawyers the death sentence for drug offence to be
in their Kuala Lumpur office. reviewed. ~ Adapted from Malay Mail Online

72 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 NEWS

Regional News
India Executes Man Convicted in 1993 Bombings
India executed Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai bombings, by hanging at the Nagpur Central Jail.

Yakub Memon was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Kathmandu in 1994, and had been in prison since. In July
2007, Memon was sentenced to death for orchestrating the bombings that included a horrific attack on the Bombay Stock Exchange.

In March 2013, Memons death sentence was upheld by the Indian Supreme Court. In upholding his sentence, the Court stated
that Memons actions were carried out with utter disregard to human life and dignity which justifies the rare imposition of the death
penalty. ~ Adapted from JURIST

US Human Trafficking Report under Fire as Cuba and Malaysia are Upgraded

The removal of Cuba and Malaysia from the US State Departments list of countries categorically failing to respond to widespread human
trafficking, has led to criticism of the United States. Both countries have been upgraded from tier 3 in the 2015 Trafficking in Persons
(TiP) report.

Cubas sudden upgrade to tier 2, after 12 years on tier 3, came after the reopening of the US embassy in Havana and the re-establishment
of diplomatic relations after 50 years of estrangement.

Malaysia, on the other hand, was upgraded to tier 2, after spending a year on tier 3. The upgrade removes a potential barrier to finalising
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a huge US-led free trade deal with Malaysia and the rest of the members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This is because countries on tier 3 are theoretically barred from fast-tracked trade deals. Malaysia
has, over the past year, been accused of widespread forced labour in its electronics industry, as well as trafficking, in its palm oil industry.

International outcry followed Malaysias upgrade, with the discovery of 139 graves in jungle trafficking camps near the border with
Thailand. The camps were found to have held thousands of stateless Rohingya migrants to ransom. The US State Department
responded by saying that the camps were only discovered after the cut-off for evidence-gathering for the TiP report. ~ Adapted from
The Guardian

International Arbitration is on Boy Scouts Lifts Ban on Gay Burnout and Stress Hit 73% of
the Rise Leaders Lawyers

As corporates look to keep costs down,
arbitration is increasing globally, particularly
in relation to government disputes.
In 2013, the London Court of International
Arbitration dealt with 301 cases, a rise of
more than 5% of the numbers handled
in 2009 at the litigation peak of the
financial crisis. Meanwhile, the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
handled 259 cases in 2013, as opposed to
just 160 cases in 2009.
It was the reverse however, in Sweden, as
the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce (SCC) saw cases
fall from 216 in 2009 to 203 last year.
According to Pinsent Masons, which
put together the analysis, the rise of
international arbitration could partly be
due to multinationals preferring to settle
disputes with governments rather than
challenging them in the courts. ~ Adapted
from Financial Times/The Global Legal
Post
Openly gay individuals are now allowed
to serve as leaders and employees of the
Boy Scouts of America (BSA), as the
National Executive Board of BSA voted to
amend its leadership policy.
BSA pointed out that while adult leaders
could still be chosen based on their
religious beliefs, it is committed to
prohibiting a policy that discriminates
against gay adults. Seventy-nine percent
of the executive board voted in favour
of the resolution, which took effect
immediately. ~ Adapted from JURIST
A survey of 1,000 UK partners, associates
and trainees found long hours as the main
cause of burnout and stress (58% of
respondents), followed by difficult clients
(38%) and constant interruptions (35%).
The survey results published in The
Lawyer also noted that difficult bosses
and strained relationships with peers were
among the common problems. Young
lawyers in their 20s were found to be the
most stressed, while the happiest were
those in their 30s.
The survey also pointed out that having
constant access to emails on laptops,
mobile phones, as well as tablets, made it
difficult for people to switch off from work.
~ Adapted from thelawyer.com

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 73

 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
Continuing Professional Development: The United
Kingdom Perspective
The Bar Council Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) Department
Director, Santhi Latha, conducted an
email interview with Julie Brannan,
Committee Secretary and Solicitors
Regulation Authority (SRA) Director
of Education and Training regarding
the development and progress of the
CPD scheme for solicitors in the United
Kingdom. The interview serves as
part of the ongoing eort of the CPD
Department to evaluate the value of
CPD on the legal profession.
All solicitors and registered European
lawyers (RELs) in legal practice or
employment in England and Wales are
required to comply with the SRAs CPD
requirements. According to the United
Kingdom Law Society website, CPD is
the training requirement set by the SRA
to ensure that all solicitors and RELs
maintain competence.
The CPD requirement may be met by a
variety of means, including undertaking
a course, lecture, seminar or other
programme or method of study, whether
requiring attendance or not, as long
as it can be established that it is at an
appropriate level and contributes to the
general professional skill and knowledge
of the solicitor.
The website further establishes that,
All solicitors and RELs in their first
CPD year and in each subsequent year
must complete 16 hours of CPD per
year, which runs from 1 November to 31
October each year.
The scheme was introduced in the
mid-1980s on terms that were agreed
to by the Law Society Council at the
time. The focus was to ensure that
solicitors should keep up to date with
developments in the law, explained
Brannan.
When asked about whether there was
resistance from members and how this
was dealt with, Brannan highlighted,
In order to cater to the variety of
practitioners, transitional arrangements
were put in place so that the senior
members would not be required
to participate in the CPD scheme
74 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
straightaway. This clearly allowed
the scheme to be developed primarily
focused on the junior solicitors and to
put in place training and structures that
would cater to their needs.
In the context of the current operation
of the scheme, before the new structure
was implemented, compliance includes:
a requirement for compulsory
participation in the Law Society
Management Course Stage 1;
diering levels of requirements for
newly qualified solicitors, part-time
solicitors and RELs;
suspensions and waivers that may
be applicable; and
completion of training records.
In explaining the enforcement of the
scheme, Brannan said, Members had
to keep a training record and the Law
Society monitored a proportion of them.
Solicitors have to make an annual
declaration as part of their practice
certificate renewal that they had
complied with the requirement. Under
the old approach, solicitors had to do 16
hours CPD on an annual basis. Until 1
Nov 2014, 25% of this had to be training
which we accredited. The requirement
for accredited training has already been
removed.
Brannan highlighted that the
requirements have since changed,
Under the new approach, solicitors
must reflect on their competence
by reference to the proposed new
Competence Statement for solicitors
and address any learning needs which
they identify. There is no separate
CPD scheme. The new approach
to continuing competence is tied to
Principle 5 of the Code of Conduct,
which requires solicitors to provide
a proper standard of service. A note
to Principle 5 will make clear that one
requirement of rule 5 is that solicitors
must comply with the provisions of the
competence statement.
When asked why the decision was made
to make this shift to the new scheme,
Brannan explained, We wanted to
focus our regulation on assuring
competence rather than specifying
training requirements. Doing 16 hours
CPD was no guarantee that solicitors
were competent. There was no reason
to think that 16 hours was the right
amount of training for everyone for
some it might be too much, for others
not enough. We wanted to encourage
solicitors to connect the training they
were doing to the needs of their job.
As part of encouraging solicitors to
identify their specific training and
education requirements, the current
scheme advises members to identify
and analyse their individual training
needs, and to discuss these with the
firm they are working with. Members
are then directed to take advantage of
the wide range of activities the scheme
oers, in order that they may stay up to
date with changes in the law and the
profession, in accordance with their
practice needs.
The scheme focuses on the fact that
participation will enhance credibility, and
will allow members practice to remain
commercially competitive.
According to the Law Society website,
the current structure requires that 25%
of the CPD requirements are met by
participation in courses (attendance at
training events of one hour or more),
and the remaining 75% may be attained
by participation in other activities such
as participation in non-accredited
courses, working toward professional
qualifications, listening to or watching
audio/visual material provided by
authorised providers, distance learning,
writing on law and practice, development
of specialist areas of law, preparing for
and delivering training courses, and a
host of other activities.
An interesting aspect of this includes
an activity called work shadowing
where CPD points may be claimed from
the member shadowing or following
someone in their work role for a period
of time, for the purpose of enhancing
their performance, on the basis that the
work shadowing must be structured,
have clear aims and objectives, and
requires feedback and reflection about
the shadowing activity.
 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
In discussing the resistance the With reference to the new scheme,
scheme has faced in the past, Brannan Brannan highlighted that, The new
explained, There has been opposition approach was introduced on a voluntary
to the implementation of the scheme. basis from 1 Apr 2015 and will become
We consulted fully and took all views mandatory from 1 Nov 2016. We
into account. But ultimately the SRA recognise this is a culture shift, so we
board felt the new approach was more are supporting solicitors with an online
eective at assuring competence. toolkit of resources.
When asked whether sanctions for
non-compliance had been imposed in
the past, Brannan pointed out that in
practice, there are no sanctions.
Santhi Latha
Bar Council

Report on CPD Cycle 2: 1 July 2014 30 June 2016

Data presented is based on information provided by organisers, that was processed and recorded as at 30 June 2015 by the
CPD Department. This data may be subject to adjustment/modification from time to time, based on updates provided by the
dierent providers. A total of 449 attendance records out of 584 events have been received to date until 30 June 2015. A total
of 135 events are pending receipt of the attendance data from organisers and has not been included.

Data presented is based on recorded data for 16,373 Members as at 30 June 2015.

Data of Number of Events Organised by Bar Council/State Bar Committees

Organiser Cycle 2 88

Bar Council 88
Johore 20
Kedah 5
Kelantan 4
Kuala Lumpur 45
Malacca 8
Negeri Sembilan 7
Pahang 4
45
Penang 16
Perak 8
33
Perlis 3
29
Selangor 33
Terengganu 0 20 19
PSDC Advocacy 4 16
Training 13
8 8
CPD Regional 13 5
7
Training Series 4 4 3 4
2
iCPD 2 0

Online Training 19
er al ur
em ca
Pa lan
Pe ng
Jo cil
Ke re
Ku Ke dah
Lu tan

Pe g
Pe k
Re Ad T Sel rlis

al ac gg r
ai ra u

Se g
in i s
G rain D
Tr ing
ng
on c en o
ra

rie
Tr y T an
n

ng in

YB e T CP
ho

eg M p

gi vo er ang
n

i S ac

ha
na

ni
bi

ni in
al lan
m
ou

ai

YBGK Training 29
rC

K
Ba

Total 308
nl
O
N

PD C
C PSD

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 75

 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
Data of Number of Participants at Events Organised by Bar Council/State Bar Committees

Organiser Cycle 2 Bar Council 3,287

Bar Council 3,287 Johore 1,208

Johore 1,208 Kedah 156

Kelantan 0
Kedah 156
Kuala Lumpur 2,121
Kelantan 0
Malacca 433
Kuala Lumpur 2,121
Negeri Sembilan 65
Malacca 433
Pahang 0
Negeri Sembilan 65 Penang 428
Pahang 0 Perak 461
Penang 428 Perlis 0

Perak 461 Selangor 1,528

Terengganu 0
Perlis 0
PSDC Advocacy Training 81
Selangor 1,528 805
CPD Regional Training Series
Terengganu 0 105
iCPD
PSDC Advocacy Training 81 Online Training 380

CPD Regional Training Series 805 YBGK Training 909

iCPD 105
Online Training 380
YBGK Training 909
Total 11,967

Data of Number of Events Organised by Provider Categories

Accredited Courses Cycle 2

Commercial course 80 13
266
providers
International 0 29
organisations
Government 22
organisations
Academic institutions 10
Non-governmental 5
organisations
Professional bodies 19
In-house legal training 140 80

Legal Aid Centre 29

140
CPD Regional Training 13
19 22
Series
10
Bar Council, State 266 0
Bars including
Advocacy Training and 5
Online Training Commercial course providers Professional bodies
International organisations In-house legal training
Total 584
Government organisations Legal Aid Centre
Academic institutions CPD Regional Training Series
Non-governmental organisations Bar Council, State Bars including
Advocacy Training and Online Training

76 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
Data of Number of Participants at Events Organised by Provider Categories

Accredited Cycle 2
Courses
Commercial 2,473
course
providers 10,253

International 0
organisations
Government 13
organisations 805

Academic 38
institutions
909
Non- 47
governmental
organisations
Professional 263
1,353
bodies
2,473
In-house legal 1,353
training
Legal Aid 909
Centre
CPD Regional 805
Training Series 263
47
0 13
Bar Council, 10,253
State Bars
including
Advocacy
Commercial course providers Professional bodies
Training and
Online Training International organisations In-house legal training
Government organisations Legal Aid Centre
Total 16,154
Academic institutions CPD Regional Training Series
Non-governmental organisations Bar Council, State Bars including
Advocacy Training and Online Training

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 77

 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD)
Data of Member Participation Based on Attainment of CPD points

No of CPD No of
Points Members
487
only
353
1 115
275
2 167 222
167 180 165 168
3 222 144
133 132 123
4 180 115
128 128 129 132
5 128 115 114
98 91
6 133
7 128
8 132
9 129 Total Members who have attained one CPD point or more: 3,599 which amounts to 21.98% of total
Member participation
10 165
Total number of Members who have attained 16 or more CPD points on Cycle 2 based on recorded
11 123 data: 1,415
12 98
(Note that Zero CPD point attainment is not reflected in the graph above)
13 144
14 114
15 115
16 91
17 (17-20) 353
18 (21-30) 487
19 (31-40) 275
20 (41-50) 132
22 (more 168
than 50
points)
Zero CPD 12,774
points
Total 16,373

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/

78 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

New Admissions to the Malaysian Bar

(As at time of publication)
DATE CALLED 33 Nuradhilla Binti Mazlan Adnan Sundra & Low 17-Apr-15
NO NAME FIRM NAME
TO THE BAR Hafarizam Wan & Aisha
34 Nurshafiqa Balqish Binti Jaffri 15-May-15
1 Chiam Sheng Lwuan Abdullah & Teoh 26-Feb-15 Mubarak
2 Adil Safwan Bin Ahmad Shaffie Azman & Affendy 30-Jan-15 Khairul Azman &
35 Nursyahida Binti Zulkifli 15-May-15
3 Aina Nadirah Bt Mohd Yusof Kumari Palany & Co 27-Aug-14 Partners
Azlina Abdul Aziz & S Rasadurai &
4 Aisyah Bte Samsudin 17-Apr-15 36 Nurul Liyana Binti Azmin 17-Apr-15
Associates Associates
5 Amyra Nadia Binti Zolkifle Tay Ibrahim & Partners 15-May-15 37 Nurulhidayu Binti Jamari Abdul Haris & Co 23-Apr-15
6 Anne Sangeetha A/p Sebastian Satha & Co 29-May-15 Chambers of Wijdan &
38 Ommunajah Binti Ramli 10-Apr-15
7 Arina Ong Xin Yi Tan Law Practice 15-May-15 Nor Hatina
8 Chai Yang Yu Halim Hong & Quek 15-May-15 39 Ong Siew Ming S Y Lai & Associates 21-Nov-14
9 Daljit Singh a/l Harjit Singh Jasdev Chambers 5-Dec-14 40 Rachelle Tan Shook Lin & Bok 19-Sep-14
10 Dzulqarnain Bin Ab Fatar Illiayas 15-May-15 41 Salina Binti Hamzah Hari Abu Bakar & Jagjit 20-Mar-15
11 Elizabeth Goh Huay Ling 6-Mar-15 42 Shaarenya A/p Gurasekeran Raja Darryl & Loh 29-May-15
12 Eugene Teo Chang Haryaty 20-Mar-15 Shabina Begum Binti Shabir The Chambers of
43 27-Feb-15
13 Farah Izzati Binti Suhaini Sharina Husin & Co 9-Apr-15 Ahmad Waran
Fathin Nadia Binti Muhammad 44 Shahemie Faizul Bin Mohd Fuad Che Mokhtar & Ling 29-May-15
14 Hisham Sobri & Kadir 3-Apr-15
Fauzi Azman Wan Helmi &
45 Shamella Naidu A/p Arumugam 30-Apr-14
15 Jeremy Lim Kim Jin Yeow & Salleh 29-May-15 Associates
16 Lai Wan Chen HK Ang & Partners 9-Jan-15 Sharifah Fatiha Binti Sy
46 Kumari Palany & Co 18-Sep-14
17 Lisa-Premee Davis Anad & Noraini 15-May-15 Mohamad
Soon Gan Dion & 47 Sherilyn Ooi Su Ying Zul Rafique & Partners 15-May-15
18 Michelle Oh Xue Qi 15-May-15
Partners 48 Siti Hajar Binti Zainuddin Sahril, Niza & Co 15-Aug-14
Mohamad Syazwan Shah Bin 49 Siti Norshila Binti Jamil Zeffree Azmi 6-Mar-15
19 Jenny Yap & Associates 3-Apr-15
Mohamad Ali 50 Syazni Nadzirah Binti Ya'cob Raha Yasin & Co 6-Mar-15
Mohammad Nor Zikry Bin Azim, Tunku Farik & 51 Tasnim Binti Omar Arif & Hakim 9-May-14
20 29-May-15
Mohamad Wong S.L.Leong, Kartina &
52 Tay Hao Jie 24-Oct-14
Mohd Amirul Faliq Bin Mohd Athi Seelan Mahathir Partners
21 17-Apr-15
Faizal And Partners 53 Tham Giap Chi Teh & Lee 17-Apr-15
22 Mohd Azrul Hafizie Bin Zakaria Lin Coln & Co 15-May-15 54 Toh Chen Hsiang Joseph Ting & Co 29-May-15
23 Mohd Nuradzwan Bin Rodzi Yusran Zain & Co 26-Jun-14 55 Umaira Binti Ramlee Zailan & Associates 29-May-15
24 Muhamad Firdaus Bin Mokhtrar Benjamin Dawson 15-May-15 Wan Nurul Eliana Binti Haslee
56 Suhaimi Yahya & Co 17-Apr-15
The Law Chambers of Sharil
25 Muhammad Ashran Bin Roslan 18-Jul-14
Hedzril 57 Winnie Ho Sook Fun Khong & Son 15-May-15
Muhammad Ezwar Rusydan Bin J S Pillay & Mohd
26 Hisham Sobri & Kadir 17-Apr-15 58 Yang Boon Hang 17-Apr-15
Mohd Basir Haaziq
27 Muhammad Firdaus Bin Adnan Rosli Kamaruddin & Co 25-Jan-15 Lee Hishammuddin
59 Yeoh Keat Ming 12-Dec-14
The Chambers of Allen & Gledhill
28 Noor Nabilah Binti Norzam 27-Feb-14
Waran 60 Yong Wei Sang Foong & Partners 17-Apr-15
Azwani Rahman & 61 Yuki Foo Hwan Sin Tay & Helen Wong 15-May-15
29 Norfaruqi Bin Norazman 23-Apr-15
Norfaruqi Zulaikha Aini Binti Mohamed
62 Y H Teh & Quek 29-May-15
30 Nur Aidil Maria Binti Nazir Kington Tan Dzul 29-May-15 Khair Johari
31 Nur Hannaani Binti Zainal Bahrin Hafiza & Co 23-Aug-13
Yau Lap Ho & Nicole
32 Nur Hidayah Binti Anuar 27-Feb-15
Yong

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 79

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

List of Departed Members

(As at time of publication)
SIL R/576 Rosni Haida Binti Mat Rifin 9 Sept 2015
ANNUAL DEPARTED MEMBERS DATE OF DEATH J/217 Juriyah @ Juraiyah Bt Jamaludin 10 Sept 2015
NO S/1377 Satgurunathan Nagalingam 12 Sept 2015
A/94 Abdullah Bin Ngah 1-Mar-15 K/113 Khoo Phaik See 26 Sept 2015
M1230 Mohd Azmil Bin Md Zain 5-May-15 W/147 Wan Nik Bin Wan Ismail 6 Oct 2015
A/256 Ajit Kumar Hastir 26-May-15 A/964 Alias Bin Abdullah 9 Oct 2015
S/581 Selayamany A/L Muniandy 13-Jul-15 M/251 Mohamad Sabri Bin Pin 10 Oct 2015
S/932 Santharan Ganapathi 4-Aug-15 B/160 Balakisnan A/L Appalanaido 19 Oct 2015
N/61 Nadarajan Rengasamy Pillay 8-Aug-15 S/76 K Sothinathan A/L Kanagasingam 24 Oct 2015
A/523 Ahmad Bin Kemin 21 Aug 2015 R/421 Ravi A/L Muniandy 27 Oct 2015

Notice Regarding Bar Council Circulars and

E-Blasts
The 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 five
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 send an email to us at webreg@malaysianbar.
Members, to keep you informed of important org.my or contact us by telephone at 03-2050
developments aecting the legal profession, as 2021.
well as information on events and benefits 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

Summary of Circulars
(April to September 2015)
Circular No 067/2015 | Jurisk! June & December 2014: Communicate, Cooperate, Circular No 114/2015 | Requirement of Work Permit for Members Who Appear in High Court
Collaborate! of Sabah for Labuan Matters
Access this circular for more details. Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 073/2015 | Arahan Amalan Bil 2 Tahun 2015 | Pembekalan Fakta Kes Circular No 115/2015 | Request for Feedback on Islamic Financial Services Act 2013
bersama Waran Memenjarakan kepada Pihak Penjara bagi Kes-kes yang Layak Access this circular for more details.
Diparol
Circular No 120/2015 | Accountants Report 2014
Access this circular for more details.
Pursuant to section 79 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, sole proprietors or partners
Circular No 076/2015 | Arahan Penempatan Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah are required to submit the Accountants Report 2014 in respect of the client accounts
Tinggi Bil 1/2015 maintained during the year 2014 for the issuance of Sijil Annual 2016, unless exempted
Access this circular for more details. pursuant to rule 6 of the Accountants Report Rules 1990. Access this circular for more
details.
Circular No 084/2015 | Arahan Amalan Hakim Besar Malaya Bilangan 1 Tahun 2015 |
Pengendalian Kes-Kes Jenayah Jalanan Secara Fast Track di Mahkamah Rendah Circular No 122/2015 | Public Statement by Financial Action Task Force on Money
Malaya Laundering on 27 Feb 2015
Access this circular for more details. Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 087/2015 | 2015 Hotel Corporate Rates Circular No 124/2015 | Request for Feedback on Issues Relating to Goods and
As a Member of the Bar, you are entitled to enjoy preferential hotel corporate rates secured Services Tax
by Bar Council. We are pleased to provide you with an updated list of 2015 corporate rates Access this circular for more details.
for a wide selection of 100 hotels nationwide, to suit your accommodation needs. Access
Circular No 125/2015 | Placement of Clients Monies in Repo Transactions
this circular for more details.
Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 091/2015 | Arahan Pentadbiran Berkenaan Pengendalian Kes-Kes Jenayah
Circular No 128/2015 | Requirement by Banks for Letter of Undertaking from Law
Jalanan Secara Fast-Track Di Mahkamah Rendah Malaya
Firms
Access this circular for more details.
Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 095/2015 | Professional Indemnity Insurance: Amendments to the 2015
Circular No 135/2015 | Renewal of Group Term Life Insurance Policy with AIA Bhd for
Certificate of Insurance
the 2015/2016 Term
Access this circular for more details.
Bar Council renewed the Group Term Life Insurance Policy with AIA Bhd with eect from 1
Circular No 104/2015 | Implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) for Foreclosure July 2015, with the annual insurance premium maintained at RM50 per Member of the Bar.
Proceedings and Public Auctions for Immovable Properties at the High Court of Malaya Access this circular for more details.
Access this circular for more details.

80 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
Circular No 148/2015 | Role and Scope of the Bar Council Conveyancing Practice Circular No 194/2015 | Applications for Refund of Filing Fees for Cases Filed Through
Committee the Court E-Filing System
Access this circular for more details. Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 151/2015 | Request for Feedback on Issues Relating to Conveyancing Circular No 197/2015 | Sijil Annual 2016
Practice Pursuant to part III of the Legal Profession Act 1976, Practising Certificate and Sijil Annual
Access this circular for more details. shall be renewed annually by every advocate and solicitor. Access this circular for more
details.
Circular No 156/2015 | Jurisk! June 2015: Establish! Enhance! Improve! Or Risk Falling
Through Circular No 202/2015 | Resolution Adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the
Access this circular for more details. Malaysian Bar on 12 Sept 2015
Access this circular to view the resolution adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting of
Circular No 157/2015 | Invitation to Participate as Mentee in the Mentor-Mentee
the Malaysian Bar on 12 Sept 2015.
Programme
Access this circular for more details. Circular No 203/2015 | Launch of E-Compound Verification Service on Companies
Commission of Malaysia's Website
Circular No 148/2015 | Role and Scope of the Bar Council Conveyancing Practice
Access this circular to view the adopted resolutions.
Committee
Access this circular for more details. Circular No 205/2015 | Arahan Pertukaran Yang Arif Hakim / Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman
Mahkamah Tinggi Bil 2/2015
Circular No 164/2015 | 2016 Professional Indemnity Insurance Renewal | Premium,
Access this circular for more details.
Terms and Conditions
Access this circular for more details. Circular No 208/2015 | Invitation to Apply as Chairman of Industrial Court of Malaysia
Access this circular for more details.
Circular No 181/2015 | #getAsli Fundraising Dinner 2015 (8 Dec 2015)
Organised by the Bar Council Committee on Orang Asli Rights, this event will be held at Circular No 209/2015 | New Version of E-Filing Component
6:30 pm to 11:00 pm, at Grand Ballroom, Sunway Resort Hotel & Spa, Persiaran Lagoon, Access this circular for more details.
46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, on 8 Dec 2015 (Tuesday). Tickets are priced at RM250 per
ticket or RM2,500 per table (inclusive of 6% GST). Access this circular for more details.

The list above highlights some of Bar Councils 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.

General Information on Matters Discussed at Bar

Council Meetings
(April to September 2015)
Issuance of Licence for a Qualified Foreign Law Firm
Pursuant to the amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976, and the Legal Profession (Licensing of International Partnerships and Qualified Foreign Law Firms and Registration of Foreign Lawyers)
Rules 2014, which came into force on 3 June 2014, foreign law firms and foreign lawyers are now permitted to practise in Peninsular Malaysia in the manner set out in the legislation and the Rules.
Licences may thus be issued to foreign law firms to operate either an International Partnership with a Malaysian law firm, or as a Qualified Foreign Law Firm (QFLF). Alternatively, a Malaysian law
firm may choose to employ a foreign lawyer.
The Bar Council has approved the application by Trowers & Hamlins LLP for a licence valid for a three-year period to operate as a QFLF and to practise in the permitted practice areas.
The Bar Council has also granted certificates of registration valid for one year to two partners of Trowers & Hamlins LLP to practise in the permitted practice areas in the Malaysian office of
the QFLF.
Please visit the Malaysian Bar website at www.malaysianbar.org.my, and refer to the Foreign Lawyers section under the Resources tab, for more information regarding the liberalisation of legal
services.
Special Committee of the Bar Council 2015/2016
As a result of the substantial expansion in the work of the Bar Council over the years, a Special Committee of the Bar Council has been set up to assist the Bar Council in its deliberations, pursuant
to section 58 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
The Bar Council has appointed M Ramachelvam (Pahang Bar), Khaizan Sharizad Ab Razak (Kuala Lumpur Bar) and Raphael Tay Choon Tien (Kuala Lumpur Bar) to serve on this Special Committee
for the 2015/2016 term.
Members of the Special Committee are entitled to contribute to discussions of the Bar Council but are not entitled to vote in respect of Bar Council matters where a vote may be required.
Broker for the Malaysian Bar's Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme 2016/2017
Bar Council conducted an open tender exercise in April 2015 to appoint a broker for the Malaysian Bar's Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme 2016/2017. After reviewing proposals submitted
by two brokers, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd was reappointed as the broker. Bar Council will commence negotiations on policy terms and conditions soon.
Accreditation of Foreign Mediators by the Malaysian Mediation Centre
Bar Council has decided that foreign mediators may be accredited as mediators on the panel of mediators for the Malaysian Mediation Centre. The definition of professional person in the guidelines
for accreditation will be amended accordingly to include foreign persons.
Injunction Sought by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah Against the Malaysian Bar
On 23 June 2015, the High Court dismissed the Malaysian Bars application to set aside the ex parte injunction granted to Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, which prohibited the Bar from discussing a
motion relating to his conduct that had been tabled for the Bars Annual General Meeting on 14 Mar 2015. The High Court had simultaneously allowed the inter partes injunction sought by Muhammad
Shafee Abdullah. There was no order as to costs. The Bar Council has instructed its solicitors to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Case management for the suit, which is premised on defamation as a cause of action, has been fixed for 28 July 2015.
Reference Proceedings in Memory of Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh (4 Sept 2015)
Reference proceedings in memory of the late Karpal Singh s/o Ram Singh will be held on 4 Sept 2015 (Friday) at 10:00 am, at the Penang Court Complex, Penang.
2016 Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme Approved
Bar Council has approved the terms and conditions for the 2016 Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Scheme. The premium for 2016 has been maintained at RM1,140 per Member, which is the
same premium rate since 2013.
For more details, please refer to Circular No 164/2015 dated 14 Aug 2015, entitled 2016 Professional Indemnity Insurance Renewal | Premium, Terms and Conditions.
On 17 June 2015, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd, the broker for the PII Scheme, sent an email to all law firms requesting the firms to nominate an authorised person to submit the 2016 PII online
proposal form. This is a prerequisite to access the online renewal system. To renew your PII online, go to www.PRAKTIS.com.my.
Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (12 Sept 2015)
At its Special Meeting on 21 Aug 2015, the Bar Council decided to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the Malaysian Bar on 12 Sept 2015 (Saturday).
The matters for discussion at the EGM will include the reports of interference with the ongoing investigation into the flow of funds from SRC international Sdn Bhd (a former subsidiary of 1MDB),
and the transfer of RM2.6 billion into the Prime Minister's private bank accounts, as well as the steps that the Malaysian Bar should take to affirm and uphold the rule of law, and to prevent the
administration of justice from being perverted.

The list above highlights some items featured in Bar Councils 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.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 81

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

Library Update
(1 Apr 2015 to 30 June 2015)
BILLS 2014 PRINCIPAL ACTS 2015
TITLE PUBLICATION DATE ACT NO: TITLE

Animal Welfare Act 2015 [DR.19/2015] 13 April 2015 ACT 767 PUBLIC SECTOR HOME FINANCING BOARD ACT 2015
An Act to establish and incorporate the Public Sector Home Financing Board, to
Allied Health Professions Act 2015 [DR.24/2015] 18 June 2015 provide for its functions and powers, and for matters connected therewith.
w.e.f.: - N.Y.F
Anti-Tracking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) 9 April 2015
Act 2015 [DR.18/2015] ACT 768 TECHNOLOGISTS AND TECHNICIANS ACT 2015
An Act to provide for the establishment of the Malaysia Board of Technologists
Armed Forces (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.23/2015] 18 June 2015 and for the registration and recognition of Professional Technologists and Certified
Technicians in providing technology services and technical services and for related
Capital Markets and Services (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.16/2015] 9 April 2015 matters.
w.e.f.: - N.Y.F
Chemists (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.1/2015] 30 March 2015 ACT 769 PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2015
An Act to provide for the prevention of the commission or support of terrorist acts
Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.26/2015] 18 June 2015 involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign
country and for the control of persons engaged in such acts and for related matters.
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.25/2015] 18 June 2015 w.e.f.: - N.Y.F

Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.9/2015] 2 April 2015 ACT 770 SPECIAL MEASURES AGAINST TERRORISM IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ACT 2015
An Act to provide for special measures to deal with persons who engage in the
commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a
Development Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.20/2015] 21 May 2015 foreign country or any part of a foreign country and for related matters.
w.e.f.: - 15.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 250/2015]
Electricity Supply (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.11/2015] 18 June 2015
ACT SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY (2014) ACT 2015
Evidence (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.12/2015] 3 April 2015 A1482 An Act to apply a sum from the Consolidated Fund for additional expenditure for the
service of the year 2014 and to appropriate that sum for certain purposes for that year.
Judges Remuneration (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.21/2015] 18 June 2015 w.e.f.: 5.6.2015

Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015 [DR.13/2015] 9 April 2015

Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.4/2015] 2 April 2015

AMENDING ACTS 2011
Police (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.22/2015] 18 June 2015 ACT NO: TITLE

Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.8/2015] 2 April 2015 ACT A1407 LEMBAGA PEMBANGUNAN INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA (AMENDMENT) ACT
2011
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 [DR.10/2015] 2 April 2015 Notes: - Amends ss.2,3,4,11,15,20,21,22,23,24, heading of Part.VI, ss.25,26,27,29,30,31,
Part VII (ss.32-33B), s.34, Part IX (ss.35-35W), ss.37, 38, 40, Sch.3.
Prison (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2015 [DR.5/2015] 2 April 2015 - Inserts new ss.25A, Part VIIA (ss.33C-33F), s.34A, Part VIIIA (ss.34B-34E), ss.38A, 38B,
38C, 39A and Sch.4
w.e.f.: 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 232/2015]
Public Sector Home Financing Board Act 2015 [DR.2/2015] 30 March 2015

Securities Commission (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.14/2015] 9 April 2015

AMENDING ACTS 2012
Security Oences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Act 2015 2 April 2015
[DR.7/2015]
ACT NO: TITLE
Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 [DR.17/2015] 9 April 2015
ACT A1415 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2012
Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act 2015 2 April 2015 Notes: - Amends ss.3,6,7B,8A,16N,16Q,16AD and 24
[DR.6/2015] - Inserts new s.18A
w.e.f.: 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 234/2015]
Supplementary Supply (2014) Act 2015 [DR.3/2015] 26 March 2015

AMENDING ACTS 2013

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2013
ACT NO: TITLE
ACT 757 STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013
An Act to provide for the proper maintenance and management of buildings and
common property, and for related matters.
Notes:- Repeals Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act
2007 [Act 663]
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 231/2015] In the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan,
Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Terengganu, Perak, Perlis and Selangor.
w.e.f.: - 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 237/2015] In the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the
Federal Territory of Labuan and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya.
w.e.f.: - 12.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 248/2015] In the States of Penang
ACT NO: TITLE
ACT A1450 STRATA TITLES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2013
Notes: - Amends preamble by substituting for the words and the Federal Territory of
Putrajaya the words the Federal Territory of Putrajaya and the Federal Territory of Labuan.
- Amends ss.2,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,(heading of Part IV),
ss.20,21,22,25,26,27,28,31,36,37,38,57, 81,Sch.5.
- Inserts new ss.4B,8A,9A,9B,17A,19A,20A,20B,Sch.6
- Deletes ss.10A,10B,14A,22A,22B,Part VII (s.39-s.55A), Part IXA (s.67A-
s.67X),ss.76,77,78,Schs.2,3
w.e.f.: 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 238/2015] All sections except s.22 In the States of Johore,
Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and
Terengganu
w.e.f.: 1.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 239/2015] All sections except s.22 - In the Federal Territory
of Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Territory of Putrajaya and the Federal Territory of Labuan

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2014

AMENDING ACTS 2015
ACT NO: TITLE
ACT NO: TITLE
ACT SUPPLY ACT 2015
A1469 An Act to apply a sum from the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2015 and ACT A1483 PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015
to appropriate that sum for the service of that year. Notes: - Amends s.130J
w.e.f.: - 31.12.2014 - Inserts new ss.130FA,130FB,130JA,130JB,130JC,130JD,130TA
w.e.f.: 15.6.2015 [P.U.(B) 252/2015]
ACT A1484 PREVENTION OF CRIME (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015
Notes: - Amends long title by inserting after the words secret societies the words ,
terrorists, ss.2,3,4,7B,9,15,15A,19A,19C,19E,19F,21,23
- Inserts new s.19G
w.e.f.: N.Y.F

82 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
ACT A1485 SEDITION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 110/2015
Notes: - Amends ss.2,3,4,6,10 CUSTOMS DUTIES (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2015
- Inserts new ss.5A,6A,10A Issued under s.14(1), Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.: N.Y.F Notes:- Amends Sch., Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2013, [P.U.(A) 371/2013]
w.e.f.:- 11.6.2015
ACT A1486 PRISON (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ACT 2015
Notes: - Amends s.7
w.e.f.: N.Y.F CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 112/2015
CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS OF ASEAN COUNTRIES ORIGIN) (ASEAN
HARMONISED TARIFF NOMENCLATURE AND ASEAN TRADE IN GOODS
ACT A1487 SECURITY OFFENCES (SPECIAL MEASURES) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 AGREEMENT) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2015
Notes: - Amends ss.5,6,13,14,20,22,24,Sch.1 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
- Inserts new ss.18A,18B Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Customs Duties (Goods of ASEAN Countries Origin)
w.e.f.: 15.6.2015 [P.U.(B)251/2015] (ASEAN Harmonised Tari Nomenclature And ASEAN Trade In Goods Agreement)
Order 2012, [P.U.(A) 277/2012]
ACT A1488 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015
w.e.f.:- 11.6.2015
Notes: - Amends ss.2A,23A,56
w.e.f.: N.Y.F
DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51] 126/2015
DENTAL (REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE PERIOD) ORDER 2015
ACT A1489 SECURITIES COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 Issued under para.49(1)(c), Dental Act 1971
Notes: - General amendment: Amends by inserting after the words Securities Commission Notes:- The Minister grants a reduction from the public service period required
wherever appearing the word Malaysia including in the long title, short title, Parts and under section 48 of the Act from three (3) years to one (1) year to any dental
shoulder notes of the principal Act. practitioners registered on and after 1 July 2015
- All references to the Securities Commission Act 1993 in any written law or document w.e.f.:- 19.6.2015
shall, when this Act comes into operation, be construed as references to the Securities
Commission Malaysia Act 1993
- The Securities Commission established under section 3 of the principal Act shall, when EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (DISCIPLINE) ACT 1976 [ACT 174] 124/2015
this Act comes into operation, be known as the Securities Commission Malaysia EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (DISCIPLINE) (AMENDMENT OF FIRST
- Amends ss.2,2A,2G,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,20,21,22,22A,23,24,26,29,30,31A, SCHEDULE) ORDER 2015
31B,31C,31D,31E,31EA,31L,heading of Division 4 of Part IIIA, ss.31N,31O,31P,31Q,31R, Issued under s.22(2), Educational Institutions (Discipline) Act 1976
31V,31W,31Y,31Z, 31ZD,126,135,148,150,150A,151A,152A,160,Sch.1 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Educational Institutions (Discipline) Act 1976
- Inserts new ss.4A,4B,18A, Part IIIB (ss.31ZE,31ZF,31ZG,31ZH),Part IIIC w.e.f.:- 16.6.2015
(ss.31ZI,31ZJ,31ZK,31ZL,31ZM, 31ZN,31ZO,31ZP),ss.148A,148B,160A
- Deletes ss.31S,151 EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1969 [ACT 4] 108/2015
w.e.f.: N.Y.F EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY (GENERAL) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS
2015
Issued under s.105, Employees Social Security Act 1969
Notes:- Amends reg.32., Employees Social Security (General) Regulations 1971,
LATEST INDEX TO P.U.(A) SERIES 2015 [P.U.(A) 99/1971]
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015
[P.U.(A) 54/2015 P.U.(A) 127/2015]
As at 30 June 2015
FARMERS ORGANIZATION ACT 1973 [ACT 109] 96/2015
FARMERS ORGANIZATION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2015
TITLE P.U.(A) NO Issued under s.35, Farmers Organization Act 1973
Notes:- General amendment:- substitutes for the words Minister of Agriculture and
ACCOUNTANTS ACT 1967 [ACT 94] 113/2015 Community Development of Sarawak wherever appearing the words Minister of
ACCOUNTANTS (AMENDMENT OF FIRST SCHEDULE) ORDER 2015 Modernisation of Agriculture of Sarawak
Issued under s.14(7), Accountants Act 1967 - Amends reg.35, Farmers Organization Regulations 1983, [P.U.(A) 303/1983]
Notes:- Amends Sch.1., Accountants Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 25.5.2015
w.e.f.:- 10.6.2015
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN(NS)885/1957] 117/2015
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] 119/2015 CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) (NO.2)
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULES 5,6,7 AND ORDER 2015
8) ORDER 2015 Issued under art.122AB(1), Federal Constitution
Issued under s.380, Capital Markets And Services Act 2007 Notes:- Tuan Dr. Haji Alwi bin Haji Abdul Wahab, Tuan Ahmad bin Bache, YBhg. Dato
Notes:- Amends Schs.5,6,7,8, Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 Mohd Firuz bin Jaril, Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali and Tuan Gabriel Gumis
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015 Humen are appointed to be Judicial Commissioners
w.e.f.:- For a period of two years from 10.4.2015
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] 118/2015
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (FEES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 64/2015
2015 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS)
Issued under para.378(2)(b), Capital Markets And Services Act 2007 (BUTTERWORTH OUTER RING ROAD) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
Notes:- Amends reg.10,Schs.1,5,6,7,9,10,11 and inserts new reg.11A,Sch.12, Capital Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
Markets and Services (Fees) Regulations 2012, [P.U.(A) 483/2012] Notes:- Amends para.2 and Sch.1, Federal Roads (Private Management) (Collection
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015 Of Tolls) (Butterworth Outer Ring Road) Order 2007, [P.U.(A) 12/2007]
w.e.f.:- 1.1.2014
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] 120/2015
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (NON-APPLICATION OF DIVISION 5 OF FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 63/2015
PART VI) (WHOLESALE FUND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (EAST
Issued under s.315, Capital Markets And Services Act 2007 COAST EXPRESSWAY PHASE 1) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
Notes:- Amends para.2, Capital Markets and Services (Non-Application of Division 5 Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
of Part VI) (Wholesale Fund) Order 2012, [P.U.(A) 477/2012] Notes:- Amends paras.2,3,4,Schs.1,2,3, deletes Schs.4,5,6 and 7, Federal Roads
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015 (Private Management) (Collection Of Tolls) (East Coast Expressway Phase 1) Order
2007, [P.U.(A) 250/2007]
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] 121/2015 w.e.f.:- 6.12.2011
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (PRIVATE RETIREMENT SCHEME
INDUSTRY) (FEES) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2015 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 65/2015
Issued under ss.139ZI and 139ZJ, Capital Markets And Services Act 2007 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS) (KUALA
Notes:- Amends Sch., Capital Markets And Services (Private Retirement Scheme LUMPUR-KARAK HIGHWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
Industry) (Fees) Regulations 2012, [P.U.(A) 211/2012] Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015 Notes:- Amends paras.2,3,Schs.1 and 2, Federal Roads (Private Management)
(Collection of Tolls) (Kuala Lumpur-Karak Highway) Order 1994, [P.U.(A) 369/1994]
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] 89/2015 w.e.f.:- 6.12.2011
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.2) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.5, Control of Supplies Act 1961 FEES ACT 1951 [ACT 209] 87/2015
w.e.f.:- 22.5.2015-2.6.2015 FEES (MEDICAL) (FULL PAYING PATIENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.3, Fees Act 1951
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 83/2015 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Fees (Medical) (Full Paying Patient) Order 2007, [P.U.(A)
CUSTOMS (AMENDMENTS) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2015 252/2007]
Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 20.5.2015
Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Customs Regulations 1977, [P.U.(A) 162/1977]
w.e.f.:- 6.5.2015 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762] 56/2015
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2015
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 111/2015 Issued under s.177, Goods and Services Tax Act 2014
CUSTOMS DUTIES (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER 2015 Notes:- Amends regs.19,34,40,45,47,80,94,113,Schs.1,3, and 4, Goods and Services
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 Tax Regulations 2014, [P.U.(A) 190/2014]
Notes:- Amends Sch.1., Customs Duties Order 2012, [P.U.(A) 275/2012] w.e.f.:- 30.3.2015 regs.2,7,8,9,10,11,12
w.e.f.:- 11.6.2015 1.4.2015 regs.3,4,5,6

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 98/2015 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762] 57/2015
CUSTOMS DUTIES (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015 GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (EXEMPT SUPPLY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.14(1), Customs Act 1967 Issued under s.18(2), Goods and Services Tax Act 2014
Notes:- Amends Sch., Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2013, [P.U.(A) 371/2013] Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Goods and Services Tax (Exempt Supply) Order 2014,
w.e.f.:- 29.5.2015 [P.U.(A) 271/2014]
w.e.f.:- 30.3.2015

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 83

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762] 59/2015 LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] 114/2015
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (RELIEF) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015 LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND STAMP
Issued under s.56, Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 DUTY) (NO.3) ORDER 2015
Notes:- Amends paras.3,5, and Sch.1, Goods and Services Tax (Relief) Order 2014, Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
[P.U.(A) 273/2014] Notes:- Any tax payable under the Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] and any stamp duty
w.e.f.:- 30.3.2015 payable under the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] in relation to the Commodity Murabahah
Term Financing-i Facility Agreement of up to one thousand five hundred million
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT 2014 [ACT 762] 58/2015 ringgit (RM1,500,000,000.00) or the guarantee provided or to be provided by the
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (ZERO-RATED SUPPLY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER Government of Malaysia on the Facility Agreement shall be remitted in full
2015 a) by the An Hwang Investment Bank Berhad (formerly known as HwangDBS
Issued under s.17, Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 Investment Bank Berhad), the An Islamic Bank Berhad and the Perbadanan
Notes:- Amends Schs.1 and 2, Goods and Services Tax (Zero-Rated Supply) Order Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional, to which the Act applies by virtue of the Loans
2014, [P.U.(A) 272/2014] Guarantee (Declaration of Bodies Corporate) (Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan
w.e.f.:- 30.3.2015 Tinggi Nasional) 2004 [P.U.(A) 408/2004], as the parties to the Facility Agreement;
and
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) ACT 1966 [ACT 118] 106/2015 b) by any party to whom the Facility Agreement is transferred or assigned.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) w.e.f.:- 9.6.2015
REGULATIONS 2015
Issued under s.24, Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 MEDICAL ACT 1971 [ACT 50] 54/2015
Notes:- Amends regs.2,4,5,8,11,13, Schs. G,H,I and J, and deletes reg.11A, Housing MEDICAL (SETTING OF EXAMINATION FOR PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION)
Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, [P.U.(A) 58/1989] REGULATIONS 2015
w.e.f.:- 1.7.2015 Issued under para.12(1)(aa) and s.36, Medical Act 1971
Notes:- Revokes Medical (Setting of Examination for Provisional Registration)
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) ACT 1966 [ACT 118] 104/2015 Regulations 2012, [P.U.(A) 251/2012]
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT) - These Regulations shall apply to any person who holds a qualification referred to in
(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2015 subparagraph 12 (1)(a)(ii) of the Act
Issued under s.24, Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 w.e.f.:- 26.3.2015
Notes:- General amendment: Amends in the national language text by substituting for
the word fee wherever appearing the word fi. MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS ACT 1969 [ACT 2] 60/2015
- Amends regs.1A,3A,4A,7,8,9,11,11A,12A,12B,and 12C, Housing Development MINISTERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NO.2) (AMENDMENT) ORDER
(Housing Development Account) Regulations 1991, [P.U.(A) 231/1991] 2015
w.e.f.:- 2.6.2015 Issued under s.2, Ministerial Functions Act 1969
Notes:- Amends Sch., Ministers of The Federal Government Order (No.2) 2013,
IMMIGRATION ACT 1959/63 [ACT 155] 66/2015 [P.U.(A) 184/2013]
IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS (WANG KELIAN FREE FLOW ZONE) w.e.f.:- 16.5.2013 para.2(a)(iii)
(EXEMPTION) (REVOCATION) 2015 27.6.2014 All paras except para.2(a)(iii)
Issued under s.55, Immigration Act 1959/63 and s.4, Passports Act 1966
Notes:- Revokes Immigration and Passport (Wang Kelian Free Flow Zone) (Exemption) NATIONAL ARCHIVES ACT 2003 [ACT 629] 84/2015
Order 2009, [P.U.(A) 243/2009] NATIONAL ARCHIVES (FEES) REGULATIONS 2015
w.e.f.:- 1.4.2015 Issued under s.45, National Archives Act 2003
Notes:- Revokes Malaysian National Archives (Fees) Regulations 2005, [P.U.(A)
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 61/2015 292/2005]
INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) (NO.3) ORDER 2015 w.e.f.:- 11.5.2015
Issued under para.127(3)(b), Income Tax Act 1967
Notes:- Exempts any person from the payment of income tax in the basis period for NATIONAL LAND CODE [ACT 56/1965] 99/2015
a year of assessment in relation to gains or profits derived, in lieu of interest, from the NATIONAL LAND CODE (SURVEY FEES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015
sukuk wakala in accordance with the principle of Wakala Bil Istithmar. Issued under s.10, National Land Code
- Section 109 of the Act shall not apply to the income exempted under this Order. Notes:- Amends Sch., National Land Code (Survey Fees) Order 1965, [L.N. 486/1965]
w.e.f.:- y/a 2015 w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967 [ACT 177] 85/2015 NETTING OF FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS ACT 2015 [ACT 766] 55/2015
INDUSTRIAL COURT (DIGITAL RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS) RULES 2015 NETTING OF FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS (PERIOD OF STAY) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.28, Industrial Relations Act 1967 Issued under s.7(1), Netting of Financial Agreements Act 2015
w.e.f.:- 15.5.2015 w.e.f.:- 30.3.2015

LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 2010 [ACT 715] 95/2015 PASSPORTS ACT 1966 [ACT 150] 66/2015
LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT [COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD IMMIGRATION AND PASSPORTS (WANG KELIAN FREE FLOW ZONE)
(RATES OF FARE) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) RULES 2015] REGULATIONS 2015 (EXEMPTION) (REVOCATION) 2015
Issued under s.252(1)(t), Land Public Transport Act 2010 Issued under s.4, Passports Act 1966 and s.55, Immigration Act 1959/63
Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (Rates of Fare) Rules Notes:- Revokes Immigration and Passport (Wang Kelian Free Flow Zone) (Exemption)
2000, [P.U.(A) 242/2000] Order 2009, [P.U.(A) 243/2009]
w.e.f.:- 23.5.2015 w.e.f.:- 1.4.2015

LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ACT 2010 [ACT 715] 122/2015 PORT AUTHORITIES ACT 1963 [ACT 488] 123/2015
LAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT (FEES FOR REMOVAL AND DETENTION OF PORT KELANG AUTHORITY (SCALE OF RATES, DUES AND CHARGES)
RELEVANT VEHICLE) REGULATIONS 2015 (AMENDMENT) BY-LAWS 2015
Issued under s.81(3) and para.252(1)(s), Land Public Transport Act 2010 Issued under ss.16 and 29, Port Authorities Act 1963
w.e.f.:- 13.6.2015 Notes:- Amends Sch.3 and inserts new by-law 37A, Port Kelang Authority (Scale of
Rates, Dues and Charges) By-Laws 2012, [P.U.(A) 125/2012]
LEMBAGA PEMBANGUNAN INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA ACT 1994 [ACT 101/2015 w.e.f.:- 1.9.2015
520]
LEMBAGA INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) POSTAL SERVICES ACT 2012 [ACT 741] 78/2015
REGULATIONS 2015 POSTAL SERVICES (LICENSING) REGULATIONS 2015
Issued under para.37(2)(i) and s.38C, Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Issued under paras.100(a) and (h), Postal Services Act 2012
Malaysia Act 1994 w.e.f.:- 15.4.2015
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015
POSTAL SERVICES ACT 2012 [ACT 741] 77/2015
LEMBAGA PEMBANGUNAN INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA ACT 1994 [ACT 102/2015 POSTAL SERVICES (UNIVERSAL SERVICE) REGULATIONS 2015
520] Issued under s.5(2), paras.100(d) and (f), Postal Services Act 2012
LEMBAGA PEMBANGUNAN INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA (SERVICE OF w.e.f.:- 15.4.2015
NOTICE) REGULATIONS 2015
Issued under para.37(2)(c), Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia Act PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 90/2015
1994 PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM
Notes:- Revokes Construction Industry (Prescribed Notice) Regulations 1997, [P.U.(A) PRICE) (NO.2) ORDER 2015
116/1997] Issued under s.4, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015 w.e.f.:- 22.5.2015 31.5.2015

LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] 86/2015 PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 92/2015
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND STAMP PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM
DUTY) (NO.2) ORDER 2015 PRICE) (NO.3) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965 Issued under s.4, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011
Notes:- Any tax payable under the Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] shall be remitted w.e.f.:- 24.5.2015 2.6.2015
in full by any of the individual or entity in respect of any money payable under
any agreement, note, instrument and document in relation to the product, facility, PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 125/2015
programme and guarantee referred to in paragraph 4. PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM
- Any stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] in respect of any PRICE) (NO.4) ORDER 2015
agreement, note, instrument and document in relation to the product, facility, Issued under s.4, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011
programme and guarantee referred to in paragraph 4 shall be remitted in full. w.e.f.:- 1.7.2015
w.e.f.:- 15.5.2015
PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 79/2015
PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (MARKING OF SERVICE CHARGE
FOR HOTEL AND RESTAURANT) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.10, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011
w.e.f.:- 1.5.2015

84 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 91/2015 PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 115/2015
PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (PRICE MARKING OF PRICE- PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE
CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO.2) ORDER 2015 PUBLICATIONS) (NO.11) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.10, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
w.e.f.:- 22.5.2015 31.5.2015 Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue,
circulation, distribution or possession of Sakit Apakah Ubatnya? Penelitian Daripada
PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING ACT 2011 [ACT 723] 93/2015 Al-Quran Dan Hadis by Wan Md Jamal Bin Hj. Wan Md Saman, 55 Dongeng
PRICE CONTROL AND ANTI-PROFITEERING (PRICE MARKING OF PRICE- Teladan Untuk Anak Muslim by MB. Rahimsyah.AR, Misteri Aneh dan Ganjil
CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO.3) ORDER 2015 Bukti Keagungan Allah by Abu Talhah Iqamuddin and Misteri Aneh dan Ganjil 2:
Issued under s.10, Price Control And Anti-Profiteering Act 2011 Membongkar Kewujudan Makhluk Halus by Abu Talhah Iqamuddin are absolutely
w.e.f.:- 24.5.2015 2.6.2015 prohibited throughout Malaysia.
w.e.f.:- 10.6.2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 67/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 116/2015
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.2) ORDER 2015 PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 PUBLICATIONS) (NO.12) ORDER 2015
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
circulation, distribution or possession of Sebongkah Batu Di Kuala Berang, Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue,
Karbala, Tiga Kali Seminggu and Ingin Jadi Nasrallah by Faisal Tehrani are circulation, distribution or possession of Muhammad: A Story of Gods Messenger
absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. and the Revelation that Changed the World by Deepak Chopra, and The Golden
w.e.f.:- 2.4.2015 Laws: History through the Eyes of the Eternal Buddha by Ryuho Okawa are
absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia.
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 68/2015 w.e.f.:- 10.6.2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.3) ORDER 2015 RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT 2011 [ACT 725] 82/2015
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 RENEWABLE ENERGY (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE) ORDER 2015
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, Issued under s.63, Renewable Energy Act 2011
circulation, distribution or possession of KOMPLOT PENJARAKAN ANWAR: Najib Notes:- Amends Sch., Renewable Energy Act 2011
jatuh hukum, hakim ikut skrip by Zunar is absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 6.5.2015
w.e.f:- 7.4.2015
RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT 2011 [ACT 725] 88/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 69/2015 RENEWABLE ENERGY (AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE) ORDER 2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE CORRIGENDUM
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.4) ORDER 2015 Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 82/2015]
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 100/2015
circulation, distribution or possession of THE CONSPIRACY TO IMPRISON ANWAR: ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (CITY OF KUALA
Najib convicts, judges follow the script by Zunar is absolutely prohibited throughout LUMPUR) ORDER 2015
Malaysia. Issued under ss.70(1) and (2), Road Transport Act 1987
w.e.f.:- 7.4.2015 w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015

PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 70/2015 SAFEGUARDS ACT 2006 [ACT 657] 62/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE SAFEGUARDS (SAFEGUARD MEASURE) (AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN GOODS
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.5) ORDER 2015 UNDER THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, NATIONS AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA) REGULATIONS 2015
circulation, distribution or possession of Pirates of the Carry-BN by Zunar is Issued under s.40A(2), Safeguards Act 2006
absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 1.4.2015
w.e.f.:- 7.4.2015
STAMP ACT 1949 [ACT 378] 97/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 71/2015 STAMP DUTY (ADHESIVE STAMP) RULES 2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE Issued under para.82(a), Stamp Act 1949
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.6) ORDER 2015 w.e.f.:- 1.2.2009
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 [ACT 757] 107/2015
circulation, distribution or possession of Islam: Politik dan Spiritual by Hafidz STRATA MANAGEMENT (MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS
Abdurrahman is absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. 2015
w.e.f.:- 11.4.2015 Issued under s.150, Strata Management Act 2013
Notes:- Revokes any regulations made under the Building and Common Property
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 72/2015 (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, [Act 663]
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE w.e.f.:- 2.6.2015
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.7) ORDER 2015
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 [ACT 757] 103/2015
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, STRATA MANAGEMENT (STRATA MANAGEMENT TRIBUNAL) REGULATIONS
circulation, distribution or possession of In The Path Of God Islam And Political 2015
Power by Daniel Pipes is absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. Issued under s.124, Strata Management Act 2013
w.e.f.:- 11.4.2015 w.e.f.:- 1.7.2015

PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 73/2015 STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 [ACT 318] 105/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE STRATA TITLES (AMENDMENT OF FORMS) ORDER 2015
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.8) ORDER 2015 Issued under ss.4A(4) and 84, Strata Titles Act 1985
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 Notes:- Amends forms, Strata Titles Act 1985
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015
circulation, distribution or possession of English Translation of the Meanings of the
Holy Quran by The Message International USA, Saheeh International UK, Dar Al STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 [ACT 318] 127/2015
Mountada Saudi Arabia, Al Qummah Eqypt is absolutely prohibited throughout STRATA TITLES (FEDERAL TERRITORY OF KUALA LUMPUR) RULES 2015
Malaysia. Issued under s.81, Strata Titles Act 1985
w.e.f.:- 11.4.2015 Notes:- Revokes Strata Titles (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Rules 1988, [P.U.(A)
164/1988]
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 74/2015 w.e.f.:- 18.6.2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.9) ORDER 2015 STATUTORY BODIES (DISCIPLINE AND SURCHARGE) ACT 2000 [ACT 605] 94/2015
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 STATUTORY BODIES (DISCIPLINE AND SURCHARGE) (AMENDMENT OF FIRST
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, SCHEDULE) ORDER 2015
circulation, distribution or possession of Rahsia & Khasiat Huruf-Huruf Hijaiyyah Issued under s.23(3), Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000
(Siri Perubatan Islam) by Abu Al-Baqir Ad-Dusuqi (Ustaz Mohd Fadil bin Arin) is Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Statutory Bodies (Discipline And Surcharge) Act 2000
absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. w.e.f.:- 23.5.2015
w.e.f.:- 11.4.2015
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 80/2015
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 75/2015 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE (STATE OF MALACCA) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2015
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.10) ORDER 2015 Issued under paras.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 Notes:- Amends Sch., Water Services Industry (Rates for Water Supply Services)
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction, publishing, sale, issue, (State of Malacca) Regulations 2010, [P.U.(A) 372/2010]
circulation, distribution or possession of Pagar Hikmah Himpunan Amalan Tok w.e.f.:- 1.5.2015
Janggut by Haji Abdul Razak bin Kasman (Tok Janggut), Dunia Hikmat by Ali
Zulfakar and Amalan Hikmat & Rahsia Dari Al-Quran by Ustaz Kurdi Ismail Hj. Za are
absolutely prohibited throughout Malaysia. WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 81/2015
w.e.f.:- 11.4.2015 WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF NEGERI SEMBILAN) REGULATIONS 2015
Issued under paras.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006
w.e.f.:- 1.5.2015

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 85

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 76/2015 LEMBAGA PEMBANGUNAN INDUSTRI PEMBINAAN MALAYSIA (AMENDMENT) 232/2015
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (WATER RETICULATION AND PLUMBING) ACT 2011 [ACT A1407]
(AMENDMENT) RULES 2015 APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Issued under s.180, Water Services Industry Act 2006 Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Lembaga
Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Water Services Industry (Water Reticulation and Plumbing) Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2011
Rules 2014, [P.U.(A) 36/2014] w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015
w.e.f.:- 15.4.2015 All rules except paras. 2(a)(ii) and 2(b)(i)(B)
14.4.2017 Paras.2(a)(ii) and 2(b)(i)(B) NATIONAL LANGUAGE ACTS 1963/67 [ACT 32] 132/2015
PRESCRIPTION UNDER SECTION 6
Notes:- The Prime Minister prescribes that the authoritative text of the Special Measures
WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT 1952 [ACT 273] 109/2015 Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Bill 2015 to be introduced in the First Meeting of
WORKMENS COMPENSATION (FOREIGN WORKERS COMPENSATION the Third Session of the Thirteenth Parliament is the text in the English language.
SCHEME) (INSURANCE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2015 w.e.f.:- 31.3.2015
Issued under s.26(2), Workmens Compensation Act 1952
Notes:- Amends Sch., Workmens Compensation (Foreign Workers Compensation PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 [ACT A1483] 252/2015
Scheme) (Insurance) Order 2005, [P.U.(A) 45/2005] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
w.e.f.:- 10.6.2015 Notes:- 15 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Penal Code
(Amendment) Act 2015
w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015

LATEST INDEX TO SELECTED P.U.(B) SERIES 2015 PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] 188/2015
As at 30 June 2015 APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT
Notes:- The lock-up at the Kuala Terengganu Syariah Court, Terengganu to be a place
for the confinement of persons, remanded or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment,
TITLE P.U.(B) NO not exceeding one month.
w.e.f.:- 25.4.2015
CHILD ACT 2001 [ACT 611] 236/2015
APPOINTMENT OF HENRY GURNEY SCHOOL SECURITY OFFENCES (SPECIAL MEASURES) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2015 [ACT 251/2015
Notes:- The Minister appoints the area and all buildings surrounded by chain-link fences A1487]
situated on Lot 862, Block 4, Land District of Sentah Segu, Kuching, Sarawak and APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
designated as Henry Gurney School, Puncak Borneo, Kuching, Sarawak with eect Notes:- 15 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Security
from 1 June 2015 Oences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Act 2015
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015 w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF PENANG [FGS(NS)886/1957] 223/2015 SPECIAL MEASURES AGAINST TERRORISM IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ACT 2015 250/2015
APPOINTMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE YANG DI-PERTUA NEGERI OF THE [ACT 770]
STATE OF PENANG APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
w.e.f.:- For a term of two years with eect from 1 May 2015 Notes:- 15 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Special
Measures Against Terrorism In Foreign Countries Act 2015
COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504] 208/2015 w.e.f.:- 15.6.2015
NOTICE OF INITIATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH
REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF COLD ROLLED STAINLESS STEEL IN COILS, STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 [ACT 757] 231/2015
SHEETS OR ANY OTHER FORM ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM CHINESE APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
TAIPEI, FINLAND , FRANCE, HONG KONG, JAPAN, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Strata
CHINA, REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND SOCIALIST Management Act 2013 in the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri
REPUBLIC OF VIET NAM (AD 01/15) Sembilan, Pahang, Terengganu, Perak, Perlis and Selangor.
w.e.f.:- 29.4.2015 w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015

COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 [ACT 504] 207/2015 STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 [ACT 757] 237/2015
NOTICE OF INITIATION OF AN ANTI-DUMPING DUTY INVESTIGATION WITH APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
REGARD TO THE IMPORTS OF PREPAINTED, PAINTED OR COLOUR COATED Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Strata
STEEL COILS ORIGINATING OR EXPORTED FROM THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF Management Act 2013 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Territory of
CHINA AND SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIET NAM (AD 02/15) Labuan and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya.
w.e.f.:- 29.4.2015 w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) ACT 234/2015 STRATA MANAGEMENT ACT 2013 [ACT 757] 248/2015
2012 [ACT A1415] APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION Notes:- 12 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Strata
Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Housing Management Act 2013 in the State of Penang.
Development (Control And Licensing) (Amendment) Act 2012 w.e.f.:- 12.6.2015
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015
STRATA TITLES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2013 [ACT A1450] 238/2015
LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 [ACT 166] 247/2015 APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
NOTIFICATION UNDER SUBSECTION 76(1) Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Strata Titles
Notes:- a) The persons named in the Schedule have been appointed as members of the (Amendment) Act 2013 in the States of Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri
Bar Council and members of the State Bar Committees for the year 2015/2016; and Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Selangor and Terengganu except section 22.
b) Puan Cheah Yee Lynn, Karen has been elected as the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar. w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015
w.e.f.:- 12.6.2015
STRATA TITLES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2013 [ACT A1450] 239/2015
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 June 2015 appointed as the date of coming into operation of the Strata Titles
(Amendment) Act 2013 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Territory of
Putrajaya and the Federal Territory of Labuan except section 22.
w.e.f.:- 1.6.2015

NEW BOOKS

Abu Bakar Munir. Data protection law in Asia. Hong Kong: Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Limited, 2014.
Chew, Leslie. Introduction to the law and practice of arbitration in Singapore. Singapore: LexisNexis, 2010.
Chow, Kok Fong, Lim Chong Fong & Oon Chee Kheng. Adjudication of construction payment disputes in Malaysia: navigating the Construction Industry Payment and
Adjudication Act. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.
Chua, Annie. Malaysian GST legislation plus 2015: featuring key sectional commentary and cross-references. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015.
Core values of an eective judiciary. Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2015.
Das, Cyrus [Ed]. Employment and industrial relations law in Malaysia. Ampang: Malaysian Current Law Journal: Malaysian Society for Labour and Social Security Law, 2013.
Farid Sufian Shuaib, Tajul Aris Ahmad Bustami & Mohd Hisham Mohd Kamal. Administration of Islamic law in Malaysia: text and material. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis,
2010.
GST 360: a comprehensive compendium. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2015.
Intellectual property law guide 2013/14 from LexisNexis : the 1st annual guide to IP law in Asia. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2014.
Nik Norzrul Thani, Mohamed Ridza Abdullah & Megat Hizaini Hassan. Law and practice of Islamic banking and finance. Subang Jaya: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015.
R.C.I Anson Banks [Ed]. Lindley & Banks on partnership. 19th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
R.C.I Anson Banks [Ed]. Lindley & Banks on partnership: second supplement to the nineteenth edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013.
Sause, Jeanette Soderlund & Malin Edmar. Domain names: strategies and legal aspects. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2015.
Tang, Hang Wu, Micheal Hor & Koh Swee Yen. The practice of law. Singapore: LexisNexis, 2011.
Teo, Say Eng. Hak anda dan undang-undang. Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis, 2007.
The Malaysian judiciary yearbook 2014. Putrajaya: Chief Registrars Oce, Federal Court of Malaysia, 2015.
Verma, J.K. B.R. Ghaiyes Misconduct in employment: with specimen charge-sheet. 3rd ed. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2015.

86 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES

Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Councils Custody:

Legal Firms in which Bar Council has Intervened
(As at 28 Oct 2015)
When Bar Council intervenes in a legal firm pursuant to powers conferred by the Legal Profession Act 1976, it can take custody of documents that are
within the control or possession of the firm. Subsequently, Bar Council takes steps to notify clients and/or interested parties to collect their documents
within the stipulated time period. However, many documents are uncollected and remain in Bar Councils custody, such as those taken from the legal
firms listed below.

Clients or interested parties who wish to claim documents that relate to cases that were handled by these legal firms are advised to contact the Bar
Councils 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
As at 28 Oct 2015
Messrs Mohd Zawawi Amelda & Partners Messrs Bhaarathee & Associates Johore
Messrs C K Kow & Co Messrs Zainal Rashid & Partners Messrs Razak & Fakrul
Messrs Nazli Ghazali & Cheong Messrs Jaharberdeen & Ngo Messrs Baharuddin & Partners
Messrs Zaim Al-Amin & Assoc Messrs Jauhari & Assoc Messrs Rosli Rahman & Co
Messrs Su How & Co Messrs H K Teh & Assoc Messrs J L Lim & Co
Messrs M W Lian & Assoc. Messrs Sabri Nazli Lana & Azizan Messrs Mariam & Co
Messrs Zihin Shariff & Partners Messrs Penney Khoo Soh Ping & Co Messrs K Y Teo & Associates
Messrs Khalid Chung & Shankar Messrs Umar Baki & Co Messrs Wu & Co
Messrs Nordin Hamid & Co Messrs Cheong & Chong Negeri Sembilan
Messrs Raja Rohana & Co Messrs Hassan Kuldeep & Co Messrs M. Kuppusamy & Co
Messrs Abdullah-Haniff & Assoc Messrs Khalil Samsuni & Co Messrs Sasi Kumar & Assoc
Selangor Malacca Messrs S F Leow
Messrs Donald Lai & Associates Messrs Ang Kwee Thian & Associates Messrs Azizi Nizam & Anwar
Messrs Irzuan Messrs Tuah Hilmy & Hazudin Perak
Messrs Sajali & Co Messrs Parthan & Associates Messrs J S Olikh & Co
Messrs J M Zain & Associates Messrs YC Pok & Zurina Messrs Ravi Nair Maideen & Assoc.
Messrs Loh & Co Messrs Ganesan Mariapan & Co Messrs Mohd Azhar & Co
Messrs Bagia Sri Devi & Co Pahang Kedah/Perlis
Messrs Noi Messrs Yum Ng & Stanley Messrs Jamaludin Amin & Co
Messrs Zubaidah Mukhtar Ahmad Messrs Zul & Co Penang
Messrs S. Letchumanan & H. Nizam Messrs Zachery & Co Messrs A J Hamzah & Co
Messrs Khoo Chye Beng & Assoc

List Of Struck Off Members Wherein Appeal/

Reinstatement Allowed
Reinstatement
NO MEMBER DATE OF ORDER REMARKS Practice Status

1. Mohamad b Ibrahim 27 Jan 1996 30 Mar 2015 Application for reinstatement allowed by the High Court

Note:
In possession of SA/PC 2015

Disciplinary Orders
(April to August 2015)
FINED Josephine A/P Puspanathan 18 Apr 2015 5,000
NAME ORDER DATED FINED (RM) (J/332)
Ashokvijay J Sanghrajka (A/843) 17 Apr 2015 2,000 Yong Chee Kheong (Y/286) 18 Apr 2015 3,000
Dennis Lim Kian Ser (L/179) 17 Apr 2015 1,000 Abdul Razak Bin Jamaludin 14 May 2015 5,000
Kong Kai Jye (K/967) 17 Apr 2015 1,000 (A/787)
Ling Yoke Hooi (L/779) 17 Apr 2015 3,000 Bavani A/P M. Sooriamoorthy 14 May 2015 10,000
Ritish Kumar Nandy A/L Milon 17 Apr 2015 50,000 (B/112)
Nandy (R/426) Chin Choi Choo (C/358) 14 May 2015 30,000
Voo Petter (V/36) 17 Apr 2015 3,000 K Bagia Sri Devi A/P 14 May 2015 10,000
Firdaus Bin Mohd Yusoff (F/391) 18 Apr 2015 3,000 Krishnamoorthi (K/778)
Kamarudin B Md Yusof (K/298) 14 May 2015 10,000

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 87

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
Mohd Husni B Osman (M/481) 14 May 2015 5,000 Abdul Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz 14 Aug 2015 3,500
Mohd Rafiq Bin Zakaria (M/1851) 14 May 2015 1,000 (A/941)
Mohd Taufik Bin Md Tahir 14 May 2015 5,000 Adibah Azila Binti Suhaimi 14 Aug 2015 3,000
(M/1306) (A/1996)
Nasrul Amili Bin Abdullah 14 May 2015 10,000 Afiana Binti Husin (A/1572) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
(N/1366) Ahmad Farouq Bin Kamaruddin 14 Aug 2015 1,000
Raymond Chu Hon Fai (C/915) 14 May 2015 500 (A/1928)
Shahril B Lamin (S/233) 14 May 2015 5,000 Aldamier Bin Hadjikain (A/1199) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Sritharan A/L K Govindan (S/895) 14 May 2015 5,000 Anuar Bin Che Ahmad (A/799) 14 Aug 2015 1,000
Wan Faridah Hanim Binti Wan 14 May 2015 1,500 Arif Lokman Bin Ubaidah (A/1033) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Abdul Kadir (W/167) Armiy Rais Bin Ahmad 14 Aug 2015 4,000
William Edwin S/O Edwin John 14 May 2015 15,000 Sharifuddin (A/813)
(W/348) Augustin Nicholson (A/224) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Pathmanathan A/L Ramasamy 16 May 2015 5,000 Cara Yasmin Binti Kamaruddin 14 Aug 2015 3,000
(P/157) (C/1459)
Paul Krishnaraja A/L Selladurai 15 May 2015 1,000 Choong Fui-Yu (C/1307) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
(P/137) Engku Saifuddin Bin Ku Ajid 14 Aug 2015 2,500
Salvaraju A/L Kanniah (S/1365) 15 May 2015 3,000 (E/78)
Smita S Lakhiani (S/1885) 15 May 2015 2,500 Hidayatul Manna Binti Mohd Noor 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Uma Parvathy A/P R Thothathri 15 May 2015 2,000 (H/864)
(U/32) Jeffri Cheong Siu-Kong (J/487) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Harjit Singh Sandhu (H/486) 19 June 2015 10,000 Khalilah Binti Abdul Rasip (K/730) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Hong Kim Piow (H/108) 19 June 2015 5,000 Kua Ying-Xin (K/1112) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Justin Hong Shiung Leong (J/495) 19 June 2015 1,000 Lee Beal Seng (L/710) 14 Aug 2015 4,000
Mohd Faizal Bin Hassan (M/1193) 19 June 2015 1,000 Lily Farizon Binti Karim (L/1640) 14 Aug 2015 5,000
Roslie Bin Sulle (R/775) 19 June 2015 20,000 Lim Sze Chan (L/1944) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Silvaraju A/L Ramu (S/331) 19 June 2015 30,000 Mohammad Faizal Bin Marzuki 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Sumathi Shanmugam (S/527) 19 June 2015 6,000 (M/1582)
Tang Jay Son (T/774) 19 June 2015 4,000 Mohammad Imran Bin Adam 14 Aug 2015 2,500
Wong Yoke Cheng (W/450) 19 June 2015 1,000 (M/1293)
Yap Ooi Lye (Y/535) 19 June 2015 8,000 Mohd Hanif B Abdul Rahman 14 Aug 2015 4,000
Md. Zahar Bin Ngah (M/797) 20 June 2015 20,000. Further ordered (M/378)
to make restitution to the Mohd Nasrul Bin Md Nor 14 Aug 2015 3,000
complainant the sum of (M/1941)
RM32,000 within one Mohd Syahril Bin Daud (M/1849) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
month from date of Order Muhamad Anwar Bin Zamree 14 Aug 2015 3,000
and in default thereof the (M/1854)
respondent shall pay a Muhammad Afiq Bin Mohamad 14 Aug 2015 3,000
further fine of RM10,000 Noor (M/1994)
being the increased Muhammad Nazir Bin Mohd Nazri 14 Aug 2015 3,000
penalty pursuant to section (M/2331)
103D(5) of the LPA. Narziah Binti Naziri (N/1863) 14 Aug 2015 1,000
Daud Bin Asmoni (D/106) 24 July 2015 3,000 Norliza Binti Rosley (N/1983) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Lai Tak Soon (L/687) 24 July 2015 5,000 Normala Binti Ismail (N/2426) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Mohd Sahal Bin Baharom (M/693) 24 July 2015 50,000. Further ordered Norsyamimi Binti Bukhari 14 Aug 2015 3,000
to make restitution to the (N/2626)
complainant the sum of Nur Hidayatul Khzarina Binti 14 Aug 2015 3,000
RM212,200 within one Mohd Khalid (N/2143)
month from date of Order Nur Safirah Binti Sobri (N/1885) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
and in default thereof the Nurul Nadia Akmar Binti 14 Aug 2015 500
respondent shall pay a Baharudin (N/2480)
further fine of RM25,000 Razairul Haffiz Bin Md Razib 14 Aug 2015 3,000
being the increased (R/904)
penalty pursuant to section Roger Bin Stimin (R/952) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
103D(5) of the LPA. Siti Hidayah Binti Abdullah 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Nor Arfaiza Binti Abd Halim 24 July 2015 10,000 (S/2776)
(N/1436) Suhaimi B Baharudin (S/415) 14 Aug 2015 3,000
Lee Yin Shaiur (L/955) 25 July 2015 5,000 Tiew Way Keng (T/1149) 14 Aug 2015 2,500
Mohd Allaudin Bin Mat Nor 25 July 2015 2,000 Toh Poh Leng (T/1096) 14 Aug 2015 2,000
(M/1109) Yong Seluwati Binti Alias (Y/492) 14 Aug 2015 2,000
Prathiba A/P Samikanno (P/292) 25 July 2015 3,000 Zaida Binti Che Bali (Z/467) 14 Aug 2015 500
Tini Suhaila Binti Othman (T/1146) 25 July 2015 2,000 Zamaludin Bin Abdullah (Z/431) 14 Aug 2015 3,000

88 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
Abdul Roni B Abd Rahman 15 Aug 2015 4,000 STRUCK OFF
(A/407) NAME ORDER DATED
Ahmad Fahmi Yahya Bin Osman 15 Aug 2015 3,000 Abdul Halim Bin Yahya (A/1127) 14 May 2015
(A/1177) Hazlan Bin Abd Hamid (H/403) 14 May 2015
Azlan Bin Nimat (A/1017) 15 Aug 2015 3,500 Mohd Busyairy Bin Che Muda (M/1317) 14 May 2015. Further ordered to make
Balkis Farhana Binti Othman 15 Aug 2015 1,000 restitution to the complainant the sum
(B/270) of RM5,000 within one month from date
Hazlinda Binti Abdul Hamid 15 Aug 2015 3,000 of Order.
(H/583) Rokhsah Bt Abd Aziz (R/451) 14 May 2015. Further ordered to make
Khairulazwan Bin Alias (K/870) 15 Aug 2015 1,000 restitution to the complainant the sum
Mohd Fadzil Bin Mohd Yussof 15 Aug 2015 500 of RM28,604.50 within one month from
(M/1369) date of Order.
Mohd Khairul Zaman Bin Ahmad 15 Aug 2015 1,000 Wan Ilias Bin Wan Ahmad (W/350) 14 May 2015. Further ordered to make
Tajuddin (M/2042) restitution to the complainant the sum of
Nithiya A/P Thiahhan(N/1955) 15 Aug 2015 3,000 RM189,719.50 within one month from
Noor Asyikin Binti Md Rodhi 15 Aug 2015 3,000 date of Order.
(N/2734) Aida Zulaiza Binti Yem Ahmad (A/989) 19 June 2015. Further ordered to make
Noor Sheila Afeeza Binti Ramli 15 Aug 2015 1,000 restitution to the complainant the sum
(N/2147) of RM8,000 within one month from date
Noorazlina Binti Noordin (N/1080) 15 Aug 2015 3,000 of Order.
Nurhayati Binti Zakaria (N/1629) 15 Aug 2015 3,000 K. Anandaraj A/L Krishnasamy (A/357) 19 June 2015
Pamela Marie A/P Jerome 15 Aug 2015 3,000 Murali Achan A/L P. E. Achan (M/299) 19 June 2015
Anthony (P/495) Nazariah Bt Abbas (N/136) 25 July 2015. Further ordered to make
Shaiful Omar B Ahmad (S/266) 15 Aug 2015 3,000 restitution to the complaint the sum of
Wong Chim Yiam (W/384) 15 Aug 2015 1,000 RM390,331.30 within one one month
Yeo Lay Hoon (Y/627) 15 Aug 2015 10,000 from date of Order.
Yuzain Bin Md Razak @ Mohd 15 Aug 2015 3,500
SUSPENDED
Yusof (Y/359)
NAME ORDER DATED
REPRIMANDED
Bavanee A/P Subramaniam (B/247) 16 May 2015. Suspended for five years
NAME ORDER DATED with effect from 21 days from date of
Leena A/P V Singam (L/961) 17 Apr 2015 Order and to expire on 5 June 2020.
Rosalind Josephine Lim Poh Choo (L/1329) 14 May 2015 S. Bhaskar A/L Subramaniam (S/2366) 14 August 2015. Suspended for five
Jeeva Kumar A/L Marimuthu (J/269) 14 May 2015 years with effect from 21 days from date
Mohd Fikri Bin Abd Rahman (M/1287) 14 May 2015 of Order and to expire on 3 Sept 2020.
Nooraizan Binti Idris (N/1264) 15 May 2015
Outcome of Appeals against Disciplinary Orders
Suzaini Bt A Aziz (S/429) 15 May 2015
Vivekanandan A/L AMS Periasamy (V/51) 14 May 2015 1) Lian Meng Wah (L/679)
Jarir Jafni Bin Haron (J/527) 19 June 2015 Struck o by Order dated 19 May 2011. High Court dismissed Lian Meng Wahs
Azmer B. Md Saad (A/914) 20 June 2015 appeal on 4 Oct 2011. Court of Appeal also dismissed his appeal on 19 Jan
Foo Hiap Siong (F/388) 20 June 2015 2015.

Mohd Yaacob B (M/311) 20 June 2015

Tuinthanathan A/L Jagarasah (T/939)
You Lou Yuh (Y/328)
Zulkepli Bin Omar (Z/152)
Abd. Rahim Bin Mohamed (A/529)
Mohd Norazam Bin Majid (M/1159)
Nurul Liyana Binti Mohammad Nasir (N/2360)
Chew Kit Keong (C/268)
Maznah Bt Kamaruddin (M/325)
2) Mohd Fadli b Shuib (M/1304)
20 June 2015 Struck o by Order dated 23 June 2011. High Court allowed Mohd Fadlis
20 June 2015 appeal on 26 Aug 2012. Bar Council filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal
20 June 2015 and the appeal was allowed on 22 July 2014. Mohd Fadli filed an appeal at
the Federal Court and on 31 Mar 2015, the Federal Court overturned the struck
24 July 2015
o order to three years suspension to take eect from the date of the Court of
24 July 2015 Appeals Order dated 22 July 2014, and will expire on 21 July 2017.
24 July 2015
14 Aug 2015 3) Gopalakrishnan @ Muniandy s/o Supramaniam Wah (M/346)
Struck o by Order dated 9 Sept 2011. High Court dismissed Gopalakrishnans
14 Aug 2015
appeal on 29 Feb 2012 and varied the Order of the Disciplinary Board, and
replaced it with an order of suspension for three years to take eect from 9 Sept
2011. Bar Council filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal and the appeal was
dismissed on 16 Feb 2015.

JUL-DEC 2015 | PRAXIS 89

 BAR UPDATES/NOTICES
4) Venkatachalam a/l Arunachalam (V/221)
Fined RM15,000 by Order dated 17 Mar 2012. High Court dismissed
Venkatachalams appeal on 27 Feb 2013.
5) Gurmit Singh Pangu a/l Gurcharan Singh (G/172)
Fined RM1,000 by Order dated 3 Nov 2012. High Court allowed Gurmit Singhs
appeal on 30 May 2013. Bar Council filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal and
the appeal was allowed on 21 Oct 2014.
6) Jagmohan Singh a/l Bhupinder Singh (J/293)
Struck o by Order dated 10 May 2013. High Court dismissed Jagmohans
appeal on 4 Nov 2013. Court of Appeal dismissed Jagmohans appeal on 2
Apr 2015.
7) Ahmad Rizal Eande b Zainol (A/1452)
Struck o by Order dated 19 July 2013. High Court dismissed Ahmad Rizals
appeal on 20 Feb 2014. Court of Appeal dismissed Ahmad Rizals appeal on
24 July 2015. Federal Court dismissed Ahmad Rizals appeal on 28 Jan 2015.
8) Salma @ Salmah bt K Ghani Adiyodi (S/1258)
Struck o by Order dated 17 May 2014. High Court dismissed Salmas appeal
on 10 Apr 2015.
8) Chou Ka Ping (C/541)
Suspended for three years by Order dated 5 Feb 2010. High Court allowed
Chou Ka Pings appeal on 23 Sept 2013. Court of Appeal dismissed Bar
Councils appeal on 1 Oct 2014. Federal Court dismissed Bar Councils appeal
on 24 Aug 2015.
90 PRAXIS | JUL-DEC 2015
9) Mahendran a/l Gnasamoothy (G/1246)
Fined RM5,000 by Order dated 9 Dec 2011. High Court dismissed Mahendrans
appeal on 29 Nov 2012. Court of Appeal dismissed Mahendrans appeal on 26
Aug 2014.
10) Lee Chiang Yueh (L/774)
Fined RM5,000 by Order dated 22 Feb 2014. High Court allowed Lee Chiang
Yuehs appeal on 12 Nov 2014.
11) Vasandi a/p Kandasamy (V/145)
Struck o by Order dated 28 Mar 2014. High Court dismissed Vasandis appeal
on 23 Dec 2014. Court of Appeal dismissed Vasandis application for extension
of time to file Record of Appeal and allowed Bar Councils application to set
aside Vasandis appeal.
5) Ganesalingam a/l Vijayaratnam (G/154)
Fined RM15,000 by Order dated 19 July 2014. Ganesalingam withdrew appeal
at the High Court on 9 Apr 2015.
6) Liaw Chee Huey (L/1093)
Fined RM2,000 by Order dated 13 Sept 2014. High Court allowed Liaw Chee
Hueys appeal on 15 Feb 2015. Court of Appeal dismissed Bar Councils motion
for extension of time to serve the Notice of Appeal and allowed Liaw Chee
Hueys motion to strike out Bar Councils appeal.