Ar 2013-14 PDF

Bar Council Malaysia
15 Leboh Pasar Besar

50050 Kuala Lumpur
Tel No: 03-2050 2050
Fax No: 03-2026 1313, 03-2034 2825, 03-2072 5818
We are online at www.malaysianbar.org.my
© 2014 All rights reserved
Bar Council Malaysia and its authorised authors and designers of the 2013/14
Annual Report of the Malaysian Bar accept no liability for any loss arising
from the use of, or reliance on, this Annual Report.
Please note that the 2013/14 Annual Report is a private and confidential
document intended for Members of the Malaysian Bar only, and is not for
further circulation.
All users are permitted to view the content of this Annual Report, without
prejudice to the intellectual property rights belonging to Bar Council Malaysia.
However, any unauthorised reproduction, duplication, transmission or
alteration, in any form or by any means, whether in part or in whole, of the
2013/14 Annual Report, is strictly prohibited. Bar Council Malaysia also
prohibits the use of this Annual Report, and all or any of its contents herein,
for commercial and/or personal gain, profit or sale.
Production team
Editor-in-Chief and Producer: Chin Oy Sim
Editors: Baizura Abdul Razak, Chua Ai Lin and Joane Sharmila
Designer and Illustrator: Khairul Anuar Md Salleh
Photo Editor: Brenden Anthony
CD Programmer: A Ezane Mansor b Obaid
Administration and Logistics: Suriati Dalilan
Research: Ruhil Amal Abdul Razak
Printed by:
Advanpress Concept Sdn Bhd, AS 38 Jalan Hang Tuah 3, Taman Salak Selatan, 57100 Kuala Lumpur
annual report 2011/12

|1
www.malaysianbar.org.my
contents
AGENDA
4 68th AGM of the Malaysian Bar | 15 March 2014
MINUTES
5 67th AGM of the Malaysian Bar | 16 March 2013
SPECIAL REPORTS
70 President
91 Secretariat
96 Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board
PHOTO GALLERY
104 Bar Council Activities
120 Bar Council Staff
124 Bar Council Legal Aid Centres Staff
COMMITTEE REPORTS
126 Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course
131 Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
135 Arbitration Subcommittee
137 Committee on Orang Asli Rights
140 Constitutional Law Committee
144 Conveyancing Practice Committee
151 Corporate and Commercial Law Committee
154 Court Liaison Committee
158 Criminal Law Committee
162 Environment and Climate Change Committee
165 Family Law Committee
168 Finance Committee
172 Human Rights Committee
184 Industrial Law Committee
192 Intellectual Property Committee
195 International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 Organising Committee
198 Islamic Finance Committee
201 Jawatankuasa Bahasa Melayu
203 Law Reform and Special Areas Committee
206 LawCare Committee
209 Legal Profession Committee
218 Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs Committee
228 Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee
230 National Legal Aid Committee

2|
236 National Young Lawyers Committee
238 Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee
245 Professional Standards and Development Committee
251 Publications Committee
253 Safer Malaysia Committee
256 Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee
258 Small Firms Committee
260 Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee
262 Sports Committee
268 Subcommittee on Construction Law
270 Syariah Law Committee
272 Task Force to Review the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards
274 Trade in Legal Services Committee
276 PRESS RELEASES
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Malaysian Bar
326 Statement by Council and Statutory Declaration
327 Auditors’ Report to the Members of the Malaysian Bar
329 Statement of Financial Position
331 Statement of Income and Expenditure
335 Cash Flow Statement
337 Notes to the Financial Statements
Bar Council Legal Aid Centres

357 Statement of Income and Expenditure Account
358 Schedule of Expenditure
Discipline Fund
375 Bar Council Secretariat Organisational Chart 2013/2014

|3
agenda
The 68th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Malaysian Bar (for the year 2013/2014) will be held at 10:00 am on 15 March
2014 (Saturday) at the Grand Ballroom, Level 1, Convention Centre, Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel, Corner of Jalan
Sultan Ismail and Jalan Ampang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur.
AGENDA
(1) To consider and, if approved, to adopt the minutes of the 67th AGM held on 16 March 2013;
(2) To discuss matters arising from the 67th AGM (please refer to the AGM Update Sheet on pages 64 to 67 in this 2013/14
Annual Report);
(3) To consider the President’s Report and committees’ reports re: Activities of the Malaysian Bar for the year 2013/2014;
(4) To consider and, if approved, to adopt the Audited Accounts of the Malaysian Bar for the year ended 31 December 2013;
(5) To consider any motions proposed in accordance with section 64(6) of the Legal Profession Act 1976; and
(6) General.
Dated: 24 February 2014
Richard Wee Thiam Seng

Secretary
Malaysian Bar
NOTE
(1) Members are kindly requested to make every effort to attend the meeting punctually to ensure a quorum of 500. If the
quorum is not present by 11:00 am, the AGM shall be adjourned to 11:15 am on the same day and at the same venue.
(2) Registration counters will open from 8:30 am. Light refreshments will be served.
(3) All Members and pupils in chambers will be required to produce their National Registration Identity Card (“NRIC”) or
driver’s licence in order to register their attendance for the AGM.
(4) All Members and pupils in chambers shall, upon registering their names, wear the designated wristbands for the purpose
of admission.
(5) Pupils in chambers may attend but shall not vote, and shall be seated only at the area(s) designated for them.
(6) Under the Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Scheme, Members and pupils in chambers will earn one CPD
point for attending the AGM.
(7) For information on preferential hotel corporate rates secured by Bar Council, please refer to the current list, which can be
downloaded from the scroll box located on the top right-hand section of the Malaysian Bar website, at www.malaysianbar.
org.my.
4 | 2013/14 annual report

minutes 67th AGM of the Malaysian Bar | 16 Mar 2013
Held on 16 Mar 2013 (Saturday) at 10:00 am at the Grand Ballroom, Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel
Before the commencement of the 67th Annual General (18) Nik Nor Nazila bt Nik Lah
Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (“AGM”), the Chairman, (19) Oon Peh Tchin
Lim Chee Wee, President of the Bar, launched four law (20) Raja Singam Velu
awareness pamphlets sponsored by CIMB Foundation. He (21) Rajakumar s/o Mutty
informed the House that CIMB Foundation had donated a (22) Shahrudin b Abd Manaf
sum of RM225,000 to the Bar Council (“BC”) in January 2011 (23) Subbaiyah s/o Palaniappan
for the production of six pamphlets providing information on (24) Tan Beng Chuan
six areas of law for the benefit of members of the public. (25) Tan Choon Lim
Each pamphlet would be published in four languages. Four (26) Tan Hooi Meng
pamphlets — “Buying and Selling a House”, “Buying Goods (27) Tan Mei Lin Belinda
on Hire-Purchase”, “Making a Will” and “Seeking a Lawyer” (28) Vasuvi d/o Paramanathan
— are already available, while the two remaining pamphlets,
entitled “Malaysian Court System” and “Administration of The Chairman then invited Members of the Bar to observe
Estate”, will be produced later. The Chairman placed on another minute of silence in memory of the 10 soldiers
record the Malaysian Bar’s thanks to CIMB Foundation for who had been killed in defending Sabah from the armed
its generous contribution. incursion that had taken place in Lahad Datu:
The Chairman called the AGM to order at 10:06 am when (1) ASP Zulkifli Mamat, 29, Pasukan Polis Komando
the quorum had been reached. He invited Members of the VAT 69 (1 Mar 2013)
Bar to rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of the (2) Sjn Sabaruddin Daud, 46, Pasukan Komando VAT
following Members who had passed away during the term 69 (1 Mar 2013)
under review. The Bar recorded its deepest condolences (3) ACP Ibrahim Lebar, 52, Cawangan Khas Bukit Aman
to the families and loved ones of: (2 Mar 2013)
(4) ASP Michael Padel, 36, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah
(1) Augustine Christopher Nathan (IPD) Semporna (2 Mar 2013)
(2) Bhuvanadas s/o Gopaldas (5) Sjn Abdul Azis Sarikon, 48, Pasukan Gerakan Am
(3) Brian Komathi @ S Komali Tawau (2 Mar 2013)
(4) Chong Meow Far (6) L/Kpl Mohd Azrul Tukiran, 27, Pasukan Gerakan Am
(5) Chong Weng Kong Tawau (2 Mar 2013)
(6) Fauziah bt Mustaffa (7) Sjn Detektif Baharin Hamit, 49, Ibu Pejabat Polis
(7) Gunapati Suppiah Kontinjen Sabah (2 Mar 2013)
(8) Hamzah Abu Samah (8) Kpl Salam Tugiran, 42, Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah
(9) K Sivarajendran Nair s/o Kunju Raman Nair Tawau (2 Mar 2013)
(10) Krishman Ramiah (9) Prebet Ahmad Hurairah Ismail, 24, Batalion 7 RAMD
(11) Lai Hon Ping Tawau (12 Mar 2013)
(12) Lee Yee Lian, Henry (10) Prebet Ahmad Farhan Ruslan, 21 (12 Mar 2013)
(13) Lim Choon Wee
(14) Mohd Alakhir b Brahim The Chairman said that BC has decided to launch a
(15) Mohd Yassin b Ibrahim donation drive for the families of the fallen soldiers. The
(16) Mohd Zahid b Abd Hamid campaign had been kick-started the previous day with the
(17) Neoh Lay Choo pledge of a minimum contribution of RM200 each by every
www.malaysianbar.org.my | 5
outgoing Council member. He invited Members of the Bar There being no amendments, the minutes were adopted, as
to contribute generously towards this cause by placing their proposed by Arunachalam Kasi and seconded by Jeremiah
donations in the four boxes that would be passed around Gurusamy, both of the Kuala Lumpur (“KL”) Bar.
the hall. BC will determine when the donation drive will be
concluded. Item 2 of the agenda
To consider and, if approved, to adopt the minutes of
The Chairman apologised for the delay in the receipt by the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) held on 11
Members of the CD-ROM containing the Annual Report, May 2012
due to problems encountered by Pos Malaysia over the
last two months, which also affected the distribution of BC’s There being no amendments, the minutes were adopted,
Jurisk! newsletter. as proposed by Su Tiang Joo of the KL Bar and seconded
by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock of the Selangor Bar.
Item 1 of the agenda
To consider and, if approved, to adopt the minutes of Item 3 of the agenda
the 66th AGM held on 10 Mar 2012 To discuss matters arising from the 66th AGM held on
10 Mar 2012
Item Subject Update

(1) Court-related issues
(a) General (a) BC representatives met the Chief Justice (“CJ”) on 15 Feb 2013, and
discussed the following matters:
(i) Car park at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya;

(ii) Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 and status of
implementation of BC’s recommendations;
(iii) Feedback from BC regarding the performance of Judges;
(iv) Complaints against Judges, and members of the Judicial and
Legal Service;
(v) Complaints by Judges and members of the Judicial and Legal
Service against Members of the Bar;
(vi) Assessment of courts in the various states;
(vii) Need for improvement in number, and quality, of written
judgments;
(viii) Use of mediators from Malaysian Mediation Centre;
(ix) Use of presentation slides in court submissions;
(x) Duty of court to provide litigants with transcripts of the recordings
from the Court Recording and Transcription system;
(xi) E-filing;
(xii) Judicial temperament;
(xiii) Summaries prepared by junior Registrars in the Court of Appeal;
and
(xiv) Steps taken by BC to improve the quality of the Bar.

Item Subject Update
(b) Counsel are not being given (b) BC has brought these matters to the attention of the CJ, President of
enough time to submit in the the Court of Appeal, and the Chief Judge of Malaya, on a number of
Court of Appeal, and Judges occasions.
deny counsel the right to
make oral submissions
(c) Judges’ secretaries should (c) BC has raised this matter with the CJ and the Chief Judge of Malaya.
be allowed to transcribe
notes of evidence, as was the
practice in the past
(d) Long queues at e-filing (d) BC is looking into this issue.

service bureaus
(2) Conditional Fee Rules should apply BC is considering the Conditional Fee Rules and the explanatory notes
to all areas of practice, except for received from Su Tiang Joo.
criminal law and family law
(3) Forums are needed to educate Criminal Law Committee organised talks in Kuala Lumpur (10 Aug 2012),
Members regarding amendments Selangor (28 Aug 2012), Penang (28 Aug 2012), Johore (1 Dec 2012) and
to criminal laws, particularly in Terengganu (31 Jan 2013). Similar talks will be organised in Malacca and
regard to plea bargaining Negeri Sembilan.
(4) Forged acknowledgment of BC issued four circulars to inform and update Members regarding this matter:
payment of stamp duty
(i) Circular No 085/2012, dated 24 Apr 2012;
(ii) Circular No 151/2012, dated 11 July 2012;
(iii) Circular No 164/2012, dated 30 July 2012; and
(iv) Circular No 179/2012, dated 14 Aug 2012.
BC will follow up with the Attorney General regarding the status of

investigations against runners and syndicate members.
(5) BC should follow up on the Members were informed in Circular No 189/2012 dated 3 Sept 2012 regarding
proposed establishment of an the setting up of the Environmental Court.
Environmental Court
The Environment and Climate Change Committee (“ECC”) is of the view that
the structure and functions of the Environmental Court should be expanded.
ECC is collaborating with the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee’s Environmental
Law Committee to prepare a memorandum proposing the establishment of a
joint task force, comprising representatives from the Bar and the Bench, to
look into this matter.
Item Subject Update

(6) Whether non-Muslim lawyers are Syariah Law Committee considered this issue on 15 June 2012, and is of the
prohibited from advising clients on view that non-Muslim lawyers can advise clients on all matters except those
aspects of Syariah law in areas of that fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.
practice such as conveyancing
(7) Follow-up action taken in respect The BC Secretariat has prepared the compilation, but it is too voluminous to
of resolutions of the Bar’s AGMs be included in the 2012/13 Annual Report.
should be included in the Update
Sheet of the 2012/13 Annual Report
(8) Update to Members regarding The Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 was gazetted on 20 Sept 2012
progress of amendments to the but is not yet in force. It amends provisions relating to, inter alia, disciplinary
Legal Profession Act 1976 matters. These amendments had been held back in the past so that they could
be tabled at the same time as the amendments pertaining to liberalisation of
the legal profession. At the Chief Judge of Malaya’s request, BC is currently
reviewing a clause in it that provides for suspension of an order or decision of
the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board for at least 30 days, to enable
an aggrieved party to seek judicial review.
(9) “Motion regarding mandatory The motion, as amended, was put to a vote and was carried: 321 votes in
Continuing Professional favour, 137 against, and nine abstentions.
Development Scheme”,
proposed by Dipendra Harshad The CPD Department was established in October 2012 to implement and
Rai (Chairperson, Bar Council manage the Scheme. Many more courses are now available — some of
Professional Standards and which are free of charge — to provide Members with valuable yet affordable
Development Committee), on opportunities. In 2012, 110 courses were conducted, with a total number of
behalf of Bar Council, dated 27 Feb 7,146 registered attendees.
2012
The Department is setting up an independent website dedicated to the
Scheme, and collaborating with local and international training providers.
For more details, please refer to the report of the Professional Standards and
Development Committee.
(10) Motion regarding the Advocates The motion was put to a vote, but was not carried: 11 votes in favour, 91
and Solicitors Disciplinary Board, against, and 13 abstentions.
jointly proposed by MS Murthi,
Kumar Thangaraju, Sundaresan
Krishnan and Thanalakshmi G,
dated 1 Mar 2012

Item Subject Update
(11) Motion regarding the Advocates The motion was put to a vote, but was not carried: 17 votes in favour, 76
and Solicitors Disciplinary Board, against, and 11 abstentions.
proposed by Naran Singh and
jointly seconded by Pritam Singh
Doal, GK Sritharan, T Gunaseelan
and R Kengadharan, dated 28 Feb
2012
(12) Motion regarding the death penalty, The motion, as amended, was put to a vote, and was unanimously carried.
jointly seconded by Pritam Singh The resolution was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, Attorney
Doal, GK Sritharan, T Gunaseelan General’s Chambers, and Ministry of Home Affairs, by letter dated 2 Apr 2012.
and R Kengadharan, dated 28 Feb
2012 The Human Rights Committee organised various activities in 2012 to raise
awareness regarding the death penalty:
(i) Debate on the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia (1 Mar 2012);
(ii) Talk on the death penalty in Malaysia (5 Apr 2012);
(iii) Screening of documentary entitled “Death in Dilemma: The Final
Curtain” and discussion on the death penalty (28 Aug 2012); and
(iv) Roadshow and pleadings competition on the death penalty (September
to November 2012, culminating on 10 Dec 2012).
(13) “Motion on maintaining a just The motion, as amended, was put to a vote, and was unanimously carried.
employment relationship, worker
and trade union rights in Malaysia”, The resolution was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, Attorney
proposed by Charles Hector and General’s Chambers, Ministry of Human Resources, and Ministry of Home
seconded by Francis Pereira, dated Affairs, by letter dated 2 Apr 2012.
1 Mar 2012
3.1 Court-related issues will conduct a roadshow in various states either in May or
June of 2013, with a view to engaging court officers and
3.1.1 Car park at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya Members of the Bar in order to find appropriate solutions
to the teething problems arising from the Amendment Act.
The Chairman apologised, on behalf of BC, for the
inconvenience caused by the closure of the car park at the 3.1.4 Feedback from BC regarding the performance
Lower Ground level at the Palace of Justice to Members of Judges
from 1 Feb 2013. He said that the Judiciary had initially
explained that the court staff needed to use the car park, The Chairman said that in the new term, BC will prepare
but BC was subsequently informed that the car park was an internal report card for each Superior Court Judge,
closed for security reasons. BC raised the matter at the with a view to conveying the relevant information to the CJ
meeting with the CJ on 15 Feb 2013. According to the Chief whenever the President of the Bar is consulted with respect
Registrar, the court will explore the possibility of opening up to the confirmation and promotion of Judges. He asked
to Members all the car parks in the Syariah Court building Members who have any comments on any Judge in their
located next to the Palace of Justice. BC will find out state to provide the information to their State Bar Chairman,
whether the number of car parks in that building is sufficient who will take charge of the matter.
to replace those at the Lower Ground level. According to a
court circular, lawyers will be allowed to drop off their bags 3.1.5 Complaints by Judges and members of the
at the “drop off” zone at the Lower Ground level car park Judicial and Legal Service against Members of
but in BC’s view, this would not be good enough. After the Bar
the 13th General Elections, BC will pursue this matter with
the Minister of Law, in the Minister’s capacity as the head The Chairman said that from time to time, BC deals with
of Bahagian Hal Ehwal Undang-Undang that is responsible complaints that are received from the Judiciary against
for court administrative issues, including car parks. Members of the Bar.
3.1.2 Bar Room in the Palace of Justice 3.1.6 Need for improvement in number, and quality, of
written judgments
The Chairman said that the coffee lounge for Judges
located to the right of the Palace of Justice library is open to The Chairman said that the President of the Court of Appeal
Members for use as a de facto Bar Room. has agreed that the Judges of the Court of Appeal should
sit for a week, followed by a break during the following
3.1.3 Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act week. However, the Federal Court has no alternative but to
2010 and status of implementation of BC’s sit continuously because the coram comprises five Judges.
recommendations BC has told the CJ that this is not a good idea, because
Judges of the apex court ought to spend time reading and
The Chairman said that following the coming into force of the writing on important matters of law.
Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 on 1 Mar 2013,
BC issued a few circulars to Members regarding the manner 3.1.7 Use of mediators from Malaysian Mediation
of implementation of the amendments. BC’s memorandum, Centre
which is available on the Bar website, contains suggestions
on the Amendment Act, including the need for injunction The Chairman said that BC has been pushing the Judiciary
matters to be heard by senior Sessions Court Judges as to appoint Members of the Bar as mediators, especially
well as the need for an avenue for fast-track appeals to the in personal injury disputes, as there are more than 200
High Court. According to the Court Registrar, the Judiciary members on the Malaysian Mediation Centre’s panel of

mediators. Court-mandated mediation is working well in complained about the quality of the Bar, hence this is a
Johore because lawyers have been appointed as mediators two-way issue. BC has briefed the CJ on the active steps
in the courts there. taken to improve the quality of lawyers, largely through the
Advocacy Training Course that is run almost every month in
3.1.8 Duty of court to provide litigants with transcripts various states, under the leadership of Brendan Navin Siva.
of the recordings from the Court Recording and BC is also addressing this issue at its source, by proposing
Transcription system the implementation of the Common Bar Course. The Legal
Profession Qualifying Board has hired a consultant to draft
The Chairman said that BC will submit a proposal to the the curriculum, and senior Members of the Bar will be
Minister of Law with the recommendation that lawyers be consulted with respect to the draft curriculum. Some local
given free notes of proceedings by the courts in respect public law schools have commented that the Common Bar
of criminal proceedings, and request a budget allocation Course will not work, because there is only a small pool of
for this purpose. Under the current system, users pay practitioners who can make time to teach. The Chairman
for the notes of proceedings. There are currently three urged Members of the Bar to come forward and offer their
to four private service providers. Members who have time and commitment if and when they are called upon by
any comments on the Court Recording and Transcription BC to teach the Course, because if Members of the Bar
system can either raise it during the course of the AGM themselves do not want to help, then no one else will help
or communicate directly with the Chairperson of the Court the Bar.
Liaison Committee.
3.1.12 Increase in filing fees
3.1.9 Judicial temperament
Chan Chow Wang of the KL Bar said that filing fees had
The Chairman said that judicial temperament appears to doubled recently for all cases in the High Court and the
have improved. He urged Members of the Bar who know Subordinate Courts. He enquired regarding BC’s stand on
of any complaints against Judges to forward them to BC. the rather high increase and whether BC will be taking up
the issue.
3.1.10 Summaries prepared by junior Registrars in the
Court of Appeal The Chairman said that some Members of the Bar
appeared not to have been keeping abreast of discussions
The Chairman said that this matter had been raised with on this issue over the last two years. The Subordinate
the President of the Court of Appeal. BC will put together Courts (Amendment) Act 2010, which included a proposed
a model outline submission for Members of the Bar to increase in filing fees, was first announced by the Minister of
follow so that Appellate Judges will not be dependent on Law, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, in 2010. As BC
summaries prepared by junior Registrars. The CJ has had not been consulted on the Amendment Act, it produced
assured BC that Judges do read the Record of Appeal but a memorandum setting out objections to the Amendment
this is not the case in reality, because there are still some Act and recommending that the increase in the filing fees
Judges who do not read counsel’s written submissions. be gradual. Based on the data pertaining to inflation
This is an issue that the courts have to address. over the last 30 years, BC proposed that the maximum
increase should not exceed 60 percent. Notwithstanding
3.1.11 Steps taken by BC to improve the quality of the advocacy by BC, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak
the Bar and Sabah Law Association that filing fees should not be
doubled, the three bodies were not able to prevail upon
The Chairman said that inasmuch as BC has complained the Judiciary, hence unfortunately, the increase is here to
about the quality of the Bench, Judges have also stay. The Judiciary had reasoned that the filing fees had
not been increased since 1980. The Chairman said that representations to the Attorney General to allow BC to
the incoming Council could revisit the issue and see how work together with the Sabah Law Association to provide
best to pursue it. legal representation to detainees held under the Security
Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and the Immigration
3.1.13 Pauper provision Act. Ops Daulat is now in its tenth day of operation. The
detainees have to be produced in court once the time limit
The Chairman said that this matter is still outstanding, for detention is over. The Attorney General has agreed to
as admittedly, BC did not take expeditious action. BC’s BC’s proposal, subject to the Chief Judge of Sabah and
intention to have the pauper provision removed from the Sarawak’s approval of ad hoc admissions of Yayasan
Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 was to provide Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) lawyers. The
for a means test to be conducted for all legal aid cases Sabah Law Association welcomed BC’s involvement
for the purpose of determining eligibility for exemption from because BC, having studied the Security Offences (Special
filing fees. The CJ had remarked that this would not be fair Measures) Act 2012 and been consulted by the Attorney
to poor and needy persons who do not qualify under the General, is conversant with the legislation. At the moment,
BC’s legal aid scheme. BC is drafting a revised proposal to YBGK lawyers will not be allowed to go to Sabah as the
draw up a mechanism for the Registrar to either work alone, Government is unable to guarantee their safety in view of
or with the Bar’s Legal Aid Centres, to conduct the means the volatile situation there. The incoming President of the
test for everyone, to ensure access to justice. Malaysian Bar may lead a delegation to Sabah to gauge the
situation there together with the Sabah Law Association. It
3.1.14 Miscellaneous issues was just reported in the press that the Attorney General’s
Chambers (“AGC”) will conduct investigations into
P Arudkumaran of the Selangor Bar said that the observance allegations of abuse by detainees. The Chairman added
of a minute’s silence for the 10 fallen heroes showed that that BC had also made representations to the Government
BC is neither anti-Government nor pro-Opposition, and that of Malaysia to allow the United Nations, the International
the Bar also has feelings, and supports the Government Committee of the Red Cross, and SUHAKAM into the
in its efforts to solve the problem in Sabah. With regard conflict zone to make independent assessments but
to the complaint that many Judges do not read counsel’s the safety of their personnel has to be guaranteed first.
submissions, P Arudkumaran believed that he recently lost Allegations of abuse among the thousands of Filipinos
a case in an unfair manner because a particular Judge of who fled to Tawi-Tawi had been reported in the media in
the Shah Alam High Court who hears civil appeals, including the Philippines. The Office of the United Nations High
runner matters, made the wrong decision. Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) in the Philippines
is taking statements, and BC is liaising with UNHCR in
The Chairman said that BC has received a separate KL. The Chairman said that Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Co-
complaint lodged against that Judge and will raise the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, is monitoring
matter with the CJ. the developments on this issue.
P Arudkumaran said that many Members are suffering in the The Chairman said that Christopher Leong, the Vice-
Shah Alam High Court because unfair decisions were being President, had issued a press statement stating that
meted out. He asked that something be done because inasmuch as the Government of Malaysia would like to
clients are being unfairly victimised and consequently, observe the right of sovereignty, it should not violate the
Members’ livelihoods will be affected. human rights of foreigners.
The Chairman thanked P Arudkumaran for having raised GK Ganesan of the KL Bar said that he would sing the same
the Sabah issue. He informed Members that BC had made litany that he had been singing every year, because the

Court of Appeal Judges are becoming more and more rude Desmond Ho Chee Cheong thanked GK Ganesan for
towards lawyers who appear in their courts. Judges claim his comments, and noted that BC had already raised the
that they read lawyers’ submissions but they appear to have matter with the President of the Court of Appeal, who had
no idea at all about the issues raised by the lawyers. GK admitted the misbehaviour of some Judges and promised
Ganesan asked that his statement be recorded because to look into the issue. Desmond Ho Chee Cheong said he
he would readily admit to having made it, should a query would get the details of the incidents from GK Ganesan so
be raised by Judges as to who had made such remarks. that he could highlight them to the President of the Court of
He said that Judges should not make lawyers look stupid Appeal, for action to be taken.
in court, because preparing submissions takes many hours
and forms part of a lawyer’s livelihood. GK Ganesan said Rasamani Kandiah of the KL Bar said that a Family Court
that he tries to avoid making a Judge angry so as not to Judge had refused to hand down judgments in cases
jeopardise his client’s rights. In his view, one reason for involving the custody of children because the Judge was
the Judges’ rude behaviour is that the Bar has been too soft afraid that parties would fight in her chambers. The Judge
with them for too long. Their mindset must be changed. should not be sitting in that court if she is unable to exercise
Lawyers have every right to put their ideas across in court. control over litigants. Rasamani Kandiah related the case
The length of a record of appeal can come to at least 750 of a father who had taken his child and had run out of
pages. It is not humanly possible for a Judge to read a long the court, resulting in lawyers needing several months to
Record of Appeal and listen to a lawyer’s argument in just locate the child. The father’s lawyer filed a notice of appeal
15 minutes. GK Ganesan related how, in an application without getting prior instructions from his client. Rasamani
for an Anton Piller order, a Judge claimed that he knew Kandiah said that these are issues that have to be looked
all the relevant laws but, at the same time, he had no idea into, although the matter is now the subject of an appeal.
how to supervise lawyers in court. So far, GK Ganesan She cited another case involving a nine-year-old child who
has not heard any of the best Judges boast in court that was put on Skype to show her genitals because she had
they know everything about the law. He related the case of complained of itchiness, but the court granted custody to
a High Court Judge who used to bully everybody and had the child’s father. There was no reported decision on this
even been warned by GK Ganesan, during his tenure as despite the child’s lawyer’s request, which cannot be right.
a member of the KL Bar Committee, not to bully lawyers. The matter is now the subject of an appeal. Rasamani
The Judge behaved well for about a year, but reverted to Kandiah said that Judges who are appointed to deal with
his old ways after being elevated to the Court of Appeal. matters in Family Court must have the right attitude. She
GK Ganesan said that no Judge has any right to be rude asked BC to look into this matter.
to lawyers who toil for many hours to prepare submissions.
The Chairman apologised for not having pushed on this
GK Ganesan added that in European courts, there is issue that Rasamani Kandiah had raised over the past
a standard way of writing submissions; for example, few years. He said that in Malaysia, the uniqueness of the
arguments should be in one hundred words, issues in fifty Family Court is not appreciated, which is why the court is
words and the first one hundred words must contain facts. accorded the lowest priority. Recently, the CJ of Singapore
Every lawyer and Judge is required to follow this format for announced at the Opening of the Legal Year in Singapore
writing submissions or judgments. If Malaysia can adopt a that the entire Family Court system in Singapore would
similar format to be applied across the nation, then anyone be revamped and its system changed from an adversarial
can understand what is going on in court. one to one that is conciliatory. The Chairman said that
the incoming Council should look into the need to conduct
The Chairman asked Members to provide details concerning trainings to sensitise Family Court Judges and draw up a
their court-related issues to Desmond Ho Chee Cheong of list of psychologists for the purpose of interviewing children.
the Malacca Bar, who heads the Court Liaison Committee. All these should be included in BC’s report to the CJ.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar of the KL Bar said that the appalling that the assessment of Judges be made public, the CJ felt
standard of justice and the incompetence of adjudicators that this might affect the morale of Judges. In the USA, the
being displayed at all levels of the Judiciary is evidenced New Jersey State Bar Association’s website provides an
by the number of complaints being raised during the AGM assessment of every single Judge sitting in New Jersey.
by Members, including himself, who had all suffered at The other options available to address the quality of Judges
the hands of Judges. He said that one would have hoped could include State Bars conducting an assessment of
that the new appointments might address the problem Judges, incompetent Judges being asked to leave, and BC
but this is not happening quickly enough. This problem is exploring the possibility of how to better utilise the Judges’
mounting and getting worse. First, justice is being denied Ethics Committee. Thus far, only one complaint has been
because Judges are not equipped to handle the kinds of filed with the Judges’ Ethics Committee. BC had considered
arguments they are confronted with at the High Court, lodging a complaint with the Judges’ Ethics Committee
the Court of Appeal and even at the Federal Court. This against an outgoing Federal Court Judge over a minor
leads to damaging precedents being set. A vast amount of misconduct that BC had become aware of. The Chairman
uncertainty has crept into the civil, commercial, and criminal said that the poor quality of Judges can be attributed to
law, whereby lawyers appearing in the Court of Appeal and the ineffective education system in the country. BC needs
the Federal Court can point to five or six different authorities to look into the inherent weakness that allows many law
of those courts, which go in different directions. Cases graduates to join the Bench through the AGC or the Judicial
seem to be resolved according to a Judge’s whims. Malik and Legal Service.
Imtiaz Sarwar asked if the incoming Council could look at
how to nudge the Judiciary into recognising that this is a Siti Zabedah Kasim of the KL Bar, who has been involved in
serious problem that will affect everyone, and whether there a few public interest cases containing elements of religion,
could be a means to threaten an audit of the competence related a case she had handled in Negeri Sembilan to
of Judges, with the help of international bar organisations. challenge the provisions of the Syariah enactment. She
For example, a sampling of judgments could be reviewed said that the Judge of the civil court, after reading the
to see if they are of a standard expected of a High Court Mufti’s opinion, took it into account in his decision, which
Judge. in her view was wrong, because the civil court is not a
Syariah Court. The Judge ought to have looked at the
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said that leave to appeal to the Federal Federal Constitution to see if any of its provisions had been
Court is being regulated too restrictively at present. Section violated. Siti Zabedah Kasim said that this case is not the
96 of the Courts of Judicature Act should be interpreted only one, as there are many others. Therefore, if Judges
more inclusively to allow for correction of demonstrable continue to take their religious beliefs into consideration in
miscarriages of justice. Lawyers who appeared regularly their decisions, lawyers will not be able to win their cases.
in the Federal Court had heard Judges utter on various Siti Zabedah Kasim said that she had raised this issue at a
occasions that a particular issue did not raise any question seminar with the former CJ, and was disappointed with his
with regard to section 96, although they could see the response that our Judges were fair. She wondered how the
problem and the error that had been made. Malik Imtiaz former CJ could talk to Judges if he himself was unable to
Sarwar suggested that BC canvass the opinion of Members understand the problem. She asked BC to raise this very
who appear in the Federal Court regularly, as he believed important issue with the current CJ.
that they would be willing to assist in formulating an
argument to increase the scope of leave beyond what had Charles Hector Fernandez of the Selangor Bar spoke
been defined in the Terengganu Forest case. regarding high costs awarded in public interest cases. He
said that something needs to be done about this because
The Chairman said that the CJ had acknowledged the of what had happened in the case involving the ex-Internal
problem of quality in the Judiciary, but when BC proposed Security Act detainee, Abdul Malek Hussin, who had been

slapped with high costs in his civil suit against the police would be totally different. Srimurugan s/o Alagan posed the
and the Government. High awards of costs would deter following questions: (a) whether BC had been consulted by
ordinary members of the public from taking their matters the Judicial Appointments Commission (“JAC”) in respect
to court. of appointments and promotions of Judges from the High
Court to the Court of Appeal; (b) if so, whether BC had given
Charles Hector Fernandez then spoke on the issue its input; and (c) what kind of input BC submitted in its report
concerning high bail sums that affect 34 percent of our in terms of whether a Judge is qualified for promotion.
Malaysian workers who, according to a survey done
in 2009, fall in the income bracket of RM700 or less a The Chairman said there is a greater guarantee of High
month. Sometimes, criminal courts impose bail sums Court Judges possessing the competency to hear a
ranging from RM10,000 to RM20,000, without taking into complicated matter than Judges of the lower courts.
consideration the financial capacity of workers’ families. In Four new members had been appointed to serve on the
a case involving theft, the accused was asked to pay bail of JAC, namely Tan Sri Haidar b Mohamed Noor, Dato’
RM20,000, which meant that the accused had to set aside Selventhiranathan s/o Thiagarajah, Dato’ Tee Ah Sing @
several months of his salary for the purpose. Tee Boon Hooi and Datuk Seri Panglima Sulong Matjeraie.
BC had been consulted by the Prime Minister pursuant to
Charles Hector Fernandez asked whether the Judges’ the JAC Act, and had expressed support for two candidates
Ethics Committee covers Magistrates’ Court and Sessions whose names had been put forward by the Prime Minister,
Court Judges. namely Tan Sri Abdul Aziz b Mohamed and Datuk Dr Khaw
Lake Tee. BC had also suggested two additional names for
The Chairman said that for judicial officials of that level, BC the Prime Minister’s consideration, namely Tan Sri Hasmy
will lodge a complaint with the Judicial and Legal Service Agam and Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Simon Sipaun.
Commission. There is at least one pending complaint with Unfortunately, none of these four candidates was selected.
the Commission at the moment. The Chairman informed the House that an announcement
regarding the appointment of Judicial Commissioners from
Referring to the complaints about the quality of Judges in the Bar is expected to be made in the next few months.
the High Court and Court of Appeal, Srimurugan s/o Alagan
of the Selangor Bar said that following the coming into The Chairman said that the CJ had been agreeable to
force of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 on BC’s proposal that former practitioners be appointed as
1 Mar 2013, Sessions Court Judges can now adjudicate Sessions Court Judges. The incoming Council will follow
claims with monetary values of up to RM1 million and also up with the CJ on this. Amendments need to be made to
hear applications for injunction, Anton Piller orders and the Judiciary’s internal guidelines and regulations to allow
Mareva orders. He asked what guarantee lawyers have for outside applications for the posts of Sessions Court
regarding the competency of Subordinate and Sessions Judges.
Court Judges to listen to complex commercial arguments
and make the right decisions. Based on his observations, Arunachalam Kasi said that if the process of appointment
none of the current Sessions Court Judges had practised of Judges had been done right, all the problems raised by
at the Bar. Having had the privilege of appearing before Members would not have arisen. This is the root of the
High Court Judges who were former practitioners, he problem mentioned by Srimurugan s/o Alagan. He said that
found these Judges to be capable of understanding issues there should be sufficient consultation with the Bar because
faced by practitioners, unlike Judges who had never been the Bar knows who the good lawyers are, and whether they
in practice but were elevated directly from the AGC and are fit to be Judges.
Senior Federal Counsel. If the two categories of Judges
were to look at the same case, their treatment of the case
The Chairman said that BC had been consulted on the The Chairman said that V Sithambaram’s suggestion will
confirmation and promotion of Judges on each occasion be raised with the CJ.
except for the last round of promotions of Judges from the
High Court to the Court of Appeal. The incoming President The Chairman referred to the issue raised by Malik Imtiaz
will need to raise this with the CJ to ensure that BC is Sarwar regarding leave to appeal to the Federal Court,
consulted for each and every confirmation or promotion. and apologised to Members for the delay in addressing the
The Chairman said that it is incumbent on every Member of issue, which had been on BC’s agenda for a considerable
the Bar who has a view of a particular Judge to convey that amount of time. He said that the CJ was agreeable in
view to their State Bar Chairman in order to arm BC with principle to the proposal by Tommy Thomas to amend
ready information that can be provided to the CJ as and section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act.
when he consults the President.
Jagjit Singh of the KL Bar said that in criminal appeals,
V Sithambaram of the Penang Bar proposed that BC take whenever an appeal by defence counsel is allowed by the
the stand that Judges of the Court of Appeal must write Court of Appeal, Judges do not write down their judgments.
grounds of judgment — regardless of whether the grounds However, if the prosecution’s appeal is allowed, they will
are short or long — in light of the complaints that Judges write good judgments. There are two Court of Appeal
are not interested in hearing arguments submitted by Judges who, whenever lawyers raised issues pertaining
lawyers. He said that the Court of Appeal must act as the to the criminal appeals before them, would feel disturbed
de facto final court in criminal matters originating from the and thereafter politely dismiss the appeals. However,
Sessions Courts and the High Courts. Sometimes, there immediately after the lawyers left the court, the Judges
are concurrent findings of fact by these courts. There have would call the AGC directly to provide information regarding
been many occasions when these findings were reversed what had taken place.
by the Court of Appeal, but the Court only declared that
the appeal was allowed or disallowed, and did not utter Jagjit Singh said that his Legal Assistant had informed
a single word on the reasons for the decision. Lawyers him the previous day that during the hearing of a matter
thus left the Court without knowing why the findings of the in the Court of Appeal, the head of the panel, YA Datuk
Sessions Court or the High Court were declared incorrect. Abdul Wahab Patail, who had been sitting with YA Dato’
When lawyers lose a case, they can accept it, provided they Balia Yusof Haji Wahi and YA Datuk Zaharah Ibrahim,
know the reasons why, for their clients would invariably ask had become so angry that he had taken the Record of
what had happened because they would not understand Appeal and flung it. He had then told the lawyer, Ramdas
why they had lost at the Court of Appeal after having won Tikamdas, “We’d like to hear your voice. Keep on talking.
at the Sessions Court and the High Court. V Sithambaram Have you enjoyed hearing your voice?” Jagjit Singh said
said that once Judges are forced to be accountable for that this was not the way Judges should treat lawyers.
their decisions, they must hear lawyers’ argument and give
written grounds of judgment. Until this is done, the Court Manjeet Singh Dhillon of the Selangor Bar said that the
of Appeal Judges will continue to simply brush everything purpose of the AGM is to settle policy issues and make
aside. V Sithambaram related his experience of having major decisions, and not for Members of the Bar to talk
argued fervently for one hour in a case, but then having about individual cases. It is also not for the Chairman
left the Court of Appeal without knowing the reasons for to tell the House what he did or did not do, or what was
the Court’s decision in disallowing his client’s appeal. He done to him, or even mention the New Jersey State Bar
asked if there is something amiss in the Court of Appeal, Association’s website. Manjeet Singh Dhillon said that he
because aspersions have been cast on the Judges, rightly had been waiting for the last few months for this old issue to
or wrongly. be resolved, and he felt sorry for GK Ganesan, Rasamani
Kandiah and the other speakers. He asked BC to look

at what the long-term measure should be in dealing with person is convicted, Magistrates and Judges refuse to allow
Judges. As a short-term measure, he suggested that BC a stay of execution. The accused is then immediately put
create a section in the Malaysian Bar website called “Dream into the lockup pending a formal application that normally
Team”, where names of Judges can be put up for Members takes seven to 10 days. He said that this is ridiculous
of the Bar to select. Members will win their cases by using because a person’s liberty is at stake. He asked BC to look
the Malaysian Bar website to find their “Dream Team”, all into the matter.
issues concerning Judges will be solved and problems with
Judges will no longer arise. Naran Singh said that the Key Performance Indicators for
Judges had apparently been abolished, but yet High Court
The Chairman said that he meets up with the top tier of Judges, Sessions Court Judges and Magistrates had been
the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”), forced to complete all pre-2009 and pre-2010 criminal
including the Chief Commissioner, every few weeks to cases by March or June of this year. This is an indirect
discuss corruption issues involving Judges, arbitrators and enforcement of the Key Performance Indicators. Naran
lawyers. He drew Members’ attention to the MACC booth Singh said that BC should bring this matter up with the CJ
outside the meeting hall and urged Members not to engage with the aim of getting Judges to allow leeway in criminal
in any form of corruption such as bribing Judges, court matters involving the liberty of a person and the livelihood
clerks, Deputy Public Prosecutors, bank officers or Stamp of civil servants.
Office officers, and stated that MACC has agreed to work
together with BC’s task force on this. Naran Singh raised the issue concerning the use of agents
provocateurs as sole witnesses by the prosecution in cases
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock pointed out that out of the nine involving drugs. He said that Judges accept the word of
outgoing JAC members, eight were sitting or former Judges agents provocateurs as the truth, resulting in convictions
and one was a former Attorney General; eight men and one being based on that evidence alone. The coram to hear
woman. With regard to the current composition, nine are drug-related matters is one High Court Judge, three Court
sitting or former Judges, and all are men. He proposed of Appeal Judges and five Federal Court Judges. Naran
that the composition of the JAC be made more open and Singh was of the view that section 40 of the Dangerous
representative of society in terms of gender balance, Drugs Act should be amended to prohibit Judges from
having laypersons etc, as previously proposed by BC; relying on the evidence of just one police constable or
otherwise the JAC becomes a group of people looking sergeant.
at and appointing similar people, and this would merely
perpetuate the incompetence of Judges. BC must pursue The Chairman thanked Naran Singh for volunteering to
this until the JAC has a more balanced representation that assist BC in some of these matters.
is reflective of the wider society, rather than having only
sitting or former Judges. P Arudkumaran recalled the Walk for Justice that had
been organised by BC with the aim of setting up the
The Chairman said that the incoming President could take JAC. He said that there is no separation of powers in this
this issue up with the Prime Minister at the expiration of the country because the Executive has a say over everything.
current JAC’s two-year term. Although the Federal Constitution has been amended, the
Prime Minister still dictates the terms, as seen clearly from
Naran Singh of the Perak Bar spoke on the recent his failure to take BC’s views into consideration in respect
developments in the courts, including the Magistrates’ of the recent appointments to the JAC. P Arudkumaran
Courts, the Sessions Courts and the High Courts. Insofar asked that the incoming Council take a very firm stand on
as criminal matters are concerned, whenever an accused this issue.
P Arudkumaran noted that the Judiciary had turned up the into the statutory rape laws. She said she knows of a young
heat on lawyers due to several media statements made by girl who had been the reason why 10 boys had been sent
the Chairman on the issue concerning the incompetence to court.
of lawyers. He questioned why the Judiciary had done
so, when many members of the Judiciary are themselves The Chairman said that after the 13th General Elections, BC
incompetent. He said that the rot has set in in the Judiciary will discuss the matter with the incoming Government.
and believed that ever since the retirement of Datuk Seri
Gopal Sri Ram from the Bench, the brains of the Judiciary 3.2 Conditional Fee Rules should apply to all areas
were dead. He asked the incoming Council to look into of practice, except for criminal law and family
raising the standards of the Judiciary rather than those of law
the legal profession.
The Chairman apologised to Su Tiang Joo of the KL Bar
The Chairman interjected and said that there are still some for BC’s delay in looking into his proposal to amend the
good Judges on the Bench. Conditional Fee Rules, as this item was appearing on the
AGM agenda for a second time. The good news is that BC
Manjeet Singh Dhillon asked P Arudkumaran to stop talking has completed its review of the Legal Profession Act 1976
about Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram who, in his view, was (“LPA”). The incoming Council will need to decide on the
neither the be-all nor the end-all of the Judiciary or the legal manner of raising the proposed amendments to the LPA
profession, and that the quality of the former Judge’s brains with the Government, either by instalment or by prioritising
is not something for the Bar to decide on. the more important amendments into a single proposal.
BC will need to hold a few meetings with the AGC on the
The Chairman reminded the House that every Member Conditional Fee Rules. The Chairman reported that BC
should be given an opportunity to express his or her views has agreed to the AGC’s proposal to set up joint working
and there is thus no reason for shutting out any Member. committees to look into civil and criminal matters, and that
He clarified that the issue of incompetent lawyers arose out civil matters would include law reforms as well.
of the employability survey conducted by BC the previous
year. Since BC’s focus is on legal education, it had looked 3.3 Forged acknowledgment of payment of stamp
at the overall quality of the Bench and the Bar. He said that duty
BC will take note of P Arudkumaran’s views.
The Chairman urged Members of the Bar who practise
P Arudkumaran said that when it comes to contentious conveyancing law to take note of the rampant forgery taking
matters, junior Members need to consult certain senior place with regard to payment of stamp duty. BC is preparing
lawyers who are respected by Judges, because some a report to the MACC and hopes to work closely with it on
Judges tend to overlook the junior Members. this issue. The newly implemented e-stamping system
is presently encountering problems that will hopefully be
The Chairman said that BC would take note of P solved soon, because the system will definitely help to cut
Arudkumaran’s point. down on the instances of forgery.
At this juncture, the Chairman announced that at 10:40 3.4 Update to Members regarding progress of
am, 1,136 Members had registered their attendance at amendments to the LPA
the AGM, the highest number recorded over a period of
10 years. The Chairman said that the Legal Profession (Licensing
of International Partnerships and Qualified Foreign Law
A Krishnaveni of the Negeri Sembilan Bar asked BC to look Firms and Registration of Foreign Lawyers) Rules 2012

and Guidance Notes were finalised on 14 Mar 2013. The the Bar and BC to decide on the motion. However, it would
proposed amendments to the LPA relating to liberalisation be really unfair if the CPD Scheme is made compulsory.
and the disciplinary process are expected to be tabled at the If this is implemented, he will be the first Member to sue
first sitting of Parliament after the 13th General Elections. BC the Malaysian Bar, because he believed that it will affect
needs to amend two provisions in the LPA relating to “fly- the livelihood of many sole proprietors, like himself, who
in, fly-out” lawyers and arbitration, to make it clear that any constitute a large group of practitioners. They cannot
person, whether local or foreign, can appear in arbitrations be expected to attend every CPD course for the sake of
as counsel, as this has always been the position of the Bar. collecting CPD points since they only practise in certain
areas of law. Hence, they will only attend CPD courses
3.5 “Motion regarding mandatory Continuing that are relevant to their practice. P Arudkumaran urged
Professional Development Scheme”, proposed Members to oppose the motion. In his view, it is erroneous
by Dipendra Harshad Rai (Chairperson, for BC to think that a Member who collects 16 CPD points
Bar Council Professional Standards and can become a competent lawyer. In his case, he has
Development Committee), on behalf of Bar collected five CPD points thus far. Today, the nature of
Council, dated 27 Feb 2012 work that lawyers do in courts and for their clients is very
difficult. He reiterated that it would be unfair for BC to
The Chairman invited Members who have views on this impose a compulsory requirement of 16 CPD points on
matter to come forward to speak. Members.
Charles Hector Fernandez referred to the statement P Arudkumaran said that the major area for the introduction
in the President’s Report that “[i]n 2012, 110 courses of the CPD Scheme is continuing legal education. He
were conducted, with a total number of 7,146 registered noted that only one CPD point is allocated for attending the
attendees”. He noted that a Member of the Bar may have AGM, and suggested that the number of CPD points be
attended a series of a particular course or workshop and increased to three. BC cannot expect Members from states
asked if BC keeps data on the exact number of lawyers like Penang, Johore, Pahang or Perak to attend the AGM
who actually attend Continuing Professional Development just to collect one CPD point. In respect of the motion to
(“CPD”) courses. raise the Sports Fund levy from RM10 to RM20, he asked if
one CPD point could be awarded to Members who attend a
The Chairman took the opportunity to brief Members on the sports activity conducted by BC.
CPD Scheme. He said that the number of CPD courses
has increased, and about 1,800 Members have attended The Chairman advised P Arudkumaran to raise his
the various CPD courses. BC and State Bar Committees CPD-related issues with either Dipendra Harshad
run CPD events, some of which are free of charge. BC will Rai, Chairperson of the Professional Standards and
soon introduce an online CPD programme that will be easily Development Committee, or Steven Thiru. He said that
accessible and simple to use. The Bar’s CPD courses are there is already a Bar resolution pertaining to the mandatory
the cheapest among the professions in Malaysia. The element of the CPD Scheme. BC welcomes suggestions
Advocacy Training Course has proven to be one of the from Members with regard to the scope and extent of the
most successful CPD programmes. BC is working with a CPD Scheme, including suitable topics. The Professional
London-based organisation to run workshops for Members Standards and Development Committee will look into
on English communication skills. The Chairman thanked all the proposal that CPD points be awarded for every kind
the Members who had sacrificed their time to be lecturers of activity organised by BC. The Chairman informed the
and trainers in the numerous CPD courses and workshops. House that Santhi Latha, Director of the CPD Department,
has been excellent in terms of having raised the profile and
P Arudkumaran said that he would leave it to Members of standard of the CPD Scheme. He asked Members to liaise
directly with Santhi Latha for any clarification they needed for 2013, following the first increase to RM10 million for
regarding the Scheme. 2011. The Chairman urged more Members to attend the
YBGK training and offer their services to YBGK. BC will
P Arudkumaran agreed to raise the issues with the Selangor provide legal representation under YBGK to detainees
Bar Committee and Santhi Latha. arrested in Ops Daulat.
Item 4 of the agenda YBGK lawyers will have more areas of participation
To consider the President’s Report and committees’ in the criminal justice system following the Attorney
reports re: Activities of the Malaysian Bar for the year General’s decision to expand YBGK legal representation
2012/2013 to include inquests and victim impact statements. BC
has also proposed to the Attorney General to widen
4.1 President’s Report legal representation to non-Malaysians. There are over
four million Indonesians in this country, half of whom are
4.1.1 United Nations Malaysia’s “Organization of the undocumented immigrants. A number of them are entangled
Year Award 2012” in our criminal justice system and should be entitled to legal
representation. Recently, BC’s Subcommittee on Migrants,
The Chairman highlighted the fact that the Malaysian Refugees and Immigration Affairs met the Ambassador of
Bar had been conferred the United Nations Malaysia’s Indonesia to Malaysia to discuss this issue.
“Organization of the Year Award 2012”.
4.1.5 Advocates and Solicitors Compensation Fund
4.1.2 Condemnation of police brutality; Opposition to
the Bar The Chairman said that the incoming Council may have
to consider whether the Compensation Fund levy should
The Chairman said that BC had come under heavy fire over be increased because in most cases, victims of dishonest
the EGM of the Bar held on 11 May 2012. lawyers are not compensated for their losses on a dollar-
for-dollar basis.
4.1.3 International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”)
2012 In response to Charles Hector Fernandez’s question on
how the Compensation Fund works, the Chairman said
The Chairman remarked that IMLC 2012 was the best that monies from the Compensation Fund are used to
conference ever organised by the Bar. compensate victims of dishonest lawyers who practise as
sole proprietors. More information can be obtained from
4.1.4 Enhancing access to justice the pamphlet entitled “Guidelines on Making a Claim for
Compensation”, which is available on the Bar website.
The Chairman said that the Yayasan Bantuan Guaman
Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) scheme was a great success. Many 4.1.6 Foreign lawyers — authorised and unauthorised
Members of the Bar are participating in the scheme, and
quite a number of them are happy to have the opportunity to The Chairman said that BC had engaged with two law firms
supplement their livelihood by doing YBGK work. BC had from Singapore that were believed to be in breach of the
put forward a memorandum to the Attorney General, in his LPA for practising Malaysian law in Malaysia. After several
capacity as Chairman of YBGK, to recommend an increase discussions with them, a compromise was reached by way
in the rate of payment to YBGK lawyers. As announced of a written undertaking from the law firms not to practise
by the Prime Minister, the YBGK grant has been increased Malaysian law. The Chairman asked Members to let BC
from the initial sum of RM5 million in 2010 to RM20 million know as soon as they become aware of any foreign lawyer

practising Malaysian law so that action can be taken against appeared for the parties, one for Astro and the other for
such lawyers in accordance with the provisions of the LPA. Lippo. V Vishnu Kumar said that Singapore, being an
international arbitration centre, had taken steps to hire the
V Vishnu Kumar of the Selangor Bar said that BC had best for its Commercial Division whereas in Malaysia, the
recently objected to an application by Sir Edward Garnier, law is still archaic because a uniform standard is being
an eminent Queen’s Counsel and former Solicitor General applied across the board in all areas of law, irrespective
of Britain, for ad hoc admission to the Malaysian Bar. He of standards. V Vishnu Kumar wondered if BC could look
noted that this issue was not mentioned in the President’s into this issue.
Report, and asked BC to address the matter. By virtue
of being a former Solicitor General and a prosecutor for The Chairman said that where arbitration is concerned, there
contempt cases, Sir Edward Garnier would have had the is an open-door policy for both domestic and international
special skills required to appear in the particular case. arbitration. One will find any number of foreign lawyers
V Vishnu Kumar enquired why BC had objected to the appearing before a tribunal at the KL Regional Centre for
application, given the impending liberalisation of our legal Arbitration (“KLRCA”). In terms of promoting Malaysia as
profession. a dispute resolution centre, BC is working very closely with
the KLRCA Director, Datuk Sundra Rajoo. The Chairman
The Chairman said that in all applications for ad hoc said that he had not heard of any complaint, when engaging
admission, BC follows strictly the provision in section 18 of with the business community and several Government-
the LPA, which sets out the threshold for such admissions, linked companies, on issues concerning liberalisation or a
namely whether the applicant: (a) has, in the opinion of the lack of access to good local advocates in our courts. In his
court, special qualifications or experience of a nature not dealings with lawyers in the region, our top advocates are
available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia; as good as those from Singapore, if not better, and there is
and (b) has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor in no issue insofar as a user’s expectation is concerned. The
Malaysia. In most cases, BC and the State Bar Committee, Malaysian Government is very supportive of, and actively
after assessing the application, will form the view that promotes, KLRCA.
there is ample talent among Members of the Bar and thus
take the stand not to support the application. Approval Param Cumaraswamy of the KL Bar referred to the
of applications for ad hoc admissions is very rare. The application by Sir Edward Garnier and said that a senior
leading case for interpreting section 18(1) of the LPA was counsel, who had opposed the application for another
the one involving Cherie Booth. The last known ad hoc party, made a very racist statement in court, namely “we do
admission that was allowed was in respect of David Kemp, not require a white man to come and teach us what English
also a Queen’s Counsel. law is all about”. He asked if BC will take any action against
this senior counsel for making such a racist remark, which
V Vishnu Kumar said that recent amendments to the Legal is unbecoming of an advocate and solicitor, and reflects
Profession Act in Singapore allow for two-tier applications very badly on the legal profession in the country.
for Queen’s Counsel — one for the commercial region,
which has a lower standard for admission, and the other for The Chairman said that he was aware of the incident and
domestic law practice areas, which has a very high standard. had sought clarification from the senior counsel concerned,
Singapore has attracted top Queen’s Counsel for its who said that he could not remember having made such
arbitration centre, which makes referrals to the Commercial a remark. The Chairman had also asked BC’s counsel
Division. Recently, the Astro-Lippo dispute involving a who had been present in court. He said that one way to
Malaysian company for a sum of about USD300 million had resolve the matter is to obtain the recording of those court
been referred from the Singapore International Arbitration proceedings in the Federal Court.
Centre to the Singapore High Court. Two Queen’s Counsel
Param Cumaraswamy said that he has the recording and The Chairman alerted the House to the possibility of an
will forward it to BC. increase in the Discipline Fund levy. He said that when
ASDB came into existence in 1993, the levy was set at
The Chairman asked Members of the Bar to email their RM120. The rate was reduced to RM60 in 2002-2003.
complaints to the president@malaysianbar.org.my email Over the last six or seven years, ASDB has been operating
address as soon as they become aware of any issue, and at a deficit and in the last two years, ASDB has started to
not wait for a general meeting of the Malaysian Bar. use its reserves. If the levy is not increased, it is forecasted
that the Discipline Fund will be depleted by 2018. BC and
Srimurugan s/o Alagan proposed that BC consider ASDB are working out a budget to determine the extent
establishing an International Law Committee to look into of the increase needed to enable ASDB to remain “in the
commercial law matters at the international level, in light of black” for another ten years. The increase in the levy is
the liberalisation of the legal profession and the promotion inevitable.
of Malaysia as a dispute resolution hub.
4.4 IMLC 2012
The Chairman said that the incoming Council will consider
this. The Chairman said that IMLC 2012 was the biggest and
best conference that BC had ever organised. It also
4.1.7 Outgoing Council members generated the highest amount of surplus.
The Chairman thanked, on behalf of the Malaysian Bar, 4.5 Committees’ reports
the 11 outgoing Council members who had contributed
in varying degrees to the Bar. He urged Members of the 4.5.1 Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Bar to step forward and help BC, which needs more “foot Committee
soldiers” so that the whole weight of the burden of the Bar
does not fall on the shoulders of only a few Members. The Chairman said that the Construction Industry Payment
and Adjudication Act (“CIPAA”) will come into force after the
4.2 Secretariat’s Report 13th General Elections. It is anticipated that the Government
will be involved in quite a number of disputes, thereby
There was no discussion on this item. raising the possibility of a lack of AGC officers to handle
the disputes. BC, led by Wilfred Abraham, is working with
4.3 Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board the AGC to formulate the rates of payment to lawyers to
(“ASDB”)’s Report represent the Public Works Department in the disputes, as
and when the Government outsources work to the Bar.
The Chairman placed on record the Malaysian Bar’s
deepest appreciation and gratitude to the outgoing 4.5.2 Committee on Orang Asli Rights
Chairman of the ASDB, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Ahmad
Sulaiman, who had done a wonderful job in his nine years The Chairman said that the Committee on Orang Asli
of service as a member and Chairman for three and six Rights, led by Steven Thiru, has been very active and
years, respectively. The outgoing Chairman, as well as the has recruited many volunteer lawyers to defend the native
other ASDB members, had almost cleared the backlog of customary rights of the Orang Asli. The German Foreign
complaints and had put in place a proper system so that Office, through the German Embassy in KL, has provided
complaints could be dealt with expeditiously. On behalf of a grant of RM246,000 to BC to fund various Orang Asli
the Bar, the Chairman welcomed the new Chairman of the projects.
ASDB, Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad, a former
Member of the Bar and former Court of Appeal Judge.

4.5.3 Constitutional Law Committee to generate a certain amount of research and understanding
on judicial sentencing, which is rather neglected in our
The Chairman thanked Syahredzan Johan for having ably criminal justice system.
led the Constitutional Law Committee, and also thanked the
energetic members. The Committee is constantly in the 4.5.7 Environment and Climate Change Committee
public sphere to actively educate Malaysians.
The Chairman said that the Environmental Court (the
4.5.4 Conveyancing Practice Committee “Green Court”) is the pet project of the current CJ.
The Chairman said that the Conveyancing Practice 4.5.8 Finance Committee
Committee had met every month and quietly toiled to sort
out various issues, including the forged acknowledgment of The Chairman said that the Statement of Accounts for the
payment of stamp duty. Malaysian Bar shows a very healthy financial position.
There is a surplus of RM2 million in the Main Fund and a
4.5.5 Corporate and Commercial Law Committee cumulative surplus of RM7 million. He thanked the Finance
Committee, headed by Steven Thiru, for the prudence it
The Chairman said that the Corporate and Commercial had exercised, resulting in a healthy surplus.
Law Committee (“CCLC”) was ably led by Wong Tat
Chung. One important issue that had been looked into 4.5.9 Human Rights Committee
by CCLC was the Limited Liability Partnerships (“LLP”)
Act 2012. Although the LLP Act 2012 has come into force, The Chairman said that the Human Rights Committee, co-
consequential amendments have to be made to the LPA chaired by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, is working very hard
to enable Members of the Bar to register their LLPs. Once on various issues. BC recently presented its submission
the LPA has been amended, CCLC will conduct roadshows to the United Nations Human Rights Council ahead of
nationwide to educate Members who are interested to adopt the Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia. A copy of the
the LLP structure as a vehicle for their practice. Three submission will be posted on the Bar website. Although
outstanding issues that BC has to look into are: (a) whether Malaysia is a member of the United Nations Human Rights
to allow names other than the names of partners to be part Council, it is a signatory to only three out of nine core
of the names of LLPs; (b) the need to amend the LLP Act international human rights instruments. This is something
2012 or the LPA to insert an enabling provision for a vesting that BC is advocating with the Attorney General. Although
order to automatically allow all litigation files of a law firm the committee set up by the Cabinet has agreed that
that converts to an LLP, to be deemed as belonging to the Malaysia should accede to at least three more human rights
LLP, without the need for a Notice of Change of Solicitors to conventions, this proposal is still pending the Attorney
be filed for each and every file; and (c) tax issues affecting General’s consideration.
LLPs, which are yet to be resolved.
4.5.10 LawCare Committee
4.5.6 Criminal Law Committee
The Chairman said that the LawCare Committee has made
The Chairman said that the proposal to set up a Sentencing a number of improvements to the LawCare Policy. He
Council is moving forward. BC had brought in Professor thanked Kanarasan Ghandinesen and his Committee for
Arie Freiberg, Chairman of the Victoria Sentencing Advisory the good job done.
Council, to meet Members of the Bar, the AGC and the
Judiciary. It is hoped that the Sentencing Council will help
4.5.11 Legal Profession Committee at the amount of work carried out by the Malaysian Bar.
The Chairman said that Members tended to be harsh and
The Chairman said that the Legal Profession Committee critical of their own Bar, and forget the wonderful work that
meets every month and quietly labours over issues the Bar has done and is doing. Members will realise this
affecting the Bar. The Committee was ably led by first- only after speaking to foreign lawyers and comparing notes
term Bar Councillor, Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, who is on their respective Bars.
very hardworking. The Chairman thanked her and the
Committee for the good work done. He also praised the 4.5.14 National Young Lawyers Committee
Malacca Bar, which had produced good leaders, including
her and Ng Kong Peng. The Chairman said that the National Young Lawyers
Committee is very active, enthusiastic and energetic, as
4.5.12 Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee reflected by the numerous activities it had organised during
the year.
The Chairman thanked E Gnasegaran, Kuthubul Zaman
Bukhari and Jude Raj for the good work they had put in, 4.5.15 Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee
and for having represented the Bar well on Bank Negara
Malaysia’s Joint Working Committee. Originally, Bank The Chairman thanked Ragunath Kesavan and the
Negara Malaysia had wanted to introduce the No-Fault Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee for having
Liability Scheme but fortunately, this was ditched. BC managed to expand the Professional Indemnity Insurance
then engaged with Bank Negara Malaysia and the Joint coverage and, at the same time, reduce the annual
Working Committee to overhaul the entire personal injury premium by RM20 for 2013. The Committee also publishes
award system in order to make claims simpler, faster a wonderful publication named Jurisk! to educate Members
and cheaper. The Joint Working Committee will set up a on the best practices for practice and risk management.
Nationwide Call Centre to enable road accident victims to
get more information pertaining to personal injury awards 4.5.16
Professional Standards and Development
via telephone, and will print informational pamphlets for Committee
distribution to the public. Fortunately, BC’s representatives
on the Joint Working Committee took a firm stand and The Chairman thanked Dipendra Harshad Rai and Santhi
managed to stop the Bar’s proposal from being steered Latha for the great work rendered in respect of the CPD
away from its intended direction. Scheme.
4.5.13 National Legal Aid Committee 4.5.17 Publications Committee
The Chairman thanked Ravi Nekoo, Ravinder Singh The Chairman thanked Syamsuriatina Ishak and Mad
Dhalliwal, Harleen Kaur, Stephanie Bastian and Rajen Diah Endut for producing Praxis, an outstanding quarterly
Devaraj, the BC’s Chief Executive Officer, for the great publication of the Bar.
work done in respect of the trainings conducted throughout
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak for lawyers 4.5.18 Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee
interested in doing YBGK work. He said that whenever
he went overseas in his capacity as the President of the The Chairman said that there has been an increase in the
Malaysian Bar, he would always highlight the good work of number of cases in the Admiralty Court, and that BC will
BC’s Constitutional Law Committee and National Legal Aid propose some amendments to the shipping laws.
Committee. Foreign lawyers expressed their amazement

4.5.19 Small Firms Committee 4.7 Record of appreciation to BC
The Chairman said that the Bar had initially intended Charles Hector Fernandez wished to place on record his
to launch the Group Practice Rules at this AGM but appreciation to the Chairman and BC for all the press
unfortunately, there are some loose ends left to tie up. statements issued, the amount of work done, and for
Essentially, BC will allow small law firms, with fewer than making the Bar proud in terms of upholding the cause of
five lawyers, to group together and operate in a Chambers- justice.
styled system so that they can share common premises and
thus save operating costs. The Rules are expected to be The Chairman placed on record that BC is neither the “kuda
finalised by the incoming Council and thereafter posted on tunggangan” for the Democratic Action Party, nor the “dog”
the Bar website for Members to comment on. As far as the for the Malaysian Chinese Association or the Parti Keadilan
independent branding of group practices is concerned, the Rakyat, as alleged by Utusan Malaysia and various
Chairman said that this will not be part of the Rules yet as blogs. Unfortunately, some of BC’s press statements had
BC would like to first see how the group practices pan out. generated very unhealthy and negative comments. The
Chairman said that BC must keep pushing its message to
4.5.20 Sports Committee the public because people always accuse BC of “playing
politics”. The question is, “What is politics?” Politics is about
The Chairman said that the Attorney General and the the system of governance of a country. If this definition is
CJ have agreed that the Tripartite Games between the adopted, then the Malaysian Bar deserves to be involved
Malaysian Bar, the AGC and the Judiciary be revived. in some issues of politics, including those in respect of
which BC had made comments. The Chairman hoped, and
4.5.21 Task Force on Combined Rules of Court expressed his confidence, that the incoming Council will
continue to make comments on relevant issues. The reality
The Chairman thanked the members of the Task Force for is that the incoming Council will face great challenges as
all their diligence and hard work. well as a possible constitutional crisis, depending on the
outcome of the 13th General Elections. Even organising
4.5.22 Trade in Legal Services Committee public awareness talks on preparing election petitions, and
being an election observer or polling agent had landed BC
The Chairman said that at least three applications from in trouble, in that three to four demonstrations had been
foreign law firms are expected for the Qualified Foreign held outside BC’s building, and some threats had been
Law Firm category, and one application for the International made over the telephone.
Partnership category. An application is also expected from
a local law firm that intends to recruit foreign lawyers. Item 5 of the agenda
To consider and, if approved, to adopt the Audited
4.6 Adoption of reports Accounts of the Malaysian Bar for the year ended 31
Dec 2012
The President’s Report and the committees’ reports were
adopted by the House. The Audited Accounts were adopted, as proposed by
Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and seconded by Mahendran
Ponniah @ Mahendran Chelliah, both of the KL Bar.
Item 6 of the agenda

To consider any motions proposed in accordance with section 64(6) of the LPA
6.1 Motion no 5.1
“Motion to establish an Independent Investigation Committee to enquire into the facts and circumstances relating to
the preparation and execution of the statutory declaration purportedly affirmed by one Balasubramaniam Perumal
on 4 July 2008”, proposed by Wan Hidayati Nadirah Binti Wan Ahmad Nasir, and jointly seconded by Farida Binti
Mohammad, New Sin Yew, Ida Daniella Binti Zulkifili, Tanya Marie Lopez, Farhana Binti Abdul Halim, Murnie Hidayah
Binti Anuar, Nur Zatulitri Binti Md Yusof, Seira Sacha Bt Abu Bakar, Loke Yuen Hong, Nurashikin Binti Mohamed
Khalit, Ooi Seow Wen and Alvin Oh Seong Yew, dated 8 Mar 2013
Whereas:
(1) One Balasubramaniam Perumal (Bala) had on 3 July 2008 revealed a statutory declaration purportedly affirmed
on 1 July 2008 (SD1) revealing, among others, certain facts concerning the murder of one Altantuya Shaariibuu
(Altantuya). Bala was a material witness for the prosecution in Shah Alam High Court Criminal Trial Nos. 46-3-2006 &
45-120-2006, Public Prosecutor v Azilah bin Hadri, Sirul Azhar bin Hj Umar and Abdul Razak bin Abdullah (“Criminal
Trial”), the trial of which resulted in the acquittal of Abdul Razak bin Abdullah and the convictions of Azilah bin Hadri
and Sirul Azhar bin Hj Umar. The convictions are currently under appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(2) SD1 contained matters that were and still are of great significance, not only for their relating to matters in controversy
in the then on-going Criminal Trial but also for their pertaining to matters of the public administration of the country.
Bala stated that he had made SD1 as he was of the view that material matters had been omitted by the police
during investigations and not been brought to light by the prosecution in the course of his testimony in the Criminal
Trial. These included Altantuya’s intimate relationship with the Prime Minister and the latter’s interference with the
investigations into Altantuya’s death.
(3) On 4 July 2008, Bala revealed a second statutory declaration (SD2) purportedly affirmed by him retracting SD1. Bala
also said that he had been compelled to affirm SD1 under duress.
(4) Subsequently, Bala revealed in an interview with Malaysia Today — that was sequentially released in parts from 13
November 2009 — that he signed SD2 as he was offered RM5 million and put to fear as to the safety of his family. He
had not read the contents of SD2 before executing the same.
(5) On 12 December 2012, one Deepak Jaikishan (Deepak) in a video interview with TVPas revealed a purported scheme
among several persons to coerce Bala to retract SD1 by the affirmation of SD2 in a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice. Further, an advocate and solicitor(s) was engaged by these persons for Bala to prepare SD2 to be executed
by Bala. SD2 was prepared without Bala’s instructions and a Commissioner for Oaths was arranged to have Bala
affirm SD2 in a hotel room.

(6) On 21 December 2012, Bala’s solicitor, one Americk Singh Sidhu issued a press statement stating, among others,
that:
(6.1) Bala does not know the identity of the advocate and solicitor(s) who drafted SD2.
(6.2) Bala did not instruct any advocate and solicitor(s) to draft SD2.
(6.3) Bala was not present before the advocate and solicitor(s) when SD2 was being prepared.
(6.4) The contents of SD1 are true to the best of Bala’s knowledge and belief.
(6.5) Bala was forced to sign SD2 because of threats to his family.
(6.6) Bala is unable to lodge a complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board because he does not
know the identity of the advocate and solicitor(s) who drafted SD2 in Bala’s absence and without his instructions.
(7) Deepak has since filed a defamation suit against the Prime Minister in which he has asserted the identity of two
advocates and solicitors in his Statement of Claim in the said action.
(8) The matters above have to date been publicly available on the worldwide web and been the subject of much discussion
and consternation among Malaysians.
(9) If the assertions of Bala and Deepak are true, then the preparation of SD2 may amount to acts of criminality under the
Penal Code including perjury, giving false information regarding an offence and obstruction of justice under Part XI of
the Penal Code. Further, those involved in the purported scheme to coerce Bala to retract SD1 may have engaged in
abuse of power and corrupt practices punishable under the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. In this,
the advocate and solicitor(s) concerned may have committed criminal offences or aided and abetted the commission
of criminal offences. In doing so, they would have brought the legal profession into disrepute.
(10) As a result of the intense speculation and scrutiny among right-minded Malaysians, rumours of the identity of the
advocate and solicitor(s) involved in the preparation and execution of SD2 have been circulating in the public sphere.
Public confidence in the legal profession and the Malaysian Bar may have been undermined, more so for a perception
that the Bar has chosen to take no or minimal steps in addressing the matter to protect its members.
(11) Given that:
(11.1) under section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Malaysian Bar is to uphold the cause of justice without
regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour, and is further to maintain the
high standards of conduct of the profession and the practice of law by its members;
(11.2) the Bar has consistently asserted the need to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in the administration
of justice;
(11.3) the Bar has repeatedly adopted the position that law enforcement agencies such as the Royal Malaysia
Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission need not wait for official reports before commencing
investigations into crimes that have come to light through media reports;
(11.4) the Bar has in the past relied and acted on video evidence to lodge official complaints with the appropriate
authorities such as in the VK Lingam video clip of judicial-brokering;

(11.5) that it is imperative that the Bar be seen to be proactive with a view to determining the truth of the matter; and
(11.6) that the Bar Council had permitted itself to be viewed as being reluctant to act decisively on the matter,
particularly in light of the President of the Bar having reportedly characterised Deepak as being ‘someone
whose own background is cause for concern’ (Free Malaysia Today, 18 December 2012) notwithstanding the
fact that an enquiry has yet to be conducted into the matter.
It is hereby resolved that:

The Bar Council immediately establishes an Independent Investigation Committee to urgently enquire into the facts and
circumstances relating to the preparation and execution of the statutory declaration purportedly affirmed by Balasubramaniam
Perumal on 4 July 2008 with a view towards lodging an official complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.
The Chairman briefed the House on what BC had done so same through SD2, which he allegedly affirmed. He then
far in terms of the enquiries conducted in respect of the left Malaysia for India and stayed there for about five years.
second Statutory Declaration (“SD2”) purportedly affirmed Sometime in August of last year, he gave a series of press
by Balasubramaniam Perumal (“Bala”) on 4 July 2008. interviews to Malaysiakini. In December 2011, Deepak
He said that it was not practical for BC to provide a daily Jaikishan (“Deepak”) surfaced and gave a few interviews on
update to Members of the Bar on disciplinary matters. BC PAS TV, which was how the matter came to BC’s attention.
can only disclose whether a complaint has been lodged and BC convened a special meeting of its Executive Committee
whether disciplinary proceedings have been concluded. (“EXCO”) to consider the matter. EXCO decided that BC
For the complaint against VK Lingam, the investigation should proceed to make enquiries to determine the identity
by the Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) is still ongoing and of the lawyer(s) who had drafted SD2.
there is only one more witness left to testify. In a number
of press statements issued in relation to SD2, BC had The Chairman disclosed that he had known Bala personally
merely said that it was enquiring into the matter, but made and had spoken to him about this matter by telephone when
no mention regarding the status. BC is being advised on Bala was living in India. Bala confirmed and stood by what
this matter by its external counsel, namely Lambert Rasa- he had said in his interview to Malaysiakini. He agreed to
Ratnam and Sean Yeow Huang-Meng, both of Messrs Lee cooperate with BC in regard to this matter, upon his return
Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill. to Malaysia. Unfortunately, he passed away the day before
the AGM. A day or two before he passed away, he again
By way of background information, the Chairman said reaffirmed his agreement to assist BC by providing it with
that Bala had held his first press conference on the first a written statement. The Chairman placed on record the
Statutory Declaration several years ago, but recanted the Bar’s condolences to Bala’s family.

The Chairman said that there is a distinction between this The Chairman said that ASDB receives about 500 to 600
matter and the complaint against VK Lingam. In the latter, complaints a year, and that anyone can lodge a complaint.
BC had direct evidence in the form of a video clip showing About 30 to 60 of those complaints are lodged directly by
VK Lingam brokering the appointment of Judges. In the BC, most of which relate to cases involving the dishonesty
former, the identity of the lawyer(s) who drafted the SD2 of solicitors who misuse clients’ monies. BC also intervenes
was, at that point in time, still conjecture. As such, BC could in cases where the original complainant has, for some
only make enquiries since it has no power under the LPA to reason, withdrawn his or her complaint but where BC feels
compel a person to give a written statement. Accordingly, there are valid grounds for pursuing the complaint. At this
BC wrote officially to: stage, the Chairman invited the proposer of the motion to
move the motion.
(1) the lawyer(s) who allegedly drafted SD2;
(2) Deepak; The proposer, Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan Ahmad Nasir
(3) Haris Mohamed Ibrahim, who had brought the matter of the Selangor Bar, said that the motion struck at the very
to BC’s attention; heart of the principle of natural justice. She thanked the
(4) R Sivarasa, solicitor for Deepak in the defamation suit Chairman for having briefed the House on the steps taken
against the Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun by BC thus far, but said she would like to emphasise that the
Abdul Razak, in respect of which Deepak disclosed Independent Investigating Committee (“IIC”), as envisaged
in his statement of claim filed at the KL High Court on in the motion, will in no way prejudice the investigation. All
22 Feb 2013 that the lawyers who drafted SD2 were that is required of BC is to hand over the investigation to
Cecil Abraham and his son, Sunil Abraham; and the IIC, which can then take over. The motion is in no way
(5) Americk Singh Sidhu, solicitor for Bala. politically motivated; it is neither pro-Opposition nor pro-
establishment. The proposer expressed her confidence
The Chairman said that BC is engaging, through written that Members would be able to associate themselves with
communication, with the lawyer who allegedly drafted SD2. the pro-justice camp, as they have a duty to ensure that
He thanked Americk Singh Sidhu for having provided BC irrespective of the outcome of the investigation, it must not
with substantial information in writing, which will serve as only be scrupulous and independent but must also be seen
documentary evidence. Unfortunately, R Sivarasa was to be so, in the eyes of the public. She said that some
not able to get instructions from Deepak, whose father had Members might have reservations as to whether BC has the
had a stroke recently. The Chairman expressed hope that power to set up the IIC. She contended that section 56 of
Deepak will give his consent to R Sivarasa to extend a copy the LPA is wide enough to empower BC to do so. She then
of the statement of claim to BC to be used as evidence, opened the motion to the floor for debate and expressed
should BC decide to lodge a complaint. The solicitors acting her hope that all Members would vote in favour of it.
for BC in this matter had forwarded their legal opinion in
respect of the professional duty of a solicitor towards a non- Americk Singh Sidhu of the KL Bar said that he thought
client. BC is approaching the end of its enquiries and hopes it necessary to address the House prior to discussing the
to make a decision, at its second meeting on 6 Apr 2013, motion. Whenever he had had to make a decision in the
on whether to lodge a complaint against Cecil Abraham. past, he had always been guided by a very simple principle,
BC could have moved more quickly but unfortunately, it is enshrined in the phrase “do the right thing”. The day before,
dependent on other people’s responses to its requests for he had lost Bala, his friend and client, who was probably
specific information. Such things are beyond BC’s control. the bravest man he had ever had the privilege of being
The Chairman said that because the enquiries are ongoing, acquainted with, and it was an honour to have served him
it is only appropriate that he disclose the steps taken by BC over the last five years. He confessed that he had spent
thus far, to Members at this general meeting. the last 20 hours or so in complete mental torment because
he had information that he was obliged not to reveal.
However, the situation had changed dramatically, and he to rest in the home that he loved and in the presence of
has, therefore, been forced to address the House on this those he cared for. This was the very least that Americk
issue. This was probably one of the most difficult decisions Singh Sidhu could do for him. He prayed that Bala’s soul
that he had ever had to make in his entire life. He had tried would rest in eternal peace.
applying the “do the right thing” principle to the situation he
was now faced with but he found that this was diametrically Americk Singh Sidhu said that even as he was speaking,
opposed to what he thought he understood. He said he Bala’s body was being prepared for cremation. Contrary
was about to sacrifice his integrity and his honour but he to what many Members might think or believe, Bala and
believed that this must be done to preserve the integrity and his family do not have money. The funds that had been
the honour of those who were no longer around to defend given to Bala in 2008 had almost been exhausted. Americk
themselves, and because he believed that this was the Singh Sidhu said that he had sought the prior permission
right thing to do. He was about to break an understanding of the Chairman and the Vice-President to pass around a
that he said he would not, and to relinquish the promise collection box for Members’ donations, which he would give
he had solemnly made. He was about to breach the to Bala’s widow, Selvi. She needs as much help as she
sacrosanct rule of confidentiality but he knew that this had can get because, for the last five years, their children had
to be done, or he would not be able to live with himself. He been attending an Indian national education programme in
also knew that this had to be done as a mark of respect for Chennai, India, where the medium of instruction is English.
the sacrifices made by Bala, who had fought so hard and They cannot be educated in this country anymore, and they
suffered so much only because he believed what he was have to go back to Chennai to continue their education.
doing was right.
After the House gave a standing ovation to Americk Singh
Americk Singh Sidhu informed the House that a little more Sidhu, the Chairman expressed his thanks to him and
than two weeks earlier, Cecil Abraham had paid him a said he could vouch for Americk Singh Sidhu’s statement
visit. The meeting had been brokered by another lawyer that Bala’s family does not have money. Five collection
who was also present at the encounter. Cecil Abraham boxes would be passed around for Members’ donations.
had confessed to him that he did indeed draft SD2 without Besides the revelation by Americk Singh Sidhu and the
the instructions of Americk Singh Sidhu’s client, and had short conversation that the Chairman had had with Americk
apologised for having done so. He told Americk Singh Singh Sidhu before the AGM commenced, Americk Singh
Sidhu that he had been instructed to do this by Dato’ Sri Sidhu has reaffirmed his offer to render assistance to BC
Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak. Americk Singh Sidhu said with regard to this issue. The enquiry by BC will come to a
that he accepted Cecil Abraham’s apology and assured him close. All that needs to be done is for BC to meet in April
that his admission would remain between them. Americk 2013 to make a decision on the matter.
Singh Sidhu then informed Bala, who agreed to keep
it to himself. Americk Singh Sidhu said that he has now The Chairman asked whether the proposer of the motion
broken the promise he had solemnly made, and he was not would like to reconsider her motion because, insofar as the
proud of himself. However, he had to do it in memory of a IIC is concerned, the view given by BC’s counsel, Lambert
great Malaysian, a man who had stood fast in the face of Rasa-Ratnam and Sean Yeow Huang-Meng, was that the
adversity and at great personal sacrifice; a man who would setting up of the IIC would be ultra vires the LPA. Putting the
probably still be alive today had he not spent the last five issue of legality aside, BC does not need the IIC because
years permanently glued to a computer screen, trying to BC is already in the good hands of its counsel.
find out all he could on the happenings in his motherland
from a faraway place to which he and his family had been Manjeet Singh Dhillon said that he had concerns that
unceremoniously banished. Americk Singh Sidhu said he needed to be expressed, and he proceeded to give a broad
could seek solace in the fact that Bala would finally be laid indication of what had taken place the previous day at the

hearing of an ongoing ASDB-related matter in court. He Manjeet Singh Dhillon said that he did not wish to mention
said that the heart of the matter was that the DC appointed the names of the people involved in the complaint that is
to investigate a complaint lodged with ASDB way back in in court.
October 2010 had not convened any enquiry, according
to the evidence given by ASDB’s Director of Complaints. The Chairman said that at the end of the day, BC is just
Based on his understanding of the LPA and the Disciplinary as accountable, for the simple reason that the President
Proceedings Rules, there is a two-month period, and that of the Bar or his nominee (the Vice-President, Secretary
DC should have applied for an extension and completed its or Treasurer) sits on ASDB. Members must have faith
enquiry. If the DC does not sit at all, ASDB must change in ASDB to move BC’s potential complaint against Cecil
the composition of the DC to ensure that the exercise is Abraham forward. He asked the House to allow BC to
completed. Manjeet Singh Dhillon said that in light of what make a decision on this issue in April.
had been revealed by Americk Singh Sidhu, the issue
concerning SD2 will end up before the same body where Srimurugan s/o Alagan said that in light of Americk Singh
BC is expected to deal with personalities. Two years from Sidhu’s revelation, BC can make a decision to lodge a
today, the issue may still be at the same point, and life will go complaint with ASDB, and the proper way is to let ASDB
on wonderfully for the lawyer who had basically demeaned deal with it. BC must be independent and impartial. It
the legal profession. The issue before the House is not should not judge any lawyer harshly but let due process
whether the IIC is not right, proper or legal, but whether BC take place. He then spoke about the two former elite police
can give an assurance that its complaint will actually take commandos who had been found guilty of the murder of
off and the DC appointed will proceed with its enquiry. Altantuya Shaariibuu by the High Court and are now facing
the gallows. They neither had any connection with, nor met,
The Chairman said that he was aware of the case, which the woman before. The question being raised by people is
has been put on the list of complaints where DCs had who had instructed them to commit the murder. Srimurugan
delayed completing their enquiries. ASDB will need to sort s/o Alagan asked if BC could push the authorities to reopen
out the problems. BC was given a copy of the list. the case, in light of new information that has emerged,
so that the real culprits who gave instructions to the two
Manjeet Singh Dhillon asked what action was taken against individuals to kill Altantuya Shaariibuu are brought to book.
the DC members involved in the court matter referred to.
The Chairman said that this issue will be placed on the
The Chairman said that such delays occasionally happened, agenda of the BC meeting in April.
and that BC needs to look at ASDB’s performance. ASDB
has taken expeditious action in a majority of cases. In P Arudkumaran said that the issue of bringing the real
respect of BC’s complaint against VK Lingam, the delay culprits to book is a political issue and should be left to the
in the first two years was caused by VK Lingam raising rakyat of Malaysia to decide. In the present instance, a
numerous objections to the composition of every DC Member of the Bar is being implicated. Everybody knows
appointed to look into the complaint. who was behind SD2 as the name had been mentioned on
the Internet and in Deepak’s statement of claim. Americk
Manjeet Singh Dhillon said that he was not interested to Singh Sidhu had also mentioned his name. However, the
know about the complaint against VK Lingam. Chairman had not named this lawyer in any of his press
statements, and neither had he named the corrupt Judges.
The Chairman explained that he was merely drawing an The question surrounding the legality of forming the IIC is a
analogy. separate issue. It is for the House to decide whether they
want the IIC. As Members are aware, there was a previous
senior Member who had been implicated in a matter. The
Bar had held an EGM but nothing seemed to be proceeding of high profile and politically-linked, this will not make the
against him. He is enjoying life at the moment and is still murder trial a political one. It is a trial that all Members have
practising. P Arudkumaran asked whether, as far as Cecil an interest in.
Abraham is concerned, the House could let the BC’s own
investigating committee come up with a decision to say that Malik Imtiaz Sarwar asked if there is anything to stop the
Cecil Abraham’s conduct was wrong. He further asked BC House from resolving to refer the complaint to ASDB.
to take immediate action to refer Cecil Abraham to ASDB
since there is enough evidence to show that he was the The Chairman said that it is for BC to make the decision.
person who had drafted SD2.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar referred to some of the Chairman’s
By way of explanation, the Chairman said that any person past press statements, in which the latter had equated
can lodge a complaint with ASDB. BC is a complainant the situation involving the former Judge to that of clients’
in about 10 percent of the complaints, involving a variety monies having, or not having, been stolen.
of issues. In the present instance, following the revelation
by Americk Singh Sidhu, BC will make a decision in April. The Chairman said that his statement was not meant to be
Assuming that BC decides to lodge a complaint, ASDB a comparison. Part of it related to instances where BC can
will, in all likelihood, establish a DC. BC will have Americk lodge a complaint on its own volition.
Singh Sidhu as its witness, and will be represented by its
senior counsel at the disciplinary proceedings. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said that if the facts of the issue at
hand are borne out, what BC would be looking at is not
P Arudkumaran asked the Chairman to name those who merely the professional misconduct of Cecil Abraham in the
are in the “Dream Team”. usual sense, but also obstruction of justice and conspiracy
to defeat the due administration of justice. He asked BC
The Chairman said that he would not furnish any of the or EXCO to consider whether a police report ought to be
names because the cases are pending investigation by lodged against Cecil Abraham.
MACC.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar commended the young Members who
P Arudkumaran referred to the Chairman’s press statement had had the conviction to put together the motion and stand
concerning an MACC case involving a former Court of up in front of the other Members in the hall and effectively
Appeal Judge who is now in practice. He enquired in what take on the establishment for having done nothing, no
capacity the former Judge will be charged for corruption, matter what the outcome is today. The only way in which
and whether he could still be charged since he is no longer the House managed to get BC to give an account of what
on the Bench. it had been doing was through the moving of this particular
motion, which the proposers may well decide to withdraw
The Chairman said that it is not so much a case of enquiring later.
into the issue of corruption, since this is something for
MACC to look into. BC has agreed to provide assistance to The Chairman agreed that what the proposers had done
MACC. What BC is enquiring into is the misconduct of the was certainly good. He assured the House that BC had
former Judge under section 94(4) of the LPA. been looking into the issue since December 2012, and the
only reason why this could not be disclosed in great detail
Srimurugan s/o Alagan said that the death of Altantuya was that BC was still in the process of making enquiries.
Shaariibuu is not a political issue. A human life had been
taken, and all facts leading to the death must become Ramdas Tikamdas said that in light of the motion before
public. Although the personalities involved in her death are the House, the Chairman’s explanation as to what BC

had done in respect of the enquiries and Americk Singh taken some action only at this late stage. The House
Sidhu’s revelation, he would like to propose something but wants to ensure that the matter, which involves obstruction
was unsure whether it would amount to an amendment or of justice, is investigated independently. Fadiah Nadwa
revision of the motion. He proposed that Members of the Fikri disclosed her involvement in SUARAM’s complaint
Bar mandate the incoming Council to take all appropriate relating to the ongoing Scorpene submarine scandal that
steps to prepare and send a memorandum to the Inspector is before the court in Paris. She said that the Judge of
General of Police and the Attorney General to reopen the the Paris court had indicated that the court would look into
investigation into the person or persons involved, directly the aspect of the case concerning the gruesome murder
or indirectly, in giving orders for the murder of Altantuya of Altantuya Shaariibuu. She said that the aim of the
Shaariibuu. proposers was to inform everyone how serious this matter
is, and that the House take some action today. The House
The Chairman said that under the laws and rules governing should, therefore, be given the opportunity to decide on the
general meetings, the proposal by Ramdas Tikamdas motion because BC had not made the process of enquiry
would be substantially different from the motion, and hence transparent.
it would be improper for the House to consider it. He
assured Members of the Bar that the issue raised by Malik The Chairman said that BC had made enquiries in the
Imtiaz Sarwar and Ramdas Tikamdas would be deliberated months of December, January and February. Letters had
by BC, if not at today’s first BC meeting, then certainly at the been sent out to the parties concerned. The Chairman said
second BC meeting, in April. that he had also spoken to Bala, R Sivarasa and Americk
Singh Sidhu. As mentioned earlier, it is impractical for BC
Thavamani Subramaniam of the Negeri Sembilan Bar to give daily, weekly or monthly updates on disciplinary
asked BC to respect the proposers and their call to set up matters to Members of the Bar. It is only after the enquiries
the IIC, and to let the House decide as it wished. BC should are concluded that BC can make an announcement. What
not hijack the proposers’ request nor ask them to withdraw the Chairman has been telling the press was that BC was
the motion that, in her view, was sufficient for the House to still making enquiries.
move.
Richard Wee Thiam Seng of the KL Bar said that rather
Manjeet Singh Dhillon referred to the resolution that “the than wait for the second Council meeting in April, Council
BC immediately set up an Independent Investigative members could have a quick discussion at the first Council
Committee” and said that in view of the matters that had meeting and make a decision, provided that the new
been laid before the House, he did not think that he, as a President agrees to put the matter on the agenda. There is
Member of the Bar, would like to wait for the outgoing or no need to wait for another 30 days.
incoming Council to deliberate on the issue. He asked the
proposers to consider amending the resolution to read “that The Chairman said that he had just told the Vice-President
the House resolves that the Bar Council lodge an official to consider putting the matter on the agenda of the first
complaint to the ASDB with immediate effect”. BC must Council meeting.
do as directed, as this is what the House wants and not
because the 36 members of Council are going to sit down Chew Swee Yoke of the KL Bar reminded Members that
and decide what BC should do. they, as lawyers, should resolve this issue according to the
law governing meetings. Therefore, it is up to the proposer
Fadiah Nadwa Fikri of the KL Bar said that the House and the seconder of the motion to amend the resolution
has heard what all the speakers had to say. On behalf in view of Americk Singh Sidhu’s tormented and brave
of her great friends who had put forward the motion, she revelation.
expressed her disappointment with BC because BC had
The Chairman asked Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan treated equally. This is what drove the motion. Ambiga
Ahmad Nasir whether she would be agreeable to have her Sreenevasan accepted that some Members felt that BC
motion stood down pending the drafting of the proposed was not doing anything. That was the premise of the
amendment. Once that is ready, the amended motion can motion. She referred to paragraph 10 of the motion, which
be discussed again. stated that it is “a perception that the Bar has chosen to
take no or minimal steps in addressing the matter to protect
Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan Ahmad Nasir agreed, and its members”.
said that the proposers would amend the motion along the
lines suggested by Manjeet Singh Dhillon. Ambiga Sreenevasan said that, in other words, what the
motion conveyed was that BC was not moving on the
The Chairman advised Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan issue. However, Members cannot pass a resolution based
Ahmad Nasir to ensure that the proposed amendments do on perception. If the proposers are satisfied that BC has
not affect the substantive content of the motion. taken steps, then this motion cannot stand even with the
amendments, because it gives the impression that the
Ranjit Singh s/o Harbinder Singh of the KL Bar noted that proposers are criticising BC for not doing anything, and
before the debate of the motion, the Chairman had explained are therefore asking BC to take action. This premise is not
the steps taken by BC in respect of the matter pertaining to correct. BC has heard the sentiments of the floor and the
Bala. While he respected the courage and the hard work revelation of Americk Singh Sidhu. BC should know what
put in by the proposers, their suggestion that BC had woken to do. If BC does not do what it ought to, Members will
up only now and all of a sudden, was unfair. As regards return next year. Disciplinary matters are not decided from
the Chairman’s press statement that enquiries were being the floor, and never have been. It is for BC to take that
made, Ranjit Singh s/o Harbinder Singh said that enquiries position. Ambiga Sreenevasan asked whether the House
do take time. Members must recognise that BC has no will be setting a terrible precedent, namely that from now
power of compulsion and cannot investigate. All it can do onwards, for all cases where somebody makes a complaint
is to make enquiries. If people do not want to respond to against a lawyer, a motion is brought to the floor asking that
BC’s enquiries, these will come to a dead end. Thus, BC a complaint be referred against that lawyer to ASDB. She
has taken the correct position in the issue. Manjeet Singh urged Members to have the wisdom to do the right thing, by
Dhillon’s proposed amendment to the motion is also correct leaving the matter to BC to decide.
because BC has no choice but to lodge a complaint, as a
result of Americk Singh Sidhu’s revelation. Quek Kia Peng of the Malacca Bar commended the
proposers for their courage in bringing the motion. He
Ambiga Sreenevasan of the KL Bar said that the issue also took the opportunity to thank Ambiga Sreenevasan
is obviously an emotional one. Everyone feels very for having led the BERSIH 3.0 rally. He said that for too
strongly that what had happened to Altantuya Shaariibuu long, Members had seen that investigations into the rally
was unacceptable. Deep down, they know where it is all had come to no end. A stop must be put to all this menace.
coming from. Members believe that the two persons who It is time that justice should be seen to be done. He would
had been found guilty had been unfairly convicted. Ambiga rather that the House pass the motion to ensure that justice
Sreenevasan asked the House to look at the motion very is seen to be done, than to have BC asking the proposer to
carefully. She did not agree with the statement, made by retract the motion.
a few speakers, that it was only because of the motion that
BC had taken action. BC had been taking action prior to Syahredzan Johan of the KL Bar declared his interest in
the motion but the feeling that she herself had had was the matter, as he is a Council member. Speaking as a
that BC was not moving fast enough. At the end of the Member of the Bar, he said that the motion, as it stands, is
day, the overriding principle is that all lawyers must be actually a censure of BC. Anyone is free, and has the right,

to censure BC and bring their grievances to it. However, and implied undertaking by Americk Singh Sidhu, that he
there must be a basis for the censure. This motion does would not repeat what had been said. Sulaiman Abdullah
not have a basis, which is why he takes issue with the could not, therefore, see how BC could countenance the
motion. It disturbed him when he found out that none of the breaking of a lawyer’s undertaking and proceed to take
proposers or seconders had asked BC what it was doing. further action on that basis. This was the position in all
He asked the Chairman whether any of the proposers or the cases where BC had told the courts that confessions
seconders had written to the President or the Secretary of obtained by illegal means could not be used. Hence, when
the Malaysian Bar to find out what steps BC had taken to it comes to BC’s interest, BC cannot turn around and say
address the issue. no. Sulaiman Abdullah admitted that this is a very difficult
situation because everybody else seemed to think there
The Chairman answered in the negative. was nothing wrong, but he felt duty-bound to point out that
an undertaking is an undertaking, and BC should have to
Syahredzan Johan said that this meant that the proposers consider this point. He will raise this again in Council and
and seconders were basically saying that BC could not be say that BC must weigh the point before deciding that it
trusted with handling the issue, yet they did not even take has enough evidence. If Council tells him that what it has
the step of finding out what BC had been doing thus far. He ascertained so far is enough for it to go to ASDB, then it will
commended the 13 young lawyers for bringing the motion be fine, but if Council is going to base its evidence on what
and would “do a Voltaire” for them and defend their right to Americk Singh Sidhu has revealed, and decide to go to
speak. However, the motion cannot be passed because ASDB, he will have some issues of conscience and justice
there is no basis for it. to consider.
Sulaiman Abdullah of the Selangor Bar said that he would Charles Hector Fernandez indicated his wish to propose
emphatically reject the statements that BC had not done some changes to paragraph 10 of the motion.
anything so far, and that only with this motion had BC taken
some action. As a Council member, he has always been The Chairman asked Charles Hector Fernandez if he could
very anxious to see that BC does the right thing for all parties. defer his proposed amendment, as the Chairman would like
He agreed with Ambiga Sreenevasan that when it comes to to hear a few more speeches from the floor before taking all
determining disciplinary matters, BC must act fairly. The the amendments together.
present instance might be a case where everybody feels
that justice is on one side. Nevertheless, BC has always Charles Hector Fernandez agreed, and said that since the
taken the stand that it must consider all sides of the picture. House has been updated on the actions taken by BC, the
Notwithstanding the weight of the evidence that is available, wording in the motion relating to the perception that BC had
BC must be satisfied that there is a case to be made. not been doing anything should be removed. Regarding
Sulaiman Abdullah’s view on the breach of a lawyer’s
Sulaiman Abdullah proceeded to make his second point, but undertaking, Charles Hector Fernandez said that the issue
with some heaviness, according to him, because it seemed needs more thinking and consideration. He asked that BC
to go against what everybody else has been saying. As immediately do the needful to ensure that justice is done.
a lawyer, Sulaiman Abdullah said he had been taught to This would leave the motion broad enough. The question
believe that a lawyer’s word is his bond, and a lawyer’s is who should bring the matter to ASDB — BC or Americk
undertaking can never be broken in any circumstances Singh Sidhu. If the facts surrounding SD2 are true, including
whatsoever. This is something that BC has always the new facts revealed in respect of the miscarriage of
made every effort to ensure. Sulaiman Abdullah said he justice done to two individuals who are facing the death
is now faced with this conflict. Cecil Abraham had told penalty, these would leave the motion open.
something to Americk Singh Sidhu on the understanding,
S Krishnan of the KL Bar expressed his support of the were ongoing at that stage. Therefore, the point made
motion for the sole reason that it is an invitation to find the by Syahredzan Johan that the proposers ought to have
truth. Previous speakers talked about evidence but all of it written to BC first was not a persuasive one. K Shanmuga
is based on hearsay. BC is supposed to establish the truth. proposed that paragraphs 10 and 11.6 be removed, leaving
For this purpose, S Krishnan strongly supported the motion. the rest of the motion unchanged, and that BC set up a
He thanked Americk Singh Sidhu for the revelation. He said committee to oversee ASDB so as to ensure that ASDB
that in Hinduism, no person actually dies because the soul does its job. He recalled that BC had previously set up
merely leaves the body for another body but until it goes some committees to investigate and enquire into matters.
into another body, it will not rest in peace. S Krishnan said
that the whole intention of the motion is to determine the The Chairman informed K Shanmuga that the latter’s
truth. People have said that justice is based on evidence, proposed amendment would be taken up later. He said
but Members are interested in the truth. Hence, BC should that an Ombudsman cannot be set up to oversee ASDB as
be allowed to determine the truth. it is very clear in the LPA that in the event of a challenge
made against an ASDB decision, the matter will have to
The Chairman reiterated that BC had made enquiries in be referred to court. BC does not need another body for
respect of this matter. Originally, BC intended to make a this purpose. As regards the IIC, BC had never set up one
decision in the April meeting but because of Americk Singh before. In any event, BC had already been advised by its
Sidhu’s revelation, BC may wish to look at the matter at counsel, Lambert Rasa-Ratnam and Sean Yeow Huang-
the first Council meeting. The enquiries are now at the tail Meng, on the legality of the IIC.
end. The Chairman asked the House to let BC make the
decision. ASDB will thereafter decide whether to appoint K Shanmuga said that he would have more confidence in
a DC. an IIC set up by BC than in the ASDB or the court.
Manjeet Singh Dhillon informed the House that the The Chairman urged K Shanmuga to understand the
amendment was ready. He added that Sulaiman Abdullah disciplinary process. BC will make a decision on whether
was entitled to his views. It is up to Cecil Abraham to to lodge a complaint. The complaint will then go to ASDB,
exercise his prerogative to lodge a report against Americk which in turn will make a decision on whether to establish
Singh Sidhu for breaching the confidentiality rule, and if a DC. The DC will investigate the complaint and make
he does, Americk Singh Sidhu will have to deal with it at a recommendation to ASDB. ASDB will then study the
the DC. This has nothing to do with the motion. Manjeet recommendation and decide on whether to adopt it. BC is
Singh Dhillon asked the Chairman to stop telling the House not an adjudicating body. It is merely the complainant that
that BC had been deliberating on the matter for the last will carry the carriage of the complaint.
four months. The House knows this, but a point has
been reached today where the House feels that action is K Shanmuga clarified that the House wants BC to set up
necessary. He asked the House to pass the resolution in a committee to enquire into the matter at hand and not to
respect of which BC must act, otherwise all the 36 members adjudicate or investigate.
of Council will have to resign.
The Chairman said that BC had already made enquiries.
Having noted the Chairman’s statement that BC had clearly Lambert Rasa-Ratnam and Sean Yeow Huang-Meng are
taken action, K Shanmuga of the KL Bar expressed his BC’s external counsel and BC will make a decision.
support of the resolution, except for paragraphs 10 and
11.6 of the recital. He said that even if the proposers had Roger Chan Weng Keng of the KL Bar said he would like
written to BC to enquire whether BC had taken action, BC to rebut the point made by Syahredzan Johan that the
would not have disclosed anything because the enquiries resolution has no basis. The resolution should not be taken

as a censure of BC. The resolution has every basis because particular, Americk Singh Sidhu, have in their possession,
resolutions help to strengthen democratic institutions. The nor were they apprised of all the facts of the case. It is
whole system is sick because of the lack of responsibility, for Americk Singh Sidhu to lodge the complaint, given the
focus and attention of democratic institutions. That is why sensitive circumstances of the case. Members of the Bar
BC is afflicted by such malaise. Everybody is saying that will stand behind Americk Singh Sidhu. For legal reasons, it
BC is dragging its feet in this matter. Roger Chan Weng is best that Americk Singh Sidhu continue with his previous
Keng asked the House what kind of feet-dragging was being complaint relating to the first Statutory Declaration because
referred to. When BC acted with lightning speed during he has first-hand knowledge of all the events. The DC
the BERSIH rally, everybody accused BC of being pro- did sit in that complaint but unfortunately, nobody turned
Opposition, pro-this and pro-that and called for a new Bar up. Subsequently, the DC asked BC if it was interested
or body to be set up. By the same measure of argument, in intervening. BC decided not to step in as there was no
if BC had really dragged its feet, he wondered why nobody evidence forthcoming. The complaint consequently died a
accused BC of being pro-Barisan Nasional. In his view, natural death.
this is not a matter where BC needs to act fast because no
one’s life is in danger. It is one that needs a considered Azira Aziz of the KL Bar explained the reason why the
and accurate judgment. Even if Americk Singh Sidhu has young lawyers had not written a letter of enquiry to BC. She
disclosed a new fact, the training of Members as lawyers said that the proposers had suggested the setting up of an
would remind them of the golden rule that they must not IIC that would be separate from the enquiries done by BC.
pass sentence or be judgmental until the full extent of the Jeyakumar Palakrishnar’s statement that the resolution was
facts of a case is revealed. premised on hearsay that the proposers could not stand on,
would explain why the proposers wanted an investigation.
Jagjit Singh interrupted at this stage to raise a point of The House has the revelation by Americk Singh Sidhu.
order, namely that the amendment to the motion was ready Azira Aziz questioned what else BC wanted, since it now
and needed to be tabled and put to the vote. He asked the has the grounds and the basis for an investigation.
Chairman not to waste Members’ time anymore.
The Chairman remarked that a CPD course on the
Roger Chan Weng Keng said that he would leave the disciplinary process needs to be conducted for Members.
discussion of the amendment to the floor. Though the He explained that the IIC will have no power to investigate.
proposers had alleged that BC had been dragging its feet, Even if the IIC were to write letters to the persons concerned,
in his view the motion was not a censure of BC. He asked no one will respond. In law, the IIC will amount to nothing.
how the House would pass the criterion of feet-dragging Certain people did respond to BC because they took
and urged it to look at the nature of the issue. BC seriously. The House heard Americk Singh Sidhu’s
revelation, and he has reaffirmed he would cooperate
While the proposers prepared to display the amendments with BC. The Chairman emphasised that BC already has
on the screen, the Chairman allowed a few more Members external counsel to advise it. It is for BC to make a decision
to speak. under the LPA on whether to lodge a complaint.
Jeyakumar Palakrishnar of the Selangor Bar said that what In response to Jeyakumar Palakrishnar’s statement that
the proposers had done was well-intended. Despite the Americk Singh Sidhu’s revelation was based on hearsay,
principles they hold, Members of the Bar cannot pass the Amer Hamzah Arshad of the KL Bar said that admission is
resolution directing BC to lodge a complaint because, first an exception to the hearsay rule. Amer Hamzah Arshad
and foremost, the resolution was premised on hearsay, said he was interested not in the personal case mentioned
speculation and conjecture. The proposers were neither in the motion or Americk Singh Sidhu’s revelation, but in
privy to the information that certain individuals and, in the state of truth surrounding the two accused persons
whose criminal appeals will come up for hearing in June Ragavan that he ought to have advised the proposers to
2013. Whatever has been revealed at the AGM will write to BC to find out what action BC had taken in respect
have great importance and relevance to the appeal since of the matter. Since he only came to know of the motion
some of the information may presumably shed new light. at the time when it was first circulated to Members of the
Members cannot just sit here and argue about technicalities Bar, there was no reason for Sheelaa Ragavan to pose her
and legalities of the IIC when two lives are at stake. Amer question. He said that he stood by the principle that the
Hamzah Arshad disagreed with the argument that BC does proposers ought to have written to BC.
not have the power to set up the IIC because of legalities.
Though Members have their differences, one thing remains, Ragunath Kesavan of the KL Bar agreed with the concern
ie if there is new evidence or information that can highlight expressed by Ambiga Sreenevasan that, in respect of issues
that injustice had been done to the two accused persons, concerning disciplinary proceedings, a bad precedent
the Bar needs to take action. If the Bar faces any obstacles, will be set if the House were to direct BC to take action in
it must overcome the obstacles and not find excuses or this matter. That means in future, all disciplinary matters
hide behind them. Amer Hamzah Arshad asked Members will come to the House for discussion, and resolutions
to discuss the proposed amendments to the motion and passed directing BC to comply with the House’s wishes by
vote on the amended motion. There is not much time left lodging complaints. The LPA states clearly that BC is the
because the appeal is set to be heard in June 2013. Amer body to decide whether to take disciplinary action against
Hamzah Arshad would like this motion to be debated, and any Member of the Bar, based on the facts of the matter.
if the House decides that action be taken, BC has to do so Should BC fail to take any action in the present instance,
as soon as possible. the House can hound BC. Ragunath Kesavan referred to
the pertinent point raised by Jeyakumar Palakrishnar, that
Sheelaa Ragavan of the Selangor Bar said that the since Americk Sidhu Sidhu has all the information relating
perception created by the motion was that BC had not done to SD2, Americk Singh Sidhu could lodge a complaint
anything. However, that was not what the proposers had independently and regardless of what BC does or does not
said in the motion. It was just that BC had done everything do. Ragunath Kesavan questioned why the House wanted
under the sun but Members could not see it. The original to wait for the IIC to be set up. BC will give all the support
motion and the proposed amendments merely asked for and assistance it can to Americk Singh Sidhu if he chooses
the setting up of the IIC. In relation to Syahredzan Johan’s to lodge a complaint directly to ASDB. There is no issue
question as to why the proposers had not written to BC to of hearsay, non-hearsay or admission of facts. Ragunath
find out what BC had done thus far, Sheelaa Ragavan said Kesavan said that there is no point in asking for the IIC to
that this was because the proposers had not been advised be set up and compelling BC to investigate. He concluded
to do so. Everybody knew that the proposers would be his remarks by saying that he would oppose the motion.
coming up with the motion, yet some Members have asked
that the motion be rejected on procedural grounds because The Chairman said that based on Ragunath Kesavan’s
the proposers had not written to BC. statement, the House cannot direct BC to lodge a complaint
but should leave it to BC to make a decision. Any Member
The Chairman said that Members who wish to find out more of the Bar who wishes to lodge a complaint is at liberty to
details about any matter should not wait for the AGM or the do so.
seven-day period to table a motion for that purpose. They
could e-mail their queries at any time to the President at Ira Biswas of the KL Bar urged Members to bear in mind
president@malaysianbar.org.my. that resolutions should be passed based on facts and
not emotion. The premise of the motion, in paragraphs
Syahredzan Johan said that since his name was mentioned, 10 and 11.6, refers to perception. The perception given
he would like to clarify the statement made by Sheelaa in paragraph 10 that BC had chosen to take minimal or

no steps is incorrect. As for paragraph 11.6, Ira Biswas cannot be done. Obviously, the Bar will look like a fool in
said that the Bar is not able to control how people view the eyes of the public.
it, in terms of whether BC is pro-Opposition or pro-Barisan
Nasional. Being lawyers, Members must focus on facts, DP Vijandran congratulated BC for having been circumspect
just as they always do when they present a case in court. in this matter, for not having rushed through judgment and
Members cannot, therefore, pass a resolution just because for not having given fodder to the anti-Bar opinion because,
they are upset about something. She said that the proposed in the eyes of the public, the Bar always makes statements
amendments to the motion have nothing to do with the without thinking very deeply. There are people outside who
original motion since they refer to Americk Singh Sidhu’s criticise whatever BC does. It is not that BC is afraid of
revelation, which was disclosed only that morning. Hence, criticism but BC should not provide fodder by doing silly
Members cannot pass the amended motion. It would be things. The motion is a silly thing because BC had already
unfair if the proposers were to rely on the motion to achieve taken a stand on the matter and made enquiries. People
what they want. Ira Biswas referred to Sheelaa Ragavan’s had questioned why BC took so long to do so. Members
statement that the proposers had not known that they who have done work on disciplinary matters would know
should have written to BC, and had not been advised to do that it is not easy to get responses if four to five respondent
so. She asked if the proposers would expect a daily bulletin lawyers are involved in a matter, because some of them
from BC should a complaint be lodged against them by any do not want to reply as soon as they are asked a question
Member of the Bar. by BC. It takes time to receive responses. BC is now at
the closing stage of the enquiries and will make a decision
DP Vijandran of the KL Bar said that of late, lawyers had soon. The House has to reserve the right of BC to decide.
been in the throes of a lot of criticism of the Judiciary, as
regards the tendency of certain Judges to rush through DP Vijandran asked if BC’s decision will be changed by
judgments without evaluating all the facts and without what is happening at the AGM. If the answer is yes, then
proper regard to all the submissions made before them. it is no longer a decision of BC. The decision will become
The proposer, Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan Ahmad Nasir, invalid. When the matter goes to ASDB, it will be debated
touched the core when she said that her motion was based by very senior lawyers representing the two parties and
on the concept of natural justice. This is exactly what the they will look out for flaws such as this. DP Vijandran asked
House should perceive. If so, then Members should not the House to let BC do what it is meant to do and finish the
discuss this motion because it is asking the House to decide job. Just as Ambiga Sreenevasan and Sulaiman Abdullah
on a disciplinary matter and directing BC to do this and that. have said, the process for Members who are not happy with
This would be inimical to all ideas of natural justice. The what BC has done in respect of this matter, is to bring a
resolution contains a lot of emotion and anguish and the motion of no confidence to the AGM on that score. Let BC
House has, to some extent, been influenced by it. do its job and the Bar will be venerated by the public as a
body that acts responsibly.
DP Vijandran asked Members to stand aside for a minute
and look at the resolution practically, and think about Vivekanandan s/o AMS Periasamy of the Perak Bar said
how they will be perceived by others in terms of their that it is very clear from the statements by DP Vijandran and
performance. The resolution states that BC has the right Ambiga Sreenevasan that BC has a role to play and that it
under the LPA to make a decision, and yet the House is is bound by the LPA. The House is looking at a motion that
practically ordering BC to make a decision the way the seeks to give total direction to BC on what to do, and will
House wants. DP Vijandran questioned how that decision open a huge floodgate. Once the precedent is set, there
could thereafter be defined as BC’s decision. Anybody will be repercussions. In future, BC will be told what to do
who knows administrative law, and even a Member who by the House. It is not that BC has not done anything in this
has never attended any CPD course, would know that this matter. As the Chairman has said, enquiries are ongoing.
Since the issue is a serious one, it warrants serious action someone whose background was a cause for concern. By
being taken. Vivekanandan s/o AMS Periasamy saluted making such a statement, the Chairman had effectively pre-
Americk Singh Sidhu for having come bravely to the AGM judged the issue, thereby compromising the enquiries by
to speak the way he had done. The information disclosed BC that had yet to be concluded. She said that many senior
by Americk Singh Sidhu has to be investigated by BC. If lawyers, for whom she has great respect, had taught her
the House is going to rush into making certain decisions, that she must right a wrong if she sees one. Therefore, if
the whole public will ask if this is what BC is doing. He said a lawyer sees a certain wrong being committed by another
that the matter should wait until full enquiries are completed lawyer, he/she should do something and not wait for
so that BC’s name, fame and glory that it has lived with for someone else to make a report to ASDB. This is why the
so many years will be maintained. proposers wanted BC to do what the majority of the Bar
wished.
Razlan Hadri of the KL Bar noted that the questions posed
in this debate are not new. He recalled that years ago, a The Chairman said that he had made that statement
motion had been brought to the AGM asking the Malaysian because Deepak was the one in the thick of initiating SD2,
Bar to elect the late Raja Aziz Addruse to be the President as well as the impression that the Chairman had of him
of the Malaysian Bar on the basis that he had obtained the arising from their previous dealings on related matters. In
highest votes in the election. Basically that motion directed any event, the Chairman noted the point made by Sasha
BC to comply with the wishes of the floor. As previous Lyna bt Abdul Latif, and reiterated that anyone can lodge a
eminent speakers have pointed out, this type of motion complaint to the ASDB.
takes away BC’s discretion to decide. It cannot be done.
No matter how emotionally involved Members are about the Sasha Lyna bt Abdul Latif said that the House would have
issue at hand, the House cannot direct BC to do whatever known from the daily report by Buletin Utama that everyone
it wishes. Members elect BC and should leave BC to do had been making a report against Tian Chua everyday.
the job. If BC does not do its job properly, Members can She asked if BC would like everyone to make a report to
kick out the BC members. This is how it has worked before ASDB everyday.
and how it will work in the future. As rightly pointed out
by Ira Biswas, the proposed amendment does not rescue The Chairman said that this was different. Under the LPA,
the motion because of the perception that BC has not done if anyone feels that a complaint is necessary, he/she can
anything. In light of the circumstances of the case, Razlan lodge a complaint to ASDB. That is the law.
Hadri asked the proposers to consider withdrawing their
motion and letting BC do what it is supposed to do. Noting Naran Singh said that BC is considered the highest learned
that there are a few more speakers who have lined up to body in the country. As rightly pointed out by Ambiga
speak, Razlan Hadri said that he did not want to deprive Sreenevasan and Ragunath Kesavan, the motion should
them of the opportunity to express their views, but since the not be made a precedent. He believed that Americk Singh
House had already heard a number of speakers, he asked Sidhu had knowledge of the matter a few years back and
the Chairman to put the motion to a vote. questioned why Americk Singh Sidhu had not reported to
BC or the police the moment he knew that a wrong was
The Chairman said that since this is an important issue, being done and when Cecil Abraham revealed something
he would be fair to the other Members and allow them to to him.
speak.
The Chairman asked Naran Singh not to go into the
Sasha Lyna bt Abdul Latif of the KL Bar said that paragraph motives of why Americk Singh Sidhu had or had not done
11.6 of the motion had been inserted because the Chairman something.
had, in his press statement, characterised Deepak as

Naran Singh asked the Chairman to bear in mind that to move fast on the issue, it must get the process right first
the motion was brought by a few Members but the whole so as to avoid the challenge. Brendan Navin Siva wholly
complaint and the evidence had been with Americk Singh disagreed with the call by Amer Hamzah Arshad that the
Sidhu since a few years ago. House should put aside all technicalities and legal issues,
because Members should take note of what had happened
The Chairman clarified the misconception that the House to BC’s complaint against VK Lingam. The respondent
might have about Americk Singh Sidhu having had solicitor launched a challenge to the disciplinary process
knowledge of the evidence a few years earlier, as hinted and on technicalities, over a span of two years. Having
by Naran Singh. He said that Americk Singh Sidhu’s first read the opinion by Lambert Rasa-Ratnam and Sean Yeow
complaint to ASDB was against Arunampalam, the lawyer Huang-Meng who took the view that the IIC would be ultra
who had been with Bala when SD2 was released at a press vires the LPA, Brendan Navin Siva said that this point will
conference. At that point in time, Americk Singh Sidhu was definitely come up at ASDB and it will be years before the
overseas. Because he was away for quite a considerable Bar sees a final resolution to this matter. There is no harm
period, he had no option but to withdraw the complaint. if the House waits for BC to make a decision at the second
To be fair to Americk Singh Sidhu, it was withdrawn not Council meeting in April 2013. Brendan Navin Siva urged
because he had no case. In any event, Americk Singh the House to let the process take its natural course, as
Sidhu can lodge a fresh complaint. advised by DP Vijandran and Ambiga Sreenevasan. All
kinds of allegations are being made against BC, such that
Naran Singh said that as far as the motion is concerned, Members do not trust the incoming Council to make the
there is no need for a debate. Americk Singh Sidhu can right decision. Brendan Navin Siva expressed his full trust
lodge an official complaint with BC but if BC does not and confidence in the incoming Council to do so.
take action on it, Members of the Bar can throw out all the
Council members in the middle of the year or at the next The Vice-President, Christopher Leong, observed that
AGM. the motion had been put forward in the best tradition of
the Bar because it had raised issues that are close to the
At this stage, Naran Singh informed the House that because hearts of Members for robust discussion. However, he
this issue was more important than his two motions, and did not necessarily share the view expressed by some
due to the time constraint, he had decided to withdraw his speakers that BC has no power to appoint a committee.
motions. He highlighted section 58 of the LPA (reproduced below):
The Chairman thanked Naran Singh for withdrawing the Section 58. Appointment of Committees
two motions.
(1) The Bar Council may appoint one or more
Brendan Navin Siva of the KL Bar asked the House to put committees for any general or special purpose…
aside all secondary issues such as the need to write to BC
because, ultimately, the matter will go before ASDB. As an (4) The Bar Council shall not delegate to a
outgoing Council member, he trusts the incoming Council to committee appointed under this section any
do the right thing. If the House passes the motion but does of its functions unless at least two-thirds of
not get the disciplinary process right, the complaint will be the members of the committee (including the
challenged at ASDB. This challenge may well continue Chairman thereof) are members of the Council.
right up to the High Court and the Court of Appeal without
the benefit of any ASDB investigation being conducted into The Vice-President said that section 58 allows BC to
the merits of the complaint. Therefore, if the House wants appoint a committee. However, BC cannot delegate any
of its functions to that committee unless two-thirds of the The Chairman drew Members’ attention to Rule 18(6) of the
committee members are Council members. Hence, it rules governing general meetings:
is impossible to have the proposed IIC because if it is a
committee of the BC, it can be given delegated functions Amendment of Motion
only if two-thirds of its members are Council members, and
it will have to report directly to BC. As the Chairman had 18(6) Any amendment proposed must be within
said, BC has been moving on this issue. BC will take into the scope of the original motion, in that
account the information provided by Americk Singh Sidhu, it should not have the effect of changing
act upon it and come to a decision. As lawyers, Members the objective, subject matter, nature or
should not be moved by emotion. They should address character of the original motion, nor be
their minds to what the whole motion is about, including the a direct negative of it. Notwithstanding
proposed amendments. The law is very clear. Amendments anything contained in the foregoing
cannot be made to a motion in a substantive way unless a paragraphs, the Chairperson shall have
seven-day notice period is given. If a motion is amended the discretion to disallow any proposed
substantively, it becomes a completely different motion and amendment to be made or to be put to the
will give rise to questions of whether there is natural justice. House for consideration, if he finds the
The proposed amendment is directed at Cecil Abraham. In same to have any of the effects aforesaid.
law, a notice for the amended motion should have been ...
given to all and sundry, including Cecil Abraham, so that an
opportunity is given to him to say something. That is why The Chairman said that following the explanation by the
the law of meetings does not allow motions to be amended Vice-President as to why the motion should not be passed,
substantively. Some speakers had spoken on the rationale he would, nonetheless, put the proposed amendment to the
of why the general body at the AGM cannot make decisions vote and leave the decision to the wisdom of Members.
or set directions for BC in disciplinary matters.
Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim of the Kedah/Perlis and Selangor
The Vice-President said that every single Member has an Bars gave credit to the young lawyers who had proposed the
interest in the Bar and that is the reason why BC always motion. However, she would oppose the motion because
calls upon Members to assist it. Unfortunately, if Members it implied that although Americk Singh Sidhu could make
were to move this motion that touches on a disciplinary the revelation, he could not take action on it. She believed
matter, it is very likely that the 1,302 Members who had that Americk Singh Sidhu should be the first person to take
registered for the AGM that morning would be disqualified action by lodging a complaint to ASDB. Any Member can
from participating in the disciplinary process, either as a lodge a complaint without having to come to the AGM with
member of a DC or as counsel / solicitor for BC. So, instead a motion and waste Members’ time because the issue is
of assisting BC and facilitating the disciplinary process, straightforward.
Members would have possibly and inadvertently put a
spanner in the works. The Vice-President asked Members Americk Singh Sidhu clarified his real agenda in respect of
to bear in mind that this was how VK Lingam had dragged the entire issue. He said that right from the beginning, he
BC’s complaint out over the last two years, by disqualifying had been interested not in Cecil Abraham but in finding out
every single member of the DC who had participated in the who had instructed the two policemen to murder and blow
Walk for Justice. up Altantuya Shaariibuu. He was also not interested in
lodging a report to BC or ASDB about what Cecil Abraham

had done, since he had already achieved his objective if the House could pass a resolution of that nature. She
by way of first-hand information from Cecil Abraham as would have to oppose the motion including the proposed
regards the identity of the person who had instructed Cecil amendments because the motion mentioned two names.
Abraham to draft SD2. That was all Americk Singh Sidhu In future, any Member of the Bar can put up the same kind
needed to know, as that was the agenda for which he had of motion, which will be circulated to all Members, calling
been engaged by Bala. Americk Singh Sidhu said that he for BC to lodge a complaint against a particular Member.
holds Cecil Abraham in high regard, and understands that She asked if Members want to set this precedent and see
people do make mistakes, and he accepts that. Now that it happen to them. Members agreed with BC on the issue
the objective has been met, he wished to make it clear that of justice because they feel that a grave wrong had been
he will not lodge a report against Cecil Abraham. done to Altantuya Shaariibuu. However, they should not do
another wrong just because of that particular wrong. She
The Chairman said that just as anyone can lodge a appealed to the House, in its wisdom, to reject the motion.
complaint, anyone can equally choose not to lodge one. She also urged the proposers to consider withdrawing the
Therefore, Members should not judge Americk Singh Sidhu motion.
if he does not want to lodge a complaint.
By way of closing reply, Wan Hidayati Nadirah bt Wan
Ambiga Sreenevasan said that asking Americk Singh Sidhu Ahmad Nasir thanked the House for the lively discussion.
to lodge a complaint is not the answer because it is BC that She said that after taking into account the explanation by
has a duty to take action, upon being apprised of facts that the Vice-President, and in the best interest of the Bar, the
may warrant disciplinary action to be taken. BC has a job proposers had decided to withdraw the motion. They would,
to do and has been doing it. She commended the young however, stand by what they had said in the motion and still
warriors who have taken on a number of Members at the hold the view that BC must immediately lodge a complaint
AGM and who had come with the right motives, because with ASDB against Cecil Abraham so that the matter will be
they thought that BC was not treating all lawyers equally. resolved. They may have won the battle but not the war.
She hoped that they were now convinced that this was not
the case. The Chairman thanked the proposers and seconders for
withdrawing the motion after taking into account the various
Ambiga Sreenevasan apologised to Americk Singh Sidhu arguments, not least the advocacy and eloquence of the
because she had to take offence at his suggestion that Vice-President.
only he and his group are interested in seeking justice for
Altantuya Shaariibuu when, in fact, every single Member of The Vice-President took over the role of Chairman at this
the Bar present is just as interested. However, it is nonsense stage, as Lim Chee Wee stepped out of the hall briefly. He
to say that if the House does not pass the resolution, it means confirmed that Naran Singh had withdrawn his two motions
that Members are not interested in justice. She questioned (reproduced on the next page).
6.2 Motion no 5.3
Motion to “amend/delete S49 and S51 of the Legal Profession Act 1976”, proposed by Naran Singh and seconded by
Pritam Singh Doal, dated 5 Mar 2013
The Malaysian Bar to take all immediate steps to delete S49 and S51 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and to amend both
these sections and to have only one section as follows or as deemed fit and proper by members of the Bar Council.
NEW SECTION OF S49 OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976
All members of the Malaysian Bar Council including the President, Vice President, and the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar to
be elected by the members of the Malaysian Bar at the Annual General Meeting.
REASON FOR THE MOTION
The 36 Council members so elected as Bar Council cannot be voice of the 14 to 15 thousand members of the
(1) Malaysian Bar.
The election of the President, Vice President, Secretary and the members of the Bar Council will reflect transparency
(2) and it would be decided by at least 500 members as required to form the quorum for the AGM.
If the State Bar Chairman can be elected by members of the State Bar, then why not the same principle applies to
(3) the President, Vice President, Secretary and members of Bar Council at the AGM.
The so called elected President, Vice President and Secretary would then be regarded as President of the Malaysian
(4) Bar and Not the President of Bar Council Members.
This motion was withdrawn.
6.3 Motion no 5.4
Motion regarding the death penalty, proposed by Naran Singh and seconded by Pritam Singh Doal, dated 5 Mar 2013
The Malaysian Bar Council to take all steps immediately to stop the Death Penalty for all offences in Malaysia and to take all
necessary steps to stop the pending execution carried out as death sentence, till the Parliament Amend the necessary laws.
This motion was withdrawn.

6.4 Motion no 5.2
“Motion to increase the Annual Subscription of the Sports Fund from RM10 to RM20”, proposed by Anand Ponnudurai
(Co-Chairperson, Bar Council Sports Committee), on behalf of Bar Council, and seconded by Oommen Koshy
(Member, Bar Council Sports Committee), dated 5 Mar 2013
Whereas:-
(1) The Sports Fund was established in 2003 having recognised that it was in the interest of the members of the
Malaysian Bar to increase the number of sporting activities organised by the Bar Council to foster closer relations
between members of the Bar and the Judiciary, and in particular to meet the expenses incurred in the annual
Malaysia Singapore Bench and Bar Games (“the Games”).
(2) The breakdown of expenses incurred for the Games are predominantly made up of the following:-
(a) RM80,000 to RM100,000 to the State Bar appointed to organise the Games (which goes towards the booking
of venues, transportation, payment for officials and sports equipment, welcome reception and final night
dinner);
(b) Training budget for 16 sports;
(c) Purchase of jerseys and printing of the contingent t-shirts;
(d) Accommodation and transportation for chambering pupils;
(e) Subsidies for players’ accommodation.
(3) When the games are hosted by Singapore, the expenses are even more due to the higher cost of accommodation
and exchange rate, and the purchase of the final night dinner tickets.
(4) In spite of the subsidies given, players spend a considerable amount of their own money for training and to represent
the Malaysian Bar at the Games, more so when the Games are held in Singapore.
(5) Apart from the Games, the Sports Committee has also been organising the annual Interstate Bar Games for the past
few years with states taking turns to host these games. Due to lack of funds in the Sports Fund, the Bar Council has
been giving RM10,000 from the Main Fund to the State Bars to organise the games. However State Bars still have
to source for sponsors and donations from their own members as the costs of organising these games is around
RM30,000 to RM40,000. This has resulted in State Bars being unwilling to host these games and some states
unwilling to participate and pay an entrance fee.
(6) In addition another sports event has surfaced recently, namely the Tripartite Bar Games between the Malaysian Bar,
Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association. Although each Bar Association will take turns as
host, funds will be required to organise and participate in these games.
(7) The Bar Council and Attorney General’s Chambers have recently expressed interest in reviving the Tripartite Games
between the Malaysian Bar, the Judiciary and the Judicial and Legal Services Officers’ Association (JALSOA) and
additional funds will be needed.
(8) The Statement of Accounts reflects an increase in expenses in relation to the subscription received in the past 2
years.
YEAR SUBSCRIPTION EXPENSES SURPLUS/DEFICIT

2011 RM141,620.00 RM137,456.72 RM4,163.28
2012 RM148,220.00 RM166,853.44 (RM18,633.44)
2013 (Projected) RM150,000.00 RM242,000.00 (RM92,000.00)
Explanation Note:-
(a) The Statement of Accounts does not include the following expenses paid out from Bar Council Main Fund in
2011:-
(i) RM10,000 for the Interstate Bar Games in Selangor;

(ii) RM65,717.12 for the Tripartite Bar Games in Penang.
(b) In 2012, the Interstate Bar Games were not held as no State Bar was willing to host the games with a budget
of only RM10,000. Yet there was a Deficit of RM18,633.44.
(c) The projected income for 2013 is based on the current subscription of RM10 and 15,000 members, while the
projected expenses is based on the 2012 Expenses and inclusive of the costs of the Tripartite Bar Games and
Interstate Bar Games based on the figures in 2011. The figures show a projected Deficit of RM92,000.
(9) Hence the annual subscription of RM10 which was sufficient at the relevant time it was introduced, no longer is, due
to the increase in expenses and sporting activities.
(10) If the subscription is increased to RM20, the Sports Fund will have approximately RM300,000 annually (based on
15,000 members), thereby enabling the Bar Council and Sports Committee to run all sporting activities mentioned
above and without having to dip into funds from the Main Fund. In addition, there will be sufficient funds to organise
other activities like the annual Tun Dzaiddin Golf Trophy, the purchase of blazers for the recipients of the sports
personality award and meet other expenses.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the annual subscription of the Sports Fund be increased from RM10 to RM20.
The Vice-President called upon the proposer, Anand Ponnudurai, to address the House.
Anand Ponnudurai of the KL Bar, the Co-Chairperson of the Sports Committee, said that
prior to 2003, funds for all sports activities were taken from the Main Fund. In 2003, the
House adopted a resolution to set up the Sports Fund and fixed the contribution at RM10 a
year because Members recognised that the Bar needed to organise sports activities and, in
particular, the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games, with the aim of fostering a closer
relationship among Members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Over the years, the Statement
of Accounts of the Malaysian Bar showed that the contribution of RM10, which now totals

RM150,000 a year, became progressively insufficient to an increase of the levy to RM20, a Member had just asked
meet the expenses of the main item of the Malaysian Bar’s for an increase to RM50.
sports calendar, namely the Malaysia/Singapore Bench
and Bar Games, which is traditionally held in May each The Chairman said that this could not be done as there
year. Besides these Games, the other games that are is a ruling on this. Interest earned on the fixed deposits
organised include the Interstate Games, and the Tripartite cannot be used for sports activities. The Sports Fund is a
Games between BC, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak dedicated fund.
and Sabah Law Association. Recently, the Attorney
General had suggested that the older form of the Tripartite Quek Kia Ping asked if the sports activities could include
Games — previously held between Members of the Bar, extreme sports such as paintball, go-kart and rock-climbing.
the Judiciary and the AGC — be revived.
The Chairman said that the Sports Committee could look
The deficit in the Sports Fund first started with the 2012 into this.
Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar Games. If the levy is
not increased, a larger deficit is projected for the series in Charles Hector Fernandez sought clarification as to the
2013. The Sports Committee is only seeking an increase actual source of funding for the various sports activities, in
of RM10, which should be sufficient to cover all the sports light of the deficit in the Sports Fund. He commented that
activities in the coming years. Although the Main Fund the Sports Fund had, in a sense, survived.
shows a surplus, money for the sports activities should not
be taken from it. It must come from a dedicated Sports Anand Ponnudurai said that subsidies for transport
Fund. Anand Ponnudurai expressed the hope that the and accommodation for pupils and young lawyers who
House would vote in favour of the motion. participated in the Singapore series of the Malaysia/
Singapore Bench and Bar Games were reduced. Advances
Lim Chee Wee, who rejoined the meeting at this juncture, were taken from the Main Fund in the past but these had
reassumed his role as the Chairman for the meeting, and to be repaid from the Sports Fund in the following year.
invited Members to speak on the motion. The Sports Committee had sought donations from law firms
and generated income through advertisements. With the
Jeyakumar Palakrishnar wished to place on record his increase in the levy, the Sports Committee intends to give
objection to the motion, as he was appalled at the increase full subsidies to pupils and young lawyers.
of a mere RM10. He asked the proposer to amend the
motion to increase the levy to RM50. Members who have P Arudkumaran noted that a lot of time was being spent
been taking part in sports all these years will know how discussing the motion. Every sports-loving Member knows
sports activities generate great camaraderie among the that an additional levy of RM10 will not hurt their pockets.
legal community, which is invaluable. He asked the House to pass the motion and not waste any
more time.
A Vijayan s/o S Appadurai (aka Vincent Vijayan) of the
Selangor Bar drew Members’ attention to the Statement Before the next Member spoke, the Chairman took the
of Accounts at page 353 of the annual report showing opportunity to announce that the contributions collected
the fixed deposits standing at over RM33 million as at 31 from Members for the family of the late Bala amounted to
Dec 2012. Since the Main Fund is healthy, he asked if RM18,000. He thanked Members for their generosity.
money for the sports activities could be taken from the Main
Fund, without the need to raise the Sports Fund levy. Any Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman of the Selangor Bar sought clarification
increase in the levy will place a great burden on Members, on details relating to the Sports Fund, which he noted
especially the sole proprietors. Although the motion talks of had not been included in the Malaysian Bar’s Statement
of Accounts. Without suggesting any misappropriation of The Chairman said that since Kenny Lai Choe Ken will be a
monies on BC’s part, he asked where his contribution of Council member in the new term, he would be given direct
RM10 had gone to, and where his additional contribution will access to the Malaysian Bar’s Statement of Accounts.
go to, in light of the proposal to increase the levy to RM20.
He also asked if BC had ever tried securing sponsorships Members proceeded to vote on the motion by a show of
for the entire year’s sports programme, which the Sports hands. The motion was carried by a majority: 289 votes in
Committee ought to plan ahead of time. favour, 10 against, and five abstentions.
The Chairman said that BC did try to obtain sponsorships. Michael Anthony of the KL Bar brought to the Chairman’s
Acceding to Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman’s query for detailed attention the demeaning comments, made by a few
information relating to the Sports Fund would set a Members who were standing at the back of the hall, with
precedent for every item in the Statement of Accounts to be respect to Members who had opposed the motion. He said
provided in detail, thereby making the whole annual report that BC must emphasise that everyone has a right to his
voluminous. own opinion and to vote for or against any motion that is
put before the floor. To make such comments is, therefore,
Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman asked the Chairman to point out the unbecoming of Members of the Bar.
relevant part of the Statement of Accounts containing the
details sought by him. The Chairman thanked Michael Anthony for highlighting the
issue. He urged Members to act in an appropriate manner
The Chairman said that BC will look into Aiznin Sairi and not to boo or heckle any Member or make demeaning
Sulaiman’s request. comments about others.
Kenny Lai Choe Ken of the Perak Bar said that although
he has no issue with the motion, he would like to know how
the additional money will be spent. He suggested that the
money be spent more towards the Interstate Bar Games
rather than be used only for the Malaysia/Singapore Bench
and Bar Games.

6.5 Motion no 5.5
Motion regarding the e-filing system, proposed by Arunachalam Kasi, dated 7 Mar 2013
I hereby propose to move in the 67th AGM of the Malaysian Bar on 16/03/2013 the following motion in the matter of e-filing
system:
(1) The Bar Council to call upon the concerned parties to reduce the e-filing access fee for legal firms to:
(a) RM300.00 annually in case of single-solicitor firms;

(b) RM400.00 annually in case of two-solicitor firms; and
(c) RM500.00 annually in case of all other firms
(Currently it is RM1500.00 per term of two years + RM40.00 per year).
(2) The Bar Council to call upon the concerned parties to rectify efficiency issues including downtime issues, alternative
plans during downtimes, downtime notice interval, and so forth.
(3) If the concerned parties fail to comply with the call before 30/06/2013, Bar Council to lodge a complaint in the
Competition Commission against the system vendors for abuse of dominant position by virtue of section 10 of the
Competition Act 2010.
(4) Bar Council to make a press release of this resolution, if passed, in order to let the concerned parties know that the
Malaysian Bar is serious about the issue and that it has put its foot down on this issue.
Arunachalam Kasi of the KL Bar said that his motion related (2) The Bar Council to call upon the concerned parties
to issues arising from the e-filing system. After having to rectify efficiency issues including downtime issues,
forwarded his proposal to BC, he had subsequently made alternative plans during downtimes, downtime notice
some amendments to it and informed BC. He asked the interval, and so forth.
House to look at the amended motion (reproduced below).
(3) If the negotiations do not seem to be fruitful by mid
(As amended) of the year, Bar Council to consider other available
avenues including duly considering if a complaint
It is hereby resolved that: should be lodged with the Competition Commission
against the system vendors for abuse of dominant
(1) The Bar Council to negotiate with the concerned position under section 10 of the Competition Act
parties to: 2010.
(a) reduce the e-filing access fee to the lowest
possible, (currently it is RM1500.00 per Arunachalam Kasi said that he has two issues relating
certificate for a term of two years); to e-filing, namely, cost and quality or efficiency. Cost
(b) apply a lower fee for certificates subsequent to is incurred when lawyers pay the e-filing access fee of
the first one; and RM1,500 per certificate for a term of two years. However,
(c) make the fee payable annually rather than for lawyers are charged a different rate if they opt to do e-filing
term of two years. at the court’s service bureau. Arunachalam Kasi questioned
why lawyers must pay such a high fee since Formis, the
system vendor, has been given a contract valued at RM70 Arunachalam Kasi proceeded to speak on the issue of
million by the Government although it is not known whether inefficiency, including downtime problems. He said that
all or part of the contract money had been paid to Formis. many a times, law firms were only told at the last minute that
Apparently, the high fee is charged for the certificate and the system would be undergoing an upgrade when such a
the security system. Besides the Federal Court and the thing could have been planned in advance. Law firms were
Court of Appeal, the e-filing system is also running in five thus left stranded. This showed Formis’s utmost disrespect
states. There are more than 5,000 law firms in those states. to lawyers. This position must change. Arunachalam Kasi
Every firm that uses the e-filing system is charged RM1,500 said that Formis should put an alternative system in place
per term. Comparatively, no online access fee is charged so that law firms can still access the system and not be left
for online adjudication with Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri. vulnerable especially when it comes to filing of documents
Arunachalam Kasi said that if Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri in court on the last day of the limitation period. Arunachalam
can manage the system for free, he wondered why the Kasi asked that BC consider all the downtown issues and
court’s e-filing system has to be so costly. Obviously, the put up a proposal recommending the necessary changes.
system is overpriced.
Brendan Navin Siva, in expressing his strong support for
Arunachalam Kasi said that law firms that do multiple the motion, thanked the proposer for having taken his
searches have to pay RM50 per search. Some firms do telephone call earlier in the week to discuss amending the
more than 10 searches a day. For firms that do more motion so that the wording would be acceptable to BC. He
than one search, Formis should charge a lower rate for said that BC unanimously supported the amended motion.
subsequent searches and not the same rate, because BC’s counsel had advised that reference to section 10 of
Formis maintains a single account for each firm. the Competition Act be removed from the motion so that
BC has greater flexibility under the LPA for negotiation.
Arunachalam Kasi proposed that the fee of RM1,500 should Arunachalam Kasi had thus agreed to remove the reference
be paid on an annual rather than a biennial basis. There from his motion.
is no reason why Formis should keep lawyers’ money on
fixed deposit for two years. He explained how BC should Brendan Navin Siva referred to the revised section (1)(a),
position itself to fight the Judiciary on three issues. Firstly, and admitted that one of his ultimate failings was not being
BC should enter into negotiations with Formis and any able to convince the Judiciary, over the last two years, to
other relevant party to bring down the costs. Secondly, if reduce the fee. Paragraph (1) proposes that, as a start,
after much negotiation, nothing positive comes out of it, BC the bargaining position should be that no fee be charged,
should consider the option of whether to lodge a complaint since no zero fee is charged for online adjudication with
to the Competition Commission. Pursuant to section 10 of Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri. Brendan Navin Siva said
the Competition Act 2010, “any independent or collective that, based on the research he had done, lawyers in Austria
conduct by an enterprise which amounts to an abuse of a and Germany enjoy a discount on filing fees when they do
dominant position . . . could be complained against”. The online filing. BC supports paragraph (2) because it is in
abuse could be in the form of a high price charged to users. the course of working to find a resolution to the problems.
Formis cannot hide behind the excuse that the rate had Brendan Navin Siva informed the House that Arunachalam
been approved by the Government in the contract. This is Kasi, who had been elected by the KL Bar Committee to
not the point. Obviously Formis is in a dominant position head its Court Liaison Committee, has pledged to help BC
because it has a monopoly over the e-filing system. It has together with Desmond Ho Chee Cheong, Chairperson of
abused its position by charging lawyers a high fee. It is the BC Court Liaison Committee, to move forward on this
time for BC to consider whether it should lodge a complaint issue. He thanked the proposer for bringing the motion to
to the Competition Commission for the purpose of putting the House.
pressure on Formis to bring down the rate.

Rabindra Devadason of the Selangor Bar said that the does not occur once in every ten days, as contended
e-filing system had been encountering problems from the by Rabindra Devadason, because as far as BC’s record
very beginning, and tended to break down at least once in shows, the most recent downtime that had occurred had
every ten days. He asked if BC was aware of the problem been in January 2013.
and whether BC had done anything.
Mohd Iqbal Zainal Abidin of the KL Bar expressed his fear
The Chairman said that BC is presently working on the that too much focus was being placed on the e-filing system,
issue. Brendan Navin Siva would respond to Rabindra such that Members tended to forget one other problem,
Devadason’s questions. which is the service bureau charge of RM50 imposed for
every new suit filed by lawyers who do not use the e-filing
Rabindra Devadason said that both BC and Brendan system. If a law firm files 10 suits a day, it will have to pay
Navin Siva had done nothing. He mentioned BC’s reply RM500 daily. Since the majority of practitioners are from
to his written complaint about the problems, wherein BC small firms, they cannot afford to pay the e-filing access fee
had stated that it was in favour of the e-filing system. He of RM1,500. Mohd Iqbal Zainal Abidin asked the incoming
said that the e-filing system had been a total failure and Council and State Bar Committees to look into this issue.
benefited only a handful of large law firms, one of which
happened to be the Chairman’s firm. He expressed the Brendan Navin Siva said that he understood the anger and
hope that the incoming President will look into the issue and frustration expressed by Rabindra Devadason on behalf of
not just sit on it. many Members of the Bar who had had similar experiences
with the frequent breakdown of the e-filing system. During
The Chairman remarked that this was an unfair statement. his tenure and that of Desmond Ho Chee Cheong,
as Chairperson of the BC Court Liaison Committee,
R Ganavathy Naidu s/o N Rasu of the Kelantan Bar said representatives from BC and the Committee met with the
that law firms have to pay the fee of RM1,500, which cost Judiciary to find ways to solve the problems, and a report
is pro-Government, as it is part of the package deal with was posted on the Bar website for Members’ information.
Formis and there is a monopoly clause in it. Filing fees He admitted that the e-filing system has its defects. BC
have also doubled because of inflation. Nevertheless, and the Court Liaison Committee are constantly working on
justice has nothing to do with inflation. The real issue is the issue. He asked the House to trust Arunachalam Kasi
cost. He said that BC has the bargaining power to ensure and Desmond Ho Chee Cheong, who are genuinely keen
that the cost is reduced. to solve Members’ problems. BC and the Court Liaison
Committee will do whatever they can in the coming term to
Desmond Ho Chee Cheong agreed with Brendan Navin resolve as many problems as possible.
Siva that the filing fee should be reduced to zero, because
lawyers are deemed as officers of the court. Desmond Srividhya Ganapathy of the KL Bar said that she was one of
Ho Chee Cheong said that he has been heading the BC the many Members who experienced anger and frustration
Court Liaison Committee since 2012, having taken over at the problematic e-filing system. Apart from the fact that
from Brendan Navin Siva, and it was therefore rather unfair lawyers have to pay the e-filing access fee and the service
of Rabindra Devadason to allege that Brendan Navin bureau charges, the system just does not seem to work
Siva had done nothing. He informed the House that a properly. Despatch clerks of law firms had complained
meeting had been held between the KL Bar Committee that they were made to wait for one whole day just to do
and the Registrar on 20 Feb 2013 to discuss e-filing issues, e-filing. Law firms are now facing a real problem because
which had all been duly recorded, including the suggested these clerks had told them they did not want to do e-filing
solutions. It is only the downtime issue that has yet to be work any more. Srividhya Ganapathy hoped that Members
solved. Desmond Ho Chee Cheong clarified that downtime would pass the motion.
Charles Hector Fernandez noted that although RM70 (As amended)

million had been pumped into the e-filing system, the courts
are still charging lawyers the access fee for online filing. He It is hereby resolved that:
suggested that over and above the motion, BC take steps to
investigate the issue and prepare a comprehensive report (1) The Bar Council to negotiate with the concerned
with the proposal that the e-filing system be done away parties to:
with, just as Singapore had reportedly done, rather than (a) reduce the e-filing access fee to the lowest
trying to repair a broken machine. He further suggested possible, or free
that the access fee be dropped. (currently it is RM1500.00 per certificate for a
term of two years);
Arunachalam Kasi proposed that a further amendment (b) apply a lower fee for certificates subsequent to
be made to paragraph (3) of his motion by removing the the first one; and
phrase “under section 10 of the Competition Act 2010” and (c) make the fee payable annually rather than for
by adding “or any other relevant authority” after the words term of two years.
“Competition Commission”. The amended paragraph is
reproduced below (emphasis added): (2) The Bar Council to call upon the concerned parties
to rectify efficiency issues including downtime issues,
If the negotiations do not seem to be fruitful by alternative plans during downtimes, downtime notice
mid of the year, Bar Council to consider other interval, and so forth.
available avenues including duly considering
if a complaint should be lodged with the (3) If the negotiations do not seem to be fruitful by mid
Competition Commission or any other relevant of the year, Bar Council to consider other available
authority against the system vendors for abuse avenues including duly considering if a complaint
of dominant position by virtue of section 10 of should be lodged with the Competition Commission
the Competition Act 2010. or any other relevant authority against the system
vendors for abuse of dominant position.
Arunachalam Kasi said that he would leave it to the House
to vote on the amended motion. While voting was taking place, Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman
asked the incoming Council to ensure that the e-filing
Charles Hector Fernandez proposed that the word “free” be system is compatible with any Microsoft upgrade that the
added to paragraph (1)(a). courts intend to install, because the current system is not
Microsoft-compatible.
Arunachalam Kasi agreed with Charles Hector Fernandez.
The final version of the motion is reproduced below The Chairman answered in the affirmative, and invited
(emphasis added): Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman to serve on the Court Liaison
Committee.
The motion, as amended, was put to a vote, and was

unanimously carried: 180 votes in favour, no votes against,
and no abstentions.

6.6 Motion no 5.6
Motion on “erasing the ‘ills’ of the SRO”, proposed by Tan Peek Guat, dated 8 Mar 2013
The Bar Council is making a laughing stock of all member lawyers in insisting on the SRO as being a united decision to allow
for its existence; and yet it cannot avoid nor control the situation of discounts being given by lawyers of the Malaysian Bar in
conveyancing matters.
This perpetuation of the SRO allows for the further propagation of injustice especially when some lawyers are being fined,
or reprimanded in other ways while others who do give discounts are not made to suffer such “fate”. This is because most
Malaysian lawyers close their “eyes” and “ears” towards such offending acts even when the members of the Disciplinary Board
prosecute others for such breaches of the SRO rules. Why then the differential standards and treatment of the Malaysian
lawyers simply because some are being complained about while others are not?
This tarnishing situation of the image of Malaysian lawyers should be stopped immediately and not be allowed to carry on,
perpetuating from one President to another.
We need to emulate the acts of the Singapore Bar in stamping out something it cannot control; and therefore, they removed
the SRO years ago.
We too need to remove the SRO as a united decision, fair to all members and leave ourselves to experience and practise “free
trade” in our profession.
The Chairman said that BC had problems with this motion now protecting Members who give discounts and disregard
as Tan Peek Guat did not formulate a clear statement to the the fair trade practices and the Consumer Protection
effect that “it is hereby resolved ….” Act 1999. BC is against the competitive trade practices.
Members are always fighting for justice and acting without
Tan Peek Guat of the Selangor Bar pointed out that the fear or favour but they are living in fearful prosecution by
intended resolution is contained in the final paragraph of ASDB. The scenario now is very different. The bigger law
her motion. She said that the House should unitedly decide firms are allowed to advertise themselves because they can
on the resolution and consider whether Members sincerely afford to do so, but smaller law firms that cannot afford to
and honestly want to support the Solicitors’ Remuneration place advertisements find themselves on the defeated and
Order 2005 (“SRO”) scale fees so that BC will be fair to negative end. Tan Peek Guat asked Members whether it is
them and let them practise free and fair trade without being against their conscience to breach the Fair Trade Practices
reprimanded by ASDB or BC. She had included all the Policy, the Consumer Protection Act and the Competitive
relevant factors therein to support her simple motion. She Trade Practices Rules.
questioned why Members were hiding and giving discounts.
BC should make it clear that every Member must act and Dipendra Harshad Rai of the KL Bar said that Tan Peek
practise law fairly and openly without being shielded by Guat had merely stated at the end of the motion that “[w]e
the SRO Rules. The fact is that Members who oppose the too need to remove the SRO as a united decision, fair to all
SRO are the ones giving discounts. This is why the time members and leave ourselves to experience and practise
has come for the scale fees to be relooked at. Though the ‘free trade’ in our profession”. Hence, her motion is not a
original function of the SRO was to protect consumers, it is proper motion because it does not read or sound like one
but is merely a statement that she wanted Members to Tan Peek Guat said that her motion was seconded but
take note of. The House should not be asked to vote since because it need not be registered, the seconder’s name
there is no proper motion and resolution before the House. was, therefore, not registered. It would be good to have
Dipendra Harshad Rai asked Tan Peek Guat what was the other seconders present at this meeting. Only if there
meant by the term “united decision”. If there is no united are really no seconders could Sulaiman Abdullah rule her
decision, then the entire motion cannot even be considered motion off and out of this hall but not otherwise. Out of
a motion, let alone passed. He proposed that the Chairman respect for a small Member of the Bar and because the
call the debate on the motion to an end so that the House motion had been accepted by the Secretary and the BC
can debate it on another day. Secretariat, Tan Peek Guat asked that the motion be put
to a vote.
Tan Peek Guat said that since the Secretary and the BC
Secretariat had accepted her motion, she would like to Being aware of the fact that the Chairman has only a few
make a request that her motion be put to the vote. more hours before he steps down as President of the
Malaysian Bar, Roger Tan Kor Mee of the Johore Bar urged
GK Ganesan proposed that the motion be amended to say him to exercise his leadership at its finest hour by ruling on
that the SRO be abolished, and asked if the proposer would the motion.
agree as that was what she was trying to say.
Richard Wee Thiam Seng said that he understood the
The Chairman asked Tan Peek Guat whether she would concerns expressed by Tan Peek Guat arising from the
agree to amend the last paragraph to say, “we hereby rampant illegal discounts being given by some Members
resolve to abolish the SRO”. of the Bar. He agreed that there was no point in hiding
behind the scale fees. Although Tan Peek Guat wanted the
Tan Peek Guat disagreed because the SRO contains many itemised scale fees withdrawn, this was not included in the
other things. What she wanted was only the abolition of the motion. He asked her what she really wanted. He agreed
scale fees. with Sulaiman Abdullah and Roger Tan Kor Mee that the
Chairman must make a ruling on the motion.
The Chairman asked if Tan Peek Guat intended to stand
by her document. Tan Peek Guat thanked Richard Wee Thiam Seng for his
advice and suggested that Members assist small lawyers
Tan Peek Guat replied in the affirmative. by improving her motion. Even if they view it as something
other than a motion, she asked them to make it into a
Sulaiman Abdullah said that as a Member of the Bar, he motion.
expected resolutions to be drafted in its proper form and
not in the form of a declaration of independence that talks The Chairman said that this cannot be done.
about the abolition of the scale fees. The motion must first
say something but in his view, it does not say anything. Tan Peek Guat remarked that small lawyers are being
Hence, it is not fair to the membership of the Bar to be given reprimanded by the authorities.
the proposer’s form of motion and for her to say that this
is a motion to abolish the scale fees but not the SRO. He After hearing the views of a number of Members, the
noted that there is no seconder for the motion, and asked Chairman exercised his right and declared that the
the Chairman to rule that there is no proper motion before motion could not be put to a vote because it had not been
the House. articulated in the proper form. He asked Tan Peek Guat
not to be disheartened by his ruling as she could table her
motion again at the next AGM or EGM, if she wished.

Tan Peek Guat recalled that several years ago, Roger 7.2 Exemption under the Competition Act
Tan Kor Mee had stood up at an AGM and said that some
Members had given discounts up to 70 percent but nothing Aiznin Sairi Sulaiman asked if BC could consider applying
had been done by BC. That was the very cause and for a block exemption under the Competition Act for the
reason for her motion today, and yet the Chairman chose legal profession because lawyers are losing their dominant
to say that it was not a motion and neither was it worthy of position by imposing the scale fees.
consideration.
The Chairman said that the incoming Council will look into
The Chairman said that the substance of Tan Peek Guat’s this. However, there are differing views on the scale fees
statement will be considered by the incoming Council. in that aspect.
Mohd Iqbal Zainal Abidin said that in future, when the BC 7.3 Severance of the Kedah/Perlis Bar
Secretariat receives any motion that is not in its proper
form, the Secretariat should call up the proposer and advise Siti Hajar Che Ahmad from Perlis informed the House that
him or her to amend it in order to make it into a motion. lawyers practising in Kedah and Perlis held an EGM on 14
Because this had not been done in the present instance, Feb 2013 based on her requisition for an EGM to sever the
the Secretariat should take some of the blame for having Perlis Bar from the Kedah/Perlis Bar.
accepted Tan Peek Guat’s motion.
The Chairman asked Siti Hajar Che Ahmad about the
The Chairman said that it was not fair to blame the relevance of the issue to the ongoing AGM.
Secretariat, as Members are lawyers and should know how
to draft a motion. In any event, BC will put in place a system Siti Hajar Che Ahmad said that she wanted to seek
for accepting proper motions from Members of the Bar. BC’s confirmation on the issue as well as to inform other
Members of the Bar of what had happened.
Sangeet Lal s/o Gurdarshan Lal of the Selangor Bar said
that the Secretary could have rectified the motion. If a The Chairman said that BC met the previous day and made
motion to be raised at the AGM was not properly drafted, a decision. He then invited the Vice-President to elaborate
the best and proper way was for the Secretary to inform the on the issue.
proposer that there was no proper motion.
Christopher Leong, the Vice-President, briefed the House
Tan Peek Guat said that the BC always does things right on the background to the issue. He said that the Kedah/
but in its own way. She remarked that BC’s dominating Perlis Bar held an EGM on 14 Feb 2013, at which the
attitude was very bad. That was why some of the small resolution to sever the Perlis Bar from the Kedah/Perlis Bar
lawyers had found it hard to survive. was put forward for consideration. 64 Members from the
Kedah/Perlis Bar attended the EGM, which was chaired by
Item 7 of the agenda the Chairman of the Kedah/Perlis Bar. BC was informed
General that out of 64 members who attended, 20 were from Perlis
and the remainder were from Kedah. All voted in favour of
7.1 Note of congratulations the resolution except for two members who abstained. The
resolution was carried.
Puspanathan Sellam of the Negeri Sembilan Bar
congratulated the outgoing Chairman and the BC for the At the BC meeting held the day before the ongoing AGM,
wonderful work they had done over the last two years. the question of whether the EGM on 14 Feb 2013 had
complied with section 71 of the LPA, which provides for the
severance of a combined Bar, was considered. BC came Charles Hector Fernandez agreed to assist and asked that
to the reluctant view that unfortunately, the EGM did not the door be opened to the workers.
comply with section 71. The Perlis Bar was accordingly
advised by BC to reconvene the EGM; this was the position The Chairman said that the door is already open to the
that BC took. workers.
Siti Hajar Che Ahmad asked if BC had the power, as Ravi Nekoo of the KL Bar said that the doors of the Legal
contended by Nantha Balan in his opinion, to say that Aid Centres throughout the country are always open to
among the members who had voted on the issue, some workers. The BC Legal Aid Centre (KL) has an employment
were reluctant to convene a fresh EGM. law programme whereby workers can meet with lawyers.
Other states also provide regular assistance to workers.
The Vice-President said that the issue touched on a point At National Legal Aid Committee meetings, Legal Aid
of law, ie whether section 71 had been complied with. Centres do address the difficulties faced by workers, and
Unfortunately, BC has to take a position because it will the National Legal Aid Committee also tries to render as
affect the constitution of BC for the new term. much assistance as possible. As the Chairman had said,
Legal Aid Centres need more volunteers because they are
Siti Hajar Che Ahmad asked if BC could notify the Perlis Bar inundated with YBGK work. Any assistance from volunteer
as soon as possible, because Perlis members do not want lawyers would be much appreciated.
to have “pening-pening kepala”. She said that following
the visit by the Vice-President and the Treasurer, Steven 7.5 No-discount rule
Thiru, to Kedah the previous month, she had been waiting
for almost 14 days for BC’s reply. Low Beng Choo of the KL Bar said that the stand taken
by the Conveyancing Practice Committee to support and
The Chairman said that BC has taken note of the request maintain the SRO arose from the many debates held over
by Perlis for an official notification. a number of years. The scale fees had not come about
arbitrarily, but only after BC had studied all the other
7.4 Access to justice for workers jurisdictions and felt that the scale fees were reasonable.
Yet, one or two Members of the Bar would try, almost every
Charles Hector Fernandez said that the Malaysian Bar year, to move a motion to abolish the SRO and the scale
assists many poor people through the legal aid scheme, fees, thereby forcing BC to defend its stand. A study of
but one group that needs such legal aid in terms of knowing the jurisdictions that had done away with the scale fees,
their rights, filing complaints in the Labour Department and particularly Singapore, showed that these jurisdictions are
the Consumer Tribunals are workers who are very poor. now longing for the scale fees to be brought back.
This would require BC’s Legal Aid Centres to consider
widening access to legal representation to the workers. Low Beng Choo said that the Malaysian Bar fights and walks
for everyone, yet it does not want to defend the reasonable
The Chairman was agreeable to Charles Hector scale fees that Members of the Bar are entitled to. It is
Fernandez’s suggestion and invited him to join the very disappointing that Members do not want to stand
National Legal Aid Committee, which is short-handed. He for their rights but instead cower to the dominant position
sought Charles Hector Fernandez’s commitment to lead of banks and developers, give discounts and even bribe
this project and try to recruit more volunteers. He said that estate agents and bank officers. Low Beng Choo found it
it was very easy for Members to make suggestions but BC absolutely ridiculous that 30 years ago, lawyers could do a
needs Members to come on board to work with it. file at a fee of RM500 to RM1,000 based on the scale fees,
but now they are willing to accept a paltry sum of RM100

to RM200 per file. All these imply that lawyers make lousy wish of the Perlis members even though the right to sever is
mathematicians, and that is why some law firms find it hard enshrined in the LPA. It was very disheartening that BC did
to cope. Members should not blame the banks and the not display sincerity, especially with respect to the EGM of
developers, but themselves. The legal profession is the the Kedah/Perlis Bar held on 14 Feb 2013. Subsequently,
only profession in Malaysia that does not want to defend the one of the Perlis members who attended a meeting of the
scale fees. Estate agents, surveyors, engineers and other National Legal Aid Committee was told by Steven Thiru,
professionals do not give discounts. They have signed a who is the Treasurer and also the Chairman of the Finance
pact to maintain their scale fees and will not relent on this. Committee, that BC would not approve the severance of
Hence, she did not understand why lawyers do not want to the Kedah/Perlis Bar. Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim said that if
fight for their livelihoods but are prepared to fight for other this statement was incorrect, she would withdraw it. She
people’s rights. She said that BC had suffered a setback in said that all of a sudden, members of Kedah and Perlis
the enforcement of the SRO but with the coming into force were paid a visit by the Vice-President and Steven Thiru
of the new Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules, in Alor Setar without any official notification from BC. The
BC will revive and implement the enforcement of the SRO purpose of the visit was not made known. The visit created
in full force. doubt among the members of Kedah and Perlis who had
passed the EGM resolution except for two abstentions.
The Chairman said that the corollary of Low Beng Choo’s BC had also caused a division among members in Kedah
statement was that SRO enforcement is a big issue. BC and Perlis, particularly the younger ones. They were very
has considered launching a sting operation to catch one disappointed with BC. Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim said that
or two Members who give discounts, with a view to having she did not wish to invite any comment from BC because
them struck off the Roll. The incoming Council will look BC’s comment would have been reflected in its decision
further into this. made the previous day.
Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim suggested that BC look at the way The Chairman said that the issue had been debated at
surveyors collect their fees through their professional body length by BC, and that BC will have to comment on the
and see whether the legal profession could adopt the same issue because of the serious allegations Nazirah bt Abdul
practice. Rahim made against BC.
The Chairman said that BC had looked at the proposal Rusidah Hassan from Kedah spoke mostly in Bahasa
before and found that the whole mechanism is too unwieldy Malaysia. Her remarks are reproduced in full, as follows:
for BC to handle. In any event, the incoming Council may
wish to revisit the proposal. Saya adalah Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee
sebelum ini and juga adalah Committee untuk
7.6 Severance of the Kedah/Perlis Bar (continued) 2013. Ini adalah pendapat saya. Apa yang saya
dapat tertekan ialah semasa kami mengadakan
Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim resumed discussion on the issue EGM yang pertama pada 14 Feb 2013 based on
of the severance of the Kedah/Perlis Bar. She said that usul yang dikemukan oleh Kedah Members of
members of Kedah and Perlis wished to sever the Kedah/ Perlis, kami hanya mengikut apa yang di-provide
Perlis Bar for many reasons, one of which is the geographical di bawah LPA. Beberapa soalan telahpun
distance between Kangar and Kulim. Members in Perlis are dikemukakan semasa EGM berkaitan dengan
not forced to become members of the Kedah/Perlis Bar due isu-isu yang timbul dan telahpun diselesaikan
to this reason. Most members in Perlis practise in small dan difahami oleh semua orang yang hadir
firms. Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim said that she was informed masa EGM tersebut, termasuklah orang yang
that BC, comprising 36 members, had failed to facilitate the kemudiannya menimbulkan isu ini menyatakan
EGM ini tidak sah. Selepas EGM tersebut, speakers that it had been sent. In fact, the first time when
semua isu ini diselesaikan dan difahami oleh the Treasurer and the President heard of the severance
semua yang hadir semasa EGM tersebut. was when the Chairman of the Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee
Semua members telah pun mengundi dan verbally told them about it at the meeting between BC and
memutuskan resolusi untuk sever Kedah-Perlis the CJ in Putrajaya on 15 Feb 2013.
dipisahkan kecuali dua orang members yang
berkecuali. Kemudian, kita mengadakan AGM. Rusidah Hassan interjected at this stage and asked,
Benda yang sama telah dikemukakan dan tidak “Adakah di bawah mana-mana peruntukan bawah LPA
ada masalah yang timbul berkaitannya di AGM yang State Bar kena beritahu BC about this? Can you just
tersebut antara members Kedah/Perlis Bar. show first?”
Satu yang saya musykilkan di sini ialah apabila
beberapa orang dari BC turun ke Kedah Bar The Treasurer asked Rusidah Hassan to let him finish his
untuk menimbulkan beberapa isu yang saya rasa comments. He said that BC had not been notified before
tidak sepatutnya ditimbulkan lagi kerana EGM the Putrajaya meeting although discussions on the issue
telahpun dibuat dan dipersetujui oleh majoriti had apparently been going on for some time at the state
Kedah/Perlis members waktu itu. Cuma yang level. BC was shocked to hear from the Chairman of the
saya musykilkan di sini ialah bila BC kata, kita Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee that the severance had taken
ada menulis kepada BC sebelum EGM berkaitan place. In response to the question raised by Rusidah
dengan apakah stand BC tentang severance ini Hassan as to whether the State Bar had to notify BC of
tapi tidak ada jawapan. Bila kita dah putuskan the severance, the answer is yes because it involves
dengan solution yang kita dah adakan dengan issues such as the apportionment of membership funds
EGM tersebut, saya cuba terfikir kenapakah between the Kedah and the Perlis Bars, and the fact that
sekarang atau semalam BC memutuskan kata the Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee’s premises in Alor Setar
EGM ini ditolak. Adakah ini satu precedent are owned by the Malaysian Bar, and not the Kedah Bar
yang akan dibuat oleh BC menolak EGM-EGM Committee. It is neither easy nor does it work in such a way
yang akan diadakan oleh State Bar selepas ini? that Perlis takes the top floor and Kedah, the ground floor.
Adakah ini jadi satu precedent dan apa gunanya The Treasurer said that it is his responsibility to ensure
EGM dibuat oleh State Bar selepas ini kalau BC that things are done properly. It is for all these reasons
boleh mengundi benda tak sah atau ditolak? Di that advance notice ought to have been given to BC. BC’s
bawah peruntukan, manakah undang-undang EXCO met on 21 Feb 2013 to discuss the issue, and took
mengatakan BC ada kuasa tentang ini? Itu saja. the preliminary view that the severance may not have
complied with the provisions in the LPA. EXCO decided
By way of clarification, the Treasurer said that, first of all, BC that BC seek counsel’s opinion. Since EXCO did not have
is not against the right to self-determination of the Perlis Bar the full documentation, such as the minutes of the EGM and
to sever. However, BC’s only concern is that if the Perlis the notice, it was decided that BC obtain all the relevant
Bar wants to self-determine its severance, this must be documents. It was further decided subsequently that the
done in accordance with the law, otherwise there would be Vice-President and the Treasurer go to Kedah and gather
many ramifications on BC. It is not as easy as making the all necessary information as well as speak to members in
decision that one component of the Kedah/Perlis Bar goes Kedah and Perlis. Members of the Kedah and the Perlis
south while the other goes north. The Treasurer proceeded Bars were duly notified of the informal discussion that would
to correct some of the incorrect statements made by the be held with them. The meeting took place at the Kedah Bar
speakers. He said that BC had not been notified of the Committee’s premises.
EGM at all. BC also did not receive any letter from the
Kedah/Perlis Bar despite the contention by one of the

In respect of the review of Legal Aid Centres on 23 Feb Kelantan Bar, and sent the same to the Kedah/Perlis Bar
2013, the Treasurer said that all the state Legal Aid Centres Committee. By that time, BC had also received from the
were present together with National Legal Aid Committee Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee the documents relating to the
and the Finance Committee to discuss their budgets for the requisition of the EGM. The EGM documents were sent to
year. He denied having made the statement that BC would BC’s counsel for an opinion. Counsel provided his opinion
not approve the severance. What had happened was that on 10 Mar 2013, and a copy thereof was sent to the Kedah/
when the issue concerning the severance was raised during Perlis Bar Committee. The Treasurer said that he then
the budget discussion, he told the Kedah/Perlis Bar that BC spoke to both Kedah and Perlis and told them that the issue
was still looking into the issue and that BC was not in a was pending the decision of BC. BC met the day before the
position to approve the Legal Aid Centre budget allocations ongoing AGM and made a decision after full deliberation.
to the Kedah and the Perlis Bars because the two Bars had
not been properly formed at that point in time. BC had to Rusidah Hassan asked, “Adakah peruntukan di bawah
be careful with the budget allocations that involved money, LPA yang menyatakan bahawa opinion BC binding on
otherwise the entire budget could be upset. The Treasurer State Bar’s EGM specifically? Sebab saya tak mahu ada
said that BC has not formed any definitive view on the precedent yang di-set up oleh BC yang akan membatalkan
severance as yet. EXCO’s view was a preliminary one atau menolak EGM-EGM selepas ini yang dibuat oleh State
because two things were pending resolution. Bar. Bukan saja Kedah/Perlis Bar but the whole State Bar.”
Nazirah bt Abdul Rahim interrupted at this stage and said The Chairman, having noted the comments made by
that although she agreed with all the procedures mentioned the speakers, said that it was rather unproductive for the
by the Treasurer, she noted the admission made by the discussion to continue along the lines of “he says, she
Treasurer that BC did not have enough documents and says”. The issue needs to be discussed among BC, Kedah
information. She reiterated that the Treasurer did say at and Perlis at a separate forum where all the relevant
the Legal Aid Centres review that BC would not approve documents will be put before the parties and all discussions
the severance. recorded in writing so that everyone is clear as to where
they stand. The Chairman said that it was unfair for the
The Treasurer denied the allegation and said that it was speakers to cast aspersions on the Vice-President and the
not for him to say such a thing. He asked Nazirah bt Abdul Treasurer, in light of the fact that EXCO met on 21 Feb
Rahim to let him finish speaking first. 2013 to discuss the matter and BC subsequently made a
decision on 15 Mar 2013. He asked Kedah and Perlis to
Rusidah Hassan interjected and said, “Saya cuma nak let BC communicate the decision to them in writing so that
clarification…”. they can respond accordingly and thereafter a meeting will
be arranged between BC, Kedah and Perlis to resolve the
The Chairman asked Rusidah Hassan to let the Treasurer issue.
finish speaking.
The Vice-President said that he did not know if any
The Treasurer said that at every turn, both the Vice- impression had been created among members of Kedah
President and he had made it very clear that EXCO had and Perlis that BC did not want to accept the severance
only come to a preliminary view. BC would gather all the of the Kedah/Perlis Bar. If there was, he wished to dispel
documents and seek counsel’s opinion. Once BC received it. He said that it is only Perlis that can decide whether
the opinion, it would notify Kedah and Perlis. The Vice- to sever and if it decides in accordance with the law, BC
President and he then went up to Kedah on 27 Feb 2013. will welcome it. The Vice-President said that he was asked
Subsequently, BC located the documents relating to the to go to Kedah and Perlis together with the Treasurer to
formation of the Terengganu Bar after its split from the meet with members of Kedah and Perlis to inform them
that: (a) BC was prepared to provide whatever assistance bahawa BC setuju atau tidak Kedah dan Perlis berpisah.
the Perlis members would require, including giving interim Apa yang saya kata senang saja. Di mana di bawah LPA
financial aid to meet their expenses pending the setting up yang mengatakan opinion you ialah mengikat Kedah-Perlis
of the Perlis Bar; and (b) having looked at the provision untuk menolak EGM kami. Itu saja. Kesannya ialah apabila
under section 71 of the LPA, BC’s preliminary view was Kedah/Perlis Bar diputuskan berpisah atau tidak, ia ada
that there might be a problem with the severance, for the berkaitan dengan orang yang akan mengundi pada hari ini
reasons already explained. BC would, therefore, seek berkait dengan Pengerusi Bar Perlis dan Bar representative
counsel’s legal opinion on the issue and a copy thereof untuk state. Kalau you all tak boleh bagi confirmation
would be forwarded to the Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee. sekarang samada benda ini sah atau pemisahan hari ini,
The Vice-President said that he had also asked the Perlis adakah voting depa ini terpakai atau tidak dalam EGM ini
members to look at section 71 and decide on the position untuk pilih Office Bearers.”
it wished to take. Meanwhile, the BC Secretariat would
locate the precedent in respect of any severance that had Mohd Iqbal Zainal Abidin highlighted a concern relating
taken place under the present LPA and forward it to the to the right of representation in the Council. As everyone
Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee. As soon as BC received the knows, every state is entitled to send two representatives
two documents, they were extended to the Kedah/Perlis to sit in the Council. In light of the issue concerning the
Bar Committee. The members were also informed that if severance today, he asked if it is fair for KL, the biggest
there was a problem with the severance, it could be quickly state with more than 7,000 members, to have only two
rectified within five weeks or so in terms of convening a representatives in the Council while the smaller states have
fresh EGM of the Perlis members, passing a resolution and equal representation in the Council.
waiting for one month for the severance to take effect under
section 71(3) of the LPA. If this had been done, the Perlis The Chairman said that he understood the issue of
Bar would be able to be represented at the Council meeting proportionality in terms of representation in the Council.
in April 2013. In any event, even if the resolution passed
at the EGM of 14 Feb 2013 had been valid, the Perlis Bar S Gunasegaran of the Johore Bar said that the House has
would not have been able to attend the first Council meeting heard a lot of sentiments from members of Kedah and
on 16 Mar 2013. Perlis. BC is obviously not against the severance because
all it wants is to assist the Perlis Bar. The decision taken
Rao Suryana Abdul Rahman from Kedah interjected and by BC related to the incorrect step taken by the Perlis Bar
said that no member from Kedah or Perlis was eager to to sever. That decision must be respected. It is no point
attend the first Council meeting, and that this was not the arguing the whole day because BC, Kedah and Perlis will
whole point of the issue. not reach a consensus. S Gunasegaran urged members
of Kedah and Perlis to work with the incoming Council
The Vice-President said that he was trying to explain what after the AGM to resolve the problem since BC has already
the Perlis Bar could have done to rectify the situation. He stated that the two Perlis representatives will not be able to
said that BC was able to get a definitive opinion, which attend the first Council meeting.
was conveyed to Members of Kedah and Perlis. He asked
members of the Kedah Bar not to have the impression that Richard Wee Thiam Seng said that if the severance is not
just because BC decided the way it did the previous day, done correctly, and if the Chairman and the representative
it meant that BC did not want Perlis to sever from Kedah. of the Perlis Bar Committee were to come into the Council,
This is not the case. BC would like Perlis to come on board thereby causing the constitution of BC to be questioned,
as soon as possible. whatever decision BC makes, for example in respect of
the complaint against Cecil Abraham pertaining to the SD2
Rusidah Hassan said, “Itu bukan masalah kami mengatakan affirmed by the late Bala, that decision could be challenged.

He assured Kedah and Perlis that BC had, at its meeting was valid because they had perused the provision and
the previous day, expressed its desire to help the two consulted a senior lawyer and other Members of the Bar
states. The sentiments were clear. The way the severance who had attended the meeting of the Kelantan/Terengganu
had been carried out had not been proper. BC cannot allow Bar for purposes of separation. Some Perlis members
a group of people to come into the Council in view of a felt that the EGM of 14 Feb 2013 was valid. There is a
possible challenge to the legality of the election of the Perlis split among the Kedah Members because some felt that
Bar’s Office Bearers or the EGM resolution. Richard Wee the EGM was valid while others held a different view. Rao
Thiam Seng asked Kedah and Perlis to find a way to solve Suryana Abdul Rahman said that BC had come to the
the problem. conclusion that the EGM was null and void based on the
following: BC had just one legal opinion; it had insufficient
K Mohan K Kumaran of the Johore Bar noted that the documents; it did not ask the KL Bar Committee Chairman
discussion had been going on for a while and commented or the Terengganu Bar Committee Chairman about the
that it was not fair for Members to say that the issue was not severance of their State Bars; and BC does not know the
so important and that there was no need for the discussion history and destiny of Kedah. Members in the north felt that
because it was a waste of Members’ time. the EGM was valid. Kedah and Perlis disagreed with BC’s
interpretation of section 71(1) because they are backed by
The Chairman clarified that no one had made that kind of their own legal opinion.
suggestion. What one of the speakers had suggested was
that BC, Kedah and Perlis would not be able to reach a Rao Suryana Abdul Rahman asked where the issue was
consensus today. leading members of Kedah and Perlis to. If members of
Kedah and Perlis took the view that the EGM was valid,
K Mohan K Kumaran said that he stood corrected. He then they do not have a State Bar at the moment because
noted that the hall had to be vacated by 3:30 pm. Since BC of what BC had done. It is not true that the Kedah/Perlis
had already made a decision on the issue the previous day, Bar Committee has to notify BC of the severance in
and since this is the last issue being discussed, he saw no advance because there is no requirement in the LPA for
harm if the Chairman allowed Kedah and Perlis members a this. The Kedah/Perlis Bar Committee did notify BC as and
bit more time to express their feelings. He said that he will when required to do so under section 71(3). None of the
stand by BC’s decision. Members who attended the EGM or the subsequent AGM
of the Kedah/Perlis Bar had opposed the severance. Rao
The Chairman said that there will be no end to the “he says, Suryana Abdul Rahman asked whether it is BC or the court
she says” kind of conversation because it is merely going that should make the decision. Because of the way things
back and forth. As mentioned earlier, BC will put its decision were going around, people became confused and started
in writing and respond to whatever written statements are talking about voting and the constitution of BC.
made by Kedah and Perlis. After that, BC will engage with
the two states on the issue. The Chairman said that the Treasurer and the Vice-
President have explained very well the reason why BC
Rao Suryana Abdul Rahman said that the way things were had to make a decision on the issue that may affect the
going around, it had confused everybody in Kedah and composition of BC. It is as simple as that.
Perlis, not to mention those who were not exactly aware
of the sequence of events that took place at BC meetings. Andrew Khoo Chin Hock said that it may well be true
What she wanted to find out was very simple. If BC is of the that there is no legal requirement for the Kedah/Perlis
opinion that the EGM was not valid, the question is whether Bar Committee to inform BC in advance that it would be
BC can take that position. Members in Kedah and Perlis convening a meeting and tabling a motion to sever the
who attended the EGM were of the view that the EGM Kedah/Perlis Bar. However, this issue is not about legality.
When BC had its meeting on 2 Feb 2013, nobody from members claiming that they had been elected as Chairman
the Kedah/Perlis Bar had mentioned anything about the of the Johore Bar. BC had to take a position. The member
impending major decision that would be made in a matter who was aggrieved by the BC decision went to court.
of 12 days from that date, which would affect the future of Therefore, any State Bar that is aggrieved by a BC decision
the Kedah/Perlis Bar. As a member of BC and representing can bring BC to court. The severance of the Kedah/Perlis
the floor, Andrew Khoo Chin Hock said that he would have Bar is a historic occasion because it is the last severance
concerns and would want to be informed about this major to take place. Brendan Navin Siva suggested that since
development and how its outcome would affect Kedah and there is no bad faith or ulterior motive on the part of BC,
Perlis. He had said in the Council meeting the previous the three parties, namely, BC, Kedah and Perlis should sit
day, and wished to repeat it today that he certainly had down and find a solution that will regularise the severance.
no problem in supporting the right to self-determination As Andrew Khoo Chin Hock had said, BC ultimately wants
of the Perlis Bar. Members of BC respect this right of the the Perlis Bar in the Council. Although the Perlis Bar may
Perlis lawyers but at the same time they must ensure that feel that its severance had been done correctly, BC had
there be proper compliance with the provision in the LPA. unfortunately voted the previous day that this was not the
BC had taken the view that section 71 requires a general case. The Perlis Bar has two options. One is to take the
meeting to be held only of members of the state that seeks matter to court. The other is to sit down with BC and work
to sever. Unfortunately, the EGM that had taken place had out a solution so as to avoid the necessity of having to go
been attended by members from both Kedah and Perlis. to court. Whichever approach is taken, the outcome will
There is a reason for self-determination and members must eventually be exactly the same.
understand why. Imagine if a State Bar that is part of a
combined Bar is not prepared to sever. If this hypothetical Sulaiman Abdullah said that he had had no intention to
situation were to apply to the Kedah/Perlis Bar, and if speak on the issue but since it had arisen, he would have to
Kedah is not prepared for Perlis to sever, and a meeting of say something with respect to two allegations made against
members from both Kedah and Perlis is held for the purpose BC. He referred to the first allegation that a letter had been
of severance of the Kedah/Perlis Bar, and if the Kedah sent to BC before the EGM, informing BC that the severance
members outnumber the Perlis members, the vote for the was going to take place. According to the Chairman’s
severance would be lost. Hence, it cannot be right that one clarification, no such letter had been received. BC is not
State Bar can have a veto over the future of another State saying that the Perlis Bar must inform BC beforehand. All
Bar. That is why section 71 had been drafted so as to give that it is saying is that the Kedah/Perlis Bar had alleged that
members of the State Bar that intends to sever the right to it had informed BC, by way of letter, of the severance but
vote, and only those members can vote, in accordance with BC had not received such a letter beforehand, and hence
the principle of self-determination. The fact that this was BC had not known anything about the severance.
not practised in the present case rendered the decision of
the EGM defective. All that BC is asking Perlis to do is to Sulaiman Abdullah proceeded to respond to the second
convene a fresh EGM of only its members and to take a allegation made, concerning whether BC can overrule a
vote, and thereafter BC will facilitate the setting up of an State Bar’s AGM. The answer is yes, because BC is in
independent Perlis Bar as soon as possible. overall charge of the affairs of the Malaysian Bar. State
Bar Committees have the overall charge of affairs within
In response to Rao Suryana Abdul Rahman’s question as to the State Bars. So long as they conduct themselves
whether BC can make a decision that is not consistent with within the law and the affairs of the State Bars, BC will
a State Bar’s decision, Brendan Navin Siva said that his not interfere. By way of illustration, Sulaiman Abdullah
short answer is yes, and only if the State Bar’s decision may said that if the Johore Bar decides to hold an EGM and
affect BC in one way or another. He cited the precedent passes a resolution to the effect that “we hereby declare
involving the Johore Bar that had, at one stage, two that Perlis is split from Kedah”, BC will rule that the Johore

Bar’s resolution is of no effect. The question is whether the 7.7 Vote of thanks
Johore Bar can come to the AGM and pose the following
question to the House: “Why is BC disregarding us? Who Sulaiman Abdullah said that his real intention for speaking
is BC to disregard us?” In the same way, the Kedah/ was to express his gratitude to Puspanathan Sellam who
Perlis Bar cannot make a decision to sever Perlis from the had earlier thanked the Office Bearers and BC for having
Kedah/Perlis Bar. Section 71 of the LPA provides that only fulfilled their functions so well in the past year. As a Council
lawyers in Perlis can make the decision to sever Perlis from member, he wished to say that BC is nothing without the full
the Kedah/Perlis Bar. What Perlis had purported to do was support of the Malaysian Bar. He expressed his gladness
to first call a meeting of the Perlis Bar but they had Kedah that at every moment of time, when BC needed the full
members present. Secondly, an EGM of the Kedah/Perlis support of the Malaysian Bar, the support had always been
Bar was held for the purpose of severance of Perlis from given. He thanked the Malaysian Bar for its undivided
the Kedah/Perlis Bar. Again, both the meetings would not support given to this Council. Secondly, BC could not
achieve the purpose. In BC’s view, section 71 provides achieve anything without the dedicated service of the
for the Perlis members to get together to hold a meeting Chief Executive Officer, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer
and pass a resolution to sever, and one month from that and the BC Secretariat staff who had been outstanding.
date, the severance would be effective. Nobody else has Sulaiman Abdullah proposed a motion of thanks to the
a say in the matter — not the Kedah Bar, the Kedah/Perlis Malaysian Bar and the BC Secretariat for the assistance
Bar Committee or the Kedah/Perlis Bar AGM. Hence, it is given to BC.
not a question of BC disregarding any state, or showing
its power, or disliking Perlis, or anything of that sort. All The Chairman reciprocated by thanking all Members for
that BC is saying is that if Perlis wants to be recognised, their attendance at the meeting. He then brought the
it must get its act in order and do things in the proper way. meeting to a close.
BC wants the Perlis Bar to be properly formed because
when Perlis sends two representatives to sit in the Council, The Chairman requested members of the incoming Council
BC must make sure that they have been validly elected, to stay on for its first meeting of the 2013/2014 term.
otherwise Perlis’s representation will have repercussions.
All that the Perlis Bar has to do is to go back and call a There being no other matters, the meeting was adjourned
meeting of only the Perlis members and pass a resolution, at 3:15 pm.
and 30 days later, the Kedah/Perlis Bar will be effectively
severed. BC will have to accept the severance whether it For the record, 1,303 Members registered their attendance
likes it or not. In fact, BC will welcome the severance but at the AGM.
the Perlis Bar must follow the law. If, for some reason the
Perlis Bar cannot do this, conversely, the Kedah members Tony Woon Yeow Thong
can call a meeting to sever Kedah from the Kedah/Perlis Secretary
Bar. Sulaiman Abdullah said that he did not see why all Malaysian Bar
kinds of ill feelings and attacks that are being made against
BC have to come to the AGM. He asked members of Kedah
and Perlis to look at the steps that ought to be taken even
if BC is subsequently proven to be wrong. If the Perlis Bar
thinks that what it had done was right, but wants to avoid
court action, it can just call for another meeting and then
call the BC’s bluff.
Update Sheet
Matters arising from the 67th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) held on 16 Mar 2013
Item Subject Update

(1) “Motion to establish an Independent The motion was withdrawn.
Investigation Committee to enquire
into the facts and circumstances Bar Council (“BC”) lodged a complaint against Cecil Abraham with the
relating to the preparation Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board on 4 Apr 2013. The matter is
and execution of the statutory fixed for hearing before a Disciplinary Committee on 27 and 28 Feb 2014.
declaration purportedly affirmed
by one Balasubramaniam Perumal On 30 Mar 2013, the Bar issued a press release entitled “Attorney General has
on 4 July 2008”, proposed by Wan Sufficient Cause to Re-open Investigations”, and stated that the revelations
Hidayati Nadirah Binti Wan Ahmad by Deepak Jaikishan, the late Balasubramaniam Perumal, and Americk
Nasir, and jointly seconded by Singh Sidhu raised sufficient concern to warrant further investigations by
Farida Binti Mohammad, New Sin the authorities into the 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. However, the
Yew, Ida Daniella Binti Zulkifili, Inspector General of Police has stated that the case will not be re-opened.
Tanya Marie Lopez, Farhana Binti
Abdul Halim, Murnie Hidayah
Binti Anuar, Nur Zatulitri Binti Md
Yusof, Seira Sacha Bt Abu Bakar,
Loke Yuen Hong, Nurashikin Binti
Mohamed Khalit, Ooi Seow Wen
and Alvin Oh Seong Yew, dated 8
Mar 2013
(2) Motion to increase the Annual The motion was put to a vote and carried by a majority: 289 votes in favour,
Subscription of the Sports Fund 10 against, and five abstentions.
from RM10 to RM20, proposed
by Anand Ponnudurai (Co- With the increase in the Sports Fund levy from RM10 to RM20 per Member,
Chairperson, Bar Council Sports the Sports Committee will be able to allocate more funds for the Interstate Bar
Committee), on behalf of Bar Games in future.
Council, and seconded by
Oommen Koshy (Member, Bar
Council Sports Committee), dated
5 Mar 2013
(3) Motion to “amend/delete S49 and The motion was withdrawn.

S51 of the Legal Profession Act
1976”, proposed by Naran Singh
and seconded by Pritam Singh
Doal, dated 5 Mar 2013
(4) Motion regarding the death penalty, The motion was withdrawn.
seconded by Pritam Singh Doal,
dated 5 Mar 2013

Update Sheet
Item Subject Update
(5) Motion regarding the e-filing The motion, as amended, was put to a vote, and was unanimously carried:
system, proposed by Arunachalam 180 votes in favour, no votes against, and no abstentions.
Kasi, dated 7 Mar 2013
BC sent letters dated 3 Apr 2013, containing the Bar’s resolution regarding
the e-filing system, to the de facto Minister of Law, the Chief Justice (“CJ”),
and Formis (the e-filing service provider). In addition, BC, led by the Court
Liaison Committee, held discussions with them on various dates.
When e-filing issues were raised with the CJ on 11 Apr 2013, the CJ noted
that concerns regarding the operation of the system should be raised directly
with Formis.
BC discussed e-filing issues with the de facto Minister of Law on 27 Aug 2013.
The Court Liaison Committee also held various meetings with Formis and the
court e-filing department, in August and September 2013.
The Court Liaison Committee has proposed the following recommendations,
which Formis has agreed to:
(a) Adopt a new form of the digital certificate;
(b) Opt for Digicert as the vendor of the digital certificate, which offers a
lower fee than Trustgate; and
(c) Opt for a physical “USB token” instead of Softcert, to heighten security
and permit easy installation of the software into any computer.
The court has informed BC that a new system will be implemented in March
2014. The Court Liaison Committee is seeking details regarding the features
of the new system, which will hopefully bring a substantial reduction in the
cost of purchasing the digital certificate.
On a separate note, the Court Liaison Committee has been informed that the
RM50 fee to use the e-filing service bureau cannot be waived.
More details regarding e-filing are provided in the Court Liaison Committee’s
report on pages 154 to 157 in this 2013/14 Annual Report.
(6) Motion on “erasing the ‘ills’ of the The motion could not be put to a vote because it had not been articulated in
SRO”, proposed by Tan Peek Guat, the proper form.
dated 8 Mar 2013
The Attorney General’s Chambers has finalised the Solicitors’ Remuneration
(Enforcement) Rules 2013 (“SRER”), and translated the SRER into Bahasa
Malaysia. However, the SRER can only be gazetted after various amendments
are made, for the purpose of consistency, to the Solicitors’ Remuneration
Order 2005.
BC is of the view that the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 is not in breach
of the Competition Act 2010.
Update Sheet
Item Subject Update
(7) Issues relating to the Judiciary
(a) Competence of Judges, and (a) Each State Bar Committee was assigned to gather feedback from
conduct of Court of Appeal members in their respective states regarding the performance of
Judges towards lawyers judges.
(b) Appointment of Judicial (b) At a meeting with BC on 6 Jan 2014, the CJ stated that the present
Commissioners and Judges rates of remuneration for the Judiciary are too low to attract Members of
from the Bar the Bar. In his speech at the Opening of the Legal Year 2014 on 11 Jan
2014, the President of the Bar called for a review of the current working
conditions of Judges, including their remuneration and the resources
allocated to them in the performance of their duties.
(c) Need for improvement in (c) At a meeting with the CJ on 6 Jan 2014, BC expressed its view that
number, and quality, of Court of Appeal Judges ought to write judgments irrespective of whether
written judgments or not there is an appeal. This practice will enhance accountability,
transparency and the prestige of the justice system, and is good for the
development of law in the country. The CJ agreed that at least a brief
reasoning should be prepared, and lengthy written judgments are not
required.
(d) Amendment to section 96 of (d) At a meeting with the CJ on 6 Jan 2014, BC expressed concern about
the Courts of Judicature Act cases where, despite a clear injustice, there are insufficient grounds to
1964 to increase the scope of obtain leave to appeal. BC’s view is that leave to appeal to the Federal
leave to appeal to the Federal Court should be allowed in such circumstances. A proposal to amend
Court section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 has been submitted to
the Judiciary for its consideration. The CJ said that the Federal Court
is already inundated with leave applications, and adoption of BC’s
proposal will result in too many matters going up on appeal. He added
that he had asked Judges to grant leave to appeal when they see
instances of injustice. According to him, Judges are already adopting
such an approach, hence the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
(e) Indirect enforcement of Key (e) At a meeting on 17 July 2013, the CJ stated that this is not a formal Key
Performance Indicators, Performance Indicators system, but that he had strongly advised the
whereby High Court Judges, Judges to complete older cases first before taking on new ones.
Sessions Court Judges and
Magistrates must complete
all pre-2009 and pre-2010
criminal cases by March or
June of 2013
(f) Conduct of Judges in the (f) In order to lodge a complaint against a Judge, specific details, including
Shah Alam High Court, the date and time of an incident, or the applicable case number, must
Selangor be provided. At a meeting with the Criminal Law Committee on 17 July
2013, the CJ stated that action will be taken against Judges who are
rude or unfair.

Update Sheet
Item Subject Update
(8) Closure of car park at the Palace of At a meeting between the BC and the CJ, President of the Court of Appeal,
Justice, Putrajaya and the Chief Judge of Malaya on 5 July 2013, it was suggested that a car
jockey service be engaged for the Palace of Justice, and the High Courts in
Kuala Lumpur and Shah Alam. The Secretary of the Bar met with a potential
service provider on 22 July 2013, and is continuing to look into this matter.
At a meeting between BC and the de facto Minister of Law on 27 Aug 2013,

the Minister stated that she would look into whether a temporary car park
could be built on the piece of land adjacent to the Palace of Justice, and
would speak to Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd to provide more car park bays in
any future plan to construct buildings on that land.
(9) Adverse impact of increase in filing BC is concerned about the impact of the increase in filing fees, which may
fees on poor litigants deprive poor litigants of their right to access to justice.
At a meeting on 6 Jan 2014, BC informed the CJ that it will submit a

memorandum recommending the reintroduction of a pauper provision into
the Rules of Court 2012 so that all impecunious litigants would have their
filing fees waived. The CJ agreed to consider the proposal.
Date: 24 Feb 2014
ADV Suez

special reports
70 President
91 Secretariat
96 Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board
special reports
President
This term has been a challenging one for the Bar, due to Professional Development (“CPD”) Scheme and the
the numerous issues that arose, some of which continue to Common Bar Course (“CBC”), which I address below.
call for our attention and resolve.
We would all recall that the most significant event on
We are enjoined by the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) the Malaysian calendar this term was the 13th General
to not only look to our own interests and development, but Elections held on 5 May 2013. Since that time, Malaysia
also to uphold the cause of justice and the rule of law, and has experienced a myriad of public interest issues, many
to protect and assist the public. of which called for the response and input of the Malaysian
Bar.
We have done so conscientiously over the years, and
in many ways the Malaysian Bar is a victim of its own In this regard, in terms of upholding the cause of justice and
dedication and success. We have 31 committees of the the rule of law, and protecting and assisting the public, I wish
Bar Council (out of a total of 41) that are focused on and to draw particular attention to eight matters of significance.
dedicated to the interests and development of the legal
profession. Most of these committees have rendered their Before I do so, there are two matters to report. Firstly, I
respective reports in this Annual Report. There are two am delighted to welcome the formation of the Perlis Bar
notable initiatives that bear and the Kedah Bar, which brings the total number of State
highlighting. These Bars to 12. Pursuant to a resolution for the severance of
are the Continuing the Perlis Bar from the Kedah/Perlis Bar, the Perlis Bar and
its committee were constituted on 19 April 2013. The first
Chairman of the Perlis Bar Committee was Amar Jit Singh
s/o Jarnail Singh, and the first Perlis Bar Representative to
the Bar Council was Ahmad Zaini Samsudin. At a general
meeting of the members of the Kedah Bar held on 5 June
2013, Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid was elected as the
Chairman of the Kedah Bar Committee, and Ramli Shariff
was elected as the Kedah Bar Representative to the Bar
Council.
Secondly, as a result of the substantial expansion in the

work of the Bar Council over the years, a Special Committee
of the Bar Council was set up to assist the Bar Council in
its deliberations, pursuant to section 58 of the LPA. The
Bar Council appointed M Ramachelvam, Roger Chan
Weng Keng and Seira Sacha Abu Bakar
to serve on this Special Committee.
Members of the Special Committee
are entitled to attend and 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.

President
(A) Enhancing standards at the Bar number of Members have been extremely supportive of the
CPD Scheme, and have hopefully benefited from it.
(A1) Continuing Professional Development
Moving forward, we have concluded an agreement with
In speaking about and promoting continuing professional Prez Capture Sdn Bhd to provide regular access to online
legal education, we should keep in mind the words of Alvin training as part of the CPD Scheme. This will take the form
Toffler: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those of streamed online video and audio training courses on a
who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, range of legal and non-legal subjects, on an affordable and
unlearn, and relearn.” highly accessible platform.
The Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Scheme We believe this initiative will substantially improve the
was successfully launched on 1 July 2012. The response learning and training opportunities for Members who may
to this Scheme has been positive, with Members of the Bar be constrained by time, costs, distance and logistics, and
throughout Peninsular Malaysia participating in the various allow them to participate in the CPD Scheme with ease,
recognised CPD activities to attain the 16 CPD points in the from the comfort of their homes and offices at times that are
first 24-month cycle. convenient to them. The only requirement is that they must
have Internet access.
In this regard, Bar Council, and the State Bar Committees
in particular, have worked tirelessly to ensure that Members At its 66th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) on 10 March
have opportunities for professional development through 2012, the Malaysian Bar had passed a resolution for a
face-to-face training sessions and workshops. mandatory CPD Scheme, which would be voluntary for the
first two years. Therefore, Members will see a motion by
I am pleased to report that in the 20 months between 1 July the Bar Council at the upcoming 68th AGM, which would
2012 and 28 February 2014: in essence set the dates of the mandatory CPD timetable.
Members will notice that the motion has staggered the
(1) the State Bar Committees conducted a total of 308 effective mandatory dates over a five-year period moving
courses, with the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee forward. I hope that Members will continue to embrace
achieving the highest number of events, at 126; long-term learning in the course of their practice as
(2) Bar Council conducted 192 courses, which includes advocates and solicitors. Permit me to quote the words of
20 Advocacy Training Courses, nine Regional Nelson Mandela: “Education is the most powerful weapon
Training Series events and 25 Yayasan Bantuan which you can use to change the world.”
Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”, the National Legal
Aid Foundation) training courses; and (A2) Common Bar Course
(3) commercial course providers, government agencies,
international organisations, public universities and The Common Bar Course (“CBC”) continues to be a priority
other organisations conducted 166 courses. for the Bar Council. It is proposed that the CBC serve as
a single entry professional course for all legal profession
When we take into account all the above, our Members had aspirants, so as to standardise and improve the quality of
exposure to a total of 666 individual courses during this time new entrants to the Bar.
frame, which is an average of 33 CPD courses per month.
The Legal Profession Qualifying Board (“LPQB”) and the
Based on data available for 505 of the 666 events, a total Attorney General are strongly supportive of the CBC. Local
of 21,174 participants attended these events (excluding universities and private colleges have agreed in principle
non-Members of the Bar). This suggests that a substantial that the CBC should be the single entry route into the legal
special reports
profession. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Bar worked JAIS had, on 2 January 2014, confiscated more than 300
with the Attorney General’s Chambers in drafting a Cabinet copies of the Alkitab and Bup Kudus from the office of the
paper with respect to the introduction and establishment Bible Society of Malaysia (“BSM”), and arrested BSM’s
of the CBC. The draft Cabinet paper was completed President and Office Manager.
early this year and is awaiting the input of the Advocates’
Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association. It is extremely regrettable, for a country that holds so much
The Bar Council and LPQB will continue to engage and promise and prospects, that ethnic and religious tensions
work with all stakeholders, including the public universities have been on the rise. Malaysia can ill afford such tensions.
and private colleges, to ensure that the CBC’s curriculum The Malaysian Bar is gravely concerned that should the
is well thought out and achieves the aims of the CBC. It is problem persist without a rational, just and equitable,
hoped that this process will move forward expeditiously. It determined and clear resolution, the country may become
is targeted to roll out the CBC by December 2016. further embroiled in ethnic and religious strife.
(B) National unity and harmony There are parties who have used or capitalised on
these events to exploit the emotions, sentiments and
The past six months have been extremely tumultuous for irrationality of certain quarters, and to divide the peoples of
Malaysia in terms of ethnic and religious harmony. The Malaysia. These parties represent the extremists amongst
controversy over the Herald case and the Jabatan Agama Malaysians. They seek to play and prey upon the fears
Islam Selangor (“JAIS”, the Selangor Islamic Religious of ordinary Malaysians. They should not be permitted to
Department)’s seizure of copies of the Alkitab (Bahasa hijack the discourse or agenda for Malaysia. They should
Malaysia bible) and Bup Kudus (Iban bible) is only a not be permitted public space to build momentum and gain
manifestation of a far greater underlying problem. ground. Do not empower the extremists.
The Herald is a publication for Roman Catholics by the The recent public gathering of a coalition of Muslim non-
Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur. In governmental organisations in Kuala Lumpur on 6 February
2008 and 2009, the Home Ministry had prohibited the 2014, where they had slaughtered chickens and bled them
Herald from using the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia onto posters bearing the images of elected lawmakers
publication. while making a reference to 13 May 1969 (a dark episode
in ethnic relations in Malaysia), is a clear example of how
The publisher commenced judicial review action in the High dangerous and out of step such extremist elements are with
Court of Malaya on 16 February 2009. The High Court the aspirations of right-thinking Malaysians.
delivered its decision on 30 December 2009, in favour
of the Herald. On 14 October 2013, the Court of Appeal In order to navigate the turbulent waters of inter-ethnic and
reversed the judgment of the High Court. The Herald has inter-religious harmony, care and attention must be paid to
since applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. developing a comprehensive understanding of the founding
ethos of our nation. In this regard, reference ought to be
Unfortunately, the courts are not the best avenue for made to our founding Constitution of 1957, read with the
addressing and resolving matters of religious conflict. subsequent Malaysia Agreement of September 1963.
Litigation is unlikely to provide a win-win outcome. It is
hoped that parties involved in this matter will be able to While there is respect for the position of Islam under
find guidance to arrive at a mutual solution. This can only Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, the same provision
be achieved where there is good faith and a real desire to immediately proceeds to provide for the protection of other
foster inclusivity and unity, and establish harmony. religions to be practised in peace and harmony. In addition,

PRESIDENT
while there is acknowledgment that the propagation of any Constitution of 1957, read with the subsequent Malaysia
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Agreement of 1963.
religion of Islam may be controlled or restricted by State
or Federal law, the founding fathers of our country do not In the context of national harmony and reconciliation, what
appear to have provided for an absolute prohibition. It is missing in the Malaysian environment is the presence
is noteworthy that until 31 March 1986 (the Terengganu of core Malaysian values that are distilled, articulated and
Enactment No 1 of 1980), no such state legislation had propagated. These values must find their resonance in
come into force. For nearly 29 years, none was felt universality, so that all would embrace them. They should
necessary. bridge or transcend individual religions.
It should be borne in mind that the Federal Constitution of The fact that Muslims and Christians believe in the same
1957 provided for a constitutional monarchy, parliamentary God, calling Him by whatever name, should not be a divisive
democracy, Executive, an independent Judiciary free factor, but a unifying force. There is an opportunity to work
from religious considerations, and a civil Public Services on commonalities and build bridges. It requires education,
Commission. Malaysia was deliberately founded as a as exemplified by our early years, which fostered multi-
parliamentary democracy abiding by the rule of law, and ethnic and multi-religious interaction and harmony.
a secular system of government was established. The
Constitution did not provide for the establishment of a National harmony and reconciliation cannot be premised
theocratic or semi-theocratic state. Religion was envisaged on any particular ethnicity or religion. It must be about
in the Constitution to be a personal right and matter. It is embracing each other as Malaysians and establishing
noteworthy that all the prescribed oaths of office under the values that bridge ethnic and religious divides. It is about
Sixth Schedule of the Constitution are non-religious oaths fostering inclusivity, promoting unity, and being pro-
that require a pledge of faith and allegiance to Malaysia and Malaysia and Malaysians.
the Constitution.
We should be engaging and empowering right-thinking
This was a balance enshrined in our Federal Constitution of moderate Malaysians to develop an inclusive, dynamic,
1957 to cater for harmony and unity in recognition of what progressive and democratic Malaysia.
Malaysia was and would be. This was astute and insightful
of our founding fathers. Since Merdeka, there have been My fellow Office Bearers and I have been engaging with
increasing efforts to change this harmonious balance. The the Government on this matter. In particular, we have
current situation is an example of the undesirable result of conveyed our views to the Prime Minister and the Minister
such a change in the balance. in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law, at our
separate meetings with them.
The matter of the use of the word “Allah” continues to be
mired in myth and miasma. Fiction masquerades as fact, (C) Hate crime legislation
and ignorance passes for intelligence. At the end of the day
we must not allow Malaysia’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious In July 2012, the Government proclaimed its intention to
character to be hijacked by extremist elements. As it is, repeal the Sedition Act 1948 and replace it with a National
we are witnessing the increasing resort, in certain quarters, Harmony Act. The Government reiterated this intention in
to rule not of law, but by decree, pronouncement and July 2013. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department,
edict. We must guard against changes and compromises Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri, had in an interview confirmed
to the harmonious balance that was envisaged by our that the Government was in the midst of looking at such
founding fathers and reflected in the scheme of our Federal legislation.
special reports
The Malaysian Bar has on several occasions expressed its The freedom of expression must be safeguarded. Injured
view that such replacement legislation was unnecessary. feelings, whether as a result of being sensitive, confused
or insulted, are part and parcel of a maturing democracy
There is little utility in having a National Harmony Act if and parties have to learn to live with this. This is what a
the root causes of national disharmony or disunity are not maturation process is about. However, the line is drawn
identified, addressed and redressed. An Act of Parliament when violence is done to a person because of his or her
setting out criminal penalties for what citizens can or cannot identity, or when speech is intended to incite ethnic or
think, say and do in a peaceful manner would achieve little religious violence among the public.
in fostering, promoting and ingraining national harmony
and integration. Such legislation would only serve, at best, There are countries that have hate crime laws, and we
to suppress criticisms and unhappiness, and postpone can draw from their models, such as the Equality Act 2010
addressing real concerns and issues of Malaysians. and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, both of the
United Kingdom (“UK”).
National unity and harmony can only be fostered by
continuous, honest, open, rational and peaceful discourse There must be a higher threshold set for the classification
and engagement, and by treating all citizens equally. It of hate crimes. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
should be recognised that one of the root causes of national creates an offence in England and Wales for inciting hatred
disunity and disharmony is discrimination in its many forms against a person on the ground of his or her religion. In
and facets, ethnic and religious hegemony being chief contrast, the Malaysian Penal Code creates an offence
amongst them. for deliberate intent to wound religious “feelings” by the
utterance of words, or the making of sounds or gestures.
It is time for Malaysia to think of other ways to promote and There is a vast difference between causing hatred towards
engender genuine and lasting national unity and harmony somebody, as opposed to criminalising behaviour merely
amongst its citizenry. Any new legislation that sincerely because somebody feels hurt. Further, the UK provision
seeks to engender unity and harmony in the medium requires the element of threatening words or behaviour, or
to long term should acknowledge the folly and counter- the display of any written material that is threatening, with
productiveness of the Sedition Act and any laws that are the added element of intention to stir up hatred.
similar in nature. One should not reintroduce or incorporate
the thinking in such outmoded legislation. In essence, if there is to be legislation against hate crimes
in Malaysia, such legislation must be very narrowly defined,
If there is to be replacement legislation at all, then legislation and be confined to criminalising ethnic or religious violence,
specifically addressing ethnic and religious hate crimes or speech that is intended to incite ethnic or religious
could be considered. violence. Such legislation should work in tandem with
another legislation providing for protection and promotion of
However, it should be narrow in its application and should expression and discourse, particularly involving “sensitive”
require the element of mens rea. It should be confined issues.
to acts of ethnic or religious violence, or speeches that
specifically and intentionally incite such violence. If its reach My fellow Office Bearers and I have been engaging with
is to be expanded, it should nevertheless go no further than the Government on this matter. In particular, we have
criminalising threatening behaviour with the intention to stir relayed our views to the Prime Minister and the Minister in
up ethnic and religious hatred. the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law, at our
separate meetings with them.

PRESIDENT
(D) Sedition Act 1948 The Sedition Act has been selectively used against those
who are seen as critical of the authorities. The Malaysian
In July 2012, the Malaysian Bar applauded the Bar has urged the Government to resist the temptation to
announcement by the Prime Minister that the Government resort to this archaic and oppressive legislation to quell
intended to repeal the Sedition Act. He had reportedly dissenting voices, lest the promise of freedoms made by
stated that the Government wanted to find a mechanism the Prime Minister be nothing more than a mere platitude.
that could best balance the need for freedom of speech
assured under the Federal Constitution, and extremism and (E) Amendments to Prevention of Crime Act 1959,
chauvinism. and proposed amendments to other laws
However, we have since then seen the continued abuse of On 15 September 2011, the Prime Minister announced the
the Sedition Act. The continued resort to the Sedition Act intention of the Government to repeal the Internal Security
by the authorities directly contradicts the promise made by Act 1960 and the Emergency Ordinances. This was done
the Prime Minister. by mid-2012.
Clear examples of everything that is wrong about the In October 2013, the freshly-minted Minister of Home Affairs
Sedition Act include: plucked an old and forgotten legislation, the Prevention
of Crime Act 1959, and overhauled it to provide for the
(1) the arrest and prosecution of Adam Adli, Tian reintroduction of detention without trial.
Chua, Tamrin Ghafar, Haris Ibrahim, Muhammad
Safwan Anang @ Talib and Hishamuddin Rais, for The amendments suffer from the same deficiencies as the
purportedly making seditious statements at a forum detention without trial provisions in the repealed Internal
on democracy held on 13 May 2013; Security Act 1960 and the Emergency Ordinances.

(2) the conviction for sedition and sentencing to 30 The reintroduction of draconian preventive detention
months’ imprisonment of P Uthayakumar by the legislation and the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts in
Sessions Court on 5 June 2013, for a letter to then- the amendments are a retrograde step, and mark a serious
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown blaming the about-turn on the path to more progressive and better laws
former British colonial power for the plight of ethnic in Malaysia. Violence has been done to the rudimentary
Indians in present-day Malaysia, followed by the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven
dismissal of his appeal by the High Court on 18 otherwise in court. The amendments deny fundamental
February 2014; and rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, based
merely on belief or suspicion, and are a great blow to the
(3) the recent conviction of Karpal Singh for sedition on rule of law and natural justice. The purported safeguards
21 February 2014, for saying that the decision of the introduced into the Act, namely, the establishment of the
Sultan of Perak in relation to what is commonly known Prevention of Crime Board, and the right of judicial review
as the “Perak constitutional crisis” was justiciable. against any orders for preventive detention imposed by the
Board, are illusory and meaningless.
The Malaysian Bar has long called for the abolition of
the Sedition Act, on the grounds that it is repressive, The Malaysian Bar, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak
anachronistic and an affront to fundamental liberties. It and Sabah Law Association were appalled by the
was conceived and designed to muzzle speech, stifle proposed amendments, and issued a joint press release
thought and deny democratic space. Its sole purpose was on 27 September 2013 to express their grave concerns
to suppress and persecute Malaysians. and objection to the amendments. At a tripartite meeting in
special reports
Kota Kinabalu in October 2013, the three Bars — through enhancing their response time to reports of crime, and
the Kota Kinabalu Declaration — reaffirmed their opposition investing and training in the use of technology to increase
to the amendments. their crime-fighting capabilities.
This is not to say that the Malaysian Bar is not concerned The proposed amendments to 10 other pieces of legislation,
about crime. We are very concerned. However, the including the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and
amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959, Evidence Act 1950, if passed into law, would usurp well-
undertaken on the pretext of having to deal with the alleged established due process provisions in our current laws that
spike in serious crime and activities of organised criminal protect the rights of accused persons. These proposed
syndicates, signify a serious failure on the part of the police amendments also seek to interfere with and curtail the
and speak of their inadequacies and inability to deal with discretion of the Judiciary in various aspects, and represent
crime properly. a gross intrusion upon the independence of the Judiciary.
The sad fact is that crime statistics have been mangled The Malaysian Bar has studied these amendments, and
and manipulated in an attempt to provide statistical prepared and presented to the Malaysian Government the
justification for increased police powers. In reality, there is Bar’s memoranda on the amendments to the Prevention of
no empirical evidence that there has been a spike in crime, Crime Act 1959 and the proposed amendments to the 10
or a significant rise in the indices for overall crime and for other pieces of legislation.
serious crime, since the repeal of the Internal Security Act
1960 and the Emergency Ordinances. There is no basis (F) Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012
for claims that such repeal is the proximate cause for any
purported spike. The year 2013 saw an armed intrusion by foreign elements
in the areas of Lahad Datu and Semporna in Sabah. The
The police have effectively admitted that they are able to Malaysian Bar was extremely concerned by reports of
tackle crime minus detention without trial laws. Late last this intrusion and deeply saddened by the deaths of
year they trumpeted the success of Ops Cantas in having Malaysian security and police personnel in defending the
reduced serious crime by 8% in a space of two months. sovereign territory of Malaysia. Arising from this intrusion,
This year, the police further stated that the crime prevention approximately 181 individuals were arrested under the
index in Selangor recorded a drop of 4% in January and Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (“SOSMA”),
February compared with the corresponding period in and another 334 persons were detained under different laws
2013. All of this has occurred without the benefit of the pursuant to Ops Daulat. This has led to 30 persons being
amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 having charged for security offences under Chapters VI and VIA
come into force. There was therefore no valid reason for of the Penal Code, and the trial thereof is now underway.
making the amendments, and there continues to be no valid
reason to gazette the amendments into force. To do so This trial is of interest because it is the first under the special
would be a clear indication that the rule of law in Malaysia rules governing security cases, as provided in SOSMA,
is under threat, not from criminals but from the authorities. which came into effect on 31 July 2012. SOSMA provides
for the sidelining of the usual discovery procedures and
Current laws, without preventive detention provisions, production of documents in criminal cases under section
are sufficient to combat crime. The police should instead 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the ouster of the court’s
focus their resources towards improving their policing and jurisdiction to direct production of relevant documents
investigative abilities, dedicating more police personnel containing sensitive information if the Minister certifies that
to fighting crime instead of to administrative matters, it is prejudicial to national security or national interest, the
taking of evidence of protected witnesses without sight and

President
hearing of the accused, the power of the Public Prosecutor There does not appear to be any serious effort or sense
to authorise the interception of private communication, and of urgency on the part of the authorities in addressing this
the admissibility of such communication. inexcusable and unacceptable state of affairs.
The Bar is supportive of measures to counter and prosecute In the wake of the deaths in custody of N Dharmendran
terrorism; nevertheless, a balance must be struck between and R Jamesh Ramesh in May 2013, the Malaysian
the requirements of natural justice and the rule of law, and Bar had reiterated its call for the Government to set
the concerns of national security and safety of witnesses. up an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct
The Bar is concerned that SOSMA provides for the ouster Commission (“IPCMC”) and a Coroner’s Court. Instead,
of the court’s jurisdiction to order production of relevant it was announced by the police that they would set up a
evidence in trial proceedings. This is an infringement of the special committee to take measures to prevent further
doctrine of separation of powers, inasmuch as the Executive deaths in custody.
could interfere with the course of a trial. There is no reason
why such evidence could not be dealt with by the courts The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (“EAIC”)
in a manner that would not prejudice national security or had been expected to hold an inquiry into those two
national interest. Furthermore, while the Bar appreciates cases. Yet after nine months, we are no closer to knowing
the need to intercept private communication in justified the cause of death of the two individuals. The EAIC
circumstances, the Bar would propose that, to provide appears to have also remained silent in response to the two
judicial oversight, the authorisation for such interception be latest cases of possible deaths in police custody in recent
by the courts, albeit upon the ex parte application of the weeks. Notwithstanding the EAIC’s power to investigate
Public Prosecutor. such matters without the need to wait for a report or
complaint to be made to it, no action has been reported
On a related note pertaining to the Lahad Datu intrusion, on the part of the EAIC. In any event, the EAIC has no
the Bar affirms its support, and is prepared to provide any powers to make binding decisions or to take disciplinary
assistance if called upon by the Government or the Attorney action against errant police officers.
General, in the event that there are any legal disputes
arising with respect to the sovereignty of Malaysia over any This sadly epitomises the ineffectiveness of the EAIC in
of its territories. respect of its role in investigating potential abuses of power
by the police. It is also obvious that we cannot rely on the
(G) Deaths in custody and the Independent Police police to be objective and effective in policing itself. This in
Complaints and Misconduct Commission turn perpetuates the environment of impunity in which the
police appear to operate, with no one being held responsible
Based on statistics disclosed by the Ministry of Home for instances of deaths in police custody.
Affairs, 156 persons died in police custody from 2000 until
February 2011. In September 2012, the then-Minister of It is precisely for reasons such as these that we echo our
Home Affairs reportedly told Parliament there had been call for a dedicated and independent civilian oversight
209 deaths in police custody from 2000 until September mechanism of the police force, in the form of the IPCMC,
2012. In late June 2013, the new Minister of Home Affairs with powers to investigate and then prosecute cases
reportedly stated that there had been 231 cases of such of police misconduct. The recommendation for the
deaths between 2000 and mid-2013. More than 12 deaths establishment of the IPCMC was made by the Royal
in custody were reported in 2013, and we started this year Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management
with at least two more such deaths. of the Royal Malaysia Police in its report published in May
2005. This would be the only acceptable way to make the
police force accountable, and re-establish public trust and
confidence in them.
special reports
(H) Coroner’s Court (2) the threat by the Minister of Home Affairs to shut
down newspapers that reported his speech made
Every death in custody must be thoroughly and impartially at an event in Malacca in October 2013 where he
investigated. Although Chapter XXXII of the Criminal had reportedly said that the police are to shoot
Procedure Code requires that all custodial deaths be first and ask questions later, and that the majority
investigated by way of inquest, no inquest is held in of gangsters are of Indian descent and victims are
many instances. Thus, we had in May 2013 called on the mostly Malays;
authorities to urgently implement comprehensive structural
reform where inquests are concerned. In this regard, the (3) the indefinite suspension in December 2013 of the
Malaysian Bar had urged the Government to introduce a publication permit of the weekly periodical The Heat,
Coroner’s Act, and establish a Coroner’s Court. which had headlined a report in its 23-29 November
issue on the alleged “big spending” of the Prime
Despite the Government’s announcement on 19 June 2013 Minister; and
that it had agreed to the setting up of an independent and
permanent Coroner’s Court in each state, as a matter of (4) the flip-flopping by the Minister of Home Affairs, in
urgency, to address the issue of deaths in custody, no first approving a publication permit for FZ Daily, then
positive developments have occurred after the passage of deferring the approval, and subsequently rejecting
over eight months. the application by a letter dated 21 January 2014.
The Government’s continued inaction on this issue borders In a press release on 28 December 2013, the Malaysian
on the criminally negligent. Bar reiterated its call for the repeal of the Printing Presses
and Publications Act 1984. That legislation is offensive to
(I) Media freedom the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression
enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. It has
The past year has again seen restrictions on media freedom been used and abused to influence, bully, intimidate,
by the authorities. threaten and punish the press. Such legislative and
governmental control of the press, including licensing
Malaysia has dropped in the World Press Freedom Index regimes, should end. The court decision in October
once more. Malaysia was ranked 122nd in 2012 and 145th 2013 against the Ministry of Home Affairs, in relation to
in 2013, and now stands at 147th (out of 180 countries) in Malaysiakini’s application for a newspaper licence, is a
the 2014 Index. We rank below our neighbours Cambodia, reminder of this.
Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. This represents a
continuing slide by Malaysia in its respect for freedom of A free press is a fundamental feature of a vibrant and
expression and speech, which are fundamental democratic accountable democracy. An independent press acts as a
principles. disseminator of information, and as a check-and-balance of
elected representatives and government. The well-being of
Several incidents in the course of the last 12 months bear a democratic nation is dependent on, amongst other things,
mentioning. These are: a healthy, professional, ethical and independent press.
(1) the harassment and threatening of a journalist, in This is not to say that a newspaper, or any publication
October 2013, who had attempted to question the (whether print or online), is at liberty to publish anything with
Minister of Home Affairs with respect to the Auditor- impunity. It is time that Malaysia provides for independent
General’s Report 2012 that revealed RM1.3 million regulation of the press media. Complaints regarding
worth of weapons and other equipment lost and objectionable press stories and material should be dealt
unaccounted for by the police force;

President
with by an independent Media Council to be established — consisting of journalism

practitioners and civil society representatives, and with minimal or no government
representation — or, alternatively, a Media Ombudsperson. Such a Media Council or
Media Ombudsperson should be able to regulate media owners, publishers, editors, and
journalists regarding offensive content and conduct.
Other notable matters and activities
(A) Composition of Bar Council 2013/2014
Bar Council 2013/2014 comprised the following 38 Councillors:
(1) Christopher Leong — President [12/12]1

(2) Steven Thiru — Vice-President [12/12]
(3) Richard Wee Thiam Seng — Secretary [12/12]
(4) Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Malacca) — Treasurer [11/12]4
(5) Lim Chee Wee — Immediate Past President [8/12]2
Councillors elected by postal ballot:
(6) Andrew Khoo Chin Hock [9/12]3

(7) George Varughese [9/12]
(8) Hendon Mohamed [12/12]
(9) Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari [9/12]2
(10) Low Beng Choo [8/12]
(11) Ravi Nekoo [10/12]
(12) Tony Woon Yeow Thong [6/12]4
(13) Sulaiman Abdullah [10/12]
(14) Syahredzan Johan [11/12]
(15) Yasmeen Haji Mohd Shariff [7/12]
State Bar Chairmen / Representatives:
(16) S Gunasegaran (Johore) [11/12]

(17) K Mohan K Kumaran (Johore) [9/12]4
(18) Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid (Kedah) [8/12]
(19) Ramli Shariff (Kedah) [6/12]
(20) Abdullah Hamzah (Kelantan) [8/12]
(21) Norazham Yahaya (Kelantan) [8/12]4
(22) Dipendra Harshad Rai (Kuala Lumpur) [12/12]
(23) Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Kuala Lumpur) [10/12]
(24) Desmond Ho Chee Cheong (Malacca) [9/12]
(25) Indran V Kumaraguru (Negri Sembilan) [7/12]5
special reports
(26) Puspanathan Sellam (Negri Sembilan) [9/12]4

(27) Abdullah Johari Hamzah (Pahang) [11/12]
(28) Hon Kai Ping (Pahang) [12/12]
(29) Abdul Fareed Abdul Gafoor (Penang) [11/12]4
(30) Gnasegaran Egamparam (Penang) [7/12]
(31) Vivekanandan AMS Periasamy (Perak) [7/12]
(32) Kenny Lai Choe Ken (Perak) [9/12]
(33) Amar Jit Singh Jarnail Singh (Perlis) [9/9]6
(34) Ahmad Zaini Samsudin (Perlis) [7/9]6
(35) Vishnu Kumar S Athi Kumar (Selangor) [8/12]
(36) Rajpal Singh Mukhtiar Singh (Selangor) [9/12]
(37) Amirruddin Abu Bakar (Terengganu) [7/12]
(38) Mukhtar Abdullah (Terengganu) [10/12]
Special Committee of the Bar Council:
(39) M Ramachelvam [3/4]7

(40) Roger Chan Weng Keng [4/4]7
(41) Seira Sacha Abu Bakar [3/4]7
_______________________________________________
1
Record of attendance at Bar Council meetings from 16 March 2013 to 8 February 2014 (inclusive).
2
Absent on one occasion due to Bar Council activity.
3
Absent on three occasions due to Bar Council activity.
4
Absent on one occasion due to State Bar activity.
5
Absent on two occasions due to State Bar activity.
6
Member of Bar Council since 19 April 2013, pursuant to section 47(2)(b) of the LPA, when the Kedah/Perlis Bar was severed
and the Perlis Bar and its committee were formalised and constituted.
7
Appointed as member of the Special Committee of the Bar Council since 5 October 2013, pursuant to section 58 of the LPA.

President
(B) External relations the need for a review of the current working conditions of
Judges, including their remuneration and the resources
(B1) The Judiciary allocated to them in the performance of their onerous
duties. Financial autonomy is an essential aspect of the
The Malaysian Bar congratulates the Judges who were independence of the Judiciary.
elevated to the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal
Court in the course of the past year. The remuneration scheme for members of the Judiciary
should not be benchmarked to that for the civil service, as
We are delighted to build upon the good relationship that the Judiciary is not part of the civil service. Furthermore, one
we already enjoy with the Judiciary. The Office Bearers of of the difficulties in attracting suitable private practitioners to
the Malaysian Bar, as well as the Bar Council Court Liaison join the Bench is the relatively lower income of Judges. The
Committee, have a very good and encouraging professional Bar would support a review to improve the remuneration of
relationship with the Office Bearers of the Judiciary, and the Judges, and would be delighted to work with and support
Chief Registrar of the Federal Court and her officers. Apart the Judiciary in this regard.
from the dialogues on matters arising in the courts and the
administration of justice to improve its efficiency, we have (B2) The Executive
also collaborated in various other areas.
During the term, the Office Bearers had the occasion of
The success of the Advocacy Training Course is attributable meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss a few key matters
in equal measure to the Judiciary and the Bar. This has relating to governance and the public interest. On some of
been a joint effort with members of the Judiciary and the Bar these issues, I have given my word to the Prime Minister
participating as trainers in seeking to improve standards of to keep them confidential. I extend the appreciation of
advocacy. It is essential that the Judiciary remain a partner the Malaysian Bar to the Prime Minister for seeking and
in this, as the Judges’ perspective provides invaluable considering the Bar’s views.
insights for lawyers into the expectations of the Bench.
I also wish to express the thanks of the Malaysian Bar to YB
The Judiciary has also continued to support the Bar’s Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri, de facto Minister of Law in the
professional development programmes, with Judges Prime Minister’s Department, for keeping her door open to
accepting our invitations to speak at the Bar’s events. The the Bar. The Bar has had several opportunities of meeting
Judiciary has reciprocated with the invitation to Members with the Minister to discuss issues of common interest and
of the Bar to participate as moderators and speakers at the concern, and we will continue to do so.
inaugural forum held in conjunction with the Opening of the
Legal Year in January 2014. We should build upon this. I reiterate that it is important that we in the legal profession
continue to engage and cooperate to achieve common
The idea of establishing a sentencing council and the objectives and goals for the furtherance of the rule of law,
drawing up of sentencing guidelines so as to enhance administration of justice, and good governance. In building
transparency and consistency in sentencing in criminal relationships, it is normal to encounter differences and
matters has been discussed between the Judiciary, Attorney disagreements. While such disagreements may sometimes
General’s Chambers and the Bar. The Bar is hopeful that be in strong terms, and harsh words exchanged, this must
this idea will come to fruition. not be seen to negate the value of that relationship, the
importance of continuing engagement and cooperation,
In my Opening of the Legal Year 2014 speech in January, and building upon commonalities. In the words of Mahatma
I took the opportunity to reiterate the Bar’s unwavering Gandhi, “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of
support of a strong and independent Judiciary. I highlighted progress.”
special reports
(B3) The Attorney General’s Chambers germane to the legal profession and issues of mutual and
public interest.
The Bar also wishes to record its appreciation to the
Attorney General. We have enjoyed a collegial working At one such tripartite meeting in Kota Kinabalu in October
relationship with the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) 2013, the three Bars — through the Kota Kinabalu
on a variety of matters concerning the legal profession. Declaration — affirmed our joint commitment to:
We have worked over a sustained period with the AGC in (1) uphold the sanctity of the Federal Constitution, the
formulating the approach and structure for the liberalisation Malaysia Act 1963, the 20- and 18-point Agreements
of the Malaysian legal services sector. Our collaboration in and the Inter-Governmental Committee Report
this endeavour continues with the Attorney General and the 1962;
President of the Malaysian Bar being Co-Chairpersons of the
Selection Committee tasked with making recommendations (2) uphold the fundamental liberties and guarantees
concerning the admission of foreign lawyers and law firms. in Part II of the Federal Constitution particularly
the omnipresent concept of equality under the law
The Attorney General is the Chairman of YBGK’s Board of enshrined in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution,
Directors and Executive Committee, of which the Presidents and that discriminatory conduct in all forms is
of the Malaysian Bar, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak inequitable; and
and Sabah Law Association are members. He has, since
the formation of YBGK, been a driving and pivotal force in (3) express our grave concerns and objection to the
its implementation and progress. amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
As stated earlier, the AGC and the Bar are currently working In recent years, the three Bars have also collaborated in
together to finalise the structure and scheme for the CBC. issuing joint press releases on issues of common interest
The Attorney General has been very supportive of this and concern. Two such press releases were issued in
initiative as a means of providing uniform and relevant 2013. The first one, on 31 May 2013, deplored the denial
vocational training for new entrants to the profession. of entry of Nurul Izzah Anwar, a Member of Parliament,
into Sabah on 30 May 2013, and called on the Sabah State
The AGC and the Ministry of International Trade and Government to immediately rescind the entry ban, and
Industry recently invited the Malaysian Bar to provide cease and desist from resorting to such action without
input on certain aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership any justifiable cause. The second press release, dated 27
Agreement, in particular the Investor State Dispute September 2013, expressed opposition to the proposed
Settlement chapter. We are delighted to contribute in this amendments to 11 pieces of legislation, particularly the
as part of our national service. Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
(B4) Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and Sabah (B5) Foreign Bars, law societies and associations,
Law Association and international law associations
The three Bars have forged a strong bond and relationship. One of the defining objects of the Malaysian Bar pursuant
Our formal meetings convene regularly. In this term, the to section 42 of the LPA is to establish and maintain good
three Bars have decided to increase the frequency of our relations with professional bodies of the legal profession in
interaction. To this end, we have agreed to hold at least other countries, and to participate in the activities of any
two tripartite meetings a year to share and discuss matters international association.

President
To this end, we have established good ties with our friends to discuss issues relating to the liberalisation of the legal
at the various Bars, law societies and associations. We profession in Malaysia. International and local panellists
have a memorandum of understanding with the Law will share views on various aspects of liberalisation that are
Council of Australia, and with the Korean Bar Association. relevant to both foreign and domestic law firms. Participants
The Malaysian Bar and the Korean Bar Association will will include representatives from the legal communities in
soon effect a young lawyers exchange programme that will Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom; relevant
see young lawyers from each jurisdiction being hosted for government agencies; and the diplomatic corps.
about two to four weeks by participating law firms in the
other jurisdiction. We will continue to build and strengthen these ties with the
various societies and associations.
The Korean Bar Association with its delegation of 12
members visited us from 3 to 5 July 2013. 13 delegates (C) Bar issues
from the Taiwan Bar Association also visited us on 6 and
7 February 2014. The Bar Council met with the two Bar (C1) Membership and admissions
Associations to exchange and discuss our experiences
on various issues both peculiar as well as common to our Active Members of the Bar numbered approximately 14,900
respective jurisdictions. at the beginning of 2013. 1,542 petitions for admission to the
Bar were received during the year, with 1,539 individuals
We have also had the privilege of establishing links with the being admitted. More lawyers are joining the profession
fledgling Myanmar Lawyers Association and the Yangon than leaving it, as the number of active practitioners
Bar Association, both of which we visited in November exceeded 12,000 approximately six years ago, surpassed
2013. The pro tem President and a member of the 13,000 in 2009, then crossed the 15,000 mark in 2013, and
Myanmar Lawyers Association attended, for the first time, now hovers around 15,230.
our Opening of the Legal Year this year.
The number of legal firms in operation has also seen an
We had our annual Malaysia / Singapore Bench and Bar increase of approximately 240, to 4,940 firms. Consistently,
Games with the Law Society of Singapore and Judiciary, the largest category, comprising approximately 39% of
held in Singapore from 16 to 18 May 2013. We look forward firms, comprises single-lawyer establishments. Overall,
to hosting this year’s Games, which will be combined with 89% of firms have five or fewer lawyers, and only 3.25% of
the Quadrangular Games, in Kuala Lumpur from 1 to 3 May. firms have 11 or more lawyers.
The Malaysian Bar has been invited to speak on the Additional details regarding the membership of the Bar at
liberalisation of its legal services at a roundtable event the debut of 2014:
co-hosted by the Law Council of Australia and LAWASIA.
Ambiga Sreenevasan and I were honoured to have been (1) The number of female practitioners has continued
invited by the Law Society of Singapore to deliver their to rise, and female Members (51%) now exceed
4th Biennial Lecture on the topic of “The Role of a Bar male Members (49%);
Association in Society: The Malaysian Experience”. The
Malaysian Bar was also invited by the German Federal Bar (2) Approximately 40.5% of practitioners were Malays,
to deliver a paper on the Malaysian judicial appointment 38% were Chinese, 17.5% were Indians, 3%
process. were Punjabis and the remaining 1% identified
themselves as Eurasians or “others”; and
Looking ahead, Bar Council is co-organising a forum with
the Law Society of England and Wales on 7 March 2014
special reports
(3) Age-wise, the composition of the Bar can be Once the legislation allowing for foreign lawyers comes into
summarised thus: 27% (30 and below); 28% (31- effect, we will step up action to prevent foreign lawyers from
40); 26% (41-50); 12% (51-60); and 7% (above 60). practising illegally in Malaysia.
Compared to the previous year, there has been an
increase in the number of young Members, from In its meetings with various authorities, Bar Council has
22% to 27%. ventured to make known the views and stance of the
Members of the Bar concerning liberalisation of the legal
(C2) Liberalisation of the legal profession profession, and will continue to do so as Malaysia gradually
liberalises.
Most would be aware that the legal services sector in
Malaysia will soon be opening itself to foreign lawyers and (C3) Complaints and intervention
law firms. This is a natural progression, as world and regional
economies become more integrated in trade and services. In 2013, the Bar Council Secretariat’s Complaints and
Intervention Department (“Department”) received 567
The liberalisation of our legal market should be seen as a complaints and approximately 500 enquiries (inclusive of
challenge that brings opportunities. The challenge for us is to email enquiries) concerning the conduct of Members and
build capacity and abilities to be more competitive, to broaden practice-related issues, all of which had been reviewed
our horizons, spread our wings and forge new paths. and attended to by the close of the year. 163 out of the
567 complaints had been referred to Bar Council by the
As a result of liberalisation, foreign legal practitioners will Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“ASDB”)
be permitted to undertake work regulated by Malaysian law pursuant to rule 8 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary
and at least one other national law, or regulated solely by Proceedings) (Investigating Tribunal and Disciplinary
any law other than Malaysian law. The Legal Profession Committee) Rules 1994. Bar Council considered each
(Amendment) Act 2012 (“Amendment Act”) was gazetted complaint and decided to intervene and proceed in seven
on 20 September 2012 and further amendments to the cases.
legislation were gazetted on 1 November 2013.
The year also saw Bar Council exercising supervisory
One of the further amendments made was to section 37(2B) powers conferred to it pursuant to section 88(1) of the
of the Amendment Act on “fly-in fly-out”, which will now LPA to intervene and essentially wind up three law firms.
allow a foreign lawyer advising on non-Malaysian law to be Winding-up of firms was carried out in eight cases pursuant
able to come to Malaysia and work on a project for up to 60 to section 88(2) of the LPA, ie after ASDB had issued orders
days in a calendar year, subject to immigration approval. suspending or striking off Members. Bar Council also
The other amendment was to insert a new section 37A, invoked its powers to intervene in one instance pursuant to
which allows foreign lawyers to enter Malaysia for arbitral section 89(1) of the LPA.
proceedings without any restrictions or time bars.
During the year under review, the Department dealt with
In the past year, Bar Council continued to work together 9,000 files seized from law firms. A dedicated team of three
with the AGC to draft rules and guidelines to ensure that full-time staff processed between 550 and 850 files per
the goals of liberalisation of the legal services sector can be month, and prepared a complete inventory of files in order
achieved in the best possible manner. When these have to facilitate collection of files by clients of the law firms.
been finalised and approved, both sets of amendments to
the LPA will be brought into force on a date to be determined Action is also undertaken by the Department in respect
by the Minister of Law. of complaints against Members and/or their law firms
regarding malpractice involving clients’ funds, or where

President
Members absconded and/or left their firms unattended for a The Bar Council continues to receive numerous reports
considerable period of time. In 2013, Bar Council invoked and complaints regarding persons who purport to be
its powers under section 88A of the LPA in two such cases, authorised to offer legal services to the general public, or
and sought court orders to effect interim suspension against who masquerade as advocates and solicitors registered
the two Members pending a full inquiry by ASDB. This with the Bar Council. One example of this unscrupulous
procedure is utilised when the Bar Council considers that practice is the proliferation of scams, whereby emails are
such suspension is in the interest of the public, the clients sent to members of the public in the name of a fictitious
and/or the legal profession. lawyer or law firm, or alternatively, by misusing the name
of a registered Member of the Bar or law firm. This matter
The Department lodged 20 complaints to ASDB in respect has been brought to the attention of the Inspector General
of breaches of various provisions of the LPA, and Rules of Police and the AGC, through letters and at various
and Rulings made thereunder, relating to misconduct dialogues and discussions, in an effort to curb this menace.
involving clients’ monies, etiquette, and conduct unbefitting During the period under review, eight cases were forwarded
an advocate and solicitor. to the AGC for investigation.
As at 31 December 2013, ASDB had issued orders striking Beginning in May 2013, the Bar Council has provided State
off 19 Members from the Roll of advocates and solicitors, Bar Committees with monthly email alerts to notify them
and suspending three Members. ASDB exercised its about adverse orders, particularly suspension and striking-
summary suspension powers pursuant to section 94(4) of off orders, against their members. These notifications
the LPA to suspend one Member upon an application made alert the State Bar Committees regarding the status of
by the Bar Council. their members, so that they can assist the Bar Council
to take effective measures against the practice of law by
Between 2011 and 2013, the number of lawyers struck unauthorised persons. Advertisements are also published
off the Roll of advocates and solicitors for misconduct has in the vernacular dailies every quarter.
ranged between 19 and 24 annually, representing merely
about 0.15% of the profession. The figures for suspended The Department is also tasked to manage and monitor
lawyers are also small: nine lawyers in 2010, four lawyers in public interest cases where the Malaysian Bar holds a
2011, six lawyers in 2012 and three lawyers in 2013. Even watching brief. In 2013, watching briefs were held in a
so, the Bar Council remains vigilant in matters relating to range of cases and enquiries involving issues such as
the discipline of the legal profession. election petitions; deaths in custody; sedition; arrest and
detention of Bar Council Legal Aid Centre lawyers who
The Department’s records show that 34 appeals were had been denied access to represent their clients; and the
served on the Bar Council in respect of adverse orders collapse of civil structures in Penang.
imposed on Members of the Bar by ASDB. The Bar Council
took steps to intervene, as a matter of policy, in the appeals (C4) Advocates and Solicitors Compensation Fund
proceedings.
25 claims were received in 2013 in respect of losses
The Department has implemented improved procedures to amounting to RM3,968,507.37, incurred as a result of the
monitor whether Members pay their fines within the one- dishonesty of nine lawyers who had been struck off the Roll
month deadline stipulated in ASDB orders, as section 103 in 2012. 12 claims were partially or fully approved, resulting
of the LPA provides that Members who are in default can in a total of RM1,424,914.61 that will be paid to successful
face suspension until the fine is paid. As at 31 December claimants in early 2014. 13 claims were rejected as, inter
2013, four such Members remain suspended. alia, the losses claimed for did not result from dishonesty of
the advocate and solicitor concerned, or the claimant failed
special reports
to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate review briefings in Malaysia, and attended the review of
the claim. Malaysia in February 2009 and the adoption of the report
on Malaysia in June 2009, during which time we made an
In June 2013, the Department’s bilingual informational oral intervention. We also participated in several post-
brochure regarding the Compensation Fund review briefings.
was revised, and disseminated to all State Bar
Committees and Bar Council Legal Aid Centres. In mid-March 2010, we participated in a follow-up meeting
The brochure is accessible on the Malaysian Bar on the UPR in London, organised by the Human Rights
website at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index. Unit of the Commonwealth Secretariat. This was followed
php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=2995. by a dialogue with the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in late March 2010. We also attended a mid-term
(C5) Construction Industry Payment and implementation review meeting organised by the Human
Adjudication Act 2012 Rights Unit in Bangladesh in 2011.
No date has been stipulated for the Construction Industry In 2012 and 2013, the Malaysian Bar was represented
Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) to come into at two sessions convened by the Malaysian Ministry of
force, although the legislation was gazetted on 22 June Foreign Affairs to discuss the proposed national report for
2012. Bar Council has been informed that the regulations the 2nd UPR of Malaysia. We questioned the timing of both
await comments from, and approval by, the AGC. these meetings, held on 30 December 2012 (second-last
working day of the year) and 3 May 2013 (two days before
In early February 2014, the Bar called on the Government the 13th General Elections).
to implement CIPAA as soon as possible. At the same
time, the Bar strongly objected to the proposal that certain The Malaysian Bar filed a submission to the OHCHR in
classes of Government construction contracts be exempted respect of the 2nd UPR of Malaysia in March 2013. This
under CIPAA, as this would undermine a substantial basis time, our submission focused on seven specific areas,
of the legislation and defeat its very purpose. The Bar’s namely: law and security, interference with lawyers and
view is that only strategic and/or sensitive industries should human rights defenders, freedom of assembly, deaths
be exempted, namely defence, oil and gas, energy, and water. in police custody, freedom of religion, land rights of the
Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia, and the Malaysian
(C6) Universal Periodic Review Government’s international responsibility and conduct. In
September 2013, we were invited to make a presentation
The Malaysian Bar began its involvement with the to representatives of foreign missions at a pre-session
Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) process at the United organised by UPR Info, a Geneva-based non-governmental
Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland in organisation that assists with the UPR process, and we
September 2008. made a further statement, detailing developments between
March 2013 and September 2013 in respect of those seven
Malaysia was due for its first review in February 2009, areas. We attended the 2nd UPR review of Malaysia in
and the Malaysian Bar made a submission in September Geneva on 24 October 2013, and will again be represented
2008 as required by the procedures set by the Office of at the adoption meeting on 20 March 2014, where we plan
the High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”). to make an oral intervention. Prior to both the review and
Given that this was the first review of Malaysia, our adoption meetings, we also continued to participate in local
submission commented on a broad range of human rights briefing sessions for interested parties.
violations in Malaysia. We participated in several pre-

President
Our submissions and participation have provided the The Bar Council will continue to engage with the relevant
Malaysian Bar with further opportunities to highlight key parties and authorities to resolve problems concerning the
human rights concerns at an international level, and have e-filing system.
demonstrably resulted in very keen attention being paid to
the human rights situation in Malaysia. They also continue (D2) Compendium of personal injury awards
to serve as a useful and productive avenue for engagement
and advocacy with the Malaysian Government. In 2013, the Task Force to Review the Compendium of
Personal Injury Awards worked to update the Compendium
(C7) Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award that had been produced in 2010. During its review, the
Task Force took into account the inflation index, case law
Bar Council instituted the Malaysian Bar Lifetime authorities as well as, their relevant issues.
Achievement Award in 2011 as a form of recognition and
appreciation of outstanding Members of the Bar who have Members of the Bar were invited to submit their feedback
demonstrated particular dedication and exemplary lifetime on the revised Compendium before it is finalised and
service, and made invaluable and outstanding contributions, submitted to the Judiciary. At present, Persatuan Insurans
to the Bar. Am Malaysia (the General Insurance Association of
Malaysia) has provided comments that will be considered
The Award was first conferred (posthumously) on Raja Aziz by the Bar Council.
Addruse in March 2012.
(E) Other matters
On behalf of the Bar, I congratulate Peter Mooney, the
recipient of the Malaysian Bar Lifetime Achievement Award (E1) International visits
2013, who accepted the Award at the Bar’s Annual Dinner
and Dance on 16 March 2013. We had the opportunity to strengthen ties with members of
various Bars, law societies and associations, during these
(D) Practice issues events abroad:
(D1) Electronic filing system (1) German Federal Bar’s 1st International Lawyers’
Forum, Berlin, Germany (21–22 March 2013);
At its 67th AGM on 16 March 2013, the Bar adopted
a resolution calling on the Bar Council to undertake (2) 18th Commonwealth Law Conference, Cape Town,
negotiations to reduce the cost of purchasing a digital South Africa (14–18 April 2013);
certificate in order to utilise the electronic filing (“e-filing”)
system. (3) 23rd Annual Meeting and Conference of the Inter-
Pacific Bar Association, Seoul, South Korea (17–20
The Bar Council Court Liaison Committee subsequently April 2013);
met with the e-filing service provider, Formis, on 28 August
2013, and held additional meetings with Formis and the (4) 24th Presidents of Law Associations in Asia
court e-filing department on 6 and 26 September 2013, Conference 2013, Tokyo, Japan (10–12 June
and most recently on 25 February 2014. I am pleased 2013);
to report that, as a result of these efforts, a new system
utilising a substantially less costly digital certificate will be (5) 4th Law Society Biennial Lecture 2013, Singapore
implemented from 1 April 2014. (13 Sept 2013);
special reports President
(6) Opening of the Legal Year in England and Wales (17) Ngan Siong Hing
2013, London, England (1 Oct 2013); (18) Noor Ariff Delia b Ramli
(19) Nur Adilah bt Abdul Ghani
(7) 26th LAWASIA Conference, Singapore (27–30 Oct (20) Pancharam s/o Arumugam
2013); (21) Satvinder Singh Tugal
(22) Saravanan s/o A Narayanasamy
(8) Meetings with Myanmar Lawyers Association and (23) Sinniah Amirtha Lingam
Yangon Bar Association, Yangon, Myanmar (15–17 (24) Sivamohan s/o Nagendra
Nov 2013); (25) Suhaimi @ Sulaiman b Said
(26) Suraeisan S T Mani
(9) Opening of the Legal Year 2014, Singapore (3 Jan (27) Tan Tai Yoong
2014); and (28) Ya’acob b Mentol @ Haji Mentol
(29) Yau Jiok Hua
(10) Opening of the Legal Year 2014, Hong Kong (30) Yeak Chin Sing
(13 Jan 2014). (31) Vello, N T
(32) Venugopalan s/o K Vasudevan Nair
We also had the pleasure of welcoming a significant
number of foreign visitors, particularly representatives of Acknowledgment and appreciation
the diplomatic corps in Malaysia, international organisations
(including various United Nations agencies), international The work and achievements of the Malaysian Bar are the
non-governmental organisations as well as Bar associations. result of the collective blood, sweat and tears of its Members.
On a weekly and monthly basis, we have tens to hundreds
(E2) Departed Members of Members of the Malaysian Bar giving unstintingly of their
time, energy and resources to ensure the high output and
The Bar records its deepest condolences to the families quality of the work that is required to meet the demands
and loved ones of the following Members who passed away and expectations placed on the Bar. Some of these
during the term under review: Members, in the course of their contributions, are easily
recognisable, but there are many more who toil quietly and
(1) Abdul Aziz b Muda with determination behind the scenes. There are those
(2) Amir @ Muftar b Ismail who contribute in individual ways, and those who lend their
(3) Chan Pey Yee support when the Malaysian Bar is in need.
(4) Chau Yam Yean
(5) Chee Weng Weng I therefore start with recognising and recording my
(6) Chong Kim Weng appreciation to all Members of the Malaysian Bar.
(7) Foo Foong Leng
(8) Foong Heng Khaye My thanks go to all the staff at the Bar Council Secretariat,
(9) Hariram Jayaram ASDB and Bar Council Legal Aid Centres. It is their
(10) Kamala Devi d/o Nadchatiram dedication and efficiency that oil the machinery that is
(11) Khairul Sufian b Kamarudin required to run the administration of the Bar in order to
(12) Lee Kong Fee serve the Members of the Bar and the public, and to support
(13) Lim P G the work of the Bar Council. They represent some of the
(14) Mohammad Jufri b Abdul Mois people who work behind the scenes. I urge Members to
(15) Mohd Yusoff @ Yusof b Hj Md Nor recognise the valuable support that these staff members
(16) Ng Lam Hua provide, by simple gestures of common civility and a smile.

President
To the Chairman and members of ASDB, I thank you for I am privileged and honoured to have had a core team in this
dedicating yourselves to carrying out a thankless and term, comprising my fellow Office Bearers — Steven Thiru
unenviable responsibility. It is your work that contributes to (Vice-President), Richard Wee Thiam Seng (Secretary),
maintaining standards at the Bar. and Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Treasurer) — as well as Rajen
Devaraj (Chief Executive Officer) and Chin Oy Sim (Deputy
I also extend my thanks to all the members and Chairpersons Chief Executive Officer). They have been my compass, my
of the Bar Council’s committees, for volunteering their time critics and my sounding board. It would have been nigh
and committing themselves to the many tasks and duties impossible for me to have carried out my duties without
that the LPA requires the Bar to undertake and accomplish. their constant support and input. I thank all of them deeply.
The many objects and purposes of the Bar pursuant to
section 42 of the LPA can only be undertaken year after Christopher Leong
year with the continued participation of these members. President
Malaysian Bar
My heartfelt appreciation goes to my fellow members of the
Bar Council and of the Special Committee for rolling up their Date: 28 February 2014
sleeves in carrying out work, and for their esteemed input
in deliberations and policy-making. I have been fortunate Comments and suggestions can be emailed to:
to have chaired a Council that is cohesive, and am thankful president@malaysianbar.org.my
for the camaraderie of all on Council. It would be remiss
of me not to mention the members of Council who will not
be returning in the new term: Lim Chee Wee, Abdullah
Hamzah, Amirruddin Abu Bakar, Hon Kai Ping, Indran V
Kumaraguru, K Mohan K Kumaran, Mukhtar Abdullah,
Rajpal Singh Mukhtiar Singh, Tony Woon Yeow Thong and
Vivekanandan AMS Periasamy. I wish them the very best,
and hope that they will return to Council sometime in the
near future.
special reports

SECRETARIAT
Secretariat Six of the members have been on the Management Team

since its inception in September 2009. The newest member
Managing the Secretariat is Kenneth Ang Joo How, who came on board in 2013.
The overall administration of the Bar Council Secretariat Overview of the Secretariat
rests in the hands of a ten-person Management Team.
In addition to ensuring that the various departments and The Secretariat has a total staff strength of 98, spread
divisions function smoothly and collaboratively, members of over four divisions: Communications, Compliance and
the Management Team are also constantly on the lookout Membership Interests, Finance and Administration,
for ways in which the Secretariat can improve itself and and Practitioners Affairs (please refer to the Secretariat
better serve the Bar Council, Members of the Bar, and the Organisational Chart on page 375 of this Annual Report).
public.
The Communications Division comprises four departments
Members of the Management Team meet regularly to plan, — Information Technology, Library, Public Relations and
review existing policies and procedures, and brainstorm on Marketing, and Publications — and has 15 personnel. It is
what can be done to enhance and expand the Secretariat’s responsible primarily for outreach to Members of the Bar
operations and provision of services. and the public, including through the Malaysian Bar website,
email broadcasts to Members, and press releases, as well
The Management Team consists of: as publications such as the Annual Report, the quarterly
chronicle of the Bar known as Praxis, and various
(1) Rajen Devaraj (Chief Executive Officer, who heads informational booklets and pamphlets. In 2012 and
the Finance and Administration Division); 2013, the number of e-circulars issued through
(2) Chin Oy Sim (Deputy Chief Executive Officer, who this division was 270 and 272, respectively,
heads the Communications Division); ie an average of over five per week.
(3) Lily Aw (Director, who heads the Finance
Department);
(4) Kenneth Ang Joo How (Director, Special Projects
Department);
(5) Gayathri Chidambara Iyer (Assistant Director, who
heads the Membership, Admission and LawCare
Departments);
(6) Thanuja Rani Sree Narayana Ram (Assistant
Director, who heads the Complaints and Intervention,
and the Compensation Fund, Departments);
(7) Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna (Assistant Director,
who heads the Practitioners Affairs Division);
(8) Saliha Hassan (Executive Officer, Complaints and
Intervention Department);
(9) Cheryl Foo (Executive Officer, who heads the
Human Resource Department); and
(10) A Ezane Mansor b Obaid (Executive Officer, who
heads the Information Technology Department).
special reports
The Compliance and Membership Interests Division is The Complaints and Intervention Department’s role is to
the largest, with 36 staff in five departments: Admission, assist Bar Council in maintaining the standards of the legal
Compensation Fund, Complaints and Intervention, profession. Its responsibilities include:
LawCare, and Membership.
(1) reviewing complaints received from the public,
The Admission Department’s key responsibility is dealing private and public entities, and Members of the Bar,
with issues concerning pupillage, including conducting to ascertain whether there is any breach of the LPA
the Ethics and Professional Standards Course. Over the or the Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council and, if
past few years, this Department has also been tasked with necessary, referring the complaints directly to the
organising the Training Programme for law graduates from ASDB, or lodging complaints with ASDB on behalf
Universiti Utara Malaysia and Multimedia University in order of the Bar Council;
for the graduates to obtain their Certificate of Completion, (2) assisting aggrieved clients of lawyers, by providing
and be eligible for exemption from sitting for the Certificate information on how to lodge complaints at ASDB;
of Legal Practice (“CLP”). (3) making recommendations on measures to take in
respect of Members of the Bar involved in dishonest
The Membership Department’s main functions include: practices, including seeking the mandate to invoke
intervention proceedings pursuant to section 88(1)
(1) processing applications for Sijil Annual; of the LPA should there be compelling evidence
(2) lodging complaints with the Advocates and Solicitors of misappropriation of clients’ funds. Intervention
Disciplinary Board (“ASDB”) against Members who proceedings are also initiated pursuant to section
continue to practise despite not possessing a Sijil 88(2) of the LPA upon an order of striking off or
Annual and Practising Certificate; suspension being issued by ASDB, in which event
(3) issuing letters of “no objection” to Members who set intervener solicitors are appointed to wind up the
up firms; advocate and solicitor’s practice;
(4) monitoring and updating information in respect of (4) applying for interim suspension orders in instances
the employment of Members, and changes in the of compelling evidence involving misappropriation
composition of law firms; and of clients’ funds;
(5) responding to enquiries from corporate and (5) enforcing orders that stipulate suspension, in the
government bodies, and the public, regarding the event of default within a specific period, particularly,
status of Members and law firms. orders issued pursuant to section 103(1) of the LPA;
(6) overseeing the progress of various suits and
In 2013, the International Services Unit was established appeals filed for, and against, the Bar Council; and
under the Membership Department, to deal with applications (7) lodging police reports, on behalf of the Bar Council,
from Qualified Foreign Law Firms or International against unauthorised persons, and liaising with the
Partnerships, and Malaysian firms that wish to employ Attorney General’s Chambers and the police on the
foreign lawyers. Amendments to the Legal Profession Act progress of the investigations.
1976 (“LPA”) that would allow foreign law firms and lawyers
to practise in Malaysia are due to come into force in 2014, The Finance and Administration Division has 30 staff in
and it is anticipated that the Bar Council Secretariat will four departments: Finance, Human Resource, Professional
begin to receive applications for licences in the first half of Indemnity Insurance, and Special Projects.
2014.
The Practitioners Affairs Division’s 17 staff provide
administrative and logistical assistance, as well as conduct
research, to support the work of Bar Council’s committees.

SECRETARIAT
These committees cover a wide range of practice areas, (3) Processing time for Sijil Annual applications
in addition to topics and issues of special interest that the
Bar Council is concerned about. Also in this Division is the Despite the additional work involved in data clean-up and
Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Department, migration from Manta to CRM, the average processing time
which is the driving force behind the development and for Sijil Annual 2014 applications remained low, at 9.7 days.
implementation of the CPD Scheme for the Malaysian Bar. By comparison, the average processing time was 9.7 days
for Sijil Annual 2013, 12.4 days for Sijil Annual 2012 and
Significant events and improvements in 2013 20.8 days for Sijil Annual 2011. This demonstrates that
procedures and systems that have been put in place have
We are happy to report the following significant events, and finally solved a problem that had plagued the Secretariat
improvements undertaken, in 2013: until 2010.
(1) Installation of new membership database (4) Online registration and payment
Since 2003, information about Members and firms has been For the convenience of Members of the Bar and pupils in
maintained in a membership database known as Manta. chambers, an online registration option is now available for
Due to its limited functionality and outdated user interface, seminars and courses organised by the CPD Department.
a decision was taken in 2012 to procure and deploy a The Secretariat began publicising this alternative in Circular
new membership database system known as Microsoft No 009/2014 dated 24 Jan 2014, in respect of the “Seminar
Dynamics Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”). on Intellectual Property Law: Building Your Foundation”,
which will be held on 3 Mar 2014.
Data from Manta was migrated to CRM in 2013 and we are
pleased to announce that CRM went live on 9 Sept 2013. While the traditional method of submitting a printed
registration form by fax is still an option, we believe that
CRM will enable the Secretariat to keep better track of more participants will begin utilising online registration.
information about Members, law firms, and pupils in
chambers, including data pertaining to complaints and We are also working on establishing a payment gateway to
intervention, and participation in CPD programmes. An enable payment for the events to also be made online. We
added advantage with CRM, which was lacking in Manta, anticipate that the payment gateway will be in place within
is a storage feature that will allow for quicker retrieval of the first quarter of 2014.
documents.
(5) Online platform for meetings and events
(2) Clean-up of membership data
In our effort to make it more convenient and cost-effective
To ensure that the data in CRM is accurate, the information for Members of the Bar, especially outstation Members,
in Manta was updated before data migration to CRM took to participate in meetings held at the Bar Council, the
place. Critical fields of information were identified, and Secretariat introduced an online meeting platform in
Secretariat staff perused 16,201 files of individual Members October 2013. This initiative enables Members with
to ensure that the data in Manta was complete and up to Internet access to take part in meetings remotely, via their
date. A total of 46 staff were involved in this exercise, and computers, tablets and even smartphones, without being
worked overtime and on weekends between 8 May and 4 physically present at the event.
July 2013 to accomplish the task.
At present, the level of online participation from committee
members is not as high as hoped. The Secretariat aims to
special reports
continue publicising this option and hopes to increase its Priority issues in 2014
usage in 2014.
In last year’s report, the Secretariat stated that it would
The Secretariat is also making use of such platforms more strive to address four specific challenges in 2013, which
often when it organises seminars and forums, in order to are summarised in the following table:
make such events more accessible to Members, particularly
those outside the Klang Valley. For example, an online No Item Status
streaming option was provided when we organised the (1) Installation and CRM went live on 9
“Leverage in Practice: Briefing on Government Facilities development of Sept 2013
for Firms” event together with the Ministry of International Microsoft Dynamics
Trade and Industry on 20 Nov 2013. CRM
(2) Consolidation of data Ongoing
(6) Notification to State Bar Committees about into new document
management system
suspension and striking-off orders
(3) New library online Will be launched in the
search feature second quarter of 2014
Since May 2013, the Secretariat has been providing all (4) Prosecution of Secretariat staff have
State Bar Committees with monthly email notifications complaints at ASDB undergone training
regarding suspension and striking-off orders issued by in advocacy skills,
ASDB against members of the respective State Bars, as and should begin
well as the date on which the member’s status was updated prosecuting selected
complaints in 2014
in the Secretariat database. The email alert is generally
sent on that date. These alerts update the State Bar
In 2014, the Secretariat hopes to tackle the following
Committees about the status of their members so that the
projects:
State Bar Committees can assist the Bar Council to take
effective measures against those who practise law despite
(1) Microsoft Dynamics CRM (Phase 2)
being “unauthorised persons”.
We hope to phase out Manta completely in 2014 and rely
(7) Revamp of website
solely on CRM. In order to accomplish this, we will develop
a module within CRM for the processing of Sijil Annual
The revamp of the online legal directory component of
applications.
the Malaysian Bar website is nearing completion. The
upgraded version, with enhanced search features, will be
(2) Digitising Members’ records
launched in the second quarter of 2014.
We will begin the process of digitising Members’ records
The next stage of the revamp project will see an upgrade
and documents, and storing them in CRM. This task will
of the remaining components of the website, to make them
begin with Members who were issued with Sijil Annual for
more user-friendly and appealing, and boost the type and
the first time in 2013.
range of features available.
(3) New accounting system
The CPD microsite (http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cpd/)
was launched in March 2013, and serves as a one-stop
The Secretariat is looking into procuring a new accounting
resource site for Members’ CPD-related needs.
system, to solve the problems encountered in the current
accounting system. This new system must be able to

SECRETARIAT
integrate seamlessly with the CRM that has already been Appreciation
deployed. We hope to have the new accounting system in
place by September 2014. I would like to thank all Secretariat staff for the cooperation
and hard work that they put in over the past year. My
Staff development heartfelt appreciation goes to the Management Team
members for their support and enthusiasm, and for being
The key to providing fast and efficient service to Members the driving force in our endeavour to take the Secretariat to
and the public is a well-trained, disciplined and motivated the next level.
workforce.
The Secretariat also wishes to thank the Office Bearers
In 2011, we set a target that each staff should undergo a — Christopher Leong, Steven Thiru, Richard Wee Thiam
minimum of eight hours of training per year. In 2013, 52 Seng and Karen Cheah Yee Lynn — for their trust and
out of 98 staff achieved this goal. This is a slight increase support, and for their willingness to listen to and engage
from our performance in 2012, where only 49 out of 98 with the Secretariat.
staff reached the target. Generally, however, much more
needs to be done internally to meet the target that we set A big thank you goes also to all Council members and
for ourselves in 2011. Members of the Bar, for their support, and the vast amount
of time and energy that many of them give freely to assist
In order to foster camaraderie among the staff, the Staff the Secretariat and the Malaysian Bar. The Bar would not
Fun Club organised two main activities in 2013: be the active and robust organisation that it is today, if not
for their commitment and sacrifice.
(1) A three-day, two-night trip to Langkawi Island
in September, participated in by 103 persons, Request for feedback from Members
comprising staff from the Bar Council Secretariat,
ASDB, and Legal Aid Centres (Kuala Lumpur, In our effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
Perak and Penang) and their family members; and the Secretariat, we look forward to receiving comments and
feedback from Members of the Bar.
(2) A year-end party at Bon Ton in Central Market on
13 December, attended by 80 members of the Bar Rajen Devaraj
Council Secretariat. Chief Executive Officer
Date: 21 Feb 2014
Comments and suggestions can be emailed to:

ceo@malaysianbar.org.my
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
~ Margaret Mead
special reports
Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board
Sitting (left to right): Dato’ Abdullah b Mohd Yusof | A Iruthaya Raj | Dato’ Dr Cyrus V Das | Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy b Syed Ahmad
(Chairman, Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board) | Steven Thiru (Vice-President, Malaysian Bar) | Dato’ VL Kandan |
Dato’ Haji Ahmad Zakiuddin b Harun
Standing middle row (left to right): Tan Eng Choong | Prisca Leong Mae Jern (Legal Officer, Complaints Secretariat) | Chen Kah Leng |
Teh Yoke Hooi | Tomis Peter Samat (Director, Complaints Secretariat) | Jessie Blayau Anak Ngelayang (Legal Officer, Complaints Secretariat) |
Janice Tan Xiu-Yen (Legal Officer, Complaints Secretariat) | Dato’ David Wong Fook Keong
Standing back row (left to right): Datuk Haji Kuthubul Zaman b Bukhari | Roger Tan Kor Mee | Captain Abdul Razak b Hashim |
Teo Poh Onn | Deivenran Baskaran (Legal Officer, Complaints Secretariat) | Krishna s/o V Dallumah | Alex Nandaseri De Silva
Background I am pleased to report on another year of transition and

progress for ASDB. ASDB has been working hard to
On 16 Feb 2013, I succeeded Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid implement the full effects of changes to the Legal Profession
Ahmad b Sulaiman, who had been the Chairman of the Act 1976 (“LPA”) as a result of amendments in 2006. It
Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“ASDB”) has been a busy year, as we processed more than 900
for eight years before me. Like Tan Sri Khalid, I was an complaints. This report provides an illuminating overview
Advocate and Solicitor, admitted first to the Singapore Bar of activities undertaken by ASDB in fulfilling its objectives
in 1972, then called to the Malaysian Bar, and practising of regulating disciplinary matters against Advocates and
as an Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya Solicitors, and maintaining good standards of professional
from 1972 to 2000. In 2000, I was appointed as a Judicial practice and public confidence in the legal profession in
Commissioner, and I was subsequently elevated to the Peninsular Malaysia and Labuan.
Bench of the High Court. I retired as a Judge of the Court
of Appeal on 12 Dec 2012. Although ASDB meets only once a month to deliberate
on complaints, ASDB monitors the daily administration

of complaints and ASDB’s activities through its Secretary while 541 were final decisions where complaints were
and four Committees within ASDB. The Legal Committee disposed of. The interim decisions included:
advises ASDB on all complicated legal matters before it,
matters in relation to appeals from ASDB’s decisions, and (1) 795 decisions to request an explanation from
the amendments to the LPA or the rules thereunder. The respondents;
Administration and Finance Committee oversees matters (2) decisions to refer 323 complaints to Disciplinary
pertaining to administration and finance, while the Website Committees (“DCs”); and
Committee is responsible for items that are uploaded (3) 413 decisions to issue notices to respondents to
onto the ASDB website, and the Publication Committee appear before ASDB pursuant to section 100(6) or
summarises all decisions of ASDB before publication by section 103D of the LPA.
the Bar Council.
The final decisions included:
Performance and achievements of ASDB
(1) orders of dismissal in 244 complaints;
Appendix A shows the total number of complaints (2) orders of reprimand against 31 respondents;
registered from 1992 up to November 2013, the total (3) orders of fine against 142 respondents;
number of complaints disposed of and pending, and the (4) orders of suspension from practice against five
various stages of the remaining complaints. As at 30 Nov respondents; and
2013, 15,746 complaints have been registered since ASDB (5) orders of striking off from the Roll of Advocates and
was established. Of this figure, 13,777 complaints have Solicitors against 18 respondents.
been disposed of, while 1,969 (which includes unfinished
complaints rolled over from previous years) are still pending. Please refer to Appendix D for details.
A total of 903 complaints were registered during the period Pending complaints
under review (1 Jan until 30 Nov 2013), compared to 892
complaints for the corresponding period in 2012. More As at 30 Nov 2013, a total of 1,969 complaints were pending
complaints were received in the second quarter of 2013, disposal (compared to 1,840 as at 30 Nov 2012), including:
comprising mostly complaints against Members of the Bar
for not having a valid Practising Certificate. (1) 418 complaints (compared to 451 complaints as at
30 Nov 2012) pending before ASDB;
In 2013, Selangor had the highest number of complaints, (2) 631 complaints (compared to 625 complaints as at
followed by Kuala Lumpur and Johore. Details are shown 30 Nov 2012) pending before DCs;
in Appendix B. (3) 104 complaints (compared to 625 complaints as at
30 Nov 2012) pending appeals; and
The complaints received in 2013 mainly pertained to (4) 622 complaints (compared to 564 complaints as at
allegations of gross disregard of clients’ interests (421 30 Nov 2012) pending payment of fines.
complaints), followed by allegations of conduct unbefitting of
an Advocate and Solicitor (178 complaints), and allegations In 2013, there were no more complaints pending before an
of breach of the LPA or the rules made thereunder (165 Investigating Tribunal. Details are shown in Appendix A.
complaints), particularly for not having a valid Practising
Certificate (148 complaints). Please refer to Appendix C A total of 12 appeals were disposed of in 2013, leaving a
for details. balance of 104 appeals still pending before the High Court,
Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Of this figure, 69 were
Decisions of ASDB appeals brought forward from previous years, and 35 were
lodged in 2013. Of the 12 appeals disposed of, seven were
ASDB met once a month in 2013 and made a total number dismissed, four were allowed and one was withdrawn.
of 2,285 decisions. Of these, 1,744 were interim decisions,
special reports
From 1 Jan to 30 Nov 2013, 93 respondents (including such extreme cases, I have given written reminders to the
seven respondents who paid in November) had paid their Chairpersons personally, followed by the Bar Council, which
fines totalling RM487,132, compared to 136 respondents had in one case lodged a complaint against a recalcitrant
who had paid their fines totalling RM467,400 for the Chairperson.
corresponding period in the preceding year. Please refer
to Appendices E1 and E2 for details. Initiatives for speedy disposal of complaints
The 622 unresolved complaints due to non-payment of fines ASDB launched a number of key initiatives for speedy
(as at 30 Nov 2013) show that more and more respondents disposal of complaints by DCs. As a result of numerous
failed to pay their fines over the years despite ASDB’s initiative instances of personal contact, mainly by telephone, ASDB
to recover the fines through civil suit. As at 30 Nov 2013, 466 has managed to get most Chairpersons of DCs to move
complaints have been referred to legal counsel for recovery promptly with their investigations. Through this exercise,
of fines through civil suit; 154 complaints were at the Letter of ASDB has identified various issues faced by DCs,
Demand stage; 282 complaints were at the summons stage; including reasons for and length of the delay in some of the
and 30 complaints were pending execution. Please refer to complaints before DCs, and the names of efficient as well
Column D9 of Appendix A for details. as recalcitrant members of DCs. The lack of progress was
chiefly attributable to panel members not being available, or
As at 30 Nov 2013, the number of complaints pending before the respondent / counsel for the respondent / complainant
ASDB and DCs, less the complaints pending appeals and not being available to attend the hearing, or being absent.
payment of fines, is 1,243.
As at April 2013, there were 697 complaints pending before
Disciplinary enquiries DCs, and ASDB classified 234 files as inactive, one of which
has been outstanding since 1995! In these cases, the DC
In the scheme of disciplinary proceedings under the LPA, panels have gone into deep slumber. They have not even
DCs play a crucial role, in that they are the investigating started to investigate. This is ASDB’s major concern, and
agencies of ASDB. 323 DCs were constituted in 2013, ASDB has tried to appoint new panels; in some cases there
compared to 410 in 2012. A total of 332 disciplinary have been more than 10 replacements of panels. This
enquiries were concluded by DCs, out of which 234 reports situation has contributed substantially to the delays in the
have been received and reports are still pending in 98 disposal of complaints.
complaints. Details are shown in Appendices A and D.
ASDB then took the initiative to recognise and reward
As a result of vigorous prompting by ASDB and the Chairpersons and members of DCs. Based on their track
Complaints Secretariat, we have seen a drop by half in the record of efficiency and timely submission of reports, 105 of
number of complaints pending before DCs, in respect of them — comprising 75 Advocates and Solicitors and 30 lay
complaints lodged prior to 2007. The figure has decreased members — were selected and invited to serve as members
from 31 such complaints as at 30 Nov 2012, where the of DC Fast Track Panels. These panels were entrusted with
oldest complaint had been lodged in 1995, to 16 such complaints that are more complicated and those that have
complaints in 2013, where the oldest complaint dates been bogged down due to inefficient DC panels.
back to 2002. ASDB is troubled that there is a long list of
complaints that are before DCs, with 455 complaints still To encourage DC panel members to be more proactive,
waiting to be investigated, and 98 complaints that have ASDB has recommended to the Bar Council that Continuing
been investigated but where reports are pending. Even Professional Development (“CPD”) points be given to DC
more troubling is that some of these complaints are still members who are Members of the Bar and perform well.
pending due to recalcitrant Chairpersons of DCs, who have Likewise, if lay members of DCs who are professionals are
failed to submit their reports despite having concluded their required to accumulate CPD points, they may inform ASDB
investigations as far back as six years ago, and despite so that ASDB can make recommendations to the relevant
numerous reminders from the Complaints Secretariat. In parties.

ASDB’s most notable key initiative was to hold a dialogue the LPA in 2006 and liberalisation of the legal profession in
session with DC members on 26 Apr 2013, which aimed to Malaysia are still being debated, and I hope will be finalised
address challenges faced by ASDB, particularly the role of by 2014. Amendments to the LPA that also touched on
the DCs. The dialogue also served to enlighten members disciplinary proceedings under Part VII of the Act have
of DCs regarding their role in investigating complaints. been gazetted but no effective date has been stipulated.
345 DC members attended the event and gave positive
feedback to ASDB. Members of DCs have suggested that Conclusion
ASDB consider allowing audio / digital recording of DC
proceedings. ASDB acknowledges that this would ease the The work of ASDB has been a success due to the
workload of DCs in recording the notes of proceedings and contributions of all the volunteers, and I am immensely
would allow easy retrieval, but ASDB is restricted by the grateful for this. Without doubt ASDB would not perform
amount of funds required to implement this project. Another as well, if not for the invaluable support from the volunteer
suggestion was that ASDB bear the costs that are incurred lawyers and non-lawyers who serve on DCs. Some
for clerical assistance sought from the staff of Chairpersons members of DCs even call or write in to prompt the
of DCs. However, due to limited funds, ASDB has imposed Complaints Secretariat for new assignments once they have
a cap on claims for disbursements. These constraints concluded their assignments. Ever since the amendments
have led to suggestions to increase the subscription paid to the LPA in 2006 that abolished the Investigating
by Members of the Bar towards the Discipline Fund, which Tribunal mechanism, ASDB has had to assume additional
ASDB will look into in the near future. responsibility encompassed by the amendments.
Notwithstanding the increased responsibility, standards
Managing Board members have not been compromised and the resolute shown by
ASDB members is very gratifying.
In its effort to further reduce backlog of complaints before
DCs, ASDB also introduced the concept of appointing I am also glad to note that the Bar Council and its staff have
Managing Board members to monitor complaints pending been working in tandem with the ASDB and the Complaints
before DCs in the Board members’ respective states. Secretariat’s staff in ensuring that issues involving both
Through this exercise that started in September 2013, a parties in relation to complaints are resolved as quickly as
total of 52 reports have been received from members of possible. My special thanks goes to the Office Bearers and
DCs. representatives of the Bar Council, who have always been
very supportive. I would also like to express my sincere
With all the key initiatives undertaken in 2013, which will be appreciation for the strong support from our dedicated staff
continued in the following year, our target is to resolve all at the Complaints Secretariat, namely the team that has
complaints that were lodged prior to 2011 and are pending worked hard behind the scenes to make ASDB’s initiatives
before DCs, in 2014. a success.
Further amendments to LPA and the Legal Profession Datuk Syed Ahmad Helmy b Syed Ahmad
(Disciplinary Proceedings) (Investigating Tribunal and Chairman
Disciplinary Committee) Rules 1994
Date: 10 Dec 2013
ASDB has been working hand in hand with the Bar Council
to look into necessary amendments to Part VII of the LPA
and the rules made thereunder. Amendments to the rules For any enquiries, please email:
relating to DC proceedings following the amendments to secretariat@asdb.org.my
Appendix A: Overview of complaints registered, disposed of and pending (as at 30 Nov 2013)
D Stage / details of pending complaints

A B C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DC
NTA
appeal
Pending
S.100(1)
S.100(2)
S.100(3)
Pending
Pending
Pending
payment
DC report
J
Year
PI
FC
PE
PR
of fine PA
HC
Pending R.8
Pending R.8
Pending R.8
R.8
R.8
R.8
LOD
decision PBM
decision PBM
decision PBM
PBM
PBM
COA

report
Pending
Pending
direction
Summons
Pending DC
replacement
appointment
Pending compliance
Pending ASDB
Total complaints pending
Total complaints registered

Pending hearing
Total complaints disposed of

1992 347 345 2 1 1
1993 503 498 5 4 1
1994 801 782 19 1 18
special reports
1995 381 358 23 1 1 20 1

1996 531 518 13 2 9 1 1
1997 363 361 2 1 1
1998 545 526 19 1 7 6 5
1999 436 417 19 2 7 9 1
2000 593 562 31 2 7 18 4
2001 656 634 22 1 7 9 5
2002 1061 1015 46 1 1 2 27 15
2003 517 491 26 1 1 3 10 11
2004 601 573 28 3 1 2 2 10 8 2
2005 1,107 1056 51 2 1 1 1 1 19 14 12
2006 1072 1014 58 5 1 1 1 2 25 15 8
2007 782 707 75 1 9 5 2 2 0 1 1 17 21 16
2008 964 858 106 2 18 12 1 5 2 0 1 4 40 21
2009 704 587 117 28 17 3 5 3 2 1 1 38 19
2010 869 737 132 1 5 39 17 4 5 6 3 2 30 20
2011 1059 851 208 3 109 15 9 14 3 10 1 2 1 3 24 14
2012 951 573 378 2 3 5 1 7 4 204 22 12 28 36 4 17 1 2 30
2013 903 314 589 37 104 8 100 4 143 10 19 3 40 4 2 1 60 1 53
37 104 8 103 7 148 11 26 18 455 98 34 63 5 120 6 16 88 82 6 6 284 206 38
Total 15746 13777 1969
37 381 631 68 126 104 622
Abbreviations:
PBM | Pending Board meeting PE | Pending expiry PR | Pending reminder PI | Pending instalment payment
PA | Pending appointment of counsel LOD | Letter of demand J | Judgment obtained
Appendix B: Breakdown of complaints by state (January to November 2013)

No State Number of complaints
1 Selangor 365
2 Kuala Lumpur 313
3 Johore 72
4 Penang 41
5 Perak 28
6 Kedah 25
7 Negeri Sembilan 19
8 Malacca 13
9 Kelantan 10
10 Pahang 10
11 Terengganu 4
12 Others 2
13 Perlis 1
Total 903
Appendix C: Nature of complaints (January to November 2013)

Section of Legal Nature Number of complaints
Profession Act 1976
breached
S.94(3)(a) Conviction of a criminal offence 1
S.94(3)(b) Breach of duty to Court and breach of undertaking 8
S.94(3)(c) Dishonest or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of duties 109
S.94(3)(d) Breach of the Practice and Etiquette Rules 7
S.94(3)(e) Being adjudicated a bankrupt Nil
S.94(3)(f) Giving gratification to any person for having procured Nil
employment in any legal business
Procuring or attempting to procure employment through or
S.94(3)(g) by the instruction of any person to whom any remuneration Nil
has been given or agreed or promised to be so given
S.94(3)(h) Touting Nil
Allowing unauthorised person to carry on legal business
S.94(3)(i) in Advocate and Solicitor's name without direct control or Nil
supervision
S.94(3)(j) Carrying on other business incompatible with the legal Nil
profession
S.94(3)(k) Breach of Legal Profession Act 1976 or any rules made 165 (148 of which were complaints
thereunder or any ruling or direction of BC regarding Practising Certificate)
S.94(3)(l) Struck off, suspended or censured in another country Nil
S.94(3)(m) Charging of excessive fee 14
S.94(3)(n) Acting in gross disregard of clients’ interests 421
S.94(3)(o) Conduct unbefitting of an Advocate and Solicitor 178
Total 903
special reports
Appendix D: Decisions of ASDB (in 2013)
Interim decisions Final decisions

Month
Request for explanation
Refer to DCs
Board
Call respondent to appear before the
Deferred to next Board meeting
Kept in abeyance
1994
intervention under R.8 of IT/DC Rules
Withdrawn and pending BC’s
R.7 of IT/DC Rules 1994

Withdrawn and struck out pursuant to
passed away
Complaint abated as respondent has
Dismissed
Reprimand
Fine
Suspension
Striking off
Total
January 70 42 28 34 0 2 0 14 7 3 1 0 201
February 59 38 32 12 2 7 1 34 2 13 0 4 204
March 62 14 10 21 0 1 1 5 5 5 1 0 125
April 178 54 44 7 1 2 1 37 2 6 0 0 332
May 34 13 6 17 0 0 1 13 1 8 0 2 95
June 78 7 134 6 0 4 32 6 1 6 0 1 275
July 51 60 50 18 0 3 42 42 3 50 2 2 323
August 40 17 31 9 4 2 1 27 4 4 1 0 140
September 60 24 25 12 2 2 19 19 0 22 0 1 186
October 97 28 25 16 6 3 1 24 2 11 0 4 217
November 66 26 28 15 1 4 2 23 4 14 0 4 187
Total 795 323 413 167 16 30 101 244 31 142 5 18 2285
Appendix E1: Fines collected (January to November 2013) Appendix E2: Fines collected (January to November 2012)
Number of respondents Number of respondents
Month Amount (RM) Month Amount (RM)
who paid fines who paid fines
January 13 58,500 January 23 64,700
February 12 40,000 February 22 68,500
March 12 67,132 March 4 8,500
April 4 54,500 April 15 65,000
May 5 39,500 May 11 37,000
June 7 33,000 June 7 48,000
July 9 48,000 July 8 11,900
August 9 55,000 August 12 30,300
September 12 53,000 September 6 14,500
October 3 9,000 October 11 42,500
November 7 29,500 November 17 76,500
Total 487,132 Total 467,400

BAR COUNCIL LEGAL AID CENTRES STAFF 2013/2014
Pahang LAC (Temerloh): Pahang LAC (Kuantan): Kelantan LAC: Malacca LAC: Maslinie
Wan Nor Aziah bt Noor Hassikin bt Hamsah Abirami d/o Genaran bt Hassan
Wan Muhammad
Johore LAC:
Negeri Sembilan LAC, from left: Noraini bt Hamidah Rahmat
Kuala Lumpur LAC, from left: Sukhvinder Kaur d/o Hj Bakar (Clerical Officer), V Veeramalai
Gurdeu Singh (Legal Officer), Gurpreet Kaur Sidhu, Mumtaz (Administrative Officer) and Seriya bt Sedi
Begam Sultan Ariff, Stephanie Bastian (Executive Director), Mohamad (Office Assistant)
Jessie Goh Peh Cheng (Office Manager), Sheena Manicam
(Assistant Executive Secretary), Chitrah d/o Rajandren
(Programme Coordinator), Jeevanathan Angappan
(Programme Coordinator) and Manimaran Sinnakanoo
(Senior Programme Coordinator)
Perak LAC, from left: Yasodha Devi

(volunteer), Saralawati bt Sulaiman
(Administrative Assistant), M Gokoolaram
Terengganu LAC, from left: Naidu (Executive Legal Officer) and Yalena
Munirah bt Salleh and Rosniza Sita (Officer Administrator)
Kedah LAC (Sungai Petani): Kedah LAC (Alor Setar): bt Musa
Nagesvery d/o Palaniandi Rozita Abdul Razak
Selangor LAC (Kuala

Selangor):
Abd Samat b Mohamad
Penang LAC, from left: Salleni Paramasivam (Programme Selangor LAC, sitting from left: Wee Su Lin Kassim (Administrator)
Coordinator YBGK), Ann Beatrice de Almeida (Programme (Co-Chairperson), Vishnu Kumar (Ex-Officio),
Coordinator LAC), Vithushini Sivakumaran (Executive Director), Ramesh Lachmanan (Co-Chairperson)
Jessinta Lurudusamy (Programme Coordinator YBGK), Kokila Standing from left: Sattiawani Perumal (Legal
Marthamotho (Administrator, Butterworth LAC) Officer), Cheong Su Lyn (Legal Executive) and
Vemal Arasan (Legal Executive)

committee reports
126 Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course

131 Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
135 Arbitration Subcommittee
137 Committee on Orang Asli Rights
140 Constitutional Law Committee
144 Conveyancing Practice Committee
151 Corporate and Commercial Law Committee
154 Court Liaison Committee
158 Criminal Law Committee
162 Environment and Climate Change Committee
165 Family Law Committee
168 Finance Committee
172 Human Rights Committee
184 Industrial Law Committee
192 Intellectual Property Committee
195 International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 Organising Committee
198 Islamic Finance Committee
201 Jawatankuasa Bahasa Melayu
203 Law Reform and Special Areas Committee
206 LawCare Committee
209 Legal Profession Committee
218 Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs Committee
228 Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee
230 National Legal Aid Committee
236 National Young Lawyers Committee
238 Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee
245 Professional Standards and Development Committee
251 Publications Committee
253 Safer Malaysia Committee
256 Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee
258 Small Firms Committee
260 Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee
262 Sports Committee
268 Subcommittee on Construction Law
270 Syariah Law Committee
272 Task Force to Review the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards
274 Trade in Legal Services Committee
The Office Bearers are ex-officio members on all committees, subcommittees and task forces.
committee reports
Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course

The Common Bar Course — The next step in professional training for all new entrants to the
Malaysian Bar
Steven Thiru (Chairperson) | Hendon Mohamed (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Kitson Foong (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Allen Miranda | G K
Ganesan | Honey Tan Lay Ean | Liew Sau Harn, Aimee | Manpal Singh Sacdev | Mariette Peters | Mohamed Musa b Mohamed Haneefa |
Murad Ali Abdullah | Sulaiman Abdullah | Tejindarpal Kaur | Toh Chia Hua @ Toh Wee Hua | Wong Shir-Leen | Mazni Ibrahim (until May
2013); Suhana Mohd Fazil (from June 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
Invited participants
Associate Professor Faridah Jalil | Harmahinder Singh Iqbal Singh | Murali Kanadasamy | Nachammai Kumarappan KMS | P Vasantha |
Dr R M Fernandez-Chung | R Rajeswaren | Raja Singham
The Ad Hoc Committee on the Common Bar Course (1) The Common Bar Course
(“Committee”) met twice during the term under review
to discuss the proposed curriculum for the Common Bar The current proposal that is being considered by the LPQB
Course (“CBC”), and expects to meet at least once more takes into account the different routes of qualification (for
before March 2014. The Committee has also been involved the LLB degree) and is aimed at avoiding duplication of
in identifying authors for the CBC teaching / learning training. It nevertheless retains the key features of the
manuals that are to be customised to deliver the course. Bar’s proposal for the CBC, namely a single entry / last gate
In this regard, the Committee has worked closely with the into the legal profession vocational training that combines
Legal Profession Qualifying Board (“LPQB”) and particularly domestic requirements and international standards, such
with its Director (until 31 Dec 2013), Aliza Sulaiman, and as the Bar Professional Training Course (“BPTC”) of the
LPQB’s Consultant for the CBC, Dr R M Fernandez-Chung. United Kingdom and legal courses offered by the College
Both of them have been very supportive of the Committee’s of Law in Australia. The proposed structure of the CBC is
work towards the introduction of the CBC in the near future.

as follows: (iii) ensuring universities find the CBC attractive

enough to offer it.
(a) The CBC is divided into three parts: Part I —
Introduction to Malaysian Legal System; Part II (e) The medium of instruction shall be English to ensure
— Professional Year; and Part III — Advanced international benchmarking of the programme.
Professional Year. However, Bahasa Malaysia will have a prominent
role in the training, given its ascendency in the court
(b) The maximum duration of the programme is 20 system.
months, but depending on the category of graduates,
this will vary significantly in most cases (see Table 1 The proposed curriculum for the CBC is shown in Table 2 at
at the end of this report). the end of this report.
(c) Graduate categories: (2) Forum on Legal Education in Malaysia — The

Way Forward
(i) Local degree, four years
These are local university graduates with a
Malaysian degree that includes the professional
year (normally a four-year degree)
(ii) Local degree, three years
These are local university graduates with
a Malaysian degree that does not include
the professional year (normally a three-year
degree)
(iii) Foreign degree
These are graduates of a foreign university
(regardless whether the courses were
undertaken wholly or partly overseas, or in
Malaysia) The Forum was jointly organised by Bar Council and
(iv) Foreign professional qualification Taylor’s University and held on 4 Oct 2013. It was a very
Graduates with a foreign legal professional useful discourse on legal education as well as the proposed
qualification or those called to the Bar in a CBC. The President of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher
foreign country, such as graduates who have Leong, gave the keynote address. He spoke of the multiple
undergone the BPTC or Legal Practice Course and diverse challenges faced by the legal profession
(“LPC”) in Australia. both in Malaysia and globally, and emphasised that it
was important for all stakeholders to continuously look at
(d) The recommended fees (or its range) for the CBC collective measures to improve quality and raise standards.
will be given later, in view of the varying needs of the He further spoke of the steps that all 21st-century lawyers
stakeholders, which include: must take to harness their stock of knowledge, and arm
themselves with the required skills, particularly through
(i) the demand for a programme primarily taught professional development programmes.
by professionals;
(ii) keeping costs low to ensure equitable access; The keynote address was followed by a lively panel
and discussion, and then a robust question-and-answer session
moderated by the Dean of Taylor’s University Law School,
committee reports
Harmahinder Singh Iqbal Singh, who is also an invited

participant in the Committee. The distinguished panellists
were:
(a) Christopher Leong, President of the Malaysian Bar;
(b) Professor Zita Mohd Fahmi, Deputy Chief Executive

Officer (Quality Assurance) of the Malaysian
Qualifications Agency;
(c) Vasantha Moorthy, Dean of HELP University’s

Faculty of Law and Government;
There was a panel discussion with the following
(d) Daniel Abishegam, Advance Tertiary College distinguished panellists:
(“ATC”)’s Head of LLB; and
(a) YA Datuk Arif Yusoff, Judge of the Court of Appeal;
(e) Professor Richard Lewis from Cardiff Law School,
Cardiff University. (b) Nicholas Fluck, President of the Law Society of
England and Wales;
The Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar, and also
Chairperson of the Committee, Steven Thiru, delivered (c) Melati Hamid Mohamed, from the Attorney General’s
the closing address. He spoke on the proposed CBC as Chambers; and
an important facet in the legal education landscape. His
speech echoed the panel’s view that tertiary legal education (d) Steven Thiru, Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar,
should largely focus on teaching and learning the basics of and Chairperson of the Committee.
the law, while the CBC should concentrate on vocational or
practical training. Many aspects of the training of new entrants to the
profession were discussed, including the proposal for the
(3) Forum in conjunction with the Opening of the CBC. In this regard, it was observed that law schools
Legal Year 2014 — Enhancing Professionalism in should work with the Bar to ensure that their law courses
the Legal Profession compliment the envisaged vocational training in the CBC.
The forum was held on 10 Jan 2014 and attended by YAA Acknowledgment
Tun Arifin b Zakaria, Chief Justice of Malaysia; YAA Tan
Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus Sharif, President of the Court of We extend our sincere thanks to all Committee members
Appeal; YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, who have generously contributed their time and energy
Chief Judge of Malaya; YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima towards the work of the Committee.
Richard Malanjum, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak;
Federal Court Judges, Court of Appeal Judges and several Steven Thiru
High Court Judges. Chairperson
Date: 18 Feb 2014
For any enquiries, please email:

sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my

Table 1: Duration of programme according to category of graduates
No Category of graduates Duration of study Applicability of CBC*

(in months)
(1) Local degree, four years 9 Part III only
(2) Local degree, three years 19 Parts II and III
(3) Foreign degree 20 Parts I, II and III
(4) Foreign professional qualification Variable Parts I and II are mandatory. Graduates may
be entitled to exemption from certain courses
in Part II. This will be further deliberated
before the final guideline is developed.
*Refers to Parts I, II and III of the CBC
Table 2: Proposed curriculum for the CBC
Proposed curriculum structure Remarks

Part I: Introduction to Malaysian Legal System • Duration: 160 hours (one month)
• Exempted: Malaysian law degree graduates.
(1) Practical Aspects of Malaysian Law • Objective: This Part is tailored to familiarise holders
(2) Legal Interpretation Skills of foreign LLB degrees (including courses for the
(3) Bahasa Malaysia for Lawyers degree undertaken in Malaysia) and legal professional
qualifications with the Malaysian legal system and laws.
Part II: Professional Year • Duration: 800 hours ( five months)
• Exempted: Malaysian LPQB-accredited law degree
Semester 1 graduates. (This Part is prepared for graduates with
(1) Communication Skills degrees that do not include a professional year, which is
(2) Lawyering Skills (eg Techniques of Analysis, Practical usually the fourth year of an LLB degree programme.)
Legal Research Interviewing and Client Counselling) • Objective: To equip graduates for practice with the
(3) Civil Practice (including Law of Evidence, Remedies, necessary legal aptitude, ethics and practical skills.
and Execution and Enforcement Proceedings)
(4) Opinion Writing
(5) Legal Ethics and Professionalism
Part II: Professional Year • Duration: 800 hours (five months)
• Exempted: Malaysian LPQB-accredited law degree
Semester 2 graduates. (This part is prepared for graduates with
(1) Criminal Practice (including Law of Evidence) degrees that do not include a professional year, which is
(2) Drafting Skills (Pleadings, Interlocutory Applications usually the fourth year of an LLB degree programme.)
and Affidavits) • Objective: To equip graduates for practice with the
(3) Real Property Practice necessary legal aptitude, ethics and practical skills.
(4) Commercial and Corporate Practice
(ie drafting contracts / setting up companies and other
business structures)
(5) Student Law Office Programme (incorporating Practice
Management Skill)
committee reports
Proposed curriculum structure Remarks

Part III: Advanced Professional Year • Duration: 480 hours (three months)
• Exempted: None
Semester 1 • Objective: This Part is prepared for graduates for pupillage
(1) Advocacy and the first two years of law practice.
(2) Advanced Communication Skills
(3) Student Law Office Programme
Part III: Advanced Professional Year • Duration: 200 hours (six months)
(“Block learning” classes every alternate weekend, to run
Semester 2 concurrently with pupillage)
(1) Professional Etiquette • Exempted: None
(2) Business and Solicitors Accounts • Objective: To support and enhance pupillage.
Electives (Choose any two)
(1) Advocacy in Criminal Law

(2) Alternative Dispute Resolution — Arbitration
(3) Alternative Dispute Resolution — Mediation
(4) Family Law Practice
(5) Human Rights Litigation
(6) Industrial Law Practice
(7) Insolvency Practice
(8) Intellectual Property Law Practice
(9) Islamic Banking and Finance
(10) Wills and Probate Practice

ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION committee
Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee

Mediate, don’t litigate!
Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (Co-Chairperson) | Wong Lu Peen (Co-Chairperson) | Abdul Fareed b Abdul Gafoor (Deputy Chairperson) | Choy
Kam Lee | Christine Khor Meow Wei | Gunavathi Subramaniam | Hendon Mohamed | Hwang Wei-Shien, Marcus | Jonathan Yoon Weng
Foong | Megalai Raman | Nachammai Kumarappan KMS | Petra Oon Beng Ai | Serene Ong Si-Oui | Shannon Rajan | Shanti Abraham |
Sumathi Murugiah | Tejindarpal Kaur | Yip Huen Weng | Marianna Laureen Tan (Officer-in-charge)
Invited participant
Seumas Tan Nyap Tek
The Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (c) Organising refresher courses on mediation skills; and
Committee (“AADR”) met five times during the period under (d) Meeting with Judges throughout Peninsular Malaysia.
review. AADR planned its activities for the 2013/2014 term
with a view to increase awareness of mediation among These, and other projects undertaken by AADR, are
lawyers and other professionals. Therefore, AADR is described below.
presently focusing its efforts on conducting more courses
and talks on mediation, to promote mediation in Malaysia. (1) Mediation skills training courses
AADR’s activities centred on the following: AADR organised two mediation skills training courses.
(a) Meeting with other professional bodies and organising The first session was held from 8 to 12 May 2013 at the Raja
two-day introductory courses for practitioners in those Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur.
professions; This training course was attended by 17 participants, the
(b) Organising mediation skills training courses; majority of whom are from the legal community.
committee reports
(a) 26 June 2013, in Kuala Lumpur;

(b) 19 Oct 2013, in Penang;
(c) 23 Nov 2013, in Johore; and
(d) 26 Nov 2013, in Kuala Lumpur
The proposed five-day mediation skills training courses

scheduled from 31 July to 4 Aug 2013 in Ipoh, Perak, and
23 to 27 Oct 2013 in Kuala Lumpur, had to be cancelled as
there were insufficient participants.
At the request of University Kebangsaan Malaysia (“UKM”), The refresher courses held at the Bar Council in Kuala
AADR conducted a five-day mediation skills training course Lumpur were attended by 10 participants and 12
from 19 to 23 Sept 2013 at UKM’s Law Faculty in Bangi, participants, respectively, while those scheduled in Penang
Selangor. The course was attended by 13 participants, and Johore were cancelled due to poor response.
mostly law lecturers.
(3) Visit by delegation from Nepal
(2) Refresher courses on mediation skills

AADR hosted a visit by a delegation from Nepal, comprising
AADR recognises that mediators need to practise their the following persons, from 16 to 18 July 2013:
mediation skills. Given the lack of exposure to mediation
opportunities after completing the mediation skills training (a) Girish Chandra Lal, Honourable Justice and
course, in addition to the accreditation rules that require Chairperson of Mediation Committee, Supreme Court
mediators to attend refresher courses, AADR planned of Nepal;
to organise refresher courses on mediation skills on the (b) Govind Kumar, Honourable Chief Judge of the Court
following dates: of Appeal, Ilam;

ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION committee
(c) Nahakul Subedi, Joint Registrar and Member

Secretary of Mediation Committee, Supreme Court of
Nepal;
(d) Devendra Raj Dhakal, Registrar, Court of Appeal,
Baglung;
(e) Ram Prasad Neupane, Deputy Registrar, Supreme
Court of Nepal; and
(f) Dil Prasad Sapkota, Section Officer, Bardiya District
Court.
The following activities were organised during their visit to

Bar Council:
of the legal profession in Malaysia. Karen Cheah Yee Lynn,
(a) Meeting with the President of the Malaysian Bar and Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, met with the delegation at
AADR members at the Bar Council Secretariat; the Bar Council Secretariat, and briefed the visitors on the
(b) Meeting with YA Susila Sithamparam, President of role of the Bar Council.
the Industrial Court of Malaysia; and the Chairmen
and Registrar of the Industrial Court of Malaysia; in Serene Ong Si-Oui, an AADR member, gave a brief
Wisma Straits Trading; presentation on the legal profession in Malaysia as well as
(c) Meeting with YA Hj Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, the Malaysian Mediation Centre.
Judicial Commissioner; and Tuan Zainal b Lebai
Salleh, Head of Court Mediation Centre; at the Jalan (5) Meeting with Malaysian Employers Federation
Duta Courts in Kuala Lumpur; (“MEF”)
(d) Briefing by Jeremy Lee Eng Huat, Chief Executive
Officer of the Financial Mediation Bureau, at the Wong Lu Peen, AADR Co-Chairperson, met with
Bureau’s office in Menara Takaful Malaysia, Kuala representatives of MEF on 28 May 2013 to discuss
Lumpur; and the possibility of conducting a two-day programme on
(e) Meeting with YB Hajah Nancy Shukri, the de facto mediation for MEF members. As MEF showed interest in
Minister of Law in the Prime Minister’s Department, this initiative, AADR will follow up with MEF on the preferred
at Parliament House. dates for the programme.
AADR organised a luncheon on 16 July 2013 at Central (6) Collaboration with Persatuan Insurans Am
Market, and a dinner at the Royal Selangor Club on 18 July Malaysia (“PIAM”)
2013 for the Nepalese delegation.
AADR also managed to establish contact with PIAM
(4) Visit by delegation from Guangxi Law Association regarding a potential two-day programme on mediation.
Work is still in progress regarding this matter.
At the request of AADR member Christine Khor Meow
Wei, AADR agreed to host a visit by a delegation from the (7) Talk on Mediation Act 2012
Guangxi Law Association on 2 Dec 2013.
AADR organised a talk on 30 Apr 2013 entitled “Mediation
The main purpose of the delegation’s visit was to establish Act 2012: Its Scope and Effect, and the Role of Lawyers”.
a close rapport with advocates and solicitors in Malaysia. Held at Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council, it was
They were interested to learn about the role and functioning presented by AADR member, Gunavathi Subramaniam and
committee reports
(10) Abolition of scale fees
At AADR’s request, Bar Council has agreed to do away

with the scale fees for mediators, and allow mediators to
set their own charges.
(11) Update on Asian Mediation Association (“AMA”)
The Malaysian Mediation Centre’s role as the Secretariat

of the AMA came to an end on 31 Dec 2013, and Kuthubul
Zaman Bukhari will cease to be the Chairman of AMA.
The AMA Secretariat will be taken over by the Hong Kong
former AADR member, Chia Loong Thye. Approximately Mediation Centre.
60 participants attended the talk.
The 3rd AMA Conference, hosted by the Hong Kong
During the talk, Gunavathi Subramaniam highlighted Mediation Centre, is scheduled to be held on 3 and 4 Apr
some loopholes in the Mediation Act 2012. Consequently, 2014. For more information, please visit the Conference
she was appointed by AADR to submit her proposal on website at http://www.amaconference2014.org.hk/en/
amendments to the Mediation Act for the committee’s home/index.html.
consideration.
Acknowledgment
(8) Talk on disputes in construction works
We wish to place on record our sincere thanks to all AADR
On 19 Jan 2013, AADR member Gunavathi Subramaniam members who have sacrificed their time and effort to assist
gave a talk to members of the Royal Institute of Surveyors the committee with its assignments and activities throughout
at the PKNS Building in Petaling Jaya, Selangor. During the year. Special thanks go to Marianna Laureen Tan, the
the afternoon session, AADR Co-Chairperson Kuthubul Executive Officer, for her diligent support to AADR as well
Zaman Bukhari informed the attendees of the training as in running the AMA Secretariat.
courses conducted by the Malaysian Mediation Centre.
Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari and Wong Lu Peen
(9) Website for Malaysian Mediation Centre Co-Chairpersons
AADR is looking into setting up a Malaysian Mediation Date: 10 Feb 2014
Centre website. For now, materials are being consolidated
for uploading onto the website. The official launch of the For any enquiries, please email:
website is scheduled for the first quarter of 2014. ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my

ARBITRATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Arbitration Subcommittee
To review further amendments to the Arbitration Act 2005
Nitin Nadkarni (Chairperson) | Elaine Yap Chin Gaik (Deputy Chairperson) | Aniz Ahmad Amirudin b Shahul Hameed | Balbir Singh s/o
Shingara Singh | Belden Premaraj | Catherine Chau Siew Ping | Darshendev Singh | GK Ganesan | Geetha Kesavan Nair | Ivan Loo |
James Monteiro | Kirin Shanti Moganasundram | Lam Ko Luen | Mohanadass Kanagasabai | Oon Chee Kheng | Sanjay @ Jegathesan s/o S
Mohanasundram | Savithiri d/o S Ganesan | Shirlena d/o Yogeswaran | Sitpah d/o Selvaratnam | Tunku Farik b Tunku Ismail |
WSW Davidson | Anusha Gopala Krishnan (Officer-in-charge)
The Arbitration Subcommittee met twice during the period Auditorium on 9 Sept 2013. The two-hour session was
under review. attended by 29 participants consisting of Members of the
Bar, pupils in chambers and in-house counsel.
Review of the Arbitration Act 2005
The Subcommittee is in the midst of reviewing the

Arbitration Act 2005, and Order 69 of the Rules of Court
2012. Recommendations will be forwarded in due course.
The Subcommittee is also considering measures to promote
Malaysia as a premier destination for arbitrations.
Talk on pitfalls of arbitration
The Subcommittee organised a talk entitled “Pitfalls

of Arbitration” at the Bar Council’s Raja Aziz Addruse
committee reports
The seminar was conducted by James Monteiro, the Acknowledgment

principal partner of Messrs James Monteiro. During the I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all Subcommittee
course of the talk, he discussed in depth the pitfalls that members who have dedicated their time and effort towards
should be avoided when drafting arbitration clauses for their assignments.
international contracts.
Nitin Nadkarni
Throughout the seminar, there was a two-way flow of Chairperson
communication between the speaker and the participants.
Overall, based on the positive feedback from the Date: 13 Jan 2014
participants, the Subcommittee was assured that the event
was successful. For any enquiries, please email:
anusha@malaysianbar.org.my

committee on ORANG ASLI RIGHTS
Committee on Orang Asli Rights

The next frontier in Orang Asli rights
Yogeswaran Subramaniam (Co-Chairperson) | Hon Kai Ping (Co-Chairperson) | Amani Williams-Hunt b Abdullah | Andrew Khoo Chin
Hock | Cherian K C Kuruvila | Fong Lee Wee | Lee Lyn-Ni | Liew Sau Harn Aimee | M Rajkumar | Manolan Mohamad | Rachel Ng |
Ramachandran Nana Pulle | Saha Deva A Arunasalam | Seira Sacha Abu Bakar | Siti Zabedah Kasim | Sokyen Man | Stephanie Wong |
Steven Thiru | Victoria Ng Yiow Kheng | Christina Adele Gomez (until May 2013); Zaena Nair K Padmanathan (June to October 2013); Vishnu
Jeevapragasan (from November 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
Chung Yi Fan | Colin Nicholas | Jerald Joseph | Mazni Ibrahim | Ramy Bulan | Glen Kenny (Researcher)
The Committee on Orang Asli Rights (“COAR”) was In 2013, COAR met five times and undertook the following
established during the 2010/2011 term to deal with the many activities:
pressing issues concerning the Orang Asli community,
particularly with respect to their rights as indigenous (1) Government Task Force on the Human Rights
peoples and customary land rights. There has been an Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) Report
increase in complaints of violation of these rights and in
this regard, many Orang Asli litigants have sought legal On 5 Aug 2013, the Federal Government announced the
assistance from the COAR. Apart from handling pro bono establishment of a Government task force to review the
Orang Asli claims in court, COAR members visit the Orang SUHAKAM Report published in 2013. The SUHAKAM
Asli settlements to advise them on their rights, and train and Report is the culmination of a one-and-a-half year national
provide technical assistance for lawyers who volunteer to inquiry into the land rights of indigenous peoples. The
act for the Orang Asli. SUHAKAM Report examines matters relating to the land of
the indigenous peoples, which comprises the Orang Asli of
Peninsular Malaysia and natives of the states of Sabah and
committee reports
Sarawak. The Report contains, among other matters, 18 COAR is privileged to have organised and facilitated this
recommendations to the Federal and State Governments workshop, which would not have been possible without
on the protection and promotion of indigenous rights to the kind assistance of the German Foreign Office. As the
lands in a manner consistent with international human objective and target audience of the workshop were very
rights standards. specific, the event was by invitation only.
The task force consists of 15 individuals, tasked to review (3) Advocacy efforts of COAR members and cases in
the SUHAKAM Report with the aim to implement the court
recommendations contained within. Two COAR members,
namely, Yogeswaran Subramaniam and Andrew Khoo In 2013, COAR members conducted field trips to Orang Asli
Chin Hock serve on the task force. villages across Peninsular Malaysia.
(2) Workshop on Sustaining Successful Orang Asli They visited Orang Asli villages in Johore, namely,
Customary Land Rights Claims Kampung Peta, Kampung Tewowoh, Kampung Simpang
Arang, Kampung Bakar Batu, Kampung Sungai Temon and
On 6 Dec 2013, COAR organised a specialised workshop Kampung Pengkalan Tereh.
on Orang Asli land rights for lawyers engaged in pro bono
Orang Asli land rights claims. They also made trips to villages in Perak (including
Kampung Batu 18, Kampung Kenoh, Pos Woh, Kampung
The workshop focused on two main areas, namely, (1) pre- Penderas, Kampung Ulu Kampar, Kampung Empangan
action and pre-trial preparation and evidence gathering Woh, Kampung Cenawin, Kampung Tisong, Pos Kemar,
towards the establishment of customary land rights claim Kampung Sungai Sat, Kampung Pawong and Kampung
at common law, and claims for breach of fiduciary duty; and Ras); Kelantan (including Pos Lojing, Kampung Depak,
(2) managing the public interest element of such claims. RPS Kuala Betis, Kampung Lampok); and Negeri
Sembilan (Kampung Sebir, Kampung Tering and Kampung
Towards achieving this end, COAR invited two experienced Sunggala).
resource persons for the workshop. Andrew Chalk, Senior
Partner of Messrs Chalk and Fitzgerald, a Sydney-based On these visits, COAR members advised the Orang Asli on
firm of solicitors, has more than 20 years’ experience their rights generally and also in respect of land claims and
in handling native title and Aboriginal rights litigation. disputes. The visits were also for the purposes of gathering
Professor Bradford Morse, who is Dean of the Faculty of evidence or fact-finding prior to filing claims on behalf of
Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand; and renowned Orang Asli litigants.
indigenous rights academic and researcher, possesses
more than 30 years’ experience in Aboriginal rights across Pro bono litigation before the courts involving COAR
four jurisdictions, namely, Canada, the United States of members as legal counsel include those relating to
America, Australia and New Zealand. Kampung Mengkapur (Court of Appeal), Kampung Bukit
Rok and Kampung Ibam (Court of Appeal), Kampung
The resource persons provided an overview of the historical Sungai Temon and Kampung Bakar Batu (Johor Bahru High
aspect of indigenous peoples’ rights from Canada, New Court), Kampung Kuala Masai (Johor Bahru High Court)
Zealand and Australia, and their evolution to the present. and Kampung Peta (Johor Bahru High Court). There are
Both resource persons provided valuable input in aiding also two pro bono legal teams comprising COAR members
domestic lawyers to pursue alternative strategies in who are currently in the midst of finalising Orang Asli
litigating Orang Asli land disputes. customary land claims that are to be filed in the Temerloh
and Kota Bahru High Courts, respectively.

committee on ORANG ASLI RIGHTS
On 13 Dec 2013, COAR together with the Bar Council Legal (a) Konvensyen Orang Asal: Hak Orang Asal, Kelestarian
Aid Centre (Selangor) embarked on a trip to Kampung dan Hutan, Subang Jaya, 15 and 16 May 2013;
Orang Asli Bukit Tunggul, Dengkil, Selangor on a fact- (b) Seminar on the Struggles of the Orang Asli organised
finding mission regarding their long standing land issues. by Perak Bar Committee, Ipoh, 13 Sept 2013;
COAR members also advised the Orang Asli at Kampung (c) Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (“JOAS”) Indigenous
Sunggala, Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan regarding their Day Celebration, Pahang, 16 Aug 2013;
application for alienation of their reserved lands. (d) Persidangan JOAS, Penampang, Sabah, 6 and 7
Nov 2013;
(4) International Human Rights Day 2013 | We Are (e) Law and Society Workshop, Faculty of Law, University
One: Orang Kita Bersatu Charity Fundraising of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 15 Nov 2013; and
Dinner (f) An address with the Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri
(“ADUN”) of Hulu Langat on the United Nations
The Bar Council Human Rights Day is an annual event that Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
takes place in conjunction with International Human Rights (“UNDRIP”).
Day, which is observed on 10 December every year. COAR
and the Human Rights Committee jointly organised a charity On 6 Mar and 21 Aug 2013, Yogeswaran Subramaniam,
fundraising dinner to create more awareness and education COAR Co-Chairperson and Steven Thiru, Vice-President
on the rights of people in accordance with the Universal of the Malaysian Bar and COAR member, spoke on The
Declaration of Human Rights. This year’s event focused on Evening Edition radio show on BFM89.9 regarding Orang
the rights of the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia. Asli land rights.
The event was attended by approximately 200 Orang Asli Acknowledgment

alongside 500 guests. Christopher Leong, President of the
Malaysian Bar and Ambiga Sreenevasan, Past President COAR thanks the German Foreign Office for the financial
of the Malaysian Bar were among the invited guests who grant towards the work undertaken by COAR in advocating
delivered their speeches. In addition to videos highlighting the rights of Orang Asli. COAR also expresses its gratitude
the plight of the Orang Asli, the evening was filled with to the Human Rights Committee and the Orang Asli Charity
cultural performances by the Orang Asli, charity auctions, Fundraising Dinner Organising Committee for its hard work
lucky draws and performances by local recording artists. in ensuring that the fundraising dinner was a success.
COAR also wishes to thank the Bar Council Secretariat for
Proceeds and contributions from the fundraising that its unrelenting support and assistance, and also its officers
included the sale of t-shirts and handicrafts, auction Zaena Nair K Padmanathan and Vishnu Jeevapragasan.
proceeds, table sales, sponsorships, lucky draw sales and Last but not at all least, COAR is indebted to all COAR
much more will be used to fund COAR in its advocacy of members for their dedication to the Orang Asli cause.
Orang Asli rights.
Yogeswaran Subramaniam and Hon Kai Ping
(5) Presentations and talks at conferences and Co-Chairpersons
events
Date: 18 Dec 2013
The following is a list of selected conferences and events
during the 2013/2014 term where papers were presented For any enquiries, please email:
on Orang Asli rights on behalf of COAR: vishnu@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Constitutional Law Committee

Merakyatkan Perlembagaan
Firdaus bt Husni (Chairperson) | Elaine Gan Peay Er (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Joanne Leong Pooi Yaen (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Nimalan s/o
Devaraja (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Syahredzan Johan (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Adrienne Leong | Ahmad Aizat b Ab Rahman | Alicia Ng Yan
Ying | Allison Ong Lee Fong | Andy Yong Kim Seng | Angeline Cheah Yin Leng | Anita Shukla Sharma | Aston Paiva | Au Yong Wai Nyan | Azhar
Azizan Harun | Azri Malek b Wan Haron | Balan Nair s/o Thamodaran | Balbindar Singh s/o Ajaib Singh | Chai Ko Thing | Charlene Slim
C Jintoni | Chew Ming Ling | Chia Kwok Wei | Choo Mun Wei | Chow Wei Cheng | Chris Tan Yew Hong | Colin Andrew s/o Pereira |
Daniel Cheong Chun Hui | Daniel Joseph Albert | Daniel S Abishegam | Derek Chong Ching Hsiang | Edmund Bon Tai Soon | Eunice Ong
Huey Shen | Farez Jinnah | Firoz Hussein b Ahmad Jamaluddin | Frida d/o Krishnan | Grace Wong Phui Mun | Hemalatha Parasa Ramulu |
Hon Kai Ping | Jason Kong | Joachim Leong Ming Yoong | Josephine Chin Fong Leng | Joy Wilson s/o Appukuttan | Kenneth Wong Poh Lim |
Khairuzzaman Muhammad | Kwan Will Sen | Lee Choi Wan | Lee Sim Kuen | Lee Weng Yow | Leong Sher-How | Leong Yeng Kong | Lim Cheh
Yoon | Lim Hern Gene | Low Boon Seong | Mahaletchumi d/o Balakrishnan | Maimuna Hamid Merican | Malik Imtiaz Ahmed b Ghulam
Sarwar | Melissa Sasidaran | Mohamed Hashim b Abdul Rahiman | Mohd Farid b Abdul Aziz | Nadia bt Ridzuan | Nazariah bt Abbas | Ngeow
Chow Ying | Nizam Bashir b Abdul Kariem Bashir | Noor Arianti Osman | P Dev Anand Pillai | Pradeep Singh s/o Arjan Singh | Quek Ngee
Meng | Rachel Vanuja d/o Suppiah | Ragumaren s/o Gopal | Raina Mohd Radzaif | Raja Syarafina Raja Shuib | Saha Deva s/o Arunasalam |
Samson Mah Chang Jun | Samuel Leong Chan Yan | Sashiraj s/o Uthrapathy | Selena Kong Soo Theng | Shaikh Abdul Saleem b Shaikh Abdul
Karim | Shamala Devi d/o Balasundaram | Shanmugaiah s/o Chelliah | Sheila d/o Ramalingam | Sonya Liew Yee Aun | Sudharsanan s/o
Thilainathan | Haji Sulaiman Abdullah | Thirunavakarasu Vijayan Ganasan | Tiu Gi Gyn | Varpal Singh Menender Singh | Vince Chong Khin
Youn | Wong Fook Meng | Wong Jye Mei | Wong Tian Hong | Yap Boon Hau | Yeap Kuan Wei, Andrew | Yeoh Tung Seng | Yogeswaran
Subramaniam | Yohendra Nadarajan | Yong Ching Hong | Yvonne Young Ai Peng | Zulaikha Aini bt Mohd Khair Johari | Zulqarnain Lukman |
Anusha Gopala Krishnan (Officer-in-charge)
Invited Participants
Abdul Aziz Bari | Abun Sui Anyit | Adam Adli | Adiba Shareen Al-Ayubi | Adilah Nasir | Adrian Lee Chew | Adryenne Lim Sue Yee | Agnes
Chow | Alifah Shazwani Mansor | Alvin Yong Sze Lung | Amos Kok Yee Woei | Anis Syarafina Apandi | Aniza Damis | Ariana Lee Chew | Audrey
Lim Chia Tchi | Azmi Sharom | Calvin Chan Thye Shern | Chelsea Ng | Cheong Yew Ken | Chong Lip Yi | Chooi Tiam Haur | Choong Wei Ling
| Christine Lim Hui Xien | Christopher Yap En Haw | Cilia Chong | Crystal Soo Yan Shan | Danial b Abdul Rahman | Daniel Soon Jeong Guan |
Danny Choong Ewe Leong | David Ang Chin Tat | David Siaw Ting Cheng | Dennis Lau Yee Meng | Dennis Patrick | Desmond Anura Sahathevan
| Eden Chua Hwei Bing | Ee Ann Nee | Elaine Lee | Erick Anak Nicholas Mujah | Esther Wong | Gan Jing Hao | Gregory Marimuthu s/o
Gevanantham | Harcharan Singh s/o Latchman Singh | Izmil Amri b Ismail | James Ho Sing Hock | James Lee Chun Shen | Janefher Bajagap |

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW committee
Jessie Wong | John Sikayun | June Low Cheng Yen | June Mary Rubis | Justine Tam Mei Ern | Karen Chong |
Karen R Yap | Karl Rafiq b Nadzarin | KarLuis Quek | Keith Chin Hsiun | Lai Min Ting | Lam Zhen Hao | Lau Sian Lerk | Law Yee Tang | Lee
Horng Qing | Lee Mei Han | Lee Shee Pin | Leong Jing Jing | Liew Ying Ying | Lim Ka Ea | Lim Keh Ho | Lim Siok Jin | Lim Tou Yih | Lingswaran
Singh | Logeinthira s/o Krishnan | Long Seh Lih | Loo Yeong Huei | Louis Jarau Patrick | Louis Liaw Vein Xien | Louis Liong Wei Wei | Low Wen
Zhen | Lua Bo Feng | Lynette Yee | Maisarah Mohd Najib | Malcolm Ng Sze Cun | Marlene Lim Hui Nee | Mary Anne K Baltazar | Medicci
Lineil Repong | Melissa Lim | Melissa Linda Dass | Michael Leow | Michelle Gunaselan | Mohd Ashraf b Abdul Hamid | Mohd Fairul b
Mohd Ramzi | Mohd Farid b Abdul Aziz | Mohd Fyrolikram Othman | Mohd Harris b Azman | Mohd Khairi Said | Muhammad Hafizuddin b
Zakaria | Muhammad Hasanuddin b Mohd Yusoff | Munirah Hayati Mukhtar | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Nadia bt Abu Bakar | Nanneri Nanggai
d/o Vengadasalam | Neo Hwee Yong | Ng Choong Huan | Ng Chun Ming | Ng Zheng Hui Charlie | Nicol Paul Miranda | Nigel Lim Zhi Xin |
Norazura bt Mohd Rahim | Nur Adnen bt Yahya | Nur Nasrin Adni bt Salleh | Nurashidah Hamidon | Nurul Natasha Abdullah Sani | Ooi Kok
Hin| Ooi Qing Lin | Pang Jo Fun | Pang Sheue Chyn | Paul Linus Andrews | Puvaneswari d/o Rajandren | Quek Hong Keat | Quek Yiing Huey
| R Veerasaynen | Rachel Wong Ching Wan | Raja Zyroul Hisyam | Rayneni Asogan | Richard Yeoh | Rina Kamdar | Rina Tung | Rusniah
bt Ahmad | Samuel Chong Man Hon | Saw Tsun Jian | Sebastian Lim | Sempurai Petrus Ngelai | Shad Saleem Faruqi | Shafiqa Nabeera bt
Shahroni | Sharon Sharina d/o A William | Simren Kaur Dhillon | Siti Sarah Nadiah bt Suliman | Sonia Yeow Minyi | Sonya Liew Yee Aun |
Soo Jin Yun | Soon Lu Yan | SR Jossie Sili | Steven Eng Chun Hooi | Sufiah Mansurdin | Suganthi d/o Mayakrishnan | Suriyanandhini s/o
Soraisamy | Syahira Rahim | Tamilarasi d/o Tamilsilvam | Tan Chee Tong | Tan Chiew King | Tan Jie Xun | Tan Lee Chin | Tan Sue Yinn | Tan
Wei Liang | Tania Pillai d/o Velasamy | Tee Jer Lynn | Teh Deng Zui | Teoh Jess Lyn | Teoh Tee Keat | Tew Li Mei | Tey Jun Ren |
Thean See Xien | Ting Cheng Ching | Tiu E Laine | Tracy Ho | V Sreedaran Nair s/o A Veloo Pillay | Vicneswary Jayabalan | Vince Chong Khin
Young | Wee Wui Kiat | William Anthony | Wong Chin Huat | Wong Poai Hong | Wong Yih Shan | Woon King Chai | Yap Yin May | Yasotha
Chetty | Yaw Ern Nian | Yee Yik Shien | Yip Xiao Heng
The Constitutional Law Committee (“ConstiLC”) met twice due to its overwhelming success, ConstiLC decided to
during this term. ConstiLC conducts its discussions mostly extend that time frame. The agenda to “merakyatkan
through e-mails over the robust e-group. Perlembagaan” continued this term with various activities,
either on ConstiLC’s own initiative, or in collaboration with
Merakyatkan Perlembagaan or upon invitation of other organisations. The activities are
summarised below:
The MyConstitution campaign was launched in 2009
and was originally slated to run for two years. However,
Date(s) Activity Venue

9 Mar 2013 MyConstitution workshop Church of St Francis of Assisi, Cheras
International Islamic University Malaysia,
9 Mar 2013 MyConstitution workshop Gombak
20 Apr to 1 May 2013 “Keep Calm and Cast Your Vote” t-shirt Several locations in Klang Valley
promotion drive
8 and 9 May 2013 iCare iVolunteer NGO Fair Sunway University, Selangor
Post-Election Series Seminar: Constituency
8 June 2013 Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur
Delineation – Knowing Where to Draw the Lines
Post-Election Series Seminar: Electoral Offences
29 June 2013 Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur
– Righting the Wrongs
Legends and Laws, Episode 10: The Bronze
5 July 2013 Wisma BU8, Bandar Utama
Crocodile, BFM 89.9
6 July 2013 Forum on “How Secular is Our Constitution” Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur
Post-Election Series Seminar: Electoral Reforms
13 July 2013 Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur
– Out with the Old, In with the New?
29 Aug 2013 MyConstitution workshop Taylor’s College, Sri Hartamas
committee reports
Date(s) Activity Venue

Fifty Years of Democracy: Has it Weakened or
16 Sept 2013 Cava Restaurant and Bar, Kuala Lumpur
Strengthened Our Federal Constitution?
UndiMsia Chat: “My Constitution is 50”
16 Sept 2013 Pusat Rakyat LoyarBurok, Kuala Lumpur
(MyConstitution campaign)
27 Sept 2013 MyConstitution talk Kuala Lumpur Bar, Kuala Lumpur
1 Nov 2013 MyConstitution workshop SMK Segambut, Kuala Lumpur
23 Nov 2013 MyConstitution workshop Whiteaways Arcade, Lebuh Pantai, Penang
Outreach activities 2013, and focused on the issue of constituency delineation.

The speakers were Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, Wong Piang
This term, ConstiLC increased its efforts to reach out to as Yow, Dr Wong Chin Huat, Dr Bridget Welsh, and Datuk
many civil society groups and organisations as possible, Wira Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, Deputy Chairman of the
by conducting workshops, forums, talks and other public Elections Commission.
information events. ConstiLC’s countless outreach
programmes for students from secondary schools and A forum, moderated by Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, former
universities, lawyers, members of the media, religious Co-Deputy Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee,
institutions, non-governmental organisations, political ensued after the individual presentations by the speakers.
parties, Orang Asli communities and the general public The audience was given the opportunity to pose their
have spanned no less than seven states in the country. questions to the panel of speakers. The forum almost
instantly heated up as the audience queried Datuk Wira
One of ConstiLC’s biggest achievements is its ability to Wan Ahmad Wan Omar to address public concerns
reach out to youth through its workshops, creative (and particularly concerning the last delineation exercise. The
at times unconventional) public information activities, and forum was not only interactive, but highly informative.
the use of social network tools such as Facebook (www.
facebook.com/MyConstitution), Twitter (@MyConsti), The second seminar, “Electoral Offences: Righting the
YouTube (www.youtube.com/perlembagaanku), as well as Wrongs”, was held on 29 June 2013, and concentrated on
the campaign’s dedicated website, www.perlembagaanku. the topic of electoral offences. The speakers were Azhar
com. Currently, the MyConsti campaign has garnered Azizan Harun, Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Jannie Lasimbang
more than 11,000 likes on its Facebook page and over and James Nayagam. The seminar was followed by a
6,000 followers on its Twitter page, where tweet updates of forum moderated by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, where the
ConstiLC’s events are consistently provided to its followers. attendees were further enlightened on the different aspects
The MyConstitution App containing the Rakyat Guides of electoral offences, as questions and answers were
booklets and Rakyat Service Advertisement video clips is exchanged between the speakers and the audience.
now also available for iPhone and iPad users.
The third and final seminar of the series, “Electoral
Post-Election Series seminars Reforms: Out with the Old, In with the New?”, took place
on 13 July 2013. The heart of the discussion was electoral
ConstiLC, in collaboration with the Human Rights reforms, and the panel speakers each gave suggestions
Committee, organised a series of public seminars / forums and solutions on how to better the current electoral process
that focused on various post-election-related issues. There to prevent future electoral setbacks.
were three seminars in total and each seminar concentrated
on a specific topic. Among the speakers that participated in the seminar
were Wong Piang Yow, YB Nurul Izzah Anwar, Ambiga
The first seminar of the series, “Constituency Delineation: Sreenevasan, and Datuk Dr P Manogran. The forum was
Knowing Where to Draw the Lines”, took place on 8 June moderated by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW committee
In conclusion, the Post-Election Series seminar was a A candidate was then chosen from each group, and
success as most of the contentious post-election issues manifestos were prepared and presented, culminating in a
were addressed and discussed in depth by the esteemed decisive vote by the rest of the constituents for their future
line of speakers. Members of the audience were very “Member of Parliament”. The candidates spoke about why
engaging which made the forums interesting and lively. they should be elected and what he or she would do to
Assuredly, the attendees benefited from listening to what effect the proposed changes. It was very interesting to
the speakers had to say on election-related issues. see some of the creative ideas put forward, which included
a desire for better canteen facilities and a ban on mobile
Forum on “How Secular is our Constitution?” phones, among others. The mock election was then carried
out where all “constituents” were each given a piece of the
On 6 July 2013, a forum entitled “How Secular is our “ballot paper” to vote for their respective constituencies.
Constitution?” was held at the Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium The votes were then counted and the winning candidate for
of the Bar Council. The event enjoyed a good turnout, with each “constituency” was announced.
approximately 50 people attending. The objective of the
forum was to explore the secular aspects of the Constitution. It was to ConstiLC’s delight that the students were very
responsive in learning about their rights as citizens and
Among the panel of speakers that were present on that voters. They were participative throughout the workshop
day were Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Nizam Bashir Abdul Kariem and particularly enjoyed the Rakyat Service advertisements
Bashir, and Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa. The forum was played. At the conclusion of the workshop, each student
moderated by Siti Zabedah bt Kasim. was given a set of the Rakyat Guides booklets, which
hopefully would help them to better understand the Federal
Throughout the forum, there was a two-way flow of Constitution. In short, while it was an “adventure” filled
interaction between the speakers and the participants. with much uncertainty and trepidation, it was also certainly
Overall, the forum was a successful one, as participants rewarding.
indicated that they had benefited from attending the event.
Appreciation
MyConstitution workshop at SMK Segambut, Kuala
Lumpur The members of ConstiLC are the driving force behind
its activities and events. Without their energy, spirit and
1 Nov 2013 marked a momentous occasion for ConstiLC, contributions, there would be no campaigns. ConstiLC
as it was its first foray into schools in Peninsular Malaysia, therefore records its thanks to the 281 (and still growing)
and it was made possible with the collaboration with Teach members, without whom the campaign would not have
for Malaysia, a non-governmental teaching programme. reached this far. ConstiLC also records its appreciation
Approximately 100 Form Three to Form Five students to the Bar Council Secretariat for its assistance during the
from SMK Segambut, Kuala Lumpur spent the second term.
half of their school day to participate in the MyConstitution
workshop organised by ConstiLC. Please visit www.perlembagaanku.com for more information
on ConstiLC’s activities.
Following a simplified overview of the constitutional rights
awarded to each and every citizen of Malaysia, and its Let’s Rock This Nation — Together!
practical effect on the daily life of a student, the workshop
then proceeded in the manner of a “mock election”, Firdaus bt Husni
whereby all the participants were divided into three groups Chairperson
representing different constituencies. Each group was
asked to identify an “issue” which would require a change Date: 10 Dec 2013
to the school rules.
anusha@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Conveyancing Practice Committee

In step with current developments and an active contributor towards reform
Tony Woon Yeow Thong (Chairperson) | A Ramanathan (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Abdul Murad b Che Chik (Co-Deputy Chairperson) |
Agnes Chan Kim Hong | Andrew Das s/o K Solomon | Andrew Wong Fook Hin | Asmadi Awang | Cheong Yoke Ping @ YP Cheong | Chiah
Kim Chai | Edward Chung Weng Keong | Elison Wong | Faridah Yusoff | Kalathevy Sivanganam | Lawrence Chiong Sheng Fan | Lee Leng
Guan | Low Beng Choo | Manpal Singh Sacdev s/o Manjit Singh | Nazriah Shaik Alawdin | Nicholas Chang Chen Seng | Sally Chee Lai Yan |
Sar Sau Yee | Seah Chin Lee | Sin Siew Kuen | Sumathi Murugiah | Tan Kim Soon | Tejindarpal Kaur d/o Indar Singh Gill | Tho Kam Chew |
Viknesvaran s/o Kanapathippillai | Wan Mansor b Wan Mohamed | Yeoh Su Hui | Yong Hsian Siong | Chuah Ying Ying (Officer-in-charge)
A majority of the Conveyancing Practice Committee CPC met seven times from May 2013 to January 2014, and
(“CPC”)’s long-standing members renewed their two more meetings are scheduled to take place prior to the
commitment to serve for the 2013/2014 term. Tony Woon conclusion of the term in March 2014.
Yeow Thong was appointed as Chairperson, supported by
Abdul Murad b Che Chik and A Ramanathan, who were CPC’s main activities during the term are summarised
appointed as Co-Deputy Chairpersons. below.
CPC’s key objectives are to: (1) Summary of CPC’s decisions and
recommendations
(1) formulate policies, rulings and guidelines pertaining
to conveyancing practice; On 13 Mar 2013, CPC issued Circular No 066/2013
(2) conduct regular meetings, and liaise, with government to inform Members of the Bar of the decisions and
agencies, ministries and professional bodies; and recommendations it had made between 20 June
(3) enhance professional knowledge on developments in 2008 and 9 Mar 2012.
laws pertaining to conveyancing.

CONVEYANCING PRACTICE committee
(2) Compilation of circulars on website CPC, Selangor Bar Committee and Kuala Lumpur
Bar Committee representatives met with officers
In order to provide Members easier access to from PTGS and Selangor district land offices on 5
circulars relating to conveyancing practice, CPC Apr 2013 and 11 Oct 2013 respectively, to discuss
has prepared a compilation that is accessible on the issues faced by Members of the Bar and PTGS. The
Malaysian Bar website at http://www.malaysianbar. following is a summary of the matters discussed, and
org.my/conveyancing_practice/circulars_relating_to_ the outcome:
conveyancing_practice.html.
(a) If the National Land Code Form 19B or
(3) Presentation on protection of property rights and Statutory Declaration for application for entry
interest of a private caveat states that a copy of the
sale and purchase agreement is attached, then
such copy must be enclosed;
(b) For presentation of documents that are
rejected by PTGS, the solicitor has to resubmit
the documents within 14 days from the date of
the collection, and pay the nominal registration
fees. If the resubmission is done after the 14-
day period, then the full registration fee will be
imposed;
(c) PTGS requires 10 working days to rectify or
amend errors on documents of title, such as
incorrect names or identity card numbers;
(d) Solicitors can check the status of the
CPC member Low Beng Choo represented the Bar presentation (ie “tolak”, “belum didaftar” or
Council to speak on protection of property rights and “sudah didaftar”) at http://strata.selangor.gov.
interest at the 15th International Surveyors’ Congress my/, and whether documents are ready for
organised by the Royal Institution of Surveyors collection, at http://epungutan.selangor.gov.
Malaysia (“RISM”), which was held on 27 June 2013 my/;
at Istana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. RISM is the national (e) Pertaining to the complaint by Members that
professional body incorporating various surveying no presentation is allowed when there is a title
disciplines. The profession of surveying has been for collection at the collection counter, PTGS
largely responsible for the survey and management stated that there are cases where the runner
of land all over the world. This Congress was held in from a law firm refused to collect the duly
conjunction with RISM’s 52nd Annual General Meeting registered title. If there is any complaint that
and Annual Dinner and was jointly organised by PTGS declined to allow the collection of a duly
RISM together with the Royal Institution of Chartered registered title, Members are advised to see the
Surveyors, United Kingdom. officers at the PTGS Strata Department;
(f) In respect of the implementation of the
(4) Meetings with Selangor Land and Mines Office SELAMAT system, clerks or runners from law
(“PTGS”) firms have to register in all the land offices or
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik and Tan registries in Selangor;
Kim Soon (g) There is no mention of the size area of the
parcel unit in the computerised strata title
committee reports
search report. For properties under strata title, Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Malaysian
members of the public can obtain a copy of the Association of Company Secretaries, Association of
building plan from the Department of Survey Banks in Malaysia, Malaysian Investment Banking
and Mapping Malaysia (“JUPEM”) within a day, Association, Bursa Malaysia Berhad, and Amanah
as JUPEM has a computerised system; Raya Berhad also attended the meeting. Issues
(h) PTGS has indicated that more counters will discussed at the meeting included:
be opened in 2014 for the presentation of
documents. PTGS will look into the possibility (a) A proposal on self-assessment (swa-taksir) on
of having a “fast lane” for presentation of, instruments with respect to transfer of property,
among others, private caveat, discharge of transfer of shares, lease agreements and loan
charge and change of name; agreements, and instruments involving fixed
(i) The time frame for an application for stamp duty;
replacement of a document of title to be (b) Provision in the proposed amendments for
processed is three months; cases involving upstamping; and
(j) PTGS complained that solicitors give (c) LHDNM will consider making amendments to
unreasonable reasons for their requests that section 57 of the Act regarding the refund of
the registration process be expedited, when stamp duty.
in fact the delay is caused by the solicitors
themselves; (6) Meeting with Malaysian Institute of Estate Agents
(k) For collection of duly registered documents Representatives: A Ramanathan, Abdul Murad b Che
of title, the runner or the solicitor should bring Chik, Andrew Das s/o K Solomon, Edward Chung
the law firm’s letter of authorisation and rubber Weng Keong, Faridah Yusoff, Manpal Singh Sacdev
stamp; and s/o Manjit Singh, Nazriah Shaik Alawdin, Sally
(l) In respect of the instances where PTGS has Chee Lai Yan, Tan Kim Soon, Wan Mansor b Wan
insisted that solicitors pay RM10 stamp duty Mohamed and Yeoh Su Hui
on the Statutory Declaration, it was highlighted
to PTGS that the Stamp Act 1949 provides
that stamp duty is exempted if the Statutory
Declaration is required by a government
agency or under any law. PTGS agreed to look
into this issue and discuss it further in the next
meeting.
(5) Proposed amendments to Stamp Act 1949

Representatives: Sumathi Murugiah and YP Cheong
On 5 July 2013, CPC representatives attended a

meeting organised by the Ministry of Finance and
led by a representative of the Stamp Duty Division of On 23 Aug 2013, CPC members met Malaysian
Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia (“LHDNM”) to Institute of Estate Agents representatives to discuss
discuss proposed amendments aimed at modernising issues of mutual concern, such as:
and simplifying the Stamp Act 1949. Representatives
from Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta, (a) Terms and conditions to be stated in a letter
Chartered Tax Institute of Malaysia, The Malaysian of offer to purchase, ie the pre-contractual

agreement before a sale and purchase (8) Meeting with Public Complaints Bureau
agreement is executed; Representative: Abdul Murad b Che Chik
(b) Solutions to speed up the completion of
sale and purchase transactions, in order to On 3 Sept 2013, Abdul Murad b Che Chik represented
attract more investors to invest in Malaysian CPC at a meeting organised by the Public Complaints
properties; Bureau of the Prime Minister’s Department. The
(c) Ways to overcome the problem of unlicensed purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues relating
estate agents; to non-performing loans, and specifically the paper
(d) Unscrupulous practices by estate agents, such that will be presented by the Public Complaints
as informing purchasers that they can obtain Bureau to the Chief Secretary to the Government
a discount on legal fees and disbursements, of Malaysia on “cadangan penambahbaikan bagi
and/or compelling purchasers to engage mengurangkan risiko terhadap pembeli rumah dalam
certain solicitors in order for the agents to earn kes penjualan pinjaman tidak berbayar”.
commissions for referrals; and
(e) The failure of estate agents to conduct a In order to protect a homebuyer’s interest, the
background check on the status of property Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local
prior to its sale. Government (“MUWHLC”) has established the
Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims, introduced the
(7) Dialogue with LHDNM build-then-sell concept, set up a working group on
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik, Sally abandoned projects, and has been given RM169
Chee Lai Yan and YP Cheong million to rehabilitate abandoned project(s).
CPC members had an amicable dialogue with The Public Complaints Bureau put forward the
LHDNM on 29 Aug 2013 to discuss issues pertaining following suggestions:
to stamp duty and real property gains tax (“RPGT”).
During the dialogue, chaired by Dato’ Mohammad (a) Before MUWHLC approves a housing
Sait Ahmad, LHDNM’s Deputy Chief Executive development, MUWHLC should confirm the
Officer of Tax Operations, the following matters were financial status of the developer with the
addressed: Companies Commission of Malaysia and Bank
Negara Malaysia’s Central Credit Reference
(a) Acceptance of client account cheques (instead Information System;
of bank drafts) for all payments; (b) MUWHLC should prepare a “Starter Kit” to
(b) The application procedure for exemption of guide house buyers;
stamp duty under section 15 or 15A of the (c) MUWHLC should make it compulsory for a
Stamp Act 1949; purchaser to appoint his or her own solicitor;
(c) Documents required to support the stamping (d) Bank Negara Malaysia should look into the
of a transfer of real property comprising a guideline for non-performing loans, and ensure
deceased person’s estate; the homebuyer’s interest is protected; and
(d) Guidelines for completing and submitting (e) Bar Council should ensure that Members of
RPGT forms, and making payment; the Bar adhere to all relevant rules, rulings and
(e) Submission of RPGT forms and payment by guidelines regarding professional ethics and
foreigners without income tax numbers; and conduct.
(f) Procedural issues relating to RPGT.
committee reports
(9) Dialogue with Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur bank account number) when requesting a letter
Land and Mines Office of consent or redemption statement from the
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik, Chiah bank;
Kim Chai, Sally Chee Lai Yan, Sin Siew Kuen and YP (e) Delay by banks in delivering the redemption
Cheong statement and original security documents; and
(f) Access to information regarding which
On 17 Sept 2013, members of CPC and Members of the Bar have been struck off.
representatives from the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor
Bar Committees held a dialogue with officers of the (11) Meeting with Association of Islamic Banking
Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur Land and Mines Institutions Malaysia
Office. Circular No 222/2013 dated 18 Oct 2013 was Representatives: A Ramanathan, Asmadi b Awang,
issued to provide Members with a brief report on the Chiah Kim Chai, Elison Wong, Faridah Yusoff,
issues discussed during the dialogue. Kalathevy Sivanganam, Lawrence Chiong Sheng
Fan, Lee Leng Guan, Manpal Singh Sacdev s/o
(10) Dialogue with Association of Banks in Malaysia Manjit Singh, Nazriah Shaik Alawdin, Nicholas Chang
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik, Chiah Chen Seng, Sin Siew Kuen, Tan Kim Soon and Tony
Kim Chai, Karen Cheah Yee Lynn and Sin Siew Kuen Woon Yeow Thong
CPC members, along with Karen Cheah Yee Lynn Representatives from CPC, Bar Council’s Islamic
(as Chairperson of the Legal Profession Committee), Finance Committee, Association of Islamic Banking
had an amicable dialogue with the Association of Institutions Malaysia, Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad,
Banks in Malaysia on 23 Sept 2013 to discuss issues Bank Muamalat Malaysia Berhad, CIMB Islamic Bank
concerning banks and solicitors. Representatives Berhad, Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad, Maybank
from Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad, AmBank (M) Islamic Berhad and RHB Islamic Bank Berhad met on
Berhad, CIMB Bank Berhad, Hong Leong Bank 24 Oct 2013 to discuss the following issues:
Berhad, HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad, Malayan
Banking Berhad, Public Bank Berhad, RHB Bank (a) Pursuant to Bank Negara Malaysia’s guideline
Berhad, Standard Chartered Bank Malaysia Berhad on implementation of the Bai’ Bithaman Ajil
and United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad product, Hong Leong Islamic Bank Berhad has
participated in the dialogue. to insist that all parties be present at the bank
to sign the documents;
The key issues discussed were: (b) The rigid practice with regard to the names
of transaction documents that qualify for a 20
(a) Fees charged by banks for purchase of percent reduction on remission of stamp duty
documents; approved by Bank Negara Malaysia; and
(b) Unreasonable conditions being imposed by (c) Whether the Syariah advisory body of each
end-financing banks in their letter of undertaking bank is required to vet each letter of offer, in
to the vendor; addition to approving the products and deciding
(c) Banks sometimes do not accept powers of on issues referred to the body, as solicitors
attorney due to the potential risks involved; have received letters of offer from banks where
(d) Solicitors should provide the borrower’s full the product name was incorrect.
particulars (including identity card number and

(12)
Meeting regarding unlicensed housing developer does not have to seek the consent of
developments the purchaser. The amended building plan can
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik and be attached as an exhibit plan;
Andrew Das s/o K Solomon (c) An option is given to the developer whether
to provide the hard copy or soft copy of
On 10 Dec 2013, representatives from CPC, the approved plan to the purchaser. CPC
Association of Banks in Malaysia, and Real Estate representatives stated that banks usually
and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia require the plan in hard copy. MUWHLC agreed
(“REHDA”) had a lunch meeting to discuss ways to have a separate meeting with Bank Negara
to address the issue of unlicensed housing Malaysia, Association of Banks in Malaysia,
developments, including the way forward to mitigate and Bar Council to discuss this matter further;
cases involving such developments. and
(d) MUWHLC will issue a circular to inform
(13) Meeting on compliance with Schedule G and developers regarding compliance with the First
Schedule H agreements Schedule of the Schedule G and Schedule H
Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik, Nicholas Agreements. The circular will be circulated to
Chang Chen Seng and Sally Chee Lai Yan all stakeholders, for their information.
MUWHLC invited Bar Council to attend a meeting (14) Meeting of working group on e-payment initiatives
in Putrajaya on 16 Dec 2013 to discuss issues on Representatives: Abdul Murad b Che Chik, Chiah Kim
compliance with the Schedules specified under Chai, Elison Wong, Sin Siew Kuen and YP Cheong
Schedule G and Schedule H of the Housing
Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations The working group on e-payment initiatives —
1989. comprising representatives from the Bar Council,
Association of Banks in Malaysia and Association of
Representatives from CPC, Board of Architects Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia — held its first
Malaysia, Board of Engineers Malaysia, Malaysian meeting on 20 Dec 2013. The working group was
Institute of Architects, National House Buyers set up to review and discuss the issues arising from
Association and REHDA rendered their views, which the Association of Banks in Malaysia’s proposal to
were debated at length. REHDA noted the feedback introduce e-payment to replace payment by cheque
and comments provided by all the participants. into solicitors’ client accounts.
On 22 Jan 2014, a follow-up meeting was held, at The working group was informed that Bank Negara
which the issues discussed included the following: Malaysia has issued a directive encouraging banks to
use e-payment instead of issuing cheques between
(a) The latest version of the Schedule G Agreement banks. Bank Negara Malaysia allows banks to use
is available online at www.kpkt.gov.my; the RENTAS payment system as the channel to
(b) REHDA stated that the approved building transmit e-payments.
plan by the applicable authority does not have
to be given to the purchaser, as there would Issues relating to issuance of redemption statements,
be changes during the construction process. payment of redemption sums, balance purchase
MUWHLC added that if the authority requests price and earnest deposit were discussed during the
the developer to amend the building plan, the meeting. The Association of Banks in Malaysia will
issue a guideline regarding e-payment.
committee reports
(15) Other activities (16) Miscellaneous
CPC was also involved in the following projects and On 21 Feb 2013, three CPC members — Abdul Murad
meetings throughout the term: b Che Chik, Sumathi Murugiah and Sally Chee Lai
Yan — were appointed by the then-Minister of Local
(a) Meetings of the working group on strata titles Government and Housing as additional Presidents of
set up by the Land and Mines Office, held on the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims.
8 Feb 2013, 12 Apr 2013, 11 June 2013, 29
Aug 2013, 15 Nov 2013 and 24 Dec 2013. Acknowledgment
CPC was represented by Sally Chee Lai Yan,
Sumathi Murugiah and Tan Kim Soon; I wish to thank all committee members for contributing their
(b) Discussion on action against lawyers involved time, effort and expertise towards CPC’s activities. I also
in unlicensed developments on 29 Aug 2013, record my appreciation to CPC’s officer-in-charge, Chuah
organised by MUWHLC. Karen Cheah Yee Ying Ying, for her diligence and support.
Lynn (as Chairperson of the Legal Profession
Committee) and Nicholas Chang Chen Seng
represented Bar Council; Tony Woon Yeow Thong
(c) Mini-lab Peraturan Rang Undang-undang Chairperson
Pengurusan Strata 2012 on 8 to 10 May 2013,
organised by MUWHLC, where CPC was Date: 23 Jan 2014
represented by Abdul Murad b Che Chik and
Sally Chee Lai Yan;
(d) Taklimat Pelaksanaan ke Arah Sistem Taksir For any enquiries, please email:
Sendiri Cukai Keuntungan Harta Tanah on 11 yingying@malaysianbar.org.my
Sept 2013, organised by LHDNM. CPC was
represented by Chuah Ying Ying; and
(e) Meeting of the Kumpulan Kerja Pemantapan
Perundangan, Penguatkuasaan dan
Mekanisma Pemantauan di Bawah Pasukan
Petugas Khas Pemulihan Projek Perumahan
Terbengkalai Bil 2/2013, on 10 Dec 2013. CPC
was represented by Tan Kim Soon.

CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAW committee
Corporate and Commercial Law Committee

Towards achieving corporate excellence
K Mohan K Kumaran (Co-Chairperson) | Wong Tat Chung (Co-Chairperson) | Vivekanandan s/o AMS Periasamy (Deputy Chairperson) |
Abdul Shukor Mohd Yusof | Anand Raj | Annette Soh | Ashela d/o Ramaya | Celine Rangithan | Chan Kwan Hoe | Chay Fon Leng | Cheh
Chooi Jing | Chen Thim Wai | Cheong Kee Fong | Chin Meei Sien | Choo Chin Thye | Desmond Ho Chee Cheong | Grace Yeoh Cheng Geok |
Hamdi Abdullah | Heng Hiang Swee | Ira Biswas | Isaac Tho Kah Yaw | Jahaberdeen Mohd Yunoos | Jeremiah Ravindran Gurusamy | Kenny
Poon How Kun | Lee Lai Huat | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Ong Eu Jin | Ong Kok Wah | Phua Pao Yii | Priscillia Yap Poi Yok | Rabia bt Abdul
Halim | Saravana Kumar s/o Segaran | Shailender Bhar | Siti Fatimah bt Mohd Shahrom | Tan Kim Soon | Tan Wooi Hong | Teoh Pek Wei |
Thong Weng Hon | Vijaya Kumar Chornalingam | Wee Tian Peng, Peter Desmond | Rajeswari Gunarasa (Officer-in-charge)
The Corporate and Commercial Law Committee (“CCLC”) A summary of activities undertaken by CCLC follows below.
regularly appraises various issues affecting the practitioners
of commercial law. It strives to keep practitioners updated (1) Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2012
on current developments in law and practice. To this end,
CCLC has: CCLC’s Limited Liability Partnership (“LLP”) Subcommittee,
chaired by CCLC Co-Chairperson Wong Tat Chung,
• convened monthly committee meetings to discuss worked on various issues relating to the Limited Liability
proposals, recommendations, and guidelines in relevant Partnerships Act 2012 (“LLP Act”). The LLP Act came into
areas; force on 26 Dec 2012. Applications for registration of LLPs
• organised seminars on key areas of corporate and under the LLP Act may now be made with the Registrar of
commercial law; and LLPs.
• provided comments and guidance, and engaged in
consultations, on draft legislation. The LLP Act specifically recognises LLPs formed for the
purpose of advocates and solicitors of the High Court of
Malaya to carry on practice. These LLPs may either be
committee reports
formed by converting existing law firm partnerships into Subcommittee, conducted a “Talk on Limited Liability
LLPs, or by registering an LLP without any conversion. Partnerships” to inform Members about relevant legal
considerations pertaining to LLPs and the tax issues
Although the Registrar may now process applications for relating thereto.
LLPs under the LLP Act, advocates and solicitors are still
precluded by the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) from (2) Goods and Services Tax
practising through LLPs. The LPA, as it currently stands,
only permits advocates and solicitors to practise through The Malaysian Government intends to introduce a Goods
sole proprietorships or partnerships. An LLP is a body and Services Tax to replace the current sales and service
corporate, not a partnership. Changes to the LPA and its tax, which has been used in the country for several decades.
subsidiary legislation are necessary to allow advocates In view of this development, the Tax Subcommittee is
and solicitors to practise through LLPs and to deal with actively drafting a memorandum to deal with issues relating
matters arising from LLPs being used as vehicles for to the proposed new tax.
such practice. Related matters that need to be addressed
include the treatment for clients of a law firm on conversion, (3) Companies Bill 2013
professional indemnity insurance, and disciplinary matters.
CCLC’s SSM Subcommittee, chaired by Wong Tat Chung,
The LLP Subcommittee has worked towards making submitted its feedback to SSM on the Companies Bill 2013
amendments to the LPA to enable law firms to practise in August 2013, in response to SSM’s “Public Consultation
through LLPs, in view of the LLP Act. The amendments on the New Companies Bill”. The input provided was in
are partly in a proposed new Part VIA of the LPA. There addition to the feedback given previously in respect of
are also various other consequential amendments to other consultative documents issued by SSM’s Corporate Law
parts of the LPA to cater for LLPs. Reform Committee.
In respect of inheritance of contracts of assets by LLPs, the (4) Seminar on Fundamentals of Company Law
LLP Subcommittee introduced additional vesting provisions
in the proposed new Part VIA of the LPA to allow a law firm
to apply to court for a vesting order, namely an assurance
from the court to the effect that certain assets have been
transferred from the original partnership to the new LLP.
The Secretariat has had discussions with Suruhanjaya
Syarikat Malaysia (“SSM”) on the types of forms to be
submitted by law firms intending to convert to LLPs. SSM
has, on its part, spoken to various Land Offices regarding
this issue. Wong Tat Chung is currently drafting further
amendments to the LPA to address feedback given by the
Bar Council.
CCLC’s Tax Subcommittee, chaired by Anand Raj, is On 10 Nov 2012, CCLC held a seminar entitled
working on the tax aspects of LLPs, and has appointed “Fundamentals of Company Law”. This seminar focused
Taxand Malaysia Sdn Bhd to address these issues. on fundamental aspects of company law relevant to both
experienced and budding practitioners. Due to the positive
On 21 May 2013, the Professional Standards and response, CCLC organised a similar seminar on 11 Oct
Development Committee, together with the LLP 2013. Some of the key issues presented at the seminar

CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAW committee
included: (5) Ongoing projects
(a) Distinctive role of shareholders, directors, employees CCLC is actively pursuing the following projects:
and creditors;
(b) Remedies for preservation of rights of shareholders, (a) Reform of Contracts Act 1950
directors, employees and creditors; and
(c) Modification of rights under Companies Act 1965: Generally, the reform of this legislation focuses on
(i) Section 181 Companies Act 1965; areas such as:
(ii) Section 176 Companies Act 1965; (i) Privity of contract;
(iii) Receivers and managers appointed pursuant (ii) Consideration;
to contract (debenture); (iii) Communication, acceptance and revocation of
(iv) Receivers and managers appointed pursuant proposal;
to court order; (iv) Voidable and void contracts;
(v) Provisional liquidator appointed; and (v) Guarantees;
(vi) Liquidator appointed. (vi) Damages and remedies;
(vii) Agency;
The seminar was conducted by CCLC member Tan Kim (viii) Performance and discharge of contracts;
Soon, who chairs the CCLC’s Bank Negara Subcommittee (ix) Assignment of contracts; and
and is also a member of the Conveyancing Practice (x) Specialised areas.
Committee.
A subcommittee will be formed to tackle issues surrounding
the reform of the Contracts Act 1950.
(b) Seminars on critical topics
CCLC intends to organise the following seminars:

(i) Overlap between roles of lawyer and Company
Secretary; and
(ii) Competition law.
Acknowledgment
We would like to take this opportunity to record our

appreciation to all CCLC members, Members of the Bar
and the Bar Council Secretariat for contributing to our
successful journey.
K Mohan K Kumaran and Wong Tat Chung

Co-Chairpersons
Date: 6 Jan 2014

rajeswari@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Court Liaison Committee

Addressing issues pertaining to the administration of the Courts and of the Judiciary
Desmond Ho Chee Cheong (Chairperson) | Abdullah Hamzah (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Indran V Kumaraguru (Co-Deputy Chairperson) |
Vivekanandan AMS Periasamy (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Abdul Fareed b Abdul Gafoor (Penang Bar Committee) | Aiznin Sairi b
Sulaiman | Arunachalam s/o Kasi (Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee) | Avinder Singh Gill | Eddy Chung | Jason Kay Kit Leon | Lim Jit Kiong |
Muhammad Hasif b Hasan | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Muthu Kumar s/o Suya Kumanan (Pahang Bar Committee) | Navaneetha Krishnan s/o
Muthuvelu Pillay | Pushpa Ratnam | Toh Chia Hua @ Toh Wee Hua | Varpal Singh s/o Menender Singh | Wong Chun-Keat | Vilashini Vijayan
(Officer-in-charge)
During the 2013/2014 term, the Court Liaison Committee (1) Meeting with the Chief Justice
(“CLC”) continued with its primary objective of looking into
the needs of, and problems encountered by, Members of Christopher Leong, Steven Thiru, Richard Wee Thiam
the Bar in matters relating to the administration of justice Seng and Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (President, Vice-
in the Courts. To this end, several meetings were held President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar,
with various authorities, including the Chief Justice of the respectively; collectively, “Office Bearers”), and Desmond
Federal Court of Malaysia (“CJ”), members of the Judiciary, Ho Chee Cheong, Chairperson of CLC, met the CJ, YAA
and the de facto Minister of Law. Tun Arifin b Zakaria, on 11 Apr 2013 to discuss various
Court-related issues. YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus b
CLC met seven times during the period under review, and Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal; YAA Tan Sri Dato’
this term, CLC saw active participation from representatives Seri Zulkefli b Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of Malaya;
of State Bar Committees. The key activities undertaken by and Azimah bt Omar, Chief Registrar of the Federal Court
CLC for the term are summarised below. of Malaysia also participated in the same meeting. Among

COURT LIAISON committee
the matters addressed were: (3) Meeting with the de facto Minister of Law
(a) Selection of Election Court Judges; The Office Bearers of the Malaysian Bar, together with
(b) Resolution on e-filing adopted at the 67th Annual Desmond Ho Chee Cheong, CLC Chairperson, met YB
General Meeting (“AGM”) of the Malaysian Bar on 16 Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri, de facto Minister of Law, on
Mar 2013; 27 Aug 2013. The following were some of the matters
(c) The annual assessment by Bar Council on the discussed at the meeting:
performance of judges;
(d) Late receipt of circulars and notifications from the (a) Resolution on e-filing adopted at the 67th AGM of the
Courts; and Malaysian Bar on 16 Mar 2013;
(e) Adjournment of cases. (b) Parking area for lawyers at the Palace of Justice in
Putrajaya, the Shah Alam Court Complex and the
CLC issued Circular 240/2013 dated 12 Nov 2013 to provide Jalan Duta Court Complex;
Members with a summary of the issues that the Judiciary (c) Request for a bar room and media room to be
requested be brought to Members’ attention. established in every court;
(d) A cafeteria that provides a diverse menu at the Palace
(2) Meeting with the Chief Registrar of Justice, Putrajaya; and
(e) Adequate facilities and access at court premises for
Desmond Ho Chee Cheong, CLC Chairperson, met people with disabilities.
Azimah bt Omar, Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of
Malaysia, and her team on 17 Sept 2013 to raise various On 2 Dec 2013, Desmond Ho Chee Cheong briefed the
administrative issues and concerns from Members. Among Legal Affairs Division (Bahagian Hal Ehwal Undang-
the matters discussed were: Undang) of the Prime Minister’s Department, concerning
problems with court facilities and access to courts in
(a) Court of Appeal and Federal Court not accepting general.
cases printed from the online versions of law reporters
such as the Current Law Journal and Malayan Law (4) Electronic filing (“e-filing”)
Journal;
(b) Verification of the Roll; A resolution was unanimously adopted at the 67th AGM
(c) Court Recording and Transcription system; of the Malaysian Bar held at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur
(d) New code classification system implemented on 1 Hotel on 16 Mar 2013, whereby it was resolved that:
July 2013;
(e) Chief Judge of Malaya’s Practice Direction No 4/2013 (a) Bar Council was to negotiate with the concerned
regarding application for notes of evidence in civil parties to:
cases; (i) reduce the e-filing access fee to the lowest
(f) Late receipt of circulars and notifications from the possible, or make it available for free (currently
Courts; it is priced at RM1,500 per digital certificate for
(g) Recognition of Court e-documents by some a term of two years);
authorities; and (ii) apply a lower fee for certificates subsequent to
(h) Order 71 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court 2012. the first one; and
(iii) make the fee payable annually rather than for a
term of two years.
committee reports
(b) Bar Council was to call upon the concerned parties to Members of the Bar were notified of this matter in Circular
rectify efficiency issues, including downtime issues, No 041/2013 dated 18 Feb 2013.
alternative plans during downtime, downtime notice
interval, and so forth. (6) Court Recording and Transcription system
Following several dialogues between CLC and the relevant CLC is in the midst of preparing a paper on Bar Council’s
authorities, the e-filing system has now been improved with recommendation to allow for private stenographers to be
new features that: present at court proceedings to complement the Court
Recording and Transcription system and to consider
(a) help users check, through a client installation checker, training retired Judges’ secretaries and interpreters to
their web browser version to ascertain whether the become stenographers. Meetings are ongoing with the
version is compatible with the software requirement Judiciary concerning this matter.
for the e-filing system;
(b) allow deletion of documents from the filing cart after a CLC has approached a transcription service provider,
payment attempt; Scribe, to prepare a guideline, with the approval of the
(c) allow the extraction of documents after a case is Courts, for all transcription service providers. This is to
transferred; regulate the quality and standards of transcription services
(d) permit printing after a file search; all over Peninsular Malaysia.
(e) allow preview of filing before making payment; and
(f) permit checking on malformed documents in PDF (7) Amendments to section 96 of the Courts of
format. Judicature Act 1964
On 28 Aug 2013, CLC had a meeting with the software Bar Council is concerned about cases where, despite a
provider, Formis. This was followed by two other meetings clear injustice, there are insufficient grounds to obtain
with Formis and the E-filing Administrative Committee on leave to appeal. The Bar Council’s view is that leave to
6 Sept 2013 and 26 Sept 2013, which yielded the positive appeal to the Federal Court should be allowed in such
result of a substantial reduction in the current cost involved circumstances, and a proposal to amend section 96 of the
in purchasing a digital certificate. The migration to the new Courts of Judicature Act 1964 has been submitted to the
system is expected to take place from March 2014. Judiciary for its consideration.
In the meantime, CLC will press on with the stakeholders CLC will raise this issue at its meeting with the CJ on 6 Jan
concerned, to address e-filing issues that remain 2014.
unresolved. At the moment, there is ongoing monitoring of
downtime concerning the e-filing system. (8) General
(5) Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 Many other issues were raised throughout the term,
including the trend of issuing “Unless Orders”, striking out
The Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010 came into of cases, failure by Judges to prepare written judgments in
operation on 1 Mar 2013. time, status of witness statements, and complaints against
Judges. The Courts have also sought CLC’s views on
Consequently, the increase in filing fees reflected in the Practice Directions. With regard to this, thorough research
schedule of High Court fees and Subordinate Court fees was conducted and discussions were held before Bar
provided in Appendices B1 and B2 to the Rules of Court Council’s views were relayed.
2012, respectively, also took effect from 1 Mar 2013.

COURT LIAISON committee
That aside, an ongoing project sees the involvement of Acknowledgment

CLC with the Courts, Companies Commission of Malaysia
(“CCM”), Malaysia Department of Insolvency, the Special I am deeply grateful to the members of CLC for their
Task Force to Facilitate Business (“PEMUDAH”), the contributions towards assisting the Bar Council to address
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (“MITI”), and the various issues and problems faced by Members
World Bank in reviewing the efficiency of execution of of the Bar. I would also like to thank the members of
judgments in Malaysia. fellow Bar Council committees, and the Bar Council
Secretariat (particularly Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive
All these issues and problems have been or are being Officer; Vilashini Vijayan, CLC’s Officer-in-charge; and
addressed, and CLC will continue to engage with the CJ Administrative Assistant Mohd Fazli Rosman), who have
and members of the Judiciary at all levels, to ensure that been supportive in helping us to discharge our duties.
a fair and efficient system of administration of justice is in
place. Desmond Ho Chee Cheong
Chairperson
Date: 31 Dec 2013

vila@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Criminal Law Committee

Preserving the due process of the law with an effective criminal justice system
Rajpal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh (Co-Chairperson) | V Sithambaram (Co-Chairperson) | Amrit Pal Singh (Deputy Chairperson) | Afifuddin b
Ahmad Hafifi | Annamalai Ramu s/o Kandasamy | Baljit Singh Sidhu | Burhanudeen Abdul Wahid | Choi Kain You | Foong Kitson | Harmesh
Singh | Ho Peng Kwang, Richard | J Christopher@Anthony | Jagdish Kaur | Jayamurugan Vadiveloo | Jayaraj Thurairaj | Latifah bt Ariffin |
MK Thas | Norah bt Abu Bakar | Palani Ammal d/o Subramaniam | Ragendar Singh s/o Puran Singh | Ragumaren s/o Gopal | Ranjit Singh
s/o Mahinder Singh | Rejinder Singh | Roger Chan Weng Keng | Salim Bashir Baskaran | Suayri s/o Ayyapan | Suraj Singh | Thirukumar s/o
Vadiveloo | Rajeswari Gunarasa (Officer-in-charge)
The Criminal Law Committee (“CLC”) firmly believes that an the criminal justice system. These memorandums include:
effective criminal justice system preserves the due process
of the law. To this end, CLC took active steps to engage (a) Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 2013;
and work with the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 2013; Evidence
and the Judiciary, as well as a variety of government (Amendment) Bill 2013
agencies, to propose and implement changes to the current
system. CLC deliberated on the amendments to the Criminal
Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 2013, Penal Code
The various events organised by CLC are described below. (Amendment) Bill 2013, and Evidence (Amendment)
Bill 2013. An ad hoc working group headed by the Vice-
(1) Memorandums in relation to the criminal justice President of the Malaysian Bar, Steven Thiru, was set up
system to formulate a memorandum on these amendments. CLC’s
Co-Chairpersons and Deputy Chairperson drafted the
Throughout the 2013/2014 term, CLC was actively involved memorandum within a short period of time.
in drafting various memorandums with a view to improve

CRIMINAL LAW committee
(b) Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (2) Establishing a sentencing council in Malaysia
(“PCA 1959”)
CLC also drafted a memorandum on the amendments to

the PCA 1959. This memorandum was delivered to YB
Puan Hajah Nancy Haji Shukri, the de facto Minister of Law,
on 31 Oct 2013.
(c) Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct

Commission (“IPCMC”)
In addition, CLC prepared a memorandum on the importance

of having the IPCMC, and the shortfall of the present
Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (“EAIC”). CLC
is promoting the need to establish the IPCMC through the
enactment of the IPCMC Bill 2005. This memorandum was CLC is working towards establishing a sentencing council
sent to the AGC and the Prime Minister’s Office on 12 Apr in Malaysia. It is envisioned that a sentencing council
2013 and 15 May 2013, respectively. would develop sentencing guidelines that would help to
promote consistency in sentencing, and thus enhance the
(d) Reintroducing the jury system in Malaysia administration of justice. Australia, the United Kingdom, and
the United States have established sentencing councils.
CLC drafted a memorandum on reintroducing the jury
system in Malaysia, which sets out, among others, the On 5 Mar 2013, CLC organised a dialogue on this matter
advantages and disadvantages of having juries in the at the Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council. CLC
criminal justice system in Malaysia. Co-Chairperson Rajpal Singh served as moderator for the
dialogue.
(e) Goods and Services Bill 2013 (“GST Bill”)

CLC worked together with the Tax Subcommittee to draft
a memorandum on the GST Bill, and deliberated on the
amendments to Part X (Enforcement), Part XI (Offences
and Penalties) and Part XII (Trial and Proceedings) of
the GST Bill which deals with, among others, searches,
warrants, seizures, arrests, penalties and trials.
(f) Working committee to review the laws on violence
The AGC has set up a working committee to review the

laws on violence against women. Diverse organisations
and authorities were invited to discuss and deliberate over
current laws on rape, sexual harassment and domestic The dialogue received encouraging response. It was
violence. In this regard, several proposals were made to attended by Members of the Bar; representatives from
review the existing laws within the sphere of the Federal the Judiciary, AGC, non-governmental organisations, and
Constitution; change the existing approach to domestic the press; university students; and members of the public.
violence, rape, sexual harassment; and enhance gender It also had the honour of having the following eminent
equality. Thus far, meetings were held on 6 Nov, 14 Nov speakers: the Victoria and Tasmania Sentencing Advisory
and 20 Nov 2013. CLC Co-Chairperson Rajpal Singh and Council Chairman, Professor Emeritus Arie Freiberg; then-
the Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, Karen Cheah Yee President of the Malaysian Bar, Lim Chee Wee; Court of
Lynn, were actively involved in this endeavour. Appeal Judge YA Dato’ Azahar b Mohamed; and CLC
committee reports
Co-Chairperson and senior criminal law practitioner V Some key areas addressed in this Practice Direction, which
Sithambaram. took effect on 1 July 2013, are:
(a) Fee structure
Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of Practice Direction No 5/2013

spell out the payment scale for getting-up fees and
disbursements for assigned counsel. The rate of getting-
up fees is based on:
(i) whether the matter is heard at the trial court or

appellate court; and
(ii) whether the assigned counsel takes conduct of the
matter until disposal, or is discharged at a particular
stage.
The guest of honour at this event was then-de facto Law (b) Eligibility
Minister, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri b Abdul Aziz. In his
keynote address, he said the Government was looking to CLC has compiled a list of assigned counsel, based on
establish a sentencing council that plays an advisory role. the following strict guidelines to ensure proper handling of
criminal cases:
(i) Assigned counsel must have practised criminal law

for a minimum of three years;
(ii) Assigned counsel must have taken conduct of at least
three capital punishment cases at the High Court,
irrespective of whether they acted for the defence or
prosecution; and
(iii) The above requirements are also applicable to former
Judicial Officers.
(4) Meeting with the Chief Justice of Malaysia
The Chief Justice of Malaysia (“CJ”), YAA Tun Arifin b

To this end, CLC is currently taking active steps towards Zakaria, and CLC held a meeting at his chambers on 17
preparing a paper on setting up a sentencing council in July 2013.
Malaysia, and will continue to advocate for its establishment.
The meeting, chaired by the CJ, was also attended by
(3) Assigned counsel in capital punishment cases the President of the Court of Appeal, YAA Tan Sri Dato’
Seri Md Raus b Sharif; Chief Judge of Malaya, YAA Tan
CLC representatives met with the Chief Registrar on several Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli b Ahmad Makinudin; Chief Judge of
occasions to work on a new Practice Direction for assigned Sabah and Sarawak, YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima
counsel. As a result, Practice Direction No 5/2013 was Richard Malanjum; and Chief Registrar of the Federal
issued on 11 June 2013 by the Chief Registrar’s office. Court, Azimah bt Omar.

CRIMINAL LAW committee
The main purpose of this meeting was to highlight issues

confronted by criminal law practitioners. The issues raised
during the meeting were:
(a) Cost of Court Recording Transcription (“CRT”)
One of the main issues discussed was CRT. CLC proposed

to the Chief Registrar’s Office that the cost for CRT be
borne by the Government. This matter is still an ongoing
discussion between the CJ and CLC.
(b) Joint Committee of the Judiciary, AGC and CLC

Another issue raised was the creation of a joint committee On 4 Oct 2013, CLC successfully conducted a seminar
that consists of the Judiciary, AGC and CLC, to overcome that provided an introduction to the CPC. CLC member
the issue of the Courts not applying recent amendments to Baljit Singh Sidhu presented the seminar, which provided
the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). participants with updates on the recent amendments to the
CPC.
(c) Written submissions
The rest of the modules will commence in 2014.
CLC raised with the CJ the concern that the current duration
for filing written submission is too short, and contended that (b) Seminar on defending cases on corruption
the time frame should be extended. This issue is currently
being discussed between CLC and the CJ’s Office. CLC intends to organise a seminar on the law governing,
and defending cases on, corruption. The lecture is
(d) Judicial temperament scheduled to take place in the first quarter of 2014 with
legal practitioner Athimulan Muruthiah as the speaker.
CLC also broached the issue of the lack of good judicial
temperament, which is often faced by Members of the Bar Acknowledgment
in the practice of criminal law. The CJ was attentive and
advised Members to lodge a complaint, should there be an In summation, we would like to thank members of the
instance of a Judge being rude and unfair. Criminal Law Committee, Members of the Bar, the Bar
Council Secretariat, and the President of the Malaysian Bar
(5) Talks and seminars for their invaluable support and contributions during this
term.
(a) Amendments to the CPC
Rajpal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh and V Sithambaram
CLC organised seminars to provide updates to criminal law Co-Chairpersons
practitioners on the recent amendments to the CPC. These
seminars will be held throughout Peninsular Malaysia and Date: 26 Dec 2013
presented in the following modules:
For any enquiries, please email
(i) Introduction to the CPC rajeswari@malaysianbar.org.my
(ii) Pre-Charge — S28A and S117
(iii) Criminal Advocacy — The Pre-Trial Stage
(iv) Criminal Advocacy — The Trial (Including the Art of
Cross-Examination)
(v) Appellate Advocacy
committee reports
Environment and Climate Change Committee

The environment is yours; make a change! Care for our planet? Go green!
Roger Chan Weng Keng (Co-Chairperson) | Chew Swee Yoke (Co-Chairperson) | Hon Kai Ping (Deputy Chairperson) | Abdullah Johari b
Hamzah | Andrew Law Ching Hui | Cecil Rajendra | Chong Siew Ean | Daniel Joseph Albert | Desmond Ho Chee Cheong | Donny Kwa
Soo Chuan | Elena Shim Mei Yun | Ellie Siew Siu Li | J Kuldeep Kumar | Khaizan Sharizad Abd Razak | Kiu Jia Yaw | Leong Zhi Hong |
Mahaletchumy d/o C Balakrishnan | Maria Soosai Raj s/o Joseph Thamby Raj | Muhammad Amar b Shaaruddin | Ng Pek Yue | Ng Siau
Sun | Nitin Kumar s/o Gordhan | Noorhajran bt Haji Mohd Noor | Ong Shih Wei | Preetha Sankaranarayanan | Ragumaren N Gopal |
Saha Deva A Arunasalam | Seira Sacha Abu Bakar | Siti Zabedah Kasim | Surina Suhaimi | Tan Wooi Hong | Tham Li Vyen | Theivanai
Amarthalingam | Tiu Gu Gyn | Yohendra Nadarajan | Shegi Nair (Officer-in-charge)
Adli Zakuan | Adrian Yeo Eng Kang | Albert Leong Chow Pong | Allison Ong | Andreanna Ten Maven | Bong Jensen | Hari Ramalu Ragavan
| Jin Yun Soo | June Rubis | Lee Chee Wayne | Melissa Lim Shi Hui| Nur Fathiah Najlaa bt Mohd Nasir | Raina Md Radzaif | Rebecca Chan
Yoke Kit | Dato’ Dr Ronald McCoy | Tan Sze Ming
The work of the Environment and Climate Change The two mainstreams that characterise the work of ECC
Committee (“ECC”) in the 2013/2014 term is aimed at can be identified broadly as those that relate to:
addressing issues related to environmental rights and
protection in general. In a sense, it is part of a continuing (a) environmental rights explicitly as governed by
momentum, both internationally and domestically, to give Malaysian environmental laws; and
formal recognition to the importance of environmental (b) already existing rights in relation to the environment
protection. This recognition is often expressed in the such as rights to life and health, the protection of
language of human rights in terms of basic precepts such which are found in global human rights treaties such
as human dignity, equality and liberty. as the International Covenant on Economic, Social

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE committee
and Cultural Rights; and sources other than human conundrum, the precautionary principle and the role of the
rights instruments, such as principle 10 of the 1992 Bar in that regard.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
(2) Presentation of environmental papers at
The issues upon which ECC focus on within this framework environmental legislation seminar
are therefore the myriad environmental protection problems
at local, regional and international levels. To name but a few On 9 May 2013, ECC presented two papers principally
specific examples: the campaign against climate change, focused on environmental legislation and the “green”
which is a problem that has reached an unprecedented court in Malaysia by Roger Chan Weng Keng and Kiu Jia
scale; the campaign against use of nuclear energy; the Yaw, respectively, at an environmental legislation seminar
controversy regarding alleged radioactive waste disposal organised by ENSEARCH, a prominent environmental
from the Lynas plant; the issues of alleged cyanide use research body in Malaysia. The target audience included
in Bukit Koman; issues of massive deforestation and land professionals, representatives from the government,
clearing; and the haze and its impact on our air quality. private sector as well as non-governmental bodies. The
These issues obviously concern our enjoyment of human climate change issue was also highlighted at this seminar
rights which is vulnerable to environmental harm. in the context of sustainable development and the principle
of common differentiated responsibility.
Yet there are matters of human rights which are vital to
environmental policymaking, such as freedom of speech, (3) Public forum on “Environmental Issues and the
expression and association, right to and access to Right to Life”, Malacca
information, right to participate in decision making and right
to remedies to human rights violations. It is in this regard On 28 June 2013, ECC, in collaboration with the Malacca
that ECC exercises and promotes environmental activism, Bar Young Lawyers Committee, organised a public forum
in the course of which questions of environmental justice on “Environmental Issues and the Right to Life” at Plaza
and sustainability occupy much of ECC’s discourse. ECC Ramada Hotel, Malacca. The efficacy of the laws relating
also engages with stakeholders on regulatory and legal to climate change, and the question of anthropocentrism
frameworks, to assess their effectiveness in addressing were discussed by Roger Chan Weng Keng as the speaker.
environmental issues affecting all segments of society. Dato’ Dr Ron McCoy, ECC member, spoke at length on
Hence, the following activities were undertaken during the why nuclear energy is not an option in Malaysia. The third
term and operationalised within the above framework: speaker was Hon Kai Ping, Deputy Chairperson of ECC,
who spoke on the Lynas issue.
(1) Training for environmental and climate change
issues for Members of the Bar (4) Roundtable discussion on environmental impact
assessment report
ECC sent two speakers, Noorhajran bt Haji Mohd Noor and
Roger Chan Weng Keng, to speak at the Kuala Lumpur Bar On 30 July 2013, ECC sent Roger Chan Weng Keng and
Young Lawyers Committee’s “Seminar on Environmental Theivanai Amarthalingam to a focus group roundtable
Issues and Role of the Bar” on 22 Apr 2013, held at the discussion on environmental impact assessment (“EIA”)
Kuala Lumpur Bar Auditorium. The matters spoken and at the Department of Environment at Putrajaya. ECC
discussed with Members of the Bar concerned effective highlighted the need for meaningful consultation and the
waste management and reduction of carbon emission. The right to access for information on environmental issues that
seminar also covered the efficacy of current legislation to are of concern to the public, in the processes leading to the
deal with climate change; and set out the climate change issuance of the EIA report. The discussion ended with a
note to have more follow-up discussions in future.
committee reports
(5) Empowerment of university students on civil society in relation to a host of environmental problems
environmental issues faced in Malaysia, ranging from issues of radioactive waste
disposal, the Murum Dam issue in Sarawak, incinerator
On 7 Oct 2013, Adrian Yeo Eng Kang represented ECC at problem in Kuala Lumpur, to vulnerable groups such as
a knowledge-sharing session with the International Islamic the Orang Asli who are more susceptible to a particular
University’s Debate Club, to assist them in the preparation environmental problem. A closed-door consultation was
for the annual environmental debate organised by the held a day before the seminar and both Dato’ Dr Ron McCoy
Department of Environment. The team trained by Adrian and Roger Chan were appointed as resource persons.
Yeo eventually emerged as champions at the debate.
(8) Research and position paper on a specific
(6) Discourse of environmental issues on the environmental issue: The use of nuclear energy
international platform in Malaysia
On 21 Oct 2013, Roger Chan Weng Keng represented ECC has set up a research team to address the issue of
the Malaysian Bar at the Asia-Europe informal seminar on the use of nuclear energy in Malaysia. Members of this
“Human Rights and the Environment”, held in Copenhagen, team include Dato’ Dr Ron McCoy, an expert in this field
Denmark. He raised the issue of the efficacy of the common of endeavour; Chew Swee Yoke, Co-Chairperson of ECC;
law to combat climate change at this international platform, Tan Wooi Hong, Team Co-Ordinator; Kiu Jia Yaw; Hon
besides sharing Malaysia’s position of the problem of locus Kai Ping; Chong Siew Ean; Theivanai Amarthalingam; and
standi and state-federal relations on environmental issues. Roger Chan Weng Keng.
On 24 Oct 2013, Roger Chan attended a consultation The position paper is extensively researched and has gone
in Copenhagen organised by the Office of the High through consultation with ECC members. In addition, a
Commissioner of Human Rights (“OHCHR”) led by Professor draft memorandum to the relevant parties has also been
John Knox, United Nations Independent Expert on the prepared. At the time of writing, it is going through the final
issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment round of discussion and editing before being presented to
of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. As the Bar Council for approval and follow-up action.
a result of this consultation, ECC would receive newsletters
from John Knox on his consultation worldwide within the Acknowledgment
purview of his mandate and other related developments on
human rights and the environment. We wish to express our thanks and gratitude to all ECC
members for the work they have done and their contribution
(7) Discourse and participation with environmental- to the committee. We would also like to record our thanks
based civil society organisations to the staff of the Bar Council Secretariat, in particular our
officer Shegi Nair, for all the assistance rendered to ECC
On 20 Nov 2013, ECC sent Hon Kai Ping and Roger during the term.
Chan Weng Keng to an environmental seminar entitled
“Building a Safer Malaysia”, held at the Mandarin Court Roger Chan Weng Keng
Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. The seminar was organised by a Co-Chairperson
non-governmental organisation (“NGO”), Save Malaysia,
Stop Lynas!. Civil society and environmental NGOs from Date: 4 Jan 2014
all over the country participated in the seminar, making it an
effective mechanism and platform to voice the feelings of For any enquiries, please email:
shegi@malaysianbar.org.my

FAMILY LAW committee
Family Law Committee

Working towards equitable laws for families — The cornerstone of society
Hendon Mohamed (Chairperson) | Serene Ong Si-Oui (Deputy Chairperson) | Alex Tan Jee Hian | Ann Chuah Siew Ean | Bernard Scott |
Chew Swee Yoke | Foo Yet Ngo | Honey Tan Lay Ean | Kiranjit Kaur Dhaliwal | Lalitha Menon | Onn Hooi Lin | Shahin Akhtar Mohmamed
Yunus | Tharumarajah Thiagarajan | Vicky Alahakone | Rajeswari Gunarasa (Officer-in-charge)
The Family Law Committee (“FLC”) continuously seeks to (2) Providing commentaries, consultation and guidance
promote a holistic system of laws that serve and protect on proposed legislation and/or amendments to
the interests of families in Malaysia. To that end, FLC legislation.
regularly takes active steps to study, analyse, review, and
disseminate information regarding, family law to the public FLC met four times during this term and undertook the
as well as practitioners of family law. activities described below.
During the term, FLC focused on: Memorandum on Conversion Subcommittee
(1) Convening monthly committee meetings on various Chaired by FLC member Lalitha Menon, this Subcommittee
proposals, recommendations, and guidelines in key is actively drafting a memorandum on conversion. Upon
areas of family law; and completion, the memorandum will be submitted to the
Attorney General’s Chambers.
committee reports
Meeting with the Managing and sitting Judges of the Divorce and Matrimonial Proceedings Rules 1980
Kuala Lumpur Courts and Shah Alam Courts (“Rules”) Subcommittee
The Managing Judges and sitting Judges of the Kuala The members of this Subcommittee are:
Lumpur Courts and Shah Alam Courts held a meeting
with FLC at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 18 Dec (1) Ann Chuah Siew Ean
2013. The meeting was attended by YA Dato’ Noraini (2) Chan Sow Keng, Liza
bt Abdul Rahman, YA Tuan Vernon Ong Lam Kiat and (3) Chew Swee Yoke
FLC members. Various issues, such as the practice and (4) Chong Ing Tze, Ezane
procedures in the Family Court, were raised and discussed (5) Foo Yet Ngo
in a fruitful exchange during the meeting. (6) Honey Tan Lay Ean
(7) Kan Weng Hin
Section 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce (8) Kiranjit Kaur Dhaliwal
Act) 1976 Subcommittee (9) Nicole Fiona Wee Sue-Ren
(10) Siew Choon Jern
This Subcommittee is advocating for an amendment to (11) Tharumarajah Thiagarajan
section 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act)
1976 to require parents to support children who are 18 The terms of reference of this Subcommittee, chaired by
years of age and older for continuing education. It has Honey Tan Lay Ean, are to:
taken active steps to highlight the pressing need for this
amendment. (1) review the existing Rules and assess the impact of
the Rules of Court 2012 on the practice of family law;
FLC drafted a memorandum in 2008 and is now seeking (2) identify the areas of the Rules that require updating
to forward it to the Ministry of Women, Family and and amendment;
Community Development. This is to expedite the process (3) draft a memorandum to propose amendments; and
of implementing the suggested amendments. (4) submit the memorandum to the Attorney General’s
Chambers and the relevant ministry responsible for
the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce Act) 1976.

FAMILY LAW committee
There are several working groups within the Subcommittee Acknowledgment

that focus on the challenges faced by family law practitioners
in working with the Rules and the Rules of Court 2012. In I would like to thank members of FLC, Members of the
addition, the groups review, and make suggestions for Bar, and the Bar Council Secretariat, all of whom have
improvements to, the Rules in the following areas: contributed towards a successful term.
(1) Commencement, service, pleadings, amendments, Hendon Mohamed

procedure, and mediation; Chairperson
(2) Evidence and trial;
(3) Decrees, orders and enforcement; Date: 5 Feb 2014
(4) Child and other applications;
(5) Appeals, disability and cost; and For any enquiries, please email:
(6) Decrees of nullity where marriages are void and rajeswari@malaysianbar.org.my
voidable.
Child psychologists to assist Family Courts
FLC, with the help of the Malaysian Psychiatric Association,

has finalised a list of child psychologists who can assist the
Family Courts in making decisions regarding the custody of
children and other relevant issues. Steps are being taken
to forward this list to the Courts.
committee reports
Finance Committee
Striving towards financial independence
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Chairperson) | Ananthasivam Thambipillai | Christopher Leong Sau Foo | Hendon Mohamed | Kuthubul Zaman
Bukhari | Lim Chee Wee | Ng Seng Kiok | Richard Wee Thiam Seng | Steven Thiru | Sulaiman Abdullah | Tony Woon Yeow Thong | Rajen
Devaraj (Chief Executive Officer, Bar Council) | Lily Aw and Nurhidayah Johari (Officers-in-charge)
The Finance Committee met eleven times during the term fixed deposit interest received, contributions received from
under review to look into, and monitor the financial position, Malaysian Investment Development Authority (“MIDA”) and
of the Malaysian Bar. revenue from the sale of the Library’s legal information
index.
A summary of the past financial year is set out below.
However, the total expenditure of RM14,737,576 in 2013
(1) Malaysian Bar’s accounts was higher than the amount of RM10,586,320 in 2012. This
is attributable mainly to the substantial claims paid out in
The accounts of the Malaysian Bar recorded a surplus of 2013, which amounted to RM2.95 million from the Advocates
RM4,283,109 for the period from 1 Jan to 31 Dec 2013, a and Solicitors Compensation Fund (“Compensation Fund”)
reduction compared to a surplus of RM7,677,153 for the as payment was effected for claims made in both 2011 and
corresponding period in 2012. 2012, as well as an increase in staff costs.
The total income for 2013 was RM19,020,685, an increase The balance sheet for 2013 showed a healthier figure
compared to RM18,263,473 in 2012. The higher figure in than for 2012, with reserves standing at RM60,184,333,
2013 was due mainly to the increase in subscription income, representing an increase of RM4,283,109.

FINANCE Committee
1 Jan until 31 Dec 2013 1 Jan until 31 Dec 2012 Variance Variance
(RM) (RM) (RM) (%)
(A) Income
Main Fund 9,465,449 9,797,872 (332,423) -3.4
Building Fund 1,695,822 1,590,865 104,957 6.6
Compensation Fund 1,831,393 1,237,476 593,917 48.0
LawCare Fund 1,777,054 1,714,694 62,360 3.6
Legal Aid Fund 1,660,379 1,609,229 51,150 3.2
Self-Insured Fund 2,280,636 2,161,501 119,135 5.5
Sports Fund 309,952 151,836 158,116 104.1
Total income 19,020,685 18,263,473 757,212 4.1
(B) Expenditure
Main Fund 8,034,873 7,217,124 817,749 11.3
Building Fund 501,161 497,723 3,438 0.7
Compensation Fund 2,993,620 47,567 2,946,053 6193.5
Lawcare Fund 1,156,619 1,023,822 132,797 13.0
Legal Aid Fund 1,799,313 1,525,339 273,974 18.0
Self-Insured Fund 104,590 109,984 (5,394) -4.9
Sports Fund 147,400 164,761 (17,361) -10.5
Total expenditure 14,737,576 10,586,320 4,151,256 39.2
Surplus / (deficit) of 4,283,109 7,677,153 (3,394,044) -44.2%

income over expenditure
(2) Main Fund (3) Building Fund
The Main Fund accounts recorded a surplus of RM1,430,576 In 2013, the Building Fund recorded a surplus of
in 2013, a drop compared to a surplus of RM2,580,748 RM1,194,661, an increase compared to RM1,093,142 in
generated in 2012. 2012.
The above-mentioned increase in total income was offset The Building Fund’s total assets amounted to RM19,877,197,
by higher staff costs and a reduced allocation from the including RM5,038,918 held as fixed deposits and cash at
Compensation Fund to the Library account. In 2012, the bank. From the latter figure, there is a progress payment of
Library account, which is a sub-account of the Main Fund, RM1,549,800 to be set aside towards the purchase of the
received an allocation of RM614,638.38 from the interest Malacca and Kelantan Bar Committees’ buildings.
from unclaimed monies in the Compensation Fund. Due
to the substantial payout from the Compensation Fund in Bar Council has a long-standing plan to purchase a
2013, only a minimal allocation was available for the Library bigger building that can ideally accommodate the Bar
account. Council, Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, Bar Council
Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur), and the Advocates and
The Main Fund reserves stood at RM17,301,305 on 31 Dec Solicitors Disciplinary Board under one roof, with a view
2013, an increase of RM4,011,324. to save rental costs and further expand the Bar Council
Secretariat to effectively serve Members of the Bar. The
committee reports
Finance Committee has engaged the services of a property During the term, the LawCare Committee successfully
consultant to assist to source a suitable building. A few obtained a more favourable annual insurance premium
proposals were presented during the term, but due to the rate of RM50 per Member of the Bar, a decrease from the
ever-escalating cost of property in Kuala Lumpur seen previous rate of RM51.55. Although the rate was reduced,
against the financial constraints of the Malaysian Bar, these the total annual insurance amount has increased due to the
proposals were regarded as not currently viable. rise in membership.
The Finance Committee is pleased to report that all State (6) Budgets for Legal Aid Centres
Bar Committees, with the exception of Kuala Lumpur,
Terengganu and Perlis, have buildings of their own. The Finance Committee met with the National Legal Aid
Committee on 23 Mar 2013 to discuss and approve the
(4) Compensation Fund budgets for 2013 for all Legal Aid Centres. The breakdown
of the approved budgets follows below:
The total assets in the Compensation Fund stood at
RM4,442,718 on 31 Dec 2013, including RM4,774,098 2013 2013
held as fixed deposits and cash at bank, and RM1,292,298 Amount Actual sum paid
held in institutional trust accounts. Total liabilities stood at of budget out, inclusive of
State approved off-budget items
RM1,730,334, relating mainly to unclaimed monies, and (RM) (after deduction
advance subscription payments for the Compensation of allocation paid
in 2012) (RM)
Fund for 2014, which were received from Members in 2013. Johore 49,922 47,575
Kedah/Perlis 44,569 43,918
25 claims were lodged against nine lawyers who were struck Kelantan 42,590 46,156
off the Roll of advocates and solicitors in 2012. Claimants Kuala Lumpur 580,189 535,937
attended the hearing conducted by the Adjudication Panel Malacca 40,488 40,488
on 2 Aug 2013. 12 claims were partially or fully approved, Negeri Sembilan 54,870 54,870
and 13 claims were rejected. A total of RM1,424,914.61 Pahang (Kuantan 124,846 124,846
was approved for payment out of the Compensation Fund. and Temerloh)
Penang 189,118 132,782
(5) LawCare Fund Perak 123,720 147,660
Selangor 230,765 221,739
The surplus of RM620,435 in the LawCare Fund for 2013 Terengganu 48,388 48,254
was lower than the surplus of RM690,872 in 2012. Total 1,529,465 1,444,225
In 2013, RM388,000 was paid out from the LawCare

Fund to Members’ trustees or beneficiaries, a decrease of (7) Self-Insured Fund
RM120,000 compared to the sum of RM508,000 in 2012.
The Self-Insured Fund recorded a surplus of RM2,176,045
In 2012, the insurer refunded RM142,732 from the for 2013, compared to a surplus of RM2,051,517 generated
insurance premium paid, being the “Experience Refund” in 2012.
that is declared at the end of each policy year, provided
that the policy is in force and the Group Term Life annual The Self-Insured Fund reserves stood at RM7,666,671 on
premium exceeds RM50,000. This Experience Refund 31 Dec 2013, which is an increase of six percent, principally
constitutes a credit to reduce future premiums, subject to from the surplus for 2013.
renewal of the policy.

FINANCE Committee
(8) Sports Fund Conclusion
There was a surplus of RM162,552 in 2013, compared to a The regular growth in annual subscription fees due to
deficit of RM12,925 in 2012. This was due to the increase the rise in membership of the Bar, combined with the Bar
in the Sports Fund annual subscription from RM10 to Council’s continuing efforts to find additional sources of
RM20, pursuant to the resolution adopted at the 67th Annual revenue (including advertisements by e-blast and on the
General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held on 16 Mar 2013. Malaysian Bar website, as well as collaborative initiatives
with corporate and professional bodies) have significantly
(9) Online payment option for Bar Council events contributed to the surplus in 2013. However, Bar Council
has immense concerns that the high inflation rate and
The Secretariat will introduce online registration in 2014 for increasing consumer price index will consequently lead to a
seminars and events organised by the Bar Council. The drastic rise in the costs of electricity, food for meetings and
Finance Committee has approved the setting up of “iPay88”, events organised by Bar Council and its 38 committees,
an online payment gateway service to provide Members and other operational costs. These increases, along with
with the option of making payments online instead of only the proposed hike in assessment rate for the Bar Council
by cheque, cash or a specific credit card. premises, will adversely affect the financial position of the
Main Fund in the next year and beyond.
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank the Finance Committee members and the

Bar Council Secretariat’s Finance Department for their
commitment to the management of the Malaysian Bar’s
finances.
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn

Chairperson
Date: 5 Feb 2014

lily.aw@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Human Rights Committee

The challenges continue
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock (Co-Chairperson) | Roger Chan Weng Keng (Co-Chairperson) | Chow Siew Lin | Clement Ong Tun Heang | Daniel Lo
Soo Jeng | Dipendra s/o Harshad Rai | Edmund Bon Tai Soon | Genevieve Tan Gaik May | Haezreena Begum bt Abdul Hamid | Jahaberdeen
b Mohamed Yunoos | Jenine Anand Gill | Joan Vanitha Letchumanan | Khaizan Sharizad bt Abd Razak (Sherrie) | Kirsty Lim | Koh Kei Hui,
Jessie | Lee Choi Wan | Leong Zhi Hong | M Ramachelvam | Mable Leong Pui Mun | Maria Soosai Raj s/o Joseph Thamby Raj | Melissa
Sasidaran | Mohammad Faizal b Che Yusof | Navaneetha Krishnan s/o Muthuvelu Pillay (Chris) | New Sin Yew | Nimalan Devaraja |
Rajes Kumar Sharma s/o Gejinder Nath | Renuka T Balasubramaniam | Saha Deva s/o A Arunasalam | Seira Sacha bt Abu Bakar | Seet
Wan Sing, Edmund | Siti Zabedah bt Kasim | Sonya Liew Yee Aun | Stephanie Wong Yi Yen | Syamsuriatina bt Ishak | Tham Hui Ying |
Thirunavakarasu s/o Vijayan | Usha Kulasegaran | Varpal Singh | Yang Pei Keng | Yasmeen bt Shariff | Yogeswaran Subramaniam | Yohendra
Nadarajan | Shirley Tan (until 15 Dec 2013) and Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna (Officers-in-charge)

Invited Participant
Wong Kar Fai
For the 2013/2014 term, the Human Rights Committee limited to, the following objectives:
(“HRC”) is co-chaired by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock and Roger
Chan Weng Keng. There are currently 43 members in (a) Increase the level of awareness and education of
HRC, including eight outstation members. For the duration human rights norms within the Malaysian Bar and the
of the term, HRC will have convened eight meetings in total. public;
(b) Encourage and generate greater interest among
The mission statement of HRC is to uphold, promote and Members of the Bar in human rights work; and
protect human rights in accordance with international (c) Assist Bar Council in advocating and lobbying the
human rights norms. As such, it operates within, but is not Government on policies and legislation related to
human rights.

At its first meeting for the term, HRC formed the following (a) Launch of public opinion survey on the mandatory
working groups: death penalty in Malaysia
(a) Human rights training and education

(b) Persons with disabilities
(c) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(d) Civil rights and information technology
(e) Rights of women and children
(f) Abolition of the death penalty
(g) Deaths in police custody and police accountability
(h) Monitoring and intervention
(i) Economic, social and cultural rights
HRC and the working groups stated above also focus on

other human rights issues including freedom of expression
and the right to information; age and gender; the use of On 8 July 2013, Bar Council and The Death Penalty Project,
international, regional and institutional human rights a leading international human rights organisation based in
instruments; exploited persons including refugees, asylum the United Kingdom, co-organised the launch of the public
seekers and victims of human trafficking; repeal of archaic opinion survey on the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.
and draconian legislation; abolition of preventive detention;
and freedom of religion. The Death Penalty Project had commissioned Professor
Roger Hood, Professor Emeritus of Criminology at the
The various activities organised by HRC are listed below. University of Oxford, to design, analyse and report on the
findings of a large-scale public opinion survey on the use
(1) Campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, murder
Malaysia and Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 offences in
Malaysia. The survey was carried out by Ipsos Malaysia, a
In 2011, Bar Council, the Delegation of the European Union leading market research organisation.
to Malaysia, and the National Human Rights Commission
(“SUHAKAM”) embarked upon a long-term campaign for The launch was attended by YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli
the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia. To kick off b Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of Malaya; YA Tan Sri
the campaign, a public event was organised on 13 Oct 2011 Abdull Hamid Embong, Federal Court Judge; Judges
in Kuala Lumpur, followed by a series of debates and mock of the Court of Appeal and High Courts; Tan Sri Hasmy
trials throughout 2012 with the participation of university Agam, Chairman of SUHAKAM; and other SUHAKAM
students. The grand finale of the pleadings competition Commissioners. Members of the diplomatic corps, the
was hosted at Parliament House on International Human Malaysian Bar, civil society organisations, the public and
Rights Day on 10 Dec 2012, at the invitation of the then- the media were also present.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of
Law and Parliamentary Affairs, YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Christopher Leong, President of the Malaysian Bar,
Nazri b Abdul Aziz. gave the welcoming speech followed by a speech by HE
Raymond William Kyles, Deputy High Commissioner of the
During the 2013/2014 term, further activities in this regard British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur.
were carried out as listed.
committee reports
(iv) Opening Remarks by Raymond William Kyles

(Acting High Commissioner of the United Kingdom
to Malaysia) at the Launch of Public Opinion Survey
on the Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia (8 July
2013)
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/speeches/
opening_remarks_by_raymond_william_kyles_
acting_high_commissioner_of_the_united_kingdom_
to_malaysia_at_the_launch_of_public_opinion_
survey_on_the_mandatory_death_penalty_in_
malaysia_8_july_2013.html

Professor Roger Hood gave a slide presentation on key (b) “Focus on Life” photo exhibition and talk by
findings of the public opinion survey. He was later joined Toshi Kazama
by the Executive Directors of The Death Penalty Project,
Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar, to answer questions
from the floor.
Significantly, YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli b Ahmad

Makinudin, Chief Judge of Malaya, commented that, given
the option, judges would consider imposing alternatives to
the death sentence in capital punishment cases.
Various links are provided below for reference:
(i) Report on the Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/DPP/Malaysia-report/1/
On 7 Nov 2013, Bar Council, together with the Delegation
(ii) The Death Penalty Project Launches Report on of the European Union to Malaysia and the British High
the Public Opinion Survey on the Mandatory Death Commission, co-hosted a photo exhibition and talk by Toshi
Penalty in Malaysia Kazama, an eminent photographer and anti-death penalty
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_ activist.
news/dpp_launches_report_on_the_public_opinion_
survey_on_the_mandatory_death_penalty_in_ At the event held at Annexe Gallery in Central Market, Toshi
malaysia.html Kazama gave a slide presentation of his photographs which
focused on the value of human life and respect for fellow
(iii) Welcome Address by Christopher Leong (President, human beings, as seen through the eyes of the families of
Malaysian Bar) at the Launch of Public Opinion the victims, and of “death row” inmates.
Survey on the Mandatory Death Penalty in Malaysia
(8 July 2013) HE Luc Vandebon, Ambassador, Head of the Delegation
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/speeches/ of the European Union to Malaysia and Christopher Leong,
welcome_address_by_christopher_leong_ President of the Malaysia Bar, delivered speeches at
president_malaysian_bar_at_the_launch_of_public_ the event. HE Maria Bassols, Ambassador of Spain to
opinion_survey_on_the_mandatory_death_penalty_ Malaysia, as representative of the host country of the 5th
in_malaysia_8_july_2013.html

World Congress Against the Death Penalty, held in Madrid,

also spoke at the event.

The event was also attended by members of the diplomatic
community, the Malaysian Bar, civil society organisations,
the public and the media.
Toshi Kazama’s photographs went on display from 7 to 11

Nov 2013 for public viewing at the same venue.
The link below is provided for reference:

http://www.nst.com.my/streets/central/
moving-images-of-death-penalty-1.397276 Officers from the Prisons Department, Attorney General’s
Chambers (“AGC”), and the Office of the Minister were
(c) Dialogue with Members of Parliament on the present at the dialogue.
reintroduction of discretionary sentencing for
capital punishment cases The session was chaired by YBhg Datuk Tun Abdul Majid
Tun Hamzah from AGC, who also delivered the opening
remarks on behalf of YB Puan Hajah Nancy Haji Shukri.
HE Luc Vandebon, Ambassador, Head of the Delegation

of the European Union to Malaysia gave the welcoming
remarks. This was followed by speeches from Tom Dodd
of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Tan
Sri Hasmy Agam, Chairman of SUHAKAM, both of whom
supported the reintroduction of discretionary sentencing.
Their support of the reintroduction of discretionary

sentencing was further reinforced by Christopher Leong,
President of the Malaysian Bar’s slide presentation on
Following the two events above, the organisers of the the key findings of Professor Roger Hood’s public opinion
campaign to abolish the death penalty focused on the survey on the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.
reintroduction of discretionary sentencing. Members of
the Malaysian Parliament were identified as key players in Thereafter, Damien Chng and Priscilla Chia, Co-Founders
initiating the return of judicial discretion with regard to the of Singapore’s We Believe in Second Chances initiative,
imposition of the death sentence. spoke on “Amendments to the Mandatory Death Penalty for
Murder and Drug Offences — The Singapore Experience”.
With the assistance of the Office of YB Puan Hajah Nancy They highlighted some of the drawbacks of the pre-
Haji Shukri, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in conditions attached to the review of sentencing in cases
charge of Law, a dialogue with Members of Parliament on where the death penalty had been imposed.
the reintroduction of discretionary sentencing for capital
punishment cases was held on 14 Nov 2014 at Parliament YBhg Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah chaired the
House. question-and-answer session. He was joined later by the
Minister, and both responded to queries from the floor.
committee reports
Various links are provided below for reference: from the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission
(“EAIC”), and which would concentrate solely on the police.
(i) Report on the Dialogue with Members of
Parliament: “Reintroduction of Discretionary At a regional conference organised by Amnesty
Sentencing for Capital Punishment Cases” International and Indonesia’s KontraS (“The Commission
http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/Pengumuman/ for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence”) on policing
REPORT_DIALOG/111213_Report%20 and human rights in Southeast Asia, held from 19 to 20 Nov
Programme%20EU_final.pdf 2013 in Jakarta, Indonesia, HRC jointly issued a statement
with participants at the conference calling for human rights-
(ii) Annexure 1: “The Death Penalty in Malaysia” based policing and demanding effective accountability
presented by Christopher Leong, President of the mechanisms to deal with police abuse namely in Indonesia,
Malaysian Bar. Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Timor-Leste.
http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/Pengumuman/
REPORT_DIALOG/Annexure%201.pdf More information is available at:
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/regional_
(iii) Annexure 2: “Amendments to the Mandatory Death conference_on_policing_in_southeast_asia_calls_for_
Penalty for Murder and Drug Offences — The human_rights_based_policing.html
Singapore Experience” presented by Damien Chng
and Priscilla Chia, Co-Founders, We Believe in HRC also participated in a roundtable discussion on deaths
Second Chances. in custody organised by SUHAKAM on 20 and 21 Aug 2013,
http://www.bheuu.gov.my/pdf/Pengumuman/ where representatives from the police and the Prisons
REPORT_DIALOG/Annexure%202.pdf Department were present. There was a robust exchange
of views between the HRC and the police representatives.
HRC thanks YB Puan Hajah Nancy Haji Shukri, the
Delegation of the European Union to Malaysia, the British (3) Persons with disabilities (“PWD”)
High Commission, SUHAKAM, The Death Penalty Project,
Professor Roger Hood, Toshi Kazama, We Believe in
Second Chances, and many others who collaborated with
us in the events mentioned.
(2) Deaths in police custody
Several deaths in police custody were

recorded in 2013. Among them were that of
C Sugumar (23 Jan 2013), and four others
that took place within a span of two weeks —
N Dharmendran (21 May 2013), R Jamesh Ramesh (27
May 2013), P Karuna Nithi (1 June 2013), and Nobuhiro
Matsushita (2 June 2013). On 19 Oct 2013, HRC organised a “PWD Walkabout” in
Kuala Lumpur. The objectives of the walkabout were to
HRC continued its advocacy efforts to bring renewed focus create awareness on the accessibility of PWDs to public
on the need to create an Independent Police Complaints amenities in the city, raise public awareness on the rights of
and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) that is separate PWDs, and to encourage Kuala Lumpur City Hall (“DBKL”)
to support the disabled by providing adequate public

facilities (ie facilities in buildings, ramps and elevators, etc) HRC members participated in and delivered their
to improve the working and living environment for PWDs. presentations at the Roundtable Discussion on the
During the walkabout, it was noted that adequate provisions International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
for PWDs had not been made in relation to pedestrian of Racial Discrimination organised by SUHAKAM on 3 Apr
walkways and crossings, including lack of graduated 2013.
inclines for road crossings for wheelchair users.
HRC members also participated in and delivered their
Mohammad Faizal Che Yusof, Chairperson of the PWDs presentations at the 3rd National Conference: “Malaysia
Working Group of HRC, led the walkabout which was on the Path to Non-Discrimination — Is Equality for All?”
attended by 20 Members of the Bar, members of the organised by Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (“KOMAS”)
National Council for the Blind Malaysia, Society of the and the Institute of Ethnic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan
Blind in Malaysia, Skuad Prihatin, and Gerakan Bersama Malaysia (“UKM”) on 21 Aug 2013.
Kebangkitan Orang Kurang Upaya 2012 (“Bangkit 2012”).
(5) Refugees and asylum seekers
YBhg Datuk Seri Hj Ahmad Phesal b Hj Talib, Mayor of
Kuala Lumpur, and officials from DBKL were not present at On 10 Apr 2013, HRC attended a dialogue hosted by the
the event despite having been invited to join the walkabout, Bar Council Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs
which commenced from Menara DBKL to Jalan Raja Laut, Committee entitled “Dialogue on Australian Asylum Seeker
and ended at UTC Pudu Sentral on Jalan Pudu. Policy and Regional Response”.
The PWDs Working Group will compile the data and photos The speakers, Professor Father Frank Brennan SJ,
into a report to be sent to DBKL, the Federal Territories professor of law and director of strategic research projects
Ministry and the Ministry of Women, Family and Community (social justice and ethics) at the Australian Catholic
Development for the issues to be addressed. University, and Mark Fowler, director at Neumann &
Turnour, Brisbane, made presentations on the so-called
The PWDs Working Group is also involved in ongoing “Malaysia Solution”, and whether it was possible to revive
public advocacy work including appearing in talks, radio the proposal but with added protections in place. The
shows and interviews. general conclusion was that it would not be possible so long
as Malaysia refused to enact legislation that recognised the
The link below is provided for reference: right of refugees.
http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Community/2013/10/23/
Kuala-Lumpur-not-disabledfriendly-Faulty-aids-and-poor- Members of the Bar, representatives from the Office of
facilities-in-the-city-poses-a-challenge-for.aspx/ the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(“UNHCR”) and Malaysian civil society organisations were
(4) Elimination of racial discrimination present at the event.

HRC is working together with civil society organisations and The link below is provided for reference:
is a signatory to a memorandum on why Malaysia should http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/dialogue_
sign the International Convention on the Elimination of All on_australian_asylum_seeker_policy_and_regional_
Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has been presented response_10_apr_2013.html
both to the Prime Minister’s Department and the Minister
in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law and
Parliamentary Affairs.

committee reports
(6) Indigenous peoples and minority rights The meeting was part of FORUM-ASIA’s mission to
Malaysia and several other countries in Asia, to assess the
On 22 Aug 2013, HRC members met with Rita Izsak, UN situations of freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly
Independent Expert on Minority Issues to discuss minority in the context of elections in the Asian region.
rights and also to provide a general overview of human
rights in Malaysia. Meanwhile, HRC has continued to make representations and
highlighted to the Government the glaring inconsistencies
On a separate issue, HRC observed the International between certain provisions of the Peaceful Assembly Act
Human Rights Day 2013 with the Committee on Orang Asli 2012 and international human rights norms.
Rights (“COAR”) by co-organising a charity dinner themed
“We Are One: Orang Kita Bersatu” held at Sunway Resort (9) International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Hotel & Spa on 10 Dec 2013. Proceeds of the charity will Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”)
be used to assist the Orang Asli by providing community
development and upliftment, non-formal education of HRC is working together with civil society organisations
women and children, leadership training, and projects to in relation to the above matter, and is a signatory to
better secure their livelihood and strengthen the traditional a memorandum seeking Malaysia’s signature to the
culture of the Orang Asli. Additionally, the proceeds will be ICESCR, which has been presented to the Prime Minister’s
used to support the ancillary work of COAR in its role as an Department and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s
advocate of Orang Asli rights. Department in charge of Law and Parliamentary Affairs.
(7) Domestic violence On 27 Mar 2013, HRC made a presentation at a panel

session on “Key Challenges in Pushing for Malaysia’s
HRC and the Joint Action Group for Gender Equality Accession to ICESCR” at a roundtable on ICESCR
(“JAG”) co-hosted a roundtable on “Domestic Violence organised by SUHAKAM.
Legal Reform: International Examples and Best Practices”,
held on 12 Sept 2013. (10) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
(“ICC”)
The speaker for the event was Helen Rubenstein, staff
attorney with the Women’s Human Rights Program There are 122 States Parties to the ICC worldwide today.
under The Advocates for Human Rights, a non-profit Malaysia has yet to sign the Rome Statute of the ICC
organisation dedicated to promoting and protecting human despite having announced its intention to do so in March
rights based in the United States of America. She was 2011.
in Malaysia at the invitation of the Political Section of the
Embassy of the United States, Kuala Lumpur. On 7 Nov 2013, HRC organised a public forum entitled
“Ratification of International Covenants, with particular
(8) Peaceful assembly emphasis on the International Criminal Court”. The
objectives of the forum were to address the status and
On 24 July 2013, HRC members met with the delegation position of ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC by
from the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development Malaysia, and the status of ratification of other primary UN
(“FORUM-ASIA”) to Malaysia. FORUM-ASIA comprises International Conventions by Malaysia, and where Malaysia
Professor Ahn Kyong-Whan, Professor of Law at the stood on ratification of these instruments. YB Puan Hajah
Seoul National University and former Chairperson of the Nancy Haji Shukri, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s
National Human Rights Commission of Korea; Haris Azhar, Department in charge of Law, gave the keynote address,
Executive Committee member of FORUM-ASIA; and Joses followed by a presentation by Sivananthan Nithyanantham,
Kuan, East Asia Programme Associate, FORUM-ASIA.

a Member of the Malaysian Bar who is also on the list of representatives from the Bar Council Migrants, Refugees
counsel of the ICC. Both then went on to answer questions and Immigration Affairs Committee, Bar Council Industrial
from the floor. Law Committee and HRC, to discuss issues relating to
laws and practices governing the registration and operation
On another note, International Criminal Justice Day is of trade unions, the new minimum wage legislation, and
celebrated on 17 July every year. In conjunction with the protection and recruitment of migrant workers.
celebration in 2013, HRC member, Usha Kulasegaran,
contributed an article entitled “International Criminal Justice HRC continues to monitor developments with respect to the
Day on 17 July 2013” which can be viewed at the link below: TPPA and its impact on various aspects of human rights in
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/ Malaysia.
international_criminal_justice_day_on_17_july_2013.html
(12) HRC monitoring activities
(11) Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPPA”)
The following are events monitored by HRC:
On 10 July 2013, HRC participated in a roundtable
discussion on how Malaysia’s participation in the TPPA
would affect human rights and development in the nation.
The discussion was organised by YB Charles Santiago at
Parliament House.
On 15 July 2013, Bar Council invited Sanya Reid of Third

World Network (“TWN”) to give HRC and members of other
relevant Bar Council committees a briefing on the TPPA
and the impact it has on patent, legal services, labour, the
environment and human rights in general. TWN is a sister
organisation of Sahabat Alam Malaysia, which is working on
the potential impact of the TPPA that Malaysia is currently
negotiating. (a) HRC organised a monitoring team on behalf of
the Malaysian Bar for the “Black 505 Rally” on
On 1 Aug 2013, HRC members attended the Trans- 25 May 2013 and 22 June 2013. The rallies were
Pacific Partnership Open Day organised by the Ministry of organised by Pakatan Rakyat and affiliated civil
International Trade and Industry (“MITI”). society organisations in the aftermath of the 13th
General Elections. The rally point for 25 May 2013
HRC members also participated in a roundtable debate on was Padang Timur in Petaling Jaya, at which no
the TPPA entitled “Why TPPA Matters to Your Business untoward incidents were reported. For the 22
and How It Impacts the Market and Industry”, organised June 2013 rally, members of the monitoring team
by the Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce and stationed themselves at eight designated assembly
Industry of Malaysia (“ACCCIM”), and supported by Kuala points in Brickfields, Masjid Negara, Jalan Pudu,
Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (“KLRCA”) on 19 Jalan Raja Laut (at Sogo Shopping Complex and
Nov 2013. PAS’s headquarters), University of Malaya and Jalan
Pekeliling. The rally point for that date was at Padang
On 26 June 2013 and 29 Jan 2014, Timothy Wedding, Merbok, along Jalan Parlimen. The rally on that date
Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative, met with was also reportedly free of untoward incidents.
President of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong;
committee reports
(b) HRC Co-Chairperson, Roger Chan Weng Keng (13) SUHAKAM Public Inquiry
and HRC member, Edmund Seet Wan Sing, were
present at the “Save Malaysia Stop Lynas” (“SMSL”) A team of lawyers headed by HRC Co-Chairperson Roger
March held on 26 Sept 2013. SMSL representatives Chan Weng Keng, acted as watching brief counsel on
handed over a memorandum to the Deputy Minister behalf of the Malaysian Bar at SUHAKAM’s “Public Inquiry
of Science, Technology and Innovation, YB Datuk into the Incidents During and After the Public Assembly
Dr Abu Bakar b Mohamad Diah in the presence of of 28 Apr 2012” (commonly known as BERSIH 3.0). The
several opposition members at Parliament House. Public Inquiry concluded on 10 Jan 2013, having sat over a
A heated argument broke out between the Deputy period of six months.
Minister and those present but the situation was
defused when security personnel stepped in. SUHAKAM released its findings of the Public Inquiry on 17
Apr 2013, which was highly critical of the way in which the
(c) HRC members monitored the “Red Pencil” protest Royal Malaysian Police handled the Rally.
on 4 Jan 2014 organised by the Movement of Angry
Media (“Geramm”) to campaign for press freedom The link to the findings of the Public Inquiry is provided
and to protest against the suspension of online weekly below for reference:
magazine, The Heat. The protestors, mostly dressed http://www.suhakam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/
in red, converged in front of the Bar Council building SUHAKAM-PRESS-STATEMENT_SUHAKAMS-
and later moved towards the clock tower located at FINDINGS-FROM-THE-PUBLIC-INQUIRY-INTO-THE-
Medan Pasar. After several speeches and chanting INCIDENTS-DURING-AND-AFTER-THE-PUBLIC-
of slogans, the group proceeded to the Masjid Jamek ASSEMBLY-OF-28-APRIL-2013_Released-on-17-
LRT station. Opposition Members of Parliament, April-2013.pdf
Lim Kit Siang and Chua Tian Chang, were seen
addressing the media. No untoward incidents were (14) Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”)
reported.
The UPR is a process of peer review of the human rights
situation in each of the 193 member countries of the United
Nations (“UN”) conducted by members of the Human Rights
Council based in Geneva, Switzerland. Malaysia came up
for her second review on 24 Oct 2013; her last review was
in February 2009.
As part of the review process, stakeholders made written

submissions to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights. These submissions enable interested
parties to comment about and draw attention to specific
issues related to the human rights situation in a particular
country.
The following links regarding some of the above-mentioned
events are provided for reference: On 28 Dec 2012 and 3 May 2013, HRC attended a UPR
(i) http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/01/04/ meeting with stakeholders organised by the Malaysian
geramm-protest-for-media-freedom/ Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
(ii) http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/09/26/
lynas-abu-bakar-mohamed-diah.aspx/

Bar Council duly filed a submission on 11 Mar 2013, Bar Council was invited to present a further statement on
which highlighted the failure on the part of the Malaysian UPR, and to answer any follow-up questions at the pre-
Government to undertake meaningful engagement with civil UPR session for Malaysia held on 2 Sept 2013 in Geneva,
society. It noted the law and security challenges faced in which was organised by UPR Info, a Geneva-based NGO
relation to the introduction of the Security Offences (Special which assists civil society in the UPR process. Bar Council’s
Measures) Act 2012 and amendments to the Penal Code, further statement highlighted significant developments in
Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act 1950. the following seven areas:
The submission also dealt with the Malaysian Government’s (a) Law and security
interference with the role of lawyers and human rights (b) Interference with lawyers and human rights defenders
defenders, and the relatively weak reforms in freedom of (c) Freedom of assembly
assembly. It also focused on the continuing incidents of (d) Deaths in police custody
deaths in police custody, and how the establishment of the (e) Freedom of religion
EAIC has failed to address this issue and bring about change (f) Land rights of the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia
in the climate of impunity that the police appear to enjoy. (g) International responsibility and conduct
(h) Post-election legal challenges and access to justice
The failure to uphold the freedom of religion in Malaysia
and the poor protection afforded to the land rights of the The link is provided below for reference:
Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia were also commented http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/further_
upon. statement_to_the_submission_of_bar_council_malaysia_
for_the_universal_periodic_review_of_malaysia_2_
The submission concluded with a reminder to the Malaysian sept_2013.html
Government to do significantly more in order to live up to its
international responsibilities, and to conduct the affairs of During the seven months prior to Malaysia’s second UPR
state in conformity with well-accepted and long-respected by the UN Human Rights Council on 24 Oct 2013, HRC
international humanitarian laws and international human and COMANGO conducted several briefing sessions for
rights standards. diplomatic missions and other interested parties in Kuala
Lumpur on a range of issues raised in various stakeholder
Bar Council’s submission to the UN Human Rights Council reports. Subsequent to the second UPR, HRC and
can be accessed at this link: COMANGO have also conducted several post-session
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/bar_ briefings.
council_presents_its_submission_to_the_un_human_
rights_council_ahead_of_the_universal_periodic_review_ HRC Co-Chairperson, Andrew Khoo Chin Hock, on behalf
of_malaysia.html of Bar Council, joined a coalition of stakeholders comprising
Honey Tan Lay Ean, Masjaliza Hamzah and Jerald Joseph,
On 11 July 2013, HRC gave a presentation on the Bar’s all from COMANGO; and Mark Bujang and Yusri Ahon from
UPR submission to Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament JOAS; to attend the UPR session in Geneva and to lobby
at a dialogue organised by the Coalition of Malaysian NGOs foreign missions. They also participated in a side event at
in the UPR Process (“COMANGO”). the Palais des Nations that reflected upon the human rights
situation in Malaysia.
On 7 Aug 2013, Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (“JOAS”)
briefed foreign missions and members of HRC and COAR, At the UPR process, HE Dato’ Ho May Yong, head of the
in a meeting facilitated by HRC, on JOAS’s submission for Malaysian delegation, highlighted Malaysia’s claims of
Malaysia’s second UPR. successes. A total of 232 recommendations were made by
committee reports
104 countries. A web report is available at: Religion Studies, J Reuben Clark Law School,
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/ Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah (6 to 8 Oct
malaysias_2nd_universal_periodic_review_upr_day_1_ 2013);
lobbying_at_the_un_human_rights_council.html (ii) 6th Regional Consultation on ASEAN and Human
Rights, organised by FORUM-ASIA, SAPA TFAHR
On 28 Oct 2013, HRC issued a joint statement with and KontraS (1 to 3 Oct 2013);
COMANGO and JOAS entitled “More Attention and Action (iii) Course on Peaceful Assembly Act, organised by the
Needed on Human Rights”, which is accessible at: Judicial and Legal Training Institute (“ILKAP”) (28
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/ Aug 2013);
malaysias_2nd_universal_periodic_review_upr_ (iv) Forum on Current Legislation and Other Measures
accepting_and_implementing_recommendations_.html to Fight Against Serious and Violent Crimes More
Effectively, organised by ASLI/CPPS (24 Aug 2013);
Malaysia will announce which of the recommendations it (v) “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (“LGBT”):
will accept at the adoption session set for 20 Mar 2014. Suatu Hak Atau Salah Laku?”, organised by ILKAP
HRC will also attend the adoption session in order to make (25 June 2013); and
an oral intervention and address the UN Human Rights (vi) Consultation on Developing a National Agenda
Council on the human rights situation in Malaysia. for Reconciliation, organised by Institute of Ethnic
Studies, UKM and Department of National Unity and
In a related development, Bar Council has been highly Integration, Prime Minister’s Department (28 May
critical of the declaration made by the Secretary General 2013).
of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 6 Jan 2014 that
COMANGO is an unlawful society. Such a declaration (b) Members of HRC participated as delegates in the
contravenes international human rights norms on freedom following external events:
of association and expression, and is a clear attempt by the
Malaysian Government to deflect COMANGO’s criticism of (i) Roundtable discussion on Feedback on Human
Malaysia’s human rights record utilising the UPR process, Rights Watch Report on Police Abuses (excessive
by delegitimising the grouping. This does not promote use of force and deaths in custody), organised by
confidence in the Malaysian Government’s position on Human Rights Watch and SUARAM (11 Feb 2014);
human rights. (ii) Roundtable meeting on the Child Act, organised by
Voice of Children on behalf on Child Rights Coalition
The link below is provided for reference: Malaysia (24 Jan 2014);
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/joint_ (iii) SUARAM’s Human Rights Award 2013 and Launch of
statement_by_comango_joas_and_bar_council_human_ 2013 Human Rights Report Overview, organised by
rights_committee_more_attention_and_action_needed_ SUARAM (9 Dec 2013);
on_human_rights.html (iv) Roundtable meeting with International Criminal
Court / International Court of Justice / Permanent
(15) Participation in events Court of Arbitration / Hague Conference on Private
International Law, organised by Asian Strategy and
(a) Members of HRC made presentations at the Leadership Institute (“ASLI”) and the Embassy of the
following events: Netherlands (6 Dec 2013);
(v) Dialogue on the Impact of Gender on the Sexual and
(i) 20th Annual Symposium on Law and Religion, Reproductive Health and Rights of Women and Girls,
organised by the International Center for Law and organised by the UN Gender Theme Group, Malaysia
(28 Nov 2013);

(vi) National Law Conference (Public Safety and the Acknowledgment

Law), organised by ILKAP (26 and 27 Nov 2013);
(vii) Meeting with representatives from Amnesty We wish to record our appreciation to all the members of
International, UK on deaths in custody and IPCMC, HRC for their active participation in the various programmes
organised by SUARAM and Amnesty International of the HRC. We also wish to convey our gratitude to our
(13 Nov 2013); Officer-in-charge, Assistant Director Sumitha Shaanthinni
(viii) 13th Informal ASEM Seminar on Human Rights entitled Kishna, and Satha Selvan, Senior Administrative
“Human Rights and the Environment”, organised by Assistant; foreign missions in Malaysia and our civil society
the Asia-Europe Foundation (21 to 23 Oct 2013); organisation partners, all of whom contributed to another
(ix) Forum on Crime Prevention, organised by the Institute hard-fought, yet fulfilling term for the HRC. We would like
of Public Safety of Malaysia, Ministry of Home Affairs to recognise Daniel Lo Soo Jeng, who ceased practice
(28 Sept 2013); in 2013, for his contributions to the HRC, in particular for
(x) Forum on the Rights of Women and Children: his work on the issue of anti-trafficking in persons. We
A National Concern, organised by the Attorney record our sorrow at the passing of Suraeisan S T Mani,
General’s Office and Razak School of Government until recently a member of the HRC, on 30 Jan 2014, and
(24 Aug 2013); convey our condolences to his widow, Renuka Sena, and
(xi) Sidang Kemuncak Wanita 2013, organised by family.
the Ministry of Women, Family and Community
Development (20 Aug 2013); Andrew Khoo Chin Hock and Roger Chan Weng Keng
(xii) “Ethnic Inequality in Peninsular Malaysia: 1970 to Co-Chairpersons
2000” by Professor Charles Hirschman, organised
by Malaysia Economic Association and the Faculty of Date: 15 Feb 2014
Economics and Administration, University of Malaya
(19 July 2013); For any enquiries, please email:
(xiii) Seminar on Malaysia’s National Human Development sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my
Report, organised by United Nations Development
Programme, Malaysia (10 July 2013);
(xiv) Seminar on Promoting Diversion for Children in
Conflict with the Law, organised by UNICEF Malaysia
(7 June 2013);
(xv) Roundtable discussion on the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, organised by SUHAKAM
(18 Apr 2013); and
(xvi) Political Transformation Conference: Sabah Security
and the Eastern Sabah Security Zone, organised by
the Sabah Chief Minister’s Office (3 Apr 2013).
committee reports
Industrial Law Committee

Industrial harmony, economic prosperity
Anand Ponnudurai (Chairperson) | Jayasingam Poopalasingam (Deputy Chairperson) | Ahmad Zuhairi b Ahmed Zubair | Andrew Saw |
Chandrasegaran Rajandran | Devanathan Sepermaniam | Dinesh Ratnarajah | Janice Anne Leo | Jeremiah Gurusamy | Mohan
Ramakrishnan | Muhendaran Suppiah | Palaniappan Ramasamy | Pravin Kaur Jessy | R Ravindra Kumar | Rajasundram Ponnusami |
Ravindra Kumar Murugavell | Selvamalar Alagaratnam | Shanker Subramaniam | Sonia Abraham | Sunil Vijayan | Ten Yee Phor |
Vickneswaren Palanisamy | Vijaya Kumar Raj | Vijayan Venugopal | Wong Keat Ching | Woo Wei Kwang | Yong Hon Cheong | Sumitha
Shaanthinni Kishna (Officer-in-charge)
Since taking office in the 2013/2014 term, the Industrial (1) Matters relating to the Ministry of Human
Law Committee (“ILC”) has met three times and actively Resources
pursued issues relating to its area of work.
(a) Review of labour laws
The objectives of the ILC are to:
On 28 Sept 2012, ILC members attended a briefing
(a) cater to the professional needs of Members of the Bar conducted by the Ministry of Human Resources (“MOHR”)
who make appearances in the Industrial Courts; to discuss amendments to the Industrial Relations Act
(b) maintain the longstanding relationship with the 1967. At that briefing, a paper titled “Jadual Cadangan
Industrial Court bench; and Pindaan kepada Akta Perhubungan Perusahaan 1967” was
(c) take cognisance of and, where possible, give input distributed. The paper contained various proposals and
on, proposed amendments to labour laws. alternatives by stakeholders, which were vague and
ambiguous. Furthermore, the focus of discussion was on
Sections 4 and 9 of that Act. ILC informed MOHR that it was
unable to provide constructive feedback on the proposals,

INDUSTRIAL LAW committee
and requested that detailed proposals and their bases be (ii) continues to apply to the employer even if the number
given to BC. Nonetheless, ILC will support MOHR’s effort of employees has become less than six persons after
in expediting the court process while ensuring that the 1 Jan 2013; and
rights of retrenched workers are protected. (iii) does not apply to domestic servants and apprentices.
On 9 Jan 2013, through its website, MOHR informed that When the Order was initially issued, the Government made
it was “…in the midst of holistically reviewing the labour no distinction between local and migrant workers, in that all
legislations in Malaysia” and that “the purpose of this study workers were entitled to minimum wage. Following strong
is to modernise the current labour legislations to meet the lobbying from employer groups and certain political parties,
current needs and changes”. It added that “the proposal to the government announced certain policies purportedly to
amend these labour legislations derived from the tripartite ease the burden of employers.
discussion between MOHR with the employees’ and
employers’ representative through series of discussions, On 30 Jan 2013, the Ministry of Finance announced that
forums, workshops meetings advocated by the MOHR”. the Government was reinstating a 1992 ruling for foreign
employees levy on “new foreign employees and those
MOHR further informed that it was focusing on reviewing wishing to renew their work pass, employment pass or
the following labour legislation: temporary work visit pass”, to be borne by migrant workers
with immediate effect.
(i) Employment Act 1955 (Phase 2);
(ii) Industrial Relations Act 1967; On 20 Feb 2013, the NWCC announced that employers of
(iii) Private Employment Agencies Act 1981; small- and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) would be
(iv) Labour Ordinance (Sabah Cap 67); and allowed to appeal or apply to the Council for deferment of
(v) Labour Ordinance (Sarawak Cap 76). implementation of minimum wages in respect of its migrant
workers.
ILC is currently collating feedback on the stated Acts above
and welcomes suggestions from Members of the Bar. On 19 Mar 2013, the Council informed that the Government,
among others, has given employers of SMEs a blanket
(b) Implementation of minimum wage for private deferment of the implementation of minimum wages for
sector migrant workers until 31 Dec 2013.
The Minimum Wages Order 2012 (“Order”) came into The Government had also issued the following amendments
effect on 16 July 2012 wherein the minimum wage was set to the Order:
at RM900 and RM800 for Peninsular Malaysia and East
Malaysia, respectively. (i) Minimum Wages (Amendment) Order 2012;
(ii) Minimum Wages (Amendment) Order 2013;
Soon after, the National Wages Consultative Council (iii) Minimum Wages (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013;
(“NWCC”) issued “Guidelines on the Implementation of the and
Minimum Wages Order 2012” dated 6 Sept 2012 which (iv) Minimum Wages (Amendment) (No.3) Order 2013.
stipulate, inter alia, that the Order:
Various links are provided below for reference:
(i) shall come into force on 1 Jan 2013 to an employer
who employs six or more persons; (i) The National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011
http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/
outputaktap/20110915_AKTA%20732_BI_Act%20
732%20BI.pdf
committee reports
(ii) The Minimum Wages Order 2012 (c) Implementation of minimum retirement age for
http://www.mohr.gov.my/pdf/ the private sector
minimumwagesorder2012.pdf
MOHR announced that the minimum retirement age of an
(iii) The Guidelines on the Implementation of the Minimum employee in the private sector shall be 60 in accordance
Wages Order 2012 with the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012. The Act was
http://www.mohr.gov.my/pdf/imwg021012.pdf gazetted on 16 Aug 2012, with an implementation date of
July 2013 and stipulates:
(iv) Foreign Employees Levy
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/ (i) an employer shall not prematurely retire an employee
foreign-employees-levy/ before the employee attains the minimum retirement
age;
(v) Implementation of Minimum Wages — Deduction of (ii) the Act does not prevent an employee from retiring
Cost of Accommodation upon attaining the age of optional retirement, as
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/implementation- per agreed in the contract of service or collective
of-minimum-wages-deduction-of-cost-of- agreement;
accommodation/ (iii) employers who need an extension period may apply
to the Minister of Human Resources to defer the
(vi) Implementation of Minimum Wages — In SMEs implementation; and
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/ (iv) if such application is considered, the deferment will
implementation-of-minimum-wages-in-smes/ only be given up to 31 Dec 2013, in the form of an
exemption of application of the Act.
(vii) Minimum Wages (Amendment) Order 2012
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/wp-content/ On 31 Dec 2012, the Union Network International-Malaysian
uploads/2013/07/pua_20121228_P.U.-A-470- Liaison Council (“UNI-MLC”) held a press conference to
Perintah-Gaji-Minimum-Pindaan-2012-28-12-2012- announce its intention to hand over a memorandum to
final.pdf the Prime Minister, urging him to implement the minimum
retirement age from 1 Jan 2013. The union reasoned that
(viii) Minimum Wages (Amendment) Order 2013 the “…private sector employers who will reach the age of
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/wp-content/ 55 between January and June will be affected as they face
uploads/2013/07/pua_20130528_Perintah-Gaji- unemployment prospects due to the Minimum Retirement
Minimum-Pindaan-2013-27-5-2013.pdf Age Act 2012 being implemented in July”. The Malaysian
Trades Union Congress (“MTUC”), on the other hand,
(ix) Minimum Wages (Amendment) (No.2) Order 2013 responded to this call by requesting that all parties seek
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/wp-content/ clarification from MOHR on the implementation date.
uploads/2013/07/pua_20130729_P.U.-244-Perintah-
Gaji-Minimum-PindaanNo.2-2013.pdf On 8 Feb 2013, MOHR issued “Guidelines on the
Implementation of the Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012”
(x) Minimum Wages (Amendment) (No.3) Order 2013 which stipulate, inter alia, that:
http://minimumwages.mohr.gov.my/wp-content/
uploads/2013/07/pua_20130910_P.U.-A-284- (i) the minimum retirement age will come into force on 1
PERINTAH-GAJI-MINIMUM-PINDAAN-NO.-3-2013. July 2013 for all employees except for workers under
pdf Schedule 2 of the Act;
(ii) in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, an early

retirement age before the stipulated minimum (vi) Minimum Retirement Age (Exemption) Order 2013
retirement age of 60 can be fixed by the employer http://www.mohr.gov.my/docz/pua_2013062.pdf
with the consent of the employee in the contract of
service or collective agreement; (vii) Guidelines on the Implementation of the Minimum
(iii) in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, existing Retirement Age Act 2012
contracts of services or collective agreements with a http://www.sta.org.my/News%20Archive/News%20
lower retirement age would need to be amended to Archive%202013/Min%20Retirement%20Age.pdf
reflect the retirement age of 60; and
(iv) employers can apply to MOHR for a deferment of the (2) Matters relating to Attorney General’s Chambers
implementation of the Act. (“AGC”)
On 28 June 2013, MOHR issued the Minimum Retirement Waiver of second service of documents to AGC under
Age (Exemption) Order 2013 to exempt a list of employers order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of High Court 1980
from the provisions of the Act for the period from 1 July to
31 Dec 2013. ILC discussed the issue of counsel having to serve
documents on the AGC prior to an application for leave,
Various links are provided below for reference: and again after leave is obtained. ILC has yet to receive
a reply to its letter to AGC dated 20 Sept 2011 requesting
(i) MOHR press release: a waiver of the second service. ILC will also suggest that
http://www.mohr.gov.my/index.php?option=com_con counsel be allowed to use e-service.
tent&view=article&id=2472&Itemid=634&lang=en/
On 11 Apr 2013, the Bar Council Task Force on Combined
(ii) Minimum Retirement Age Act 2012 Rules of Court, on behalf of ILC, wrote to the AGC on the
http://www.mohr.gov.my/pdf/ACT_753_MRA2012. issue above. S
pdf
AGC responded that it has always been its practice not
(iii) [P.U.(B) 422 dated 26 Dec 2012], specifying the date to object to any non-service of the cause papers because
of coming into operation of the Act there is no public officer involved. AGC has requested ILC
http://www.mohr.gov.my/pdf/kuatkuasa_umursara. to notify it if there are any objections raised on non-service
pdf of the cause papers, and the matter with be dealt with the
relevant public officer.
(iv) UNI-MLC’s response, in the New Straits Times article
entitled “Implement minimum retirement age from (3) Matters relating to Industrial Courts
tomorrow, union tells govt”, dated 31 Dec 2012
http://www.nst.com.my/latest/implement-minimum- (a) Consultative Committee on Industrial Law
retirement-age-from-tomorrow-union-tells-
govt-1.193984 ILC, represented by its Chairperson, Anand Ponnudurai,
and Deputy Chairperson, Jayasingam Poopalasingam, has
(v) MTUC’s response, in a Bernama article entitled “Wait been attending the Consultative Committee on Industrial
for ministry explanation on 60 years retirement age, Law meetings, held every three months and chaired by
says MTUC”, dated 1 Jan 2013 (reproduced in the the President of the Industrial Court. Also present at the
Malaysian Insider): meetings were most of the Industrial Court Chairmen and
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ representatives from MOHR, MTUC and the Malaysian
wait-for-ministry-explanation-on-60-years-retirement- Employers Federation (“MEF”). Among the matters
age-says-mtuc/
committee reports
discussed at the meetings were judicial review applications, the Industrial Court website, so that as the High Court cases
issues relating to file searches, and practitioners’ conduct. are being updated on the Judiciary website, there would be
ILC thanks the Industrial Court for its invitation to partake in an automatic noter-up for the Industrial Court awards.
discussions pertaining to its practice and procedures.
(c) Recording of proceedings by mechanical means
The following are some of the issues discussed at these
meetings: The recording of proceedings by mechanical means will
be implemented in early January 2014. The e-recording
(i) Postponement of cases system is a voice recognition system which will immediately
Members of the Bar are reminded that Chairmen of produce the transcript of what was spoken at the trial.
Industrial Courts would refuse adjournments without The Industrial Court had shared the draft Industrial Court
valid reasons. Therefore, Members of the Bar must (Recording of Proceedings by Mechanical Means) Rules
produce, for example, a medical certificate to justify 2013 with ILC which sets out the use and implementation
the request for adjournment on medical grounds. of the system, for example the discretion of the Chairman
in using the system and the authorisation of person to
(ii) Attending court on time transcribe the e-recording.
Members of the Bar are reminded to attend court on
time, as there were instances where counsel were The advantage of e-recording is that it would speed up trials;
made to wait unnecessarily for the opposing counsel, however ILC is mindful that no system is fool-proof and
who were either simply late in arriving in court, or held there may be a small chance of non-accurate recording due
up in another court. to fast speech and verbal inconsistencies in the system. It
may also change the way lawyers present their cases in the
(iii) Recusal of Chairmen court. Counsel may have to speak in turn and in a slower
Members of the Bar are required to file a notice of pace to enable the system to record speeches.
application with affidavit in support of recusing the
Chairman. Parties involved in proceedings may have their voices
recorded during case management to enable the
(b) Notification to Industrial Courts of outcome of e-recording to recognise the voices, and subpoenaed
judicial review proceedings witness would most probably have their voices recorded
on the hearing date. For witnesses who do not speak
Industrial Court awards are regularly challenged in the English, the Courts had explained that under Practice Note
High Courts by way of judicial review proceedings, and No 1 of 2013 (“Recording of Proceedings by Mechanical
sometimes proceed thereafter to the Court of Appeal and Means”), the Chairman may direct the e-recording to be
Federal Court. The Industrial Courts have noted that parties discontinued and employ any other alternative modes to
do not inform them about the outcome of such applications, record statements from witnesses.
and whether or not an award has been affirmed or quashed
by an order of certiorari. Those matters aside, there are ongoing discussions on the
cost of obtaining the notes of proceedings.
Members of the Bar are urged to inform the Industrial Courts
on the outcome of judicial review proceedings to enable the The Industrial Courts would be the first court in Malaysia
Industrial Courts to keep an updated record. to implement such a system. ILC welcomes and supports
this initiative of the Industrial Court to modernise the
In the meantime, ILC is liaising with the Judiciary to administration of the court as we believe it would be
synchronise High Court cases on the Judiciary website with beneficial to all stakeholders in the long run.

(d) E-service system (4) ILC’s other activities
During a briefing on 8 Oct 2013 chaired by the President (a) Employment Law Seminars
of the Industrial Court, it was explained that the e-service
system was voluntary in nature, in that both parties needed
to agree to use the system. When one party files through
e-service, the system will disseminate the documents to
the other party instantaneously. This would ultimately save
cost and time as well as reduce manpower for all parties to
manually file documents.
Similar in nature with the current e-filing system in the civil

courts, ILC welcomes this initiative by the Courts wherein
parties may see the prospect of conducting paperless trials.
This system will be launched in early January 2014 as well.

Together with the Bar Council Continuing Professional
(e) Practice Notes on “Recording of Development Department, ILC jointly organised five
Proceedings by Mechanical Means” seminars in November 2013 on employment law (please
and “Exhibits which are Tendered at the Industrial see table at the end of this report).
Court”
ILC would like to thank the speakers and moderators for
The President of the Industrial Court issued Practice Note contributing their time and imparting their knowledge and
No 1 of 2013 (“Recording of Proceedings by Mechanical expertise to the participants.
Means”), and Practice Note No 2 of 2013 (“Exhibits which
are Tendered at the Industrial Court”). Further, a one-day employment law seminar will be
organised in Penang on 24 Jan 2014 with the assistance
Members of the Bar were notified in Circular No 263/2013 of the Penang Bar Committee. ILC records its appreciation
dated 10 Dec 2013. to Janice Anne Leo for organising the employment law
seminars in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.
The trial period for recording of proceedings by mechanical
means will be from 2 Jan 2014 in Industrial Courts 3, 5, 12, (b) ILC Annual Dinner 2013
13, 22 and 26 in Kuala Lumpur.
The ILC Annual Dinner 2013 took place at the Royal Lake
Commencing 15 Dec 2013, parties involved in trials will Club on 5 Dec 2013, and was attended by approximately
be requested to attend the relevant court to give speech 100 guests, including Industrial Court Chairmen of various
samples before the hearing dates of the cases. states. ILC Chairperson, Anand Ponnudurai delivered
the welcome address at the dinner, which was held to
(f) High tea commemorate ILC’s achievements for the past year and to
recognise the continued support of the Industrial Courts to
ILC members attended a high tea hosted by the Industrial the Malaysian Bar, and to ILC in particular.
Court on 6 Dec 2013 at the Industrial Court building in
Kuala Lumpur. The guest of honour, YA Susila Sithamparam, President
of the Industrial Court, also delivered a speech and was
committee reports
ILC noted that the TPPA agreement gave favourable

entitlements to investors; in relation to labour, for example,
the agreement was that there would be no form of
discrimination in the employment field within companies or
industries which we felt was not in compliance with local
employment laws.
ILC hopes that MITI will take cognisance of the concerns

raised by all stakeholders, not only in the area of labour
laws, and will publicise negotiations and actively include
stakeholder in future discussions.
presented with a souvenir as a token of appreciation. Acknowledgment
Christopher Leong, President of the Malaysian Bar; Steven
Thiru, Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar; and Richard I wish to extend my gratitude to ILC members for their
Wee Thiam Seng, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, were immense support and diligence extended during my
also present to grace the occasion. tenure. Their contributions have greatly assisted in ILC’s
involvement in addressing industrial relations issues with
ILC records its appreciation to Sonia Abraham and Janice various stakeholders. Lastly, my thanks to ILC’s Deputy
Anne Leo for organising the dinner. Chairperson, Jayasingam Poopalasingam and the Bar
Council Secretariat, in particular, Sumitha Shaanthinni
(c) Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPPA”) Kishna, Assistant Director, and Satha Selvan Subramaniam,
Senior Administrative Assistant, for their invaluable effort
ILC is monitoring the progress of the TPPA and its impact and assistance rendered throughout the term.
on labour laws and the employment market. A member of
the Committee, Selvamalar Alagaratnam attended the TPP Anand Ponnudurai
Open Day that was held on 1 Aug 2013 and organised by Chairperson
the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (“MITI”) to
update the public on the TPPA negotiations and address Date: 3 Jan 2014
the concerns raised.

Employment Law Seminars
Date Session Speaker and Moderator

11 Nov 2013 Law on Dismissals — Misconduct, Anand Ponnudurai
Poor Performance and Retrenchment / Selvamalar Alagaratnam
Constructive Dismissal
(including Relief and Remedies) Moderator:
YA Dato’ Jalaldin b Hj Hussain, Chairman, Industrial Court
12 Nov 2013 Proceedings at the Industrial Court — Devanathan Seperamaniam
Mentions, Case Management, Mediation and Sunil Vijayan
Early Evaluations.
Moderator:
Drafting of Pleadings and Other Applications YA Dato’ Mary Shakila Azariah, Chairman, Industrial Court
— Filing of Relevant Forms, Issuance of
Subpoenas, Filing of Joinder / Consolidation /
Amendments / Reinstatement Application
19 Nov 2013 Conducting Trials and Adducing Evidence at Vijaya Kumar Raj
the Industrial Court Yong Hon Cheong
Moderator:
YA Tuan Peh Suan Yong, Chairman, Industrial Court
26 Nov 2013 Status of Bankrupts / Companies under Muhendaran Suppiah
Liquidation at the Industrial Court, Judicial Mohan Ramakrishnan
Review and Recent Developments in
Employment Law Moderator:
YA Puan Ong Geok Lan, Chairman, Industrial Court
28 Nov 2013 Trade Unionism — Trade Disputes, Chandrasegaran Rajandran
Collective Agreement and Industrial Action Vickneswaren Palanisamy
Moderator:
YA Tuan N Rajendran, Chairman, Industrial Court
committee reports
Intellectual Property Committee

Intellectual property — Valuing intellect
Suaran Singh (Chairperson) | Cindy Goh Joo Seong (Deputy Chairperson) | Bahari Yeow Tien Hong | Brian Law Yew Foo | Cheong Yoke Ping
@ YP Cheong | Chew Bee Ling, Justine | Chew Kherk Ying | Chew Phye Keat | Eugene Roy Joseph | Foong Cheng Leong | Hazlina bt Ahmad
| Janini Rajeswaran | Jasdev Singh Gill | Joseph Lourdesamy | Jyeshta Mahendran | Karen Abraham | Lee Sook Chin, Joann | Michael Soo
Chow Ming | Mohd Aimi Zaini b Mohd Azhar | Ong Boo Seng | Rajkumar s/o Mathusuthanan | Shamesh Jeevaretnam | Sri Sargunaraj
Ideraju | Tai Foong Lam | Wong Jin Nee | Wong Sai Fong | Mazni Ibrahim (until May 2013) | Suhana Mohd Fazil (from June 2013) (Officer-
in-charge)
The Intellectual Property Committee (“IPC”) met four times on the first day of the event. The session consisted of a
between January and December 2013, to organise and briefing, trial preparation, consultations with senior counsel,
discuss various activities for the current term. presentation of witness testimonies, and legal submissions
before a mock judge, culminating in a judgment at the
IPC’s main events and activities for the term are described end of a fiery round of cross-examination of witnesses,
below. submissions of law, and a very tense question-and-answer
moment with the “judge”.
(1) Bar Wars! Intellectual Property Valuation (10 and
11 Jan 2013) The second day featured a forum on the issue of damage
assessment, as well as a seminar on the recent push to
“Bar Wars!” was an exciting two-day event, co-organised encourage banks to accept intellectual property rights as
by IPC and the Professional Standards and Development a pledge for financing or as a form of securitisation. The
Committee (“PSDC”). organisers were honoured to have distinguished leaders
from the legal, banking, and intellectual property sectors
A mock trial on intellectual property issues was staged share their knowledge and experience.

intellectual property committee
(2) Seminar on an Overview of the Recent practitioners in Malaysia that comprise primarily IP lawyers
Developments in Malaysian Intellectual Property (advocates and solicitors) and IP agents (non-legal). In
Law order to help the delegates better understand the IP
situation in Malaysia, he suggested that they visit the local
This seminar, jointly organised by IPC and the Professional chapters of international associations in Malaysia, such as
Development Sub-Committee of the Penang Bar Committee the Malaysian Intellectual Property Association (“MIPA”),
on 17 Jan 2013, was designed to give an overview of the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (“APAA”), Licensing
recent developments in Malaysian intellectual property Executives Society Malaysia (“LESM”) and the International
law. It was attended by approximately 100 participants, Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property
comprising Members of the Bar, pupils in chambers as well (“AIPPI”).
as members of the public.
(4) Seminar on Let’s Get hIP in Kinabalu
Two prominent speakers — Brian Law Yew Foo and
Karen Abraham — were invited to share their knowledge This one-day seminar, on 7 June 2013, jointly organised
and experience on topics such as “Intellectual Property by IPC and the Sabah Law Association, drew a reasonable
Infrastructure”; “Amendments to Legislation and crowd.
Regulations”; “Encouraging, Nurturing and Preserving a
Creative Intellectual Property Community”; and “Case Law Roger Chin of the Sabah Law Association, and IPC
Updates”. member Foong Cheng Leong, shared their knowledge
and experience on “Introduction to Trade Mark,
(3) Visit from Intellectual Property Office, United Copyright, Industrial Designs and Patents in Malaysia”,
Kingdom (“IPO-UK”) and “Introduction to Personal Data Protection Act 2010”,
respectively. An interactive session on “Socialising with
Tweets: Lawyering in the Age of Social Media Explosion”
was also conducted by IPC Chairperson Suaran Singh.
(5) Visit to Department of Personal Data Protection

Malaysia (“DPDP”)
Representatives from IPO-UK, an official government

body overseeing intellectual property rights in the United
Kingdom, paid IPC a visit on 29 Jan 2013, to study
Malaysia’s intellectual property (“IP”) policy environment
and to discuss IP issues that are prevalent in the Malaysian
market.
On 9 July 2013, IPC visited DPDP to request that legal
During the meeting, Brian Law Yew Foo, former Chairperson practitioners be exempted from the requirement of
of IPC, briefed the delegation on the constitution of IP registration under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010
(“PDPA 2010”).
committee reports
Dr Zainal Abidin b Sait, Deputy Director General of DPDP, (7) Meeting on Madrid Protocol
clarified to IPC that DPDP is a newly formed body. He
further explained that PDPA 2010 deals with regulating the On 17 Sept 2013, members of IPC, together with
processing of personal data of individuals by organisations representatives of MIPA, participated in a meeting with the
for use in commercial transactions, whereby such use Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (“MyIPO”) to
ought to be done only with integrity, safety and the aim of discuss the Madrid Protocol. Several issues were raised,
avoiding any misuse of personal data. The Deputy Director which would be further discussed in the next round of
General concurred with IPC’s suggestion of having more meetings with MyIPO.
such meetings in the future, but he also made it clear that
DPDP is very unlikely to permit an exemption in the current (8) Meeting on code of conduct for intellectual
circumstances. He added that DPDP would appreciate the property agents
cooperation of Bar Council to launch PDPA 2010.
Representatives from IPC attended a three-hour discussion
As a result of the meeting, IPC submitted a list of common with MyIPO on 11 Oct 2013, on “Part A: What are the
queries on PDPA 2010, to assist DPDP in preparing Rules?” in respect of a code of conduct for intellectual
guidelines on the legislation. property agents.
(6) Roundtable discussion with Regional Intellectual Acknowledgment

Property Attaché for Southeast Asia
I wish to extend my appreciation to IPC members and
Members of IPC had a roundtable discussion with Peter the Secretariat for their invaluable contribution and active
Fowler, Regional Intellectual Property Attaché for Southeast participation in the various meetings and activities that were
Asia, United States Patent and Trade Office / Foreign part of the IPC’s calendar in 2013. We have had a very
Commercial Service on 16 Aug 2013. Among the topics eventful and exciting year, and we hope that everyone will
discussed were “The Current State of IP Protection and continue to play an active part in 2014 for the furtherance
Enforcement in Malaysia”; “IPC’s Views on the Eventual of the law and value in the protection, enforcement and
Conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement education in the area of intellectual property.
(“TPPA”); “The Issue of ASEAN Single-Market Integration”;
and “Harmonisation of Intellectual Property Rights and Suaran Singh
Practices”. Chairperson
Date: 6 Jan 2014


International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 ORGANISING COMMITTEE
International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 Organising Committee

Reshaping the legal profession, reforming the law
The International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 (“IMLC on 18 Sept 2013 to discuss the structure of the IMLC 2014,
2014”), a flagship event of the Malaysian Bar, will be held specifically on sponsorship, programme and speakers.
at The Royale Chulan Hotel, Kuala Lumpur from 24 to 26
Sept 2014. The theme of IMLC 2014, “Reshaping the Legal To assist in logistics planning of IMLC 2014, the Secretariat
Profession, Reforming the Law”, will address and highlight team comprising the Bar Council Secretariat staff members
issues pertaining to the changing environment of legal and the Chairperson was formed. The team held its first
practice, the need for reform and development of the law, meeting on 22 Aug 2013 to work out the timelines of, and
and many other issues in a frank and engaging setting. expectations for, IMLC 2014. The Secretariat team went on
several site visits to hotels in Kuala Lumpur city to finalise
The conference, showcasing renowned international and the dates and venue of the conference. The team also
local speakers, will set out to chart the future of Malaysia’s worked on preliminary publicity materials to publicise IMLC
legal landscape. 2014.
(1) Preparations for IMLC 2014 (2) Publicity
On 15 Aug 2013, Circular No 172/2013 was issued to invite To kick-start the publicity campaign for IMLC 2014,
Members of the Bar to serve on the IMLC 2014 Organising Circular No 228/2013 entitled “International Malaysia
Committee (“OC”). Twenty-two Members of the Bar Law Conference 2014 (24 to 26 Sept 2014)” was sent to
responded to serve on the OC, which held its first meeting Members of the Bar on 24 Oct 2013.
committee reports
(3) What will IMLC 2014 offer? (k) Competition law and how it impacts the realities of the
modern commercial world;
The sessions at IMLC 2014 address topics such as the (l) Environmental law and the development of
following: sustainable cities;
(m) Challenges to the Federal Constitution;
(a) Key trends and developments that will impact the (n) The development of the law relating to liquidators and
practice of law and the provision of legal services, grounds for removal; and
including the globalisation of the market for legal (o) Issues relating to cross-border liquidation.
services;
(b) Technological advances in software, hardware and IMLC 2014 will also see joint sessions with many law
mobile devices, and how this has and will continue societies in the region and other cross-border legal
to impact research, knowledge management and the organisations with the hope of fostering better ties and
provision of legal services; understanding of the laws and people of the region.
(c) The future of legal practice and the manner in which
law firms will operate: virtual offices, web-based The conference will also provide a unique and invaluable
offices, virtual conferencing, mobile devices, apps opportunity to meet and network with a wide range of legal
and online tools necessary to manage and operate a professionals from across the globe, and to share and
successful law firm and legal practice in the future; exchange ideas and viewpoints.
(d) The changing needs, expectations and demands of
general and in-house legal counsel as the primary (4) Opening Ceremony / Closing Ceremony /
consumers of legal services; Memorial Lecture
(e) Developments in the corporate regulatory regime
in Malaysia and in Asia Pacific, and the changing The Prime Minister of Malaysia has been invited to grace
roles and responsibilities of external legal counsel in the opening ceremony which will be held on the morning of
ensuring disclosure and compliance; 24 Sept 2014.
(f) “The law of libel and slander: Need for reform?”, which
will undertake a comparative study of developments in At the time this report was written, the OC is proud to
other common law jurisdictions in terms of legislative announce that YAA Tun Arifin b Zakaria, Chief Justice of
reform and judicial pronouncements, and the impact the Federal Court of Malaysia, will be the guest of honour
of such changes on the law of defamation; in the closing ceremony, to be held on the evening of 26
(g) Technology and the courts: an open and frank Sept 2014.
discussion of the changes that have been
implemented, and further changes that are needed to Further, the 3rd Raja Aziz Addruse Memorial Lecture will be
ensure the fair disposal of legal proceedings; held on the evening of 25 Sept 2014.
(h) Key trends and developments in the international
Islamic financial markets; These three events will be open to a wider audience, and
(i) Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution: Recent include non-delegates.
trends and developments in cross-border disputes
and other issues, including regulation of international (5) Social events
arbitrations, the role of the local courts, and the
impact of the new Construction Industry Payment and A pre-conference registration will be held at The Royale
Adjudication Act 2012; Chulan on the evening of 23 Sept 2014 to enable delegates
(j) The impact of anti-money laundering and counter- to pre-register and collect conference bags, materials and
terrorism legislation on client confidentiality;

International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 ORGANISING COMMITTEE
tags. The OC and Secretariat team are currently sourcing (9) Contact persons
for venues to hold the welcome cocktail reception and gala
dinner on the evenings of 24 and 26 Sept 2014, respectively. For further information, kindly contact:
(6) Exhibition (a) Suriati Dalilan (03-2050 2121; suriati@malaysianbar.

org.my) for delegate registration;
Delegates of the conference will be able to enjoy an (b) Sangheetha Kuppusamy (03-2050 2038;
exhibition featuring a range of exhibitors from all industries, sangheetha@malaysianbar.org.my) for advertising
at the corridors of the conference venue. A wide range of and exhibition enquiries;
exhibitors from job recruiters, publishers, local and foreign (c) Nishta Jiwa (03-2050 2037; nishta@malaysianbar.
law schools / universities, legal firms, business entities, org.my) for conference sponsorship; and
bar associations, banks, and insurance companies, to IT (d) Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna (03-2050 2090;
software / service providers will be invited to take up booths sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my) for other conference
to showcase their products. enquiries.
(7) Sponsorship for IMLC 2014 Acknowledgment
A comprehensive booklet featuring the different I wish to thank the Office Bearers and Bar Council members
sponsorship and advertising packages has been produced for entrusting me to helm the conference. A special
and distributed to potential sponsors. mention goes to the members of the OC and the staff
members of the Bar Council Secretariat for their dedication
Sponsors are graciously invited to avail themselves to the and commitment thus far in preparation for IMLC 2014. I
opportunities to sponsor and advertise their products, as look forward to your continued support to make IMLC 2014
well as the chance to meet and network with leaders in the a success.
industry.
Brendan Navin Siva
(8) Invitation Chairperson
The OC cordially invites you and your organisation to Date: 17 Dec 2013
take part in the Malaysian Bar’s signature event for 2014.
Our doors are now open for delegate registration and For any enquiries, please email:
conference sponsorship. sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Islamic Finance Committee

Islamic banking and finance — The way forward
Yasmeen Hj Mohd Shariff (Co-Chairperson) | Ahmad Taufiq Baharum (Co-Chairperson) | Adzly Ab Manas | Al-Sabri b Hj Ahmad Kabri |
Ashela d/o Ramaya | Celine Rangithan | Chan Kwan Hoe | Chin Meei Sien | Chong Siew Ean | Ellysyeliza bt Mohd Desa | Hazlina bt Ahmad
| Hazwan b Mohd Nor | Megat Hizaini b Hassan | Mohd Irwan b Mohd Mubarak | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Nazriah bt Shaik Alawdin |
S Mahendran | Zalina bt Hashim | Mazni Ibrahim (until May 2013); Suhana Mohd Fazil (from June 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
The main objective of the Islamic Finance Committee including the Financial Services Act 2013 and the Islamic
(“IFC”) is to provide training for Members of the Bar in Financial Services Act 2013.
Islamic finance.
(2) 12th meeting of the Malaysian International Islamic
The events and activities undertaken by IFC in 2013 are Finance Centre (“MIFC”) Executive Committee
described below.
At the invitation of BNM, the Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar,
(1) Symposium entitled “A New Legal Landscape in Karen Cheah Yee Lynn, and the Co-Chairperson of IFC,
the Malaysian Financial Industry” Yasmeen Hj Mohd Shariff, attended the MIFC Executive
Committee’s 12th meeting held on 4 July 2013.
On 20 June 2013, Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”)
organised a symposium entitled “A New Legal Landscape Among the topics discussed were “Islamic Finance Talent
in the Malaysian Financial Industry”. Development: Raising the Bar”, “Effective Implementation
of Legislative Amendments Addressing Compatibility
IFC member Megat Hizaini b Hassan was invited to share of Laws for Islamic Finance”, and “Malaysia as a Global
his knowledge and experience on topics relating to recent Marketplace for Islamic Fund and Wealth Management”.
legislative changes as well as new financial legislation,

islamic finance committee
(3) Course on “Current Trends in Islamic Banking in Order 2005, which included amendments to the legal fee
Malaysia” structure for preparing and attending to Islamic financing
documentation.
Seven members of IFC attended a course on “Current
Trends in Islamic Banking in Malaysia”, which was held at At the meeting, AIBIM sought Bar Council’s view on having
the Judicial and Legal Training Institute (“ILKAP”) from 19 a standard template for summons for recovery of Islamic
to 21 Aug 2013. financing facilities. IFC representatives informed the
attendees that IFC is working on this proposal.
The objective of the course was to enhance participants’
knowledge and understanding of current trends, and to IFC is preparing a guideline for, and is also planning to
expose participants to issues and challenges in Islamic conduct a workshop on, drafting pleadings.
banking in Malaysia.
(6) Half-day talk for Malacca Bar
(4) Law Harmonisation Committee Report 2013
The IFC and Malacca Bar Committee worked together
IFC members attended a media briefing on the Law to organise a half-day talk at the LaBoss Hotel in Taman
Harmonisation Committee Report 2013 on 7 Oct 2013, on Melaka Raya on 19 Dec 2013.
the day that the Report was released.
The talk was conducted by Mohd Amir Sharil Bahari b Md
The Law Harmonisation Committee was established Noor, a Member of the Bar, on Islamic estate management
by BNM, and is chaired by YAA Tun Abdul Hamid b and division of property. It was attended by approximately
Hj Mohamad, former Chief Justice of Malaysia. The 67 participants, comprising members of the Malacca Bar
Committee’s Report covers its initiatives over the three- and pupils in chambers.
year period since its establishment, in harmonising the laws
in Malaysia that pose impediments to the “efficient conduct (7) Back-to-School Charity Drive
of Islamic finance”. The Committee reviewed nine issues
regarding 17 laws, and put forward recommendations — IFC reprised its “Back-to-School Charity Drive” initiative in
which are in various stages of implementation — on four December 2013.
issues. The Report is intended to be a valuable reference
for legal practitioners, academicians, industry players and This project was aimed at providing financial assistance
the public at large. for the basic needs of school-going children. It had been
inspired by a story, narrated by an IFC member in 2012, of
(5) Dialogue between Bar Council, Associations of two siblings in a northern state who had to share one school
Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia (“AIBIM”) uniform.
and various banks
This year, after reading news reports about floods that
On 24 Oct 2013, a dialogue session was held between the affected thousands throughout Malaysia, where many
Conveyancing Practice Committee (“CPC”), IFC, AIBIM families had to be evacuated from flood-affected areas and
and various banks, to discuss issues and problems faced thus faced an additional financial burden, IFC once again
by all the parties. The Co-Deputy Chairperson of CPC, appealed to Members of the Bar to donate generously to
A Ramanathan, informed the participants that in 2012, BC this worthy cause. RM5,800 has been collected to date.
had proposed amendments to the Solicitors’ Remuneration
committee reports
(8) National symposium on Islamic banking and Acknowledgment

finance
IFC has worked hard towards achieving its objective of
IFC, in collaboration with AIBIM, is working to organise a providing training for the benefit of Members of the Bar.
national symposium on Islamic banking and finance in the Both Co-Chairpersons would like to thank IFC members
first half of 2014. and the Secretariat for all their effort and diligence.
Yasmeen Hj Mohd Shariff and Ahmad Taufiq Baharum

Co-Chairpersons
Date: 10 Feb 2014


jawatankuasa bahasa melayu
Jawatankuasa Bahasa Melayu

Ke arah mendaulat dan memperkasakan penggunaan Bahasa Melayu dalam bidang perundangan
Amirruddin Abu Bakar (Pengerusi Bersama) | Mukhtar Abdullah (Pengerusi Bersama) | Abdullah Hamzah | Hasnifalina bt Hasanudin |
Palani Ammal a/p A Subramaniam | Tieh Siaw Siong | Mazni Ibrahim (hingga Mei 2013) | Suhana Mohd Fazil (daripada Jun 2013) (Pegawai
yang bertugas)
Jawatankuasa Bahasa Melayu (“JBM”) telah bermesyuarat

sebanyak empat kali sepanjang tahun 2013.
Kunjungan hormat ke Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka

(“DBP”)
JBM telah mengadakan kunjungan hormat ke DBP pada 18

Oktober 2013. Tujuan kunjungan hormat tersebut adalah
untuk mengukuhkan hubungan dua hala yang telah terjalin
sebelum ini, di samping membincangkan program-program
yang dapat dianjurkan bersama.
Ketua Pengarah DBP, Datuk Dr Haji Awang b Sariyan, dan

pegawai-pegawai DBP telah menyatakan kesudian mereka
untuk bekerjasama dengan JBM bagi memperkasakan
penggunaan Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa perundangan.
committee reports
Ceramah “Memperkasakan Sistem Perundangan Penceramah yang dijemput, Abdul Rahim b Mat Yassim,
Negara Melalui Bahasa Melayu” merupakan pensyarah linguistik dari Universiti Malaya.
Pengalaman dan kepakaran beliau antara lain adalah
Bahasa dan Linguistik Melayu, patologi pertuturan
dan bahasa, dan terjemahan dokumen perubatan dan
perundangan.
Selari dengan tujuan dan matlamat JBM untuk

memartabatkan penggunaan Bahasa Melayu, terutamanya
dalam bidang perundangan dan di kalangan para pelajar,
peguam dan masyarakat umum, JBM bersama DBP telah
menganjurkan satu sesi ceramah bertajuk “Memperkasakan
Sistem Perundangan Negara Melalui Bahasa Melayu” pada Penutup
30 November 2013 di mana 120 peserta telah mengambil
bahagian. JBM ingin mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada
penceramah-penceramah jemputan, pihak DBP dan
Ceramah yang menumpukan kepada topik yang penting Sekretariat Badan Peguam kerana telah menyokong
kepada semua yang terlibat dalam sistem perundangan dan membantu dalam menjayakan program-program
kebangsaan ini telah disampaikan oleh Datuk Dr Haji yang dianjurkan oleh JBM. Kerjasama ini diharap dapat
Awang b Sariyan. diteruskan pada masa akan datang.
Di samping itu, persembahan deklamasi puisi turut diadakan Amirruddin Abu Bakar dan Mukhtar Abdullah
di mana pihak JBM telah diwakili oleh Richard Wee Thiam Pengerusi-pengerusi Bersama
Seng, Setiausaha Bar Malaysia, manakala pihak DBP telah
diwakili oleh Siti Hazlinda Zulkifli, pegawai DBP. Tarikh: 10 Februari 2014
Bengkel Bahasa Melayu Perundangan
Pada 19 Disember 2013, JBM telah menganjurkan Bengkel

Bahasa Melayu Perundangan bertempat di Auditorium
Jawatankuasa Bar Kuala Lumpur, Jalan Tun Perak. Ia
bertujuan untuk memantapkan lagi penggunaan Bahasa
Melayu di kalangan para peserta. Bengkel yang bersifat Untuk sebarang pertanyaan, sila emel:
interaktif ini memberikan latihan yang praktis kepada para sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my
peserta untuk menguji dan mengukuhkan lagi pemahaman
mereka dalam Bahasa Melayu Perundangan.

Law Reform and Special Areas Committee

Law reform . . . moving with the times
Kenny Lai Choe Ken (Chairperson) | Vishnu Kumar s/o S Athi Kumar (Deputy Chairperson) | Chin Lee Min, Helen | Justine Chew Bee Ling |
Khairuzzaman Muhammad | M Ramachelvam | Mariadass Anthony Dass | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Oon Hooi Lin | Ramachandran s/o Nana
Pulle | Silvaraju Velu | Germaine Low Ee Ling (Officer-in-charge)
The objectives of the Law Reform and Special Areas (1) Creating a Law Commission of Malaysia
Committee (“LRSAC”) are to:
(a) examine the provisions of statutes, regulations and

legislation affecting the everyday life of ordinary
Malaysians;
(b) suggest amendments to these laws and address
problems faced by the public pertaining to these laws;
and
(c) liaise with, and assist, other Bar Council committees
in relation to law reform affecting the committees’
areas of work.
The key initiatives that LRSAC was involved in during this

term are summarised below. Since 2001, the Malaysian Bar has been consistent in
its clarion call to the Malaysian Government to establish
a law reform commission. In 2001, LRSAC prepared a
committee reports
memorandum on “Proposed Legislation for Creating a Law (2) Proposed amendments to the Malaysian Anti-
Commission of Malaysia”, which was forwarded to relevant Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”)
ministries.
LRSAC and the Criminal Law Committee intends to work
In 2009, the Government established the Malaysia Law together to draw up a set of amendments to the MACC Act,
Reform Committee, and in October 2010, the Malaysian to reinforce the MACC.
Bar submitted memoranda on various areas of law that it
had proposed to the Government. Circular No 201/2013 dated 19 Sept 2013 was disseminated
to Members and stakeholders to seek their feedback
In 2011, the Government announced that it would establish on the proposed amendments to the MACC Act. The
an independent law reform commission, to which the two Committees will study and incorporate the feedback
Malaysian Bar responded with a press release dated 14 received, into the proposed amendments.
Dec 2011 entitled “Malaysian Bar Welcomes Deputy
Minister’s Announcement of the Establishment of an (3) Subcommittee on Civil Law Act 1956
Independent Law Reform Commission”. The Bar, in the
press release, commended the Government, stating that The Subcommittee on Civil Law Act 1956 (“Subcommittee”)
“it is time Malaysia establishes an independent law reform completed the review of the Bar Council’s “Memorandum
commission responsible for reviewing, drafting and making Relating to Proposed Amendments to the Civil Law Act”
laws and the related processes equitable, modern, fair and (“Memorandum”) in December 2009.
efficient”. However, there was no subsequent development
on the initiative. However, the Memorandum is limited to sections 7, 11
and 28 of the Civil Law Act 1956. Therefore, LRSAC has
In 2012, the Government once again announced that it decided to look into the other provisions of the law. In
would look into establishing “an independent law reform addition, LRSAC is taking into account the retirement age
commission to review and modernise archaic laws in the of 60 years, in amending the law.
country”. The Malaysian Bar subsequently welcomed
the announcement in a press release dated 24 May 2012 In respect of the proposed amendments to specific sections
entitled “Malaysian Bar Commends Announcement of the of the Civil Law Act 1956, Circular No 200/2013 dated 19
Establishment of an Independent Law Reform Commission”, Sept 2013 was disseminated to Members for their feedback.
and expressed the hope that “the words of the Minister, The Subcommittee will take the following sections into
and the Deputy Minister before him, were not merely ‘feel- consideration before finalising the proposed amendments:
good’ rhetoric uttered ahead of a much-anticipated general
election”. (a) Section 7: Compensation to the family of a person for
loss occasioned by his death;
In 2013, LRSAC collaborated with the Human Rights (b) Section 8: Effect of death on certain causes of action;
Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) to co-organise a and
forum on the urgent need to establish an independent law (c) Section 28A: Damages in respect of personal injury.
reform commission to take on suggestions from interested
parties, legislators, members of the legal community Once the changes to the Memorandum have been finalised,
and the public, regarding reforms to laws. The forum is it will be forwarded to the relevant authorities.
scheduled to take place in the second quarter of 2014, and
will focus on the Federal Constitution, and the structure
of a permanent law reform commission that will draft and
recommend laws for the Legislature’s consideration.

Acknowledgment
I wish to convey my gratitude to the members of LRSAC; members of the

Subcommittee; Members of the Malaysian Bar; the Bar Council Secretariat; the
Officer-in-charge, Germaine Low Ee Ling; and fellow professional bodies who
contributed in one way or another to LRSAC’s successful and fulfilling term.
Kenny Lai Choe Ken

Chairperson
Date: 23 Jan 2014
For further enquiries, please email:

germaine@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
LawCare Committee
LawCare — We care
Indran V Kumaraguru (Chairperson) | Asbir Kaur Sangha (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Kanarasan Ghandinesen (Co-Deputy Chairperson) |
Alex Tan Jee Hian | G Balakrishnan | Jagjit Singh | Nazriah b Shaik Alawdin | Rajendra Raj | S Ravichandran | Serene Ong Si-Oui | Shegi Nair
(Officer-in-charge)
The primary objective of LawCare is to provide financial Benefits under LawCare

assistance to Members of the Bar or their families in cases
of illness, disability or death. In the event of a Member’s death, RM40,000 is paid to the
Member’s beneficiary or trustee, and an additional sum
Members contribute RM100 to the LawCare Fund annually. of RM2,000 is paid for funeral expenses. Members who
Part of this sum is paid as premium to the LawCare Group suffer from terminal illness may claim the sum of RM40,000
Term Life Insurance Policy while the balance is maintained immediately.
in the LawCare Fund.
In cases where a Member suffers from a total or partial
Bar Council renewed the Group Term Life (“GTL”) Insurance permanent disability, RM40,000 (or a percentage of this
Policy with AIA Bhd with effect from 1 July 2013. During sum) is paid to the Member.
the term, the LawCare Committee successfully obtained a
more favourable annual insurance premium rate of RM50 In both instances, RM30,000 (and the additional RM2,000)
per Member of the Bar, a decrease from the previous rate is paid from the insurance policy, and the remaining
of RM51.55. RM10,000 is paid from the LawCare Fund. However, the
insurance policy only covers Members up to 70 years of
age. Therefore, in the event of death or disability befalling
Members above 70 years of age, the full sum is paid from
the LawCare Fund.

LAWCARE committee
In addition, where a Member below the age of 70 passes State No of No of No of No of

away while abroad, the Member’s family is entitled to claim deaths in deaths in deaths in deaths in
towards the repatriation expenses. 2010 / % 2011 / % 2012 / % 2013 / %
Johore 4 / 11.8 1/5 5 / 20 3 / 13.6
The LawCare Committee also considers requests from Kedah 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Members who require financial assistance due to terminal
Kelantan 2 / 5.9 0/0 2/8 1 / 4.5
illness (eg cancer), on a case-by-case basis.
Kuala 7 / 20.6 10 / 50 6 / 24 4 / 18.2
Lumpur
Members are encouraged to view the GTL Insurance Policy
Malacca 1 / 2.9 0/0 3 / 12 1 / 4.5
to learn about these benefits, the extent of coverage, and
Negeri 0/0 0/0 0/0 4 / 18.2
full details of exclusions. The policy and applicable forms
Sembilan
can be accessed on the Malaysian Bar website, under the
Pahang 2 / 5.9 0/0 1/4 1 / 4.5
“Resources>Frequently Used Forms” tab.
Penang 7 / 20.6 2 / 10 2/8 2 / 9.1
The premium schedule and claims information for the Perak 3 / 8.8 2 / 10 1/4 2 / 9.1
previous and current terms are detailed below. Perlis 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0
Selangor 8 / 23.5 5 / 25 5 / 20 3 / 13.6
July 2012 to July 2013 to Terengganu 0/0 0/0 0/0 1 / 4.5
June 2013 June 2014 Total 34 / 100 20 / 100 25 / 100 22 / 100
Premium paid for 13,845 14,986
Members, at Members, at
Age No of No of No of No of
RM51.55 per RM50.00 per
deaths in deaths in deaths in deaths in
Member Member
2010 / % 2011 / % 2012 / % 2013 / %
Sum insured RM30,000 RM30,000 25-29 0/0 0/0 0/0 1 / 4.5
Total premium paid RM713,719.75 RM749,310 30-34 1 / 2.94 0/0 1/4 0/0
Number of death 22 13 (as at 20 35-39 5/14.71 0/0 1/4 2 / 9.1
claims Jan 2014) 40-44 3/8.82 0/0 3/12 2 / 9.1
45-49 5/14.71 2/10 4/16 2 / 9.1
50-54 5/14.71 0/0 5/20 1 / 4.5
The statistics on deaths over the last three years, broken 55-59 4/11.76 6/30 4/16 2 / 9.1
down according to state and age, are provided in the 60-64 2/5.88 4/20 4/16 1 / 4.5
following two tables. 65-69 5/14.71 3/15 2/8 6 / 27.3
70-74 2/5.88 3/15 1/4 1 / 4.5
75-79 0/0 1/5 0/0 2 / 9.1
80-84 0/0 0/0 0/0 1 / 4.5
85-89 1/2.94 0/0 0/0 1 / 4.5
90-94 1/2.94 1/5 0/0 0/0
Total 34/100 20/100 25/100 22 / 100
committee reports
LawCare Beneficiary / Trustee Nomination Form Acknowledgment
In the event of a non-Muslim Member’s death, the sum of I wish to express my appreciation to the LawCare Committee
RM42,000 will be paid to the beneficiary or trustee duly members for their valuable insight and unwavering
nominated by the Member. In the case of Muslim Members, commitment to the cause of LawCare. I would like to place
the sum will be paid to the beneficiaries in accordance with on record our gratitude to our Officer-in-charge, Shegi Nair,
principles of faraid. for her dedication to the work of the Committee. Finally, I
thank the State Bar Committees and Members of the Bar for
If no nomination has been made, the sum will be paid their assistance to the Committee.
to either the executor or administrator of the deceased
Member’s estate. Additional documents must be provided It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve the LawCare
before payment can be made: the Grant of Probate, Grant of Committee.
Letters of Administration, or Sijil Faraid. Naturally, the claims
process will take longer to complete in such circumstances. Indran V Kumaraguru
Chairperson
Where a nomination has been made, payment is issued
immediately upon receipt of funds from the insurer (which Date: 20 Jan 2014
usually takes approximately two months from the date of
notification). LawCare also assists the family of a deceased For any enquiries, please email:
Member: where a beneficiary has been nominated, shegi@malaysianbar.org.my
RM10,000 from the LawCare Fund is paid immediately to
the nominee. Therefore, it is extremely advantageous for
Members to appoint a nominee, as it facilitates the process.
Members who have not made a nomination or wish to

change their nomination, may do so by completing the
nomination form and returning it to the Bar Council. The
form may be obtained from the Bar Council Secretariat or
downloaded from the Malaysian Bar website, under the
“Resources>Frequently Used Forms” tab.

LEGAL PROFESSION committee
Legal Profession Committee

Upholding the integrity of the legal profession
Karen Cheah Yee Lynn (Chairperson) | Chen Kah Leng (Deputy Chairperson) | Amar Chand Vohrah | Andrew Khoo Chin Hock | Benedict
Cheang Chu Yong | C Megalai | Chay Fon Leng, Cathryn | Dennis Appaduray | GK Ganesan | Lee Sook Chin | Lim Kiat Seng, Freddy Victor
| Manjit Kaur Gill | Mohd Iqbal b Zainal Abidin | Murad Ali b Abdullah | Natarajan s/o Chinnaswami | Ng Kong Peng | Ng Seng Kiok | Ng
Shiow Wen | Nicholas Chang | Paul R Manecksha | Pushpa Ratnam | Rajoo D Moothy | Rejinder Singh | S Gunasegaran | Sarengapani s/o K
Rajoo | SS Muker | Teo Kok Vui @ Simon | Trevor George | Marianna Laureen Tan (Officer-in-charge)
The Legal Profession Committee (“LPC”) continues its the public. The complexity of issues raised has changed
function to address and deliberate upon a variety of the dynamics and mindset of the LPC, as more difficult
enquiries raised by Members of the Bar as well as the public, questions and issues are posed for its deliberation.
on issues relating to the professional conduct and practice
of lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia. LPC also renders its LPC met nine times between May 2013 and January 2014,
views in respect of the application of the provisions of the and worked on, among others, the matters summarised
Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) and the various rules below.
and rulings issued under section 57 of the LPA.
(1) Bar Council rulings
The scope of work given to LPC in the past two years
has increased substantially, with requests to draft new Pursuant to section 57(a) of the LPA, Bar Council
provisions to the LPA as well as amendments to existing issued or revised the following rulings, based on LPC’s
provisions. There has been a marked increase in the recommendation:
number of queries posed by Members of the Bar and
committee reports
(a) Ruling 14.27: No Charging of Additional Fees for legal practice or is first made against the firm during
Affirming Affidavits to Support Application for the period of insurance;
Probate (iii) Whether a particular claim falls within the ambit of the
policy cover will be determined by the insurers based
Where an affidavit has to be filed in Court for the on the information and documents provided by the
purpose of an application for grant of probate, firm; and
a solicitor who has been paid legal fees for (iv) Clause 33 of the Certificate of Insurance, which
preparing the will for attesting the testator’s deals with exclusions under the cover, provides, in
signature, is not entitled to claim any further particular, the following exclusions:
legal fees for signing such affidavit. w Any claim in respect of any personal financial
guarantee or undertaking given by lawyers
This new Ruling, which is applicable to applications for otherwise than in good faith in the course of
probate matters, is to prevent lawyers from charging fees the conduct of the firm or as required by law or
just for the signing of an affidavit as the act of signing an order of the courts (clause 33(f)); and
affidavit to support an application for probate, is one which w The giving of any express or implied warranty
is envisaged at the time the will is being prepared. or guarantee relating to the financial return of
any investment (clause 33(k)).
Members of the Bar were notified of the Ruling via Circular
No 136/2013 dated 14 June 2013, which took effect Bar Council alerted Members of the Bar to this exclusion
immediately, and a corrective circular dated 19 June 2013. clause via Circular No 023/2013 on 23 Jan 2013.
Several Members of the Bar subsequently provided their In connection with this, Bar Council decided to put in place
views on the Ruling. LPC has referred to the Court Liaison Ruling 14.28 to protect the interest of advocates and
Committee the issues that were raised, so that they can be solicitors by prohibiting them from providing any guarantee,
taken up with the Court Registrar at their next meeting. undertaking or indemnity having the same effect, in favour
of clients or third parties, as this may void the PII policy.
(b) Ruling 14.28: Prohibition of Providing Guarantee The new Ruling provides:
in Favour of Clients or Third Parties
An Advocate and Solicitor practising as such,
A law firm had enquired whether it is appropriate and ethical shall not sign any document nor give any
for an advocate and solicitor to execute a joint and several undertaking that has the effect of guaranteeing
guarantee in favour of his or her client so as to indemnify or of indemnifying clients or third parties, as a
the client against any loss suffered that is attributable to the form of indemnity, against any loss suffered.
advocate and solicitor’s fault.
Members of the Bar were notified of the Ruling, which took
When the insurers’ views were sought on this issue, they effect immediately, via Circular No 247/2013 dated 19 Nov
replied as follows: 2013.
(i) The scope of cover provided under the Professional After the issuance of this circular, LPC considered several
Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) policy is per the terms and letters from Members of the Bar, particularly conveyancing
conditions laid out in the Certificate of Insurance; practitioners, who sought Bar Council’s stand concerning
(ii) The insurers of the schedule will indemnify the firm whether they would be in breach of Ruling 14.28 if they
against civil liability for a claim that arises from the issued the sample standard undertaking (indemnity) of

certain banks. LPC is of the view that Ruling 14.28 is (c) Ruling 13.01(4) and appendices
sufficiently wide to cover the undertakings set out in those
sample letters. Members are thus advised to refrain from Bar Council recently issued Circular No 272/2013 dated 26
rendering such undertakings to banks, to avoid breaching Dec 2013 alerting Members of the Bar to the amendments
Ruling 14.28. to Ruling 13.01 and its appendices, regarding the notice
to Bar Council in respect of cessation of, or change in,
Following the implementation of the Ruling, Bar Council practice. The amendments took effect immediately.
issued letters to Bank Negara Malaysia, the Association of
Banks in Malaysia, and the Association of Islamic Banking (2) Enquiries considered by LPC
Institutions Malaysia, informing them of the Ruling and
seeking their cooperation to disseminate it to their members. (a) Whether it is permissible for a law firm to assign
its office manager to be one of the signatories to
LPC was asked whether Ruling 14.28 supersedes Circular the firm’s client accounts
No 259/2009 dated 17 Sept 2009, entitled “Malaysian
Bar PII Mandatory Policy May Not Respond to Claims LPC considered rule 11(6) of the Solicitors’ Account
Arising from the Giving of a Blanket Letter of Undertaking Rules 1990, which gives Bar Council the discretion to
and/or Indemnity by a Solicitor”. That circular, issued allow an unauthorised person to withdraw from a firm’s
by the Conveyancing Practice Committee, set out a client account. The reason given by the firm was that its
number of examples of undertakings issued by solicitors lawyer was contesting in the general election. Bar Council
in the course of practice, to make good to financiers any concurred with LPC’s view that the firm should not be
loss or damage suffered by the financiers arising from allowed to assign its office manager to be a signatory to
security documentation, which are generally accepted as its client accounts, as the reason given by the firm was not
reasonable. The circular noted the Professional Indemnity acceptable.
Insurance (“PII”) Committee’s view, after its discussion with
the broker for the Bar’s PII Scheme, that (subject to the (b) Impact of renunciation of Malaysian citizenship
terms and conditions of the Bar’s PII Mandatory Policy): on membership with the Bar
(i) the Policy may not respond to claims arising from the An advocate and solicitor, who had applied for Singapore
giving of a blanket undertaking due to its scope; citizenship and intended to renounce his Malaysian
(ii) the Mandatory Policy is an indemnity policy; its primary citizenship, enquired whether:
goal is to ensure compensation to those who suffer
loss through the negligence of a solicitor. A blanket (i) renunciation would affect his existing membership
undertaking may involve issues extending beyond with the Malaysian Bar; and
negligence, including misconduct or dishonesty, that (ii) Bar Council would issue him a Sijil Annual if he
is not covered or has limited cover under the Policy. secures an employment pass to work in Malaysia in
the future.
The Committee is of the view that Circular No 259/2009
merely serves as a guide for Members of the Bar. In any Having deliberated and sought legal opinions on the
event, Ruling 14.28 has the effect of superseding Circular matter, Bar Council concluded that a Sijil Annual and
No 259/2009, as Bar Council has ruled that advocates Practising Certificate may be issued to him even after he
and solicitors are prohibited from rendering any form has renounced his Malaysian citizenship. LPC has been
of undertaking that has the effect of guaranteeing or further tasked to look into amending the relevant provisions
indemnifying clients or third parties. in the LPA to plug the loophole whereby non-citizens, such
committee reports
as this lawyer, do not come under the liberalisation regime (f) Whether it is permissible for a law firm to have a
but could still practise. service office in a setting whereby each office will
be a separate private room but share a reception
(c) Whether encashment from client accounts is area and main entrance
permissible for purposes of court filing fees, land
office registration and other disbursements LPC is of the view that the above is not permissible,
pursuant to Bar Council Ruling 7.03.
LPC is of the view that rules 7 and 8 of the Solicitors’
Account Rules 1990 in effect allow cash monies to be drawn (g) Whether an advocate and solicitor can charge
from client accounts for the purpose of making payment of fees for preparing audit verification reports for
disbursements on behalf of clients. auditors of a client
(d) Whether a Singapore law firm is permitted to LPC is of the view that an advocate and solicitor may charge
advertise its practice in a Malaysian newspaper reasonable fees for preparing audit verification reports for
auditors of a client.
LPC is of the view that there is no objection to the
firm advertising its Singapore practice in a Malaysian (h) Whether a law firm can use a 25th-year-anniversary
newspaper, so long as it does not advertise or represent logo in its newsletter, website, letterhead and
in the advertisement that it renders legal advice on, or other forms of advertising materials
practises, Malaysian law.
LPC has no objections to the firm using a 25th-year-
However, the firm was also informed that advocates and anniversary logo in the aforementioned materials and
solicitors of Peninsular Malaysia are regulated by the Legal forum, as long as the firm ensures compliance with the
Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 insofar as publicity or Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 as well as the
advertisement of the firm itself is concerned. In light of this, relevant Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council.
the Singapore law firm was advised to take cognisance of
the spirit and intent of the rules applicable to all Peninsular (i) Whether it is permissible for an advocate and
Malaysian advocates and solicitors, so as to assure that solicitor to give video testimonials about a course
Peninsular Malaysian practitioners are on a level playing offered by a university
field in respect of all advertisements and publicity.
LPC is of the view that the script of the testimonial furnished
(e) Whether it is permissible for an advocate and by the advocate and solicitor seems to endorse the
solicitor to display his or her photograph in his or university course. LPC expressed its objection by alerting
her call card the advocate and solicitor to Bar Council Ruling 5.16, which
provides as follows:
LPC is of the view that it is permissible for an advocate and
solicitor to display his or her photograph in his or her call An Advocate and Solicitor shall not advertise or
card, so long as the photograph is not incompatible with the endorse any product, goods or services in his/
dignity of the legal profession. her capacity as an Advocate and Solicitor nor
shall such Advocate and Solicitor appear in or
be mentioned in any such advertisement or
endorsement in his/her capacity as an Advocate
and Solicitor or described as an Advocate and
Solicitor.

(j) Whether an advocate and solicitor can add, on (m) Whether a law firm can deal with debt collection
the firm’s letterhead and correspondence, her agencies
English name to the name stated in her identity
card LPC is of the view that there is no objection to a law firm
dealing with debt collection agencies so long as the law firm
LPC decided to maintain its previous decision, which allows concerned is engaged to provide legal services and that
an advocate and solicitor to display on the firm’s letterhead the firm is not allowed to share fees or pay commissions.
the full name, as stated in her National Registration Identity The firm is to be guided by rule 52(a) and (b) of the Legal
Card (“NRIC”), which accompanies the English name she Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.
intends to use.
(n) Whether a law firm can advertise in Google Ads
LPC also alerted the enquiring Member to Bar Council
Ruling 14.11 regarding names on rubber stamps when LPC has no objection to the a law firm advertising in Google
attesting and/or certifying Land Office or any other Ads, so long as the law firm ensures compliance with the
documents, that the Member must state her name together Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001, Legal Profession
with her Malaysian Bar membership number, as specified (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, and Rules and Rulings
in her Practising Certificate. of the Bar Council.
(k) Whether an advocate and solicitor can practise (o) Whether a firm’s logo can be displayed in its
as an Islamic estate planner while practising as signboard and nameplate
an advocate and solicitor
LPC has decided that by extension of Bar Council Ruling
Since the area of practice of an Islamic estate planner 3.05, a firm may display its logo on its signboard and
involves advising on Syariah law, Bar Council decided that nameplate.
the advocate and solicitor needs to conduct this area of
practice within the confines of his/her law firm and not as a (p) Whether it is permissible for a law firm to pay a
separate practice outside his/her law firm. commission to an agent to promote the law firm
and secure clients
(l) Whether a law firm can set up a Twitter account for
the purpose of notifying its followers of selected LPC alerted the enquiring Member to rule 52(b) of the Legal
updates and news items related to Information Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, which
Communications Technology (“ICT”), which will prohibits an advocate and solicitor from doing so.
most likely consist of links to ICT news items,
including a brief summary, and will not contain (3) Specimen letter of engagement of legal services
any opinions relating to ICT and “Step-By-Step Guide on How to Appoint a
Lawyer”
LPC is of the view that there is no objection to a firm setting
up a Twitter account so long as it ensures compliance At Bar Council’s request, LPC prepared a specimen
with the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001, Legal letter of engagement of legal services, which Members
Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, and Rules of the Bar may find useful as a guide. The specimen
and Rulings of the Bar Council. It is also recommended that letter may be accessed at the Malaysian Bar website, at
the spirit and intention of Chapter 17 (entitled “Websites of http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_
Law Firms”) of the Rules and Rulings of the Bar Council be docman&task=doc_details&gid=4313&Itemid=332.
observed closely.
committee reports
LPC also prepared a “Step-By-Step Guide on How to (5) Answers-in-Law: Summary of actions taken by
Appoint a Lawyer”, to assist members of the public. The Bar Council
Guide is available at the Malaysian Bar website, at http://
www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_ On 22 July 2013, a summary of actions taken by Bar Council
docman&task=doc_details&gid=4312&Itemid=332. in respect of Answers-in-Law (“AIL”) was posted on the
Malaysian Bar website for the information of Members of
Members of the Bar were informed of these documents via the Bar as well as the general public.
Circular No 212/2013 dated 2 Oct 2013.
The following salient points were noted in the report:
(4) Application for Sijil Annual and appearance in
court (a) Bar Council has taken note of the news reports
appearing in the Business Times on 13 Apr 2013 and
LPC considered the following scenarios frequently faced by The Star on 18 June 2013, together with the radio
the Membership Department of the Bar Council Secretariat: interview on BFM 89.9, pertaining to AIL and its
service model;
(a) Scenario 1
(b) AIL’s operations have been of grave concern to the
A Member of the Bar goes to court on 4 January. He Malaysian Bar since 2010, and Bar Council has been
subsequently applies for his Sijil Annual/Practising taking active steps to address the matter over the last
Certificate (“SA/PC”) on 10 January. His documents are in two years;
order and the SA/PC is issued. Is there a problem with his
appearance in court on 4 January? (c) AIL operates under a company named Index
Continent Sdn Bhd (“Index Continent”). In November
(b) Scenario 2 2010, Bar Council had deemed Index Continent to
be an “unauthorised person” under section 37 of the
A Member of the Bar submits his SA/PC application on 2 LPA, and the arrangement proposed by AIL was not
January, but his documents are not in order. He goes to sanctioned by the Bar Council;
court on 4 January. He submits the required additional
documents on 10 January. This time his documents are in (d) The Malaysian Bar brought injunction proceedings
order and the SA/PC is issued. Is there a problem with his against Index Continent in July 2011 for a declaration
appearance in court on 4 January? that the company is an “unauthorised person” under
section 37 of the LPA, and sought an injunction to
(c) Scenario 3 restrain the company from advertising and carrying
on such services;
A Member of the Bar who is a Bar Council member attends
a Bar Council meeting on 5 January. He subsequently (e) The High Court granted an interim injunction in
applies for his SA/PC on 10 January. His documents are November 2011, and the injunction was finally
in order and the SA/PC is issued. Is there a problem with granted in January 2012. Index Continent, through
his attendance at the Bar Council meeting on 5 January? its lawyers, appealed against this decision. The High
Court dismissed Index Continent’s argument, but on
Having considered these scenarios, LPC is of the view that appeal in June 2012, the Court of Appeal allowed the
there is nothing objectionable so long as the Members had company its appeal and overturned the High Court’s
applied for their SA/PC before 31 January of the year. decision;

(f) The Malaysian Bar filed an application for leave of interest and the role of the “Manager” as proposed in
to appeal to the Federal Court in July 2012. The the Rules. LPC’s views were conveyed to Bar Council,
application has yet to be disposed of, as it is pending and SFC is now reviewing the Rules to address the issues
issuance of the written grounds of judgment by the raised, before submitting its revised Rules for Bar Council’s
Court of Appeal; adoption.
(g) In the interim period, Index Continent applied to the (8) Duty to communicate with and update clients
High Court to strike out the Malaysian Bar’s suit on the progress of matters, and respond to
based on the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the reasonable questions
application was allowed by the High Court. However,
a stay order was granted pending issuance of the A concern was raised by Bar Council over the numerous
grounds of judgment by the Court of Appeal and the complaints that have been lodged with the Advocates
outcome of the Bar’s application for leave to appeal and Solicitors Disciplinary Board against Members of the
to the Federal Court; and Bar who failed to carry out their duty to communicate with
their clients and keep them informed of the progress or
(h) Remedial steps are being taken by the Malaysian Bar development of their cases. It was also highlighted that
to address these concerns. there are Members who do not respond in a timely manner
to reasonable questions posed by their clients in respect of
Bar Council’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal their cases.
Court was allowed on 19 Nov 2013. However, Bar Council’s
application for an Erinford injunction was unsuccessful. A LPC issued Circular No 234/2013 dated 30 Oct 2013 to
hearing date for the Federal Court appeal has yet to be remind Members of the Bar of their basic duty to ensure
fixed. that their clients are duly and properly informed of the
development of their cases, and they are to attend to
(6) Euro Prestasi & Partners (M) Sdn Bhd (“EPP”) reasonable questions posed by their clients within a
reasonable time. For Members’ reference, a copy of
LPC has received numerous complaints from members of the case of Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar
the public as well as Members of the Bar regarding EPP, s/o Sethuraju [2013] 3 SLR 875; [2013] SGHC 121 was
a debt collection agency that represents itself as a law attached to the Circular.
firm. The complaints revolve particularly on the method
employed by EPP to intimidate and/or mislead Members of (9) Reinstatement of advocate and solicitor
the Bar and/or members of the public. Bar Council issued
Circular No 010/2013 dated 9 Jan 2013 to seek feedback LPC was requested to consider the necessity of
from Members of the Bar on EPP, in order to determine amendments to section 107 of the LPA, in light of the case of
the next course of action. Having gathered the necessary Nathan Edmund v Law Society of Singapore [2012] SGHC
evidence, Bar Council has decided to take injunction 232 (page 10), where the court may impose conditions for
proceedings against EPP. Bar Council has appointed legal reinstatement of an advocate and solicitor.
counsel to commence legal proceedings against EPP.
LPC is of the view that section 107 of the LPA permits the
(7) Proposed Group Practice Rules by Small Firms imposition of conditions by the court if it so wishes. In any
Committee (“SFC”) event, the court is clothed with inherent jurisdiction. As
such, there appears to be no necessity to amend section
At Bar Council’s request, LPC considered these Rules, and 107 of the LPA.
has raised concerns on the issues of confidentiality, conflict
committee reports
(10) Logos of firm’s affiliations with law associations long as the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001, Legal
are allowed in business cards, letterhead and Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, and Rules
stationery and Rulings of the Bar Council (in particular Chapter 17,
entitled “Websites of Law Firms”), are strictly adhered to.
Bar Council has adopted LPC’s recommendation to allow
logos of a firm’s affiliations with law associations to be Having considered the concept of a virtual law office and
displayed on the firm’s business cards, letterhead and the manner in which lawyers operate via such offices, LPC
stationery. is of the view that it is objectionable for advocates and
solicitors to operate such offices, as this would be in breach
(11) Prohibition against a sole proprietor signing off of Ruling 7.03 on shared offices, and may also breach the
or addressing himself or herself as a managing solicitor’s duty of confidentiality. Advocates and solicitors
partner who operate via virtual law offices are advised to desist
from doing so.
LPC decided that it is not permissible for an advocate and
solicitor to sign off a letter or address himself or herself as a LPC is of the view that the proposed Group Practice Rules
managing partner if the firm is a sole proprietorship, as this being worked on by the SFC, once approved, will assist
may cause confusion among members of the public. law practitioners to operate in the context of small group
practices.
(12) Breach of rules and rulings
(14) Publication of an updated and revised Rules and
During the course of its term, LPC noted that several Rulings of the Bar Council Malaysia
articles, advertisements in newspapers and websites
involving lawyers and/or law firms, firms’ letterheads, LPC aims to publish the updated compilation, in
signboards and name cards were not in compliance with the collaboration with the Malaysian Current Law Journal Sdn
Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001, Legal Profession Bhd, in the first quarter of 2014.
(Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, and/or Rules and
Rulings of the Bar Council. (15) Management of law firm by third party or another
legal firm is not permissible
Bar Council alerted the firms concerned to the relevant
provisions and required them to take steps to ensure Since the need to maintain confidentiality between a firm
compliance with the provisions. Most Members have and its client is of utmost importance in the course of a
been very cooperative, and complied with Bar Council’s law firm’s operations, LPC wishes to draw the attention of
directions. Complaints have been lodged with the Members to Ruling 14.12, which provides as follows: “It is
Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board in respect of not permissible for any law firm to be managed by a third
Members who failed to comply. party unless such third party is an employee of the law firm.”
(13) Rulings on social media; operation of virtual (16) Meetings with government bodies
office
On 29 Aug 2013, LPC met with representatives of Jabatan
At Bar Council’s request, LPC is still in the midst of drafting Perumahan Negara and the National House Buyers
rulings on social media so that law firms may be guided Association to discuss matters relating to unlicensed
accordingly. Presently, LPC has no objections to law firms housing developments. On 23 Sept 2013, LPC and the
having a Twitter account as a form of communication, so Conveyancing Practice Committee met with the Association

of Banks in Malaysia regarding the same matter. During In the Circular, Members were informed that Bar Council
these meetings, LPC highlighted Bar Council rules and will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against the
rulings that affect developers, purchasers and banks. Members concerned, as failure on the part of a Member to
forward the service tax collected from clients to RMCD may
(17) Engagement in other employments while amount to dishonesty, and is a misconduct under section
practising law 94(3)(c) of the LPA.
Several Statutory Declarations by Members have been (19) Letter from Statistics Department requiring law
brought to LPC’s attention, particularly in respect of firms to complete its Form on Quarterly Services
Members engaging in other employments while practising Producer Price Survey for Legal Services
law. LPC noted that some Members may be in breach of Bar
Council Rulings 12.01 and 14.17 as well as section(s) 30(1) LPC considered the form and found it objectionable, as it
(b) and/or (c) of the LPA due to their multiple employments is in breach of the client-solicitor confidentiality rule and/or
and/or positions, and have been required to provide an requires information that is a trade secret. Bar Council met
explanation to Bar Council. with representatives from the Statistics Department and
came to an agreement regarding a revised form.
(18) Failure of legal firms to pay 6% service tax to
Royal Malaysian Customs Department (“RMCD”) Acknowledgment
LPC issued Bar Council Circular No 109/2013 dated 14 LPC wishes to express its deepest appreciation and
May 2013, informing Members that RMCD had furnished gratitude to Marianna Laureen Tan, the Executive Officer
Bar Council with a list of 716 legal firms who had failed having charge of the LPC during the term. Her work and
to submit their CJP No 1 Statement, ie they had failed input have been invaluable to the committee.
to declare and pay service tax to the RMCD, thereby
contravening sections 12 (1), 14 and 16 of the Service Tax Karen Cheah Yee Lynn
Act 1975. Chairperson
Date: 21 Jan 2014

ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs Committee

Advocating safe migration, integrity and human rights for all
M Ramachelvam (Chairperson) | Puspanathan s/o Sellam (Deputy Chairperson) | Andrew Khoo Chin Hock | Appaduray, Dennis | Daniel
Lo | David Victor | Ganavathy Naidu | Hon Kai Ping | Joan Vanitha Letchumanan | Ragendar Singh s/o Puran Singh | Ramachandran s/o
Nana Pulle | Sailaja d/o Thirunawukarasan | Tharumarajah Thiagarajan | Trishelea Ann Sandosam | Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna (Officer-in-
charge)
A Navamukundan | Alice Nah | Asha Dhillon | Florida Sandasamy | Glorene Dass | Ho Wai Ling | Dr Irene Fernandez | Mohammad Harun
Al Rashid | Parimala Moses | Sarah Devaraj | Sharuna Elizabeth Verghis | Shobna Sivaraman | Somasundaram Karuppiah
In 2013, the Subcommittee on Migrants, Refugees and Among MRIAC’s thematic areas are:
Immigration Affairs (“SMRIA”) became a full-fledged
committee and was renamed as the Migrants, Refugees (a) migrant workers;
and Immigration Affairs Committee (“MRIAC”). (b) domestic workers;
(c) stateless persons;
MRIAC is one of the few Bar Council committees that invites (d) refugees; and
non-Members of the Bar to serve alongside Members of the (e) asylum seekers.
Bar to advocate for the rights and protection of non-citizens.
MRIAC’s advocacy work involves, among others, the
following:
(a) Advocating with the government on policy-making

and law reform through consultations;

MIGRANTS, REFUGEES AND IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
(b) Collaborating with the International Labour further action:

Organization (“ILO”) on consultation with embassies
of sending countries on migrant issues; (i) Amend ATIPSOM to allow for compensation to be
(c) Collaborating with civil society organisations (“CSOs”) awarded to victims of trafficking. Compensation is
on organising events and training on migrant and not just an effective tool to aid trafficked victims to
refugee issues; rebuild their lives; it will also encourage victims to
(d) Collaborating with the Office of the United Nations cooperate with the authorities in providing evidence
High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) on to identify and strengthen cases against traffickers;
organising training for lawyers and CSOs on refugee (ii) Amend ATIPSOM to allow for the gazetting of NGO-
issues; run shelters, in addition to government-run shelters,
(e) Hosting dialogues with visiting organisations on to house victims of trafficking;
migrant and refugee issues; (iii) Formulate rules and regulations to strengthen the
(f) Consulting with embassies of resettlement countries enforcement of ATIPSOM;
on refugee issues; and (iv) Appoint SUHAKAM as a permanent member of the
(g) Providing legal representation through Bar Council’s Council for Anti-Trafficking in Persons (“MAPO”) as
Legal Aid Centres for undocumented migrants the former is a statutory body instead of an NGO;
(for immigration offences), refugees (for criminal (v) Propose inclusion of illustrations and examples under
offences), and documented migrants (labour Sections 12 and 13 of ATIPSOM to assist the courts
disputes). to better understand what constitutes offences under
the Act; and
MRIAC organised many events and involved itself in (vi) Propose that victims of human smuggling and
external events and meetings throughout the term. trafficking in persons should not be placed under one
law as the two are distinct in nature of offence and
The main activities undertaken by MRIAC are summarised scope of protection. Putting them under one law may
below: hamper the identification of victims of trafficking by
the authorities, including the Judiciary.
(1) Trafficking in persons
On 3 Sept 2013, MRIAC participated in SUHAKAM’s
In the past few years, MRIAC has been actively involved “Dialogue Session between YB Senator Datuk Paul Low
in advocating for better protection for victims of human Seng Kuan and NGOs on Anti-Trafficking in Persons and
trafficking, and is urging the Government to increase overall Anti-Smuggling of Migrants”, chaired by Tan Sri Hasmy
efforts to address human trafficking. Agam, Chairman of SUHAKAM.
(a) Participation in SUHAKAM’s roundtable During this event, MRIAC highlighted its concerns on the
discussions recent arrest of undocumented migrant workers since the
beginning of September 2013. MRIAC highlighted that
On 28 Feb 2013, MRIAC participated in the Human Rights there were cases where documented migrants became
Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”)’s roundtable undocumented when their documents, ie work permits and
discussion with non-governmental organisations passports, were seized by their employers and where some
(“NGOs”) on moving the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act employers and/or agents promised migrant workers their
and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants (Amendment) Act 2010 work permits but never did so, or obtained fake ones instead.
(“ATIPSOM”) agenda forward. The following are MRIAC’s The Government was urged to address these concerns
recommendations that were put forth to SUHAKAM for its before launching a crackdown on undocumented migrant
workers, as the crackdown may cause the Government to
committee reports
be unwittingly complicit in human trafficking. (b) Training on refugee law in Kedah and Penang
In response, YB Senator Datuk Paul Low Seng Kuan stated

that he would highlight MRIAC’s concerns to the Ministry
of Home Affairs, and welcomed MRIAC’s advice on laws
pertaining to human trafficking.
(b) Trafficking in Persons Report 2013 (“TIP Report

2013”)
The TIP Report 2013 was unveiled on 19 June 2013.

Malaysia was given a waiver to remain on the Tier 2 Watch
List for the fourth consecutive year. The report cited
that “Malaysia was granted a waiver from an otherwise
required downgrade to Tier 3 because its government has MRIAC and UNHCR, with the support of the High
a written plan that, if implemented, would constitute making Commission of Canada, organised training sessions on
significant efforts to meet the minimum standards for the refugee law in Kedah and Penang on 27 and 28 Mar 2013,
elimination of trafficking and is devoting sufficient resources respectively.
to implement that plan”.
Participants in Kedah comprised Members of the Bar
The TIP Report 2013 can be accessed at http://www.state. and chambering pupils. While in Penang, civil society
gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/index.htm. organisations joined Members of the Bar and chambering
pupils for the training sessions there.
(2) Refugees and asylum seekers
The trainings were held in response to the boat arrivals
(a) Refugee-status determination along the coasts of Kedah and Penang, carrying asylum
seekers from the Rakhine State of Myanmar since June
On 30 and 31 May 2012, MRIAC jointly organised 2012. The objective of the training was to train lawyers
with Malaysian Social Research Institute (“MSRI”) and and chambering pupils in Kedah and Penang to assist
Tenaganita, a two-day workshop entitled “Towards in mitigating for the asylum seekers in immigration and
Empowering Refugees”. criminal cases in detention centres in the respective states.
The training sessions were conducted by UNHCR officers
A preliminary report on the workshop which aimed from its Outreach and Protection Intervention Unit (“OPI”).
to understand the refugee-status determination and MRIAC thanks UNHCR, the High Commission of Canada,
resettlement processes in Malaysia and the rest of the Kedah Bar Committee and Penang Bar Committee for
Southeast Asia was presented to UNHCR on 18 June 2012. assisting in organising the training sessions.
One of the main issues highlighted in the report was the (c) Dialogue on Australian asylum-seeker policy and
lack of trained interpreters to assist asylum seekers during regional response
the refugee-status determination process. UNHCR has
agreed to participate in the training sessions for interpreters On 10 Apr 2013, MRIAC hosted a dialogue between
to be organised by MRIAC, MSRI and Tenaganita in the Professor Father Frank Brennan SJ, professor of law and
new term. director of strategic research projects (social justice and
ethics) at the Australian Catholic University; Mark Fowler,

of refugees and the international human rights framework

in which that system operates. The training focused on the
following key issues:
(i) The international system for the protection of

refugees;
(ii) The international human rights framework;
(iii) Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of
Refugees;
(iv) Detention and penalisation for illegal entry into host
countries;
(v) The refugee rights regime; and
director of Neumann & Turnour Lawyers in Brisbane; (vi) Role of the Judiciary.
representatives from UNHCR; and Malaysian civil society
organisations. MRIAC thanks the UNHCR for its assistance in organising
the training.
A write-up on the dialogue can be accessed at this link:
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/human_rights/dialogue_ (e) Needs-based assessment of refugee and asylum
on_australian_asylum_seeker_policy_and_regional_ seekers
response_10_apr_2013.html
In collaboration with Suara Rakyat Malaysia (“SUARAM”),
(d) International refugee law training MRIAC embarked on a project to assess the needs of
refugee communities in terms of their welfare and protection.
MRIAC visited the Somalian refugee community on 14 Dec
2012 and the Sri Lankan refugee community on 24 and
26 Feb 2013 to interview them on the difficulties they face
living in Malaysia, the assistance given by UNHCR and
civil society organisations, as well as their aspirations for
the future. A visit to the Afghan refugee community will be
conducted in the new term.
(f) Meeting with UNHCR Malaysia Representative
On 27 June 2013, MRIAC jointly organised an international

refugee law training with UNHCR for Members of the Bar
and civil society organisations. The training was conducted
by Anna Pelosi, head of the Refugee Status Determination
Unit of UNHCR Malaysia, and was attended by 30
participants.
The objective of the training was to promote a better

understanding of the international system for the protection
committee reports
On 16 Oct 2013, Michele Manca di Nissa, UNHCR

Representative in Malaysia, paid a courtesy visit to Bar
Council. Christopher Leong, President of the Malaysian
Bar, chaired the meeting, which was also attended by
representatives from MRIAC, as well as Bar Council’s
Human Rights Committee and National Legal Aid
Committee.
The discussion centred on the refugee and asylum seekers

situation in Malaysia and future collaboration between the
two organisations.
(3) Migrants Council Secretariat, to discuss issues pertaining to Indian

nationals on death row in Malaysia.
(a) Meeting with foreign missions in Kuala Lumpur
A follow-up meeting was held on 11 Nov 2013, which was
(i) Meeting with Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, attended by representatives from MRIAC and the Bar
Kuala Lumpur Council Secretariat.
(iii) Meeting with Embassy of the Philippines, Kuala

Lumpur
On 13 July 2012, MRIAC Chairperson, M Ramachelvam

and Lim Chee Wee, former President of the Malaysian
Bar, met HE Herman Prayitno, Indonesian Ambassador to
Malaysia, to discuss issues affecting Indonesian migrant On 24 Mar 2013, representatives from the Embassy of
workers in Malaysia. the Philippines met with Christopher Leong, President of
the Malaysian Bar, and Members of the Bar to discuss the
(ii) Meeting with High Commission of India, Kuala Lahad Datu armed intrusion.
Lumpur
(b) Collaboration with International Labour
On 21 Mar 2013, HE Vijay Gokhale, Indian High Organization (“ILO”)
Commissioner along with representatives from the High
Commission of India, met with Christopher Leong and (i) Consultation with labour attachés and consular
M Ramachelvam, as well as representatives from the Bar officials in Malaysia

MRIAC, together with the ILO’s Tripartite Action to Protect • Consultation on the protection of migrant workers
Migrant Workers from Labour Exploitation (“TRIANGLE”) — Comprehensive Settlement Programme (6P)
Project, organised the following series of consultations with and the role of labour attachés
labour attachés and consular officials in Malaysia regarding
issues affecting migrant workers:
• Consultation on migrant workers’ issues and labour

laws
This consultation was held on 20 Nov 2012 to enhance

participants’ knowledge of Malaysia’s laws and procedures,
and reinforce relationships between embassies, the
relevant government authorities, social partners and civil
society organisations, to facilitate communication between
them.
• Consultation on the protection of migrant workers The objectives of the above consultation that was held on
from labour trafficking 17 Oct 2013 were to:
w understand the Comprehensive Settlement Programme

(6P) and the role of labour attachés under regional
agreements / cooperation and international standards;
and
w improve knowledge of 6P and international standards

that govern deportation of irregular migrants, the
procedures involved, and enhance the relationship
between embassies, authorities, social partners and
civil society organisations, to facilitate communication
between these parties.
The foci of this consultation that was held on 21 May All the events, which took place at the Bar Council, were
2013, were to fortify protection against labour trafficking, attended by representatives from 12 embassies, the
ie to improve knowledge of, and procedures relating Department of Labour Peninsular Malaysia, Malaysian
to ATIPSOM Act, and at the same time, enhancing the Employers Federation (“MEF”), the Malaysian Trades
relationship between embassies, relevant government Union Congress (“MTUC”) and civil society organisations.
authorities, social partners and civil society organisations,
to facilitate communication between these parties. MRIAC would like to thank the ILO TRIANGLE project, and
in particular, Anni Santiago, National Project Coordinator
for ILO TRIANGLE, for organising the consultation, and
looks forward to future collaborations.
committee reports
(ii) ILO Greater Mekong Subregion (“GMS”) TRIANGLE (iv) Photo exhibition to promote the positive image of
Project independent mid-term evaluation migrant workers in Malaysia in conjunction with
International Migrants Day 2013
On 21 Jan 2013, MRIAC Chairperson M Ramachelvam was

interviewed by Pierre Mahy, ILO Evaluator, to evaluate Bar In conjunction with International Migrants Day 2013, which
Council’s collaboration with the ILO GMS Triangle Project. is observed on 18 December every year, MRIAC, the
Migration Working Group (“MWG”) and Migration Works
(iii) Meeting with Deputy Assistant US Trade Campaign organised a photo exhibition on 17 Dec 2013 at
Representative Publika Mall in Kuala Lumpur to promote the positive image
of migrant workers in Malaysia.
The Migration Works Campaign is a public awareness

campaign initiated by the ILO TRIANGLE Project in
collaboration with MWG, a coalition of key civil society
organisations which advocates for the rights and protection
of non-citizens.
The event was attended by about 70 participants,

comprising United Nations (“UN”) officials, members of the
diplomatic corps, Members of the Bar, migrant communities,
government officials as well as employer and employee
groups.
On 26 June 2013, Deputy Assistant US Trade
Representative, Timothy Wedding, met with the President of The keynote address was presented by Michelle Gyles-
the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong, and representatives McDonnough, UN Resident Coordinator for Malaysia.
from MRIAC and the Bar Council Industrial Law Committee James Nayagam, SUHAKAM Commissioner, also delivered
to discuss issues relating to laws and practices governing an address.
the registration and operation of trade unions, the new
minimum wage legislation, as well as the protection and MRIAC extends its appreciation to Migration Works
recruitment of migrant workers. Campaign coordinator, Chan Tsu Chong; Anni Santiago,
National Project Coordinator for ILO Triangle and Jessica
Low, co-coordinator of MWG, in assisting to organise this
event.

(4) Other activities (b) Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate

“illegal” immigrants in Sabah
(a) MWG-JUMP-MRIAC: National Consultation on
Migrants, Refugees and Non-Citizens 2013 A Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate “illegal”
immigrants in Sabah (“RCI Sabah”) was set up on 21 Sept
2012, headed by YBhg Tan Sri Datuk Amar Steve Shim
Lip Kiong. The proceedings of RCI Sabah took place from
1 Nov 2012 and concluded on 20 Sept 2013.
Bar Council appointed Member of the Bar, Lim Heng Seng,

and former Member of the Bar, Mahaletchumi Balakrishnan,
to assist the Sabah Law Association’s legal team during the
proceedings.
The RCI Sabah is expected to release its report soon.
(c) Networking with lawyers in the region

MRIAC, together with MWG, Northern Network for Migration
and Refugees (“JUMP”), Coordination of Action Research MRIAC previously announced that it had embarked on the
on AIDS and Mobility (“CARAM Asia”), and the Penang “ASEAN Legal Network” project, which aims to:
Office for Human Development (“POHD”), jointly organised
the “National Consultation on Migrants, Refugees and (i) set up a network of law societies from the origin and
Non-Citizens 2013” from 19 to 22 Sept 2013 in Penang. destination countries of domestic workers;
The consultation was financially supported by POHD, (ii) generate a referral mechanism for cases involving
CARAM Asia, the UN Trust Fund and the High Commission migrants and refugees;
of Canada. (iii) establish a legal framework on migrant and refugee
issues in ASEAN countries (eg on anti-trafficking);
Approximately 65 delegates from Malaysia and around (iv) create a platform for law societies in ASEAN
the region, namely Indonesia, Cambodia, Nepal, and the countries to share information and knowledge on how
Philippines, attended the consultation. JUMP’s affiliated migrant and refugee rights are protected in different
partners from Canada, Sweden, Japan, Pakistan and the jurisdictions; and
United States of America were present as well. (v) encourage law societies to set up a committee on
migrants and refugees within their organisations.
On the last day of the consultation, the participants
gathered at Speakers’ Square, Esplanade, Penang to To initiate interest in this project among lawyers and to
launch the “Right to Redress Campaign for all migrant create a network in the region, MRIAC, in collaboration
workers”, organised by the Coalition for Right to Redress with the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute and the American Bar
for Migrant Workers. The campaign was launched by YB Dr Association (“ABA”) Rule of Law Initiative, organised the
T Jayabalan, State Assemblyman of Batu Uban, Penang. 2nd Southeast Asia Legal Advocacy Training from 22 to
25 Nov 2012 in Kuala Lumpur. Around 25 lawyers from
MRIAC extends its appreciation to the co-organisers, Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah, as well as Cambodia,
sponsors, speakers and moderators, as well as the Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar and the Philippines, participated
delegates for participating in the consultation. in the event.
committee reports
Besides Malaysia, ABA Rule of Law Initiative and Jakarta (g) 6th ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour, organised by
Legal Aid Institute held similar training sessions in the the ASEAN Secretariat;
Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand. (h) 2013 Dialogue between the ASEAN Secretary
General, the ASEAN Secretariat and the
Following the creation of this network, participants from the Representative of Civil Society Organisations,
training initiated an e-group to share cases, experiences organised by the Human Rights Working Group and
and a referral system among the lawyers in the ASEAN the Center for Strategic and International Studies;
region. (i) 2nd Community Dialogue with ASEAN Committee
of Permanent Representatives, organised by the
With the assistance of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre Human Rights Working Group and the Center for
(Kuala Lumpur), MRIAC has also assisted in cases Strategic and International Studies;
of migrants detained in Malaysia, referred to by the (j) 2nd Jakarta Human Rights Dialogue, organised by
participants. the Human Rights Working Group and the Center for
Strategic and International Studies;
(5) Events by external organisations (k) East and Southeast Asia Advocacy Strategy Meeting,
organised by Migrant Forum in Asia;
MRIAC representatives participated in the following events (l) Asia Pacific Symposium on Regional Protection,
organised by external entities: organised by Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network;
and
(a) 6th Regional Consultation on ASEAN and Human (m) Migration Works Messaging Workshop, organised by
Rights, organised by the Asian Forum for Human Migration Works Campaign and ILO GMS TRIANGLE
Rights and Development; Project.
(b) Focus group discussion: Feminist Analysis on
ASEAN Economic Pillar Blueprint, organised by Asia (6) Other ongoing and upcoming projects
Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development;
(c) National Consultation to Discuss and Strategize on (a) Roundtable Conference: “Developing a
ASEAN and International Human Rights Mechanisms, Comprehensive Policy Framework for Refugees
organised by Southeast Asia Women’s Caucus on and Asylum Seekers” (Part II)
ASEAN, Malaysia (Women’s Caucus);
(d) ASEAN Civil Society Conference / ASEAN People’s MRIAC prepared a memorandum entitled “Developing
Forum (“ACSC/APF”) 2nd Regional Consultation, a Comprehensive Policy Framework for Refugees and
organised by the Coordinating Committee for ASEAN Asylum Seekers” based on the views and suggestion
People’s Forum 2014; collated at the Roundtable Conference held on 23 June
(e) 6th ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour (“AFML”) 2009.
National Stakeholder Preparatory Consultation
Workshop, jointly organised by the Task Force on The Memorandum was forwarded to the Prime Minister’s
ASEAN Migrant Workers and Dignity International, Office and Ministry of Home Affairs, urging them to look into
Malaysia; the plight of asylum seekers and refugees.
(f) National CSO Representative Preparation for the 6th
ASEAN Forum on Migrant Labour, organised by the MRIAC will organise a second part to the Roundtable
Task Force on ASEAN Migrant Workers; Conference with civil society groups in the new term to map
out an action plan for issues raised in the memorandum.

(b)
National Conference: “Developing a Acknowledgment
Comprehensive Policy Framework for Migrant
Labour” (Part II) I wish to record my appreciation to all the speakers who
have graced our events, for their support and assistance. I
Between 2008 and 2009, MRIAC collaborated with ILO also wish to convey my gratitude to the members of MRIAC,
and organised six programmes on issues pertaining to Human Rights Committee, National Legal Aid Committee
migrant workers. MRIAC then produced a memorandum and Criminal Law Committee; Members of the Bar; the Bar
on “Developing a Comprehensive Policy Framework for Council Secretariat, particularly the Chief Executive Officer,
Migrant Labour”, which was sent to the relevant authorities. Rajen Devaraj and Assistant Director, Sumitha Shaanthinni
Kishna; Senior Administrative Assistant, Satha Selvan; and
MRIAC will organise a second national conference, and finally, non-Members and civil society organisations who
invite relevant government agencies, inter-governmental have contributed to another successful and fulfilling term
agencies, employee and employer groups, unions, and for MRIAC.
civil society organisations to share knowledge on current
policies and laws relating to migrants. M Ramachelvam
Chairperson
Date: 27 Dec 2013

committee reports
Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee

Protecting the public from being taken for a ride
Jude Celestine Raj (Co-Chairperson) | Gnasegaran s/o Egamparam (Co-Chairperson) | Adrian Thambyrajah s/o Chandrasekaran | Brijnandan
Singh Bhar s/o Gurcharan Singh | Davinia Rajadurai | G Balakrishnan | Ian Lawrence Pereira | Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari | Lim Kiat Seng |
Freddy Victor | M Ramachelvam | Mohd Aimi Zaini b Mohd Azhar | Navdeep Singh | Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal | Samreet Singh Sagoo |
Shailender Bhar | Silvaraju s/o Velu | Tiong Hou Tseng | Zainuritha-Alfa bt Datuk Abu Hassan | Zaena Nair (until April 2013); Shegi Nair
(from May 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
The Motor Insurance Review Ad Hoc Committee (“MIRAC”) JWC has been overseeing the setting up of the Nationwide
has met on seven occasions since January 2013. Call Centre, as well as formulating a Motor Insurance and
Takaful Claims Guide (“Guide”).
MIRAC’s core focus was its participation in the Joint
Working Committee (“JWC”) chaired by Bank Negara The framework for the Nationwide Call Centre, which
Malaysia, which is tasked with enhancing the efficiency of is essentially a call centre that directs or links victims of
the motor insurance settlement process in the country. motor vehicle accidents to the nearest hospital or panel
workshop, has been set in place under the supervision of
Members of JWC initially wished to review the contingency JWC. Initially, it was proposed that the call centre would
fee structure or system for legal fees in motor insurance be run by adjusters but after strenuous objections from Bar
cases. After much discussion, it was agreed that this Council, it will now be operated by Telekom Malaysia. The
issue would be resolved between Bar Council and the call centre has been renamed “Accident Assist” and rolled
Attorney General’s Chambers. We understand that the out in the Klang Valley but it is still at the soft launch stage.
Drafting Department of the Attorney General’s Chambers is The programme is slated to be expanded to Penang and
currently reviewing the proposal forwarded by Bar Council then the rest of Malaysia.
on this matter.

The Guide is essentially an information pack for motorists Acknowledgment

or consumers who have been involved in motor vehicle
accidents, to provide details on motor insurance and The enhancement of MIRAC’s work, and its successes, are
takaful coverage, and available ways to make a claim. owed to the exceptional professionalism and dedication of
The Guide has been approved by Bar Council as well as its members. We wish to personally extend our gratitude
JWC, and Bank Negara Malaysia is working progressively and appreciation to each of them. We would also like to
on producing it in four languages, namely English, Bahasa record our thanks to the staff of the Bar Council Secretariat,
Malaysia, Tamil and Chinese. This is being done to cater in particular our Officer, Shegi Nair, for all the assistance
to all individuals who wish to make a claim relating to motor rendered to MIRAC during the term.
insurance.
Jude Celestine Raj and Gnasegaran s/o Egamparam
The Bar Council remains committed to working with all Co-Chairpersons
relevant parties within JWC in furtherance of the interests
of members of the public and the Bar.
Date: 6 Jan 2014
For any enquiries, please e-mail:

committee reports
National Legal Aid Committee

Access to justice as a fundamental right
Ravi Nekoo (Chairperson) | Abdul Fareed b Abdul Gafoor (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Rajpal Singh (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Ravinder Singh
Dhalliwal (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Sulaiman Abdullah (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Abirami Gendran | Balakrishna Balaravi Pillai | Fatima
bt Tahir Ali | G Yalena Sita | Hamidah Rahmat | Harleen Kaur d/o Tarjeet Singh | Jason Kay Kit Leon | Jessinta Lurudsamy | Joseph Mathews
| Kunasegaran s/o Nadasen | M Gokoolaram Naidu | Mad Diah Endut | Mahfuzah bt Mahmud | Maslinie bt Hassan | Mazlan b Md Zain |
Mohd Izhan b Razali | Munirah bt Salleh | Navinder Kaur Jessy | Nik Mohd Radhia b Nik Abdul Ghani | Noor Hassikin bt Hamsah | Noraini
bt Hj Bakar | Nurul Aznie bt Ibrahim | Ramesh s/o Lachmanan | Rosniza Musa | Rozita bt Abdul Razak | Sattiawani Perumal | Simon Murali
| Siti Hajar bt Che Ahmad | Stephanie Bastian | Vemal Arasan | Victor Paul s/o Dorai Raj | Vithushini Sivakumaran | Wan Nor Aziah bt Wan
Muhammad | Wee Su Lin | Zaena Nair K Padmanathan (until October 2013); Vishnu Jeevapragasan (from November 2013) (Officer-in-
charge)
The National Legal Aid Committee (“NLAC”)’s objectives (c) incorporate legal awareness of legal aid through legal
are to: information, legal knowledge and legal education,
which go towards promoting a just and fair society.
(a) contribute to the building of a just nation by
providing legal representation and assistance to the NLAC supervises the operations and management of the
marginalised, underprivileged and disadvantaged in Bar Council State Legal Aid Centres (“LACs”) throughout
society, and ensuring that their constitutional right to Peninsular Malaysia. NLAC also oversees the Bar Council
access to justice is upheld; Legal Aid Scheme. This scheme is carried out by the LACs
through its staff members and volunteer lawyers. NLAC
(b) promote legal aid as a fundamental human right, consists of representatives from the LACs, as well as LAC
where access to justice is available fairly and staff members.
impartially to everyone; and

national legal aid committee
The various programmes carried out by the LACs include: LAC (Selangor) had urgent arrest teams for Himpunan
Black Out Rally (May 2013) and Himpunan Kemuncak
(1) LAC core programmes Blackout 505 (May 2013).
(a) LAC walk-in clinic (e) Law awareness programme
All LACs maintain a “walk-in clinic” for members of the The LACs are also actively involved in promoting legal
public, Malaysian and non-Malaysian — who require awareness to the community by giving talks at educational
legal advice or legal representation. To qualify for legal institutions and community centres on various aspects of
representation, two criteria must be fulfilled: (i) the subject law.
matter must fall within an area of law covered by the LAC;
and (ii) the person seeking assistance must satisfy the (2) Activities conducted by specific LACs
“means test”.
A brief description of some of the programmes undertaken
Most LACs provide legal assistance in the core areas of by certain LACs follows below.
criminal, family, syariah and employment law. The LACs at
Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Penang and Selangor (a) LAC (Kedah/Perlis) and LAC (Kedah)
also provide legal assistance in respect of land matters.
LAC (Kedah/Perlis) organised a seminar on domestic
(b) Prisons programme violence in January 2013. LAC (Kedah) organised a medical
and legal aid camp in Pekan Merbau Pulas, and set up a
Lawyers and pupils in chambers visit prisons to check on legal advice counter at Star City Hotel in October 2013.
and interview unrepresented detainees, before assigning
lawyers to them. (b) LAC (KL)
(c) Dock brief programme LAC (KL) addresses issues through Kopi-O Nights, an
initiative that allows participants to discuss issues that are
This programme, carried out in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, legal and quasi-legal in an informal setting. Cushions and
involves pupils in chambers who are present in court to mats are placed on the floor and hot black coffee (kopi-o)
assist unrepresented accused persons. The pupils in is served. Participants can bring forth any issues that they
chambers either handle the bail application or — where the deem relevant, and there is usually an expert panel available.
accused person has pleaded guilty — a plea in mitigation,
on behalf of the accused person. The 6th Kopi-O Night, themed “1988 Judicial Crisis — 25
Years On” took place on 18 Oct 2013. Ravi Nekoo and
(d) Urgent arrest team Sulaiman Abdullah spoke and shared their experiences at
this event.
Urgent arrest teams are set up to provide legal
representation to persons who are detained at public rallies LAC (KL) works closely with several non-governmental
and gatherings. organisation (“NGO”) partners, namely, All Women’s Action
Society (“AWAM”), Sisters in Islam (“SIS”), Women’s Aid
In 2013, LAC (KL) had urgent arrest teams on standby for Organisation (“WAO”), United Nations High Commissioner
the following events: Bangkit Rakyat (April 2013), Bersih 2 for Refugees (“UNHCR”) and Tenaganita. This year, the
Election Rally (May 2013), Bertindak Bantah TPPA (July Women and Health Association of Kuala Lumpur (“WAKE”)
2013), Seksualiti Merdeka Event (September 2013) and was added to their list of NGO partners.
Lynas Memo to Parliament (September 2013).
committee reports
(c) LAC (Penang) (e) LAC (Selangor)
LAC (Penang) successfully organised and conducted 13 LAC (Selangor) organised a law awareness programme
mobile legal aid clinic sessions in 2013. These sessions at the Open House Carnival held at the Montfort Boys
were conducted at various venues including Taman Sri Town, Shah Alam on 12 May 2013. On 28 Sept 2013, a
Janggus in Bukit Mertajam, Dewan JKKK, Rukun Tetangga law awareness programme on domestic violence entitled
Desa Damai and the Women’s Centre for Change (“WCC”). “Women Are Sacred” was held in Port Klang.
These activities were managed by volunteer lawyers and
pupils in chambers. On 7 Sept 2013, a law awareness campaign that doubled
as a community service programme took place at the Orang
Another legal aid clinic was set up in Taman Cendayu, Asli Kampung in Bukit Tunggul, Dengkil.
Simpang Empat. From 13 Oct 2013 onwards, this legal aid
clinic is open on every first Sunday of the month. This is (3) NLAC workshop
in addition to the clinic at Taman Merak, Simpang Empat,
which has been in operation since February 2012 and also NLAC organised a two-day workshop on 23 and 24 Sept
operates on every first Sunday of the month. 2013. The objectives of the workshop were to:
(d) LAC (Perak) (a) Understand and find ways to overcome problems
faced by the LACs; and
LAC (Perak) was involved in various law awareness (b) Ensure that the work carried out by the LACs is in
programmes, including the following: line with the policies of the Bar Council, and decisions
made by NLAC are implemented by the LACs.
(i) Gave a talk on white collar crime and provided
Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) At the workshop, NLAC made several important policy
services at a seminar organised by Kumpulan Wang decisions:
Simpanan Pekerja (“KWSP”);
(ii) Joined the panel of speakers at a workshop organised (a) The YBGK scheme, which currently applies to
by AIDS Action and Research Group (“AARG”); citizens only, should be extended to non-citizens
(iii) Opened a legal aid booth at a workshop jointly alike. NLAC and the Bar Council will continue to
organised by Soroptimist International (“SI”) and lobby the Government on this matter;
Perak Women for Women (“PWW”); (b) If a client who is a Malaysian needs legal assistance
(iv) Conducted a workshop for drug abusers in the Parit in a criminal matter, the file should be opened only
area organised by AARG; and under the YBGK scheme. Only in the rarest and most
(v) Conducted a paralegal workshop jointly organised exceptional of circumstances can a criminal file be
by AARG and Pertubuhan Komuniti Intan at Taiping opened up under the LAC scheme;
to provide advice to, and assist, sex workers and (c) If there is a complaint from a client that a YBGK
transgenders. lawyer has asked the client for payment, LAC should
do its utmost to encourage the client to make a formal
LAC (Perak) has an active Orang Asli project where they complaint. To facilitate the matter, a signed letter
advise Orang Asli on their rights and assist them on issues from the client will suffice; and
of land claims and disputes. In 2013, as part of the project, (d) State Bars and LACs are not to set up legal aid clinics
members made more than 20 visits to various Orang Asli in collaboration with any university without getting the
communities. express approval of the Bar Council.

The workshop also addressed the issue of the need to To understand the problems faced by the LACs in rolling out
formulate a more comprehensive, fair and sustainable the YBGK programme and ensure that standard operating
means test for individuals seeking legal aid. procedures (“SOPs”) are adhered to, the YBGK Steering
Committee visited the LACs in Kedah, Johore, Negeri
(4) YBGK Sembilan, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu to review
their operations and documentation.
YBGK was set up to provide advice and legal assistance
to Malaysian citizens when they are arrested, detained The following represent the main challenges faced by the
and charged for a criminal offence. YBGK provides free LACs in running the YBGK scheme:
legal assistance to all Malaysians (irrespective of financial
means) at the police station, during remand hearing and (a) Restricted representation
when they are charged in court. When it comes to the
trial, YBGK provides legal assistance when the accused’s Currently, eligibility to the YBGK scheme is restricted to
income does not exceed RM36,000 per year. Malaysians and does not include non-citizens.
Although YBGK is only in its second year of operations, Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that all
it has already made an important mark on the criminal persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal
justice system. It is estimated that YBGK is present at protection of the law. This right to equality is guaranteed
and provides representation in 75% of remand hearings. to all persons and not just citizens. This Constitutional
(Refer to Table 1 at the end of this report for a summary of entitlement is not being fulfilled if a Malaysian is able to
YBGK’s work since its inception.) seek legal representation from YBGK while a non-citizen
is not.
In 2013, lawyers handling YBGK work were paid an
accumulated sum in excess of RM1.65 million. The challenge is to convince the Government to extend
the scheme to everyone who needs legal assistance, both
The LACs work closely with YBGK in the delivery of Malaysians and non-Malaysians.
services. All those who require the assistance of YBGK
have to approach one of the LACs. In fact, the LACs can (b) Limited access to arrested persons at police
be said to be the backbone of this government-funded stations
scheme. Since YBGK began operations on 2 Apr 2012,
LAC staff members have been doing legal aid work as well Under the new section 28A of the Criminal Procedure
as YBGK work. Code, which came into force since September 2007, an
arrested person has the right to contact a legal practitioner
Lawyers who wish to render their services to YBGK are of his or her choice. The SOP that was agreed upon by
required to undergo training on the philosophy underlying the Attorney General of Malaysia and the heads of police is
legal aid and the objectives of YBGK. In addition, those that YBGK lawyers are allowed access to arrested persons
who wish to take on criminal trials under the YBGK scheme when they visit the relevant Ibu Pejabat Daerah (“IPD”) or
must attend criminal advocacy training (unless they have District Headquarters covered by the YBGK office. As long
already handled three or more criminal trials on their own). as the lawyers have identification and are verified assigned
YBGK counsel, they are to be allowed to meet with the
The first basic YBGK training was conducted in March arrested person(s).
2011 and since then, a total of 34 basic trainings and seven
criminal advocacy trainings have been conducted. A total However, in practice, many YBGK counsel were not allowed
of 1,380 lawyers have attended these trainings. access to arrested persons and were given a wide array of
committee reports
excuses by the police. Measures are being taken by the It gives the NLAC great pride to say that the LACs have
YBGK headquarters in Bangi, YBGK Steering Committee pooled their resources together and worked hard to push the
and the respective LACs to meet with the relevant heads of YBGK project ahead. Though funded by the Government,
police to rectify the issue. without the initiative from the LACs, the YBGK project
would not have spread nationwide to serve those arrested
(c) Proper facilities in the courts for pre-remand and held under remand. The hard work, perseverance and
interviews commitment of the LACs must be applauded.
NLAC hopes to work with the courts and the Prime Minister’s The LACs are reminded that the year 2014 will see greater
Department to ensure that there are proper facilities in the challenges. There is a need to remain focused to meet our
courts where pre-remand interviews can take place. When objective of providing access to justice to all.
courts were constructed, not enough thought was given to
providing such facilities since no one would have envisaged Acknowledgment
a situation where representation was going to be provided
to so many of those being remanded. I thank the NLAC members, Chairpersons of LACs,
volunteer lawyers for both legal aid and YBGK, staff
(d) Quality of representation members of the LACs and YBGK, and the officers-in-charge
for the time and effort given to the work of NLAC. On behalf
There is a need to look into the quality of representation of NLAC, I express my sincere appreciation to various
provided by YBGK lawyers. Greater representation is only governmental and non-governmental organisations, and
one measure of the success of a good legal aid scheme. legal aid supporters for working together with NLAC and the
Steps must be taken to ensure that those who are in need LACs in many of our activities to promote legal awareness
of legal representation do not merely receive representation and improve access to justice for all.
but quality representation.
Ravi Nekoo
Conclusion Chairperson
Challenges aside, the YBGK scheme is definitely a positive Date: 29 Jan 2014
breakthrough. YBGK has changed and is continuing to
change the landscape of the criminal justice system. For any enquiries, please email:
Gone are the days when lawyers wanting to be present vishnu@malaysianbar.org.my
at remand hearings would not be able to do so due to
lack of information as to where and when the remand
hearing would be held. The remand hearing would have
been completed without the suspect being afforded the
opportunity of legal representation. Today, through YBGK,
there is a fair opportunity for legal representation afforded
to all Malaysians held under remand.

Table 1: Number of clients and scope of coverage of YBGK (April 2012 to December 2013)
Arrest Remand Mitigation / Bail Hearing Total

April to December 2012 2,394 37,495 8,267 1,061 49,217
January to December 2013 3,583 73,095 12,537 2,329 91,544
Total 5,977 110,590 20,804 3,390 140,761
Table 2: Number of LAC clients (2011 to 2013)
Number of Number of Number of Number of

LACs
clients (2010) clients (2011) clients (2012) clients (2013)
Johore 634 388 404 17
Kedah 738 432 199 73
Kelantan 138 363 453 560
Kuala Lumpur 14,895 14,860 15,059 15,751
Malacca 102 104 155 152
Negeri Sembilan 348 352 123 274
Pahang:
Kuantan 265 216 268 343
Temerloh 634 170 159 158
Penang 2,017 1,893 2,610 1,792
Perak 793 774 614 348
Selangor 2,126 4,583 690 1,078
Terengganu 414 427 647 276
Total 23,104 24,562 21,381 20,822
committee reports
National Young Lawyers Committee

Better lawyers, better Bar
Syahredzan Johan (Chairperson) | Fadhil Ihsan b Mohamad Hassan (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Noor Azizah bt Abdullah (Co-Deputy
Chairperson) | Ahmad b Alwi | Ainaa Shahirah bt Mohd Nori | Andrew Law | Andy Low | Bong Jensen | Chew Siew Ting | Choo Dee Wei
| Choo Mun Wei | Chua Chinn Yuan | Cindy Cheong | Daniel Joseph Albert | Desmond Ho | Dipendra Harshad Rai | Donovan Lee | Foong
Cheng Leong | Gavin Tang | Halimayazahara bt Khalid | Hazwan b Mohd Nor | Ida Daniella bt Zulkifili | Janet Chai Pei Ying | Jason Kong |
Joanne Leong | Johana Rosli | Jonathan Yoon | Kenneth Wong | Kenny Lai | Khaizan Sharizad bt Ab Razak | Koh Mei Hui | Kokila Vaani |
Kong Si Ying | Lai Choe Ken, Kenny | Lee Chong Hong | Lee Cincee | Lee Shih | Leong Zhi Hong | Lesley Lim | Lubna bt Sheikh Ghazali | Mak
Kah Leong | Malini Madiyazhagan | Marcus Van Geyzel | Mas Ayu bt Mohd Yusof | Melissa Sasidaran | Michael Tan | Mohd Hapiz b Rajali
| Moo Kah Kit | Muhamad Auliat b Ngah | Nadia Abu Bakar | Nadia bt Ridzuan | Nor Afifah Rahimi | Nurul Azrina bt Mohamed Yusof |
Ong Wei Lin | Phillip Lee Abdullah | Quek Kia Ping | Rafeeza Hamdan | Richard Wee Thiam Seng | S Muthukumar | Sandesh Kabir Singh |
Shobana Sandra Segaran | Siti Fatimah Mohd Sharom | Siti Munirah Maarof | Siti Norshakira bt Ghani | Surendra Ananth | Tan Yen Siang |
Thiru Kumar | Valerie Choo | Vince Chong | Yeap Kuang Wei, Andrew | Yeoh Tung Seng | Yohendra Nadarajan | Yvonne Young | Zaena Nair
K Padmanathan (until September 2013); Vishnu Jeevapragasan (from October 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
The National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) met Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the
several times this term and carried out the activities Malaysian Bar and the Korean Bar. The MOU is premised
summarised below. on initiatives and efforts that promote and maintain close
cooperation between the two Bar associations, for the
(1) Joint forum between the Korean Bar and the benefit of the lawyers they represent. In conjunction with
Malaysian Bar the visit, a forum was held with Kenneth Wong Poh Lim
representing the Malaysian Bar and Jin Nyoung Choi
On 5 July 2013, the Bar Council played host to a delegation representing the Korean Bar.
from the Korean Bar Association. The purpose of the
visit, among others, was to sign the extension to the

National Young Lawyers Committee
(2) Forum Siri Pemikiran Kritis: Crime — A Case for (4) ALSA-NYLC MoU signing, talk and workshop
Preventive Detention?
On 14 Dec 2013, the Asian Law Students’ Association
On 21 Sept 2013, a forum was held on the issue of Malaysia (“ALSA”) and NYLC signed an MOU to foster
imposition of preventive detention to deal with organised better relationships between students and practitioners.
crime, and its necessity. The speakers were Datuk Dr The signing was preceded by a talk, and a law workshop
Khaw Lake Tee, Vice-Chair, Human Rights Commission between students and young lawyers.
of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”); Dr P Sundramoorthy, Principal
Investigator, Research Team on Crime and Policing, Acknowledgment
School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia;
Amer Hamzah Arshad, Member of the Malaysian Bar; and NYLC thanks its many members, as well as the Bar Council
Tan Sri Zaman Khan, Former Chief, Bukit Aman Criminal Secretariat and its officers who assisted and supported the
Investigation Department. committee in its undertakings.
(3) NYLC Top-Up Series: Transforming Practice Syahredzan Johan

Through Technology Chairperson
On 28 Oct 2013, Jason Kay and Foong Cheng Leong, both Date: 20 Jan 2014
of whom have managed to successfully integrate current
technology into their respective practice, conducted the
seminar. The main goal of the seminar was to allow the For any enquiries, please email:
participants to learn and implement technological solutions vishnu@malaysianbar.org.my
to their practice as well as day-to-day operations.
committee reports
Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee

Achieving excellence through risk management
Ragunath Kesavan (Chairperson) | George Varughese (Deputy Chairperson) | Arthur Wang | Balbir Singh | Dhinesh Bhaskaran | Felix Raj
Arokiasamy | G Balakrishnan | GK Ganesan | Harikannan Ragavan | Lawrence Pereira | Nazriah bt Shaik Alawdin | Rao Suryana bt Abdul
Rahman | Richard Kok Chi Wei | Mysahra Shawkat (until 2 Sept 2013) | Iznina Rafa bt Abdul Rafa (from 3 Sept 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
Most of the Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”) Year Base premium charged per lawyer (RM)
Committee’s members returned to serve the Committee,
chaired by Ragunath Kesavan, while Nazriah bt Shaik 2014 1,140
Alawdin joined as a new PII Committee member. The 2013 1,140
committee has met five times since May 2013. 2012 1,200
Highlights for the term include: 2011 1,200
2010 1,300
(1) Professional Indemnity Insurance
The Scheme has entered into its final Three-Year
(a) 2014 PII policy negotiation and renewal Agreement (“TYA”) with the Insurer, Pacific & Orient Co
Berhad (“P&O”). The terms and conditions for the 2014
The premium for the 2014 PII policy remains unchanged at PII Scheme were approved at the 6th Bar Council meeting
RM1,140 per lawyer, the same rate as the 2013 premium on 3 Aug 2013 and announced to Members in Circular No
(see Circular No 179/2013 dated 22 Aug 2013 and Circular 179/2013 dated 22 Aug 2013. The salient points of the
No 179/2011 dated 18 Aug 2011). 2014 terms are reproduced at the end of this report.


PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE committee
As at 10 Dec 2013, 4,151 firms (80.49 percent) have Prior to reappointing JLT as broker, a tender exercise was
renewed their PII policies for 2014. Out of this figure, performed, with participation from two companies. After
2,207 firms (49.75 percent) renewed their PII policies reviewing the tender proposal and presentation by each
online, which is an increase of online renewals by 4 percent broker, the PII Committee put forth its recommendation to
compared to last year. Bar Council and received approval to appoint JLT at the
June 2013 meeting.
The PII Committee received an unusually high number
of complaints from Members relating to delay of their PII JLT was reappointed with strict timeline conditions and
policy renewals, to which the committee responded swiftly responsibilities set out in the PII Committee’s Service Level
by calling on the broker, Jardine Lloyd Thompson Sdn Bhd Agreement (“SLA”) with them.
(“JLT”), to revamp their processes to cater to the needs of
Members. (e) PII Scheme stakeholders meeting
(b) My PII Workshops The annual PII Scheme stakeholders meeting is an

essential forum for the PII Committee, insurers, broker,
The annual briefing on the 2013 Master Policy and Certificate third-party claims administrator, and the Scheme’s panel
of Insurance (“COI”) was held at the Bar Council Secretariat solicitors to share ideas and discuss key issues relating to
on 4 Apr 2013 and was attended by 49 Members. The the Scheme.
briefing was delivered by Charles Perera, Vice President
of JLT, who guided participants on the salient points of the The theme for this year’s meeting, held in Ho Chi Minh
2013 Master Policy and COI; the briefing was capped off City, Vietnam on 29 Nov 2013, was “Our Scheme”.
with a question-and-answer session. Participants were Stakeholders of the Scheme were reminded of Members’
also made aware of the amendments and revisions made expectations, and discussed the future direction of the
to the COI, and how these changes would affect their Scheme. The dialogue also included case studies based
respective practices. on current and past claims, and sharing of ideas on tackling
risk management issues.
The second workshop was successfully held on 29 May
2013 in Penang with a total of 53 participants. (f) Professional Indemnity Fund (“PIF”)
(c) Briefing on Master Policy The PIF provides an alternative to the PII Scheme, especially
when certain types of risks are not covered by insurance,
On 4 Apr 2013, a Master Policy briefing was conducted by or coverage is unreasonably priced. It has continued to
JLT Vice President, Charles Perera, during which the staff grow since 2009. The revenue of the PIF is generated from
of the Bar Council Secretariat, State Bar Committees, Legal any excess on the quoted PII premium pool and the surplus
Aid Centres, and the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary monies from capping the PII Scheme Broker’s fees. The
Board were briefed on the coverage provided under the PIF balance was RM7,366,791.65 as at June 2013.
Master Policy.
(2) Risk Management
(d) Broker for the Malaysian Bar’s PII Scheme 2014
Bar Council is determined to instil risk management
The selection of the broker for the Malaysian Bar’s PII awareness in the legal profession through its risk
Scheme 2014 was finalised in May 2013. As announced management practice tools. The PII Committee urges
in Circular No 149/2013 dated 2 July 2013, JLT has been Members to take advantage of the practice tools that are
reappointed as the broker to manage the Scheme for 2014 available for free or at a minimal fee. All risk management
with a one-year option to renew.

committee reports
programmes are funded by the Risk Management Fund. (a) Risk Management projects for 2013
Currently, the PII Committee is working on revising and
developing available and further risk management practice Below are the highlights on risk management activities in
tools. The materials will be made available for Members 2013:
next year.
Events summary:
w Six workshops were successfully organised from April to November 2013.
w The workshops were organised in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.
No Project / Assignment Description
(1) Two Getting Started! workshops were effectively organised at the Raja Aziz Addruse
(“RAA”) Auditorium, Bar Council Secretariat on 20 May 2013 and 5 Sept 2013.
The Getting Started! workshop was first organised in 2007 as part of Bar Council’s
risk management initiative for Members of the Bar who intend to establish new firms,
just joined a partnership, or who have just started practice; it is also useful as a
refresher course for senior lawyers. The workshop is restricted to a small number of
registrations to allow for better interaction between the speakers and the participants.
The full-day workshop features broad and comprehensive aspects on practice and
matter management, accounting and taxation, litigation and conveyancing. These
individual modules are conducted by professionals and senior practitioners who are
highly qualified in their respective fields.
By the end of this workshop, participants will be able to apply the conceptual and
practical aspects of matter management into their day-to-day management of their
firms and files. Based on the feedback received, almost all participants agreed that
the workshop should be attended by their peers to refresh their knowledge, besides
gaining information.


(2) The Risk Management for Staff workshop was conducted four times this year. The
first workshop was held on 21 Mar 2013 in the RAA Auditorium and attended by 78
participants.
The second workshop was held in Penang on 30 May 2013 at Bayview Georgetown
Hotel to cater for Members in the northern region. A total of 74 participants attended
this workshop, the second time the workshop was held outside of Kuala Lumpur in
2013, and the first ever held at the Kedah / Perlis Bar Auditorium since 2011.
The third and the fourth workshops were again organised at the RAA Auditorium
on 21 June 2013 and 21 Nov 2013, with an attendance of 45 and 39 participants,
respectively.
The participants were made up of legal support staff, paralegals, accounting and
administrative staff of legal practices. The workshop was tailor-made to coach staff
on how to better assist lawyers. The objective of the workshop was to cultivate good
work ethics and the culture of risk awareness among law firm staff, and encompassed
major topics on communication, law firm accounts, office administration, and file and
time management.
Based on the compiled feedback received, most of the participants felt that the
workshop met their expectations and would encourage their peers to attend future
workshops.
Publications summary:
w Jurisk! is now bilingual — Bahasa Malaysia articles are featured in every issue.
w The 2014 Risk Management Calendar features key pointers on checking on a firm’s well-being, to dos and checklists, tips
and advice.
(1) This complimentary quarterly risk management newsletter is distributed to all Members
of the Bar. Through its wide reach, Bar Council seeks to enhance the awareness of
risk management and implement best practices among its Members. Each issue
provided actual case studies of past claims, statistics and possible solutions. The four
issues of Jurisk! published in 2013 are as follows:
(a) March 2013 (COI Explained): The changes to the 2013 Master Policy and
Certificate of Insurance (“COI”) were highlighted in the March issue of Jurisk!
whereby the terms were simplified and Members were aided by examples and
illustrations to help them understand the protection and extent of cover provided
under the policy.
(b) June 2013 (Making Your Claims Process Easier): In this issue, Members were
provided with an in-depth guide on how to respond to a claim. The workflow of
the process and a step-by-step guide to complete the claims notification form
were also included.
(c) September 2013 (Conveyancing as it is!): The September issue of Jurisk!

focused on the pitfalls in conveyancing, based on actual case studies, as well
as tips and advice to help suggest possible solutions to risks in conveyancing.
committee reports

(d) December 2013 (The 2014 Certificate of Insurance): With the finalisation of
the 2014 PII policy, updates and changes to the policy wordings in the terms
and conditions were highlighted in this issue alongside explanation and case
studies. Among the changes in terms highlighted were the definitions of “legal
practitioner”, “mitigation costs” and “successor practice”. This issue also
highlighted upcoming projects for 2014.
Past issues of the newsletter in PDF format can be downloaded from:

• www.malaysianbar.org.my (see Resources>Downloads> Risk Management); or
• www.praktis.com.my (see Risk Management>Practice Tools>Jurisk!)
(2) The key features of the 2014 edition of Bar Council’s Risk Management Calendar
include self-help health check on firms, tips and practice advice. Also included in
the calendar are pertinent key reminders of Bar Council’s deadlines such as paying
Bar Council subscriptions, preparing for PII and Sijil Annual / Practising Certificates
renewals, as well as deadlines for submitting nominations and ballots for election of
Bar Council Members.
Additional projects summary

The review of Bar Council’s risk management initiative was done in the second and third quarters of 2013, as part of the
PII Committee’s objectives to keep its programmes fresh and relevant. Based on the findings of the review, the following
recommendations were made:
(1) Revamp of website (Praktis) Apart from creating a proper website structure and arranging elements in a way that is
easily understood by users, the primary objective of revamping the website is also to
provide high quality content, with as much information as possible, to users.
At present, the revamping exercise is still at its early stages, and includes revising
and updating contents, selecting materials and web designing. The all-new Praktis
website will feature practice advice and links to risk management information from
other websites.
(2) Launched in 2011, START is a legal starter kit especially designed for Members of the
Bar who intend to start their own practice. The kit contains the day-to-day aspects of
both management and practice areas that every advocate and solicitor needs to know
in order to start and operate their practice. It is also very useful to Members who have
just started practice.
The kit includes the “Best Practice Guides” on “Setting Up Practice”, “Accounting for
Lawyers”, “Time Management for Lawyers” and “Law Practice Management”; Practice
Area Checklist CD-ROM; Office Management DVD-ROM; and reference materials on
daily practice.
Effective from 18 Oct 2013, the Practice Area Checklist CD-ROM is complimentary
and available for download from www.praktis.com.my. This is to encourage the use
of the checklist and to cultivate better risk management in firms.
In moving forward, the PII and Risk Management Department is currently working on
revising and updating the content of the materials in START.


(3) Workshops The workshops conducted by the PII and Risk Management Department will also be
revamped to provide training sessions tailored to the needs of Members and/or their
staff, who are interested in acquiring and developing skills relevant to their areas of
practice, specialisation or according to different staff levels.
(b) Risk Management Fund Conclusion

The Risk Management Fund is an allocation contributed The PII Committee has endeavoured not just to ensure
by the Insurer, and functions as a resource to support risk that the PII Scheme functions well, but also to explore
management activities and any other activities under the more opportunities to further improve the Scheme, and
PII Committee, as well as the operations of the PII and Risk to assure Members that they would enjoy the full benefit
Management Department. The special project for this year of the Scheme. If Members have any enquiries on PII,
is revising and updating the materials in START, as part claims and risk management, please contact the PII and
of Bar Council’s initiatives in promoting risk management Risk Management Department for assistance. The PII
awareness and culture. As at September 2013, the Risk Committee also welcomes and appreciates views and
Management Fund has a healthy balance of RM512,765.83. suggestions from Members.
The current figure is accumulated from the Insurer’s
contribution of 3.5% from the total PII Premium pool. The Acknowledgment
Risk Management Fund allocation was increased from
2.5% to 3.5% in 2012 under the TYA with the Scheme’s I would like to thank the PII Committee members for their
Insurer. invaluable contribution and commitment throughout this
term. I would also like to thank all PII and Risk Management
(3) Department Personnel Department personnel for their effort and hard work.
The PII and Risk Management Department went through Ragunath Kesavan
changes in personnel with the departure of Melissa Kraal Chairperson
in June 2013. At present, the PII and Risk Management
Department is steered by Mysahra Shawkat as head, and Date: 19 Dec 2013
assisted by Iznina Rafa bt Abdul Rafa.
pirm@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Salient details of the 2014 PII terms and conditions

No Item 2014 PII terms
(1) Mandatory limit of indemnity Minimum: RM250,000 (one lawyer)
Maximum: RM2,000,000 (36 lawyers and above)
Cover for a firm increases by RM50,000 for every additional lawyer, up to a
maximum of RM2 million.
(2) Dishonesty of Coverage limited to RM350,000 in the aggregate, or the firm’s mandatory
w partner limit, whichever is lower.
w employee
Limited coverage for dishonesty is aimed at encouraging law firms to adopt
risk management practices.
(3) Mitigation of loss rider clause This clause provides protection for a firm’s clients’ monies, as defined under
the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules 1990.
Innocent partners of a firm can be indemnified for mitigating action(s) taken

due to embezzlement of clients’ monies, subject to the terms of the policy.
(4) Defamation Coverage is the firm’s mandatory limit of indemnity. Applicable to each and
every claim.
(5) Notification of circumstance / claim Notification period is maintained at 60 days of becoming aware of any
circumstance / claim.
(6) Claims loading Claims loading is calculated at either:
(a) 5% of claims paid; or
(b) 5 x 2014 base premium, whichever is lower.
Claims loading is subject to a further maximum cap of 25% (to apply over the
period of five years).
(7) Reduced excess option Firms can opt to lower their base excess at additional premium.
(8) Worldwide coverage option Option for worldwide territorial and jurisdictional coverage is available to all
firms at an additional premium.

Professional Standards and Development Committee

Enhancing the quality and standards of the legal profession
HR Dipendra (Co-Chairperson) | Raphael Tay (Co-Chairperson) | Ahmad Taufiq b Baharum (Kedah Bar Committee) | Athithan s/o Singaravelu
(Perak Bar Committee) | Brendan Navin Siva | Hendon Mohamed | Jeremiah R Gurusamy (Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee) | KS Shasha |
Loong Meng Si (Malacca Bar Committee) | Manian Raju (Negeri Sembilan Bar Committee) | Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab (Penang Bar
Committee) | Mohd Hapiz b Rajali (Perlis Bar Committee) | Muzamil Alif b Mohamad (Pahang Bar Committee) | Nicholas Tan Soon Teik
(Penang Bar Committee) | Noor Suhaila bt Saad (Selangor Bar Committee) | Norazham b Yahaya (Kelantan Bar Committee) | Norhayati bt
Mohamed (Johore Bar Committee) | Pushpa Ratnam | Rosnah bt Zakaria (Terengganu Bar Committee) | Tejindarpal Kaur | Wong Tat Chung
| Santhi Latha (Director, Continuing Professional Development Department) | Vilashini Vijayan and Yap Yoong Jian (Officers-in-charge)
The Professional Standards and Development Committee With the CPD Scheme in place, Bar Council — through
(“PSDC”) oversees the professional development activities PSDC — can ensure that Members of the Bar are able
of Members of the Bar and pupils in chambers. The to continually develop themselves professionally through
composition of PSDC includes representatives appointed access to affordable, relevant and high-quality courses,
from each State Bar Committee, and regional liaison workshops and seminars. The implementation of a platform
persons who have been appointed to facilitate coordination for CPD has created a variety of opportunities for Members
with the State Bar Committees to organise seminars, of the Bar to equip themselves to meet the demands of a
workshops, conferences and other events. globalised legal profession.
In light of the resolution adopted at the Bar’s 66th Annual The implementation of the first cycle of the CPD Scheme
General Meeting (“AGM”) on 10 Mar 2012 regarding the began on 1 July 2012, and the cycle will be completed on
mandatory Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) 30 June 2014, at the end of 24 months. During this period,
Scheme, PSDC is tasked with the additional responsibility Members who were in practice on 1 July 2012 will be
to ensure the effective implementation of this Scheme. expected to accumulate 16 CPD points. Those who come
committee reports
into practice or resume practice after 1 July 2012 will be information about courses organised by the Bar Council
required to accumulate a pro-rated number of CPD points and State Bar Committees is featured prominently on the
during this cycle. All accredited courses since 1 July 2012 main page of the CPD website, to which the Malaysian Bar
are eligible for CPD points. website is linked.
PSDC has developed a broad and comprehensive calendar Through the CPD Department, PSDC has worked to
of courses to allow Members to accumulate the required expand and streamline the range of courses available. The
CPD points within the stipulated cycle. To help Members courses organised by PSDC since January 2013 are listed
plan for their CPD cycle, the calendar that contains detailed in the table below.
CPD
No Date Title points Practice area
1 4 Jan 2013 Talk on “Lynas, the Law and the People: What’s Temporary and Permanent” 3 Environmental
law
2 10 and 11 “Bar Wars!: Intellectual Property Valuation” 11 Intellectual
Jan 2013 property law
3 16 Feb 2013 Workshop on “The Art of Basic Conveyancing Practice” 6 Conveyancing
law
4 21 Feb 2013 Seminar on “Distribution of Estates According to Syariah Principles” 2 Islamic law
5 26 Feb 2013 Workshop on “How to Prepare Election Petitions: Guidelines and Processes” 4 Election law
6 2 Mar 2013 Workshop on “Understanding Your Rights and Duties as a Voter” 6 Election law
7 3 Mar 2013 Workshop on “The Critical Role of Observers in GE13” 6 Election law
8 5 Mar 2013 Seminar on “Retrenchment and Litigating a Dismissal Arising from a 2 Industrial law
Retrenchment at the Industrial Court”
9 11 Apr 2013 Seminar on “Legal Research Skills” 3 Legal
research
10 12 Apr 2013 Workshop on “Project Management Tools to Enhance Legal Practice” 3 Business
matters
11 16 Apr 2013 Seminar on “Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance 2012 and Changes 2 Company law
to Listing Requirements of Bursa Malaysia Securities”
12 18 Apr 2013 Seminar on “Termination of the Employment Relationship” 2 Industrial law
13 7 May 2013 Seminar on “Distribution of Estates According to Syariah Principles — Hibah” 2 Islamic law
14 14 May 2013 Seminar on “Sexual Harassment at the Workplace — Rights of the Employee 2 Industrial law
and Duties of the Employer”
15 21 May 2013 Talk on “Limited Liability Partnerships” 2 Taxation
16 23 May 2013 Seminar on “Islamic Finance Regulatory Framework” 3 Islamic
finance
17 28 May 2013 Workshop on “Effective Speaking and Voice Enrichment” 3 Business
matters
18 29 May 2013 Talk on “Cyberwar and International Law” 2 International
law
19 29 May 2013 Exclusive Preview for University of London Master of Laws Programme 1 LLM preview
20 30 May 2013 Workshop on “The Art of Basic Conveyancing Practice” 6 Conveyancing
law
21 4 June 2013 Seminar on “Enforcement of Judgment” 3 Civil litigation
22 18 June 2013 Talk on “Building Your Financial Fortress while Growing Your Law Practice” 3 Business
matters
23 19 June 2013 Talk on “Trusts in the 21st Century: Wealth Management and Investment 2 Law of trusts
Vehicles”

CPD
No Date Title points Practice area
24 24 June 2013 Lecture on “Constructive Trusts Law in Civil Litigation” 2 Law of trusts
25 25 June 2013 Seminar on “Conveyance Relating to Trust Properties, Leases and Inherited 3 Conveyancing
Properties” law
26 4 July 2013 Seminar on “Marriage, Divorce, and Polygamy” 2 Islamic law
27 9 July 2013 Lecture on “Appellate Advocacy: Consultative Session” 2 Advocacy
training
28 16 July 2013 Lecture on “Constitutional and Administrative Law: Recent Developments” 2 Constitutional
law
29 23 July 2013 Talk on “Cardinal Principles in Interpreting Housing Legislation” 2 Land law
30 23 July 2013 Lecture on “Injunctions: Consultative Session” 2 Injunctions
31 25 July 2013 Seminar on “Personal Data Protection Act and Its Implications” 3 Personal data
protection
32 17 Sept 2013 Seminar on “Family Law” 6 Family law
33 7 Oct 2013 Exclusive Preview for University of London Master of Laws Programme 1 LLM preview
34 8 Oct 2013 Seminar on “Liquidation” 4 Company law
35 17 Oct 2013 Seminar on “Competition Law” 2 Competition
law
36 29 Oct 2013 Seminar on “Introduction to Personal Injury Law and Getting Your Claim 3 Tort law
Started”
37 11 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Law on Dismissals — Misconduct, Poor Performance and 2 Industrial law
Retrenchment / Constructive Dismissal”
38 12 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Proceedings at the Industrial Court — Mentions, Case 2 Industrial law
Management, Mediation and Early Evaluations”
39 15 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Partnership Agreement” 3 Business
matters
40 19 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Conducting Trials and Adducing Evidence at the Industrial Court” 2 Industrial law
41 26 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Status of Bankrupts / Companies under Liquidation at the 2 Bankruptcy
Industrial Court, Judicial Review and Recent Developments in Employment law
Law”
42 28 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Trade Unionism — Trade Disputes, Collective Agreement, 2 Industrial law
Industrial Action”
43 5 Dec 2013 Talk on “Interpretation of Accounts for Lawyers” 3 Business
matters
In addition, Bar Council launched its Regional Training Series (“RTS”),

where the CPD Department collaborates with State Bar Committees, and
assists them to organise courses at state level by providing topics and
speakers.
committee reports
For 2013, a total of nine RTS courses, which had 604 participants, were organised:
No Date Title State Number of participants
1 31 July 2013 Workshop on “Solicitors’ Perak 105
Remuneration Order 2005”
2 26 Aug 2013 Seminar on “Personal Data Penang 38
Protection Act 2010 and Its
Implications”
3 29 Aug 2013 Seminar on “Islamic Law” Pahang 51
4 27 Aug 2013 Seminar on “Employment Law” Johore 71
5 22 Nov 2013 Seminar on “Family Law” Penang 51
6 24 Sept 2013 Seminar on “Ship Arrest, Penang 32
Insurance, Sale and Finance”
7 8 Sept 2013 Workshop on “Solicitors’ Terengganu 128
Remuneration Order 2005”
8 20 Sept 2013 Seminar on “Family Law” Johore 37
9 11 Oct 2013 Talk on “Cardinal Principles in Penang 91
Interpreting Housing Legislation”
PSDC and the CPD Department have finalised an agreement with an online training
platform provider, and expect to launch the e-training platform for Members in the first
quarter of 2014. Members will be able to access e-training sessions on a variety of topics
and practice areas, which will be streamed online either for a fee or free of charge, in both
audio and video formats. This training medium will allow all Members increased flexibility
in complying with the requirements of the CPD Scheme, and Members who are unable to
attend courses in person will still have access to professional development opportunities.
Advocacy Training Course
The Advocacy Training Committee is part of, and comes under the purview of, the PSDC,
and is headed by Brendan Navin Siva.
From January to November 2013, a total of 12 Advocacy Training Courses were organised
by the Advocacy Training Committee:
No Date State Number of participants

1 12 and 13 Jan 2013 Johore 30
2 23 and 24 Feb 2013 Kuala Lumpur 28
3 2 and 3 Mar 2013 Sarawak 30
4 30 and 31 Mar 2013 Kuala Lumpur 27
5 20 and 21 Apr 2013 Penang 30
6 11 and 12 May 2013 Kuala Lumpur 24
7 14 and 15 June 2013 Kedah 30
8 20 and 21 July 2013 Kuala Lumpur 29
9 20 and 21 July 2013 Malacca 14
10 28 and 29 Sept 2013 Kuala Lumpur 23
11 19 and 20 Oct 2013 Johore 19
12 16 and 17 Nov 2013 Kuala Lumpur 26

A total of 310 participants received training under the Training of law graduates from Universiti Utara
Advocacy Training Courses in 2013. Malaysia and Multimedia University
In continuing with the development of this course, another The training programmes for law graduates from University
batch of 36 trainers was trained to utilise the Hampel Utara Malaysia (“UUM”) and Multimedia University (“MMU”)
method as a mode of teaching advocacy. The 5th Advocacy were conducted in January / February 2013, April 2013,
Teachers Training Course was held from 13 to 15 Sept September 2013 and November 2013.
2013, with seven barristers from the United Kingdom and
one from Hong Kong attending to train our Members to The lecture for the sessions on Conveyancing Practice was
teach advocacy. conducted by Jeremiah R Gurusamy; Opinion Writing by
Mariette Peters; and Drafting of Pleadings by HR Dipendra.
In a separate development, the Malaysian Bar was
unanimously admitted as a full member of the International Ethics and Professional Standards Course (“EPS”)
Advocacy Training Council (“IATC”) based in Hong Kong.
The IATC aims to promote advocacy teaching around the In 2013, a total of 1,416 petitions for admissions were
world and to assist member countries and other interested received between 1 January and 21 November, and 1,332
parties who wish to have advocacy training within their pupils in chambers had been admitted to the Bar as at 18
jurisdictions. The IATC’s affiliated Bars consist of the November.
Australian Bar Association, General Council of the Bar
of England and Wales, Hong Kong Bar Association, the 16 sessions of EPS were conducted in 2013, of which 12
General Council of the Bar of South Africa, and now the were held in Kuala Lumpur, two in Penang, and two in
Malaysian Bar. With the admission of the Malaysian Bar Johor Bahru.
into the IATC, Brendan Navin Siva was unanimously elected
as an Executive Committee member of the IATC. The IATC Three sessions of the Intensive Programme, conducted for
is looking to assist with advocacy training programmes in those who had failed the EPS examination twice, were held
Brunei, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, among on 25 Mar 2013, 2 July 2013 and 3 Oct 2013. Of the 25
others. pupils who attended these sessions, 12 pupils passed while
13 pupils failed (as at October 2013).
As part of the initiatives of the IATC, Brendan Navin Siva
was invited by the Hong Kong Bar Association to join a As at 25 Nov 2013, a total of 1,055 pupils were registered
team of international advocacy trainers to teach at their users of the e-Ethics and Professional Standards (“e-EPS”)
Advocacy Teachers Training Course from 30 Oct to 2 Nov application, of which 594 pupils (56 percent) are active
2013. He was also invited by the General Council of the users. The e-EPS application is an interactive programme,
Bar of South Africa to teach at their Advanced Advocacy with a series of question-and-answer modules as well as
Course at Stellenbosch University, South Africa from 13 to a self-assessment component, which complements the
17 Jan 2014. existing learning tools and assists pupils in their preparation
for the EPS and written examination.
For 2014, the Advocacy Training Committee plans to
organise 12 training sessions, and aims to continue with Conclusion
the development of advocacy training in Malaysia.
In its efforts to improve the quality and standards of the
legal profession in Malaysia, PSDC has endeavoured to
adopt a holistic approach and to do its best for Members of
the Bar and pupils in chambers.
committee reports
Many aspects of the training and professional development Acknowledgment

are being incorporated in phases, with the target to
implement an extensive and effective CPD Scheme We wish to place on record our gratitude to Brendan Navin
throughout Peninsular Malaysia by the end of the first Siva, for his determination and perseverance in ensuring
cycle on 30 June 2014. The emphasis on professional the Advocacy Training Courses proceed smoothly; and the
development will remain the guiding principle, and the rest of the PSDC members for their diligence in making the
Scheme will constantly be reviewed to ensure that it meets committee, and its work, a success. Our deep appreciation
the highest possible standards and achieves its objectives. also goes to the Admission Department staff for organising
As always, suggestions from Members of the Bar are the MMU and UUM training programme and the e-EPS
welcome and appreciated. and, last but certainly not least, the CPD Department
staff — Vilashini Vijayan, Yap Yoong Jian and Mohd Fazli
Rosman — led by Santhi Latha.
HR Dipendra and Raphael Tay

Co-Chairpersons
Date: 15 Dec 2013

cpd@malaysianbar.org.my

Publications Committee
Shaping opinion among stakeholders of the law
Raphael Tay (Co-Chairperson) | Syamsuriatina Ishak (Co-Chairperson) (until September 2013) | Aston Paiva | David Mathew | Gregory
Vinesh Das | Janet Chai Pei Ying | KN Geetha | KS Shasha | Mariette Peters | Noor Arianti Osman | Joe Chin (until October 2013) and Chua
Ai Lin (until December 2013); Baizura Abd Razak and Joane Sharmila (from January 2014) (Officers-in-charge)
The Publications Committee started the 2013/2014 term profession with the feature article “Enter the Foreign Law
by welcoming Raphael Tay, who joined Syamsuriatina Firms”, inviting readers to reflect on the points raised by the
Ishak as Co-Chairperson and Co-Editor-in-Chief of Praxis: author. The article “Plea for a Rethink over the Allah Case:
Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar (“Praxis”). They worked The Courts and Democracy” was included in the Oct–Dec
together on the Apr–June 2013 issue before Syamsuriatina 2013 issue, following the Court of Appeal’s decision on 14
Ishak took a bow and handed over the helm to Raphael Oct 2013 on what is commonly referred to as the “Herald”
Tay, with her parting words of “I have every confidence that or “Allah” case.
you will take Praxis to new heights!”.
For the first time, a Lifestyle supplement has been added for
Raphael Tay introduced changes to the appearance of the the benefit of readers. Such and other supplements will be
cover of Praxis, style of content-presentation as well as the incorporated in future issues, from time to time, if they are
overall look and feel of the publication to keep up with the considered to be useful for, or to be of interest to, readers.
constantly-demanding pace of this fast-moving world.
In the 2013/2014 term, the Publications Committee has
Notwithstanding the changes, issues of Praxis will continue published three issues of Praxis, namely, Apr–June 2013,
to be built on themes. For the July–Sept 2013 issue, July–Sept 2013 and Oct–Dec 2013.
the focus was on the imminent liberalisation of the legal
committee reports
As Praxis is not only read by Members of the Malaysian Acknowledgment

Bar, but also by the Judiciary and other Bar associations
around the world, the Publications Committee strives to I take my hat off to Syamsuriatina Ishak, who chaired the
improve the content and readability of the publication. As Publications Committee for the past two terms and in the
with previous issues of Praxis, the easy-reading style has course of it, revived Praxis and steered the last 11 issues
been retained, and the Editor-in-Chief has made it clear that with unrelenting enthusiasm and energy. The baton that
photographs and graphics used in the publication need to she has handed over to me is lighter for the fact that she had
be in high resolution. set a solid groundwork for the work that I am doing. I am
honoured to take over the helm from her. I wish her all the
In the long run, the Publications Committee hopes to best in her current pursuits and for all future undertakings.
increase the frequency from four to six issues of Praxis
a year, and will be looking at ways to generate more I am grateful to the officers-in-charge of the Publications
advertisement revenue so that costs can be kept at a Committee, the team at LexisNexis and every dedicated
minimum. individual who are focused on our mission to communicate
with, build and inspire the Bar and other stakeholders.
We welcome letters, articles, views and news (including
photographs) for possible inclusion in Praxis. Contributions Raphael Tay
and enquiries may be directed to praxis@malaysianbar. Chairperson
org.my.
Date: 6 Feb 2014

joane@malaysianbar.org.my;
baizura@malaysianbar.org.my

SAFER MALAYSIA COMMITTEE
Safer Malaysia Committee

Towards a Safer Malaysia
Richard Wee Thiam Seng (Co-Chairperson) | Yip Huen Weng (Co-Chairperson) | Lai Xuenwei, Darren (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Saha Deva
A Arunasalam (Co-Deputy Chairperson) | Ahmad b Alwi | Amrit Pal Singh | Chong Siew Ean | Leong Zhi Hong | Low Hui Mei | Noor Azizah
Abdullah | Norharniza Rusli | Ragendar Singh s/o Puran Singh | Sarah Kambali | Saw Wei Siang | Sharifah Nurjehan Syed Hashim | Siti
Munirah Maarof | Syamsul Azhar b Ab Aziz | Tan Yen Siang | Teoh Hooi Cheng | Vince Chong | Wong Jyh Ling | Yasmeen bt Haji Mohd
Shariff | Anusha Gopala Krishnan (Officer-in-charge)
Adibah Shareen | Ann Quah | April Tay Pei Ting | Ashvinder Singh | Eileen Lim Thong | Fong Peng Lim | Gaythri Raman | Kelvin Chua Kok
Kooi | Michelle Oon | Dr P Sundramoorthy | Phang Fatt Kong, Jeffrey | Soh Hock Meng, Mark | Tan Min Litt (Wendy) | Teh Yik Koon | Yoong
Lai Hon, David
The Safer Malaysia Committee was originally a community Safer Malaysia Project. The ultimate goal of the committee
project established back in June 2012. The Safer Malaysia is to make Malaysia a safer place.
Project was the concerted effort of a few concerned
individuals who were determined to counter the menace To ensure effectiveness of the committee, a law reforms
of crime, which was rapidly increasing by the day. The unit, outreach unit, citizen liaison unit and awareness unit
project became a full-fledged committee when Bar Council were formed.
adopted it in March 2013. Many State Bar Committees,
including Kedah, Pahang, Perak, Perlis and Malacca have The law reforms unit consists of Lai Xuenwei (Darren),
established Safer Malaysia subcommittees. Amrit Pal Singh and Sharifah Nurjehan Syed Hashim. The
objectives of this unit are to propose reforms of law, draft
The Safer Malaysia Committee is chaired by Richard Wee parliamentary bills and papers, and work towards achieving
Thiam Seng and Yip Huen Weng, both co-founders of the a stronger enforcement of law.
committee reports
Saha Deva A Arunasalam, Sarah Kambali, Low Hui Mei, Malaysia’s vision. He presented an action plan that is
Saw Wei Siang, April Tay Pei Ting, Wong Jyh Ling and divided into three different stages, namely, short-term
Richard Wee Thiam Seng are members of the outreach solutions, medium-term remedies and long-term planning.
unit. They spread awareness via modules that emphasise
on safety and security, and training to educate the public on The panel of speakers consisted of Dr P Sundramoorthy,
crime and deterrence. This unit has successfully developed Associate Professor of Criminology, School of Social
a module that focuses on the key points of the fight against Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia; Shamsul Sulaiman,
crimes, ie vigilance, deterrence and prevention. Participants a member of the Kuala Lumpur Bar currently practising at
who have attended the workshops agreed that the module Putrajaya and a former Deputy Public Prosecutor (“DPP”);
was beneficial and easy to understand. Phang Fatt Kong (Jeffrey), community leader of the Kota
Damansara Residence Group; Tan Min Litt (Wendy), co-
The members of the citizen liaison unit are Phang Fatt Kong founder of the Facebook page “Malaysian Crime Awareness
(Jeffrey) and Yoong Lai Hon (David). The task of the unit Campaign”; and Richard Wee Thiam Seng. The moderator
is to connect and liaise with various community groups and was Seira Sacha Abu Bakar.
residential associations as a collaborative effort to spread
the horizons of the Safer Malaysia Project. With more The speakers expressed their views on crime based on
people on board to fight crime, the goal to make Malaysia a their individual areas of expertise. The discussions and
safer place will be realised faster. dialogue that took place during the open forum were
vibrant, stimulating and well received. Among the solutions
The awareness unit comprises Soh Hock Meng (Mark), Tan proposed included empowering the community, increasing
Min Litt (Wendy) and Siti Munirah Maarof. The awareness police professionalism and revamping the criminal justice
team concentrates on reaching out to members of the system.
public, via social media platforms and production of short
videos with the aim to create awareness and vigilance. Many thoughts and new ideas emerged from the forum.
These methods of delivery are cost-effective, convenient The committee believed that the forum was an eye-opener
and easily accessible. to many attendees who would now view crime in a different
light and realise the importance of preventing crime as it
The Safer Malaysia Committee met five times during impacts the quality of life.
the term to plan and organise activities. In addition, the
agenda towards a Safer Malaysia is continued with various After the forum, a candlelight vigil was held outside the Bar
activities in collaboration with, or upon invitation of, other Council building in memory of all victims of crime. A large
organisations. Some of the key activities of the Committee crowd gathered for the peaceful vigil and expressed their
are summarised in the table at the end of this report. hope for a safer Malaysia.
Open Forum on Towards a Safer Malaysia Acknowledgment
On 27 Apr 2013, the Safer Malaysia Committee organised I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the committee
an open forum entitled “Towards a Safer Malaysia”, at the members for their invaluable contribution.
Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council. The forum
acted as a platform for the public to discuss and ventilate Richard Wee Thiam Seng
issues of crime, and find solutions to eradicate this menace. Co-Chairperson
Christopher Leong, President of the Malaysian Bar gave Date: 28 Nov 2013
a welcoming speech and officiated the forum. After that,
Richard Wee Thiam Seng, Co-Chairperson of Safer For any enquiries, please email:
Malaysia Committee was invited on stage to share Safer anusha@malaysianbar.org.my

SAFER MALAYSIA COMMITTEE
Summary of key activities organised by the Safer Malaysia Committee

No Date Event Location
1 27 Apr 2013 Bukit Gasing Walk Bukit Gasing
2 27 Apr 2013 Open Forum: Towards a Safer Malaysia Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council
3 9 June 2013 Sun Tzu — The Art of War: Dewan Seni Datin Kathleen,
Strategies for Fighting Crimes Together SMK Assunta
4 10 June 2013 Meeting with OCPD Damansara Utama Police Station, Damansara Utama
5 27 July 2013 Bangsar Baru Residence Event Bangsar
6 19 Aug 2013 Bella, ntv7 (Interview) ntv7, Bandar Utama
7 5 Sept 2013 Interview about Safer Malaysia Messrs Richard Wee & Yip, TTDI
8 5 Sept 2013 Masyarakat dan Jenayah — Di Mana Kita? Royale Chulan Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
9 6 Sept 2013 Interview with Astro Awani (Live) Astro Awani
10 7 Sept 2013 Think Out of the Box: Brainstorming Session on Damansara Specialist Hospital
Ways to Combat Crime
11 14 Sept 2013 Safer Malaysia Workshop Studio 12, Petaling Jaya
12 24 Sept 2013 Forum: Citizen Against Crime Petaling Jaya Community Library Hall
13 28 Sept 2013 Holistic Planning and Action Plan to Combat Serious Putra World Trade Centre
Crime and Gangsterism Among Youth
14 28 Sept 2013 Forum Pencegahan Jenayah Auditorium Blok D8, Kompleks D, Putrajaya
15 29 Sept 2013 Crime Prevention and Public Safety Talk Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
16 2 Oct 2013 Seminar on Safer Malaysia (organised by the Kuala Kuala Lumpur Bar
Lumpur Professional Development Committee)
17 18 Oct 2013 Presentation of Safer Malaysia at Halliburton’s Suite 10.01 & 10.02, Level 10, G Tower,
Health Safety Environment Meeting 199 Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur
18 23 Nov 2013 Safer Malaysia Forum Malacca Bar
19 26 Nov 2013 Forum: Towards a Safer Malaysia ILKAP, Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor
20 3 Dec 2013 Roadshow on Safer Malaysia and Forum on Shahzan Inn Kuantan
Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959
21 20 Dec 2013 Self-Defence Seminar Bar Council
22 3 Jan 2014 Self-Defence Seminar Bar Council
23 6 Jan 2014 Self-Defence Seminar Bar Council
24 7 Jan 2014 Roadshow on Safer Malaysia and Amendments to Negeri Sembilan
the Prevention of Crime Act 1959
25 22 Jan 2014 Crime Awareness Campaign UTAR Petaling Jaya
26 23 Jan 2014 Roadshow on Safer Malaysia and Forum on Perak
27 22 Jan 2014 Roadshow on Safer Malaysia and Forum on Johore
28 To Be Safer Malaysia Workshop Maybank, Kuala Lumpur
Confirmed
committee reports
Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee

Heralding a new era in the nation’s maritime sector
Murelidaran Navaratnam (Chairperson) | Jeremy M Joseph | KN Geetha | Mathew Kurien | Mohamad Rohan b Mohamad Razi | Mohd
Iqbal b Zainal Abidin | Rahayu bt Abd Ghani | Rajasingam Gothandapani | Selvarani d/o Thiyagarajan | Shailender Bhar | Shamesh s/o
Jeevaretnam | Shantini Guna Rajan | Siti Rahayu bt Mohd Mumazaini | Sitpah Selvaratnam | Siva Kumar Kanagasabai | Trishelea Ann
Sandosam | Vinodhini Benjamin Samuel | Wan Hilwanie Ariff | Rajeswari Gunarasa (Officer-in-charge)
Introduction Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council. The seminar

entitled “Maritime Dispute Resolution in Malaysia — Riding
The Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee (“SALC”) the Waves” aims to raise awareness among practitioners
aims to assist shipping law practitioners with updates on and industry players on recent developments in Malaysia,
developments in law and practice, both locally and abroad. including the Admiralty Court that was established in 2010,
In this regard, SALC has continually provided consultations, legislative reform affecting the maritime industry, and
commentaries and assistance. SALC also liaises with developments in maritime arbitration.
relevant government agencies on matters concerning
shipping and admiralty. The seminar will be graced by YA Nallini Pathmanathan,
who will deliver the opening speech and share her
The various endeavours of SALC, chaired by Murelidaran experience as an Admiralty Judge. It is anticipated that
Navaratnam, have included those summarised below: she will shed some light on the history of maritime law in
Malaysia, the importance of maritime dispute resolution,
(1) Seminar on maritime dispute resolution and legislative improvements that are necessary for reform.
In addition, the seminar will have the distinction of featuring
SALC, in collaboration with the Kuala Lumpur Regional Jeremy Joseph and Sitpah Selvaratnam as key speakers
Centre for Arbitration, will hold a talk on 24 Jan 2014 at the on the topics of “Malaysia as a Viable Alternative in the

(2) Tripartite Meeting in Kuching
At the Tripartite Meeting held between Bar Council,

Sabah Law Association and Advocates’ Association
of Sarawak on 17 Aug 2013 in Kota Kinabalu, issues
relating to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 and
the Merchant Shipping (Amendment and Extension) Act
2011 were discussed, including reasons behind the delay
in implementation. Both Sabah Law Association and
Advocates’ Association of Sarawak were asked to obtain
consent from the relevant state authorities to implement the
legislation, which are in the best interest of all shipping and
admiralty law stakeholders.
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank members of SALC for their initiative and hard

work throughout this term. I also extend my appreciation to
the President of the Bar, Bar Council members and fellow
professional bodies for their assistance and support.
Murelidaran Navaratnam
Chairperson
Region for Maritime Dispute Resolution” and “Recent
Maritime Developments”, respectively. Date: 10 Jan 2014
Panellists for the event will comprise leading authorities in For any enquiries, please email:
maritime law, namely Matthew Kurien, Nazery Khalid, Siva rajeswari@malaysianbar.org.my
Kumar Kanagasabai and Professor Datuk Sundra Rajoo.
committee reports
Small Firms Committee

Small firms, big in delivery
George Varughese (Chairperson) | Rao Suryana (Deputy Chairperson) | Ahmad Musthafi b Mohamad | Allen Miranda | Foong Cheng
Leong | Hazwan b Mohd Nor | Jaswant Kaur | Khairul Azman b Kamaluddin | Loh Chang Woo | Haji Mohamed Musa | Mohd Iqbal b Zainal
Abidin | Nahzatul Ain | Noor Roaziha bt Mohd Noor | Patrick Chiam Tow Loon | Rajasundram Ponnusami | Sailaja d/o Thirunawukarasan |
Stanislaus Cross | Haji Sulaiman Abdullah | Tejindarpal Kaur | Germaine Low Ee Ling (Officer-in-charge)
The underlying objective when the Small Firms Committee library, photocopier, and information technology (“IT”)
(“SFC”) was set up in 2011 was to assist small law firms to services.
achieve their fullest potential by managing and running their
firms in a more effective and productive manner. With that Circular No 155/2013 dated 10 July 2013 was disseminated
in mind, SFC successfully organised several professional to Members to seek their feedback on the proposed Rules.
development programmes during the term under review,
and has more programmes in the pipeline. Management Training Workshops
SFC met seven times between January and December SFC engaged the services of a business-coaching company,
2013 to discuss various issues and plan activities, including ActionCOACH, to conduct a series of Management Training
those described below. Workshops for small-firm practitioners. The following five
workshops were organised during the previous and current
Legal Profession (Group Practice) Rules terms:
SFC is in the midst of finalising the Legal Profession (Group (1) Thinking Like a Business Ninja — The Mindset for
Practice) Rules, which will allow small law firms to share Success and Generating Opportunities (11 Oct
premises and also resources such as conference rooms, 2012);

(2) Thinking Like a Business Ninja — Revenue

Generation (22 Nov 2012);
(3) Getting Awesome Leverage — Do it Once and Get
Paid Multiple Times (10 Jan 2013);
(4) Maintaining a Top-class Team — Getting Top Staff to
Come to You (28 Feb 2013); and
The talk was conducted by Datuk Harjit Singh Sidhu, who

specialises in the provision of tax advisory services in the
following areas:
(1) Personal tax;

(2) Company tax;
(3) Partnership tax;
(5) The Rhythm of Success — Mastering the Habit of (4) Sole proprietor tax;
Growth (28 Mar 2013). (5) Malaysian inbound and outbound tax;
(6) Tax mitigation; and
(7) Tax planning.
A representative from the Chartered Tax Institute of

Malaysia (“CTIM”) was also present during the talk to
provide information on CTIM and also to encourage tax law
practitioners to become members of CTIM.
Acknowledgment
Finally, but in no way least, I thank all my colleagues in

SFC, and the Bar Council Secretariat staff who served
SFC, for their effort and contributions during this term.
All workshops were well-attended and received positive
feedback from participants. George Varughese
Chairperson
Talk on tax compliance and accounting procedures
Date: 30 Jan 2014
On 1 Mar 2013, SFC held a talk entitled “Tax Compliance
and Accounting Procedures: Partnership and Personal For any enquiries, please email:
Tax” at the Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council. germaine@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee

No-discount rule is the rule of thumb
Abdullah Johari b Hamzah (Co-Chairperson) | Sally Chee Lai Yan (Co-Chairperson) | A Ramanathan (Deputy Chairperson) | Abdul Murad b
Che Chik | Andrew Wong Fook Hin | Asmadi b Awang | Faridah bt Yusoff | Nicholas Chang Chen Seng | Ng Shiow Wen | Rosnah bt Faisal |
Sumathi d/o Murugiah | Wan Mansor b Hj Wan Mohamed | Chuah Ying Ying (Officer-in-charge)
The Solicitors’ Remuneration Enforcement Committee Members regularly sought clarification from SREC on
(“SREC”) met five times between May 2013 to January charging of fees under the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order
2014, and three more meetings are scheduled for February 2005 for non-contentious work. SREC continued to
and March 2014. In 2013, a majority of its long-standing highlight to these Members the various circulars issued by
members renewed their commitment to continue to serve Bar Council, which contained most of the answers to their
SREC. Abdullah Johari b Hamzah and Sally Chee Lai Yan enquiries and, on some occasions, invited the Members for
were appointed as Co-Chairpersons, and A Ramanathan discussions.
as Deputy Chairperson.
Queries or complaints from the public generally revolved
SREC received numerous queries and complaints from around overcharging of fees and disbursements by
Members of the Bar and the public on issues relating to lawyers, which was not in accordance with the Solicitors’
the fees charged by solicitors pursuant to the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005. When there has been a serious
Remuneration Order 2005. breach, SREC advised the enquirer or Bar Council to lodge
a complaint with the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary
Board, in order to protect the interest of both the public and
Members of the Bar.

Memorandum to the Attorney General’s Chambers subsequently approved the revised draft rules, and finalised
them as the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules
On 16 Mar 2012, Bar Council submitted the “Memorandum 2013 (“SRER 2013”). AGC has also translated the SRER
from Bar Council Malaysia on the Need to have Effective 2013 into Bahasa Malaysia. However, the SRER 2013 can
Rules to Enforce the Provisions of the Solicitors’ only be gazetted after various amendments are made, for
Remuneration Order 2005, in particular, the No-discount the purpose of consistency, to the Solicitors’ Remuneration
Rule”, prepared by SREC, to the Attorney General Chambers Order 2005.
(“AGC”). Bar Council is seeking AGC’s cooperation to make
rules under section 77 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 Acknowledgment
to regulate compliance with the Solicitors’ Remuneration
Order 2005, investigate any contravention, and take action We thank all SREC members for their continued support,
against advocates and solicitors who do not comply. The invaluable contribution and active participation in the
memorandum included a proposed draft of the rules. committee’s work.
Registered users of the Malaysian Bar website may Abdullah Johari b Hamzah and Sally Chee Lai Yan
access the memorandum at http://www.malaysianbar. Co-Chairpersons
org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_
details&gid=3685&Itemid=332. Date: 27 Jan 2014
At a meeting on 7 Feb 2013, AGC requested Bar Council For any enquiries, please email:
to make some amendments to the draft rules. AGC yingying@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Sports Committee
Bridging the divide through sports
K Mohan s/o K Kumaran (Co-Chairperson) | Anand Ponnudurai (Co-Chairperson) | Kenny Lai Choe Ken (Deputy Chairperson) | Amrit Pal
Singh | Aric Wong Fong Chin | Choi Kian You | Ganesarajah Nadarajah | Isa Aziz Ibrahim | Iyanathan s/o Ayasamy | James Chew Hock
Chuan | James FC Fong | Jaspal Singh Gill | Lee Guan Tong | Mark Talalla | Mohan Kang | Muhendaran Suppiah | Ng Yueng May | Oommen
Koshy | Peter Douglas Ling | Puspalingam K | Rajendra Navaratnam | Ravichandran S | Robert Low | Rodzim Zaimy | See Kwong Yan |
Shopna Rani Malakar | Wan Syarihah Razman | Yeoh Cho Kheong | Shegi Nair (Officer-in-charge)
(1) Malaysia / Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2013 ceremony and dinner at Peach Garden, Miramar Hotel,
Singapore.
The Law Society of Singapore played host to the Malaysia/
Singapore Bench and Bar Games 2013, held in Singapore The Sports Committee is now in the midst of preparing for
from 16 to 18 May 2013. The Malaysian contingent was the next Malaysia / Singapore Bench and Bar Games and
headed by the Chief Justice of Malaysia. Quadrangular Bar Games (which features contingents from
Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore), both
Team Malaysia triumphed in badminton, golf, table tennis, of which will be hosted by the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee
volleyball and boat race, while Team Singapore won in from 1 to 3 May 2014.
bowling, cricket, cross country, ladies soccer, netball,
(2) Sports Personality of the Year Awards 2013
squash, tennis, basketball and darts. The hockey, pool,
premier soccer and veteran soccer matches each ended The following Members of the Bar were selected as sports
in a draw. personalities for their contribution in the field of sports:
Singapore thus emerged as the overall champion, with a (a) See Kwong Yan of Selangor Bar; and
score of nine to five, and the event ended with a closing (b) Dalgit Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh of Perak Bar.

Sports Committee
(3) Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament 2013 The refreshments were compliments of Dato’ Thong Young
Khoon and Major (R) Hj Amin Shah b Shahludin, who also
The curtain raiser for the Malaysian Bar golf calendar — the could not make it to the dinner. The celebration ended in
Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament — was held earlier the wee hours of the morning with the golf fraternity’s “three
on 25 and 26 Jan 2013, in view of the Chinese New Year tenors” — Agusti Abdul Hamid, Ahmad Fairuz b Jusoh and
holidays during the week of 10 Feb 2013; and the much Md Hazza b Md Khalid — belting out evergreen English and
anticipated 13th General Election. It was also in anticipation Malay numbers.
of the Malaysia / Singapore Bench and Bar Games, which
was scheduled to be held from 25 to 27 Apr 2013, and was All merriment aside, the two-day event saw keenly-fought
postponed to 16 to 18 May 2013. competition, from the tee-boxes to the fairways and the
greens. Of course, some adventurous sorts made pit stops
The main reason it was held early, though, was to say at the bunkers and numerous ponds to make every stroke
farewell to Mahinder Singh Dulku of the Penang Bar, who, their money’s worth.
after becoming a “datuk” (grandfather) to a lovely grandchild
last year, was desirous of retiring from the legal practice. The following are the top scorers in the respective
categories:
Mahinder Singh Dulku had been a regular participant in
all the Bar golf tournaments, an organiser of the annual Men (Gross)
interstate golf tournaments and a very benevolent financial
supporter of numerous Bar golf tournaments, including the (i) Champion | K Ranjit Singh; Handicap 13; Gross 165
ASEAN Law Association Golf Tournament. (ii) 1st Runner-Up | Dalgit Singh; Handicap 7; Gross 169
(iii) 2nd Runner-Up | Leslie Looi; Handicap 5; Gross 170
The Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament was held over
a period of two days. The first day’s game was held at Men (Nett)
Cinta Sayang Golf & Country Club at Sungai Petani, and
the second day’s game was held at Black Forest Golf & (i) Champion | Kol (R) Roseli b Abdul Gani; Handicap
Country Club at Bukit Kayu Hitam. 18; Nett 141 OCB
(ii) 1st Runner-Up | Ahmad Fairuz Zainol; Handicap 17;
Out of a total of 52 golfers who confirmed their participation, Nett 141
only 44 made the journey. It was a bit of a let-down for the (iii) 2nd Runner-Up | Amran Parimon; Handicap 14; Nett
organisers. Be that as it may, the two days of wonderful 146
weather made the tournament a breeze, especially the
Klang Valley golfers who have been affected by the Senior (Nett)
inclement weather since October 2012.
(i) Champion | Tan Foong Luen; Handicap 15; Nett 143
The dinner and prize-giving ceremony was held in Danok, OCB
the border town across Bukit Kayu Hitam, with sumptuous (ii) 1st Runner-Up | Mohd Zahir Osman; Handicap 22;
Thai cuisine and a variety of shows to top it all. The dinner Nett 143
and shows were fully sponsored by Mahinder Singh Dulku, (iii) 2nd Runner-Up | James Loh; Handicap 12; Nett 150
who, unfortunately, could not make it to the dinner due to
illness. Nevertheless, he was ably represented by Baldev Besides winning the cash purse of RM300, the top
Singh Bhar, the Penang golf convener. winners were also presented with crystal trophies.
committee reports
The Sports Committee thanks the following organisations Day 1: 24 Aug 2013 — Stadium Panasonic Matsushita,
and individuals: Shah Alam
(a) Abdul Majid Md Yusof, the Tournament Director; (a) Football

Koh Yew Chong, Vice-Captain; S Ravichandran and Participating teams
Roslan Ghazali for their assistance in organising the Group A: Johore Bar, Kedah Bar, Kuala Lumpur Bar 1,
tournament; Malacca Bar and Selangor Bar
Group B: Kelantan Bar, Kuala Lumpur Bar 2, Penang Bar
(b) Mahinder Singh Dulku for sponsoring the dinner and and Terengganu Bar
the entertainment;
Football traditionally gathers the most interest and the
(c) Mohd Zahir Osman for securing the Adabi door gifts; highest number of participants at the IBG, and this time was
no different.
(d) Dato’ Thong Young Khoon and his colleagues for
sponsoring the drinks; The condition of the pitch at the stadium has deteriorated
over the last two years but the teams went about their
(e) Major (R) Hj Amin Shah b Shahludin who sponsored games without much complaint. The games were played in
the cash prize of THB30,000; good spirits with young and old(er) lawyers alike displaying
their skills. Many are old friends from across the states.
(f) The golf managers and staff of Cinta Sayang Golf & The jovial and celebratory mood at the matches was helped
Country Club and Black Forest Golf & Country Club; by the music, the ample stadium seats for supporters and
players to watch their teams in action, as well as a proper
(g) The Penang Bar Committee, especially Lee Guan PA system to call out the matches. It should also be
Tong for assistance rendered in coordinating the mentioned that the volunteers ably assisted in ensuring the
tournament; smooth running of this event.
(h) Zinriszal Selamat, our official photographer; and On the pitch, Selangor Bar showed their might by regaining
the title of champion which they had lost to the Kelantan
(i) All the hard-core supporters and golfers in the Bar at the last IBG. The two Kuala Lumpur Bar teams
Malaysian golf fraternity for taking part in the played well with Kuala Lumpur Bar 1 reaching the final only
tournament. to lose to a fresher Selangor Bar team. Johore Bar and
Terengganu Bar were the losing semi-finalists but played
(4) Malaysian Bar Interstate Bar Games 2013 with good teamwork throughout.
The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee played host to the (b) Badminton
Malaysian Bar Interstate Bar Games (“IBG”) 2013, held Participating teams
on 24 Aug and 7 Sept 2013. The sports played were Team Event: Kelantan Bar, Kuala Lumpur Bar, Penang
badminton, football, golf, netball and volleyball. The Kuala Bar, Selangor Bar and Terengganu Bar
Lumpur Bar emerged as the overall champion, winning Ladies Doubles Event: Kuala Lumpur Bar, Penang Bar,
three out of the five sports played, namely, badminton, Selangor Bar and Terengganu Bar
netball and volleyball.
This year the tournament was divided into two categories;
The following describes the individual sport events that took the Team Event comprising five doubles, and the inaugural
place on both days. Ladies Doubles Event. The idea behind having a separate

Sports Committee
Ladies Doubles competition was to unearth talent. The scores are as follows:
Approximately 90 people turned up for this event, some to
participate and others to support their favourite teams and Kuala Penang Selangor Terengganu
players. Lumpur Bar Bar Bar
Bar
Kuala
The Kuala Lumpur Bar Team and Ladies Doubles pair — 15-1 14-5 16-0
Lumpur Bar
amassed the most wins to emerge as champions in their Penang Bar 1-15 — 6-10 8-1
respective categories. Penang Bar came in second in Selangor
the Team Event after a hard-fought tournament with nail- 5-14 10-1 — 10-1
Bar
biting encounters against Selangor Bar and Kelantan Bar. Terengganu 0-16 1-8 1-10 —
Selangor Bar settled for third place while the fourth and Bar
fifth places went to Kelantan Bar and Terengganu Bar,
respectively. (d) Volleyball
Participating teams
This event provided a fun and friendly sporting environment. Kuala Lumpur Bar, Selangor Bar and Terengganu Bar
Players from different states were able to mingle around and
make new friends. Some had taken the opportunity to catch The players were grateful to be playing on a good indoor
up with old friends and reminisce about their early days in court this year. Kuala Lumpur Bar was especially raring to
practice and past tournaments. It was inspiring to see go as the team had been undergoing regular training prior
players from the different participating states volunteering to the IBG.
as linesmen or umpires and assisting the organisers in any
way they could. The first match saw Kuala Lumpur Bar defeating
Terengganu Bar two sets to nil. The next match was
The convener conveys his thanks to K Mohan s/o K between Selangor Bar and Terengganu Bar. Selangor Bar
Kumaran, Co-Chairperson of the Sports Committee, for initially had a shortage of players but in the true spirit of
providing valuable guidance throughout the tournament. sportsmanship, some members and supporters from the
Kuala Lumpur Bar and Penang Bar joined in to make up
(c) Netball the numbers for Selangor Bar. Selangor Bar then beat
Participating teams Terengganu Bar with a score of 2-0.
Kuala Lumpur Bar, Penang Bar, Selangor Bar and
Terengganu Bar The final match was a showdown between Kuala Lumpur
Bar and Selangor Bar, two teams which have played
Netball was played in a league format and the team with the close matches over the years. This time, Kuala Lumpur
highest scores would be overall champion. Kuala Lumpur Bar achieved victory after beating Selangor Bar in
Bar successfully defended its title from the previous IBG straight sets and was crowned champion. It was worth
and emerged as champion. Selangor Bar was the runner- noting that Selangor Bar made way for Terengganu
up, followed by Penang Bar taking the third place and Bar to take the medals for runner-up as a gesture of
Terengganu Bar, the fourth place. appreciation for Terengganu Bar’s participation as well as
in acknowledgment of the fact that several of the players
in the Selangor Bar team were actually Kuala Lumpur Bar
members.
committee reports
Day 2: 7 Sept 2013 — Staffield Country Resort, Mantin

The following competitive sports — badminton, golf, bowling,
Golf football, cross country and basketball — were played. The
Participating teams three Bars also took part in two non-competitive events, ie
Johore Bar, Kelantan Bar, Kuala Lumpur Bar, Negeri paintball and ladies futsal.
Sembilan Bar, Selangor Bar and Terengganu Bar
For each competitive and non-competitive game, points
This year’s golf tournament attracted 60 participants and are awarded. The winner is awarded three points, second
it was most encouraging to see Members from the East place is awarded two points while third place is awarded
Coast taking part. one point. At the end of the two-day event, the team with
the highest points collected from the competitive games is
The best five players’ scores of each team were taken to declared the overall champion.
determine the winner. Selangor Bar emerged as champion
with Kuala Lumpur Bar coming in second and the Negeri The results of the Tripartite Bar Games 2013 are as follows:
Sembilan Bar taking the third spot. The Selangor Bar
players also swept all the top individual and novelty prizes. Sport Scores Winner
MB SLA AAS
Individual Gross Champion: Competitive
Zairul Izzain b Ibrahim (Selangor Bar) Badminton 3 1 2 MB
Basketball 3 2 1 MB
Individual (1st): Ridzuan Mamat (Selangor Bar) Bowling 3 2 1 MB
1st Runner-Up: K Puspalingam (Selangor Bar) Football 2 3 1 SLA
2nd Runner-Up: Ikmal Hisam b Idris (Pahang Bar) Cross 1 2 3 AAS
Country
Novelty Prizes: Golf 3 2 1 MB
(a) Longest Drive: P Param (Selangor Bar) Overall 15 12 9 MB
(b) Nearest to the Line: Vijay Chander (Selangor Bar) Non-Competitive
(c) Nearest to the Pin: M Kamal (Selangor Bar) Paintball 1 2 3 AAS
(d) Guest Category Winner: Kunaselan s/o Muthusamy; Friendly
Runner-Up: Dato’ Harban Singh Ladies MB
11 - -
Futsal
The Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee and the Kuala Lumpur
Bar Sports and Recreation Committee extend their thanks MB, having collected 15 points from the competitive games,
to all the state bar captains, participants, volunteers and was declared the overall champion and retained the
members whose combined effort made IBG 2013 a success. Tripartite Bar Games Overall Champion Trophy. Having
won the golf event, MB also retained the Tan Sri Steve
(5) Tripartite Bar Games 2013 Shim Challenge Trophy.
The Tripartite Bar Games between the Advocates’ The gala dinner and prize-giving ceremony, sponsored by
Association of Sarawak (“AAS”), Malaysian Bar (“MB”) the Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia, was held at
and Sabah Law Association (“SLA”) takes place every two the Grand Ballroom of Pacific Sutera Hotel. The event was
years. The Tripartite Bar Games 2013 hosted by the SLA graced by YB Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri, Minister in the
was held in Kota Kinabalu on 11 and 12 Oct 2013. Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law.

Sports Committee
MB thanks SLA for organising the event; and Bar Council Acknowledgment
members, supporters and participants for travelling all the
way to Kota Kinabalu and for taking part. There can be no The Sports Committee’s success in organising the
doubt that everyone had a truly enjoyable weekend and the abovementioned events and ensuring the achievements of
hospitality shown to us was second to none. the Malaysian Bar’s teams and representatives would not
have been possible without the support and tireless efforts
(6) Games with Judiciary and Judicial and Legal of the conveners and committee members. We wish to
Service Officer Association (“JALSOA”) record our appreciation to each of them. We also thank
Shegi Nair, who served as officer-in-charge over the course
The Sports Committee is looking into the possibility of of the term, for making our tenure as Chairpersons much
reviving the games with the Judiciary and JALSOA. easier.
K Mohan s/o K Kumaran and Anand Ponnudurai

Co-Chairpersons
Date: 10 Dec 2013

committee reports
Subcommittee on Construction Law

Construction law, your preferred area of practice!
Wilfred Abraham (Chairperson) | Lim Chong Fong (Deputy Chairperson; May until November 2013); Oon Chee Kheng (Deputy Chairperson;
from November 2013) | Aniz Ahmad Amirudin | Balbir Singh | Belden Premaraj | Darshendev Singh | James Monteiro | Kuhendran
Thanapalasingam | Lam Ko Luen | Megalai Raman | Mohd Iqbal Zainal Abidin | Nitin Nadkarni | Teoh Pek Wei | Marianna Laureen Tan
(Officer-in-charge)
The Subcommittee on Construction Law’s key initiatives for Having organised several introductory courses in the past,
the term are described in brief below. the Subcommittee has decided to plan for an intermediate
course on construction law. Its objective is to nurture
(1) Continuing legal education — Introductory the interest in the practice of construction law particularly
courses on construction law among young Members. The Subcommittee intends to
organise a session in Kuala Lumpur in the first quarter of
On 1 Mar 2013, the Subcommittee organised an 2014.
“Introductory Course on Construction Law” in Kota Kinabalu
for the Sabah Law Association. The programme was similar (2) Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication
to that conducted in Penang and Kuala Lumpur previously. Act 2012 (“CIPAA”)
The course intended for Johor Bahru did not materialise
as the Johore Bar Committee indicated that construction In light of the impending implementation of CIPAA, the
law might not be an area of interest to their members. The Subcommittee jointly organised a talk with the Kuala Lumpur
Subcommittee is also looking at organising similar courses Regional Centre for Arbitration to create awareness about
in the northern states, ie Perak and Kedah, in 2014. the legislation. The talk, entitled “Construction Industry
Payment and Adjudication Act 2012” and held on 14

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION LAW
June 2013, focused on the effects and implementation of Construction Industry Development Board and a court-
CIPAA. Details regarding the programme were circulated appointed designer. The Subcommittee rendered its input
to Members in Circular No 124/2013 dated 31 May 2013. on the practical aspects of the operation of a construction
court from a practitioner’s perspective.
The Subcommittee is anxious to note that no date has
been stipulated for CIPAA to come into force, despite the Members have encountered several issues in respect of
legislation having been gazetted on 22 June 2012. As the administration of the Construction Courts, which need
such, Bar Council has written a letter to the de facto Law to be addressed. In line with this, Bar Council issued
Minister to enquire when CIPAA will be implemented. Circular No 244/2013 dated 14 Nov 2013 to seek Members’
feedback on the general operation and / or administration of
(3) Written articles on construction law the Construction Court. The Subcommittee will deliberate
on the issues and concerns raised by Members, and put
James Monteiro was appointed to take charge of the forward its recommendations for action to the Bar Council.
compilation of articles and presentations contributed by
Subcommittee members. This project requires more time Acknowledgment
than initially anticipated, and is still in progress.
I wish to express my sincere thanks to all our members
(4) Establishment of Construction Court who have contributed their time and effort in assisting the
Subcommittee to carry out its activities. Lim Chong Fong,
The Subcommittee is pleased to note that Construction who has served on the Subcommittee since its inception in
Courts in Shah Alam and Kuala Lumpur commenced 2007, is no longer a Subcommittee member as he has been
operations on 1 Apr 2013, as announced in the Chief appointed as Judicial Commissioner with effect from 2 Dec
Registrar’s Circular No 2 of 2013 dated 22 Mar 2013. 2013. I wish to record my thanks to Lim Chong Fong for
Members were informed of this development in Bar the services he rendered to the Subcommittee throughout
Council’s Circular No 082/2013 dated 29 Mar 2013. these years, and wish him a successful tenure on the bench.
The Subcommittee has been involved in the process of Wilfred Abraham

looking into improvements in the physical and practical Chairperson
aspects of the Construction Courts. On 24 July 2013, the
Subcommittee was invited to an informal meeting with Date: 13 Dec 2013
Justice Dato’ Mary Lim and Justice See Mee Chun at
Jalan Duta Court to discuss the renovation of the Courts. For any enquiries, please e-mail:
Also present at the meeting were representatives from the ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my
committee reports
Syariah Law Committee

Bridging the divide through discussion and understanding
Shamsuriah bt Sulaiman (Co-Chairperson) | Kuthubul Zaman b Bukhari (Co-Chairperson) | Norazham b Yahya (Deputy Chairperson) |
Abdul Rahim b Sinwan | Ahmad Zuhairi b Ahmed Zubair | Faridah bt Yusoff | Jahaberdeen b Mohd Yunoos | Julita Ilhani bt Abdul Jabbar |
Maishi’ah bt Hj Hassan | Mohd Ibrahim b Abdul Rahman | Mohd Irwan b Mohd Mubarak | Nazira bt Abd Rahim | Noor Aini bt Ismail | Siti
Harlina bt Mohd Shahran | Mazni Ibrahim (until May 2013); Suhana Mohd Fazil (from June 2013) (Officer-in-charge)
Syariah Law Committee (“SLC”) works towards the

betterment and future of Syariah law and Syarie lawyers
in Malaysia.
SLC held five meetings from January to December 2013.
Updates on the initiatives undertaken are provided below:
(1) Forum on Challenges in the Registration of a

Newborn in Malaysia
The forum was held on 19 Oct 2013 to discuss the challenges

faced in the registration of newborns in Malaysia. It was
The panellists were Dr Hj Naim b Hj Mokhtar of Jabatan
attended by approximately 90 participants, comprising
Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia, Prof Madya Datin Noor
Members of the Bar, pupils in chambers, law students as
Aziah Hj Mohd Awal of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
well as members of the public.
and Fatimah Zuraidah bt Salleh of Jabatan Kebajikan

SYARIAH LAW committee
(3) Formation of Majlis Peguam Syarie
During a Peguam Syarie conference in 2011, it was

resolved that a Majlis Peguam Syarie be formed.
SLC had several meetings to discuss the progress on the

establishment of a Majlis Peguam Syarie. During these
meetings, numerous issues were raised, and there was a
discussion on the compilation and comparison of “Kaedah-
kaedah Peguam Syarie” for the states of Penang, Perak,
Perlis, Selangor and Wilayah Persekutuan.
Masyarakat Malaysia. The forum was moderated by SLC Acknowledgment
Co-Chairperson Shamsuriah bt Sulaiman.
We would like to thank committee members for their support
Some notable issues were raised, including: (a) where and commitment towards achieving SLC’s objectives, and
registration of a child is not possible, because the parents’ the Bar Council Secretariat staff for their assistance during
marriage has not been registered; (b) where a child is born the term.
out of wedlock; and (c) where a child is left stateless by a
foreign father who returns to his country of origin. Shamsuriah Sulaiman and Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari
Co-Chairpersons
The panellists discussed various critics’ viewpoints on
the importance of ensuring that newborns are properly Date: 10 Feb 2014
registered, and how this is an important obligation that will
prevent many difficulties for the child later in life. For any enquiries, please email:
(2) Meeting at Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah
Terengganu (“JKSTR”)
On 6 Oct 2013, several SLC members met with Tuan

Hj Wan Mohd Zakri b Wan Mohd, Syarie Chief Judge of
JKSTR, and Tuan Hj Wan Abd Malik b Wan Sidek, High
Court Judge and Director of Management Services of
JKSTR, to discuss matters that had been raised by SLC
members. These included issues relating to whether the
Terengganu Syariah Court would be subjected to the
jurisdiction of the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Terengganu.
committee reports
Task Force to Review the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards

Towards achieving uniformity and consistency
R Ravindra Kumar (Chairperson) | AC Vohrah | Arudkumaran K Ponnampalam | Azilan b Abd Rahman | Chandrika Jaganathan | Fazuny
b Mohd Noor | Gnasegaran Egamparam | Harjinder Singh | Harmindar Singh | Ian Lawrence Pereira | Jagjit Singh | Jaspal Singh Gill |
Jeyaveeran Naicker | John Fam Sin Nin | Joseph Au Kong Weng | Jude Celestine Raj | Kesavadas Achyuthan Nair | Lee Sooi Kee | Ong Chong
Ming | Ramachelvam Marimuthu | Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal | Rosnah bt Zakaria | Santhana Dass | Silvaraju Velu | Subashini Gunasegran |
T Ellanggovan s/o Thambiraju | Tan Leong Soon | Tiong Hou Tseng | Yusriman Yusof | Germaine Low Ee Ling (Officer-in-charge)
In early 2007, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee was invited without the knowledge of the working committee. This
by YAA Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum, matter was raised at the 63rd Annual General Meeting of the
Chief Judge of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak, Bar, held on 14 Mar 2009.
to propose a compendium of personal injury awards
(“Compendium”) that would ideally serve the purpose of Thereafter, Bar Council appointed R Ravindra Kumar to chair
expediting matters in court. A joint working committee, the Task Force that was set up to review the Compendium.
comprising Sessions Court Judges and several personal The Task Force carried out its work from June 2009 until
injury lawyers, was formed to formulate the guidelines on April 2010. In October 2010, the Chief Judge expressed the
personal injury awards. Judiciary’s approval for the Compendium, and the finalised
Compendium was disseminated to Members of the Bar.
The guidelines were only meant for use in a trial run at the
Kuala Lumpur courts, to enable Judges to notify the working The Task Force agreed to review and update the
committee on their effectiveness. The Kuala Lumpur Bar Compendium every three years, hence a review was due
Committee would then consult other State Bar Committees in 2013. As in 2009, most of the State Bar Committees
regarding nationwide implementation. However, the nominated representatives to sit on the Task Force in 2013.
guidelines were circulated among the courts in all states

TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE COMPENDIUM OF PERSONAL INJURY AWARDS
The Task Force issued Circular No 015/2013 dated 14 Acknowledgment

Jan 2013 and Circular No 098/2013 dated 24 April 2013
to seek feedback from Members on the Compendium, and I wish to record my appreciation to the Task Force members
on cases from 2010 onwards to assist in determining the for their assistance and valuable contribution. I also thank
trend of awards. The Task Force met on three occasions the Bar Council Secretariat and Germaine Low for their
in 2013 — on 12 April, 21 June, and 11 October — to carry support.
out its review, during which it took into account the inflation
index as well as case law authorities, and also considered R Ravindra Kumar
the need to insert a generic description for one particular Chairperson
injury, taking into account residual injuries.
Date: 4 Feb 2014
The Task Force has completed its review, and the revised
Compendium was approved by the Bar Council at its For any enquiries, please email:
meeting on 4 Jan 2014. Circular No 007/2014 dated 16 germaine@malaysianbar.org.my
Jan 2014 was issued to seek feedback from Members on
the revised Compendium, after which it will be finalised and
submitted to the Judiciary.
The Task Force wishes to reiterate that the Compendium

is merely a guideline, and is intended as a quick reference
document for judges and lawyers. It is not meant to stifle
the rights of the parties to submit below or above the
stipulated quantum, nor is it meant to fetter the discretion
of the courts. Judges and lawyers are at liberty to depart
from the Compendium if case law or factual circumstances
so dictate.
committee reports
Trade in Legal Services Committee

Preparing for the liberalisation of legal services
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock (Co-Chairperson) | Hon Kai Ping (Co-Chairperson) | Balbir Singh s/o Shingara Singh | Chen Kah Leng | David Dev
Peter | Dipendra Harshad Rai | Elaine Yap Chin Gaik | Genevieve Tan Gaik May | Grace Yeoh Cheng Geok | Heng Hiang Swee | Jalalullail
Othman | Janet Looi Lai Heng | Karen Cheah Yee Lynn | Lam Kin Fei | Lim Chee Wee | Michael Soo Chow Ming | Murad Ali Abdullah | Tay
Beng Chai | Teo Kok Vui @ Simon | Christina Adele Gomez (Officer-in-charge)
The Trade in Legal Services Committee (“TiLS”) is involved Amendment Act was gazetted on 20 Sept 2012. Further
in a wide array of issues in relation to trade in legal amendments to the legislation were introduced at the
services, including the General Agreement on Trade and September 2013 sitting of Parliament and were passed by
Services (“GATS”) and the liberalisation of the Malaysian the Dewan Negara on 7 Oct 2013, and gazetted on 1 Nov
legal profession. 2013.
As with previous terms, the major focus for TiLS for 2013/14 The new amendments made were, in particular, to section
is the liberalisation of the legal services sector. TiLS met 37(2B) on “fly-in fly-out”, which will now allow a foreign
with the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) on several lawyer advising on non-Malaysian law to come to Malaysia
occasions, with the aim of making the proposed legislation and work on a project for up to 60 days in a calendar year,
to liberalise the legal services sector in Malaysia workable subject to immigration approval. The other amendment was
and equitable, and ensuring the liberalisation process is to insert section 37A, which excludes arbitral proceedings
carried out in a systematic and well-planned manner. from section 36 and section 37 of the Amendment Act.
Parliament, in its sitting on 13 July 2012, passed the Legal The amendments to the LPA will be brought into force on a
Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 (“Amendment Act”), date to be determined by the Minister of Law. Foreign law
which amended the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”). The firms and foreign lawyers will then be permitted to practise

in Peninsular Malaysia in the manner set out in the new commissions also attended the forum to provide their
legislation. feedback on the new legislation.
Under the newly-created part IVA of the LPA, licences Various speakers were invited to share their insights into
may be issued to foreign law firms to operate either as an the liberalisation process. Among them were speakers from
International Partnership with a Malaysian law firm, or as a the Attorney General’s Chambers, Ministry of International
Qualified Foreign Law Firm. Alternatively, a Malaysian law Trade and Industry, and the Bar.
firm may choose to employ a foreign lawyer.
The forum was attended by over 80 participants. It included
A major consideration undergirding the new legislation is two sets of interactive question-and-answer sessions, and
a desire to ensure that the liberalisation of the Malaysian was well-received. The event was a small step towards
legal services market and the entry of foreign lawyers are creating awareness for local law firms to prepare for the
balanced with the need for the development of Malaysian entry of foreign lawyers into Malaysia.
law firms, and to enable these firms to achieve a level of
expertise that will allow them to compete with foreign law TiLS intends to organise more such forums in various
firms on a level playing field. This consideration means that parts of the country in order to highlight the implications of
the process of liberalisation will continue to be gradual and liberalisation to Members.
progressive.
Forum on liberalisation of the legal profession
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to our Executive Officer, Christina Gomez,

A forum on liberalisation of the legal profession was held for her tireless assistance to us and members of TiLS.
on 5 Dec 2013 at the Bar Council’s Raja Aziz Addruse
Auditorium. This forum was jointly organised by TiLS and
the Professional Standards and Development Committee. Andrew Khoo Chin Hock and Hon Kai Ping
Co-Chairpersons
This half-day forum was conducted primarily for Members
to gain an understanding of the implications of liberalisation Date: 20 Jan 2013
of the legal profession, as part of the amendments that
were passed under the Amendment Act. Invited guests For any enquiries, please email:
from government departments and embassies or high christina@malaysianbar.org.my
press releases
Customary Land Rights of the Orang Asli Seletar Must be

Respected
8 March 2013
The Orang Asli Seletar from Johor Bahru have Act 1954 (“Act 134”). The rest of the Orang Asli
commenced a claim in the Johor Bahru High Court, Seletar population of more than 2,000 people are
for recognition of their customary lands and waters regarded by the state as “tenants-at-will”, or worse,
in southern Johore. as squatters and illegal occupants, on lands that
have been alienated to private entities without the
As a traditional fishing community, the Orang Asli free, prior and informed consent of these indigenous
Seletar have historically occupied the coastal areas peoples. The customary rights of the Orang Asli
of Johore as their customary territories. For many Seletar in and over their lands have been simply
years, these areas have been subjected to sustained ignored with impunity.
and continuous encroachment by the state
authorities. The Orang Asli Seletar have consistently The Orang Asli Seletar have repeatedly demanded
maintained that the areas they occupy, and on which that their land rights be recognised, and have
they conduct customary practices (both on land and explored numerous avenues with the Johore state
sea), are their customary territories. authorities to have their demands met. However,
their efforts have come to naught, and matters
However, the authorities have paid scant regard came to a head more recently when there was an
to these claims, as with so many other assertions attempt to desecrate their ancestors’ graves, which
of this nature throughout the country. As a result, prompted them to commence the action in court. In
the Orang Asli Seletar have lost much of their December 2012, 188 Orang Asli Seletar filed a class
lands. Their unique way of life, which enriches the action in the Johor Bahru High Court against 12
fabric of our multicultural society and livelihood, parties, including the Johore State Government and
has been seriously diminished, if not completely the Federal Government. In addition to a claim for
eviscerated. This has, in particular, occurred through customary title, the Orang Asli Seletar claim includes
the decimation of mangrove forests, and pollution of a claim for customary sea rights, a unique customary
rivers and coastal waters. The Orang Asli Seletar rights claim that has yet to be considered by our
have consequently been unable to carry out their courts. The Orang Asli Seletar are represented by a
traditional, subsistence and economic activities, team of lawyers from the Bar Council Committee on
and have thus been driven to poverty, and possible Orang Asli Rights.
extinction.
This is not the first legal action brought by the Orang
A majority of the Orang Asli Seletar today live amidst Asli Seletar against the Johore state authorities. In
thriving development on their lands, from which they September 2010, the Johor Bahru High Court
do not benefit. There are nine Orang Asli Seletar delivered a judgment in favour of 51 Orang Asli
villages in Malaysia, all of which are located along the plaintiffs. The court decided, inter alia, that the
southern coast of Johore. Seven out of these nine defendants — the local council and the Johore
villages are located within the Iskandar Development Director of Land and Mines committed trespass of
Region. Only two villages — Kampung Bakar the Orang Asli Seletar plaintiffs’ land, and wrongfully
Batu, Johor Bahru and Kampung Simpang Arang, demolished a chapel built by them on their customary
Gelang Patah — have been partly gazetted as land. The defendants appealed against the decision
Aboriginal Reserves under the Aboriginal Peoples to the Court of Appeal, but subsequently withdrew

the appeal in August 2012. This was a resounding The problems facing the Orang Asli Seletar are
victory for the Orang Asli Seletar, and has encouraged dire, and constitute yet another example of the
them to seek legal redress from the courts on their reckless manner in which Orang Asli customary
claims to customary lands. lands and traditional livelihoods are dealt with by
the authorities. The Malaysian Bar calls on the
It is also noteworthy that, as part of the strategic Government to acknowledge the fact that Orang Asli
framework of the Iskandar Development communities have rights in and over their customary
Comprehensive Development Plan (Chapter 2, lands, as already recognised by the highest courts of
Part 1, Section A), the Government has adopted the land, in cases such as Adong Kuwau and Sagong
“equitable and fair distribution among stakeholders” Tasi. The Malaysian Bar reminds the Government
as one of the three foundations in developing the that the Federal Constitution guarantees all
Iskandar Development Region. Insofar as the Orang citizens, including the Orang Asli Seletar, the right to
Asli Seletar are concerned, these are merely pious life, equality and property, and that the Government
platitudes. It cannot be disputed that the Orang Asli has a fiduciary duty to protect these rights. Any
Seletar are important stakeholders; indeed, they are denial of these rights means that the Government is
the primary stakeholders in the development of the honouring its obligations to the Orang Asli Seletar in
Johore southern coast. It is therefore imperative that breach, rather than in compliance.
the authorities recognise their rights and treat the
Orang Asli Seletar in an equitable and fair manner. Steven Thiru
Co-Chairperson
Bar Council Committee on Orang Asli Rights
Continue to Protect and Defend our International Borders Within

International Human Rights Norms
10 March 2013
The Malaysian Bar is extremely concerned by independent nation, Malaysia has a sovereign right
reports of the armed intrusion by foreign elements to ensure recognition and respect for the territorial
and ongoing conflict in the areas of Lahad Datu and integrity of its international borders. As the conflict
Semporna, in Sabah. We are deeply saddened by continues, we call on all parties to take all necessary
the deaths of eight Malaysian police personnel1, action to minimise any further injury and loss of life.
and extend our deepest condolences and heartfelt
sympathies to their families and loved ones. We The International Court of Justice, in the course
salute our fallen heroes who have paid the highest of adjudicating a territorial dispute between the
price in defence of our nation and territory. Our Governments of Malaysia and Indonesia over the
thoughts and prayers also go to members of our islands of Ligitan and Sipadan off the coast of Sabah,
security forces who are now in the frontline of this and in delivering its decision2 on 17 December 2002,
conflict. had set out the antecedents and history pertaining
to the territory, and which effectively recognised the
The Malaysian Bar expresses its support for the rights and sovereignty of Malaysia over the state of
Malaysian authorities in its continuing efforts to Sabah and its surrounding islands.
restore law and order in the affected areas. As an
press releases
In essence, these antecedents show that the (7) The Agreement dated 12 May 1888 between
Sultanate of Sulu had, by its several actions and the British Government and the British North
by various separate instruments between 19 April Borneo Company for the creation of the State
1851 and 26 June 1946, relinquished and ceded all of North Borneo;
of its rights, interests and dominion over what was
previously referred to as North Borneo (now known (8) The Treaty of Peace of Paris dated 10 December
as the state of Sabah, Malaysia). These various 1898 between Spain and the United States of
instruments are: America whereby Spain ceded the Philippine
Archipelago to the United States of America;
(1) The Act of Re-Submission between Spain
and the Sultan of Sulu dated 19 April 1851, (9) The Confirmation of Cession dated 22 April
which was confirmed by the Protocol dated 22 1903 between the Sultan of Sulu and the
July 1878, whereby the island of Sulu and its British Government expanding the scope of the
dependencies were annexed by the Spanish Cession and Agreement of 22 January 1878
Crown; between the Sultan of Sulu and Mr Alfred Dent
and Baron von Overbeck;
(2) The Cession and Agreement dated 22 January
1878 between the Sultan of Sulu, and Mr (10) The Convention dated 2 January 1930 between
Alfred Dent and Baron von Overbeck as the United States of America and Great Britain
representatives of a British company, whereby delimiting the boundary between the Philippine
the Sultan of Sulu granted and ceded to the Archipelago and the State of North Borneo;
latter all of his rights and powers over the
mainland of the island of Borneo; (11) The Agreement dated 26 June 1946 between
the British North Borneo Company and the
(3) The Commission dated 22 January 1878 British Government whereby the British North
whereby the Sultan of Sulu appointed Baron Borneo Company relinquished and transferred
von Overbeck the “Dato Bendahara and Rajah all of its interests, powers and rights in respect
of Sandakan”, and ceded all of the Sultanate’s of the State of North Borneo to the British
rights to Baron von Overbeck as the “supreme Crown, whereby the State of North Borneo
ruler over the said dominions”; became a British colony.
(4) Baron von Overbeck and Mr Alfred Dent in turn (12) The Agreement dated 9 July 1963 between
relinquished all their rights to a British company, the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom
later the British North Borneo Company; of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, North
Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore relating
(5) The Protocol dated 11 March 1877 between to Malaysia, which entered into force on 16
Spain, Germany and Great Britain; September 1963, whereby the colony of North
Borneo was to be “federated with the existing
(6) The Protocol dated 7 March 1885 between States of the Federation of Malaya as the
Spain, Germany and Great Britain whereby, inter [State] of Sabah”3.
alia, the Spanish Government relinquished to
the British Government all claim of sovereignty Although the Philippines was not a party to this
over the territories of the continent of Borneo litigation before the International Court of Justice
and its islands; — it did apply to intervene, but the application
was rejected — it is clear from this judgment that

the Sultanate of Sulu, even if such an entity were to We ask the Malaysian authorities to take all necessary
legally exist today, has no subsisting legitimate claim measures to protect and provide for the safety and
to Sabah. In any event, as a matter of post-colonial well-being of civilians caught in the conflict zone,
self-determination, the people of Sabah voted bearing in mind that these involve the elderly, women
overwhelmingly to join Malaysia in a referendum and children. They should be provided with safe
held in 1962, which was organised by the Cobbold passage to non-conflict zones and be provided with
Commission. access to adequate food, shelter, medical assistance
and protection. We also call upon the said authorities
The Malaysian Bar thus calls upon the Malaysian to ensure that all combatants, friend or foe, are
Government to continue its efforts to defend its treated humanely, and provided with the necessary
international borders and territory, protect its citizens, medical assistance and treatment.
and apprehend the perpetrators of these acts of
armed violence. In doing so, we nonetheless call As we seek to assert our rights and protect our
upon the Malaysian Government to take appropriate sovereignty and territorial integrity, we must continue
and immediate steps to resolve the conflict in a to conduct ourselves with a strong sense of dignity
peaceful manner to avoid the further use of arms and and professionalism, with due observance of our own
loss of limb or life. laws as well as international laws and standards. It is
our conduct and observance of the law and human
Just as Malaysia is insisting on the respect for rights in the face of adversity that will differentiate
its sovereign rights under international law, as is us from those who would seek to threaten us and
proper, it would also be correct for the Malaysian commit acts of aggression against us.
Government to honour and maintain its commitment
to international humanitarian law and international Christopher Leong
human rights standards in its conduct of the conflict Vice-President, Malaysian Bar
and treatment of any persons detained as part of the
1
The eight personnel are ASP Zulkifli Mamat, Sergeant
conflict, and to accord such persons due process of Sabarudin Daud, Supt Ibrahim Lebar, ASP Michael Fadil,
the law. It is clear that there exists a serious threat Detective Sergeant Baharin Hamid, CPL Salam Tongiran,
Sergeant Aziz Sarikun, and Lance Coporal Mohd Azrol Tukiran.
to national security in the areas of conflict in Sabah, 2
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/
and that there are reports that the authorities have Malaysia) Application for Permission to Intervene (Ligitan and
Sipadan), Judgment, [2002] ICJ Reports 625, 675, paras.
arrested 79 persons under the Security Offences 111-113, 625 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7714.
pdf> accessed 3 March 2013.
(Special Measures) Act 2012. We expect that 3
http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20750/
the due process of the law shall be observed and v750.pdf
accorded to these arrested persons.
press releases
Bar Welcomes and Accepts the Attorney General’s Offer to Cooperate

in Providing Legal Representation to All Detainees under Ops Daulat
18 March 2013
The Malaysian Bar at its annual general meeting The Malaysian Bar is particularly heartened by, and
on 16 March 2013 observed a minute’s silence welcomes, the Attorney General’s invitation to the Bar
in remembrance of, and in respect for, the 10 Council of Malaysia and the Sabah Law Association
fallen Malaysian heroes who gave their lives in to cooperate in this regard with providing such legal
the discharge of their duties in defending our representation. The Bar Council of Malaysia accepts
territory. The Malaysian Bar is also having a donation the invitation by the Attorney General to cooperate
drive amongst its members for their families. in the provision of such legal representation, and
we shall be taking steps to meet with the Attorney
The Malaysian Bar reiterates its support for our General and the Sabah Law Association on this.
security forces in their efforts in defending our
territory; protecting the people; and re-establishing The Malaysian Bar notes news media reports, in
security and peace in the conflict areas. All particular, the foreign media, of allegations of abuse
Malaysians must support them in the discharge of and human rights violations by Malaysia’s security
their duties and ought not to undermine the morale forces against the armed intruders, suspected
of our security forces. collaborators and immigrants from the Philippines,
and that this has triggered concerns of a brewing
Ensuring the security of our territory and borders, humanitarian emergency as Filipinos flee the State of
and doing so with observance of the law and human Sabah for fear of reprisals. The Malaysian authorities
rights standards in accordance with our international have denied these allegations.
obligations are not mutually exclusive or inconsistent
propositions. It is plain that we must treat everyone humanely and
fairly. This requires that we must not abuse prisoners
It has been recently reported in the news media or detainees. We are obliged to provide immediate
that there are currently 104 individuals who have medical treatment to all who require it and to provide
been arrested under the Security Offences (Special them with access to justice as well as to the due
Measures) Act 2012, and that another 232 persons process of the law.
are being held under different laws pursuant to “Ops
Daulat”. In order to correct such allegations and quash
all rumours, the Malaysian Bar urges the relevant
In this regard, we laud the assurance given by authorities to permit independent international
the Honourable Attorney General of Malaysia on agencies, such as the United Nations and the
15 March 2013 that all persons apprehended or International Committee of the Red Cross, access
arrested during “Ops Daulat” shall be provided with to the persons arrested or detained, as well as the
access to justice and legal representation, and will displaced villagers, and to the security zones as soon
be dealt with in accordance with the due process of as the safety of such international personnel could
the law. This assurance is very much in accord with be reasonably provided for. This would go towards
Malaysia’s obligations to observe the requirements putting an end to any unwarranted accusations and
of our laws and international humanitarian law and dispel irresponsible rumours.
human rights standards. Indeed, this reinforces our
commitment to the rule of law in Malaysia. Christopher Leong
President, Malaysian Bar

Attorney General has Sufficient Cause to Re-open Investigations
30 March 2013
The Honourable Attorney General had in effect committed the crime. “Mens rea” is an essential
clarified on 26 March 2013, as reported in the element in the offence of murder; whereas motive
media, that he has the discretion to direct the re- is not. It is thus possible to establish that a person
opening of investigations into the 2006 murder of did kill another, that is, he had the intention to kill
Altantuya Shaariibuu. He is reported to have stated and did commit the act, even though one may not
that he would consider the Bar Council’s suggestion understand or know the reason why that person
to re-open investigations, but only if there is new killed another. However, motive may be important in
evidence. Thus, the issue presently is not whether cases where there is doubt as to the “mens rea”, or
the Attorney General has the discretion to do so, but where there are questions as to whether there may
whether there is sufficient cause for him to do so. be more people connected with or involved in the
crime, and the nature or extent of such connection
The Malaysian Bar is of the view that the revelations or involvement.
in the public domain by Deepak Jaikishan, the late
Balasubramaniam Perumal, and Americk Singh In the current context, the High Court found the
Sidhu provide sufficient cause for the authorities two police officers guilty of having killed Altantuya
to re-open investigations or to conduct further Shaariibuu, that is, they had intended to kill her
investigations. and did in fact kill her. The High Court stated:
“Whatever his motive was, it is a matter of law that
These revelations, for example the events, and the ‘motive’ although relevant has never been the
persons involved in those events, as narrated by essential to constitute murder.” The question as to
Deepak Jaikishan in relation to the affirmation why they killed her is said by some to have been
of a statutory declaration on 4 July 2008 by unsatisfactorily dealt with. The third accused was
Balasubramaniam Perumal for the purpose of acquitted by the High Court.
recanting his first statutory declaration affirmed on
1 July 2008, and the role Deepak had played in The revelations by Deepak Jaikishan, the late
the matter, were not evidence that had been earlier Balasubramaniam Perumal, and Americk Singh
revealed. Taken at face value, such revelations may Sidhu raise sufficient concern to warrant further
speak to the possible motive for the events that led investigations by the authorities. Such further
to the demise of Altantuya Shaariibuu. investigations may or may not lead to anything new,
but we would only know if additional investigations
It must be borne in mind that “motive” is not the are in fact undertaken.
same as “mens rea”. “Mens rea” refers to whether
a person had the intention to commit a crime; Christopher Leong
whereas “motive” refers to why a person would have President, Malaysian Bar
press releases
PDRM Must Take Heed of SUHAKAM Report to Strengthen Respect

for Human Rights and Improve Discipline of its Personnel
19 April 2013
The Malaysian Bar takes note of the release (2) PDRM neither assisted nor facilitated the
by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia dispersal of participants at the assembly.
(“SUHAKAM”) of its findings in relation to the Public PDRM had hampered participants from
Inquiry into the Incidents During and After the Public dispersing in an orderly and safe manner by
Assembly of 28 April 20121. not giving them sufficient and reasonable time
to do so, and by firing water cannon and tear
The SUHAKAM panel of inquiry sat for 29 days gas at the participants as they tried to disperse.
between 5 July 2012 and 10 January 2013, and SUHAKAM was informed that chemically laced
heard testimony from 19 members of the public, water had been fired through water cannons,
four media practitioners, 18 police personnel and and 909 tear gas canisters and 58 tear gas
eight professionals/experts. A team of lawyers from hand grenades had been discharged that day.
the Malaysian Bar was admitted as observers and PDRM had also cordoned off dispersal routes,
was allowed to pose questions to the witnesses and in one location had “kettled” participants
and make submissions to SUHAKAM2. In addition, from dispersing. PDRM had fired tear gas
Christopher Leong (then-Vice President of the canisters from both ends of the crowd, resulting
Malaysian Bar), who had led the Malaysian Bar in participants being trapped;
monitoring team on 28 April 2012, gave evidence
before SUHAKAM. The Royal Malaysia Police (Polis (3) Some Federal Reserve Unit personnel, instead
DiRaja Malaysia (“PDRM”)) and BERSIH 2.0 also of firing tear gas into the air, had fired the tear
participated in the inquiry. gas directly at the participants, injuring them,
with one participant suffering a serious eye
SUHAKAM made several pertinent findings, among injury that adversely affected his eyesight;
which:
(4) PDRM personnel had used disproportionate
(1) As the assembly of 28 April 2012 was the first force and had misconducted themselves with
to be held after the coming into force of the respect to participants of the assembly and
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (“PAA”) on 23 April those who had been arrested and were being
2012, PDRM had been unable to fully observe led to a holding area at Dataran Merdeka.
the provisions of the PAA in its operations and Participants who had left the assembly and
handling of the participants. Nevertheless, who were in hotel or eating premises were
PDRM has extensive and sufficient experience nonetheless arrested. People wearing yellow
in managing large crowds, and ought to have t-shirts were specifically targeted. Those
used this experience to facilitate the assembly. arrested were not informed of the reason for
PDRM’s approach of “restrain, restrain, restrain, their arrest, and were denied access to legal
caution and enforce” was inappropriate and representation;
did not reflect the spirit of the PAA. Exercising
restraint was different from facilitating a public (5) Some PDRM personnel had assaulted persons
assembly; who had been arrested or who were under
their custody; and

(6) PDRM personnel assaulted, injured, intimidated discipline errant members of the force, the Malaysian
and/or manhandled four media practitioners. Bar calls on the Government and PDRM to institute
PDRM personnel acted in bad faith and better safeguards against police misconduct and
deliberately prevented media practitioners from misbehaviour.
reporting and taking photographs of various
incidents of police brutality. Based on the gravity of the findings by SUHAKAM,
and the amount of time spent in investigations,
SUHAKAM also expressed its abhorrence at the it is patently clear that the Enforcement Agency
mistreatment of media practitioners and the abuse of Integrity Commission that has been set up by the
their rights to carry out their duties without hindrance Government would not be sufficient to act as a
or fear of physical harm. safeguard and protector of the public, since it has
to monitor 17 other law enforcement agencies in
The Malaysian Bar supports the 25 recommendations addition to PDRM. The Malaysian Bar reiterates
made by SUHAKAM, as well as SUHAKAM’s call our call on the Government to immediately establish
for implementation of the recommendations of two the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct
earlier SUHAKAM public inquiries on the conduct Commission (“IPCMC”), and to ensure transparent
of PDRM. The fact that many of these previous civilian oversight of, and public accountability by, the
recommendations have not been implemented is PDRM. PDRM must strengthen respect for human
indicative of PDRM’s reluctance to recognise their rights amongst its officers, and its rank and file, and
responsibility to promote, practise, and protect be seen to punish misconduct by its personnel.
human rights in Malaysia. SUHAKAM noted a lack
of cooperation by PDRM, in that there was a lack PDRM must make public its standard operating
of pertinent information provided by PDRM in the procedures, namely the Inspector-General’s
inquiry; they failed to produce relevant witnesses Standing Orders, in order that it is clear how PDRM
to assist in the inquiry; they failed to provide the is to act under various circumstances. The principles
names of police personnel on duty at Jalan Tun enshrined in the United Nations Code of Conduct for
Perak that day; and they failed or were unable to Law Enforcement Officials and the United Nations
identify the police personnel depicted in the video Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms
clips, notwithstanding specific instructions from by Law Enforcement Officials must be the basic
SUHAKAM to supply the information upon the guidelines that form the core foundation of law
witness being recalled to the stand. enforcement officials’ conduct. In this way, we can
improve policing standards in Malaysia, enhance
SUHAKAM noted that as at January 2013, none of professionalism in the police force, and engender
the police reports made about incidents of police consistent respect for law enforcement personnel.
brutality had been successfully determined by
PDRM. Moreover, while two PDRM personnel had Christopher Leong
been charged in court, both were acquitted for lack President, Malaysian Bar
of identification. Given these findings, and especially
1
The public assembly was commonly known as BERSIH 3.0.
the significant failure of PDRM to police itself and 2
The written submission of the Malaysian Bar is available at
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_
peguam/bar_council_submission_to_suhakam_public_
inquiry_into_the_incidents_during_and_after_the_public_
assembly_of_28_apr_2012.html.
press releases
Disappointing Ruling by Sabah RCI on Witness Statements

20 April 2013
The Malaysian Bar notes with disappointment The Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 vests the RCI
the ruling delivered on 15 April 2013 by the Royal with wide powers to determine the procedure and
Commission of Inquiry on immigrants in Sabah conduct of the Inquiry before them. We would hope
(“RCI”) denying the request of the Sabah Law that the RCI would use such powers to formulate a
Association (“SLA”) for access to all statements procedure on access to evidence that is facilitative
taken from witnesses in the Inquiry under section and not restrictive, and that places each party in
112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“witness the Inquiry in the best possible position to assist the
statements”). RCI, limited only by any legal impediment against
disclosure of evidence.
While the RCI recognised that the SLA is an
interested party in the RCI, that the SLA has been It is axiomatic that the more equal the access to
rendering effective assistance to the RCI, that the RCI information between the conducting officers and
proceedings are inquisitorial in nature, and that the the other parties to the Inquiry, the more fruitful
privilege attached to section 112 witness statements would be the role of those parties in the inquisitorial
does not apply in the context of an Inquiry, the RCI process. Equal access to information would also
nevertheless declined to provide the SLA access to mitigate or balance out any perceived or inherent
the witness statements. bias that each of these parties may bring into the
RCI.
It is difficult for us to reconcile the RCI’s
decision to deny the SLA access to the witness In Royal Commissions of Inquiry held in Peninsular
statements. Having found that there was no legal Malaysia, the Malaysian Bar renders a vital and
impediment against disclosure of the witness immeasurable service not only in advising the
statements, and having recognised the important Royal Commissions on matters of law but also in
and independent role played by the SLA in the the gathering and extraction of evidence during the
Inquiry, the RCI ought to have granted the SLA, Inquiries. The SLA can and is willing to render such
as well as any other interested parties in the RCI, a service to the RCI and to the people of Sabah. The
access to all such witness statements. RCI needs only avail itself of the opportunity before
it, and allow the SLA equal access to all evidence.
The RCI was of the view that disclosure of the witness
statements to the SLA was not necessary for the The Malaysian Bar therefore urges the RCI to
SLA to render effective assistance to the RCI. This reconsider its ruling.
misses the point, and we find this reasoning and
the ruling to be perplexing: just because the RCI Christopher Leong
could not envisage any appreciable difference that President, Malaysian Bar
access to the witness statements would have on the
effectiveness of the SLA’s role in the Inquiry, does
not mean that there would be none and ought not to
mean that access should be refused. The RCI ought
to be open and facilitative, rather than restrictive, in
its proceedings.

Malaysian Bar is Greatly Saddened by the Passing of Justice George
Seah, a Courageous Judge
22 April 2013
The Malaysian Bar is greatly saddened, and feels a Judges were Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan
palpable sense of loss, to learn of the passing of Hamzah, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer and Tan Sri
Justice Datuk Seri George Edward Seah Kim Seng. Wan Suleiman.
Justice George Seah was born in Miri, Sarawak on Much to the dismay of the Malaysian Bar, members
10 December 1931, and received his early education of civil society and all right-thinking Malaysians,
at St Columba School in Miri, St Thomas’s School in Justice George Seah was unjustly punished for
Kuching, and St Francis Institution in Malacca. He carrying out his duties. He was initially suspended
was called to the English Bar in 1955, was appointed from duty, along with the other four brave Judges,
as a Judge of the High Court of Borneo on 9 May and was eventually removed as a Judge of the
1969, and took his oath of judicial office on 7 October Supreme Court. The five Judges were made to
1969. He was the first member of the Sarawak Bar suffer for discharging their duties.
to be elevated to the Bench. He was subsequently
appointed a Judge of the Federal Court of Malaysia, Justice George Seah and his fellow Judges fully
with effect from 1 October 1982. appreciated the gravity of the oath of judicial office
they had taken, the central importance of the
Justice George Seah was a judicial luminary and a doctrine of judicial authority and independence, and
principled man, who understood clearly the role and the principle of separation of powers that underpins
duties of a Judge. He stood stoutly and courageously a civilised democracy based on the rule of law.
for the rule of law and for the independence of the
Judiciary. Justice George Seah displayed the personal courage
that is required of such high office. He stood by his
This was exemplified during the darkest episode principles to defend the Judiciary against the assault
of our legal history, commonly referred to as the by the Executive. He never gave in, and never
Malaysian judicial crisis, when a Tribunal removed doubted the correctness of his actions. One cannot
Tun Salleh Abas, then-Lord President of the Supreme describe the situation more clearly than Justice
Court of Malaysia, from his judicial office in 1988. Tun George Seah himself did after the gross injustice
Salleh Abas had challenged the constitutionality, committed against him, when he wrote:
legality and validity of the composition of the
Tribunal, and had filed an application for an order for … let me stress that history will be the judge
prohibition against the members of the Tribunal from whether or not I was guilty of misbehaviour
proceeding or deliberating or exercising any function as charged for faithfully discharging the
under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution, and functions of a Judge of the Supreme Court
for other relief. Justice George Seah was one of of Malaysia conscientiously and with the
the five Supreme Court Judges who granted an highest regard for the preservation of an
interim stay to prevent the Tribunal from presenting independent Judiciary.
its recommendations to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
pending the disposal of Tun Salleh Abas’s application During critical and crucial times in the history
for the order for prohibition, after such interim relief of a nation, judges are expected to be the
was refused by the High Court. The other four standard-bearers of justice. This is a moral
press releases
obligation and under the circumstance they In recognition of the contributions of the
are expected to act positively and with a six outstanding judges, the Government
clear conscience. has decided to make goodwill ex gratia
payments to them. Gentlemen, I do not
The five of us who were embroiled in this presume to equate your contributions, pain
difficult episode of the 1988 judicial crisis and loss with mere currency, but I hope that
did not rally around the suspended LP but you could accept this as a heartfelt and
rather responded to the call of duty in the sincere gesture to mend what has been.
interest of justice.
Justice George Seah will also always be remembered
No matter how facts are twisted, in the by Judges, lawyers, academicians and law students
eyes of God, Truth will prevail from the 1988 for the purposive and progressive judicial statements
Judicial Crisis.1 he made on public law; in particular, that “the rule
of locus standi must be developed to meet the
Justice George Seah’s words could not have rung changing times”2, and that ouster clauses are
truer, as he and the other five Judges (including ineffective in barring judicial review where a tribunal
Tun Salleh Abas), were vindicated many years makes an error of law.3
later. On 17 April 2008, then-Prime Minister Datuk
Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (as he then was), The nation, the Judiciary and the Malaysian
effectively rendered an apology in acknowledging Bar have indeed lost a “towering judicial
and describing Justice George Seah and the other [personality]”. However, the principled stance and
five Supreme Court Judges (including Tun Salleh courage of Justice George Seah are imprinted in our
Abas) thus: “For me and for many other Malaysians, legal history, and will continue to be remembered. The
these towering judicial personalities represent a very conduct and sacrifices of Justice George Seah will
different era for the nation’s judiciary. Many felt that continue to serve as a sterling example of judicial
the judiciary then was a venerable institution which independence, courage and integrity.
could be trusted to deliver justice.”
The Malaysian Bar conveys its deepest sympathies
The then-Prime Minister went on to state that: and heartfelt condolences to Justice George Seah’s
family and loved ones, in this time of grief.
…the Government would like to recognise
the contributions of these six judges to Christopher Leong
the nation, their commitment towards President, Malaysian Bar
upholding justice and to acknowledge
1
See “The Hidden Story” by Justice George Seah (page 4), at
the pain and loss they have endured. For http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/administration_of_justice/
Tan Sri Eusoffe and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman crisis_in_the_judiciary.html.
2
Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang; United Engineers (M)
and their families, I know this sentiment is Bhd v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 (SC).
made too late. For Tun Salleh Abas, Tan
3
Inchcape Malaysia Holdings Bhd v RB Gray & Anor [1985] 2
MLJ 297 (SC).
Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah
and Dato George Seah, although this
acknowledgement is 20 years too late, it is
made with much hope that a measure of
the pain and loss may yet be healed.

There should be No Space for Racist Rhetoric in Malaysia
8 May 2013
The Malaysian Bar is troubled by the racially- retire graciously and gracefully, and refrain from
charged comments reported in the media in expressing views that serve to fracture rather than
connection with the recently concluded federal build the nation. They should strive to nurture
and state elections. Such divisive rhetoric has the peace. Spewing venom and spreading discord
effect of demonising Malaysians by virtue of their must not be the Malaysian way, and right-thinking
race, fostering ill will, and causing disharmony and Malaysians must reject such practices.
disunity, and is a potential precursor of conflict. This
is wholly irresponsible and should have no place in The media also have a responsibility to refrain from
Malaysian politics and public discourse. writing and publishing articles that would foment
racial discord. Whether as politicians, journalists,
We ask that the Prime Minister show leadership for bloggers or netizens, those who participate in the
the country, and we welcome his call for national public sphere should exercise freedom of expression
reconciliation. As a nation we must move away responsibly and respectfully. Our leaders must not,
from racial divides; instead, we should emphasise and should not be seen to, endorse the publication
commonalities and promote a shared Malaysian and dissemination of racist messages. Ultimately, it
identity. was Malaysians who were substantially the electors.
Malaysian leaders should not resort to reprehensible The Malaysian Bar commends the police for their
and dangerous gimmicks as a convenient camouflage prompt response and action in investigating such
for perceived weaknesses or shortcomings, or as publications, in particular their investigations of
comfort for disappointments. Only those bereft of a national newspaper for its publication on 7 May
ideas and leadership abilities would resort to such 2013 and of comments on blogs.
tactics. It serves no good purpose, but only self-
interest, to speak of and emphasise the elections Christopher Leong
results along racial lines. Former leaders should President, Malaysian Bar
press releases
Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan Concludes Groundbreaking

First Year
15 May 2013
The Malaysian Bar was pleased to observe the first of 66 (out of 106) district police headquarters (Ibu
anniversary of the commencement of operations of Pejabat Daerah), and over 66 (out of 90) remand
Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) courts. YBGK assisted over 37,800 Malaysians
on 2 April 2013, which marked the conclusion of a in its first 10 months of operation. YBGK lawyers,
dynamic inaugural year. Also known as the National who are paid for the legal services they render, are
Legal Aid Foundation, the groundbreaking YBGK now involved in approximately 5,500 remands per
had been launched by the Prime Minister of Malaysia month. This figure accounts for roughly 37 per cent
on 25 February 2011. of all remands in Peninsular Malaysia.
The Malaysian Bar acknowledges the Government’s Prior to the establishment of YBGK, the vast majority
role in this bold initiative, and its commitment and of Malaysians were unrepresented during remand,
support for the scheme. resulting primarily from their lack of financial means to
engage a lawyer. The fact that one in three remanded
YBGK represents a major milestone for the Malaysians now has access to legal representation
Malaysian criminal justice system, as it gives real is a testament to the dedication of Members of the
meaning to constitutionally-enshrined rights such as Bar who do YBGK work, and the cooperation of law
access to justice and equality before the law. Under enforcement agencies — particularly the police —
this scheme, free legal assistance is provided to all and the Judiciary.
Malaysians — irrespective of their financial means
— at the police station, the remand hearing and Notwithstanding these achievements, a number of
when they are charged in court. The existence of concerns remain, including the continuing difficulty
YBGK, one of the most successful public-private faced by YBGK lawyers in gaining access to
partnerships in Malaysia, means that every arrested persons in police custody, and the lack of time and
person is given the right to consult, and subsequently proper facilities at police stations, remand centres
be defended by, a legal practitioner. and courts for the YBGK lawyers to meet with the
accused persons in private. These constraints
In Peninsular Malaysia, the YBGK programme is adversely affect and detract from the full scope of
administered through the network of Bar Council accused’s constitutional right to legal representation.
Legal Aid Centres that exist in each state. In Sabah
and Sarawak, Jabatan Bantuan Guaman — the The Malaysian Bar urges the Government to
Government’s Legal Aid Department — works address the various shortcomings that have been
together with the Sabah Law Association and the raised, as the YBGK moves into its second year
Advocates’ Association of Sarawak to assist YBGK of operation. The Bar also calls for the YBGK to
in its delivery of services. expand its ambit to serve non-citizens, in order to
give meaning to the principles of non-discrimination
Since its inception, YBGK has trained a total of and equal protection of the law, and to strengthen
896 lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia, and 1,007 the rule of law.
nationwide, over the course of 31 training sessions
conducted throughout the country. In Peninsular The Malaysian Bar records its deepest appreciation
Malaysia, YBGK operations have covered a total to the Attorney General and his Chambers, Judiciary,

Jabatan Bantuan Guaman, law enforcement The Malaysian Bar looks forward to the Government’s
agencies (notably the police), Advocates’ Association continuing support to ensure the success and
of Sarawak, Sabah Law Association, YBGK lawyers, sustainability of this comprehensive legal aid
and Bar Council Legal Aid Centres, for their diligence programme for those ensnared in the criminal justice
and cooperation, and for rising to the occasion in system.
their efforts to ensure the successful implementation
of the YBGK initiative. Christopher Leong
The Malaysian Bar Commends and Supports MACC’s Proposals

23 May 2013
The Malaysian Bar commends and supports (a) any person holding a legislative, executive,
the initiatives by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption administrative or judicial office; and
Commission (“MACC”) headed by its Chief (b) whether elected or appointed, whether
Commissioner Dato’ Sri Haji Abu Kassim bin permanent or temporary, whether paid or
Mohamed. The MACC is an important and unpaid, and irrespective of that person’s
indispensable institution in the fight against corrupt seniority.
practices and for the prevention of corruption.
In this regard, the Malaysian Bar had applauded
The recent proposal by the MACC, through its the announcement, made by the Chief Justice in
Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel January 2012, that superior court judges will be
(“CCPP”), as reported in the news media on 21 May required to declare their assets.
2013, that all elected representatives in Parliament
and State Assemblies should declare their assets The extension of the need for such declaration of
every three years, is a positive step towards assets to include all public officials would ensure
promoting good governance, integrity and the rule that our practices are consistent with UNCAC
of law. standards. It would serve to encourage and create
an environment and culture of transparency and
In this context, the Malaysian Bar proposes that the accountability by public officials. It would also
need to make such declarations not be confined strengthen the various institutions in which these
to elected representatives in Parliament and State public officials serve.
Assemblies, but be extended to include all public
officials. The Malaysian Bar further supports the MACC’s call
for:
The definition of “public official” under Article 2(a) of
the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (a) A total prohibition against family members
(“UNCAC”), which Malaysia signed on 9 December and all government administrators, including
2003, and subsequently ratified on 24 September cabinet ministers, chief ministers and state
2008, should be adopted. It defines “public official” executive councillors, from bidding for
as: government contracts; and
press releases
(b) An implementation and enforcing of a cooling- MACC should be given the fullest support in its
off period before retired civil servants are work, and the Government should introduce further
permitted to hold positions in the corporate legislative provisions to provide for:
sector or professional practice.
(a) MACC to have independent prosecutorial
The Malaysian Bar however proposes that the discretion and power, that is, it should have
cooling-off period be at least two years instead of discretion to institute prosecutions and to
one year, and that it be applicable not only to retired conduct such prosecutions;
civil servants, but to all retired public officials of (b) MACC to report directly to Parliament; and
senior positions. (c) MACC to have an independent Service
Commission.
The Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government
to introduce the relevant legislation to provide for With these proposals in place, the Malaysian Bar
mandatory compliance of the above proposals, and is confident MACC will be strengthened and better
to empower MACC to have wide investigative powers placed to investigate every allegation raised of
to verify and audit the declarations of assets. At corruption. The Malaysian Bar is prepared to render
present, MACC only has powers of investigation its assistance to, and cooperate with, MACC to
when it has reason to suspect the commission of an achieve the objective of preventing corrupt practices.
offence, following a report of an offence made to it or
from information it receives. Christopher Leong
Recent Arrests and Actions by the Authorities are a Closing of

Democratic Space
24 May 2013
The Malaysian Bar is appalled by the recent arrests purportedly making seditious statements at a forum
of several individuals pursuant to the Sedition Act held on 13 May 2013. The continued use of the
1948. The Sedition Act, as with its predecessor the Sedition Act by the authorities directly contradicts
Sedition Ordinance, was conceived and designed the promise made less than a year ago by Prime
by a colonial government to stifle fundamental Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak in
rights and liberties, oppress the rakyat and deny July 2012, that the 64-year-old law will be repealed
them democratic space. Its sole purpose was to and replaced in 2013 by a National Harmony
suppress and persecute the citizenry. The Sedition Act. This was a clear admission and recognition
Act has no place in our modern democratic society by the Government that the Sedition Act was an
and should have been discarded at Merdeka. The anachronistic and repressive colonial law. The
time for it to be dumped into the dustbin of history Prime Minister further stated that the new law will
is long overdue. not prevent members of the public from criticising
the government, quoting John Locke who said, “…
It has been reported that Adam Adli, Tian Chua, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to
Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim were arrested for preserve and enlarge freedom.”

The decision to arrest Adam Adli, Tian Chua, This may be seen from the failure of the authorities
Tamrin Ghafar and Haris Ibrahim is therefore an to take similar action in other obvious cases that
unacceptable repudiation of the promise made by more clearly evidence utterances and publications
the Prime Minister. It further raises questions over the exhibiting seditious tendencies. It is inexplicable
Government’s sincerity in pursuing transformation that there has been no similar prosecution against
and greater civil liberties through legislative reforms. the likes of:
The test of a genuine democracy is to allow words (a) Ibrahim Ali, for allegedly inciting the burning of
to be said even when we disagree with them. As Malay language bibles;
much as one may not agree with the calls for public (b) Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and Zulkifli Noordin, for
demonstrations to oppose the Government and allegedly disparaging the Hindu religion and
question its electoral legitimacy, citizens nevertheless insulting adherents of the religion;
have a fundamental right to express themselves in (c) The racial rhetoric of the Prime Minister in his
such manner so long as they do so peacefully and allegation of a “Chinese tsunami”, followed by
there is no call for the use of violence. The authorities the Utusan Malaysia article entitled “Apa lagi
would be wrong to assume that a call to overthrow orang Cina mahu?”; and
the government must necessarily be only by violent (d) Datuk Mohd Noor Abdullah, a former Court of
means. Time and again, the rakyat have shown that Appeal judge, for allegedly accusing a racial
they can gather in public assembly in large numbers, group of treason and warning of retribution by
yet peacefully. It is therefore unjustifiable and another racial group.
premature to preempt the exercise of fundamental
rights and freedoms with assumptions or postulations While the Malaysian Bar is not advocating the use of
of the use of violence. As much as dissent and the Sedition Act against these individuals, we abhor
opposition may be unpalatable, these must not be the discrepancies in treatment and the selective
criminalised and silenced, but countered with open prosecution by the authorities in this regard. Further,
and healthy debate, reforms and concrete changes. the police should not have made an application for
the remand of Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar and Haris
The Malaysian Bar is equally troubled by the arrest Ibrahim, because it was an abuse of the process of
of 18 persons holding a peaceful candlelight vigil the law. Given that the alleged incident occurred 11
outside the Jinjang Police Detention Centre on 22 days ago, the police should already have evidence
May 2013. The Malaysian Bar is disappointed that of what was allegedly said. We commend the
the police have said that they can no longer tolerate Magistrate for having refused the application for
such candlelight vigils. It is not the role of the remand.
police to tolerate or otherwise, but it is their duty to
facilitate the exercise of democratic freedoms. The The Malaysian Bar strongly urges the authorities
police must bring themselves into the 21st century to withdraw the charge against Adam Adli, and
and cease suppressing the rights of the rakyat. The not to prosecute Tian Chua, Tamrin Ghafar, Haris
Malaysian Bar is concerned that these incidents may Ibrahim and the 18 individuals arrested at the
also signal a lurch towards greater authoritarianism, candlelight vigil. We urge them to respect the
fascism and persecution of those whose viewpoints freedom of speech and assembly as enshrined in
differ from those of the Government. It feeds an the Federal Constitution. The Malaysian Bar also
already widely held belief that there is an unhealthy urges the Government to resist the temptation to
symbiotic relationship between the police on the quell dissenting voices by resorting to archaic and
one hand, and Government on the other. In simple oppressive legislation. Otherwise, the promise of
terms, “You protect me, I defend you”. freedoms made by the Prime Minister will be nothing
more than a mere platitude.
press releases
The Malaysian Bar deplores the seizure of copies not reflective of a government aspiring to achieve
of Harakah, Suara Keadilan and The Rocket, the world-class democracy. Rather than bringing about
newspapers of political parties PAS, PKR and a society that is at ease with itself, it is instead
DAP, respectively. We reiterate that the Printing creating an environment of grave concern.
Presses and Publications Act 1984 should be
abolished. The condition imposed by the authorities The Malaysian Bar calls upon the newly elected
on these three publications — prohibiting their sale Government to demonstrate its commitment to a
and distribution to members of the public at large continuing course of transformation and democratic
— is unconstitutional, as it breaches the right of the reforms, not by rhetoric alone but by sincere and
publishers to the freedom of expression. It is also genuine action. To promote greater democracy, the
a breach of the constitutional rights of the public to Government should welcome diversity of opinion,
receive such information. not close democratic space.

The recent arrests, prosecutions and confiscations Christopher Leong
by the authorities are manifestations of regressive and President, Malaysian Bar
undemocratic conduct. The current environment is
Unabated Deaths in Custody — Will They Ever End?

29 May 2013
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the announcement involving 32-year-old N Dharmendran. He was
that the Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Dato’ reportedly arrested on 11 May 2013, and died on
Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, will head a special committee 21 May 2013 whilst in police remand at the Kuala
established to take measures to prevent deaths in Lumpur police contingent headquarters.
police lockups, which will implement frequent visits by
doctors and also visits by Human Rights Commission The death of N Dharmendran is tragic and
of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”) Commissioners. Such inexcusable. It is yet another incident that raises
measures provide some assurance of the level of serious questions about the treatment and safety
seriousness being accorded to the grave issue of of detainees in police custody, and the methods of
deaths in police custody. interrogation used. It underscores the importance of
the requirement for those in police custody to have
The statistics regarding deaths in police custody in immediate access to legal counsel upon arrest.
Malaysia is a leaf out of the macabre: 156 persons
died in police custody between 2000 and February In the case of N Dharmendran’s arrest, the protocol
20111, and it has been reported that there were at prescribed under the Yayasan Bantuan Guaman
least six such deaths in 20122, with this being the Kebangsaan (“YBGK”) scheme, which is an initiative
fifth one in 20133. This data is alarming, as it points made possible by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun
to an average of at least one death in police custody Abdul Razak, and supported by the Government,
per month since 2000. does not appear to have been complied with by
the police. The guidelines for enforcement officers
The Malaysian Bar is dismayed and saddened by stipulate that as soon as an arrest has been made,
the news of yet another death in police custody, and before the suspect is questioned, the police

officer must inform the suspect’s family (or friend) is held in most instances. Thus, the Malaysian
of the arrest, and must also provide details of the Bar calls on the authorities to urgently implement
suspect and the arrest to YBGK, who will then comprehensive structural reform where inquests are
despatch a lawyer to offer legal representation to the concerned. The few recent enquiries into deaths
arrested person. of persons that occurred whilst in the custody of,
or in or around the premises of, law enforcement
However, we understand that YBGK did not agencies, have resulted in “open” verdicts. In this
receive any notification from the police about N regard, the Malaysian Bar urges the Government to
Dharmendran’s arrest. We regret to note that this introduce a Coroners’ Act, and establish a Coroners’
is the second occasion that we are aware of where Court with the following features:
YBGK was not notified of an arrest, and the detainee
later died in police custody. In the first incident, (1) A clearly-stated aim, which will focus on
32-year-old K Nagarajan had been found dead on 24 identifying the deceased and ascertaining how,
Dec 2012 in the Dang Wangi police station lockup. when and where the person died;
The present state of affairs has led to much public (2) The creation of an official position of a State
outrage and an erosion of confidence in the Coroner, and Coroners. These would be
police. The police must be proactive in ensuring appointed by the Prime Minister upon the
that the wrongful actions of some amongst them do recommendation of the Chief Justice. The
not tarnish the standing of the whole force. Unless State Coroner must be a Sessions Court
this is addressed, the police force will unfortunately Judge, ie a more senior position than that
remain a diminished institution in the eyes of the of a Magistrate, who currently conducts the
public. inquests;
The unabated deaths in police custody reinforce (3) The Coroner would be specially trained and be
the Malaysian Bar’s repeated calls for the responsible for supervising investigations by
Government to implement the recommendation of the police, ensuring that all relevant evidence is
the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation gathered, presiding over enquiries, and making
and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, in findings; and
its report published in May 2005, for the setting
up of an Independent Police Complaints and (4) The specific use of pathologists and forensic
Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) to function pathologists. Only pathologists, or medical
as an independent and external oversight body to practitioners supervised by pathologists, may
investigate complaints about police personnel. conduct post-mortems.
It is untenable for the Government to continue to In the meantime, the Malaysian Bar calls for an
ignore the dire need for the IPCMC, in the face of immediate inquest into N Dharmendran’s death, as
continuing cases of deaths in police custody. a matter of public interest warranting the highest
level of priority. The police must render every
The Malaysian Bar takes the view that every death assistance to the inquest and undertake a prompt
in custody must be thoroughly and impartially and transparent investigation into the incident. In
investigated. Although Chapter XXXII of the Criminal this regard, we are encouraged by the statement of
Procedure Code requires that all custodial deaths the police authorities that they have set up a special
be investigated by way of inquest, no inquest task force to investigate the matter.
press releases
Those responsible for N Dharmendran’s death must questionable circumstances while in the custody of
be identified and be made to face the full force of the police.
the law immediately. The key question is who the
culprits responsible for this heinous crime are. The The Malaysian Bar hopes that N Dharmendran’s
police force owes it to the families of the deceased, death will not be relegated to a mere footnote in the
the public and itself, to do all that is required to disturbing history of custodial deaths in our country.
ensure that such incidents do not occur again. It
is incumbent upon the police to continuously work The Malaysian Bar expresses its deepest condolences
to establish the confidence and trust of the public to the family and friends of N Dharmendran.
whom they are duty-bound to serve and protect.
Christopher Leong
As stated by the Supreme Court of India, death President, Malaysian Bar
in police custody is “. . . one of the worst kinds of
1
Statistics disclosed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
crime in a civilised society governed by the rule of 2
Malaysian Bar’s press release of 2 January 2013, entitled “End
law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised Deaths in Police Custody Now!”.
3
“Kula flays Waytha’s deafening silence” (Malaysiakini, 27 May
society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of 2013).
the citizens . . . . and is an affront to human dignity. . .
4
The Supreme Court of India in Pradesh Munshi Gautam (dead)
v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 402.
.”4 It is shocking that detainees continue to die under
Joint Press Release | Respect the Federal Constitution: Sabah State

Government Must Cease and Desist from Imposing Entry Bans
31 May 2013
The three Bars of Malaysia — Sabah Law Association, The three Bars of Malaysia call on the Sabah State
Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and Malaysian Government to immediately rescind the entry ban
Bar — deplore the denial of entry of Nurul Izzah that it has imposed, and to cease and desist from
Anwar, a Member of Parliament, into Sabah, upon resorting to such action without any justifiable
landing in Kota Kinabalu on 30 May 2013, which cause. We urge the Malaysian Government to take
was during the Pesta Kaamatan celebrations. concrete measures to safeguard each citizen’s right
to travel within his or her own land without hindrance.
By deploying this drastic measure, the Sabah State
Government is flouting the guarantee of freedom G B B Nandy @ Gaanesh
of movement that is enshrined in Article 9 of the President, Sabah Law Association
Federal Constitution, which provides that “every
citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Khairil Azmi bin Mohd Hasbie
Federation”. Although the Sabah State Government President, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak
has the statutory right to restrict entry, this power
must be used sparingly, and only with justifiable Christopher Leong
cause. President, Malaysian Bar

Unilateral Conversions of Minor Children are Unconstitutional
18 June 2013
The Malaysian Bar is concerned that the controversy (of the Federal Constitution), which states, inter
surrounding the unilateral conversion of minor alia, that “words importing the masculine gender
children to the religion of Islam by a newly converted include females”; and “words in the singular include
Muslim parent, without the knowledge and/or the plural, and words in the plural include the
consent of the non-converting parent, has once singular”. Therefore, Article 12(4) must be construed
again arisen. as requiring the religion of children (whether male
or female) under the age of eighteen years to be
It has been reported that two children, aged 5 and decided by both parents, in cases where both
8, were converted in Negeri Sembilan in April 2013 parents are alive. Accordingly, unilateral religious
by the estranged husband of a Hindu woman, conversions of any minor children in breach of this
without her knowledge. According to her, she and are unconstitutional.
her husband had contracted a civil marriage in
2004, and she was unaware that her husband had There is presently confusion in the Bahasa
embraced Islam. The Negeri Sembilan state Islamic Malaysia version of Article 12(4) of the Federal
Affairs Department has reportedly taken the position Constitution. Until 2002, the Bahasa Malaysia version,
that consent by both parents is unnecessary, as as published by the government printers, translated
children can be automatically converted once one “parent” as “ibu bapa”, ie in the plural. Inexplicably,
parent embraces Islam. It is noteworthy that this in the 2002 edition of the translation of the Federal
is reminiscent of many similar cases, including the Constitution, the word “parent” was translated
widely publicised cases of Shamala Sathiyaseelan as “ibu atau bapa” (emphasis added). It would
and Subashini Rajasingam. also appear today that some Bahasa Malaysia
translations use the term “ibu bapa” while others
The unilateral conversion of minor children to any state “ibu atau bapa”. Nevertheless, it would seem
religion by a parent, without the knowledge or that the authorities are now applying this new Bahasa
consent of the non-converting parent, creates social Malaysia translation of “parent” as “ibu atau bapa”.
injustice, violates the rights of the non-converting
parent, and is contrary to our constitutional This is tantamount to an unauthorised amendment
scheme. In this regard: or alteration of the Federal Constitution, and is itself
unconstitutional. An act of translation of the Federal
(a) Article 12(3) of the Federal Constitution states Constitution cannot become an act of amendment
that “No person shall be required to receive of the Federal Constitution. The word “parent” in
instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or Article 12(4) must be read as “ibu bapa”, as found
act of worship of a religion other than his own.”; in the pre-2002 Bahasa Malaysia translations, and
and which is consistent with Article 160 and the Eleventh
Schedule.
(b) Article 12(4) provides that “For the purposes of
Clause (3), the religion of a person under the The Malaysian Bar recalls the Cabinet directive
age of eighteen years shall be decided by his announced in April 2009 through the former de
parent or guardian.” (emphases added) facto Law Minister, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul
Aziz, that the children of an estranged couple should
Article 160 governs the interpretation of the Federal remain in the religion of the parents at the point of their
Constitution, and it refers to the Eleventh Schedule marriage. This is the correct constitutional position.
press releases
In any event, the Government had sought to make to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
clear and reaffirm this position with the introduction to further make clear and provide assurance that
of appropriate amendments to the Law Reform the consent of both parents is obtained prior to any
(Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Those draft minor children being allowed to change his or her
amendments, which were discussed among the religion. The unilateral conversion of minor children to
Attorney General’s Chambers, Bar Council and any religion should be unacceptable. The Malaysian
various civil society groups, recommended that both Bar urges the Government to immediately legislate
parents must consent to the change of religion of a to resolve this controversy, which has occasioned
minor child. However, these proposed amendments untold hardship and social injustice to many citizens.
were deferred by the Government for further
consultation, and then apparently quietly forgotten. The Government must act now to put an end to this
sorry state of affairs, and not remain in suspended
The Malaysian Bar calls on the Government to ensure animation in the face of human sorrow and misery.
that the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Federal
Constitution is corrected, so that the term “ibu Christopher Leong
bapa” is used. The Malaysian Bar also calls on the President, Malaysian Bar
Government to implement appropriate amendments
Legislation Inconsistent with Article 12(4) of Federal Constitution is

Unconstitutional
28 June 2013
The Malaysian Bar is concerned that section 107(b) which are stated in one gender also include the other
of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Federal gender, and all words in the singular also include the
Territories) Bill 2013 (D.R.1/2013) (“the 2013 Bill”), plural.
which has been tabled in Parliament, purports
to provide that the consent of one parent alone is Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution provides: “For
sufficient for the conversion of minor children to the purposes of Clause (3), the religion of a person
Islam. under the age of eighteen years shall be decided
by his parent or guardian.” (emphasis added). The
We reiterate that the unilateral conversion of minor same gender reference to “his” appears in Article
children to any religion by a parent, without the 12(3).
consent of the non-converting parent, is contrary to
our constitutional scheme. If the words were to be taken literally as they appear,
then Articles 12(3) and (4) would be read to only
The 2013 Bill should reflect the meaning of “parent” apply to conversions of males under the age of
contained in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, 18 years, and would not apply to females. This
read with Article 160 and the Eleventh Schedule of meaning or discrimination is clearly not the intention
the Federal Constitution, which expressly provide of such a provision in the Federal Constitution. A
that all words appearing in the Federal Constitution sensible application of the specific provisions in

Article 160 and the Eleventh Schedule of the Federal The case of Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan
Constitution would read the word “his” as also Thangathoray is not authority for the interpretation and
meaning “her”. This would likewise apply to the meaning of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution
word “parent”. and the word “parent” found therein. That Federal
Court decision concerned appeals with respect
Therefore, Article 12(4) must be construed as to the High Court’s refusal to grant an application
requiring the religion of children (whether male by the wife for interim injunctive relief against the
or female) under the age of eighteen years to be husband, and the grant of an Erinford injunction
decided by one parent in cases where there is only pending the appeals to the Court of Appeal being
one parent alive, and by both parents where both disposed of, and subsequently pending the appeals
parents are alive. Any legislation inconsistent with to the Federal Court.
this principle would thus be unconstitutional, unless
there is an amendment of Article 12(4) beforehand. The Federal Court dismissed the appeals on an initial
and technical point, that the petition for dissolution
While section 107(b) of the 2013 Bill maintains of the marriage and for ancillary or consequential
substantially the language of section 95 of the relief (such as for custody of the children) filed by
Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) the wife was premature and not in compliance with
Act 1993, the Malaysian Bar urges the Government section 51(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and
to use this opportunity to bring the provision into Divorce) Act 1976. That section states that a person
conformity with the interpretation of Article 12(4) set may petition for dissolution of a marriage and seek
out above. ancillary or consequential orders only after the expiry
of three months from the date of the other spouse’s
We note the Cabinet announced in April 2009 conversion to Islam. In the Subashini case, the
through the former de facto Law Minister, Dato’ Seri three-month period had not yet expired when the
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, that the children of an wife filed her petition for dissolution.
estranged couple should remain in the religion of
the parents at the point of their marriage. We also Therefore, the discussion by the Federal Court
recall that the Government had sought to introduce thereafter on the meaning of the word “parent” in
appropriate amendments to the Law Reform Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution is obiter
(Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 to provide that both dicta — other statements not required for the
parents must consent to the change of religion of decision in dismissing the appeal — and is therefore
a minor child. We urge the Government to renew not a binding statement of the law.
its initiative to introduce these amendments. This is
the correct constitutional position, and should be In any event, in discussing the meaning of the
consistently reflected in all relevant legislation. word “parent” in Article 12(4), the Federal Court in
its judgment did not address Article 160 and the
There is presently some confusion within some Eleventh Schedule of the Federal Constitution,
quarters regarding the relevance and weight of as described above. As such, the decision of the
certain case law on this issue, in particular, the Federal Court in this respect was not only obiter
cases of Subashini Rajasingam v Saravanan dicta, it was also per incuriam, that is, a decision of
Thangathoray decided by the Federal Court court that is mistaken as a result of oversight.
and Nedunchelian V Uthiradam v Nurshafiqah Mah
Singai Annal & Ors decided by the High Court. Likewise, the case of Nedunchelian V Uthiradam v
Nurshafiqah Mah Singai Annal & Ors was dismissed
on a preliminary objection. The High Court in that
press releases
case decided that the civil courts had no jurisdiction Any legislation that is inconsistent with Article 12(4),
on the subject matter and that the Syariah Court read with Article 160 and the Eleventh Schedule of
had the jurisdiction, and thus the application in the the Federal Constitution, and that purports to provide
High Court was dismissed. Any other discussion that the consent of only one parent is sufficient for
thereafter on Article 12(4) and the meaning of the the conversion of a minor to any religion, would
word “parent” was therefore again obiter dicta, and therefore be unconstitutional unless there is a prior
not binding law. amendment of Article 12(4).
Christopher Leong
A Right Step in a Long and Unfinished Journey

30 June 2013
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the decision by the force of law and [is] binding on members
Attorney General to withdraw the Government’s states, including Malaysia. [sic]
appeal at the Court of Appeal in the case of Chayed
bin Basirun & Ors v Noorfadilla bt Ahmad Saikin. The High Court also stated that:
The legal question in Noorfadilla’s case arose when . . . in interpreting Article 8(2) of the Federal
the Malaysian Government revoked and withdrew Constitution, it is the Court’s duty to take
her appointment as a Guru Sandaran Tidak into account the Government commitment
Terlatih (“GSTT”) because she was pregnant. The and obligation at international level . . .
High Court held that this act amounted to gender there is no impediment for the Court to
discrimination and constituted a violation of Article refer to CEDAW in interpreting Article
8(2) of the Federal Constitution, which deals with 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. Hence,
equality before the law. applying Article 1 and 11 of CEDAW I hold
that pregnancy in this case was a form of
What was significant in this case was the High Court’s gender discrimination. The plaintiff should
reliance on the Convention on the Elimination of All have been entitled to be employed as a
Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”), GSTT even if she was pregnant. Further,
to which Malaysia acceded in July 1995, in clarifying the plaintiff was pregnant because of her
what is meant by the terms “equality” and “gender gender. Discrimination on the basis of
discrimination”. To quote from the judgment of the pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination
High Court: because basic biological fact that only
women has the capacity to become
… the word “gender” was incorporated into pregnant.” [sic]
Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution in
order to comply with Malaysia’s obligation Notwithstanding this welcomed decision, the
under the CEDAW. It is to reflect the view Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government to do more
that women are not discriminated. . . . In to eradicate gender discrimination in Malaysia. Apart
Article 11(2)(a) of CEDAW, it provides that from the amendment to the Federal Constitution,
State Parties shall take appropriate measure which was made in 2001, the Government has not
to prohibit, subject to the imposition of passed any specific legislation to prohibit gender
sanctions, dismissal on the grounds inter discrimination. Indeed, in the first test case after
alia, of pregnancy. . . . [CEDAW] has the the Federal Constitution was changed, Beatrice

Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia & government should also consider addressing the
Anor in 2004, the provisions of CEDAW were also other concerns of the Committee on the Elimination
invoked but without success. That decision, which of Discrimination against Women expressed in their
still stands today, held that the forced resignation of Concluding Observations issued after their review
an airline stewardess after becoming pregnant was of Malaysia in May 2006. Many of those concerns
a matter of private contract law, and not gender remain outstanding, notwithstanding the passage of
equality or discrimination. seven years.
A further disturbing decision was that of the Court The action of the Malaysian Government in
of Appeal in March 2012 which upheld the right of withdrawing its appeal in the Noorfadilla case is a
an employer, Guppy Plastics Industries Sdn Bhd, to step in the right direction. However, the journey
enforce the retirement of female employees at an remains long and unfinished.
earlier age than male employees.
Christopher Leong
Enacting specific anti-gender discrimination President, Malaysian Bar
legislation will go a long way towards promoting
and protecting gender equality in Malaysia. The
The Malaysian Bar Supports the Attorney General in Rejecting

Draconian Preventive Detention Laws
16 July 2013
The Malaysian Bar welcomes and supports the The Bar is against any proposal for new legislation
statement made by the Attorney General that there that provides for detention without trial, for
is no need for any new preventive detention laws to continuous preventive detention or renewals of such
replace the repealed Emergency (Public Order and detention without trial by Ministerial order, and the
Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 ( “Emergency use of ouster clauses that seek to exclude the right
Ordinance”). to the due process of the law and access to the
courts.
The Bar agrees with the Attorney General that it
would be illogical and bizarre to have a new legislation Addressing the increase in the incidence of crime
providing for preventive detention without trial with requires diligence, intelligence, abilities and the
respect to crime, when the legislation dealing with dedicated resolve of the police. It is not about giving
terrorism and national security, that is, the Security them more draconian powers.
Offences (Special Measures) Act (“SOSMA”) 2012,
does not provide for such draconian measures such The Emergency Ordinance was repealed in
as preventive detention without trial. A person held December 2011 on the initiative of Prime Minister
or arrested under SOSMA may only be held for a Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, as part
maximum of 28 days for investigation purposes, of his transformation and democratic reforms for
after which he must be released or charged in a Malaysia. The Malaysian Bar urges those parties
court of law. advocating for the reintroduction of preventive
detention laws to refrain from seeking to reverse and
undo the work of the Prime Minister in this regard.
Christopher Leong
press releases
Allowing Refugees and Asylum Seekers Access to Lawful Employment

is a Positive Step in the Right Direction
17 July 2013
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the statement by detention, imprisonment, whipping and deportation.
the Minister of Home Affairs Dato’ Seri Dr Ahmad Our laws are not properly geared to accord them
Zahid Hamidi, as reported in the news media,1 due recognition, care and protection.
that refugees would be trained in order for them
to seek employment whilst they remain in Malaysia Due to the uncertainty of their status in Malaysia and
awaiting resettlement to a third country or voluntary restrictions in seeking lawful employment, refugees
repatriation to their country of origin. and asylum seekers are often forced to take up
unofficial employment to support themselves and
For far too long refugees and asylum seekers in their families, usually on a casual basis without
Malaysia have been forced to fend for themselves any employment contract or agreement. This has
and to feed their families by working illicitly and in made them vulnerable to exploitation in the form
the shadows, with no legal protection. This has of non-payment of wages, long working hours and
exposed them to discrimination, exploitation and dangerous working conditions. They are also at
victimisation. Allowing refugees and asylum seekers risk of harassment, extortion and ill treatment by
the ability to access lawful employment is a positive enforcement officers and members of the public at
step in the right direction. their work place, during their travel to and from work,
and even in and around their place of residence. As
Malaysia is host to a significant refugee population, a result, they live in a climate of fear and insecurity.
many of whom are from Myanmar. According to
the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner We are hopeful that this change in policy by the
for Refugees in Malaysia (“UNHCR Malaysia”)’s Malaysian Government will lead to an overall
website2, there were 104,070 refugees and asylum- improvement in the outlook for refugees and asylum
seekers registered with them as at the end May seekers. The Malaysian Government should ensure
2013. 94,760 persons (91%) originated from that a proper recruitment and monitoring system
Myanmar while persons from countries such as Sri under the Ministry of Human Resources is put in
Lanka, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan made up the place to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers
majority of the remaining 9%. UNHCR Malaysia also are accorded the basic labour rights of a decent
estimates that there are a further 49,000 unregistered wage, fair working hours, off-days, medical benefits,
asylum seekers in Malaysia. and workplace health and safety protection, and are
not exploited or trafficked in any way.
Unlike economic migrants, refugees and asylum
seekers are victims of persecution who are compelled On a wider perspective, the Malaysian Bar urges
to abandon everything at home, and flee to foreign the Malaysian Government to put in place a suitable
shores to seek safety and refuge. legal and administrative framework for dealing with
refugees and asylum seekers in a holistic, humane
However, Malaysian law does not expressly and appropriate manner, and to work closely with
recognise the concept of refugees or asylum seekers stakeholders such as UNHCR Malaysia, civil society
and they are often treated under our laws as “illegal organisations and the Bar.
immigrants”. They are thus vulnerable to arrest,

In this regard, the Malaysian Bar invites the Malaysian Status of Refugees, both of which are instruments
Government to look at and implement the detailed encapsulating customary international law in
short-term, medium-term and long-term measures relation to the recognition of the socio-economic
and recommendations contained in a proposal rights of refugees and the provision of humanitarian
entitled “Developing a Comprehensive Policy assistance and social integration for them.
Framework for Refugees and Asylum Seekers”,
which was jointly submitted to it by UNHCR Malaysia Christopher Leong
and the Malaysian Bar. President, Malaysian Bar
1
“Plan to let refugees get jobs”, The Star, 12 July 2013.
It is also high time Malaysia ratifies the 1951 Refugee 2
See http://www.unhcr.org.my/About_Us-@-Figures_At_A_
Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Glance.aspx
Exercise Caution When Selecting Law Programme to Pursue

18 July 2013
The Malaysian Bar reminds students who intend to accreditation is not adequate to satisfy the applicable
pursue a law degree locally to conduct due diligence criteria, where entry into the legal profession is
when selecting a law programme to undertake, as concerned. These institutions must still seek the
some educational institutions offer law programmes approval of LPQB for their law programmes and
culminating in law degrees that are not recognised degrees.
by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (“LPQB”).
LPQB has informed Bar Council that the following
LPQB is the body tasked to prescribe the higher education providers offer law programmes
qualifications that would entitle an individual to culminating in the following law degrees that are not
become a “qualified person” within the meaning recognised by LPQB:
of the Legal Profession Act 1976, for the purpose
of admission as an advocate and solicitor in (1) HELP University College: Bachelor of Laws
Malaysia. As such, only graduates with law degrees (Hons);
that are recognised by LPQB will be able to enter
the legal profession in Malaysia. Details regarding (2) Management and Science University (“MSU”):
the qualifications recognised for entry into the legal Bachelor of Law and Commerce (Honours);
profession are available on the LPQB website, at
http://www.lpqb.org.my. (3) Taylor’s University: Bachelor of Laws (Hons);
There are a number of educational institutions in (4) Universiti Sains Islam Malaysian (“USIM”):
Malaysia offering law programmes culminating in Sarjana Muda Syariah dan Undang-Undang
law degrees that are not recognised by LPQB. It Dengan Kepujian / Bachelor of Syariah and
is incumbent upon these institutions to disclose Law with Honours; and
to their students, or to applicants, that upon
graduation, they will not be permitted to practise (5)
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin
law in the country. Such schools may be accredited (“UniSZA”): Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang
with the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, but mere Dengan Kepujian / Bachelor of Laws (Hons).

press releases
It is the responsibility of the educational institutions With respect to the latter, students are reminded to
to inform and expressly bring to the attention of their check with LPQB as to the status of recognition of
students that the institutions’ law degrees are not such foreign law degrees.
recognised by LPQB, and it is incumbent upon the
institutions to do this in writing. The Malaysian Bar strongly urges all individuals who
intend to pursue a law degree to verify with LPQB
Kindly note that some of the educational institutions the status of the educational institution and law
above, in addition to offering law programmes that programme of their choice.
culminate in their own law degrees, also offer law
programmes that culminate in law degrees conferred Christopher Leong
by foreign universities, which may be recognised by President, Malaysian Bar
LPQB; for example, by way of twinning programmes.
Waspada Apabila Memilih Program Undang-Undang

18 Julai 2013
Bar Malaysia mengingatkan para pelajar yang berkesudahan dengan ijazah undang-undang yang
berniat untuk mendapatkan ijazah dalam bidang tidak diiktiraf oleh LKPU. Ia adalah penting supaya
perundangan di institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi institusi-institusi ini memberitahu pelajar-pelajar
tempatan supaya melaksanakan usaha wajar mereka, atau pemohon-pemohon mereka, bahawa
ketika memilih program undang-undang yang selepas memperolehi ijazah yang dikeluarkan oleh
ditawarkan. Ini kerana terdapat beberapa institusi institusi tersebut mereka tidak akan dibenarkan
pengajian tinggi yang menawarkan program undang- mengamal undang-undang di negara ini. Institusi-
undang yang berkesudahan dengan ijazah undang- institusi ini mungkin adalah institusi-institusi yang
undang yang tidak diiktiraf oleh Lembaga Kelayakan bertauliah dibawah Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia,
Profesion Undang-Undang (“LKPU”). tetapi sekadar pentauliahan sahaja tidak cukup untuk
memenuhi kriteria-kriteria yang telah ditetapkan
LKPU adalah badan yang ditugaskan untuk untuk memasuki profesion guaman. Institusi-
menetapkan syarat-syarat yang boleh melayakkan institusi ini masih memerlukan pengiktirafan LKPU
seseorang itu menjadi “orang berkelayakan” seperti bagi program undang-undang dan ijazah mereka.
yang termaktub di dalam Akta Profesion Undang-
Undang 1976, bagi tujuan penerimaan masuk sebagai Majlis Peguam telah dimaklumkan oleh LKPU
peguambela dan peguamcara di Malaysia. Oleh yang bahawa institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi yang
demikian, hanya siswazah-siswazah dengan ijazah menawarkan program undang-undang yang
yang diiktiraf oleh LKPU boleh menceburi profesion berkesudahan dengan ijazah undang-undang yang
guaman di Malaysia. Butiran mengenai kelayakan- berikut tidak diiktiraf oleh LKPU:
kelayakan yang diperlukan untuk penerimaan masuk
ke dalam profesion guaman boleh didapati di laman (1) HELP University College: Sarjana Muda
sesawang LKPU, http://www.lpqb.org.my. Undang-Undang Dengan Kepujian (Bachelor
of Laws (Hons));
Beberapa institusi pengajian tinggi di Malaysia
menawarkan program undang-undang yang

(2) Management and Science University Sila dimaklumkan bahawa sesetengah daripada
(“MSU”): Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang dan institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi di atas, selain
Perdagangan Dengan Kepujian (Bachelor of daripada penawaran program undang-undang
Law and Commerce (Honours)); yang berkesudahan dengan ijazah undang-undang
mereka sendiri, juga menawarkan program undang-
(3) Taylor’s University: Sarjana Muda Undang- undang yang berkesudahan dengan ijazah undang-
Undang Dengan Kepujian (Bachelor of Laws undang yang dikeluarkan oleh universiti-universiti
(Hons)); dari luar negara yang mungkin diiktiraf oleh LKPU;
misalnya, dengan program “twinning”. Pelajar-
(4) Universiti Sains Islam Malaysian (“USIM”): pelajar diingatkan supaya memeriksa dengan pihak
Sarjana Muda Syariah dan Undang-Undang LKPU mengenai status pengiktirafan ijazah-ijazah
Dengan Kepujian (Bachelor of Syariah and Law yang dikeluarkan oleh universiti-universiti dari luar
with Honours); dan negara tersebut.
(5)
Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin Bar Malaysia menggesa semua individu yang ingin
(“UniSZA”): Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang mendapatkan ijazah undang-undang membuat
Dengan Kepujian (Bachelor of Laws (Hons)). pengesahan dengan LKPU berkenaan dengan
status institusi pengajian dan program undang-
Institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi adalah undang yang menjadi pilihan mereka.
bertanggungjawab untuk memaklumkan dan secara
langsung membawa kepada perhatian pelajar- Christopher Leong
pelajar bahawa ijazah undang-undang institusi- Yang Dipertua, Bar Malaysia
institusi tersebut tidak diiktiraf oleh LKPU. Adalah
menjadi kewajipan institusi-institusi pengajian tinggi
untuk memaklumkan perkara ini secara bertulis.
press releases
The Malaysian Bar Welcomes the Press Releases by HELP University

and Taylor’s University Dated 19 July 2013
24 July 2013
The Malaysian Bar notes that HELP University and Graduates who have successfully undertaken either
Taylor’s University have each issued a press release of these routes are eligible to be considered to sit
on 19 July 2013 with respect to our press release for the Certificate of Legal Practice examination, and
entitled “Exercise Caution When Selecting Law thereafter eligible to become a “qualified person”
Programme to Pursue”, dated 18 July 2013. within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1976,
for admission as an advocate and solicitor, and
We confirm that these two educational institutions entering the legal profession, in Malaysia.
offer law programmes that culminate in law
degrees conferred by foreign universities, which are Both these educational institutions also offer
recognised by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board law programmes that culminate in their own law
(“LPQB”), as follows: degrees, which have yet to be accorded recognition
by LPQB. It is these law degrees that were being
(1) HELP University conducts a “UK Degree addressed in the Malaysian Bar’s press release of
Transfer Program (Law)”, whereby students 18 July 2013. We note that HELP University has
spend one or two years at HELP University commenced the process of seeking recognition,
before transferring to one of its nine partner and Taylor’s University intends to do so in 2014. The
universities in the United Kingdom. These nine Malaysian Bar welcomes the assurances from HELP
partner universities are: University and Taylor’s University that they ensure
that this is explained and made expressly clear to
(a) Aberystwyth University students and applicants.
(b) Cardiff University
(c) Northumbria University The Malaysian Bar is heartened that both HELP
(d) University of Hertfordshire University and Taylor’s University, as teaching
(e) University of Leeds institutions, are conscious of the importance of
(f) University of Liverpool providing quality education and of ensuring that new
(g) University of Manchester entrants (amongst their students) to the Malaysian
(h) University of Sheffield Bar should have the requisite qualifications to
(i) University of West of England become legal practitioners. In this connection, the
Malaysian Bar hopes that both these institutions
(2) Taylor’s University’s law programme, whereby will continue to adopt transparent and coherent
students who spend one or two years at enrolment policies that highlight the status of
Taylor’s Law School can transfer to one of its six recognition of their law programmes.
“articulation partners” in the United Kingdom.
These six “articulation partners” are: The Malaysian Bar reiterates that all prospective law
students who intend to pursue a career as a legal
(a) Cardiff University practitioner should verify with LPQB the status of
(b) University of Leeds recognition of the educational institution and law
(c) University of Manchester programme of their choice.
(d) University of Reading
(e) University of Sheffield Christopher Leong
(f) University of West of England President, Malaysian Bar

Implement Recommendations Made in SUHAKAM Report of the
National Inquiry into Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples
26 August 2013
The Malaysian Bar lauds the Human Rights which have thus far been honoured more in breach,
Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”)’s public rather than in compliance, by the Government. In
release of the Report of the Land Rights of Indigenous this regard, the recommendations provide, inter alia,
Peoples (“SUHAKAM Report”) on 5 August 2013. a timely reminder to the Government that it owes
fiduciary duties to the Indigenous Peoples and
The SUHAKAM Report is a culmination of the historic it is primarily responsible for their well-being and
national inquiry into the land rights of indigenous protection of their rights.
peoples of Malaysia. SUHAKAM conducted
this nationwide inquiry between December 2010 The Malaysian Bar urges the Government to table
and June 2012. It was in response to numerous the SUHAKAM Report for debate in Parliament for
complaints from the Orang Asli of Peninsular Malaysia the purposes of adopting these recommendations
and natives of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and giving effect to them immediately. In this
(collectively, “Indigenous Peoples”) of widespread regard, the Malaysian Bar notes that SUHAKAM
violation and deprivation of their customary land intended to submit the Report as a Special Report
rights. to Parliament in accordance with section 21(3) of the
SUHAKAM Act 1999. However, it appears that the
The SUHAKAM Report is based on consultations, Government has instead decided to form a National
hearings, independent research and lengthy Task Force (“Task Force”) in lieu of tabling the
submissions involving Indigenous Peoples, SUHAKAM Report in Parliament. This is regrettable,
government departments and agencies, the private inasmuch as it deprives our elected representatives
sector and non-governmental organisations. It is a of the opportunity of examining and debating the
comprehensive document that contains 18 critical recommendations in Parliament, particularly based
recommendations under six main themes, namely: on their peculiar experiences in dealing with the
Indigenous Peoples in their constituencies. The
(1) Recognition of indigenous customary lands; formation of the Task Force by the Government
(2) Remedy for loss of customary lands; should be in addition to tabling the SUHAKAM
(3) The need to address land development issues Report in Parliament.
and imbalances;
(4) Prevention of future loss of customary lands; It would also appear that one of the terms of
(5) The need to address land administration reference of the intended Task Force is to review
issues; and and verify the truth of the allegations contained in the
(6) Recognition of land as central to the identity of SUHAKAM Report. This object of the Task Force is
Indigenous Peoples. a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes of
the national inquiry, particularly when it involved all
The Malaysian Bar supports these stakeholders including the Government (through the
recommendations. The recommendations participation of the Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli).
strike at the heart of the many challenges faced
by the Indigenous Peoples. Many of these The national inquiry by SUHAKAM came about
recommendations are consistent with the landmark because of the numerous complaints and allegations
decisions of our courts in cases such as Sagong Tasi, of lack of care, abuse, and inaction by the Government
press releases
and its agencies with respect to the welfare and rights in order that the interests of Indigenous Peoples
of Indigenous Peoples. SUHAKAM was tasked as and other stakeholders are dealt with in a fair and
an independent body to inquire into and investigate equitable manner.
these allegations and complaints. SUHAKAM
had done so and produced its findings and The Malaysian Bar further urges the Federal and
recommendations. It is thus incongruous for the State Governments to put a hold on any proposed
Government to now seek to duplicate or re-do the amendment to laws and policies affecting indigenous
work of SUHAKAM with respect to the complaints customary lands and resources (including the
or allegations against it. This defeats the purpose controversial proposed amendment to the Aboriginal
of having had an independent body to inquire and Peoples Act 1954), pending the implementation of
investigate the complaints. the recommendations contained in the SUHAKAM
Report. In this regard, the Malaysian Bar also urges
It will be superfluous if the entire national inquiry a moratorium on the alienation or acquisition of lands
process and the SUHAKAM Report are to be occupied by Indigenous Peoples, to prevent further
unravelled by the Task Force set up by the loss of these lands.
Government, more so at the expense of public funds
and resources. The Malaysian Bar hopes that SUHAKAM’s
recommendations would be the platform for the
The Malaysian Bar urges the Government to accept formulation of a blueprint for the proposed reforms
the SUHAKAM Report and its recommendations. The of indigenous land and resource rights laws and
Task Force by the Government should be solely policies. The exploitation of the customary lands
focused on examining ways to implement the of the Indigenous Peoples should not be allowed to
recommendations in the SUHAKAM Report. persist and fester any longer.
The composition of the Task Force must be Christopher Leong

balanced. The Malaysian Bar stands ready to assist President, Malaysian Bar
and contribute our expertise to such a Task Force
Joint Press Release | Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act

1959 are Repugnant to the Rule of Law — No to Preventive Detention
Without Trial
27 September 2013
The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and The proposed amendments to the PCA are
the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are appalled objectionable and repugnant to the rule of law. The
by the numerous proposed amendments to the amendment to the preamble of the PCA which
Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“PCA”) and 10 other recites Article 149 of the Federal Constitution is
legislation, including proposed amendments to the revealing in that it does not merely amend the PCA
Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act but it effectively re-introduces the Internal Security
1950. Act 1960 and the Emergency (Public Order and
Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. These

amendments violate the rule of law and ignore due The proposed amendments appear to provide
process and infringe upon our constitutional rights. for safeguards with regard to preventive detention
orders, namely:
Despite assurances by certain quarters of the
government that laws similar to the repealed (a) The amendments provide for the establishment
Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) of the Board. The Board is vested with the
Ordinance 1969 and the Internal Security Act 1960 power to order preventive detention without
would not be resurrected, the government is now trial of up to 2 years and any renewals thereof,
seeking to re-introduce via the Prevention of Crime instead of the Minister; and
(Amendment and Extension) Bill No. 8 of 2013 the
most offensive elements of these repealed legislation. (b) The amendment under s.19A(2) also provide
for a right to apply for review to the High Court
The proposed amendments to the PCA seek to revive against the direction of the Board for preventive
preventive detention without trial, repeated renewals detention and any renewals thereof.
of such detention without trial, oust the jurisdiction of
the judiciary, deny the rights of suspected persons These safeguards are insufficient or illusory.
to due process of the law, such as the right to legal
representation and the right to be heard before any The Board has limited utility as it does not have power
adverse decision or direction is made. to inquire into or re-examine the accuracy, sufficiency
and veracity of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and
The amendments provide that a suspected person the grounds for the findings. The Inquiry Officer is
does not have a right to legal representation during appointed by the Minister and has sole conduct of
an inquiry to determine whether the person is a any inquiries under the PCA. The Board is effectively
member of a registrable category under the PCA bound by the findings and the grounds of the Inquiry
and therefore liable to supervisory or preventive Officer in exercising its discretion as to whether to
detention orders. The suspected person is not release the suspect, or issue a supervision order or
provided with the grounds for any adverse findings, direct a preventive detention.
and does not have the right to appeal or apply for
review to the courts against any adverse findings or The idea for this Board is clearly borrowed from
a supervision order. the Internal Security Act 1960 which had provided
for an Advisory Board. History has shown us that
The amendments are an affront to the judiciary. The this did not in any way prevent rampant abuse and
judicial review powers of the judiciary have been unjustified detention without trial.
removed by s.15A in respect of any act done, finding
or decision made by the Prevention of Crime Board Although the amendments under s.19A(2) provide for
(“Board”) under the PCA, except in regard to any a right of review by the High Court of any preventive
question on compliance with any procedure required detention orders or renewals of such detentions, the
in the PCA. This limited concession is meaningless right of review is rendered illusory as the grounds
as the amendments go on to provide that the Board or reasons for the Inquiry Officer’s findings and the
shall set its own procedures as it wishes. The Board’s decision are not provided to the suspected
discretionary sentencing power of the judiciary to person, and the Inquiry Officer and the Board may
order a discharge with a caution or a binding over refuse to provide any information and documents to
for good behavior has also been removed by the the court and the suspected person on the basis
proposed s.15(6) of the PCA. that it would be against the public interest to do so.
press releases
The proposed s.7C(a)(i) of the PCA is alarming and in our country. Rather it speaks of the inadequacies
abhorrent. It provides that a criterion which the and inability of the police to deal with crime in a
Board shall apply in deciding to issue a preventive proper way.
detention order is that the person has committed
two or more serious offences, whether or not that It is imperative that the government immediately
person has been convicted of the offences, if the implements the recommendation of the Royal
inquiry report finds sufficient evidence to support Commission of Inquiry 2005 chaired by Tun
such finding. Mohamed Dzaiddin Bin Hj Abdullah and establish
the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct
This means that the Inquiry Officer has taken on the Commission to redress standards of policing and
role not merely as an investigator or inquirer but that restore public confidence in the police.
of prosecutor and judge. The Inquiry Officer would
have found the suspect guilty of two or more serious The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association
criminal offences without charging the person and and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are
securing a conviction in court, and with the suspect extremely disappointed by the manner in which these
having been denied legal representation in the course proposed amendments are sought to be introduced.
of the inquiry save when the suspect’s own evidence There was no prior notice or consultation on the
was taken. This is an unacceptable abrogation of numerous amendments to 11 legislation with far
due process and the supplanting of the judiciary. reaching consequences. These amendments must
not be bulldozed through Parliament.
The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and
the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak reject any The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and
attempt to resurrect preventive detention without trial, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak call upon
repeated renewals of such detention without trial, the government to withdraw all of the proposed
the ouster of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, denial amendments and to engage in genuine consultation
of the rights of suspected persons to due process of with all interested stakeholders and parties. The
the law, such as the right to legal representation and proposed forum on 28 September 2013, which was
the right to be heard before any adverse decision originally intended to discuss the prevention of crime
or direction is made. The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah generally and which now belatedly appears to have
Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of been converted to a public feedback session on the
Sarawak call upon the government to withdraw all proposed amendments to the PCA and the 10 other
proposed amendments of this nature, in particular, legislation, is rushed, contrived and insufficient.
the proposed Part IVA of the PCA.
Christopher Leong
The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association President, Malaysian Bar
and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are of
the view that the answer to the fight against crime Datuk GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh
cannot lie in re-introducing laws that diminish our President, Sabah Law Association
adherence to the rule of law, due process and
constitutional safeguards. The proposed draconian Khairil Azmi bin Mohd Hasbie
amendments are not a reflection of the state of crime President, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak

Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 are Regressive
and a Blow to the Rule of Law in Malaysia
3 October 2013
The Malaysian Bar is troubled and disappointed The Board, when exercising its discretion to direct a
by the passage into law of the amendments to the preventive detention, is therefore effectively bound
Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (“Act”) in the early by the report of the Inquiry Officer. In this regard,
hours of 3 October 2013. the further amendment to the Act to increase the
membership of the Board from three to five is
The re-introduction of preventive detention without cosmetic.
trial laws and the limitation or ouster of the jurisdiction
of the courts in the Act, which was passed through The limited access to the courts on judicial
Parliament, is a great blow to the rule of law in review provided in the amended Act is rendered
Malaysia. meaningless by other amendments introduced in the
same Act. The new section 15A expressly prohibits
It is very sad that for a country wishing to move any judicial review by the courts with respect to
forward, we had at midnight regressed and moved any police supervision order imposed on a person,
backwards. save on procedural grounds. Such procedures are,
however, determined by the Board as they wish. The
Violence has been done in Malaysia to the right of judicial review pursuant to the new section
principle long held in the civilised world that 19A(2) is negated by the new section 21A as the
a person is presumed innocent until proven Inquiry Officer and the Board may refuse to provide
otherwise in court. The amendments to the Act any information and document to the court and the
will deny fundamental rights guaranteed under the affected person on the basis that it would be against
Constitution to people based on belief or suspicion. the public interest to do so. There is therefore no
material before the court to review.
The purported safeguards introduced into the
Act, namely, the establishment of the Prevention It is a sad day for Malaysia when those who make
of Crime Board (“Board”), and the right of judicial law do not understand the principle of the rule of law.
review against any orders imposed by the Board
for preventive detention without trial are illusory and The Malaysian Bar recalls the words of Sir Winston
meaningless. Churchill: “The Power of the executive to cast a
man into prison without formulating any charge
The Board has limited utility as it is designed to be known to law is in the highest degree odious and the
wholly dependent upon the report of the Inquiry foundation of all totalitarian government,…”.
Officer. The Board has no power to inquire into,
or re-examine, the accuracy and veracity of the Christopher Leong
findings of the Inquiry Officer and the grounds for President, Malaysian Bar
the said findings. The Inquiry Officer is appointed
by the Minister and has sole conduct of any inquiry
under the Act.
press releases
Appalling Statements by the Minister of Home Affairs Brings Disrepute

to Malaysia
8 October 2013
The Malaysian Bar is shocked and appalled by including non-governmental organisations and civil
recent revelations in the media with respect to what society, is a charade.
was said by Dato’ Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi,
Minister of Home Affairs, at a speech delivered at the It should be remembered that the Minister of Home
Malacca International Trade Centre in Ayer Keroh, Affairs promised to produce data and statistics to
Malacca, on 5 October 2013. Parliament and the public to justify his statement
that the spike in serious crime was due to the repeal
The Minister of Home Affairs was reported to have of the Internal Security Act 1960 and the Emergency
stated in effect that: (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance
1969. He has failed to provide an iota of evidence
(a) the police are to shoot first and ask questions to support his contention. Instead, it is reported that
later; he resorted to collusion with the Inspector General
(b) the recent amendments to the Prevention of of Police and the Minister in charge of Parliamentary
Crime Act 1959 providing for detention without Affairs in the push for the amendments to the
trial was his own law; and Prevention of Crime Act 1959.
(c) in the event there is no evidence or there is
insufficient evidence, the suspects would be The Minister of Home Affairs has also apparently
put away for two years. threatened reporters from reporting on what was
said at the event in Malacca and gone on to threaten
The Minister of Home Affairs is also reported to have to shut down newspapers. This attempt to silence
said that the majority of gangsters were Malaysians the media is indicative that he appreciates the
of Indian descent, that the victims were of another wrongness of his statements. It is outrageous for
race, and that there was therefore nothing wrong in the Minister of Home Affairs to threaten to use his
arresting or shooting them. The Minister of Home official position in an attempt to cow the media and
Affairs is further reported to have said that a criminal shield himself.
group known as Tiga Line, which has been declared
unlawful by the Ministry of Home Affairs, to be His statement supporting the use of excessive
benevolent gangsters and had encouraged them to force in dealing with criminals in effect encourages
continue with their activities. a shoot-to-kill policy. This is extremely worrying
and irresponsible conduct by the Minister of Home
The Malaysian Bar deplores and condemns the Affairs.
statements by the Minister of Home Affairs because
they reveal his complete disregard for the rule of law, The Minister of Home Affairs appears to have
his indifference to human rights, and his utter lack of overstepped the line and possibly committed an
respect for debate and argument in Parliament. His offence under the Sedition Act 1948. The statements
statements could be interpreted to support extra- by the Minister of Home Affairs are shameful and
judicial killings by the Police. have brought the Government and the country into
disrepute.
The Minister’s scant regard for the views of fellow
Parliamentarians demonstrates that any talk about Christopher Leong
considering the views and proposals of others, President, Malaysian Bar

It is Wrong to Deny Fundamental Rights on the Premise that Others
May Be Confused
16 October 2013
The Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned by the In referring to the social contract, effect should be
decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 14 given to the understanding as at 1957 and not to
October 2013 in what is commonly referred to as the numerous amendments that have since been
the “Herald” or “Allah” case. made to the Federal Constitution in violation thereof.
Paragraph 57 of the White Paper in 1957 which
The concerns arise from the Court’s interpretation of gave rise to Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal
Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution on the status Constitution provides as follows:
of Islam and other religions and Article 11(1) and (4)
on the fundamental right to profess and practice a “There has been included in the proposed
religion. Federal Constitution a declaration that
Islam is the religion of the Federation. This
Any interpretation of the Constitution must invite the will in no way affect the present position of
greatest scrutiny as it impacts on the fundamental the Federation as a secular State, and every
freedoms guaranteed to all citizens. person will have the right to profess and
practice his own religion and the right to
We are particularly concerned with the following propagate his religion, though this last right
findings, that: is subject to any restrictions imposed by
State law relating to the propagation of any
I. The insertion of the words “in peace and religious doctrine or belief among persons
harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the professing the Muslim religion.”
sanctity of Islam and “also to insulate
against any threat…to the religion of Islam”; II. The use of the word “Allah” in the Malay
version of the Herald would cause or create
Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution expressly confusion amongst persons professing the
provides that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; religion of Islam;
but other religions may be practiced in peace and
harmony in any part of the Federation”. It is unreasonable and contrary to the Constitutional
scheme that a fundamental liberty is liable to be
The Court of Appeal found that this Article was denied on the basis that some person or persons
inserted as a byproduct of the social contract by our would be confused.
founding fathers, and that the purpose and intention
of the words “in peace and harmony” was to protect The decision does not in any way aid in addressing
the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and or resolving the alleged confusion amongst persons
to insulate it against any threat. This is an unnatural professing the religion of Islam, when in fact that
reading of the provisions in Article 3(1). The words word “Allah” is used by more than one community
in their clear and ordinary meaning provides for the in this country and by peoples of different faiths in
right of other religions to be practiced unmolested the Arab world and other Muslim countries. Rather,
and free of threats. the effect of the decision would be to encourage
a perpetual state of confusion or ignorance as
justifiable grounds for denying the rights of others.
press releases
The course that ought to have been taken should be part of the faith or practice of Christianity other than
to educate those persons who would be confused what has been described in the written judgments
and not to restrict or injunct the exercise of rights by as “a quick research” and research conducted on
others. the internet.
III. The use of the word “Allah” in the Malay It is troubling that the court would conduct research
version of the Herald would have the on its own via the internet and come to conclusions
potential to threaten or harm public order of alleged facts with respect to a person’s religion
and safety; and without its veracity being tested.
Having recited that religious sensitivities are a threat In any event, it is for a party asserting exclusive
to public order and safety, the decision unfortunately rights to the use of the word “Allah” to establish
serves to reinforce the notion that the use or threat of that they have such exclusive rights, rather than for
violence would win the day in court. It is unacceptable others to have to establish that the use of the word
that citizens are denied their Constitutional rights of is integral to their faith. By most accounts, there is
religious freedom and expression on the basis that no prohibition on the use of the Arabic word “Allah”
others who disagree or who are confused would by peoples of different faiths in the Arab world and
resort to aggression. other countries. It is difficult to discern how we are
able to declare exclusivity of a word over which we
The law should not be interpreted and declared so do not have proprietary rights.
as to condone, encourage, and perpetuate such
aggression and threats of violence. Rather, the law The Malaysian Bar calls upon all quarters to address
ought to be visited upon those who would resort to the issue with maturity and calmness. It must be
threats or violence. reminded that everyone must respect the right of the
publishers of the Herald to seek to appeal the matter
IV. The finding that the word “Allah” is not an to the Federal Court, if they so wish. They should
essential and integral part of the faith and be permitted to pursue this without any threats or
practice of Christianity. intimidation.
There appears to be no basis for the findings by Christopher Leong

the Court of Appeal that the word is not an integral President, Malaysian Bar

In Upholding the Cause of Justice and the Rule of Law, the Malaysian
Bar is Undeterred by Threats
4 November 2013
The Malaysian Bar is disappointed to read in the It unfortunately appears that some parties or
news media reports on 2 November 2013 that segments of our society deem it appropriate to resort
the Muslim Lawyers Association has allegedly to issuing threats or fear mongering as a means
threatened or warned the Bar not to back the of getting their way. Sometimes these threats are
Catholic newspaper The Herald’s appeal against the coupled with claims of ignorance or confusion or
controversial Court of Appeal ruling on the use of the cries of hurt feelings and sensitivities. It is long past
word “Allah” or it “would not hesitate to take further the time for Malaysians to shed such practices.
action”. It is strange for an association of lawyers to
fear arguments taken in a court of law and to impel The Malaysian authorities for their part should cease
them to issue threats. It leaves one to wonder what pandering to, or legitimising such practices, as it only
it is that they are afraid of. serves to encourage those who resort to threats or
violence as a means of getting their way or silencing
Let us be plain and clear. The Malaysian Bar does others. Such behavior also seeks to stifle discourse,
not back any party. Access to justice is for all who growth and understanding. It runs counter to the
seek it. Any party has the constitutional right to bring principles of moderation that Malaysia wishes to
their grievances to the courts and to pursue their practice and project. We would not achieve the
appeals. The Malaysian Bar and the Bar Council Malaysia that our founding fathers and the original
are secular bodies. We are not grounded in or partial Federal Constitution envisaged, and which all right
to any religious belief. The Malaysian Bar does not thinking Malaysians hope for, if we continue to play
stand for or against any party. The positions that we to the lowest denominator amongst us.
take are, and will always be, prescribed by the rule of
law and premised on the Federal Constitution. We Christopher Leong
act for justice and truth and will not be swayed by President, Malaysian Bar
partisan politics or religious belief. The Malaysian
Bar will not be deterred in upholding the cause of
justice by any threat or intimidation. We are bound
to act without fear or favour, and without regard for
our own interests.
press releases
SUHAKAM is Right: Malaysia Needs to be Human Rights-Compliant

27 December 2013
The Malaysian Bar strongly supports the call by the Although Malaysia has ratified one more international
Malaysian Human Rights Commission (“SUHAKAM”), instrument since the last UPR in February 2009,
and its Chairman, Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, for Malaysia namely the Convention on the Rights of Persons
to look seriously into accelerating the pace of with Disabilities, Malaysia has failed to make
ratification of the six remaining core United Nations much headway in the commitments we made in
instruments relating to human rights, as follows: June 2009 to study the ratification of four further
international instruments, namely the International
(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International
Rights; Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
(2) International Covenant on Economic, Social Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
and Cultural Rights; Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
(3) Convention Against Torture and Other and International Convention on the Elimination of
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In the National
Punishment; Report submitted by the Malaysian Government for
(4) International Convention on the Elimination of the October 2013 review, there was reference to an
All Forms of Racial Discrimination; expected conclusion and recommendation in respect
(5) International Convention on the Protection of of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members and Cultural Rights, and a commitment to studying
of Their Families; and the International Convention on the Elimination of All
(6) International Convention for the Protection of Forms of Racial Discrimination. Nothing, however,
All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. was said about the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights or the Convention Against Torture
Indeed, Malaysia should also be looking into ratifying and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or Punishment.
and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,
since these involve critical issues right on our very If there are genuine concerns about these
doorstep. international instruments, they should be intelligently
and coherently articulated. Proper discussion of
The recent Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) of the ratification of these international human rights
Malaysia by the United Nations Human Rights instruments is not advanced by the vilification of
Council in October 2013 has brought into sharp individuals and groups in support of them. The
focus the glaring disparity between Malaysia’s unwarranted disparaging remarks and verbal
international ambitions on the one hand, and the attacks on Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, SUHAKAM, and
domestic realities on the other. the Coalition of Malaysian Non-Governmental
Organisations in the UPR Process (“COMANGO”)
Malaysia’s term as a member of the United Nations and members of that coalition, serve no positive
Human Rights Council ends on 31 December 2013. purpose.
As an outgoing member, Malaysia has failed in the
last four-and-a-half years to show much progress It is also irresponsible to allege that countries,
in extending our commitment to the international especially fellow member states of the Organisation
system of human rights norms and standards. of Islamic Cooperation (“OIC”), were either forced to

accede to the international instruments or did not Our international record would come into focus.
know better, but provide no evidence to support Malaysia has to convince members of the United
these fantastical observations. After all, 54 out of the Nations General Assembly in October 2014, when
56 OIC member states that are also United Nations the voting is carried out, that we are a mature and
member states have ratified or acceded to more responsible member of the international community,
international human rights instruments than Malaysia. capable of being entrusted with decision-making at
Such comments are thus not just patronising and the United Nations’ most important body.
condescending, but additionally have the potential
to damage Malaysia’s relations with these countries. Recent actions and decisions by our Government,
This also serves to highlight that the practice of Islam and recent statements by some of its Ministers,
is not a hindrance for the OIC member states, and raise serious doubts as to whether Malaysia is ready.
should not be used as an excuse by Malaysia to The world today is very different from that of 1989-
delay our ratification of the international instruments. 1990 and 1999-2000, the previous times Malaysia
It should be noted that although Article 3(1) of sat in the Security Council. The 232 paragraphs
the Federal Constitution provides that Islam is the of recommendations to Malaysia at the UPR in
religion of the Federation, it is nevertheless not the October 2013 point to the extremely high level of
supreme law of the Federation. Article 4 provides expectations that the international community
that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of the places on Malaysia. We can no longer hide behind
Federation. excuses that we are a developing country, and need
more time. Our goal of achieving “developed nation”
Malaysia now has ambitions to vie for a seat on the status by 2020 is not viewed as merely an economic
United Nations Security Council for the 2015-2016 target, but a political and diplomatic one as well. For
term. Malaysia would need to rely on the support of us to adequately respond to these expectations, our
other countries, including these OIC countries, if we domestic realities must accord with our international
are to emerge successful in our ambition. ambitions.
Christopher Leong
press releases
Repeal the Printing Presses and Publications Act; Independent

Regulation to Preserve Independence of Media
28 December 2013
The Malaysian Bar reiterates its call for the repeal in a long list of State actions to suppress the press.
of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, Other instances include incidents during which the
and for the establishment of an independent Media Minister of Home Affairs harassed a Malaysiakini
Council. journalist who was asking him questions, and
threatened to shut down newspapers that reported
The Malaysian Bar calls into question the recent his speech in Malacca on the following day; and the
decision by the Ministry of Home Affairs to suspend physical assault and abuse of media professionals
indefinitely the publication permit of the weekly by the police during the BERSIH 3.0 public assembly
publication The Heat. No clear explanation has in Kuala Lumpur on 28 April 2012.
been given for their decision to do so.
A free press is a fundamental feature of a vibrant and
It appears from news media reports that the decision accountable democracy. An independent press acts
to suspend the publication permit for The Heat was as a disseminator of information, and as a check and
made before the publisher had been given the right balance of elected representatives and government.
to be fully heard pursuant to section 13B of the The wellbeing of a democratic nation is dependent
Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 or before on, amongst other things, a healthy, professional,
the process of being heard had been completed. ethical and independent press.
An indefinite suspension is an oxymoron, that The Malaysian Bar reiterates its position that the
is, a contradiction in terms, and is effectively a Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 should
revocation. The indefinite suspension of The Heat be repealed. It is offensive to the constitutional right
would appear to be in breach of Article 13 of the to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in
Federal Constitution, which provides that no person Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. It is an archaic
shall be deprived of property save in accordance piece of legislation that no longer holds any relevance
with law. Article 13 does not mean merely following in a modern democracy. The Act has been used and
the written law, but adhering to the due process of abused to influence, bully, intimidate, threaten and
the law and natural justice. punish the press. Such legislative and governmental
control of the press, including licensing regimes,
The timing and speed of such indefinite suspension should end. The recent court decision against the
by the Ministry of Home Affairs gives rise to the Ministry of Home Affairs, in relation to Malaysiakini’s
perception that the Government is seeking to muzzle application for a newspaper licence, is a reminder
and punish a member of the media for an article of this.
it published in its 23 to 29 Nov issue headlining a
report on the alleged “big spending” of the Prime This is not to say that a newspaper, or any
Minister. publication (whether print or online), is at liberty
to publish anything with impunity. It is time that
The suspension of The Heat is an unwarranted attack Malaysia provides for independent regulation of the
on the freedom of the press specifically, and an attack press media. Complaints regarding objectionable
on freedom of speech and expression generally. press stories and material should be dealt with by
Action against The Heat is merely the latest event an independent Media Council to be established

— consisting of journalism practitioners and civil be dealt with by the Media Council or the Media
society representatives, and with minimal or no Ombudsperson.
government representation — or, alternatively, a
Media Ombudsperson. Such a Media Council or Additionally, the press is liable to be held to account
Media Ombudsperson should be able to regulate by the law just as any Malaysian citizen, for example,
media owners, publishers, editors, and journalists the laws on defamation.
regarding offensive content and conduct.
Malaysia needs, and Malaysians deserve, a free and
There should be a clear separation between the role independent press, as well as a press that is ethical,
and purview of owners of media, and professional responsible and fair.
journalists and management. There should be no
pressure or interference by owners of media in the Christopher Leong
management of editorial and news content of any President, Malaysian Bar
publication. Any breach of such restrictions should
Facilitate and Deal Peacefully with Peaceful Assemblies

30 December 2013
The Malaysian Bar calls on the authorities, including assemblies. The provisions of the Peaceful Assembly
the police, to continue to facilitate peaceful public Act 2012 must be read and applied purposively to
assemblies, such as the one that civil society groups achieve this, and not applied narrowly, slavishly or
reportedly plan to hold at Dataran Merdeka on 31 technically to frustrate its purpose, as well as the
December 2013 to protest price hikes in the country. purpose of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
It is the constitutional right of any Malaysian to The police have in effect had more than 10 days’
assemble peacefully in public, whether in celebration notice of the planned event. The fact that the police
or in protest. This would be a legitimate expression have been speaking about the gathering is itself
by Malaysians of their concerns or objections, and an evidence of their knowledge. The police must not
exercise of their constitutional right. The existence be pedantic in looking at the Peaceful Assembly Act
of other avenues of raising their objections, such 2012. The notice period of 10 days in the Act is
as organising petitions, writing letters of complaint not intended to prevent an assembly, but to allow
or speaking to elected representatives, would not time for the police to make arrangements to facilitate
exclude or displace the right to peaceful and orderly an orderly and safe assembly. The police should
public assembly. These rights are cumulative and therefore have been spending the time engaging
indivisible: they have equal status, and none of them with the organisers on this basis, instead of thumping
operates to negate or exclude the exercise of the their chests and rattling their sabres.
other.
On various occasions in the past, the police have
The Malaysian Bar urges the police to respect, demonstrated that they can work with organisers
promote and protect the exercise of the fundamental of public assemblies to allow participants to walk or
freedoms of assembly and expression during such assemble, and openly and outwardly express their
gatherings, and not try to stymie or prevent the viewpoints, in safety. We commend these positive
press releases
and salutary examples. It is thus evident that, with responsibly and peacefully. We call on the police
proper liaising and cooperation, it is possible for the and Government to always protect and promote
police and the organisers to work together to ensure the freedoms of assembly and expression in a fair
that these events proceed smoothly and peacefully. and equitable manner. We also remind organisers
of public assemblies of their responsibility to take all
The Malaysian Bar reiterates that we support and reasonable action to ensure a peaceful assembly.
defend the principle of any individual or group’s
fundamental freedom to speak, assemble or Christopher Leong
walk in order to publicly and openly promote and President, Malaysian Bar
publicise a cause, if that freedom is exercised
Abide by the Federal Constitution; Focus on Achieving Harmony

and Unity
3 January 2014
The Malaysian Bar is concerned by reports that professing the religion of Islam. The purpose of the
Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (“JAIS”, the said Selangor Enactment is therefore an enactment
Selangor Islamic Religious Department) had on 2 against the propagation of other religions to Muslims
January 2014 conducted a raid on the office of the or the proselytisation of Muslims.
Bible Society of Malaysia (“BSM”), confiscated more
than 300 copies of the Alkitab (Bahasa Malaysia However, section 9(1) of the said Selangor Enactment
bible) and Bup Kudus (Iban bible), and arrested the provides that a person commits an offence if he in
President and the Office Manager of BSM. It is also any published writing, or public or broadcast speech
reported that the President and the Office Manager or statement uses any of the words listed in Part I of
have been required to present themselves to JAIS the Schedule “pertaining to any non-Islamic religion”.
officers on 10 January 2014. Similarly, section 9(2) provides that a person who
is not a Muslim commits an offence if he uses any
It is alarming that the religious body or enforcement of the expressions listed in Part II of the Schedule.
agency of one religion would purport to have Part I lists 25 Arabic words and Part II lists 10 Arabic
jurisdiction or purview over other religions. This phrases.
is not what is envisaged under the Federal
Constitution. The actions of JAIS are purported to It is immediately apparent that the provisions of
have been carried out pursuant to the Non-Islamic sections 9(1) and (2) are general in nature and ambit,
Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) and are not confined to the purpose stated in the
Enactment No 1 of 1988 of Selangor (“said Selangor preamble of the said Selangor Enactment and to
Enactment”), in particular sections 9 to 13 thereof. the limits proscribed in Article 11(4) of the Federal
Constitution. These provisions purport to make it an
The said Selangor Enactment is stated in its offence to merely use the listed words or phrases.
preamble to have been enacted pursuant to Article They purport to be general blanket prohibitions
11(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides and offences, irrespective of whether the words or
that State law may control or restrict the propagation phrases are used in the course, or for the purpose,
of any religious doctrine or belief among persons of propagation of a non-Islamic religion to Muslims.

In such circumstances, resort to sections 9(1) Thus, any authorisation pursuant to section 10 of
and (2) would be ultra vires the said Selangor the said Selangor Enactment, or any notification or
Enactment itself, as they go beyond the purpose gazette purporting to vest JAIS with such jurisdiction
and ambit of the said Selangor enactment as set or powers, would be repugnant to the Federal
out in its preamble, and as self-evident in its title. Constitution.
The impugned provisions are also unconstitutional,
inasmuch as they are unsupported by Article 11(4) Accordingly, the raid, seizure and arrest by JAIS
of the Federal Constitution. were unconstitutional and illegal. At a time when
we should be exerting our energies and resources
Further, Article 11(3) of the Federal Constitution towards national reconciliation and harmony, the
effectively provides for each religion to be self- actions by JAIS are unnecessarily provocative and
regulatory. This is to facilitate inter-religious harmony. unwise.
It is therefore unconstitutional for JAIS, an Islamic
body or enforcement agency, to have jurisdiction, We urge all Malaysians to act rationally and calmly,
powers and ambit over other religions or persons and continue to focus on achieving harmony and
professing other religions. This encroachment unity.
is in any event against the spirit of the Federal
Constitution. Christopher Leong
Declaration of Unlawfulness of COMANGO is Highly Flawed and

Must be Revoked
10 January 2014
The Malaysian Bar questions the legitimacy of the necessary for the purpose of giving effect to and
announcement by the Ministry of Home Affairs carrying out the provisions of this Act” lie with the
that the Coalition of Malaysian Non-Governmental Registrar of Societies. There is no provision for the
Organisations in the Universal Periodic Review Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs
(“COMANGO”) is unlawful. to make pronouncements under the Act. There is
further no provision for the delegation of power by
Firstly, the announcement came by way of a media the Minister to the Secretary General in this regard.
statement by the Secretary General of the Ministry
of Home Affairs, and referred to alleged non- Secondly, the media statement assumes that
compliance by COMANGO with the Societies Act COMANGO is a “society” within the definition of that
1966 (“Act”). There is no mention of any order made term in the Act. However, COMANGO in its name
by the Minister of Home Affairs under section 5 of clearly states that it is a coalition of non-governmental
the Act declaring COMANGO unlawful. Instead, organisations. It is not settled law that coalitions
it refers to the fact that since COMANGO is not need to be registered under the Act. In fact, the
registered under section 7 of the Act, then by virtue argument was raised in Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
of section 41(1)(b) of the Act COMANGO is an & Ors v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2012] 5 MLRH
unlawful society. However, under section 3A of the 181 that coalitions and unincorporated associations
Act, the powers, duties and functions “as may be need not be registered. It is public knowledge that
press releases
the High Court in that case held that the Minister of organisations of COMANGO are in fact not societies,
Home Affairs’ declaration that BERSIH was an illegal but companies registered under the Companies Act
organisation was “tainted with irrationality”, and 1965 or bodies registered under some other law
quashed the declaration. regarding registration of organisations, and therefore
not required to be registered under the Act. By
Thirdly, the media statement alleges that one of failing to make this point clear, the media statement
the aims of COMANGO is to champion rights that perpetuates the impression that something illegal or
deviate from the religion of Islam. When one looks amiss is taking place.
at the submission made by COMANGO to the
United Nations Human Rights Council in March Seventhly, the media statement totally avoids
2013, a copy of which was delivered at about the mentioning that the Malaysian Government has
same time to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, only been engaging with COMANGO since September
four out of 63 recommendations deal with issues 2008 when preparations for the 1st Universal Periodic
relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Review of Malaysia by the United Nations Human
intersex and questioning (“LGBTIQ”) communities, Rights Council were being made. The Malaysian
sexual orientation and gender identity. Even these Government has had more than five years to check
four recommendations are presented in the context on the background of COMANGO and has had no
of ending discrimination in law and practice. It is problems working with it until now. To now declare
hard to imagine these four recommendations, which COMANGO to be unlawful when for the past five
are grounded upon a call to non-discrimination of years the Malaysian Government has had direct
human beings, as constituting a threat to the belief dealings with it smacks of mala fide.
and practice of Islam in Malaysia.
Finally, by embarking on this course of action,
Fourthly, the media statement is mischievous in that the Malaysian Government has publicly made
it makes the highly prejudicial reference that most of known that it has no intention of promoting and
the member organisations of COMANGO are non- protecting the right to free speech or the right to
Muslim-based, as though there were something freedom of assembly. Its only standard operating
wrong or illegal about that, when in fact there is not. procedure appears to be to ban or declare unlawful
This is highly irregular and very irresponsible. any organisation or coalition of organisations that
appears to promote views that are not in consonance
Fifthly, the media statement is in error when it states with that of the Malaysian Government, or whose
that only 15 of the 54 member organisations of ongoing presence is a bane to its continuance in
COMANGO are registered under the Act. The power.
Ministry of Home Affairs does not appear to have
access to accurate or up-to-date records, as several The Malaysian Bar calls on the Malaysian Government
organisations listed as not being registered under to immediately retract the media statement and
the Act are in fact registered under the Act, including revoke the declaration of unlawfulness, flawed as it
Association of Women Lawyers, Christian Federation is on so many levels. Instead, it should welcome
of Malaysia, PS The Children, and Women’s Centre and constructively engage with COMANGO to adopt
for Change, Penang. and implement as many of the 63 recommendations
as possible. This can only lead to a more decent,
Sixthly, the media statement again mischievously honourable and human rights-positive country that
states that every society that intends to carry out all mature and right-thinking Malaysians hope for.
activities legally in the country must be registered with
the Jabatan Pendaftaran Pertubuhan Malaysia. It
conveniently omits to state that some of the member Christopher Leong

The Government Should Not be Exempted from the Construction
Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012
5 February 2014
The Malaysian Bar urges the Government to While the Bar maintains its support for an exemption
implement the Construction Industry Payment and for the particular industries mentioned above, we
Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”) as soon as possible. strongly object to the proposal that certain classes
of Government construction contracts should be
No date has been stipulated for CIPAA to come into exempted. The Bar is of the view that this would
force, although the legislation was gazetted on 22 undermine a substantial basis of the legislation.
June 2012.
The objective of CIPAA — to facilitate efficient,
The Bar has continuously maintained its support for smooth and uninterrupted construction works
the implementation of the legislation, subject always by supporting contractors getting paid pending
to the proviso that certain industries should be final determination of disputes — should not be
exempted, namely defence, oil and gas, energy, and forgotten. The very purpose of the legislation would
water. The rationale for such an exemption is that be defeated by the Government not participating in
these are strategic, as well as sensitive, industries. certain classes of construction contracts.
Nevertheless, in respect of the contracts affecting
these industries, there should be proper guidelines The Bar urges the Government to reconsider its
that allow for the exemption. stand and to participate fully in the objectives and
purpose of CIPAA. The legislation should be applied
Bar Council has written to the relevant ministry to equally across the construction industry in order to
enquire about the implementation of CIPAA, and was actually benefit the entire industry.
informed that the regulations await comments from,
and approval by, the Attorney General’s Chambers. The Bar is willing and ready to assist in any, and
every, possible way for the proper and efficient
However, Bar Council has now been informed implementation of CIPAA.
that the Government has requested an exemption
under CIPAA for certain Government construction Christopher Leong
contracts. President Malaysian Bar
press releases
Justice Tempered with Mercy: Abolish the Death Penalty, and

Commute Death Sentences to Life Imprisonment
6 February 2014
The Malaysian Bar has just learnt that the authorities (b) It is acknowledged that no criminal justice
intend to carry out the death sentence on Chandran legal system in the world is foolproof, error-
s/o Paskaran at the Kajang prison on 7 February free or fail-safe. In the instance of the death
2014. On 16 April 2008 Chandran s/o Paskaran was penalty, there is no opportunity to correct an
convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to error, as the execution of the death sentence is
death under section 302 of the Penal Code. irreversible.
The Malaysian Bar appeals to the authorities and the There is no denying that guilty persons ought to
Government for clemency, and to stay the execution receive punishment. But that is not the same as
of Chandran s/o Paskaran. The Malaysian Bar also saying that they therefore ought to be put to death.
appeals to the authorities and the Government to Even in the case of a convicted murderer, the death
take appropriate steps to eventually commute his penalty is a reflection of the notion that “an eye for an
death sentence to one of life imprisonment. eye” provides the best form of justice, a concept that
we should not embrace nor practise today, bearing
In Malaysia, the death penalty is mandatory for in mind that at present there is no criminal justice
persons convicted of murder, trafficking in narcotics system emplaced that is foolproof.
of various specified amounts, and discharging a
firearm in the commission of various specified crimes It is incongruous for Malaysia, as a civilised society, to
(even where no one is hurt). condemn the barbarity of murder by responding with
State-sanctioned taking of life. The death penalty
The Malaysian Bar advocates for the abolition of the has no place in any society that values human life,
death penalty, in the belief that every individual has an justice and mercy.
inherent right to life. This right is absolute, universal
and inalienable, irrespective of any crimes that may The Malaysian Government has since 2010
have been committed. The rationale for the abolition announced its willingness to relook at the mandatory
of the death penalty is made more compelling when death penalty, with a view to its possible abolition
we consider that: or the reintroduction of a discretionary death
penalty. The then-de facto Minister for Law, Dato’
(a) There is no empirical evidence to support Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, said that the
the notion that the death penalty serves as Government would be in favour of abolishing the
an effective deterrent to the commission mandatory death penalty if a majority of Malaysians
of crimes. Arguably, there has been no were in favour of it.
significant reduction in the crimes for which the
death penalty is currently mandatory. This is In July 2012, the Attorney General announced that
particularly true of drug-related offences. For the Attorney General’s Chambers was considering
instance, drug-related offences and addiction proposing an amendment to the Dangerous Drugs
have been on the rise in Malaysia despite the Act 1952 to give judges the discretion not to impose
1983 amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act the death sentence on drug couriers, commonly
1952, which introduced the mandatory death known as “drug mules”. The Attorney General’s
penalty; and Chambers was reportedly also considering a
proposal that those on death row be resentenced.

On 8 July 2013, the Malaysian Bar co-launched the Parliament on 14 November 2013, the Government
results of a major survey of Malaysian citizens, carried and the Attorney General’s Chambers informed
out in November and December 2012 through face- those present that they were in the midst of reviewing
to face interviews, by IPSOS Malaysia. The survey the mandatory death penalty.
was commissioned by the Death Penalty Project,
a leading international human rights organisation In light of such review, the authorities and the
based in the United Kingdom, and analysed by Government should, in the interests of justice,
Professor Roger Hood, Professor Emeritus of impose an immediate official moratorium on any
Criminology at the University of Oxford. and all executions of the death sentence. There are
currently about 900 persons on death row awaiting
The results of the survey showed that there was very execution. All of these sentences, including that of
little public support in Malaysia for the mandatory Chandran s/o Paskaran, should be stayed pending
death penalty. It showed that the majority of the results of the review on the mandatory death
Malaysian citizens favoured a discretionary death penalty. It is unfair, unjust and ghastly to carry out the
penalty for murder, but the majority did not favour death sentence when there is currently a possibility
use of the death penalty at all, when presented of reform of the mandatory death penalty.
with typical cases of drug trafficking and non-fatal
firearms offences. The Malaysian Bar reiterates its call on the Malaysian
Government to abolish the death penalty without
Given this, public opinion is not a barrier to the reform delay. Those who have been sentenced with the
of the mandatory capital sentencing law for murder, mandatory death penalty should all be resentenced.
or to its complete abolition for drug trafficking and In the meantime, there must logically be an immediate
non-fatal firearms offences. moratorium on all executions.
At an event entitled “Dialogue with Members of

Parliament on the Reintroduction of Discretionary Christopher Leong
Sentencing for Capital Punishment” held at President Malaysian Bar
press releases
The Malaysian Bar Welcomes Show of Mercy in Stay of Execution of

Death Sentence
7 February 2014
The Malaysian Bar is heartened by, and welcomes, In light of such review, the authorities and the
the show of compassion and the swift intervention Government should, in the interests of justice,
of the Duli Yang Maha Mulia Sultan of Johore, impose an immediate official moratorium on any and
which resulted in the stay of execution of the death all executions of the death sentence.
sentence on Chandran s/o Paskaran, scheduled for
today. The Malaysian Bar is of the view that the death
penalty should be abolished, as every individual
The Bar also welcomes the chorus of voices of civil has an inherent right to life. This right is absolute,
society actors that called for the execution to be universal and inalienable, irrespective of any crimes
stayed. that may have been committed. The death penalty
has no place in a society that values human life,
In addition, the Bar commends the Prime Minister justice and mercy.
and his Government for their role in this matter. The
Bar notes that the Malaysian Government has since The Malaysian Bar reiterates its call on the Malaysian
2010 announced its willingness to relook at the Government to abolish the death penalty without
mandatory death penalty, with a view to its possible delay. Those who have been sentenced with the
abolition or the reintroduction of a discretionary mandatory death penalty should all be resentenced.
death penalty.
Christopher Leong
At an event entitled “Dialogue with Members of President, Malaysian Bar
Parliament on the Reintroduction of Discretionary
Sentencing for Capital Punishment” held at
Parliament on 14 November 2013, the Government
and the Attorney General’s Chambers informed
those present that they were in the midst of reviewing
the mandatory death penalty.

financial statements
Malaysian Bar
Bar Council Legal Aid Centres

357 Statement of Income and Expenditure Account
358 Schedule of Expenditure
Discipline Fund

























BAR COUNCIL SECRETARIAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART 2013/2014
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
RAJEN DEVARAJ
DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CHIN OY SIM
COMMUNICATION & COMPLIANCE AND

COMMUNICATIONS FINANCE
FINANCE
AND ADMINISTRATION
& ADMIN PRACTITIONERS AFFAIRS
MEMBERSHIP INTEREST MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS DIRECT
OR - RAJEN DEV

Ad Hoc Committee on Conditional Fee Rules
INFORMATION FINANCE
PUBLICATION ADMISSION Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
TECHNOLOGY Arbitration Subcommittee
Committee on Judicial Matters
Committee on Orang Asli Rights
Constitutional Law Committee
LIBRARY COMPENSATION FUND
MEMBERSHIP HUMAN RESOURCE Conveyancing Practice Committee
Corporate and Commercial Law Committee
Court Liaison Committee
Criminal Law Committee
PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY Environment and Climate Change Committee
PUBLIC RELATIONS
LIBRARY COMPLAINTS AND INTERVENTION
ADMISSION Family Law Committee
INSURANCE
Finance Committee
Industrial Law Committee
PUBLICATIONS
LIBRARY Intellectual Property Committee
LAW
CARE
LAWCARE SPECIAL PROJECTS International Malaysia Law Conference 2014 Organising Committee
Islamic Finance Committee
Jawatankuasa Bahasa Melayu
LawCare Committee
MEMBERSHIP
OMPENSATION
C FUND Legal Profession Committee
Migrants, Refugees and Immigration Affairs Committee
BAR COUNCIL SECRETARIAT ORGANISATIONAL CHART 2013/2014
National Legal Aid Committee

National YoungNALawyers Committee
Professional Indemnity Insurance Committee
Safer Malaysia Committee
Sports Committee
Subcommittee on Construction Law
Syariah Law Committee
Task Force on Addressing Corruption
Task Force on Combined Rules of Court
Task Force to Review the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Bar Council Staﬀ 2013/2014
Standing, fourth row (left to right) : Mohd Idzwan b Ismail, Marlina bt Mohd Nor, Anthonia William, Toni Haryadi b Irman, Mohd Shah Azrul b Shaari, Liew Tuck Onn, Mohamad Fazli b Rosman,
Mohammad Hafiz b Hamzah, Yap Yoong Jian, Khairul Anuar Md Salleh, Brenden Anthony Kwa Swee Hong, Mohamad Fairuz b Pakir Mohamad
Standing, third row (left to right) : Syamil b Mohd Othman, Tan Xiu-Yen Janice, Deivenran s/o Baskaran, Baizura bt Abd Razak, Ahmad Razif b Abdul Wahab, Sagela K Gopal Nair, John Cheah Weng Onn,
Rajeswari d/o Gunarasa, Mohd Esman b Basri, Edna P Sta Ana, Mohammad Fadzli b Ghafar, Anuradha d/o M Andiappan, Anneliz Reina George, Nishta Jiwa, Chuah Ying Ying,
Mazillah Azwin bt Kamal Azmi, Mysahra bt Shawkat Ali, Noor Aida bt Mohamed, Olivia Oh Li Ann, Nur Aisyah bt Ahmad Afandi, Annamary d/o Soosay,
Noor Kamillah bt Che Kassim, Nur Atiqah bt Muhammad Mahfol, Chandramalar d/o K Muthu, Germaine Low Ee Ling, Nurhidayah bt Johari
Standing, second row (left to right) : Anne Fatimah A Andrew, Kwan Yin Cheng, Nalini Letchman, Lilian Chong Pek Ling, Joane Sharmila Antony, Cheong Chee Kein, Punitha Subramaniam, Amara Vathany d/o
Ratha Krishnan, Vilashini d/o Vijayan, Marianna Laureen Tan, Parameswary d/o Balakrishnan, Ruhil Amal bt Abdul Razak, Hemalatha d/o Subramaniam, Sharifah Fairuz bt
Syed Abdul Ghaffar, Sree Gayithiri d/o Maruthuvellu, Zurina bt Abdul Latif, Iznina Rafa bt Abdul Rafa, Suhana bt Mohd Fazil, Puteri Nurzaitulshima bt Mohd Bustami,
Christina Adele Gomez, Saidanafisaa bt Setu, Ranjeetpal Kaur Jaspal Singh, Siti Mariam bt Zainal Abidin, Anusha d/o Gopala Krishnan, Vanimalar d/o Moneyselvam,
Geraldine Chye Min Li, Florence Laway, Prisca Leong Mae Jern, Sangheetha Kuppusamy
Sitting (left to right) : Saliha bt Hassan, Thanuja Rani d/o Sree Narayana Ram, Cheryl Foo Chooi Quan, Gayathri d/o Chidambara Iyer, Chin Oy Sim, Rajen Devaraj, Jessie Blayau Anak Ngelayang,
Lily Aw Kim Lee, A Ezane Mansor b Obaid, Kenneth Ang Joo How, Santhi Latha, Pathmavathy d/o Chellathurai
Staff not pictured : Anpanandan Kathavarayan, Bharathi d/o Chandra Sekaro, Farah Diana bt Musa, Fefi Maili Rahmat, Hanis Marina bt Mohd Hashim, Khadijah Tan bt Abdullah, Kindsey Anak
Chikros, Kok Lai Kuin, Lau Chern Loong, Letchumi d/o Thamboo, Md Faizal b Mahat, Mohamad Shah b Zainudin, Mohd Faris b Yusuf, Mohd Rithaudin b Abu Bakar,
Muhammad Akbar b Azis, Muhammad Noor Hidayat b Haji Rohani, Muleepatrani d/o Chandra Sekaro, Nahdhatusyima bt Osman, Noor’Ain bt Hj Arshad, Nor Zuraida bt
Abdullah, Nor’Aliza bt Ilyasa, Nur Adibah Ahmad Hadzer, Ravinderjit Kaur d/o Bagwan Singh, Rohana bt Roslee, Roslina bt Razak, Saiful Rizal b Mohd Karim, Salbiah bt Hassan,
Satha Selvan s/o Subramaniam, Shahriz Rezal b Nordin, Siti Nurdiana bt Mohamed Nordin, Siti Rokiah bt Morshid, Su See Mun, Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna, Suriati bt Dalilan,
Tan Soay Ling, Taneshkumar s/o Nagarajan, Tharmaraj s/o Sundran, Thavamani Devi d/o Muniandy, Thong Oi Li, Tomis Anak Peter Samat, Vishnu Jeevapragasan

Ar 2013-14 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ar 2013-14 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Council Malaysia

15 Leboh Pasar Besar

We are online at www.malaysianbar.org.my

© 2014 All rights reserved

annual report 2011/12

annual report 2011/12

276 PRESS RELEASES

Bar Council Legal Aid Centres

375 Bar Council Secretariat Organisational Chart 2013/2014

annual report 2011/12

Dated: 24 February 2014

Richard Wee Thiam Seng

4 | 2013/14 annual report

Item Subject Update

(i) Car park at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya;

6 | 2013/14 annual report

(d) Long queues at e-filing (d) BC is looking into this issue.

BC will follow up with the Attorney General regarding the status of

Item Subject Update

8 | 2013/14 annual report

10 | 2013/14 annual report

12 | 2013/14 annual report

14 | 2013/14 annual report

16 | 2013/14 annual report

18 | 2013/14 annual report

20 | 2013/14 annual report

22 | 2013/14 annual report

4.5.13 National Legal Aid Committee 4.5.17 Publications Committee

24 | 2013/14 annual report

Item 6 of the agenda

6.1 Motion no 5.1

26 | 2013/14 annual report

(11) Given that:

It is hereby resolved that:

28 | 2013/14 annual report

30 | 2013/14 annual report

32 | 2013/14 annual report

34 | 2013/14 annual report

36 | 2013/14 annual report

38 | 2013/14 annual report

40 | 2013/14 annual report

42 | 2013/14 annual report

6.2 Motion no 5.3

NEW SECTION OF S49 OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976

REASON FOR THE MOTION

This motion was withdrawn.

6.3 Motion no 5.4

This motion was withdrawn.

44 | 2013/14 annual report

YEAR SUBSCRIPTION EXPENSES SURPLUS/DEFICIT

(i) RM10,000 for the Interstate Bar Games in Selangor;

46 | 2013/14 annual report

48 | 2013/14 annual report

(a) RM300.00 annually in case of single-solicitor firms;

(Currently it is RM1500.00 per term of two years + RM40.00 per year).

50 | 2013/14 annual report

Charles Hector Fernandez noted that although RM70 (As amended)

The motion, as amended, was put to a vote, and was

52 | 2013/14 annual report

54 | 2013/14 annual report

56 | 2013/14 annual report

58 | 2013/14 annual report

60 | 2013/14 annual report