Jan–Mar 2011 www.malaysianbar.org.

my

Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar

Unified in a
Common
PLUS
PLUS
Of
Of Sunscreen,
Sunscreen, BBs
BBs and
and

Purpose
Successful
Successful Lawyers
Lawyers
How
How can
can you
you defend
defend
aa criminal?
criminal?
In collaboration with

For Malaysian Bar circulation only


Kelly’s Legal Precedents
Twentieth Edition
A unique collection of the main
forms and precedents
by R.W. Ramage
Formerly known as
Kelly’s Draftsman
Order Now!
via our eBookstore @
www.lexisnexis.com/
store/my/
RM
Hard Cover
550
ISBN 978 818 038 666 8
www.lexisnexis.com/store/my
to browse and purchase books online
Kelly’s Legal Precedents is an unrivalled practical research and drafting tool
that covers a broad range of subjects in depth. The new edition is up-to-date
with FA2010 and incorporates all major legislative changes since the
publication of the previous edition.
Table of Contents
• Definitions – words and • Assents
expressions • Change of name
• Standard Clauses • Family
• Declarations (statutory) and • Gifts
Statements • Power of attorney
• Formal Part of Documents • Trusts and Trustees
• Arbitration • Wills
• Bills of exchange • Building Agreements
• Bills of sale • Easements and boundaries
• Commercial Documents • Leases and Tenancy Agreements
• Companies • Mortgages
• Employment • Sale of Land
• Guarantees and indemnities • Associations
• Partnership • Charities and community
• Sale of shares and businesses interest companies
A must have for
Solicitors, Accountants, Company Secretaries, Legal Professionals & others
related to the field
Log on to For Enquiry, please contact our
Helpdesk at 1800-80-6374 or Follow us on Twitter @
Email: help.my@lexisnexis.com http://twitter.com/LexisNexisMY
Promo code: MM1101-003
January–March 2011 Contents

PRAXIS Contents
CHRONICLE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR

President’s Message
Editorial
Features/Articles
BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA
4 Arrest and Detention of the Bar Council Legal Aid Lawyers
6 Recent Federal Court’s Decision on section 340 of the
BAR COUNCIL National Land Code 1965: Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian
15 Leboh Pasar Besar
50050 Kuala Lumpur San & Ors – Are Landowners and Banks Secured?
Tel No: 603-2031 3003
Fax No: 603-2026 1313 / 603-2034 2825 / 603-2072 5818 12 Of Sunscreen, BBs and Successful Lawyers
Email Add: council@malaysianbar.org.my
Website: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my
14 How can you defend a criminal?
17 Redbook Arrest – Harassment of Justice
MEMBERS OF BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA 2010/2011 18 The Rule of Law and the Law of Rules: A Semi-Sceptical
President : Ragunath Kesavan Perspective
Vice-President : Lim Chee Wee
Secretary : George Varughese 26 A Conversation with the CEO
Treasurer : Tony Woon Yeow Thong

Aaron Abraham | Ahmad Taufiq b Baharum | Amirruddin b Abu Bakar | Anand Ponnudurai
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock | Aziz b Haniff | S Balarajah (from December 2010) | Brendan Navin Siva
Events
Cecil Rajendra | Christopher Leong | Edmund Bon Tai Soon | Gnasegaran s/o Egamparam
Hendon Mohamed | Jaspal Singh Gill | Kanarasan Ghandinesen | Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari 28 Kempen PerlembagaanKu: Perjalanan Setakat Ini
Low Beng Choo | Mad Diah b Endut | K Mohan K Kumaran | Mukhtar b Abdullah
Murelidaran Navaratnam | Nazira bt Abd Rahim | Ng Kong Peng | Rajpal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh 31 Upcoming Events
M Ramachelvam | Sarengapani s/o K Rajoo | Shamsuriah bt Sulaiman | Steven Thiru
Sulaiman b Abdullah | P Suppiah (until November 2010) | Syamsuriatina Ishak 32 21st POLA Conference
Yasmeen bt Hj Mohd Shariff | Zainuritha-Alfa bt Datuk Abu Hassan
34 15th Malaysian Law Conference;
EDITORIAL BOARD Showcasing the Rule of Law, Corporate Governance
Bar Council LexisNexis and Malaysia as a Premier Business Destination
Syamsuriatina Ishak – Editor Ivan Yap – Contract Publishing Manager

Azman Thaiyub Khan –
Chua Ai Lin &
Anis Taufik (fr Jan 2011) –
Brendan Navin Siva &
Noor Arianti Osman –
Rachel Tan Mei Chien –
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE 2010/2011
Lifestyle
Assistant Editor Razlina Razali – Associate Editor
Agnes Tan – Design and Production
Officers-in-charge Aniza Zaharuddin – Marketing & Advertising
Editing Team 36 Through the Lens – Moh Kok Wai
Marketing & Advertising
40 Advertorial – Monterez Golf & Country Club: golf, leisure,
chilling and dining
Syamsuriatina Ishak (Chairperson) 42 Advertorial – Not your average Cruze
Azman Thaiyub Khan (Deputy Chairperson)
Chua Ai Lin (Officer-in-charge)

Desmond Ho Chee Cheong | Dipendra Harshad Rai | Fahri Azzat | Hamidi Izwan Ahmad Soffian
Sports
Harcharan Singh Najar Singh | Janet Chai Pei Ying | Johnson Lim Fung Tat
Kanarasan Ghandinesen | Kenny Lai Choe Ken | Khairul Anuar Shaharuddin | Ng Chung Yee 44 Highlights of Sports Events
Nitin Kumar Gordhan | Noor Arianti Osman | Mohd Reza Abu Hassan
Rao Suryana bt Abdul Rahman | Valerie Choo Huae Ling
State Bar News
Book Review
LexisNexis MaLaysia sdN Bhd 51 The PAM 2006 Standard Form of Building Contract
T1-6, Jaya 33, 3, Jalan Semangat
Seksyen 13, 46100 Petaling Jaya
Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia
Tel: (603) 7882 3500, Fax: (603) 7882 3506
By The Way ...
Praxis is the official publication of Bar Council Malaysia, published quarterly in collaboration with
LexisNexis Malaysia Sdn Bhd, for circulation to Members of the Malaysian Bar.
52 Crossword puzzle
Bar Council Malaysia, and its authorised authors and designers of Praxis, accept no liability for
53 Sudoku & Poem – Justice & Jamtarts
any loss arising from the use of, or reliance on, Praxis. The Bar Council does not warrant
the accuracy of the contents thereof or any statement made by the contributors, writers
or advertisers herein, and does not accept responsibility or liability in relation thereto. Bar Updates/Notices
Statements of contributors, writers or advertisers herein represent their persional
views and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar Council or the Malaysian Bar.
54 Summary of Circulars
All users are permitted to view the content of Praxis, without prejudice to the intellectual property
rights belonging to Bar Council Malaysia. However, any unauthorised reproduction, duplication,
55 Library Updates – New Books, Legislative Updates
transmission or alteration, in any form or by any means, whether in part or in whole, of Praxis,
is strictly prohibited. Bar Council Malaysia also prohibits the use of Praxis and all or any of
65 Disciplinary Orders
its contents herein, for commercial and/or personal gain, profit or sale. 68 Notice Regarding Documents in Bar Council’s Custody
© 2011 All rights reserved.

Enquiries on advertising:
Aniza Zaharuddin - aniza.zaharuddin@lexisnexis.com
Rachel Tan - rachel@malaysianbar.org.my Jan–M
ar 2011

Article contribution:
Chro
nicle
of th

Bar Council Malaysia welcomes letters, articles, views and news (including photographs) for possible
e Ma
la ysian
Bar

inclusion in Praxis. However, Bar Council Malaysia reserves the right not to publish or to edit those
published for content, clarity, style and space considerations. Contributions and enquiries may be
directed to articles@malaysianbar.org.my.

Circulation: 14,000
Unifie
Com d in a
Cover credit
Purpomon
Photography: Moh Kok Wai
PLU
PLUS

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

Art Direction: Azman Thaiyub Khan

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 1

 President’s Message
Braving the Changing
Environment
Penned by the President
I
t is my pleasure to pen a few words on the occasion of the
publication of this latest edition of Praxis. Praxis has been an
important journal that serves to capture the contemporary
challenges facing the practice of law in Malaysia, as well as the
achievements, and I am pleased to see it once again in print after
a lapse of over two years. During this time we continued to release
Praxis, but only an online version.
Life at the Bar continues to be demanding, and we are repeatedly
called upon to respond to a changing environment. Allow me to
highlight a number of matters that I believe are significant.
Changes in the court system and challenges. Bar Council has
continued to raise the issue of the over-emphasis on the numerical
disposal rate of cases in various dialogues with the Chief Justice
and senior members of the Judiciary. At the last meeting with
the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge
of Malaya and Managing Judges, held on 29 Sept 2010, a
consensus was reached on some key matters. Courts will schedule
hearing dates for full trials after ascertaining the availability of
all parties involved. Pre-fixed hearing dates will not be brought
forward without the consent of all counsel. Oral submissions are
permissible even where parties have filed written submissions. The
Chief Justice discourages the practice of written submissions for
most interlocutory matters, and parties are therefore urged to
request the courts to hear oral submissions.
The Chief Justice launched an audio conferencing system for
the courts on 15 Oct 2010. This means that it will be possible
to conduct case management via telephone. While it is a small
innovation, it will reduce the need to be at court (with all its
attendant problems) in order to fix dates for trials and other
related practical matters. It should contribute to speeding up case
management and making practice life a little more convenient.
Motor Insurance. I am relieved that the government has decided
not to proceed with Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”)’s proposed
reforms. BNM had recommended that third party bodily injury
and death motor insurance claims be subject to a RM2m ceiling
amount. The entire third party motor insurance scheme would be
brought under the establishment of a “Newco” to manage the
scheme. BNM will now not revamp the existing system but will
focus instead on expediting payment of claims to accident victims.
BNM is considering Bar Council’s request for the formation of a
joint committee consisting of all stakeholders.
National Legal Aid Foundation. I hope that by the time you read
this, the Foundation (or Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan
“YBGK”) will have been launched. Currently, too many persons
are unrepresented in criminal trials, a situation that is very
troubling. YBGK, once established, will be an independent body
2 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
that administers funds given for legal aid in the country. It will
fund the provision of legal aid, enhance services for lawyers to
represent those needing legal representation, determine the
guidelines for the administration of the national legal aid scheme,
and initiate and carry out educational programmes designed to
promote understanding amongst members of the public of their
rights and duties under the laws of Malaysia. YBGK will focus
on obtaining representation for persons caught in the criminal
justice system — from the point of arrest to court hearings. Those
who do work for YBGK will be remunerated. YBGK will be a
collaborative effort involving the government, the Malaysian Bar,
and the private sector. A working committee has been established
and is looking into various methods to ensure the long-term
funding of YBGK.
Professional Indemnity Insurance (“PII”). We are pleased to inform
Members that the PII base premium for 2011 has dropped by
7.7% to RM1,200 per Member, down from RM1,300, while
policy terms and coverage remain unchanged.
Risk management (“RM”) continues to be a crucial aspect of
the PII scheme’s development and sustainability. The Bar Council
Secretariat’s PII and RM Department continue to organise
workshops and develop new practice tools. These practice tools
are aimed at identifying potential problem areas, addressing them
ahead of time and minimising risk. Two recent additions are our
“Setting Up Practice” and “Accounting for Lawyers” practice
booklets, which are essential reading to prepare lawyers for the
rigours of running a practice in today’s environment.
What I have written above is a snapshot of practical issues that
Bar Council is addressing on behalf of Members. It is by no
means a comprehensive survey, but is intended to highlight key
developments in the area of legal practice. I hope that Praxis will
continue to serve as a conduit through which practice-related
issues will be brought to the attention of Members.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the Bar Council’s Publications
Committee, headed by Syamsuriatina Ishak (Chairperson), with
the assistance of Azman Ali Thaiyub Khan (Deputy Chairperson)
and Chua Ai Lin (Writer/Editor at the Secretariat), for their
determination and collective hard work in bringing this initiative
to fruition. My thanks go to LexisNexis as well; needless to say,
the revival of a print version of Praxis would also not have been
possible without its collaboration and support.
Happy reading.
Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar
21 Dec 2010

From the Editor’s keyboard ...
O
ccasionally, I find myself wondering why I
chose the legal profession as a career.
You know how that feeling goes? Work
assignments pile up and seem never ending; I
spend more time waiting than being heard at
the courts; clients are sometimes unnecessarily
difficult, not to mention exasperatingly
sluggish at paying my dues ...
But, just when I may think of throwing in
the towel, I remind myself of other aspects
of this career that endear themselves to me:
the occasional “big” and meaningful win
after years of hard work; the satisfaction after
seeing a junior lawyer or student improve upon
receiving some knowledge imparted by me; a
nod of approval of colleagues and judges at a
point well argued; the moments when a client
earnestly (and sometimes tearfully) thank me
for assisting them in their legal troubles. And
then, there is the feeling of satisfaction I get
from being involved in the Bar ...
Anyone who has ever been involved in Bar
activities would agree with me – despite the
hard work it entails, one cannot discount
the satisfaction derived from being involved
in programmes organised by the Bar’s
Committees, whether it be rendering legal
assistance to deserving members of the public,
partaking efforts to improve our profession,
lobbying for legislative development, speaking
out on human rights issues or even raising
awareness on predicaments suffered by the
ordinary citizen at various outreach events.
It’s because we all know these efforts, albeit
small, make a positive difference in the lives of
people around us.
This brother/sisterhood of intelligent individuals
may not always see eye to eye, but we cannot
deny the unique position that the Malaysian
Bar is in to contribute to society ...
In the challenging times which we faced this
past year, the Malaysian Bar and its statutory
leading body, the Bar Council, have often
come under attack. We were criticised for
not doing enough, for doing too much, for
leaning too much to one side and not enough
to the other. Being newly exposed at the
Dear Readers,
We are pleased to invite any comments regarding our content. All comments may be sent via email to articles@malaysianbar.org.my by 15 Mar 2011.
The best five will be printed in our “Comments from our readers” section, wherein our favourite amongst them will also receive a free copy of the Book reviewed in
the “Book Review” section of each Praxis Issue commented upon. For this issue, the book up for grabs is “The PAM 2006 Standard Form of Building Contract”.
For this purpose, please provide your details – name, law firm name and address, telephone number and email address. While we shall only identify printed comments
by name, firm name and state, comments that omit providing full details will be disqualified from reproduction.
Happy writing!
heart of it all, it is literally mind boggling to
see the dilemmas faced by the volunteers who
put themselves in constant hot soup for the
sake of others or the lengths theses men and
women go through (often thanklessly) to help
others. Weeding out a few bad apples and
improving the profession are but a small part
of the challenges faced daily by these men
and women. It makes me very proud to be
counted amongst them.
It is indeed heart-warming to see that we, for
the most part, stick together and stand out
for each other. Non-members may wonder –
Why do we do this? I conclude it’s because we
know – no matter what, this is an association
by us and for us, and no one’s going to do
it better, all the while also playing its part
in advocating for issues affecting the rest of
society ...
So, I take my hat off to all of you – Members
of the Malaysian Bar – by presenting a revival
of our very own Praxis, Chronicle of the
Malaysian Bar – that we may celebrate this
camaraderie of association, keep abreast of
events and developments, share the different
perspectives involving our profession and the
industry around us.
The Editorial team is proud to unveil the
Jan-Mar 2011 issue of Praxis - featuring
a varied collection of interesting content,
with this issue’s central theme: “Unified
in a Common Purpose”. Two feature
articles – Yohendra Nadarajah’s “Arrest &
Detention of Bar Council Legal Aid Lawyers”
and Richard Wee’s “Redbook Arrest –
Harassment of Justice” discuss the difficulties
faced by lawyers in carrying out their duties
and how our association prevails in spite of
adversities thrown our way.
Thematically intertwined is the Editorial team’s
choice frontage for this first quarter issue –
the enchanting photograph captured by our
guest amateur photographer and full-time
lawyer, Moh Kok Wai, with art direction by
Azman Thaiyub Khan. The colourful matches
reflect the myriad of individuals making up
the Malaysian legal fraternity – different
Editorial
shapes, sizes, inclinations and views – some
short, some long, some red, some blue, some
yellow, some fresh, some already burnt-out or
worn down ... All tied together, as a symbol
of communality, of a common purpose ...
Professional pride arising, not out of a false
sense of elitism, but the constant strive to
achieve meaning in our lives ... and others.
In the new Praxis’ art direction, the team has
made a conscious effort to spruce up the feel
of the magazine, departing from the concept
of a mere newsletter, with the hope that
Members will be attracted by its pleasing new
layout and general outlook.
The launch of this project would
not have been possible without the
dedication of my two right-hand people
– Chua Ai Lin and Azman Thaiyub Khan.
My thanks must also
go to the dedicated
editorial and design
team of LexisNexis
(Malaysia); the
commendable
effort of individual
contributors; the
Editing Team –
Brendan Navin Siva
and Noor Arianti
Osman; members
of the Publication
C o m m i t t e e
2010/2011; State Bar Committee members
and secretariats; and last but no means least,
the Bar Council 2010/2011 term members, in
particular the Office Bearers for their constant
support and encouragement.
May we move forward in this new year with
the promise and optimism that once again,
while we strive to be the best that we can
be, that we may do so in the solidarity as one
Bar ...
Best regards,
Syamsuriatina Ishak
Editor and Chairperson of the Bar Council
Publications Committee 2010/2011
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 3
 Features/Articles
Arrest and Detention of the Bar
Council Legal Aid Lawyers
by Yohendra Nadarajan
Such violations of human rights occurred because the relevant officers
did not understand nor appreciate the functions and duties of defence
lawyers in the context of the criminal justice system.
On the evening of 7 May 2009, five Bar
Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur)
(“KL LAC”) lawyers were arrested at the
Brickfields Police Station. The five were
Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Chairperson of
KL LAC), Fadiah Nadwa bt Fikri (Secretary
of KL LAC), Murnie Hidayah bt Anuar,
Puspawati bt Rosman and Syuhaini bt
Safwan.
They tried to gain access to their 14
clients who had themselves been arrested
earlier that evening for participating in
a candlelight vigil in support of arrested
political scientist Wong Chin Huat for
sedition at the same police station. I was
also at the scene with the five KL LAC
lawyers but I was not detained during the
arrest of the five KL LAC lawyers.
The police were informed by the lawyers
that they wanted to meet their clients as
they were representing the detained group
of people. The police had informed the five
lawyers that their clients had waived their
rights to legal representation. The lawyers
tried to gather more information from the
police. However, the police on instructions
of the Officer in Charge of Police District
(“OCPD”) detained the lawyers who were
waiting outside
the main
4 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
entrance of the Brickfields Police Station
without any reasonable grounds.
The police released them on police bail
the following day at around 3:00 pm,
notwithstanding the repeated requests by
other lawyers for their immediate release
just after they were arrested including
the President of the Malaysian Bar! They
were also handcuffed and were forced
to wear lock up uniforms. The police also
deliberately refused to disclose to the
detained lawyers’ families or their lawyers
any information in relation to the detained
lawyers after their arrest, including their
location and their next course of action.
The very next day on 8 May 2009,
Members of the Bar held a gathering
at the foyer of the Kuala Lumpur Court
Complex in solidarity to condemn the high
handed actions of the police.
Bar Council subsequently called for an
extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) a
week after the incident on 15 May 2009
at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre. Each of
the arrested lawyers was allowed to give
a brief personal account of their ordeal
and highlighted various aspects of their
detention.
A total of 1,429 lawyers and 81
chambering students
attended the EGM
and Members of
the Bar unanimously and unequivocally
called for the resignation of the Minister
for Home Affairs, the Inspector General of
Police, and OCPD Wan Abdul Bari b Wan
Abdul Khalid and Deputy Superintendent
of Police (“DSP”) Jude Pereira of the
Brickfields Police Station among others.
On 20 May 2009, Bar Council handed
a memorandum to the Human Rights
Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”)
requesting that SUHAKAM conduct a
public inquiry into the arrest of the five KL
LAC Lawyers.
On 13 July 2009, SUHAKAM decided
to establish a panel of inquiry pursuant
to section 12(1) of the Human Rights
Commission Act 1999 to inquire into the
exact circumstances of the said arrest.
The public inquiry was conducted by a
panel of three SUHAKAM commissioners
presided by Dato’ Seri Muhammad Shafee
Abdullah and also comprised Datuk Dr
Michael Yeoh Onn Kheng and Datuk Dr
Denison Jayasooria.
The terms of reference of this public
inquiry were:
(1) to determine
whether the
arrest and
detention
of the five

of the KL LAC lawyers by the police
at the Brickfields Police Station on
7 May 2009 constitutes a denial of
legal representation and contravenes
article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution
(“FC”) and section 28A of the
Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”);
(2) to determine whether there was any
justification or necessity to arrest and
detain the KL LAC lawyers under
section 27 of the Police Act 1967
(“PA”) and therefore a violation of
human rights;
(3) if violations of human rights accrued,
to determine:
(a) which person or agency was
responsible;
(b) how did the violations
occurred;
(c) what administrative directives
and procedures, or arrangements
constituted to them; and
(d) what measures should be
recommended to be taken to
ensure that such violations do
not reoccur.
The inquiry started in July 2009 and
continued at regular hearing dates up
to 23 Feb 2010 when submissions by all
parties were concluded. A total of 27
witnesses testified comprising 15 civilian
witnesses (including those from the Bar)
and 12 police witnesses. Video footage
was also presented during the inquiry as
evidence.
The inquiry’s findings were made public
on 23 Apr 2010. The panel concluded as
follows:
Photo credit: Shan Theivanthiran
The Police must be
made familiar with
basic local and
international instruments
pertaining
to human rights
(1) The arrest and detention of
the five KL LAC lawyers did constitute
a denial of legal representation and
a contravention of article 5(3) FC
and section 28A CPC. That being
the case, it was a clear violation of
human rights;
(2) There was no justification or
necessity to arrest and detain the
five KL LAC lawyers under section 27
PA as they were not participating in
the cause of their clients but simply
performing their duties as legal
practitioners in defence of the 14
arrestees who were their clients. This
is a clear transgression of human
rights.
(3)(i) Clearly the violation of the
human rights herein were mainly
committed by DSP Jude Pereira and
OCPD Wan Bari. We are in the view
that these two senior most officers
in Brickfields Police Station at the
relevant time were responsible in
making all the assessments of the
situations and subsequently giving
directions that have now become
subject of controversy.
Features/Articles
(3)(ii) Such violations of human
rights occurred because the relevant
officers did not understand nor
appreciate the functions and duties
of defence lawyers in the context
of the criminal justice system. We
find that this episode need not have
happened. All the police need do
was invite the five lawyers into the
police station for a discussion with
the relevant officers. In this context
it would have been OCPD Wan Bari
and DSP Jude Pereira. An exercise in
public relations of some sort by giving
a chance for the lawyers to express
their request would have brought
about a better understanding
between the Police and members of
the Bar. The directives in relation to
the mechanics of section 28A CPC
ought to be relooked at along the
lines of our observations earlier.
(3)(iii) It is time that the Police on
the ground in charge of crime
enforcements be made familiar
with the constitutional provisions
in relation to fundamental liberties
and human rights. Section 28A CPC
must be thoroughly explained to
the police on the ground perhaps
from the police Headquarters after
consultation with the Attorney
General’s Chambers. The Police must
be made familiar with basic local and
international instruments pertaining
to human rights. Instruments have
been cited herein are important
documents for starters (ie Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 1948;
the Eighth United Nations Congress
on the Prevention of Crime and
Treatment of Offenders held in
Havana, Cuba, where the congress
passed and adopted a document
called “Basic principles of the Role
of Lawyers”, FC and the CPC).
The inquiry found as a whole, the rest of
the testimonies of the other police officers
in this inquiry were very credible and
forthright with the exception of DSP Jude
Pereira and OCPD Wan Bari.
The whole process of this inquiry was to
ensure that basic fundamental liberties
are afforded to those arrested as well as
protection of lawyers who are carrying out
their professional duty.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 5
 Features/Articles
Recent Federal Court’s Decision on
section 340 of the National Land
Code 1965: Tan Ying Hong v Tan Sian San &
Ors – Are Landowners and Banks Secured?
by Andrew Wong Fook Hin1
1 Deferred indefeasibility finally
restored
After nearly 10 years, deferred
indefeasibility under Malaysian Torrens
System was finally restored by the Federal
Court in its recent decision in Tan Ying
Hong v Tan Sian San & Ors.2
Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) had described
the protection conferred on a registered
proprietor by section 340 National Land
Code (“NLC”) as “the centrepiece of the
National Land Code”.3
Since the Federal Court decision in Adorna
Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit
@ Sun Yok Eng4 in 2001, which was said
by many, to have placed landowners on
thin ice and in jeopardy, two limbs of this
centrepiece have created havoc in the
Malaysian law of real property.
2 Tan Ying Hong made an immediate
impact
On 22 Feb 2010, the Sun reported that
the High Court in Shah Alam returned to a
71-year old retiree his land in Hulu Langat
which was stolen from him “through
the hands of government officers and
individuals”.
The newspaper also reported that “This is
the first case to find in favour of land theft
victims since the Federal Court last month
reviewed its Adorna Properties decision”.
In that case the true landowners were two
brothers who inherited the land from their
6 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
father. The land was “transferred” to a
limited company (Propaxis). Identity cards
of the two brothers were forged and they
were made directors of Propaxis through
forged signatures. Records showed they
later “resigned” as directors.
The transfer deed from the two brothers
to Propaxis was attested by an “advocate
& solicitor” who was not on the Roll of
Advocates and Solicitors. The scheme
involved the transfer of shares in Propaxis.
The same rogues were involved in a similar
land theft of a neighbouring piece of
land.
It was reported that the High Court
ordered that the land be returned to the
two brothers.
3 Legal effect of Tan Ying Hong
Tan Ying Hong has made clear the
statutory exceptions to indefeasibility set
out in section 340(2) NLC. Basically, if a
person gets his title or interest registered
on the document of title and registration
was obtained, inter alia, by fraud or
misrepresentation to which the person
or his agent was a party or privy or by
forgery or by means of an insufficient or
void instrument, then that person’s title or
interest shall not be indefeasible.
However the protection conferred by
section 340(2) NLC requires the true owner
to act quickly to attack the indefeasibility
before that person uses his title as a good
root to pass an indefeasible title to a third
party. Time is of the essence.
4 So, are landowners and banks
secured after Tan Ying Hong?
Fraudulent schemes have become more
and more sophisticated and complex as
shown in the case of the retiree from Hulu
Langat.
In Tan Ying Hong, the Chief Justice
referred to the first owner as “A” who
then transfers the same piece of land to
“B” and which subsequently is transferred
to “C”.
Forgers today have already begun a
modus operandi of transferring land from
A to B and then immediately from B to C,
presumably C to seek protection under the
proviso to section 340(3) NLC.
Fraud and forgery will continue, whether
indefeasibility is immediate or deferred.
Landowners and banks cannot be regarded
as secured unless additional steps or
measures are taken by all parties involved
in land administration and transactions.
5 Additional steps and measures
We need to carefully examine in detail
and consider the type of documents or
instruments used to perpetuate the fraud
or forgery and the individuals involved.
Forgery involves fraud but fraud does not
always involve forgery.
For example, in Owe Then Kooi v Au Thiam
Seng & Anor5 the plaintiff was in prison
and he thought he signed some papers to
make his half brother hold his 1/7th share

in a piece of land in trust for him until he
completed his sentence. He later found
out that his share was transferred to his
half brother. Here, there is fraud but no
forgery.
This paper will focus only on additional
steps and measures to prevent identity
theft or forgery within the meaning of
section 340(2)(b) NLC.
Case study No 1
In Tan Ying Hong, the application for
alienation was fraudulent or forged, as Tan
Ying Hong told the court that he did not
apply for the land. The land administrator
had testified that he could not find or
locate any application for the land.
A power of attorney was “given” by Tan
Ying Hong to the first defendant, and his
“signature” thereon was attested by a
commissioner for oaths from “Mahkamah
Kuantan”.
The instrument of charge signed by the
first defendant, using the forged power of
attorney, was attested by an advocate &
solicitor.
Case study No 2
In Adorna Properties,6 Thai International
Passport No 033852 was issued to someone
Features/Articles
else and not “Boonsom Boonyanit”, the It was not clear from the law report as to
name stated on the passport. who attested the affixation of the thumb
print.
The fake “Boonsom Boonyanit” first swore
a statutory declaration to state that the Case study No 4
title deeds to the land were lost. The forger
In AGS Harta Sdn Bhd v Liew Yok Yin8 the
then swore another statutory declaration
original issue document of title was in the
to state that Boonsom Boonyanit holding
possession of the plaintiff, the true owner
passport No 033852 and Sun Yok Eng @
“Liew Yok Yin”.
Boonsom Boonyanit named in the title
deeds refer to one and the same person. The vendor’s name on her identity card
was also “Liew Yok Yin” but the vendor’s
The forger’s signature in the sale and
identity card number and address were
purchase agreement was attested by an
not the same as that of the true owner
advocate & solicitor. The instrument of
Liew Yok Yin. The vendor was represented
transfer signed by the forger was attested
by a solicitor who testified that the “Liew
by the Penolong Pentadbir Tanah Daerah,
Yok Yin” that he represented in the sale
Seberang Prai Tengah, Bukit Mertajam.
transaction was not the plaintiff.
Case study No 3
It was not clear from the law report as to
In OCBC Bank (M) Bhd v Pendaftar whether a duplicate title had been applied
Hakmilik, Negeri Johor Darul Takzim,7 Ng for.
Kim Hwa was the original owner and his
Case study No 5
land ended up in the proprietorship of
Ng See Chow. Ng Kim Hwa claimed that In Au Meng Nam & Anor v Ung Yak
he had never executed any instrument of Chew & Ors9 the original issue document
transfer to Ng See Chow. of title was in the possession of the true
landowner at all material times and yet
The instrument of transfer was allegedly
the vendors delivered to the purchaser’s
executed by Ng Kim Hwa by using his
solicitors an “original issue document of
thumb print, which according to forensic
title”.
evidence was not his thumb print
impression.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 7
 Features/Articles
There was no application for a duplicate
title on the ground that the original title
had been lost.
Both vendors possessed only temporary
identity cards, and were not represented
by a solicitor in the transaction. Their
signatures on the instrument of transfer
were attested by an advocate & solicitor.
Case study No 6
In Ahmad Md Daud & Anor v Che Yah
Man10 a forged court order was used to
effect the transfer of land.
6 Common factors
Nearly all of the forgery cases above
involve identity theft. The forgers assume
the identity of the landowner, create fake
identity cards, and forge signatures and
attestations.
The target is usually vacant and idle lands.
They do not involve a plot of land with
a residential house or an apartment or
condominium. The cases usually involve
the attestation of instruments of dealings,
whether by a solicitor or by the land
administrator.
Other common elements involved in
forgeries relates to the issue of a duplicate
title; “fake” title; change of name by
proprietor; alienation; power of attorneys;
statutory declarations; and passports or
identity cards.
7 Attestation of instruments of
dealings in Malaysia
Section 211 NLC stipulates that the
execution by a natural person of any
instrument of dealing shall be attested by
one of the officers or persons specified
in the Fifth Schedule. Currently, the
attestation clause is in Form 13B:
I, … hereby testify that the above
*signature/thumb print was
*written/affixed in my presence
this … day of … 20…, and is
the true *signature/thumb print
of –
… who has acknowledged to me –
(i) that he is of full age;
(ii) that he is a citizen of Malaysia;
(iii) that he has voluntarily executed
this instrument; and
8 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
(iv) that he understands the
contents and effect thereof.
As witness my hand this ...day of …
20…
…………………
Signature
It is no secret that many solicitors in
Malaysia do not require the person
executing an instrument of dealing to
sign in his presence, even though this may
make the instrument insufficient or void
under section 340(2)(b) NLC.
In Albert Chew v Hong Leong Finance
Bhd11 the solicitor attested the signature of
a bank’s attorney on a discharge of charge.
He admitted that the bank’s attorney did
not sign in his presence or before him. It
turned out that the signature of the bank’s
attorney was forged. RK Nathan J said,
In other words, the advocate and
solicitor had falsified the attestation.
He had breached a code so
fundamental to the legal profession
that the excuse he gave that it was
the practice of the legal firm to do as
he did, makes the commission more
heinous.
8 Attestation in New South Wales
The Real Property Act 1900 of New South
Wales requires the person attesting a
signature to personally know the person
signing. Under the Registrar General’s
Directions, a general form of attestation
is:
Signed in my presence by ... (their
full name) ...who is personally
known to me.
If the words “who is personally known
to me” are omitted or struck out, further
proof of execution will be required. The
witness must also clearly show his full
name and his full residential or business
address.
In Graham v Hall12 the Court of Appeal in
New South Wales held that a person who
signs a document as a witness owes a duty
of care to the person whose signature they
witness. Mr Hall was in financial trouble
and decided to mortgage the family home
which he owned with his wife, without
the wife’s knowledge. He told the solicitor
that his wife was dying and that he would
take the mortgage papers home for her to
sign. Hall then forged his wife’s signature
and asked Graham, a Justice of Peace, to
witness his wife’s signature. The attestation
clause stated that the mortgage was
“signed in my presence by the mortgagor
who is personally known to me.”
Graham was made to pay the wife
$137,479.66 in damages. The Court of
Appeal explained that the reason why a
signature on property documents must
be properly and protectively witnessed is
that there is always a serious risk of loss
resulting from forgery.
9 Authentication of documents in
Botswana
Botswana has an Authentication of
Documents Act, and the attestation clause
used is:
I, X.Y., in my capacity as [insert
qualification] do certify that A.B.
signed this document in my
presence, and that A.B. is personally
known to me (*or that C.D. and E.F.,
being persons known to me, have
severally testified before me that
the person signing this document is
personally known to them as A.B.)
Given under my hand (and seal)…
at…in…on the …day of…
(Signature)
C.D. and E.F are required to be “respectable
and responsible persons”, otherwise X.Y.
shall refuse to attest the document.
10 Certificate of correctness in
Singapore
In Singapore, the registrar may reject any
instrument purporting to deal with or
to affect land unless there is endorsed
thereon a certificate by the parties to
the instrument that it is correct for the
purposes of the Land Titles Act.
Where a solicitor has been employed by
a party to the instrument, the certificate
shall be signed by the solicitor. The
certificate shall imply representations that
the instrument is made in good faith; the
matters set forth therein are substantially
correct; the person acquiring title accepts
proprietorship and is of full age and legal
capacity; or the person divesting title is
entitled to divest the interest and is of full
age and legal capacity.

11 Proposed measures on attestation
to prevent identity fraud
An appropriate measure will be to require
that a person never attest to having
witnessed a signature unless he knows the
person and has actually seen the person
sign the document.
Alternatively, a witness to the execution
of any instrument of dealing under the
NLC should certify that he has known the
person executing the document for more
than 12 months or that he has taken
reasonable steps to ensure the identity of
that person.
Another measure may be to require
financial institutions to take reasonable
steps to confirm the identity of the
borrower or the security party, and to
maintain records of such steps taken for
at least seven years.
Finally, any instrument of dealing under
the NLC which is executed by a natural
person should consist of his signing it and
affixing his thumb print thereto (to include
also the thumb print of the person or
officer attesting the execution). Currently
the use of the thumb print is an option
but is not mandatory. Under section 210
NLC, the execution of any instrument of
dealing by a natural person shall consist
of his signing it or affixing his thumb
print thereto, although section 377 NLC
empowers the registrar, if he thinks it
expedient, to require any person by whom
any instrument has been executed to affix
his thumb print thereto.
12 Application for a duplicate issue
document of qualified title
Under section 187B of NLC, a proprietor
or any person claiming under him, may
apply for a duplicate issue document of
qualified title on the grounds that his issue
document of title has been lost, destroyed
or is being improperly or wrongfully
withheld. An application is required to
be in writing and supported by evidence
of the loss, destruction or the wrongful
withholding.
Upon such an application, the registrar or
land administrator has the power to issue
a duplicate issue document of qualified
title, if he is of the opinion that the
register document of title to the land does
not require replacement. Before issuing a
duplicate issue document of qualified title,
a notice is required to be published in the
Gazette. A copy of the notice is required
to be served on every person having a
registered interest, and to be published in
accordance with section 433 NLC.
Section 433 prescribe stringent
requirements on publication of such
notices. A copy of the notice shall be
affixed:
• in a conspicuous position on the land; be complied with. Once the registrar is
and
• on the penghulu’s office or balai in
the area in which land is situated;
and
• in that area, on such court-houses the procedure of publication of a notice
and mosques (if any) and in such
markets and other public places (if
any) as the director thinks fit; and
• where the state authority considers
that publication of the notice in a
newspaper is desirable, the notice
shall be published in such newspaper
circulating in the state as the director
thinks fit.
13 Application for a duplicate issue
document of final title
The procedure to apply for a duplicate issue
document of final title, if the original has
been lost, destroyed or is being improperly
or wrongfully withheld, is basically the
same as that which applies to a qualified
title.13 The registrar or land administrator
may, if he is of opinion that the register
document of final title does not require
replacement and that the final title was
issued under the NLC, instead of issuing a
title in continuation, issue a duplicate issue
document of final title.
Similar provisions are in place regarding
publication of notices in the Gazette,
service and publication of the copy of such
notice.
14 Lacuna in a case where original
issue document of qualified title
is lost and the final title for the
land has been issued
Although the land administration
authorities all over Peninsular Malaysia
are to be commended for their speed and
efficiency in issuing final titles for alienated
lands, a lacuna has emerged which, if not
addressed, will be taken advantage of by
forgers in the waiting. This concerns a case
where:
• the original issue document of a duplicate title in a national newspaper
qualified title has been lost; and
Features/Articles
• an application is made for a duplicate
qualified title at a time when the
qualified title has been converted to
a final title; and
• the original issue document of final
title is still with the registrar as it has
not been delivered to the proprietor.
In such cases section 187B NLC will not
satisfied that the original issue document
of qualified title is lost, the original
issue document of final title will simply
be delivered to the proprietor or the
applicant, without having to go through
in the Gazette, serving and publication of
the notice in accordance with section 433
NLC.
In Au Meng Nam14 the “original issue
document of title” produced by the
vendors to the purchaser’s solicitors could
well have been the original issue document
of final title, since there was no application
for a duplicate qualified title. What the real
and original owners had in their possession
all the time could have been the original
issue document of qualified title, and the
forgers had somehow got their hands on
to the original issue document of final
title in order perpetrate the fraud on the
purchaser and his solicitor.
In AGS Harta Sdn Bhd,15 the original issue
document of title in the possession of the
real Liew Yok Yin could have been the
qualified title and the title in the possession
of the forger could have been the original
issue document of final title.
15 Proposed measures on issue of
duplicate titles, qualified or final
Firstly, on receiving any application for a
duplicate qualified title or final title, an
enquiry ought to be held in accordance
with the provisions similar to that
contained in Chapter 4, sections 23 to
39 NLC. In such an enquiry, the applicant
must be personally present. The registrar
or the land administrator will then not just
rely on a statutory declaration, which can
so easily be forged.
Secondly, the discretion of the state
authority in section 433(b) NLC, ie whether
or not to publish a copy of the notice in
a newspaper, ought to be removed and
publication of a notice of intention to issue
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 9
 Features/Articles
ought to be mandatory, as it is likely that
landowners do not pay close attention to
notices affixed on the penghulu’s office
or balai or court-houses or mosques or
markets, if at all such notices are affixed.
Thirdly, section 187B NLC ought to be
amended to provide that, if at the time of
application for a duplicate qualified title:
• the qualified title has been converted Registrar or Land Administrator ought to
into a final title; and
• the original issue document of final declaration
title is still in the possession of the
Registrar;
Then the original issue document of final
title should be deemed to have been
lost as well, as if it is lost, the issue of a
duplicate final title will have to follow the
stringent procedures set out above, as if
the qualified title had not been converted
to a final title.
Fourthly, the provisions contained in
section 192(2) NLC ought to be strictly
complied with to safeguard proprietors.
Where a qualified title exists in respect
of the land, section 192(2) requires the
registrar or land administrator to call for
its production before issuing a final title. If
the original qualified title is not produced,
then a notice of intention to issue the
final title is required to be published in
the Gazette, and a copy of such notice
is required to be served and published in
accordance with section 433.
What is happening today is that final titles
are being prepared and issued before
the surrender of the qualified titles. Most
proprietors are not even aware that their
qualified titles have been converted to
final titles unless an instrument of dealing
is presented for registration, or a search on
the land is conducted.
16 S e c u r i t y measures on
computerised titles
A computerised title comes in two sheets
of paper, the first sheet being the Borang
5BK or 5CK or 5DK or 5EK (final title); or
Borang 11AK or 11BK (qualified title), and
the second sheet being a copy of the plan
of the land in Borang B1 (final title) or
Borang B2 (qualified title).
The first sheet contains a barcode and a
number at the bottom left hand corner.
The plan on the second sheet will be
10 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
demarcated in “green” for a final title
and “red” for a qualified title. Security
measures on computerised titles are closely
guarded secrets.
The public ought to given sufficient
information or a working knowledge
to enable them to look out for security
measures on computerised titles. The
take steps to allay the public fear that due
to human factors or greed, it is always
possible for another copy of an original
issue document of title to be printed out
from the computer for improper use.
It is also suggested that when
authenticating the copy of the plan in
Borang B1 or B2, the Registrar or the Land
Administrator should not sign in black ink,
so that one can immediately differentiate
an original from a photocopy.
17 Change of name of proprietor
Currently, the procedure to enable a
proprietor to change his name is just
too simple. Under section 378 NLC,
the Registrar may, upon production of
satisfactory evidence of a change of name
of any person vested with any alienated
land or interest, make a memorial of the
change in the register document of title
and in any issue document of title. Evidence
can be by a deed poll, official certificate,
statutory declaration or otherwise. As we
have seen in many forgery cases, all these
evidence can be easily forged.
There ought to be a specific form in the
First Schedule to effect a change of name,
with a stringent attestation clause. The
person applying for a change of name
should be made to appear in person before
the Registrar or an enquiry under Chapter
4, sections 23 to 39 NLC, should be held,
before a duplicate title can be issued to
the proprietor.
18 Alienation of land by State
In Tan Ying Hong, it was not disputed that
he did not apply for alienation of land from
the state and yet the land was alienated
to him. Although under section 921 NLC,
the Minister may, with the approval of the
National Land Council, make regulations
to provide for the form and contents of
any application for alienation, to the best
of the writer’s knowledge and information,
no such regulations have been made.
Application forms for alienation of land
may be found in some state land rules,
but none requires a closer scrutiny of the
identity of the applicant.
It is suggested that the applicant should
be made to appear in person before the
State or an enquiry under Chapter 4,
sections 23 to 39 NLC, should be held, in
any application for alienation.
19 Power of attorney and statutory
Immediate steps ought to be taken to ensure
that a power of attorney or a statutory
declaration be properly and protectively
witnessed. The form of authentication in
the First Schedule of Powers of Attorney
Act 1949, and attestation clause to the
statutory declaration in the Schedule to
the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 ought
to be changed:
• to ensure that a person never attest to
having witnessed a signature unless
he knows the person and has actually
seen the person sign the document;
or
• to require a witness to the execution
of a power of attorney or a statutory
declaration to certify that he has
known the person executing the
document for more than 12 months
or has taken reasonable steps to
ensure the identity of that person.
20 Verification of identity card, etc,
and of citizenship
Section 436A NLC requires, in the case of
a natural individual, a description of his
citizenship, and the number of the identity
card issued to him under the National
Registration Act 1959, or where no such
identity card has been issued to him, the
description and number of his passport or
other official document of identity.
The name of any natural person to be
inserted in any instrument of dealing shall
be the name appearing on such person’s
identity card or passport or other official
document of identity.
A Malaysian identity card can be verified at
the Department of National Registration.
However, in practice passports issued by
another country are not verified.
Perhaps it is time to establish a mechanism
or procedure for verification of a foreign
passport.

21 Torrens Assurance Fund
In a majority of countries that practise the
Torrens system of land registration, an
assurance fund is set up to compensate
those whose interest are defeated or those
who are deprived of their land, through no
fault of their own. Usually the moneys in
the fund are contributed from registration
fees paid on the lodgement of instruments
of dealings for registration.
Currently provisions for compensation
from the State are inadequate. Under
section 386 NLC, any purchaser of any
alienated land who suffers loss or damage
by reason of any error in, or omission
from, any official search certificate applied
for under section 385(1), shall be entitled
to such compensation as may be agreed
or determined in accordance with section
434. If the amount of compensation cannot
be agreed, then it shall be determined
by arbitration under the Arbitration
Act 1952.
Under section 22 NLC, no officer shall be
liable to be sued in any civil court for any
act or matter done by him in good faith
and in the intended exercise of any power
or performance of any duty conferred or
imposed on him under the National Land
Code, and this makes a claim difficult to
pursue.
It has often been said that the Torrens
system works on three principles, namely
the mirror principle, the curtain principle
and the insurance principle. Salleh Buang
in an article published in NST on 15 Oct
2008 wrote:
Sir Robert Richard Torrens, a former
premier of South Australia and
author of the land registration
system, said “a state guarantee
is an integral part of a system of
registration of titles.”
1 andrewwong@awco.com.my
2 [2010] 2 MLJ 1.
3 Yap Lai Yoke v Chin Fook Wah & connected case [1984] 2 MLJ
274.
4 [2001] 1 MLJ 241.
5 [1990] 1 MLJ 234.
6 [2001] 1 MLJ 241.
7 [1999] 2 MLJ 511.
When Sir William Maxwell (the then
British Resident in Selangor) first
implemented the system in the state
towards the close of 19th century
without the state guarantee or the
assurance fund, it was like a trainee
building up something new but with
an important component missing,
against his instructor’s advice.
It is time for us to look seriously into
establishing an assurance fund to
compensate victims of land scams. There
are usually two victims, the innocent
landowner and the innocent purchaser or
the innocent bank. In Tan Ying Hong, the
victim was the bank.
The assurance fund can also be applied
for any compensation payable by the State
under section 386 NLC. Whether such
an assurance fund is to be administered
by the Federal Government or by the
state requires detailed and further
consideration.
22 Title insurance
Title insurance is principally a no-fault
indemnity insurance that protects against
loss from problems connected to the title
of a property. The insurer will defend any
legal suit attacking the title or reimburse
the insured for actual monetary loss
incurred up to the sum insured.
Title insurance was first developed for the
US market, but it is now available in many
other countries such as Canada, Australia,
UK, Northern Ireland, Mexico, New
Zealand, China, Korea and throughout
Europe.
It is suggested that our government
together with the insurance industry
should consider introducing title insurance
to protect an owner’s or a lender’s financial
interest in real property against loss due
to title defects, liens or other matters.
The bank in Tan Ying Hong would have
benefited from such title insurance.
8 [2010] 1 MLJ 309.
9 [2007] 5 MLJ 136.
10 [2009] 6 CLJ 530.
11 [2001] 4 MLJ 497; [2001] 4 CLJ 419.
12 [2006] NSWCA 208.
13 Sections 166,168 and 175 NLC.
14 [2007] 5 MLJ 136.
15 [2010] 1 MLJ 309.
Features/Articles
Title insurance is inexpensive. The premium
is a one-off cost payment that protects the
purchaser for the life of ownership. For
example, in Victoria, Australia, a premium
of $332.75 will cover a purchase price of
up to $600,000 (approximately 0.05%).
24 Conclusion
In concluding, the additional steps and
measures which are required to be taken
before landowners or banks can be
regarded as secured are summarised as
follows:
• Much more stringent attestation
clause for instrument of dealing under
the National Land Code, power of
attorneys and statutory declarations
and requiring personal knowledge or
steps to be taken to verify identity of
person signing;
• Execution and attestation of an
instrument by signing and affixing
thumbprint of both signatory and
person attesting;
• Issue document of final title not to be
issued unless the issue document of
qualified title has been surrendered;
• Much more stringent procedures
for the issue of a duplicate issue
document of title, qualified or final,
or change of name of proprietor or
application for alienation, perhaps
only after an enquiry;
• Mechanism for verification of foreign
passports;
• Setting up a Torrens Assurance Fund;
and
• Introducing title insurance.
24 June 2010
This paper was prepared for presentation
at the 15th Malaysian Law Conference,
29-31 July 2010.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 11
 Features/Articles
Of Sunscreen, BBs and
Successful Lawyers
Brendan Navin Siva’s speech at the Ethics and Professional Standards Course
Luncheon that took place on 15 July 2010
Ladies and gentlemen,
15 minutes is hardly enough time to speak
on any topic let alone to give a talk to
pupils on how to be an excellent, ethical
and successful lawyer and the challenges
ahead in the profession.
By giving this talk, I am by no means
proclaiming myself to be an excellent or
successful lawyer. And by no means are
you to blindly accept everything I say to
you today as being correct or similarly
applicable to you. “Be careful whose
advice you buy, but be patient with those
who supply it.” These are words from The
Sunscreen Song.
Who does not know The Sunscreen Song?
It is a song made up of someone’s rambling
advice about random things in life.
Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you
only one tip for the future, sunscreen
would be it. The long-term benefits
of sunscreen have been proved by
scientists, whereas the rest of my
advice has no basis more reliable than
my own meandering experience. I
will dispense this advice now.
I will dispense my advice now.
Look at yourself and work out what YOU
want to do in life. Have a plan. Do not
meander through life not knowing what
you want. Wanting to be rich or wanting
to make money is not a plan. It is the end
result of a good plan but it is not itself a
plan.
Work hard. Many people would have told
you the same thing the last nine months
12 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
but it is true. There is just so much that
you need to learn in the next three years –
how to draft, how to speak, how to handle
clients, how to handle judges, how to
think, how to solve problems and over and
above all this, to acquire the knowledge
of law in many areas of law. Put your
head down for the first three years and
set yourself a good foundation for your
future whether or not you continue to be
a lawyer thereafter.
Present yourself well. Dress sharply. Invest
in good clothes. Always be well groomed.
What you think looks cool or suave to your
friends may not be the right image that
the real world expects of a lawyer.
Deal with stress. Do not try to run away
from it. Stress is a part of the life of any
successful professional – whether you are
a lawyer, doctor, engineer or accountant.
Understand that stress is relative –
whatever you find stressful today, I can
assure you will not be stressful for you in
three years time. And what is stressful for
you in three years time will not cause you
much stress when you are a senior lawyer
of 10 years or more. But there will always
be stress at all levels. It is part of the job.
Find your own way to deal with stress.
But never use stress as an excuse to give
up pursuing something. Never use stress
as an excuse for failing to do something.
And never blame stress for producing sub-
standard work.
Learn how to deal with people. You will
be dealing with people a lot in your career.
There are many different types of people.
Some are nice. Some are not so nice. More
often than not, you will not deal with nice
people. The people you deal with will be
demanding, irritating, annoying, deceitful
and demanding in many different ways
and forms. The key to success is learning
how to deal with them all.
Never ever be beholden to any client.
Never put yourself in a situation to be
totally dependent on any client financially.
Always be in a position where, if your client
asks you to do something that you know
is not lawful or ethical, you can stand up
and politely excuse yourself and walk out
of the room without compromising your
integrity and morality.
Speak and write English well. There is no
way out of this one. English is the language
of commerce and it is the language of the
common law. Our courts will not abandon
English any time soon. Our clients – local
and international – will judge you as a
lawyer on how well you speak and how
well you draft – in English.
Take steps to improve your English,
regardless of whether you think your
English is good or bad. In particular,
you must acquire the ability to say
or write something in a concise and
comprehensive manner. To do this, read
English newspapers online (most of them
are still free), read magazines (Newsweek,
The Economist, The Far Eastern Economic
Review), watch CNN or BBC at least
an hour a day. See and learn how they
package and present large amounts of
content into a concise and compelling
five-minute newsreel or one page article.

Embrace technology. BlackBerries (“BBs”)
are not evil. They are not your enemy. They
save time. They save a lot of time. When
you are waiting in court, when you are
waiting for a meeting to start, when you
are stuck in a traffic jam, when you are
waiting for friends for dinner, when you
are watching TV and the advertisements
come on – emails can be checked and
responded to – this is time that you do
not otherwise have to spend in the office
answering emails. Embrace change. A
lawyer is nowadays only one part of
a transaction. If your clients are all on
blackberries, you do not have the luxury of
saying “It is 6:00 pm. I am out of the office
and I cannot answer your queries”.
Set aside one week in the first half of the
year and one week in the second half of
the year for a holiday. Book these dates
well in advance so your boss cannot say
he does not know about it. Better yet,
book tickets to fly somewhere so your
boss cannot expect you to reschedule your
plans (without feeling guilty). Downtime
is very important. The more senior you
get, the more difficult it will be to take
scheduled time off.
Travel. See the world. See what is out
there. It gives you perspective and it
opens your eyes to things you never would
normally think about. It matures you.
Features/Articles
Find a network of friends who are similar
as you in thinking, in ambition and in
character. There is nothing unhealthy
about a group of lawyers socialising
together on the weekend or after work.
There is nothing wrong with a group of
lawyers talking about law all the time. You
will grow together and you will become
better lawyers together.
Lastly, do not blindly accept everything
you are told by someone more senior and
supposedly better than you. We are not
better than you. We have just been here
a little bit longer than you. Challenge the
logic of what we say. If it does not make
sense to you, don’t accept it.
Thank you.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 13
 Features/Articles
How can you defend
a criminal?
by Fahri Azzat
(used with the permission of LoyarBurok)
The standard archetypical question posed to me
by lay persons once they discover my dabbling
with criminal law are:
How cans you defending criminal
when chew know he do it already?
Aren’t chew helping him gets away
with its? Don’t chew feel bad or
guilty for helping him escapes
the law, you pompous sounding
wanker?
Allow me to address these questions in as
simple terms as I am able to once and for all, if
not for others, then for myself at least!
In order to understand a criminal lawyer’s
ethical and moral outlook in defending any
person accused of a crime, there are two
preliminaries that have to be clarified, explained
and understood.
Accused is not the same as criminal
The first thing that requires clarification is
terminology. Descriptions are important and
necessary because they categorise a person
in his relation to society. To be categorised
wrongly is potentially defamatory as I shall
demonstrate shortly.
It is important to recognise that a person
charged for a crime is not a “criminal” because
he has not been convicted of his crime. To
merely charge someone for a crime is to merely
“accuse” them of something. At that stage no
evidence has been led to prove his crime. So
someone who has been charged for a crime is
properly referred to as “an accused”.
Only after evidence, the court makes a finding of
guilt, then an accused can be properly referred
to as “a convict” or a “criminal”. This is because
of one of the cardinal principles of criminal law –
a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt (see sections 173(m) and
182A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code).
14 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
Whoever refers to an accused as a “convict”
or a “criminal” is vulnerable to liability in
defamation if the accused is acquitted at the
end of his trial because that description of him
is wrong and defamatory in law.
History of criminal law
The second is the history and development of
criminal law. I shall deal with this as briefly and
generally as possible. The enforcement of law
in the past used to be the sole prerogative of
a Ruler (back then it was the King or Queen)
simply because the law was whatever the Ruler
said it was. This was the rule of whim. Modern
constitutional developments have diluted
and divided the Ruler’s power into the rule
of law, which comprises of three branches of
government.
These are the Legislature (power to make law),
the Executive (power to enforce the law) and
the Judiciary (power to regulate and interpret
the law and ensuring that the Legislature and
Executive actions are constitutional). These
branches of government are supposed to act
as a check and balance against each other.
If the Legislature enacts law that infringes
the Federal Constitution, the Judiciary can
strike that law down. If the Executive does
something ultra vires (exceeding) the law, then
the Judiciary can declare that action void. If
judges are corrupt, the Executive can charge
and prosecute them. If the Judiciary made a
series of poor decisions in an area of law, the
Legislature can enact law to overrule those
decisions. This awesome power of the Ruler
was diluted and divided to avoid tyranny in the
form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
Rule of law, not rule of whim
The rule of law demands the process of law
be fair, equal, accountable and transparent
as compared to the rule of whim, which is
whatever the Ruler says it is. How that demand
translates at the operational level of a criminal
trial goes simply like this.
Firstly, an impartial and honest judge must
hear all the relevant evidence before he decides
on the guilt of an accused. Secondly, the
prosecution must bring evidence to prove the
crime against the accused. Thirdly, the accused
has the right to sufficient time to prepare
his case, to hear the evidence against him,
challenge it (either factually or legally), and
have someone familiar with the law to defend
him before an impartial judge.
All these fundamental attributes must exist in
reality before a fair trial can be said to have
taken place. If any of these attributes are not in
existence, the trial will inevitably be unfair.
A short demonstration will suffice. If the judge
is biased and does not hear the evidence from
both sides before making his decision, he can
convict an accused after just hearing from the
prosecution. If the prosecution does not have
to bring any evidence to prove its case to secure
a conviction then the accused charged can be
immediately convicted without an opportunity
to challenge the prosecution’s decision. He will
also not know why the prosecution charged him
for such a crime. This is illustrated eloquently in
the most claustrophobic terms by Franz Kafka’s
famous novel, The Trial.
It is obvious if an accused is not given any right
to prepare his case, challenge the evidence
or to a competent counsel, he would be at
a fatal disadvantage when compared to the
prosecution, who has the entire resources and
machinery of the state to prosecute the case
against an accused. The playing field would not
be equal.
So why ah?
With terminology clarified and the development
of our modern criminal trial understood, we
are now in a better position to understand

why lawyers defend, or more accurately, are
under a duty to defend any person accused of
a crime, regardless of their personal thoughts
or feelings and moral orientation.
The rule of law makes it the incumbent duty of
a lawyer to defend any person accused of any
crime because in defending an accused person,
that lawyer is also sustaining the very system of
a fair trial. That incumbent duty also lies with a
judge but it is expressed differently because of
the nature of his task. The judge must ensure
a fair trial and decide honestly. Finally, the
duty lies with the prosecutor to prosecute the
accused fairly and truthfully. All three must be
faithful to their duties simultaneously if the trial
is to remain a fair one. If this occurs at every
trial then the system of a fair trial is maintained.
If it is lacking then the system of a fair trial
breaks down. You only need one unfair trial to
potentially create a systemic breakdown of the
entire system and process of a fair trial. You
cannot say we have a system of fair trial but
not, for example, for cases of sodomy involving
the opposition politician. You either have a
system of fair trial or you do not. It is not a
question of percentage.
When this is understood, it is more easily and
clearly seen that defending an accused person
is not simply about his innocence or guilt. It
is actually about sustaining, maintaining and
defending the system of a fair trial. This is
why for a criminal lawyer, whether their client
actually committed the crime or how they feel
about his innocence or guilt is irrelevant in
the larger scheme of things. It is also not their
responsibility. Theirs is limited to merely testing
whether the prosecution’s evidence is relevant
and true, and ensuring that the judge is fair. It
is the judge’s duty to decide the innocence or
guilt of the accused.
That single act of defending in one case is
merely part of the criminal lawyer’s wider
expression and in his collective series of actions
in the larger scheme of justice. With each case
a lawyer defends, he reinforces that ideal and
system of a fair trial. If a lawyer did not take up
a case simply because he thinks the accused is
guilty and many think the same, who will finally
defend that system and ideal of a fair trial when
the judge and the prosecutor have betrayed
their duties? If there were no lawyer to test
the prosecution’s evidence and the law is such
that if presented evidence is not challenged it
will be deemed admitted by the accused, this
would lead to every charge against an accused
ending with a conviction. This, as anybody can
appreciate is manifestly unfair.
This is why a true criminal lawyer is and should
be unconcerned about their own thoughts or
feelings about an accused. They should also
be unconcerned with the media, their friends,
their family and even society’s thoughts and
feelings about the matter. A trial is not about
what anybody thinks. A trial is really about
the sustenance of the system of justice. This
is why they are under a duty to challenge
and take up any legal objection against the
charge if the accused contests the charge. The
act of challenging also ensures the quality of
prosecution and would tend to ensure that the
prosecution’s evidence will always be high and
sufficiently meets the standard of proof, which
is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecutor, judge, and lawyer – different
roles
So prosecutors and judges who view defence
lawyers as a nuisance or annoyance in truth
do not understand the criminal legal system
or even their respective roles within it. The
lawyer is as necessary if not more necessary
than the prosecutors or judges because he is
theoretically the most independent.
A prosecutor is part of the Executive and a
judge is part of the Judiciary. Both, from the
perspective of international and administrative
law, form part of the government administration.
Both the prosecutor and the judge are in very
powerful positions; so both, according to Lord
Acton, are as potentially vulnerable as they
are powerful to institutional prejudice and
corruption (in the broadest sense of the word
– intellectual, financial, moral, etc). Finally,
both the prosecutor and judge can be directed
by the powerful, influential and political elite
to do their bidding when they do not possess
sufficient ethical courage and moral conviction
to resist the wealth, convenience and power
that corruption brings.
A lawyer, however, is generally not close to
the source of power. His role as a lawyer is
not dependent on powerful political forces
or patronage. It is for this reason I personally
consider that a lawyer who betrays his duties,
to act without fear or favour in the interest
of justice, actually commits a greater act of
betrayal to the system of a fair trial and hence
justice. When the system is under attack,
history has shown that often the first to betray
justice will be the prosecutors. The next would
be the judges. Of course there will be the good
ones fighting the good fight but they are the
first to be sidelined or sacked. They will never
thrive and assume influential positions.
But it is the lowly lawyer who is the last defence
of justice. It is the lawyer who bears the heavy
burden of being that final hope of keeping the
ideal of a fair trial alive when the institutions
of justice have betrayed the public. It is the
lawyer who must be the conscience of justice
as the judge is the fountain of justice and the
prosecutor the enforcer of justice. All three of
Features/Articles
them represent the different facets of justice.
That is why equity demands those that come
to court do so with the cleanest of hands,
especially those hands that are tasked with
creating, shaping and dispensing justice. One
hand may act to defend justice, but all three
hands are needed to dispense justice. This is
why the judge, lawyer and prosecutor must
come to court with not just clean hands, but
cleaner souls and the clearest of minds. If any
of them are lacking these vital attributes, they
have no business in the courts of law, never
mind the realms of justice.
A lawyer that turns to cowardice, complacency
and colludes with judges or prosecutors betrays
and thwarts not only justice but demeans his
brothers and sisters at law whilst sacrificing the
entire nation on the altar of self interest and
corruption.
When all this is understood, those questions
posed earlier appear to miss the point and they
indicate a very narrow conception and micro
perspective of the purpose of a criminal trial.
It is not simply a process the “bad guys” go
through before being sent to jail. That many lay
people misunderstand this is natural because
they usually do not understand the broader
legal system or the larger principles of justice
in which a criminal trial operates; they fail to
understand what a trial means in the larger
scheme of things ie a macro perspective.
A criminal trial if faithfully carried out is an
opportunity to reinforce the ideal of a fair trial
and allow for the manifestation of justice. It
is an instance for the system of a fair trial to
vindicate itself again. What is actually at stake
in each trial is not just the accused but the
entire criminal justice system itself.
Defending the criminal is defending
justice
So a lawyer defending an accused person is not
simply defending him, he is defending justice
itself.
That is why when somebody asks me how I
feel about defending an accused that I think
or know to be guilty, I usually tell them I feel
great about it. This reply often draws funny
looks and no doubt thoughts about me that as
one of those lawyers who lies and cheats to get
criminals get off for mere money.
Not many are patient enough to hear my
explanation above and for them to understand
when I tell them that I feel great because firstly,
it is not my job to decide his guilt, and secondly,
in carrying out my job and defending him, I am
playing a miniscule but vitally important role in
sustaining and preserving justice.
That is the least any lawyer, judge or prosecutor
should strive for.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 15

Redbook Arrest –
Harassment of Justice
by Richard Wee
On 10 Oct 2010, two lawyers and two
pupils in chambers representing the
Legal Aid Centre were detained by the
police at Endah Parade, Sri Petaling whilst
distributing the Redbook pamphlet as part
of the Law Awareness Program of the
National Legal Aid Centre. Their crime?
Apparently the police were suspicious
of the red-coloured pamphlets that the
lawyers were distributing.
On 28 Oct 2010, a lawyer received a
letter from the Royal Malaysian Air Force
(“RMAF”), demanding that the lawyer
advise his client to surrender to the
RMAF. The issue? The client was being
investigated by the RMAF for the loss of
the jet engines at the RMAF last year. And
for some reason; the RMAF decided to do
what they did.
Last year, five lawyers appeared at the
Brickfields Police Station in their capacity as
Legal Aid lawyers, trying to aid detainees
of a candle light vigil. They were detained
by the police. Their crime? Apparently the
police believed they were part of an illegal
assembly outside the gates of the police
station.
The predilection of the authorities to
harass and/or arrest lawyers in recent times
is alarming. Just a few months ago, the
Security Commission interrogated a lawyer
who was defending a client on a security
matter. A few years ago, another lawyer
defending an accused at an interrogation
by police at the police station, was himself
called for interrogation by the police.
The fact remains; that the lawyers in all
these instances were merely carrying out
their duties as lawyers, or as volunteers
for a cause supported by the Bar. Take the
Redbook arrest for instance. The Redbook
pamphlet contains the basic rights of a
person when detained by the police. It
gives people a simple guide on what to
do when detained by the police. In fact
the Redbook actually has paragraphs
where the person is advised to be polite
to the police and co-operate whenever
necessary.
Instead of perusing and understanding
the purpose of the Redbook, the police
decided to detain all the lawyers who were
distributing the same at the shopping
centre.
It was also rather comical to discover that
the primary reason for the lawyers’ arrest
was due to the phrase “Anti Polis” in the
Redbook pamphlet. That phrase can be
Photo credit: Moh Kok Wai
found at the tail end of the pamphlet, but
a simple reading of the same would show
that phrase to be part of a longer phrase
ie Tindakan Anti Penyalahgunaan Kuasa
Polis, the short form is “TANGKAP”.
A quick history lesson — TANGKAP is a
band of lawyers, who came together to
draft the Redbook. Calling themselves
TANGKAP, these lawyers finished the first
Features/Articles
draft back in 2006, before the book was
changed to a pamphlet in 2008.
So, not only was this latest arrest incorrect;
the reason for the arrest is preposterous.
The act of calling lawyers who were
defending parties in criminal investigation,
for questioning by the authorities must
stop. It is illogical that a lawyer who is
defending a client in a criminal matter,
may find himself or herself subjected to
interrogation and questioning. That is an
attack on the work of the lawyer, who
would be governed by rules of solicitor-
client privilege and secrecy.
Also letters sent to lawyers demanding
or requesting the lawyer to advise the
lawyers’ client to surrender (in court martial
or criminal investigation matters); is akin
to a threat. How can any party demand
a lawyer to advise his client to surrender?
External pressure on the lawyer to advise
the client to submit a plea in a certain way
is wrong and inequitable.
There have been many calls by the
government for the people to respect the
police, but respect has to be earned, and
reciprocated. The police cannot expect
to be respected, if they do not conduct
themselves in a manner expected of a
police officer. This trend of harassing and
arresting lawyers will only work against
the police.
Lawyers must be left to do their work. If
they are unethical, then let the Advocates
and Solicitors Disciplinary Board deal
with that. If the lawyer commits a crime,
charge that lawyer. But if lawyers are
merely carrying out their duties for and
on behalf of their client, or carrying out
volunteer work; that lawyer should in
fact be protected and be left to do what
a lawyer is supposed to do; protect their
client’s legal interests.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 17
 Features/Articles
The Rule of Law and the Law
of Rules: A Semi-Sceptical
Perspective
Opening Plenary Speech by The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG*
at the 15th Malaysian Law Conference
Return to Malaysia
This is the 15th Law Conference of the
Malaysian Bar Association. I have visited
Malaysia as many times. I begin by
paying my respects to the King and the
people of Malaysia for the astonishing
achievements that have been made
in this country since my first visit as a
university student in 1962.
As a school boy, attending public schools
in Sydney in the 1940s, I was aware of
the British Empire, from the large maps
that portrayed its global enterprise in red.1
It was a colour that linked my country to
the Malay Peninsular and Archipelago. At
about the same time as my consciousness
absorbed the special relationships of the
English-speaking countries, two important
changes were happening, about which my
teachers instructed me. The first was the
Allied victory in the Second World War,
including in the Pacific, ending in the fearful
mushroom cloud over Hiroshima, Japan. Out
of that conflagration arose the commission,
chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, which drafted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(“UDHR”). In 1949, all Australian school
children were given a copy of that document
with its proclamation of a new world order
based upon shared ideals. One of them was
stated in the Preamble:2
Whereas it is essential, if man is not
to be compelled to have recourse,
as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human
rights should be protected by the
Rule of Law ...
The concepts of equal liberty for all,
proclaimed in the UDHR, spelt a quick end
18 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
to the British Empire and the creation of the
Commonwealth of Nations. This became
a new link to bind my country to this part
of the world; but henceforth on the basis
of “free association” and full respect for
the equal independence of all the member
countries.
At university, in 1962, I was elected to lead
a delegation to Malaysia, then rejoicing in
the first years of independence under the
wise leadership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, the
first Prime Minister. Many of the Malaysian
friends whom I met on that visit, and later
in Australia, went on to high service in the
professions and government of this country.
Later, as a judge, I returned many times. I
came to know well the first Lords President
of the new Federal Court of Malaysia:
successively Tun Mohamed Suffian
(1974-82) and Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas
(1984-88). The latter participated with me
in the influential acceptance, at a judicial
conference in India, of the Bangalore
Principles on Domestic Application of
International Human Rights Norms.3 Soon
after returning to Malaysia from Bangalore,
he was removed from office. That was an
unhappy time for the rule of law in Malaysia.
Its chief events were described in a book
to which I was proud to offer a foreword
written in distinguished company with Tunku
Abdul Rahman.4 In my remarks, I observed,
as prudently as I could, the importance
for the rule of law of independent judges
and yet the near universality of challenges
to the notion of such independence from
national governments. I included in the list
of challengers both my own government
in Australia5 and the then-government of
Malaysia.
Later I was to know of the steps taken under
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in
April 2008 to award ex gratia payments to the
six judges of Malaysia who had been affected
by the 1988 crisis.6 And the amendment of
the procedure for appointing judges in this
country, designed to remove, or reduce,
criticism of excessively partisan political
influence over judicial appointments.7 These
steps coincided with action by the Malaysian
Bar Council, together with LAWASIA and
the International Bar Association (“IBA”)‘s
human rights committee, in creating a Panel
of Eminent Persons to review the unhappy
events of 1988. The Panel was chaired by
the Hon JS Verma, former Chief Justice of
India. It affirmed the wrongness of the
judicial removals. It confirmed the views
that I had expressed as a friend of Malaysia
in 1988.
My opinions, written so long ago, were
expressed in my then capacity on the
executive of the International Commission
of Jurists (“ICJ”). That body (of which I later
became the President) was one of the first
international human rights organisations
formed after the adoption of the UDHR. It
took as its central plank the global defence
of the rule of law. This was a natural enough
objective, because the ICJ was a body made
up of judges, practising lawyers and legal
academics. Spending much time in the
councils of the ICJ, I had many occasions,
over the years, to reflect upon this core
agenda: the rule of law. And the more I
did so, the more I became convinced that it
was an important principle, and one worthy
of the advocacy of lawyers and citizens. Yet
though the rule of law was essential to a
good society and a worthy legal profession,

it was not sufficient. As the IBA has pointed
out:8
All countries, even those governed
by the crudest dictatorship, need or
have laws, although they disregard
the individual or collective rights
of all or parts of the population.
Indeed, apartheid was enforced with
meticulous attention to legal form
and detail.
I was asked to give this plenary address
on the rule of law when Lord Bingham of
Cornhill, until recently the Senior Law Lord
of the United Kingdom, was unable to do
so through illness. He is, as I shall show,
a celebrated writer on the subject. Until
recently, he was one of the leading judges
of the Commonwealth of Nations. Were he
here today, I suspect that his remarks might
have been a little different, although not
inessential. Having, however inadequately,
to step into his shoes, has obliged me to
return to the hesitations that I felt in my
years in the ICJ concerning the very notion
of the rule of law. And to analyse some of
the weaknesses of the concept as a rallying
cry for lawyers around the world, aiming to
build better societies for their people.
If The Malaysian Bar Association expected a
panegyric of praise for the rule of law, then
I am afraid that you have asked the wrong
speaker. My thesis is that, as a principle,
the rule of law is essential. But it is only so
as it safeguards and promotes the higher
principle of justice. Justice for all. Harmony
in society and its law through justice. Not
simply justice for the majority, as expressed
in democratic elections. Justice also for
minorities. Justice, especially, for vulnerable
and unpopular minorities. It is then that our
discipline, the law is tested. As Lord Bingham
himself has remarked, quoting Chief Justice
Latham of Australia in war time.9 in the give
and take of democracy, popular majorities
can generally look after themselves. Laws
and legal process are “basically needed
for minorities and especially unpopular
minorities”.10
Deconstructing the Rule of Law
There have been various evocations of the
rule of law in different civilisations and over a
very long period of time. Most of those who
have made laws over the centuries, expected
them to be obeyed. So compliance with law
is an idea that lies at the very heart of law’s
purpose.
The Code of Hammurabi, dated to about
1700BC and other ancient Assyrian
documents reveal the great antiquity of
the legal aspiration.11 In all probability, the
notion existed at an even earlier time in
ancient China.12 Much later, the common
law and civil law traditions of law in Europe
offered a variety of definitions for the rule of
law. For Dicey, writing of English law in the
nineteenth century, there were three basic
principles: the absolute supremacy of law
as opposed to arbitrary power; the notion of
equality before the law in the sense of equal
subjection of all to the law; and the right of
the courts to define and enforce what the
law was.13 The civil law tradition, on the
other hand, tended to focus on the concept
of a state that was itself based on law:
constrained by a constitution and protecting
the citizens.14
However, it has been the very vagueness of
what is involved in the ‘rule of law’ that has
probably made the concept popular. It was
liable to mean all things to all people: each
different nation and legal culture reading
into the idea of the rule of law what it
wanted and expected to find.
Lord Bingham was rather dissatisfied with
this approach. He feared that it might lead
lawyers to dismiss the central ideas of the
rule of law as “meaningless verbiage, the
jurisprudential equivalent of motherhood
and apple pie ...”.15 It was this fear that
led Lord Bingham to attempt his famous
deconstruction of what the rule of law means
today. He identified what he declared to be
eight sub-rules, which together amounted to
the unified notion of the rule of law which
every modern civilised country is bound
to uphold. As I mention the propounded
sub-set of these elements, we will all of us
reflect on the extent to which, together and
separately, they are a feature of the law and
its institutions in countries such as Malaysia
and Australia.16
(1) The law must be accessible and, so far
as possible, be intelligible, clear and
predictable;
(2) Questions of legal right and liability
should ordinarily be resolved by
application of the law and not by the
exercise of discretion;
(3) The law applies equally to all, except
to the extent that objective differences
justify differentiation;
(4) The law affords adequate protection of
fundamental human rights;
Features/Articles
(5) Means must be provided for resolving,
without prohibitive cost or inordinate
delay, bona fide civil disputes which
the parties themselves are unable to
resolve;
(6) Ministers and public officials at all levels
must exercise the powers conferred on
them reasonably, in good faith, for the
purpose for which the powers were
conferred and without exceeding the
limits of such powers;
(7) Judicial and other adjudicative
procedures must be fair and
independent; and
(8) There must be compliance by the state
with its international legal obligations.
This detailed sub-set of rules has been
declared a “powerful and persuasive”
description of the rule of law today by
respected commentators.17 However, most
have acknowledged that it is limited to the
national scene. When the same criteria are
applied to the international legal system, it is
generally accepted that that system falls far
short of a rule of law regime. Many actions
have been taken by governments over the
decades, since the Charter of the United
Nations and the UDHR, that appear to have
been contrary to international law. Professor
Robert McCorquodale has instanced as
prime examples the decision of the United
Kingdom government in 1956 to undertake
an armed intervention in Egypt in order to re-
take control the Suez Canal. However, one
does not have to go back to 1956 to find
such instances. The actions of the so-called
“Coalition of the Willing” in invading Iraq
would appear to have been a more modern
instance of the rule of power in place of the
rule of law, and one affecting a number of
countries, including Australia.
Further and later attempts have been made
to flesh out the contemporary prerequisites
of the rule of law so as to provide further
guidance to local lawyers and bar associations
by which they may hold their national
governments to account. In a resolution of
the International Bar Association in 2009, the
sub-rules that were declared to be implicit in
the very concept of the rule of law, were said
to involve twelve essential ideas.18
(1) The existence of an independent,
impartial judiciary;
(2) The presumption of innocence in the
case of criminal accusations;
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 19
 Features/Articles
(3) The prerequisite of fair and public trials, conducted without
undue delay;
(4) The observance of a rational and proportionate approach of
punishment of those who are convicted of crimes;
(5) The existence of a strong and independent legal profession;
(6) The strict protection of professional secrecy and of confidential
communications between a lawyer and client so as to build
confidence in the administration of justice;
(7) The maintenance of equality of all before the law;
(8) The absence of arbitrary arrests and secret trials;
(9) The absence of indefinite detention without trial;
(10) The exclusion of cruel and degrading treatment or
punishment;
(11) The absence of intimidation and corruption both in the electoral
process and in judicial and other adjudicative decision-making;
and
(12) The conduct of governance in society through open and
transparent institutions and procedures, with freedom of
information, opinion and expression as prerequisites to the
operation of all of the foregoing characteristics.
If one digs still more deeply into the notion of the rule of law and
asks why that notion, and the prerequisites elaborated successively
by Dicey, Bingham and the IBA are essential to civilised modern
governance, Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter19 suggests that Lord
Bingham was right in prescribing the rule of law as “a fundamental
bargain between ‘the individual and the state’, the ‘governed and the
governor’, in which both [parties to the compact] accept constraints
for the sake of the common interest and the common good”.20
These theoretical analyses are all well and good. But what does the
rule of law come down to in practice? What have I learned over a
long life and, in particular, over a long life in the law? The World
Cup, the latest cricket scores and the current movies and songs are
more likely to be on the lips of citizens at work and at play. The
importance of the rule of law does not tend to come up very often
in such popular discourse amongst our fellow citizens. But that does
not mean that it is unimportant. Why do I think that this notion,
which has to do with institutions and procedures of law, is essential
to a well-governed society. For the answer to that question, one
must descend further into the engine room.
Why the Rule of Law is Essential
Having enumerated the basic and familiar characteristics of law,
with independent judges and a vigorous legal profession that can no
doubt sometimes be extremely irritating to other interests in society:
politicians who want to claim simply to get things done’; business
people who want to cut corners; powerful individuals who are
irritated by what they see as outdated obstacles to their bright ideas
for the rest of us; and religious preachers who are disturbed about
what they occasionally see as disparities between the law of the state
and the rule of God (as interpreted, of course, by themselves).
We lawyers and judges advocate the rule of law and all of the
paraphernalia of accessibility, clarity, equality, protection of rights
20 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
and so forth because doing so brings order into many of the most
important decisions that arise in every society. It is a principle that
provides a public place and largely transparent process to resolve
our most heated and significant disputes. It affords a mechanism
for establishing and clarifying the rules by which our people will live
together in relative peace. It recognises that the only alternatives
on offer are the power of money, influence and guns. Those forms
of power are generally viewed as defective when compared to the
invocation and application of written rules that pre exist events or
that can be derived by logical reasoning from earlier expositions of
the common law.
The experience of humanity has been that, in the absence of law, and
effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush,
like quicksilver, to fill the gaps.
Thus, Germany, under the Nazis, remained a Rechtstaat – a state
based on law. The only problem was that there existed “black holes”.
There were spaces where the law did not run. There were areas of
life where judicial orders were silent or completely ineffective. Often
this was because of the very large discretions granted to civil and
military officials affecting the lives of ordinary citizens. Sometimes it
was because of the invocation of notions of the superior force of the
Führer’s decrees and the excuse of a pressing “national emergency”.
Hitler invoked both of these “black holes” in his murderous
elimination of his rivals during the Night of the Long Knives on 20
June 1934.
It is to remove such disturbing and unsettling dangers, which disrupt
the orderly management of the state, civic and business activity
within the state and ordinary human lives, that societies have
constructed the expectations of the rule of law. However irritating
it may sometimes be to have independent officials (who happen
to be lawyers and are usually called judges) second-guessing what
politicians in the parliament or the executive have done in pursuit
of their notions of what is best for society, it is necessary to uphold
the checks and balances. Over the long haul, this has been found to
be in the best interests of good government. It has also been found
to be in the long term interests of business which depends upon
predictability in ordering its affairs by reference to laws and rules and
in depending on courts to insist impartially upon conformity with the
law and to uphold contractual promises that comply with law. In
the integrated regional and global economy of today, it would be
intolerable for business if it could not predict its legal obligations
and entitlements by reference to law. Where global business cannot
trust local courts to impartially uphold bargains entered with local
businesses, it will demand external arbitration. It will resort to
alternative dispute mechanisms in the search for reliable, predictable
and lawful outcomes.
At about the time that I received my first copy of the UDHR in 1949,
I became aware of a very great danger, appearing in the form of
law in Australia, facing a close family member of mine. He was Jack
Simpson, who had recently married my paternal grandmother in her
second marriage. He fell victim to the provisions of the Communist
Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth). That was a law which was enacted
by the Australian federal parliament. At the time, Jack Simpson was
the treasurer of the Australian Communist Party. A finer man of
principle, I never met. Unworldly, somewhat naive and sometimes
misguided, that is true. But a good man for whom communism had
become his new religion.

At the age of 10 years and in a very vivid
way, I learned how the rule of law works
in a modern democracy. The Communist
Party and other interests challenged the Act
before the High Court of Australia. That
was the court that, half a century later, I
myself was to join. The government had
an undoubted electoral mandate to ban the
party. An Australian brigade was fighting
communists in Korea. Communists were
then often regarded as terrorists
in Australia. Opinion polls showed
that initially 80 percent of the
population supported the Australian
government’s legislation. Yet, in
this heated atmosphere, the High
Court of Australia measured the
statute against the requirements of
the Australian Constitution. By five
justices to one (with Chief Justice
Latham dissenting), the Court held
that the law was invalid. Communists
could be prosecuted under valid laws
for what they actually did against
fellow members of society. But they
could not lose their civil liberties for
what they believed, however foolish
those beliefs might seem to their
fellow citizens.21 This was a counter-
majoritarian lesson for a young boy
in a tolerant democracy. It was a
clear insistence of the protections
of the rule of law. Subsequently, in
September 1951, a referendum of
the electors of Australia rejected the
government’s proposal to amend the
Constitution to override the court’s
decision. The Communist Party was
not banned. It continued to stumble
along with a small band of dedicated
members until, one by one, they
became disillusioned. Eventually,
at the end of the century, the party
was disbanded by vote of its own
members.
In the many years that have elapsed since
those important events, I have kept them
before me as an illustration of the wisdom
and foresight of great judges in the past in
protecting my country from the provision of
over-wide discretions to officials; from the
removal of true equality amongst citizens;
from the imposition of differential treatment
based upon political and other beliefs; from
a departure from fundamental human rights
to free expression and free association; from
an excessive deployment of public power;
and from the attempt to remove crucial
decisions affecting the lives of citizens from
the independent and impartial courts. We
must hope that our judges will always have
the wisdom and foresight to respond to
such challenges when they arise. If this
constituted an illustration of the rule of law
in my country, as it was, it was one that I
honoured and celebrated.
In the years since 1951, I have witnessed
many instances in Australia (and taken
part in some myself) where the rule of law
has been upheld again to safeguard basic
constitutional rights. This has been so
even though, in Australia such rights are
rarely spelt out in the constitution as those
of Malaysia are. In Australia, they must
usually be derived from the common law
or individual statutes or be inferred from
the structure and purpose of the 1901
Constitution. Instances have included:
* To permit protection of the environment
in Australia against irreversible
damage;22
Features/Articles
* To uphold the right of indigent accused
persons to have effective access to
competent legal representation when
facing a serious criminal trial;23
* To undo a demonstrated wrong to a
convicted prisoner notwithstanding a
repeated rejection of his complaint by
the appellate courts below;24
* To uphold the rights of short term
prisoners to vote as citizens in
Australia’s federal elections and to
reject the notion that parliament
could deprive any category of
citizens it pleased of the right to
vote;25 and
* To uphold the rights
of Islamic places of worship to
enjoy precisely the same taxation
advantages as Christian places of
worship under the law.26
It is when the law protects
the poor, the powerless, the
vulnerable and the unpopular
that it knows its finest hour.27 It is
when the system of government
provides for, accepts and
implements such decisions that
we can say that the society is a
rule of law society. It is so when
judges feel constrained to reach,
and give effect to, decisions
that might be unpopular and
might upset powerful interests in
society. It will be so even where
the outcome in the particular
case is upsetting to the judge
because it seems unfair. Such
instances must be tolerated (as
Lord Bingham has explained)28
because such instances are
inherent in any system where the
judges are obliged to construe,
and give effect to the law. Not
simply to give effect to their own notions,
intuitions and human feelings.29
Naturally, powerful people, used to getting
their own way, will sometimes find having
to submit to the external opinions of
unelected judges (responding in their turn
to troublesome lawyers) annoying and
frustrating. But there are strong reasons
of principle, economics and efficiency for
maintaining and defending that system.
Over the years, powerful politicians in
most countries have tried to shape and re-
shape the composition of the judiciary in
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 21
 Features/Articles
accordance with their own notions and
values.30 However, in mature democracies,
they rarely succeed. This is why there is
special wisdom in maintaining a thick wall
between appointed judges and the corrupting
pressures and influences of external power
or pressure. In my 35 years as a judge, I can
say that never once was I conscious of an
attempt of any power external to the parties
and the courts to influence the outcome of
a decision I made as a judge. Those who
submit their disputes to legal determination
do so upon the assumption of impartial and
independent decisions. It is destructive of
the peaceful acceptance of such decisions in
society if that assumption is ever displaced or
placed in doubt.
Why the Law of Rules is Not Sufficient
Having established that the rule of law, as we
have come to understand it, is essential for
an effective and just governmental system.
I now want to state a number of sceptical
thoughts.
A common criticism of legal systems, and
of the people who repeatedly participate
in them, is that they are overly concerned
with institutions, systems and procedures.
And insufficiently attentive to the substance
of what they are ultimately about: the
attainment of just or fair outcomes;
the achievement of improved relations
between parties; the pursuit of desirable
social objectives beyond the parties; and
the protection of minority interests, as
ascertained by consulting civil society, not
just powerful individuals and companies.
In a recent essay, Stephen Golub has argued
that the concept of justice represents a
broader and more effective organising
principle for international efforts to alleviate
the really serious grievances and problems on
the planet, rather than the rule of law which
tends to be concentrated on courts, other
legal institutions, judges, laws and lawyers:
persons and bodies that the ordinary citizen
encounters but rarely.31
Some of his propositions bear comparison
with a connected set of views expressed by
James Goldston, Executive Director of the
Open Society Justice Initiative in New York.
He points out that rule of law objectives
have attracted much support from powerful
agencies like the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development and wealthy
Western sponsors.32 However, they tend to
sustain top-down instruction by Western
22 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
countries, addressed to developing countries.
Often they fail to ask what lessons developed
nations can themselves learn about real
problems affecting long-term governance,
including instruction for the way in which
they should go about addressing the defects
in their own legal systems.33
The basic defect involved in focusing
exclusively, or mainly, on the rule of law
as an organising principle for the idealism
of the legal profession is, to put it bluntly,
that it all depends upon the justice, wisdom,
applicability and even-handedness of the
law that is being upheld and enforced.
Only when that factor is taken into account
can the question be decided whether the
ultimate outcome is good or bad for the
human beings affected and for the society
about them.
It is important to make this point because
it is all too easy, in rule of law discourse, to
overlook the fact that sometimes, including
in modern democracies, the law in the books
(whether statute or judge-made law) may
be unjust, out-of-date, inefficient, lacking
in balance, inattentive to later knowledge or
contrary to universal human rights.
In Australia, we have had many instances of
legal decisions which were entirely faithful to
the law but which produced outcomes that
were seriously unjust and unfair, as we can
now see:
* The body of laws that upheld the
immigration principle of White
Australia, administered by a dictation
test, is a good illustration;34
* The confirmation, in former times, of
the death sentence in cases where the
reviewing court confessed itself to be
concerned about the reliability of a
confession by an Aboriginal accused
which was the very foundation for his
conviction;35
* The previous, long-standing common
law rule, upheld by the courts, which
denied indigenous Australians any
recognition of their traditional interests
in land;36
* The rejection of claims to status as a
conscientious objector against military
service, except in a case of total
opposition to every conceivable war;37
* The interpretation of modern migration
law in a way that would permit the
indefinite executive detention of a
stateless person;38
* The confirmation of anti-terrorism
laws that would invest judges with
restrictive powers based on very wide
discretionary and policy judgments
unusual to the judiciary;39 and
* The conferral of jurisdiction on State
Supreme Courts to keep in prison a
person who had completed serving
his sentence upon a judicial prediction
of dangerousness, always notoriously
disputable.40
Some of these cases might breach the
rule of law assumptions and sub-rules, at
least as they have been elaborated by Lord
Bingham. But the instances show that
fearless maintenance of the law and faithful
observance of its rules and procedures by
uncorrupted courts are not, of themselves,
a sufficient guarantee of a just and fair
society or even of just and fair outcomes to
particular controversies.
Moreover, we lawyers know that there
are many forms of law which may be
upheld, and even arguably comply with the
external requirements of the rule of law,
and yet be a repository for very large and
effectively unreviewable decision making by
governments or other powerful interests:
* The existence of very wide discretions
in the letter of the law is not unknown
in our legal systems. The power to
prosecute or not to prosecute for
criminal offences is one such instance.
Both in Malaysia, in decisions to
prosecute for sedition offences, and in
Australia, prosecutorial discretions are
generally left untouched by the courts
although sometimes the decision to
prosecute may effectively determine
the outcome of the case;41
* In cases involving the exercise of
defence powers and in prosecution
under anti-terrorism laws, courts will
ordinarily defer to official decisions.
They may sometimes be encouraged
to do so by legal restrictions placed on
their access to relevant evidence and
information;42
* In some instances, governments wishing
to achieve particular objectives may do
so by turning a blind eye to the letter
of the law and indulging in selective
enforcement of the law, difficult to
reconcile with its strict terms;43

* Even where the law is enforced equally,
the unequal powers of government and
of the ordinary citizen may produce a
far from level playing field. A good
example is where the Taxation Office
pursues an ordinary taxpayer through
the courts at a cost that few individual
citizens could ever afford; and
* The powers of particular office holders
will sometimes effectively be put them
outside merits review. Occasionally
this is done, according to law, so as to
attain higher objectives, as in the special
privileges and immunities accorded to
parliamentarians and judicial officers.
On other occasions, the law may
protect particular categories (such as
parents, teachers or guardians) out of
deference to their traditional roles in
society and because the deployment
of such power is normally exercised for
the benefit of the persons concerned.
Instances such as the foregoing demonstrate
the practical limits that arise in subjecting
many decisions to effective judicial scrutiny.
Unless an obligation is imposed expressly by
statute, the common law of Australia has
been held not to oblige public officials to
give reasons for their decisions.44 That ruling
has had the result of placing those adversely
affected by the exercise of public power in
many cases beyond effective judicial review
because they could never demonstrate the
real reasons for the oppressive use of power
by officials.
Quite apart from these instances, we all
know of the many practical impediments
that can stand in the way of securing real
access to the rule of law in societies such as
ours. Just to list some of these impediments
will help to demonstrate that, in some
instances at least, the rule of law is more of a
theoretical construct than a practical reality.
Although the following instances are drawn
from Australian case law, there would be
many equivalents, some additional and some
different cases in Malaysia, known only too
well to this audience:
* A person intelligent and educated will
enjoy enormous advantages because
of their knowledge of law and of
their rights and willingness to pursue
remedies that lie in the books. Recent
studies have suggested that disease
may often be linked to intelligence.
However this may be, real access to
legal rights (in default of legal aid or pro
bono assistance) will often depend on a
person’s background and experience;
* The type of people who assert, advocate
and decide cases are generally amongst
the elite of society. Inescapably, we are
part of that elite. A good proportion
of us have been well educated and
supported by parents of better-than-
average means. Sometimes people of
this background, without any actual
ill will, may not empathise with those
on the fringes of society, at least
sufficiently to perceive their complaints
and to sympathise with their invocation
of the law;
It is all too easy to
overlook the fact that
sometimes, the law in the
books, may be unjust, out-
of-date, inefficient, lacking
in balance, inattentive
to later knowledge or
contrary to universal
human rights.
* The poverty of potential litigants will
frequently mean that they cannot
afford to secure even basic advice,
still less to pursue their legal rights
effectively in the courts. Judges may
endeavour to accord equal justice to
self representing litigants. But in the
press of business, such litigants may
not know, find or express their rights.
Too much will often depend on the
chance factors of their securing public
legal aid or pro bono assistance;
* Public legal aid in many countries,
including Australia, has not kept pace
with the ever growing needs of civil
litigation. The common law system is
inherently cost intensive and legal costs
are ever rising;
* Alternative dispute resolution is
spreading and sometimes is now a
compulsory prerequisite to litigation.
Whilst often this is beneficial, it does
occasionally deprive parties of a judge
with the will to ensure a just and
lawful outcome to a conflict. It may
sometimes effectively substitute market
forces for the rule of law;
Features/Articles
* Attempts to improvise with class actions
and litigation funding have not always
proved acceptable to the courts.45 Yet
the old requirements of individual
litigation may sometimes place some
claims beyond the pockets of citizens
of modest means.
* Occasionally poor litigants, even
in criminal trials, must accept
inexperienced lawyers and courts of
criminal appeal are generally reluctant
to revisit the decisions and judgments
of such lawyers, however imprudent
they may appear to have been in
retrospect.46
* The sheer number of appeals that are
now brought, including against criminal
convictions and sentences, undoubtedly
produce the risk of overlooking errors
which a final court, with its many
special burdens, cannot be expected to
cure;
* Civil society organisations in many
jurisdictions often find it difficult to
gain acceptance as amici curiae or
as interveners because our system
of individual litigation has not yet
fully adapted to the role of courts in
declaring the general law beyond the
interests of particular parties;47
The advent of highly complex, scientific
evidence has presented serious challenges to
non-institutional litigants. Effectively, much
litigation has begun to follow the pattern
of the organisation of the legal profession
itself. The days of the small time firm or sole
legal practitioner and the local equivalent of
Atticus Finch has been replaced by the mega
multinational law office, often operating out
of modern palaces of marble and glass for
which somebody (usually the client) pays.
And beyond the nation state are now
international organisations and technologies
that are not readily susceptible to domestic
law and regulation. The large role that
the World Trade Organisation plays in
intellectual property law, as it operates on
pharmaceutical patents is one instance.
The influence of the internet on the First
Amendment values of the American
Constitution is another example of the extra-
territorial operation of national law. In this
way, the rule of national law today is often
replaced by decision-making by anonymous
officers, sometimes exhibiting a very large
democratic deficit.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 23
 Features/Articles
Conclusions
Individually or collectively, the practical
inhibitions and impediments listed by me
do not constitute a reason to abandon
the adherence of the judiciary and legal
profession across the world to upholding the
banner of the rule of law.
The growth of business law, and the
demand of truly independent judges to
decide business cases impartially, is likely to
spill over in its consequences for the role of
independent judges in deciding public law
matters that can sometimes present sensitive
issues of political power and contested
human rights.48
Still, the practical limitations are reasons
enough to recognise that the rule of law
is, in the end, only productive of good
governance for the people, if the law that is
enforced is just, conformable with universal
human rights and susceptible to consistent
reform, modernisation and simplification.
Not long after I received my first copy of
the UDHR from my teacher in 1949 and
learned of the decision of the High Court
of Australia in the Communist Party Case in
1951, I discovered an aspect of the law in
Australia that, astonishingly, made me a kind
of outlaw. I refer to the criminal laws against
homosexual men. I was subject to serious
criminal penalties for an attribute of myself
(like race, skin colour or gender) that I did not
choose and could not change. This is still a
feature of the otherwise generally beneficial
heritage of British law. It still exists in 41 of
the 54 countries of the Commonwealth of
Nations. It exists in Malaysia but it has been
abolished in Australia.
Recently, in India, a unanimous decision of
the Delhi High Court struck down section 377
of the Indian Penal Code. That court held
that the provision, in its general operation to
adults in private, was incompatible with the
constitutional notions of equality and privacy
expressed in the Indian Constitution. Chief
Justice AP Shah declared:49
If there is one constitutional tenet
that can be said to be an underlying
theme of the Indian constitution, it is
that of inclusiveness [which is a] value
deeply ingrained in Indian society,
nurtured over several generations.
The inclusiveness that Indian society
traditionally displayed, literally in every
aspect of life, is manifest in recognising
24 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
a role in society for everyone. Those
perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’
or ‘different’ are not on that score
excluded or ostracised.
Similar decisions have been pronounced
by judges in other common law countries
as diverse as the United States50 and South
Africa.51 Important decisions on connected
themes have also been rendered by many
courts, including recently by the new
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.52
In other jurisdictions, including my own,
reform in this context has been achieved by
democratic legislative amendments.53 Yet,
in some parts of the world, reforms on this
issue have been very slow in coming. One
must respect the fact that different societies
are at different stages on the journey. Just
as, earlier, different societies had different
views on respect for people of different
races, religions and other personal attributes.
I grew up in a society that disrespected Asian
people and repeatedly proclaimed a culture
of racial superiority.
We can never ignore
our duty as lawyers, and
as citizens and human
beings, to ask whether
the law so appearing is
contrary to universal
human rights.
When I was young, there was no doubt
about what the law on these subjects said in
Australia. Just as there was no doubt on the
laws that enforced apartheid in South Africa,
anti-miscegenation in the United States and
religious disqualifications from voting or
holding public office in earlier Britain.54
My point here is that the rule of law had
nothing really protective to say, as such,
about the burdens imposed in these ways
on minorities (or in the case of South Africa,
on the majority racial group). On the
contrary, the law, as such, tended to enforce
inequality. It thereby gave prejudice and
unequal treatment a kind of legitimacy and
respect in the community. This was certainly
the case with the White Australia laws in my
country well into the 1960s. Only gradually
were they dismantled, together with laws
against Aboriginal Australians.
The law, in the sense of the letter of the law,
is not, therefore, enough. We, as lawyers,
must be concerned with the content of
the law and the content of the procedures
and institutions that deliver law to society.
Lawyers above all must be ever vigilant to
see new truths (often revealed by scientific
research) which earlier generations did not
perceive. This is why, for us, the rule of law
means more than the fact that a law exists
in the books. We can never ignore our
duty as lawyers, and as citizens and human
beings, to ask whether the law so appearing
is contrary to universal human rights. And,
if it is, it is a breach of the fourth of Lord
Bingham’s subordinate attributes of the rule
of law as that principle is understood today.
This duty that we, the practitioners of law,
carry is a very heavy one. But it is the one
that gives the profession of law its nobility
of purpose. It makes law as important to
society as the health care professionals who
look after our physical bodies. Embedded
in the human spirit is an unending curiosity
about the human condition and a yearning
for the dignity that lies at the very heart of
each and every one of us. I have never seen
this idea better put than by Justice Kennedy,
in the Supreme Court of the United States, in
Lawrence v Texas55 when he said;56
... [T]hose who drew and ratified the
[US Constitution] ... might have been
more specific. They did not presume
to have this insight. They knew times
can blind us to certain truths and
later generations can see that laws
once thought necessary and proper
in fact serve only to oppress. As the
constitution endures, persons in every
generation can invoke its principles in
their own search for greater freedom.
It is we, the lawyers, who must be specially
alert to this ever present challenge to our
sensibilities. And just as I agree that Western
countries can derive wisdom and insights
about law and justice from those of other
cultures57 (most especially on economic,
social and cultural rights) so those of other
countries can sometimes derive insights from
the West, as Chief Justice AP Shah did in his
recent decision in India.58 The creation of the
ASEAN Human Rights Commission, and the
leading part that it may be expected that
Malaysia will play in that body foreshadow an
increasing influence of international human
rights jurisprudence on the court decisions
and other legal developments of Malaysia
and the region. This will be a beneficial and

constructive influence. And it is not one that
is inconsistent with the special features of
Asian culture and values.59
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor captured this
idea perfectly in a speech made by her shortly
before her retirement from the Supreme
Court of the United States:60
I suspect that, with time, we will rely
increasingly on international and
foreign law in resolving what now
appear to be domestic issues. Doing
so may not only enrich our own
country’s decisions; it will create
that all-important good impression.
When U.S. courts are seen to be
cognizant of other judicial systems,
our ability to act as a rule-of-law
model for other nations will be
enhanced.
I conclude, as I began, with an expression of
respect for the King and people of Malaysia.
And with affectionate regard for my many
friends in the judiciary and legal profession
of this country. How different your country
is today from what it was when I found it
as a young student in 1962. I am grateful
to be welcomed back again. And especially
because, by now, you are well aware that I
am prone to offer thoughts that go beyond
the self-congratulations that were once the
comforting and invariable hallmark of these
great occasions.
Even for lawyers, law is not enough. It is the
content and justice of law that matters. Ours
is the special responsibility to ensure that
law is just and protective of human dignity.
Law is not, or should not be, simply for the
wealthy. Law is, or should be, for all. It is
not just for the popular and the acclaimed. It
is for the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.
We must never forget this. And conferences
like this one provide us with the occasion to
re-dedicate ourselves. And to reaffirm the
universality and integrity of our discipline
publicly before each other, before our fellow
citizens and before the watching world.
* Retired Justice of the High Court of Australia
(1996-2009); member of the Eminent Persons Group
on the future of the Commonwealth of Nations,
(2010-); member of the UNDP Global Commission
on HIV and the Law (2010-).
1 M.D. Kirby, Foreword, H.P. Lee, Constitutional
Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia, OUP, Kuala
Lumpur, 1995, vii.
2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble.
See Rule of Law – A Commentary on the IBA’s
Council’s Resolution of September 2005 by Francis
Neate, co-chair of the IBA’s Rule of Law Action
Group (July 2009, 4).
3 The Bangalore Principles are set out in M.D. Kirby,
“The Role of the Judge in Advancing Human Rights
by Reference to International Human Rights Norms”
(1988) 62 Australian Law Journal 514 at 531-2.
4 Tun Mahamed Salleh Abas and K. Das, May Day For
Justice, Magnus, 1989, Forewords by Tunku Abdul
Rahman Putra Al-Haj at xi-xiii and by the author at
xiv-xviii.
5 Ibid, xvii.
6 K. Arumugam Ruarum, Malaysia – Human Rights
Report 2008 – Civil and Political Rights (2009), 148.
7 Judicial Appointments Act 2008 (Mal).
8 IBA Report, above n2, 6.
9 Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc. v The
Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116 at 124.
10 Lord Bingham, “Dignity, Fairness and Good
Government. The Role of the Human Rights Act”
(2009) 34 Alternative Law Journal 74 at 77.
11 R. McCorquodale in Mads Andenas and Duncan
Fairgrieve (Eds), Tom Bingham and the Transformation
of the Law: A Liber Amoricum, OUP, Oxford, 2009,
136 at 139 fn8.
12 Yongpin Liu, Origin of Chinese Law (1988) cited
loc cit, 139. For a modern review, see Ann-Marie
Slaughter, “Shielding the Rule of Law” in Andenas
and Fairgrieve, above n11, 767-768.
13 A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law
of the Constitution, Macmillan, London, 1885 (1959
reprint), pt.II. See McCorquodale, above n11, 139.
14 Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law (2nd ed, 1967); J.
Chevalier, L’État de Droit (3rd ed, 1999). See also
McCorquodale, above n11, 139.
15 Lord Bingham, “The Rule of Law” (2007) 66
Cambridge Law Journal 67 at 81.
16 Ibid, 69-84. See also Anthony Clarke and John
Sorabji, “The Rule of Law and our Changing
Constitution” in Andenas and Fairgrieve, above n11,
39 at 41; McCorquodale, ibid, 139; Slaughter, above
n12, 767.
17 See e.g. McCorquodale, above n11, 140.
18 IBA – above n2.
19 Slaughter, above n12, 761.
20 Ibid, 771, citing a speech by Lord Bingham made in
the United Kingdom House of Lords on 16 November
2006.
21 Australian Communist Party v The Commonwealth
(1951) 83 CLR 1.
22 Tasmania v The Commonwealth (Tasmanian Dam
Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1.
23 McKinney v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 468.
24 Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125.
25 Roach v Electoral Commissioner (2007) 233 CLR
162.
26 Canterbury Municipal Council v Moslem Alawy
Society Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 525 (NSWCA).
27 Falbo v United States 320 US 549 at 561 (1944) per
Murphy J. applied ABC v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
at 114.
28 Lord Bingham, above n10 at 78.
29 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365 is a good
example.
30 Jeff Shesol, Supreme Power – Franklin Roosevelt v
The Supreme Court, Norton and Co. NY, 2010.
31 S. Golub, “Making Justice The Organising Principle
of the Rule of Law Field” (2009) 1 HJRL 61 at 66.
32 James A. Goldson, “The Rule of Law at Home and
Abroad” (2009) 1 HJRL 38.
33 Ibid at 42.
34 Chia Gee v Martin (1905) 3 CLR 649; Potter v
Minahan (1907) 7 CLR 277; O’Keefe v Calwell
(1948) 77 CLR 261.
35 Stuart v The Queen (1959) 101 CLR 1.
36 Cooper v Stuart (1889) LR 14 App Cas 286 at 291
(PC). See also Attorney-General v Brown (1847)
1 Legge 312 at 316-318 and Williams v Attorney-
General (NSW) (1913) 16 CLR 404 at 439. These
decisions were reversed by Mabo v Queensland
Features/Articles
[No.2] (1992) 175 CLR 1 and Wik Peoples v
Queensland (1996) 186 CLR 1.
37 Ex Parte White: Reg v District Court (Sydney) (1966)
116 CLR 644.
38 Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562.
39 Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307.
40 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR
575; Baker v The Queen (2004) 223 CLR 513.
41 Cf. Stephen Gray and Naomita Royan, “The Blogger
Prince and the Cultured Mongolian – Sedition
Prosecutions in the Modern Malaysian State” (2009)
14 Media and Arts Law Review 455 at 463. But see
also at 465 in reference to Re Param Cumaraswamy
[1986] 1 MLJ 10.
42 Gypsy Jokers Motor Cycle Club Inc v Commissioner
of Police (WA) (2008) 234 CLR 532; K-Generation
Pty Ltd v Liquor Licensing Court (2009) 237 CLR
501.
43 For example, the policy of non-prosecution of
nude bathing on some Australian beaches and
non-prosecution for needle possession in policies
introduced to combat the spread of HIV.
44 Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond (1986) 159
CLR 656 reversing Osmond v Public Service Board of
NSW [1984] 3 NSWLR 477 (NSWCA).
45 Campbell’s Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif (2006) 229
CLR 386.
46 Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614 at 636
[105].
47 See e.g. Wurridjal v The Commonwealth (2008) 237
CLR 309 at 312-314. Cf. Levy v Victoria 91997) 189
CLR 579 at 604, 650-1; Attorney-General (Cth) v
Breckler (1999) 197 CLR 83 at 135-6.
48 Slaughter, above n12.
49 Naz Foundation v Union of India [2009] 4 LRC 838 at
895 [129].
50 Lawrence v Texas 529 US 558 (2003). See Naz,
above n48 at 867 [57].
51 National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v
Minister of Justice [1998] 3 LRC 648 (CCSA). Cf.
Naz, above n48, at 866 [56].
52 H.J. (Iran) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2010] UKSC 31, on appeal from (2009)
EWCA Civ 172. Applying Appellant S395/2002 v
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
(2003) 216 CLR 473. See also Toonen v Australia
(1994) 1 Int Hum Rts Reports 97 (No.3); Dudgeon
v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHHR 149; Morris v
Ireland (1991) 14 EHHR 186; Naz Foundation [2009]
4 LRC 838 at 865 [52].
53 Sexual Offences Act 1967 (UK).
54 Before the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 (UK); 10
Geo IV, ch7. This was made applicable to Roman
Catholic subjects in the Australian colonies by
legislation of January 1830. See e.g. Roman Catholic
Relief Act 1830 (UK). Before that legislation, Roman
Catholics were denied the suffrage and many civil
rights in the United Kingdom and its colonies.
55 539 US 558 (2003).
56 559 US 558 at 563 (2003). See Naz [2009] 4 LRC
838 at 889 [115].
57 Goldston, above n32 at 43.
58 Naz [2009] 4 LRC 838. Contrast the consideration
of apostasy in decisions of the Malaysian courts.
Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam [2004] 2 MLJ 119;
[2005] 6 MLJ 193; [2007] 3 MLJ 557; [2009] 1 LRC
2. See also M.D. Kirby, “Fundamental Human Rights
and Religious Apostasy: The Malaysian Case of Lina
Joy” (2008) 17 Griffith Law Review 151; M.D. Kirby,
“Law, Human Rights and Religion – Of Genocide,
Sexuality and Apostasy” (2009) 9 Macquarie LJ 3.
59 Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Asian Values”,
16th Morganthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics and
Foreign Policy, Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs (NY, 1997), 9, 28.
60 In Adam Liptah, “United States Court, a Long Time
Beacon, is now Guiding Fewer Nations”, The New
York Times, 18 Sept 2008, A30.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 25
 Features/Articles

A Conversation with the CEO

Q & A with Rajen Devaraj

by Chua Ai Lin

After more than a decade in the teaching including the Ad Hoc

profession, Rajen Devaraj took a leap Committee on the
of faith and joined Bar Council in early Immigration Act and
2006. Today he is the Chief Executive Campaign for a Judicial
Officer (“CEO”) of Bar Council. In his first Commission. When
interview since he assumed office, Rajen Kenneth Goh was the
shares snippets of his work and life. Acting CEO, there was
a major change in the
Appointed on 18 July 2009, Rajen way the organisation
replaced Corrinne Wong who stepped was structured.
down on 15 July 2009. Having been with Departments and
the Bar Council Secretariat since January divisions were
2006, Rajen started as an Executive Officer developed from what
assigned to the Human Rights Committee. used to be a flat-
In September 2007, he was promoted to structured organisation
the position of Director of the Practitioners’ and I was assigned
Affairs Division, responsible for overseeing to the Practitioners’
and monitoring the work done by officers Affairs Division as
involved in committee work. the Director. A four-
person management
Tell us briefly about your educational and team, consisting of
working background. Kenneth, Corrinne
I have a degree in Engineering (Civil) from Wong, Cindy Chan
University of Malaya, and in addition, I and myself, was set up
hold a Diploma in Industrial Relations. to run the Secretariat.
Prior to joining Bar Council, I was teaching
in a private institution. With increasing
managerial-type
How then did you end up in Bar Council? responsibility, my
I have been interested in public interest committee work was In my previous job at the private educational
issues from my time as an undergraduate slowly eased off. In April 2008, Chin institution, in addition to teaching, I was
in University of Malaya. I got into the Oy Sim was hired and she took over the also part of the management. Looking
teaching line in the mid-90s. In 2005, I human rights portfolio. I was appointed at processes and systems, and how an
received word that there was an opening as the CEO when Corrinne left Bar Council organisation can function better, are
for a Human Rights Officer with Bar the following year. things that I enjoy.
Council. After having been in the teaching
profession for some 10 years, I relished the You joined Bar Council specifically for Upon taking over as CEO, we have enlarged
opportunity to get back to human rights human rights work, but within two years the composition of the management
work. That was all it took for me to submit that was no longer the main focus of your team. Today the team comprises nine
my application for a change of career. job. How has that worked out for you on individuals from various departments and
a personal level? we meet regularly, providing the element
Chart your path to the hottest seat in the of having a group of people running the
organisation. There’s no doubt that I miss human
organisation rather than just one person.
rights work but there was no way I could
I was hired as the Executive Officer for the have held on to that portfolio with the
Human Rights Committee and in the first From the beginning of my tenure, the team
additional things in the organisation that I has been getting deep into issues related
one-and-a-half years, also handled other had taken on.
committees at various points in time, to strengthening and improving the Bar

26 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


Council Secretariat on various fronts. We
look at how things are being done, we
analyse the approaches, even challenge
them, if necessary. Just because things
have been done in a particular way – for
years – does not mean that it is the best or
most effective approach.
One of the issues that concerns us is the
need to connect more effectively with
Members of the Bar.
On this note, I would like to put on record
my congratulations to the Bar Council
Publications Committee for having the
vision and determination to jumpstart the
publication of Praxis. The relaunching of
Praxis is a monumental initiative because it
Photo credit: Chua Ai Lin
means we now have an additional avenue
of reaching out to Members. Kudos to
Syamsuriatina Ishak, Chairperson of the
Bar Council Publications Committee, and
her team!
Coming from a non-legal background, do
you find difficulty in carrying out the job?
As CEO, a large part of my job scope relates
to managerial functions. Not having a law
degree is not too much of a disadvantage
when it comes to managing staff and the
organisation as a whole.
Fortunately for me, my job is made much
easier by having supportive Office Bearers
and Council members. In the efforts of
the Bar Council Secretariat to revamp
and rejuvenate ourselves, we’ve received
nothing but full support from them. I
also have the honour of working with a
capable management team and dedicated
staff. With such privileges, there’s nothing
I can give less than my very best.
Tell us about Bar Council.
I think Bar Council is an organisation
unlike any other professional bodies in
the country. It’s a body that is not just
interested in defending and advancing
the interest of its Members, but is also
concerned about the larger issues in
Malaysian society. This, I believe, sets the
legal profession apart. I take pleasure from
the fact that I belong to an organisation
that places such a high premium on
human rights.
What is your take on criticisms about the
Bar Council Secretariat?
Criticism is not necessarily a bad thing. I
think that it is important to be criticised
when we fail to do a good job. That is only
fair. When we are at the receiving end,
we need to be objective in our assessment
of whether the criticism is valid. We need
to be particularly sensitive to complaints
about our standard operating procedures
or work processes. Such constructive
feedback can serve as the starting point of
making important adjustments to the way
in which we do things.
What would you like to see in the future
of Bar Council?
I hope that Members will take a greater
interest in what’s happening in the Bar.
At the moment, the actual number of
voluntary lawyers who are actively involved
in committee work, Bar events, taking
up cases for the Bar, is still very much a
minority.
Features/Articles
For the Bar Council Secretariat, I hope to
continue oiling its engines so that it will
be more well run, enabling us to better
cater to the Members’ needs. With
the improvement plans we have in the
pipeline, including a new telephone
system, I hope that Members’ complaints,
of not being attended to and delay in
responses when making enquiries, will be
drastically reduced.
Tell us something not commonly known
about yourself.
I miss the classroom. There is nothing
quite like being in charge of a class of 30
to 35 teenagers who are bright, full of life
and naughty all at the same time. They
test you and look to you for leadership and
direction. Assisting in their development is
extremely satisfying. I am always amazed
at their recollection of incidents that I had
long forgotten. Oh, and for some strange
reason, I have come to like cats – I never
used to when I was a child.
Are you happy?
I have a good feeling about what I’m doing.
Working at the Bar Council Secretariat
has been a fascinating experience. I hope
that I have impacted the organisation in
a positive way. In the 2009/2010 Annual
Report, the Bar Council Secretariat laid
down five specific challenges for 2010. In
the upcoming Annual General Meeting,
we would be able to report that we have
accomplished almost all that we set out to
do a year ago. People need to be happy in
what they do – life is too short for anything
else. I’ve never stayed in a job where I’ve
been miserable, and right now, I’m where
I want to be.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 27
 Events
Kempen PerlembagaanKu:
Perjalanan Setakat Ini
by Syahredzan Johan
Anda mungkin sekali telah mendengar
tentang Kempen PerlembagaanKu yang
dijalankan oleh Jawatankuasa Undang-
undang Perlembagaan (“ConstiLC”) di
bawah naungan Majlis Peguam. Kempen
dua tahun ini adalah bertujuan membawa
intipati Perlembagaan Persekutuan
kepada semua rakyat Malaysia di dalam
format yang ringkas dan mudah difahami.
Kempen ini merupakan komitmen Majlis
Peguam untuk meningkatkan kesedaran
tentang Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan
menggalakkan konsep keperlembagaan
di kalangan rakyat.
28 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
Ahli-ahli ConstiLC terdiri daripada
pelbagai lapisan masyarakat, bukan hanya
pengamal undang-undang tetapi juga
ahli akedemik, para pelajar, pengamal
media, aktivis dan juga masyarakat umum.
Kempen PerlembagaanKu ini adalah
inisiatif pertama ConstiLC.
Ramai yang bertanya, apakah sebab
ConstiLC mengambil inisiatif ini?
Jawatankuasa ini baru ditubuhkan pada
awal tahun 2009 sebagai reaksi kepada
isu-isu perlembagaan yang timbul sejak
beberapa tahun yang lepas. Lebih-lebih
Photos credited to ConstiLC Members
lagi selepas pilihan raya umum yang
ke-12, rakyat Malaysia semakin ingin tahu
tentang hak-hak mereka yang terkandung
di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah
“buku panduan” untuk Malaysia
dan mengekalkan tiang-tiang utama
pemerintahan demokratik. Ia adalah
undang-undang tertinggi Persekutuan. Ia
membentuk sistem kerajaan dan disposisi
kuasa di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan
negeri-negeri. Perlembagaan Persekutuan
menjamin kebebasan asasi dan juga

peruntukan istimewa bagi komuniti etnik
tertentu di dalam Malaysia yang berbilang
kaum dan pelbagai kepercayaan.
Rakyat Malaysia harus mempunyai
pengetahuan ini supaya mereka dapat
mempertimbangkan sama ada kedudukan
yang diambil ke atas Perlembagaan boleh
didukung dan diterima. Mereka harus
diperkasakan dengan pemahaman tentang
hak dan had institusi kerajaan dan hak dan
had setiap rakyat Malaysia. Perlembagaan
dimiliki oleh setiap rakyat Malaysia dan
setiap rakyat Malaysia adalah benifisiari
kepada “janji” keperlembagaan dan
pemerintahan demokratik.
Namun, Perlembagaan bukanlah sebuah
dokumen yang mudah. Tidak seperti
negara-negara lain yang mempunyai
perlembagaan bertulis, pendidikan
tentang Perlembagaan tidak diterap ke
dalam kurikulum pelajaran di negara kita.
Ketandusan pengetahuan ini kerap kali
membiakkan maklumat yang salah dan
interpretasi yang tersasar.
Kempen ini dibahagikan kepada
sembilan fasa mengikut sembilan tema
Perlembagaan. Fasa pertama iaitu
pengenalan kepada Perlembagaan
dlancarkan pada 13 Nov 2009 oleh Dato’
VK Liew, Timbalan Menteri di Jabatan
Events
Perdana Menteri dan dihadiri oleh lebih
kurang 250 orang. Ia mendapat liputan
media massa yang meluas.
Fasa kedua yang membincangkan tentang
institusi-institusi Perlembagaan dan
konsep pemisahan kuasa dilancarkan pada
15 Jan 2010 oleh Presiden Badan Peguam,
Ragunath Kesavan di Kolej Universiti
Sunway.
Untuk fasa ketiga, ConstiLC telah
mendapat kerjasama daripada Kerajaan
Selangor dan melancarkan fasa tersebut
di Shah Alam. Ia dilancarkan oleh Menteri
Besar Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 29
 Events

pada 1 Mac 2010. Fasa keempat

dilancarkan di Parlimen, bersesuaian
dengan tema fasa tersebut iaitu tentang
Badan Perundangan Persekutuan
iaitu Parlimen. Ia dilancarkan oleh
Yang Dipertua Dewan Rakyat Tan
Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia pada 21 Apr
2010. Fasa kelima pula dilancarkan
oleh Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon pada 23
Julai 2010 di Putrajaya International
Convention Centre, Putrajaya. Fasa ini
membincangkan tema Badan Eksekutif
Persekutuan.

Sempena Hari Malaysia pada 16 Sept

2010, Kempen ini telah melancarkan
fasa keenam yang bertemakan Badan
Kehakiman. Kempen ini dilancarkan
oleh Datuk KC Vohrah, bekas Hakim
Mahkamah Rayuan di Malaysiaku Street
Festival di Jalan Bangkung, Bangsar.
Akhir sekali, pada 18 Sept 2010 Tan
Sri Bernard Dompok telah melancarkan
fasa ketujuh kempen ini di Sabah, bersesuaian dengan tema fasa tersebut iaitu Sabah dan Sarawak.

Tujuh fasa telah dilancarkan dan kini tinggal dua fasa lagi. Fasa kelapan membincangkan tentang hak-hak rakyat dan juga
kewarganegaraan, manakala fasa terakhir bertemakan pilihanraya dan demokrasi. ConstiLC menjangkakan kedua-dua fasa ini akan
dilancarkan dalam bulan-bulan yang mendatang sebelum tirai kempen dilabuhkan pada Mac 2011.

Tetapi aktiviti kempen tidak hanya berkisar pada pelancaran fasa-fasa. Terdapat pelbagai aktiviti lain, seperti pelancaran kempen tahap
negeri, seperti yang telah dilakukan di Sarawak dan Kedah, bengkel-bengkel Perlembagaan, forum, kuliah, penyertaan aktiviti-aktiviti
komuniti, penulisan rencana-rencana di media massa, wawancara di kaca televisyen dan di corong-corong radio dan pelbagai aktiviti
lain. Kempen ini rata-rata telah mendapat maklum balas dan bantuan positif daripada pelbagai pihak seperti Kerajaan Persekutuan,
Kerajaan-kerajaan Negeri, institusi-institusi pendidikan, badan bukan kerajaan, wakil-wakil rakyat dan orang ramai. Setakat ini, lebih
kurang 100,000 Buku Panduan Rakyat telah diedarkan kepada orang ramai dan ConstiLC mendapat begitu banyak permintaan
daripada semua pihak.

Mungkin maklum balas di luar jangkaan ini lahir daripada orang ramai yang dahagakan ilmu tentang Perlembagaan. Mungkin telah
terlalu lama mata kita dikaburi dan minda kita lalai tentang peri pentingnya dokumen ulung ini. Mungkin rakyat Malaysia kini celik
tanggungjawab mereka, celik hak mereka dan ingin celik Perlembagaan mereka.

Walau apapun sebabnya, adalah

menjadi harapan ConstiLC
bahawa kempen ini akan berjaya
merakyatkan Perlembagaan.

14 Oct 2010

30 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Events

Upcoming
Upcoming Events
Events

Selangor Bar Annual General Meeting 2nd Asian Mediation Association Conference
Date: 17 Feb 2011 (Thursday) Date: 24 and 25 Feb 2011 (Thursday and Friday)
Time: 3:00 pm Venue: Sheraton Imperial Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
Venue: Kelab Golf Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah, 1 Jalan Theme: Rediscovering Mediation in the 21st
Kelab Golf 13/6, Seksyen 13, Shah Alam Century

Malacca Bar Annual General Meeting

Perak Bar Annual General Meeting
Date: 25 Feb 2011 (Friday)
Date: 18 Feb 2011 (Friday)
Time: 4:00 pm
Time: 3:00 pm
Venue: Malacca Straits Hotel, No 37A Jalan Chan
Venue: High Court No 2, Ipoh
Koon Cheng, Off Jalan Parameswara,
75000 Malacca
4th National Young Lawyers Convention
Date: 19 and 20 Feb 2011 (Saturday and Johore Bar Annual General Meeting
Sunday) Date: 25 Feb 2011 (Friday)
Venue: Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur Time: 3:00 pm
Venue: Auditorium, JOTIC, Jalan Ayer Molek, Johor
Kuala Lumpur Bar Annual General Meeting Bahru
Date: 23 Feb 2011 (Wednesday)
Negeri Sembilan Bar Annual General Meeting
Time: 2:00 pm
Date: 4 Mar 2011 (Friday)
Venue: MCA Auditorium, Level 3 Wisma MCA,
Time: 4:00 pm
163 Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur
Venue: Negeri Sembilan Bar Committee Secretariat,
No 3, Jalan S2 038, Magistrate Square,
Kelantan Bar Annual General Meeting Seremban 2, 70300 Seremban
Date: 24 Feb 2011 (Thursday)
Time: 1:00 pm 65th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian
Bar
Venue: Royal Guesthouse, Lot 440-443 & Lot
448-452, Jalan Hilir Kota, 15300 Kota Date: 12 Mar 2011 (Saturday)
Bharu Time: 10:00 am
Venue: Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur
Penang Bar Annual General Meeting
Malaysian Bar Annual Dinner and Dance
Date: 24 Feb 2011 (Thursday)
Date: 12 Mar 2011 (Saturday)
Time: 1:30 pm
Time: 7.30 pm
Venue: Cititel Hotel, 66 Jalan Penang, 10000
Penang Venue: Doubletree by Hilton Kuala Lumpur

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

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 31

 Events

21st POLA Conference

(Kuala Lumpur, 27–28 July 2010)

by Chin Oy Sim and Janet Nathan

On 27 and 28 July 2010, Bar Council
Malaysia had the privilege of hosting
the Presidents of Law Associations in
Asia (“POLA”)’s 21st Conference at the
Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. 95
participants, comprising 72 foreign and 23
local delegates, attended the Conference,
which was organised under the leadership
of Lim Chee Wee, Vice-President of the
Malaysian Bar.
As its name suggests, POLA is a coalition
of the leaders of the bar associations in
the Asia-Pacific region, and consists of
approximately 30 members. Its stated
goals include:
• To provide regional cooperation for • To foster the development of
the promotion of peace and human
rights activities;
• To make joint efforts for the
enhancement of the rule of law;
• To cooperate in advancing the
status of lawyers, in developing the
legal profession and the scope of its
activities and in strengthening the
activities of the law associations in
the region; and
regulatory systems which ensure
transparent and rule-based
governance.
Hosted by POLA members, the annual
conference aims to promote the sharing
of information on matters relating to the
law and the legal profession, development
of collaborative efforts and strengthening
of relationships among members.

32 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


Themed “Rule of Law and Corporate
Governance”, the 21st POLA Conference
comprised five sessions that addressed
issues relating to rule of law, corporate
governance and directors’ duties, legal
profession privilege, mis-selling of financial
products, and privacy law. Delegates
from various law societies, designated
as panellists, shared their expertise and
experience in each of these areas.
In addition, three guest speakers took to
the podium: Dato’ Muhammad Ibrahim,
Deputy Governor of Bank Negara Malaysia,
presented his views regarding Malaysia’s
role in Islamic finance; Dato’ Sri Mustapa
Mohamed, Minister of International Trade
and Industry, tackled the topic of Investing
in Malaysia’s Services Sector; and at the
Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, Chief Justice
of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Tun
Azmi spoke on the reformation of the
Malaysian Judiciary.
At the breakfast meeting for the leaders
of the various delegations, it was agreed
that POLA members would focus on three
initiatives:
POLA’s stated goals include:
• To provide regional
co-operation for the promotion
of peace and human rights
activities;
• To make joint efforts for
the enhancement of the
rule of law;
• To co-operate in advancing
the status of lawyers, in
developing the legal profession
and the scope of its activities
and in strengthening the
activities
of the law associations
in the region; and
• To foster the development
of regulatory systems which
ensure transparent and
rule-based governance.
Events
(1) How to expand and improve access
to justice, particularly legal aid;
(2) Developing a set of basic principles of
corporate governance; and
(3) Rule of law matters, particularly the
issue of openness and transparency,
and access to information, in the
administration of justice.
Among the opportunities for social
interaction were the welcome dinner held
at Kuala Lumpur Tower, which was a
showcase for the wide range of Malaysian
“street food” and cultural dances, and the
closing dinner held at Bijan Restaurant,
where delegates indulged in fine Malay
cuisine. Delegates were also treated to
a special visit to the Skybridge on levels
41 and 42 of the famed Petronas Twin
Towers.
At the conclusion of the Conference,
delegates congratulated and thanked
Bar Council Malaysia for the success of
the two-day event, and expressed their
appreciation to the Taiwan Bar Association
for offering to host the 22nd POLA
Conference in Taipei in 2011.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 33
 Events
15th Malaysian Law Conference
(KL Convention Centre, 29-31 July 2010)
Showcasing the Rule of Law, Corporate Governance and
Malaysia as a Premier Business Destination
by HR Dipendra
After a three-year hiatus, the 15th
Malaysian Law Conference (“MLC”) was
upon us. Euphoniously themed “Malaysia:
Extending Frontiers, Widening Horizons”,
the MLC was a highly sought-after event
in the olla podrida that is the Malaysian
legal fraternity calendar.
The MLC began with a keynote address
from the Honourable Justice Michael
Kirby, now retired High Court Judge
of Australia, who emphasised that the
law in the sense of the letter of the law
is not enough — that lawyers must be
concerned with the content of the law.
Other notable foreign speakers included
Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo of the South
34 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
African Constitutional Court who stoically
stated that Courts have a crucial role to
play in socio-economic rights, and Justice
VK Rajah, Judge of the Court of Appeal,
Singapore who took us through the UK
House of Lords decision of Chadwood.
In between we had the unyielding Chief
Justice of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri
Zaki Tun Azmi who cogitated deeply what
judicial activism meant to him. A common
theme that ran throughout the MLC was
that of the Constitution. A number of
sessions were set out with distinguished
speakers justifying what it means to have
a living and breathing constitution.
The delegates were also thoroughly
entertained by the wisdom of Dato’ Seri
Mohd Nazir Abdul Razak, the CEO of
CIMB Bank who explained his strategy on
expanding the bank’s business beyond
borders and his desire for the Malaysian
government to give better cooperation to
the business community for this purpose.
The MLC also saw a number of
commercial topics ranging from schemes
of arrangements, shareholders disputes
and expectations of in-house counsel. It
also laid down sessions relating to tax,
mediation, child rights, managing law
firms, consumer law, securities law and
professional negligence.
The MLC was brought to a close when
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim addressed the
anticipated crowd by explaining why
reason was on his side, quoting Anatole
France among others.
 Events

In between the conference papers being

presented and furiously debated, the
delegates were feted to a welcome
reception, Friday night party and the gala
dinner. It was indeed endearing to see
some delegates come alive at night while
enjoying the fine food and beverage that
were on offer.

The success of the MLC would not have

been possible but for the hard work of the
organising committee. Plaudits must be
given to Lim Chee Wee and Raphael Tay
who marshalled the organising committee
well. A vote of thanks also goes to the
lawyers, Bar Council Secretariat staff, web-
reporters and volunteers who provided an
invaluable service to the MLC.

As we look back with some measure

of pride, we take pleasure in knowing
that we made the 2010 Malaysian legal
calendar an eventful one.

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 35

 Lifestyle

Through the Lens

– Moh Kok Wai
“One does need a certain amount of passion to be able to
come up with good photographs and often the passion of the
photographer can be seen in the photograph that is produced.
In that way, photography is similar to the practice of law as it
too can be as dry or as rewarding depending on the passion of
the person.”

by Azman Thaiyub Khan

With the motto “There is nothing more sources including friends and the internet. Whilst the work a lawyer does in
satisfying and gratifying as an honest day’s He states that the exposure is limitless the advancement of his professional
work”, Moh Kok Wai, of Messrs Moh Kok as there are so many things to learn in career is generally not appreciated, a
Wai practises his trade with integrity and photography. photographer does receive a certain
self-satisfaction. amount of appreciation from the
Lawyers generally work many hours people who get to see the pictures.
While enjoying the view of rolling green of the day and often into the wee
hills through the window of his first storey hours of the morning to take care Inspiration
office in Taman Putra Ampang, Selangor, of the needs of the clients and to
this writer listened to Moh regale tales comply with directions of the court To this writer’s query to Moh as to
from his childhood, teenage years, the and photography is merely one whether anyone who had a good camera
step into legal practice, his memorable of the many ways one can choose can produce good pictures, Moh had this
experiences in the legal field and also his to unwind, relax and unload the to say, “The way of looking at things can
current hobby of photography. proverbial “problems of the world” be cultivated”. True enough, Moh credits
off one’s shoulders.
Born in Pulau Pangkor and bred in Penang,
Moh entertained this writer with his
wistfulness and joy. This former student
of St Mark, Perai and Bukit Mertajam High
School took a break of one year after his
Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia to fish and
generally enjoy life prior to choosing law
as a career path. Moh is currently in his
14th year of practice and runs his own
firm which to a certain extent has given
him the flexibility to garner his practice,
clientele and workload to his preference.

How it started

Moh, who in his early years took up

fishing as a way to unwind and relax,
has in the past two years been an avid
photographer.

He bought his entry level NIKON D40 two

months prior to his trip to Indonesia in
December 2008 and spent the two months
learning the bells and whistles of his DSLR.
He obtained his guidance through various

36 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Lifestyle

National Geographic magazine for his

eye towards his talent. Moh admires the
talents of Joe McNally, the internationally
acclaimed photographer who was once
described by American Photo as “perhaps
the most versatile photojournalist working
today”. A local photographer he admires
would be the wedding photographer,
Louis Pang.

The photo entitled “Afghan Girl” that

appeared in the National Geographic June
1985 issue by journalist Steve McCurry is
Moh’s favourite photograph of all time.
Sharbat Gula was approximately 12
years old and living in a refugee camp in
Peshawar, Pakistan during the time of the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when
she was photographed by McCurry and
the image brought her recognition when
it was featured on the cover of the issue.
According to Moh, it is an image that has
layers of emotions entwined within it,
from innocence to poverty to fear and the
lighting and shadow play of the subject
matter is remarkable.

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 37

 Lifestyle

Moh, whose photographic eye was opened at Sugihwaras near Bojonegoro, East Jawa
and Kediri, a medieval kingdom occupying territory in present-day East Jawa, described
the charm of these places as rustic and back to basic and hence ideal photography
locations. Locally, although Moh has been to many places and locations to photograph
many different views and sights, he said he loved to photograph children generally.
Naturally, his daughter Patrina Moh, is the subject of many of his photographic
compositions. Moh’s ideal locations to visit to photograph would be the base camp at
Tibet, Yunan province in China and Mongolia where he hopes to have more challenging
photo shoots with the chance to improve his style.

It is all passion

Photography is merely his hobby and his way to unwind and he is not looking at any
pecuniary rewards from it and that would mean he does not see himself giving up his
practice and going into photography full time.

He said that one does need a certain amount of passion to be able to come up with
good photographs and often the passion of the photographer can be seen in the
photograph that is produced. In that way, photography is similar to the practice of law
as it too can be as dry or as rewarding depending on the passion of the person.

Moh’s advice to avid photographers is not to go into it looking for money but instead
to start with an entry level DSLR, to fiddle with it and see if there is an interest and then
to take it from there but most importantly, to have fun at all times.

Moh has his own collection of photographs up for view at http://www.flickr.com/

photos/30548980@N07/ and also http://www.facebook.com/mohkokwai

38 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Lifestyle

Monterez Golf & Country Club:

golf, leisure, chilling and dining
by Razlina Razali

Monterez Golf & Country Club which

situated in the suburban area of Shah
Alam gives you the green that any golf
club should. The secluded location
provides the escape from the hustle
and bustle of the metro life. Monterez
offers the weary urbanite an idyllic
retreat to nature with resort facilities,
steeped in the highest traditions of
leisure. At Monterez, you will discover
a world of difference.

Monterez adopted the concept of the

Maya civilisation, renowned as one of
the most advanced civilisations in the
history. The essence of this ancient
traditions is reflected in Monterez’s
unique architecture and building
designs.

These essence, according to Chow

Chee Keong, General Manager of
Monterez, is revealed significantly in
their newsletter, murals and name
of outlets such as Mayan, Madera,
Montebello, Sunterez and Pedro. The
contour of El Castillo (also known
as Pyramid of Kukulcan) is
even reflected in the design
of Monterez Clubhouse,
archway, corporate logo and
landscape.

In line with the theme

symbolised by their emblem,
“Create Monterez as an idyllic
place for family where living and

40 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


leisure come together”, Chow would
likens the Monterez to the comedy show
Cheers, a friendly, relaxed environment
where “everybody knows your name”. He
added that he and his team strive to create
a place everyone could have the sense of
belonging to, and feel like at home while
doing the activities offered at Monterez.
A common excuse often heard is, “I’ve
always wanted to try golf, but I don’t really
want to be a club member and the notion
of the exclusiveness (read: expensive)
makes me feel uncomfortable”. According
to Chow, Monterez welcomes beginners,
they have programes for people with that
kind of excuse, and it’s affordable. You
don’t even have to be a member to enjoy
the facilities. So, for you out there who
wants to try out golfing or who wants
to golf without having the commitment,
this is the place you want to be; where
everybody knows your name.
Besides golf, Monterez has so much more
to offer. If your definition of a healthy
lifestyle is through sports and leisure,
Monterez provides both. For sports, they
have swimming pools, squash, tennis,
basketball and volleyball courts. As for
leisure, you can bring your family and
friends for karaoke and shoot some pool.
Keep your skin healthy, smooth and firm in
the sauna, and while doing so, relax your
mind and let the heat do its wonders.
No golf club would be complete without
a superb restaurant or dining experience,
and Monterez is not without either. At
Lifestyle
its restaurants, the Sunterez Golfers’
Terrace, the Pool Side Terrace and the
Garden Terrace, a team of excellent
chefs work around the clock to provide
mouthwatering, popular delicacies.
Depending on your mood and preference,
if you want to indulge in a wide selection
of cocktails and mocktails and unwind
with your golfing companions, Pedro’s
Fun Pub is where you want to chill out.
Catch the sizzling act of their live bands
and meet them up-close and personal for
a great time.
Whether you want to enjoy the golfing
experience, or you are into sports and
leisure, or you just want to chill with your
friends and family in this greenery with a
touch of tranquility, Monterez is the place
where everybody knows your name.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 41
 Lifestyle

Not your average Cruze

by Razlina Razali

The design of the Chevrolet Cruze stands out with a bold

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

The Cruze also sparks

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

42 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Lifestyle

The Cruze also excels in terms

of safety, having garnered a
5-star safety rating from Euro
NCAP. The exceptional safety
and crashworthiness of the all-
new Chevrolet Cruze lets you
cruise with greater confidence
knowing you and your loved
ones are both actively and
passively protected from any
unexpected situation every
time and every where you
drive.

On a whole, the Cruze delivers

European ride and handling
with features that will have
drivers clocking up the miles
with ease. It’s the perfect
city and highway companion
for the driver who demands
outstanding presence,
exceptional quality and
heart-pumping performance
from his car. What’s more,
with a built-in Anti-Pollution
Sensor (“APS”), the Cruze
is undoubtedly a car of the
future.

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 43

 Sports
Highlights of Sports Events
by Jaspal Singh and Anand Ponnudurai
Living up to the committee’s tagline
“Bridging the divide through sports”,
is exactly what the Sports Committee
members have been focused on since
the beginning of the 2010/2011 term.
The Sports Committee has indeed had an
active term so far.
Interstate Bar Games 2010
Amongst the games organised were the
Interstate Bar games. These games are now
traditionally held as a selection process for
the Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar
Games so that members from all states
are given an opportunity to participate in
the same.
44 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
Held on 26 and 27
Feb 2010 in Kuantan,
Pahang (hosted
by the Pahang Bar
Committee), the
Interstate Bar Games
saw the State Bars
The Malaysian Bar Closed Golf
sending teams for the various games
Tournament 2010
competed. Five games were played —
badminton (won by Selangor, runner-up The Malaysian Bar Closed Golf Tournament
Penang), football (won by Terengganu,
was held on 3 and 4 Apr 2010 at Bukit
runner-up Selangor), golf (won by Perak, Jawi Golf Resort, Mainland Penang.
runner-up Selangor), netball (won by KL,
Approximately 48 golfers participated
runner-up Pahang) and Volleyball (won by in the two days event. SS Ravichandran
Selangor, runner-up KL).
of the Selangor Bar garnered the Net
Champion award and Andrew Yee of the
 Sports

Perak Bar, the Gross Champion award. This

venue was also earmarked for the Bench
and Bar Games the following month, so
this helped the players eventually selected
to represent the Malaysian Bar gain an edge
over Singapore in the latter’s golf games.

Malaysia/Singapore Bench and Bar

Games

The Annual Malaysia/Singapore Bench and

Bar Games was the highlight of our calendar. Hosted
by the Penang Bar Committee, the event was held in
the Pearl of the Orient (Penang) from 29 Apr till 1 May
2010. A tremendous amount of effort was put in by all
conveners to retain the overall trophy which we have
now won three times on a trot.

As part of tradition, the Malaysian contingent was led

by the Chief Justice of Malaysia YAA Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki
Tun Azmi, and attended by close to a 200 participants
and supporters from Malaysia as well as Singapore.

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 45

 Sports

In the end, Malaysian Bar was triumphant in badminton, bowling,

veteran football, hockey, netball, golf and premier soccer, while
Singapore beat us in squash, tennis, table tennis, volleyball, cross
country and cricket. We drew in ladies soccer.

The series this year was indeed very exciting with the scores being level
at the point of the very last game to be played which was premier
soccer. The Malaysian team was down 1–0 at half time with Sports
Chairperson Jaspal looking like he was having a heart attack! Thanks to
the personal pep talk to all players by our CJ during half time, the players
managed to score two goals in the second half and thus securing the
win and the coveted overall trophy as a direct result thereof.

We are already in the midst of preparing for the next series which will
be hosted by Singapore at the end of April 2011. The Singaporeans
have vowed to win the series on home soil and we will have to ensure
that they don’t!

Royal Selangor Club (“RSC”) International Hockey 9’s

tournament

Malaysian Bar hockey team were invited to participate in the above

games which boasts participation from 30 teams from the country and
abroad. The team performed well but lost in the semi finals of the
plate event.

46 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


State Bar News (as at October 2010)
Contributions by State Bar Secretariats and Committee Members
Johore Bar
The Johore Bar Legal Aid Subcommittee
organised various programmes in
conjunction with the National Law
Awareness Week from 11 to 17 Oct 2010,
with the objective to create awareness on
the rights of people and the Johore Legal
Aid Centre. The theme of the National
Law Awareness Week was “Police and
Your Basic Rights”.
On 15 Oct 2010, Noorfajri b Ismail, an
“old boy” from Sekolah Menengah Dato’
Jaafar (“SMDJ”), Johor Bahru, gave a talk
to SMDJ students about juvenile issues
and their rights.
A law awareness campaign, jointly
organised with the Rotary Club of Tebrau,
was held on 17 Oct 2010 at Danga City
Mall, Johor Bahru, from 11:00 am to
4:00 pm, where 14 volunteer lawyers gave
advice in their respective fields of expertise
and 10 pupils in chambers were present to
render their help and support.
Kedah/Perlis Bar
No contribution was provided before the
editorial deadline.
Kelantan Bar
The “Getting Started” workshop, jointly
organised with Bar Council, was held in
Kota Bharu, Kelantan. The workshop took
place on 13 June 2010 at Royal Guest
House from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm with 24
attendees.
A welcome dinner was held for YA Tuan
Ahmad Zaidi b Ibrahim and YA Tuan
Azman b Abdullah at the Grand Riverview
State Bar News
Hotel, Kota Bharu, on 19 July 2010.
During the dinner, members were treated
with band performance by key boardist
Azmi b Abdullah and a karaoke session.
A Kelantan lawyers’ “Hari Raya Get-
Together” was held on 5 Oct 2010 at
8:30 pm to 11:30 pm at Dewan Duyong
1, Perdana Beach Resort, Kota Bharu. The
event was attended by about 200 guests,
comprising lawyers and their families,
and YA Tuan Ahmad Zaidi b Ibrahim and
YA Tuan Azman b Abdullah. It was an
enjoyable function and it was hoped that
similar functions would be organised in
the future.
Kuala Lumpur (“KL”) Bar
The KL Bar, as part of its continuing efforts
to improve non-professional services to KL
Bar members, entered into a collaboration
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 47
 State Bar News
with DiGi to bring to members exclusive
mobile and internet (Blackberry and
iPhone) packages through the Information
Technology Committee, while the
Professional Development Committee
organised 21 seminars between March
and October 2010.
The Environmental and Humanities
Committee (“EHC”) started the term by
continuing the “old/used paper collection
day” in conjunction with Earth Day on
22 Apr 2010. This year, 270 kg of old/
used paper was collected with the support
of its members, several legal firms and
the KL Bar Secretariat. EHC also took
a major undertaking in promoting the
Climate Change Programme led by Chew
Swee Yoke. EHC was also invited to the
Universiti Teknologi MARA Law Week
on 1 to 5 Mar 2010, organised by the
Environmental Law and Awareness Club
of the Law Faculty, to host a booth, which
was attended to by several members. EHC
also organised a two-day trip to Cherating
Turtles Sanctuary to enable members and
their families to gain awareness about
turtle conservation programmes.
The Pupils Welfare Committee (“PWC”)
continued to organise monthly civil
litigation and criminal litigation workshops
for pupils with the aim of introducing
pupils to basic legal practice. PWC also
48 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
continued to organise monthly dialogues
on the Ethics and Professional Standards
(“EPS”) Examination where pupils are
briefed on the EPS course and the usual
problems relating to exam failure.
The Social, Arts and Culture Committee
(“SAC”) organised a “Blood Donation
Drive” on 28 June 2010 at the Kuala
Lumpur Court Complex, Jalan Duta. SAC
also organised a charity go-kart race on 7
Aug 2010. Net proceeds from the charity
event were donated to the Orang Asli
settlement in Kg Bertang, Raub, Pahang.
The Sports Committee organised many
activities including the Malaysian Bar
Interstate Bar Games (hosted by the
Pahang Bar on 26 and 27 Feb 2010 in
Kuantan) and the Ruby Cup (a netball
tournament hosted by the Selangor Bar
on 26 June 2010 at Kompleks Sukan
Negara Matsushita, Shah Alam). The
Sports Committee also organised the 20th
Sports Carnival, KL Bar v Royal Selangor
Club where several games were played
for the overall challenge trophy donated
by the late Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim.
The Kuala Lumpur/Selangor Bar Games
- 10th Series was inaugurated after the
split between the Selangor and Federal
Territory Bar. Both teams played various
sports for the Lall Singh Muker Trophy,
donated by Lall Singh Muker, mother of a
senior Member of the Bar, SS Muker, who
is a member of both the Selangor and KL
Bars.
The Young Lawyers Committee (“YLC”)
has been involved in several activities,
such as: a brainstorming meeting on 24
Apr 2010 at the Ascott; the Professionals
Connect, on 15 and 16 May 2010, a
public forum and exhibition organised by
the Malaysian Professional Centre with the
assistance of Young Professionals Alliance,
of which the KL Bar YLC is a part of; the
YLC futsal on 21 May 2010 at Padang
OU; a trip to Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals on 5 June 2010; a
“Day with the Young Lawyers” at KDU
on 26 June 2010; the Charity Night at
GOSH on 2 July 2010; the Charity Night
Appreciation Dinner at Malayas Bistro on
13 Aug 2010; the Jamuan Buka Puasa
at Ali Baba’s Kebab on 18 Aug 2010;
the Cheque Presentation (proceeds from
Charity Night) to Marginal Youth Centre
on 28 Aug 2010; the Cheque Presentation
(proceeds from Charity Night) to Selangor
Handicapped and Mentally Retarded
Children Centre on 4 Sept2010; a visit
to Parliament; a Traffic Light Party on 24
Sept 2010 at Finnegans, Changkat Bukit
Bintang; a Day with the Young Lawyers at
INTI, Nilai on 2 Oct2010; a Day with the
Young Lawyers at KDU on 9 Oct 2010;
and a Day with the Young Lawyers at UIA
on 16 Oct 2010.

Malacca Bar
The Malacca Bar’s Human Rights
Subcommittee and Contemporary Issues
Subcommittee co-organised a forum
entitled “1Malaysia: Fact or Fiction”
on 6 Aug 2010 at Renaissance Hotel,
Melaka. The forum was a platform for
Malaccans from all walks of life to gain
an insight to the current Prime Minister’s
push for “1Malaysia”, its shortcomings
and potential from the viewpoints of the
panellists comprising Datin Paduka Marina
Mahathir, Tan Jing Shen (a 19-year-old
student leader) and Dr Azmi Sharom.
Negeri Sembilan Bar
No contribution was provided before the
editorial deadline.
Pahang Bar
On 12 June 2010, a forum and public
awareness programme on the new third
party bodily injury and death insurance
scheme (“TPBID”) was held at the Pahang
Bar Building.
The speakers, Ragunath Kesavan (President
of the Malaysian Bar), M Ramachelvam
(Chairperson of Bar Council’s Law Reform
Special Areas Committee) and Muhammad
Sha’ani Abdullah (Chief Executive of
the Federation of Malaysian Consumers
Association), discussed the pros and cons
of TPBID, not only to lawyers from the
Pahang Bar, but also to members of the
insurance industry and members of the
public. TPBID was conceived because it
was feared that in the long run, insurance
companies might go bust if claims were
not capped.
Penang Bar
The Penang Bar held a “Talk on Basic
Conveyancing Practice” by Louis Van
Buerle on 9 Apr 2010, to guide pupils in
chambers and young lawyers in pertinent
matters and pitfalls of conveyancing
practice.
The Malaysia/Singapore Bench & Bar
Games 2010 were held in Penang on 29
Apr to 1 May 2010. The event saw a good
turnout of Members of the Malaysian Bar
from throughout the country together
with some Judges, as well as a large
contingent from Singapore with a number
of their Judges. The Games’ Organising
Committee, led by its chairperson, GT
Lee, with the aid of volunteer lawyers and
pupils, did a wonderful job in organising
the event; from the games venue, games
referees, accommodation, transport,
protocol matters, dinners, and the works
that went into the Games. It was a great
weekend of camaraderie where old friends
were reunited and new friends were made.
The Malaysian team won the Bench & Bar
Games 2010 and it is hoped that the 2011
Games in Singapore would see a huge
turnout of the Malaysian Bar Members.
Other major events included: a Risk
Management Workshop on 25 June 2010
by Bar Council Executive Officer, Wong Li
State Bar News
Chin; a courtesy call made by the Penang
Bar Committee to the Penang State Prison
Director on 20 July 2010; the Penang-
Perak Bar Games on 6 and 7 Aug in Ipoh,
Perak. The Penang Bar was represented by
about 60 members, participating in futsal,
football, netball, bowling, hockey, tennis
and badminton; a talk on section 340 of
the National Land Code and the recent
outcomes of related court cases on 20
Aug 2010 by Andrew Wong; the annual
Jamuan Makan Malam Aidilfitri on 19 Sept
2010 at the Sunway Convention Centre
organised by the Syariah Committee; a
forum on “The Speedy Disposal of Cases”
on 8 Oct 2010, chaired by Penang Bar’s
Chairperson, Mureli Navaratnam, and
senior lawyer Dato’ V Sithambaram; the
Penang Bar’s 24th Annual Dinner and
Dance on 2 Oct 2010 at the Eastin Hotel;
and “Remembering James Richardson
Logan”, an evening event on 20 Oct 2010
to mark the anniversary of a Penang-based
lawyer and human rights activist in the
1800s.
Perak Bar
At the Perak Bar Closed Sports 2010;
Senior v Junior, experience was shown
to rule over exuberance when the senior
members won three (volleyball, badminton
and bowling) out of the five sports played.
The junior members managed to conquer
two final events, football and netball.
Pestaria dan Hari Terbuka Anjuran
Jawatankuasa Peguam Perak bersama
Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh was held at Polo
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 49
 State Bar News
Ground on 22 May 2010 featuring 14
foodstalls, booths held by six corporate
bodies comprising banks, insurance
companies, telecommunication and
publication company, the Insolvency
Department and Rakan Cop. Mayor
Dato’ Hj Roshidi b Hj Hashim officiated
the event and expressed his intention to
make it a yearly event. He also agreeed
to provide an annual fund of RM5,000,
in addition to equipment and services to
the Perak Bar Committee to organise such
events. The band and performances were
courtesy of Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh (“MBI”)
but the highlight was the performance
by Bhangra King. The grand finale was
the tug-of-war between the members of
the bar and MBI.
In the Bar & Bench Veterans Football
Friendly, it was the day the glorious Perak
Bar Veteran football players, who inspired
fear in their opponents in the 90s, met the
ever-fit Bench team. Both teams played a
beautiful game, but in the end the valiant
efforts of the Perak Bar was defeated by
the fitness and determination of the Bench
by 3-1. Perak’s only consolation goal came
from their attacking midfielder, Nicky
50 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
Chen, who also sponsored the Jabulani
Game Ball for the game.
At the Interstate Bar Golf Tournament held
at the Pantai Lagenda Golf & Country
Club, the triumphant Perak Bar Team was
represented by golfers like Mat Diah Endut
(Perak Bar Chairman), Dalgit Singh (Golf
Captain), Andrew Yee, K Subramaniam,
Dr James Loh, Ahmad Kamal Ayob,
Akhiruddin Mohamad Taib, Muhammad
Fuaad Saibun and Zaizuraimy Abd Rahim.
At the annual Perak-Penang Bar Games,
the Perak Bar emerged triumphant
again. The overall tie ended 7-4 in Perak
Bar’s favour with the Perak Bar winning
in football, tennis, basketball, snooker,
hockey and darts, whilst the Penang Bar
won in badminton, netball, volleyball and
bowling. Futsal and cricket were tied. A
celebratory dinner was held at the Neptune
Room of the Ipoh Swimming club.
Selangor Bar
The Selangor Bar Committee organised
16 talks/seminars/workshops on topics
such as effective advocacy in civil and
criminal matters, family matters including
tracing matrimonial
assets and contempt
proceedings, and
women’s rights
following divorce
in syariah and civil
proceedings. A
workshop on
mediation was also
held for the benefit of
the members.
The Selangor Bar Cup,
a football tournament
with the World Cup
theme, was also organised by the Selangor
Bar. There was also a netball tournament
and for the first time, Selangor Bar
participated in the Selangor Hockey
league. Selangor Bar’s annual Bench &
Bar Get-Together, themed “World Cup
Fever”, was held on 19 June 2010 at the
Tropicana Golf and Country Resort.
Terengganu Bar
On 5 and 10 May 2010, the Terengganu
Bar Committee organised an educational
trip to Melbourne, Australia, for its
members. The participants visited, inter
alia, the Melbourne Supreme Court and
Legal Aid Centre. The trip was made
possible with the help of a member who
currently resides in Melbourne.
On 23 and 24 July 2010, the Terengganu
Bar Committee held its Family Day
2010, which was a huge success where 385
members and their families were present,
the biggest turnout ever. Most members
stayed at the breathtaking Kenyir Lake
Resort and Spa and enjoyed the events
organised such as the telematch, sports
event and dinner. Among the grand
prizes for the lucky draw this year was a
two-door LG fridge, a two-day stay at the
Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa, bicycles and
electrical goods. A well-received treasure
hunt for members was also organised in
conjunction with Terengganu Bar’s Family
Day. The grand prize was a one-night
stay at Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa. The
participants’ cars were flagged off from
Kompleks Seri Iman Kuala Terengganu and
the route taken was via Kuala Terengganu
to Kuala Berang. The pit stop of the race
was at the Kenyir Lake Resort and Spa.
Most of the participants managed to
finish the race within the stipulated time
and everyone enjoyed the treasure hunt
immensely.
On 18 Apr 2010, a farewell lunch was
held for Tuan Azhar bin Othman and YA
Tuan Khalid bin Abd Karim, two Session
Court Judges who had been transferred.
The Terengganu Bar members wished the
judges every success in their future.
Terengganu Bar’s Hari Raya Gathering
was held on 2 Oct 2010 at Dewan Utama,
Menara Yayasan Islam Terengganu. It was
a wonderful gathering where members
and their family had a great time enjoying
each other’s company and the sumptuous
buffet of traditional delicacies.

The PAM 2006 Standard Form
of Building Contract
Authors: Sundra Rajoo, Dato’ WSW Davidson and
Ir Harbans Singh KS
Review by Daniel Tan Chun Hao
The PAM 2006 Standard Form was
launched in April 2007. Sanctioned and
approved by the Pertubuhan Arkitek
Malaysia (Malaysian Institute of Architects,
“PAM”), it has been the form of contract
adopted by many consultants and
developers in the building industry over
the past few years. The eminent authors
of this book have clearly taken it upon
themselves to compile a detailed analysis
on the law and practice of the PAM 2006
Form, a task which is in every respect
formidable.
The layout of the book follows the
chronology of the PAM 2006 Form,
addressing the articles of agreement and
each clause in turn with the authors’
corresponding analysis and criticisms as
they considered appropriate. As a new
form in the building and construction
industries, the authors made clear their
disappointments in the PAM 2006
Form, particularly in relation to certain
departures from the drafting philosophy
of its predecessor, the PAM 1998 Form,
and the failure of the PAM 2006 Form to
follow more contemporaneous trends seen
in other available forms in the industry.
Although credit is given by the authors
to welcomed changes introduced by the
drafters, these are few and far between.
However, we should not be distracted
from the fact that the drafters of the PAM
2006 Form are by no means newbies
to the industry, each of them having
considerable experience in their own
right. With the collective experience of
the drafters of the PAM 2006 Form and
that of the authors, this book contains
much useful information for practitioners,
provided the information is digested in an
objective manner.
As a practitioner involved in the
construction and building industries, it is
my view that comprehensive and accurate
resource material in all forms is essential
towards ensuring a proper understanding
of contract law and its application in the
administration of projects. Having had
some experience using various reference
textbooks over the years, this one stands
out as being very relevant, if not the
most relevant one currently available in
the Malaysian context. The analyses and
commentaries by the authors are very
detailed and comprehensive, supported by
numerous references to legal authorities
and also views of other eminent writers.
Where appropriate, the authors have
not only stated the law as it was before
printing (as at 31 Mar 2010), but discussed
how the law has developed over the years
against relevant clauses, thus giving some
insights on possible trends for further
developments in the near future. As a
gauge of importance to contracting parties,
the longer commentaries (that have more
references to legal authorities) can be
found in certain areas such as liquidated
damages, extension of time, certificates
and payment, and also adjudication and
arbitration; these are areas where disputes
typically arise. It should be noted here
that the principles of law and practice
referred to by the authors are of general
application and largely relevant to other
forms of contract used in the industry.
Book Review
The authors of the PAM 2006 Form have
highlighted changes in risk allocation
introduced by the drafters. In all fairness
to the authors, where some criticisms have
been lodged, they have by and large been
constructive by giving pointers as to what
needs to be considered when addressing
the shortfalls of the form. Taking these
in good stead, it will become apparent
to practitioners that it is not an option to
simply adopt the PAM 2006 Form without
amendment. Identifying the changes
in risk allocation introduced by the PAM
2006 Form may appear straightforward,
but appreciating and managing them
would be a separate ball game altogether;
a burden that can be made a little lighter
with this book.
There are essentially two criticisms in
relation to the book as resource material:
the first, on the book itself, relates
several typographical, spelling and page
referencing errors that annoyingly appear
in various parts of the book — it is hoped
that the publishers will in due course
remedy (or at least minimise) this glitch;
the second is that the local industry could
do with more textbooks with similar
commentaries on other commonly used
forms of contract and on the often
neglected forms of sub-contract.
All in all, it is definitely a “must have”
reference book for anyone involved in the
industry.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 51
 By The Way ...

Crossword puzzle
by Syamsuriatina Ishak


  

 

  

  



 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 





 



 





Across 35. by the way (6) 16. qualification for legal aid (9) 3. PAR VALUE
1. judges (5) 37. affirmer (8) 18. entitled to receive, heir (11) DONOR 36. 2. CHARGE

6. writ to challenge detention (12) 20. owner of realty (8)

IMPLIED 33. DOWN
EASEMENT 31.
8. intention (7) Down 22. friend of the court (6) INFRINGEMENT 29. 37. DEPONENT

s
10. first move in contract (5) 2. formal accusation (6) 23. order in terms (3)
RES IPSA LOQUITUR 26. 35. DICTUM

e r
WARRANTY 25. 34. SPAM
13. interfering use of property (8) 3. face worth (8) 24. follow precedent from above (12)

sw
STARE DECISIS 24. 32. MAJORITY
15. decision (8) 4. discuss aiming to compromise (9) 25. guarantee (8) OIT 23. 30. RETAINER

An
17. credit bond (9) 5. beyond power (11) 26. facts speak for themselves (15)
AMICUS 22. 28. TESTATE
LANDLORD 20. 27. AB INITIO
19. will supplement (7) 7. restriction (8) 29. unauthorised use (12) BENEFICIARY 18. 21. GARNISH
21. take property to satisfy debt (7) 8. quantum... reasonable value for 31. right of way (8)
MEANS TEST 16. 19. CODICIL
SUBPOENA 14. 17. DEBENTURE
27. from the beginning (8) services (6) 33. not written down or spoken, but COPYRIGHT 12. 15. JUDGMENT
28. dying with a valid will (7) 9. oral untruth (7) meant (7) FEE 11. 13. NUISANCE

30. fee paid in advance (8) 11. payment (3) 36. giver of gift (5)
SLANDER 9. 10. OFFER
MERUIT 8. 8. MENS REA
32. of age (8) 12. right to exploit creative work (9) COVENANT 7. 6. HABEAS CORPUS
34. unsolicited email (4) 14. order to attend court (8)
ULTRA VIRES 5. 1. BENCH
MEDIATION 4. ACROSS

52 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 By The Way ...

Sudoku is a game of logic and deduction,

Justice & Jamtarts
with the objective of filling all the by Cecil Rajendra
blank squares with the correct numbers
in the 9x9 game square, subject to the

‘The backlog of 3,395 commercial and civil High Court cases will be

cleared in two years,’ said the Chief Justice at the launch of two new civil
following rules: High Courts yesterday.
He added that the new civil court system also targeted for cases to be
• Every row and every column of 9 settled within 9 months. On average, each judge will handle 56 cases a
numbers must include all digits, 1 month.
through 9, in any order ‘The faster disposal of cases will also instil confidence in investors wanting
to come to Malaysia ...’ he concluded.
• Every 3x3 subsection of the 9x9
square must include all digits, 1 Bernama
through 9 Working on the premises

that what the Country
most needs is a super-
    fast jamtart factory ...

A spanking new Palace

      of Jamtarts — with a
speedy delivery system —
  took root outside the City.

   Any variety: Gooseberry

Apple, Pineapple, Durian
      Rambutan or Raspberry
could be whipped up
   & delivered in 9 seconds.

  Each waiter had

a quota of 56 tarts
      to dispose off in a minute.
Each counter was tasked
    with clearing 3,395

Sudoku
packages within 2 hours.

It did not matter

if the tarts were half-

baked, rancid or sour ...
the Chief Jamtart-Maker
(CJM) was not interested
in quality or flavour;
only in quantity & number.
 
Quislings boasting inflated
'
figures were elevated;
weaklings falling below their
quota, tartly reprimanded.

Never mind the local consumer ...

“A superfast delivery system,”
the Chief Jamtart-Maker said,
“would put our country ahead
of Hong Kong, Singapore
UK and the States, instil
confidence in foreign investment.”
!"#$%&'()*+,))'

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 53

 Bar Updates/Notices

SUMMARY OF CIRCULARS
(August - November 2010)
Circular Title Summary
No
207/2010 Brief Report on the Dialogue Between Bar Council and LHDN Held on 2 This circular is a summary of matters discussed at the dialogue between Bar Council and Lembaga
July 2010 on Issues Relating to the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 Hasil Dalam Negeri held on 2 July 2010.
211/2010 Rules on Cessation of, or Change in, Practice Members who wish to cease practice, either on a permanent or temporary basis, or intend
to practise with another firm, are required to notify Bar Council, and to comply with the Bar
Council’s Rules on Cessation of, or Change in, Practice.
213/2010 LawCare: Malaysian Bar Members’ Beneficiary/Trustee Form Members are urged to complete and submit the Malaysian Bar Member’s Beneficiary/Trustee
Nomination Form to assist the LawCare Department to expeditiously pay out the total sum
insured.
214/2010 Guidelines for Filing and Checking of Orders and Judgments The Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010, which came into effect on 16 Aug 2010, and the latest
guidelines on how to check draft orders and judgments, are available at www.kehakiman.gov
my.
216/2010 Implementation of Teleconferencing (Audio) System at the Federal To speed up case management and make it easier for Members, a teleconferencing system has
Court, the Court of Appeal and the Civil and Commercial Divisions of been implemented in various courts.
the High Court, Kuala Lumpur Court Complex
217/2010 Practice Direction 5/2010 on Mediation Access this circular to view a copy of Practice Direction 5/2010 on Mediation, which was issued
to all Courts and took effect from 16 Aug 2010.
219/2010 Chief Registrar’s Circular No 5 of 2010: Handling Traffic Summonses Access this circular to view a copy of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 5 of 2010, which came
and Warrants of Arrest in Subordinate Court into effect on 18 Aug 2010.
223/2010 Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010: Guidelines for Filing of Draft Access the circular to view a copy of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010, which came into
Orders/Judgments and Fair Orders/Judgments in Court Proceedings effect on 16 Aug 2010.
Throughout Malaysia
225/2010 Reduction in PII Base Premium from RM1,300 to RM1,200 Bar Council has successfully negotiated with our insurers for a 7.7% reduction in Professional
Indemnity premium to RM1,200 per lawyer as a result of our risk management efforts and
initiatives to instil a sound work culture.
234/2010 Practice Direction No 6 of 2010:Revocation of Direction that The Chief Justice of Malaysia has directed that Practice Direction No 1 of 2010 be revoked,
Photographs Submitted as Exhibits in the Trial Court Must Be Presented effective 24 Aug 2010, and the previous practice direction regarding photographs submitted in
in the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court During an Appeal Court during trial or appeal stage be restored.
238/2010 Update on the Proposed Combined Rules of Court and the Amendment This circular contains a summary of updates on the Proposed Combined Rules of Court and the
to the Subordinate Courts Act Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Act 2010.
245/2010 Update on the Register of Mentors Members who require help and guidance in areas of practice management can seek help and
guidance from senior Members through this initiative. The Register of Mentors is also accessible
from the drop down menu under the “Directories” tab on the Malaysian Bar website.
247/2010 Updates on Court-Assigned Counsel for Capital Cases and Volunteers Access this circular to view the list of Members approved to serve as court-assigned counsel
for the Buddy System for capital cases, and the list of Members who have agreed to serve as mentors for the “buddy
system”.
249/2010 Meeting between the Bar Council and the Judiciary This circular provides a summary of matters discussed at the meeting between Bar Council and
the Judiciary held on 3 June 2010.
250/2010 The Roll of Advocates and Solicitors (1948 to 16 June 2010) A copy of the Roll of advocates and solicitors admitted to the Bar from 1948 to 16 June 2010 is
available for inspection at the Bar Council Library.
255/2010 Ruling with regard to Guidelines for Filing of Draft Orders/Judgments Access this circular to view a copy of the ruling made by Bar Council with reference to item (m)
and Fair Orders/Judgments in Court Proceedings throughout Malaysia of the Chief Registrar’s Circular No 4/2010 dated 12 Aug 2010. Refer to Circular No 223/2010
above.
257/2010 Guidelines on Early Evaluation of Cases and Guidelines for the Pilot Access this circular to view:
Project of the Digital Recording System in the Industrial Courts (1) Practice Note No: 3 of 2010 – Guidelines on Early Evaluation of Cases; and
(2) Guidelines for the Pilot Project of the Digital Recording System.

258/2010 Compendium of Personal Injury Awards Access this circular to view the Compendium of Personal Injury Awards, which the Judiciary is
in agreement with.
260/2010 Registrar’s Circular No: 2/2010 Access the circular to view the Registrar’s Circular No: 2/2010 dated 11 Oct 2010, in respect of
the attestation of the writ of summons filed in the High Court of Malaya, which must be in the
Teste of a Writ (Amendment) name of the Right Honourable Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. The Registrar’s Circular
No: 2/2009 has been revoked.

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

54 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


LIBRARY UPDATES
NEW BOOKS
Amnesty International, Trapped: The exploitation of Migrant
Workers in Malaysia, Abused and Abandoned: Refugees
Denied Rights in Malaysia & There is a Way Out: Stop
Abuse of Migrants Detained in Malaysia, London, Amnesty
International, 2010.
A Guide to Corporate Governance in Malaysia, Singapore,
CCH Asia Pte Ltd, 2010.
Bowstead, William, Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency
(19th Ed), London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
Chandrasegar Chidambaram, Take-overs and Mergers
(2nd Ed) Hong Kong, LexisNexis, 2010.
Charlesworth, J, Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence
(12th Ed), London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010.
Dass, Santhana S, The Law of Motor Insurance, Kuala
Lumpur, Marsden Law Book, 2010.
Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in
Personal Injury Cases, Singapore, Academy Publishing,
2010.
Hamid Sultan b Abu Backer, Janab’s Key to Criminal
Procedure and Evidence (2nd Ed), Kuala Lumpur,
Janab (M) Sdn Bhd, 2010.
IM Shukri & Ainul Jaria Maidin, Malaysian Strata Titles:
Law and Procedure, Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Sweet &
Maxwell Asia, 2010.
McGregor, Harvey, McGregor on Damages, London,
Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited, 2009.
Nasser Hamid, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Petaling
Jaya, Selangor, Gavel Publications, 2010.
Netto, Marina, Contracts of Employment and Malaysian
Industrial Law: Incorporating the Recent Amendments
to the Industrial Relations Act 1967 until 28th February
2008, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Ellen Burke, 2009.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Working with the United Nations
Human Rights Programme: A Handbook for Civil
Society, New York, Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2008.
Bar Updates/Notices
Pinsler, Jeffrey, Evidence and the Litigation Process (3rd
Ed), Singapore: LexisNexis, 2010.
Poh Chu Chai, Motor and work injury insurance, Hong
Kong, LexisNexis, 2010.
Rachagan, Shanthy, Concise Principles of Company Law in
Malaysia (2nd Ed), Petaling Jaya, Selangor, LexisNexis,
Malaysia.
Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s the Indian
Penal Code: with exhaustive notes, comments, case-
law references and State Amendments, etc (33rd Ed)
(Eco P/B) 2010 Gurgaon, Haryana, India, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2010.
Sabah Law Association Native Law, Culture, Custom &
Rights Committee, Sabah Native Court of Appeal Law
Report 1989–2009, Sabah, Sabah Law Association
Native Law, Culture, Custom & Rights Committee,
2010.
Sabah Limitation Ordinance, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,
Gavel Publications, 2010.
Sarawak Limitation Ordinance, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,
Gavel Publications, 2010.
Sarkar, MC Sarkar’s Law of Evidence: In India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Burma & Ceylon (16th Ed) New Delhi,
India: Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, 2007.
Shadrake, Alan, Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore
Justice in the Dock, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Strategic
Information and Research Development Centre,
Petaling Jaya (SIRD), 2010.
Stamp Act 1949: Commentary and Cases, Kuala Lumpur,
Commerce Clearing House (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd,
2010.
Tan Cheng Han, The Law of Agency, Singapore, Academy
Publishing, 2010.
Tan, Kevin, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore
(3rd Ed) Singapore, LexisNexis, 2010.
Understanding Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Malaysia,
Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Eurosource Publications Ltd,
2010.
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 55
 Bar Updates/Notices

Legislative Updates
(As at November 2010)

BILLS 2010 AMENDING ACTS 2010

TITLE PUBLICATION Act No: Title
DATE
ACT A1377 RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Bank Simpanan Nasional (Amendment) Act 2010 [DR.32/2010] 28.10.2010 Notes: - General Amendment- Amending ss.1,4, and 7 by
substituting for the word “Malaysia” wherever appearing
the words “Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territory of
Fees (Malaysian Meteorological Department) (Validation) Act 28.10.2010
Labuan”.
2010 [DR.31/2010]
- A mends ss.1,2,66,89
w.e.f.: - 15.9.2010 – [P.U.(B) 386/2010]
Finance (No. 2) Act 2010 [DR.37/2010] 28.10.2010
ACT A1379 DIRECT SALES (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Food Analysts Act 2010 [DR.34/2010] 28.10.2010 Notes: - Amends long title, short title, ss.2,4,6,11,12,Part.
III,29,30,31,32, 33,34,35,36,38,39,41,42.
National Visual Arts Development Board Act 2010 [DR.33/2010] 28.10.2010 - Inserts new ss.19A, Part.VA (ss.27A,27B),29A,29B,29C,29
D,33A,33B, 33C,36A,43A,45,New Sch.
Road Transport (Amendment) Act 2010 [DR.35/2010] 28.10.2010 - Deletes s.7
w.e.f.: - Not yet in force
Supply Act 2011 [DR.36/2010] 28.10.2010
ACT A1380 STAMP (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Notes: - Amends ss.2,36B,37,38,38A
- Inserts new ss.36AA,36C,74A,74B
PRINCIPAL ACTS 2007 w.e.f.: - 1.11.2010 - [P.U. (B) 476/2010]

ACT A1381 CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010

Act No: Title
Notes: - Amends ss.2,9,11,23,53,98,146
ACT 668 YOUTH SOCIETIES AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT 2007 - Inserts new ss.21A, Part IIIA (ss.24A-24J), Part XIA (ss.84A-
An Act to register youth societies, promote and facilitate 84D),New Sch. Deletes s.103
the development of youth in Malaysia from the aspect w.e.f.: - Not yet in force
of education, research and human resource, to establish
a National Youth Consultative Council, to establish the ACT A1382 SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Malaysian Institute For Research In Youth Development and Notes: - General Amendment:- Deletes the words “or Penghulu’s
to provide for related matters. Court” wherever they appear.
w.e.f.: - 1.10.2010 – [P.U.(B) 414/2010] in the States of Sabah and - Amends ss.2,3,5,65,69,73,90,92,93
Sarawak. - Inserts new ss.5A,101A
- Deletes ss.86,91,Part.VIII,100
w.e.f.:- Not yet in force
PRINCIPAL ACTS 2010
ACT A1383 JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Act No: Title Notes: - Amends s.3,
w.e.f.:- Not yet in force.
ACT 712 COMPETITION ACT 2010
An Act to promote economic development by promoting and
protecting the process of competition, thereby protecting the ACT A1384 HIRE-PURCHASE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
interests of consumers and to provide for matters connected Notes: - Amends long title, ss.4A,4B,5,16,31,3, 38,45,46,50,51,51
therewith. B,53,55,55A,56,57.
w.e.f.: - 1.1.2012 – [P.U.(B) 410/2010] - Inserts new ss.4E,4F,4G,17A,17B,30A,50A,50B,51C,51D,5
1E,55B,55C,56B.
ACT 713 COMPETITION COMMISSION ACT 2010 w.e.f.: - Not yet in force.
An Act to provide for the establishment of the Competition
Commission, to set out the powers and functions of such ACT A1385 ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
Commission, and to provide for matters connected therewith Notes: - Amends long title, ss.1,2,3,5,Part.II,6,7,15,23,25,27,35,Pa
or incidental thereto. rt.V,44,51, 52,58,63,66
w.e.f.: - 1.1.2011 – [P.U.(B) 499/2010] - Inserts new ss.15A,17A,Part.IIIA (ss.26A-26K),41A,61A
w.e.f.: - 15.11.2010 – [P.U.(B) 500/2010]
ACT 716 WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 2010
An Act to provide for the protection and conservation of
wildlife and for matters connected therewith.
. LATEST INDEX TO P.U.(A) SERIES 2010
[P.U.(A) 239/2010 - P.U.(A) 390/2010]
w.e.f.: - N.Y.F As at August-November 2010

PRINCIPAL ACTS 2006 Title P.U.(A)

No.
Act No: Title ANIMALS ACT 1953 [ACT 647] 373/2010
ANIMALS (FEE FOR LICENSING OF DOG) ORDER 2010
ACT A1267 MALAYSIAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ACT 2006 Issued under s.38(4), Animals Act 1953
Notes: - Amends s.7, s.12A, s.26, s.28, and s.31 Notes: - The fee for the licensing of dog shall be RM20.00
- Deletes s.30 per head.
w.e.f.: - 30.9.2010 – [P.U.(B) 415/2010] - Revokes the Animals (Licensing of Dogs) (Fee) Order
1953 [L.N. 848/1953]
w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011

56 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Bar Updates/Notices

ANIMALS ACT 1953 [ACT 647] 374/2010 CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] 366/2010
ANIMALS (IMPORT AND EXPORT EXAMINATION FEES) RULES 2010 CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO. 5) ORDER
Issued under s.86(2)(l), Animals Act 1953 2010
w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011 Issued under s.5 Control of Supplies Act 1961.
w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING ACT 343/2010
2001 [ACT 613] CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1993 [ACT 502] 242/2010
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ASSUMPTION OF CONTROL) (NO.2)
(AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010 ORDER 2010
Issued under s.85, Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Issued under s.64, Co-operative Societies Act 1993
Financing Act 2001 Notes:- Encik Mohamad Zawawi b Mahmud to assume
Notes:- Amends Sch.2,Anti-Money Laundering and Anti- control of the whole of the property, business,
Terrorism Financing Act 2001 [Act 613] activities and affairs of the Koperasi Serbaguna Felda
w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010 Bukit Kuantan Berhad and its related corporations
and carry on the whole of the business, activities and
BIOSAFETY ACT 2007 [ACT 678] 367/2010 affairs.
BIOSAFETY (APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION) REGULATIONS 2010 w.e.f.:- 26.7.2010 – 25.7.2012
Issued Under S.69 (A), (B), (C), (G), (H) And (L) Biosafety Act 2007.
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010 CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT 1993 [ACT 502] 356/2010
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (ASSUMPTION OF CONTROL) (NO.3)
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES ACT 2007 [ACT 671] 335/2010 ORDER 2010
CAPITAL MARKETS AND SERVICES (PRICE STABILIZATION Issued under s.69(2), Co-operative Societies Act 1993
MECHANISM) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 Notes:- The Commission appoints Mohd Nasir b Mohd Nor
Issued under s.98(4)(e), s.180 and s.188(5), Capital Markets and (NRIC No.580928-11-5045) to assume control of the
Services Act 2007. whole of the property, business, activities and affairs
Notes:- Amends reg.2, [P.U.(A) 8/2008] of the Koperasi Kakitangan Kerajaan Dan Badan-
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010 Badan Berkanun Terengganu (KOKANUN) Berhad
CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1969 [ACT 3] 262/2010 and its related corporation, and carry on the whole
CIVIL AVIATION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 of its business, activities and affairs.
Issued under s.3, Civil Aviation Act 1969 w.e.f.:- 20.10.2010-19.10.2012
Notes:- Amends Sch.12, [P.U.(A) 139/1996] COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ACT 1993 348/2010
w.e.f.:- 15.8.2010 [ACT 504]
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334] 311/2010 CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER
MOTOR VEHICLES (COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT) (AMENDMENT) 2010
(NO.2) RULES 2010 Issued under s.28(6), Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act
Issued under s.56(1), Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 1993 and s.11(1), Customs Act 1967.
Notes:- Amends Sch.5, [L.N. 175/1959] Notes:- The period of effect of the Customs (Anti-Dumping
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010 Duties) (No.2) Order 2005 [P.U.(A) 414/2005] is
extended and shall remain in force from 23 October
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334] 312/2010 2010 to 20 April 2011.
MOTOR VEHICLES (COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT) (AMENDMENT) w.e.f.:- 23.10.2010
(NO.3) RULES 2010
Issued under s.56(1), Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 323/2010
Notes:- Amends rule 41G, Sch.5, [L.N. 175/1959] CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010 Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967
Notes:- Amends reg.3, Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 162/1977]
COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998 [ACT 588] 382/2010 w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010
COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA (UNIVERSAL SERVICE
PROVISION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 324/2010
Issued under ss.16, 202(2) and 204(2), Communications and CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2010
Multimedia Act 1998 Issued under s.142, Customs Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 419/2002] Notes:- Amends reg.3, Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 162/1977]
w.e.f.:- 10.5.2010 w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999 [ACT 599] 253/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 345/2010
CONSUMER PROTECTION (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE AND CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
CONFORMITY MARK OF SAFETY STANDARDS) REGULATIONS 2010 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.25, Countervailing
Issued under ss.19 and 150, Consumer Protection Act 1999 and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993.
Notes:- Revokes the Consumer Protection (Certificate of Notes:- Amends Sch., [P.U.(A) 414/2005]
Approval and Conformity Mark of Safety Standard) w.e.f.:- 13.10.2009-22.10.2010
Regulations 2009 [P.U.(A) 276/2009] CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 348/2010
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010 CUSTOMS (ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES) (EXTENSION OF TIME) ORDER
2010
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999 [ACT 599] 252/2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967 and s.28(6), Countervailing
CONSUMER PROTECTION (SAFETY STANDARDS FOR TOYS)
and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993.
(AMENDMENT)
Notes:- The period of effect of the Customs (Anti-Dumping
REGULATIONS 2010
Duties) (No.2) Order 2005 [P.U.(A) 414/2005] is
Issued under s.19, Consumer Protection Act 1999
extended and shall remain in force from 23 October
Notes:- Amends reg.2, [P.U.(A) 275/2009]
2010 to 20 April 2011.
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010
w.e.f.:- 23.10.2010
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] 285/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 368/2010
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.3) ORDER
CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
2010
Issued Under S.31(1), Customs Act 1967.
Issued under s.5, Control of Supplies Act 1961
Notes:- Amends Sch. [P.U.(A) 87/2008]
w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES ACT 1961 [ACT 122] 310/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 251/2010
CONTROL OF SUPPLIES (CONTROLLED ARTICLES) (NO.4) ORDER CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) ORDER
2010 2010
Issued under s.5, Control of Supplies Act 1961 Issued under s.31(1), Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-17.9.2010 Notes:- Amends Sch. [P.U.(A) 86/2008]
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 57

 Bar Updates/Notices

CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 258/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 284/2010
CUSTOMS (PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.34) ORDER 2010
2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.31(1), Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010 - 29.8.2010
Notes:- Amends Sch.4, [P.U.(A) 86/2008]
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 297/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.35) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 247/2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.15) ORDER 2010 w.e.f.:- 30.8.2010-5.9.2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 29.7.2010 - 11.8.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 315/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.36) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 268/2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.16) ORDER 2010 w.e.f.:- 6.9.2010-12.9.2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 12.8.2010 – 25.8.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 318/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.37) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 289/2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.17) ORDER 2010
w.e.f.:- 13.9.2010-19.9.2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 26.8.2010-8.9.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 320/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 316/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.38) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.18) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 20.9.2010-26.9.2010
w.e.f.:- 9.9.2010-22.9.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 325/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 321/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.39) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.19) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 27.9.2010-3.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 23.9.2010-6.10.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 339/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 342/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.40) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.20) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 4.10.2010-10.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 7.10.2010-20.10.2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 346/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 359/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.41) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.21) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 11.10.2010-17.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 21.10.2010-3.11.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 355/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 375/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.42) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.22) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 18.10.2010-24.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 4.11.2010-17.11.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 360/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 384/2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.43) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (CRUDE PETROLEUM OIL) (NO.23) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 w.e.f.:- 25.10.2010-31.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 18.11.2010-1.12.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 369/2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 259/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO. 44) ORDER 2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.8) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967.
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010 – 7.11.2010
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010 – 31.8.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 298/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 378/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.9) ORDER 2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.45) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010-30.9.2010 w.e.f.:- 8.11.2010-14.11.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 338/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 381/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO.10) ORDER 2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.46) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010-31.10.2010 w.e.f.:- 15.11.2010-21.11.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 370/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 385/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM KERNEL) (NO. 11) 2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.47) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967. Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010 – 30.11.2010 w.e.f.:- 22.11.2010-28.11.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 243/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 390/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.30) ORDER 2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.48) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 26.7.2010-1.8.2010 w.e.f.:- 29.11.2010-5.12.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 260/2010 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 358/2010
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.31) ORDER 2010 CUSTOMS (VALUES OF IMPORTED COMPLETELY BUILT-UP MOTOR
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 VEHICLES) (NEW) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
w.e.f.:- 2.8.2010 – 8.8.2010 Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 265/2010 Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 108/2006]
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.32) ORDER 2010 w.e.f.:- 22.10.2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 329/2010
w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010 – 15.8.2010 CUSTOMS DUTIES (AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE ASEAN-
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235] 272/2010 AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND FREE TRADE AREA) (AMENDMENT)
CUSTOMS (VALUES) (PALM OIL) (NO.33) ORDER 2010 ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12, Customs Act 1967 Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 16.8.2010 - 22.8.2010 Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 484/2009]
w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010

58 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 441/2007]
w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.14(1), ustoms Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 410/1987]
w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS OF ASEAN COUNTRIES ORIGIN) (ASEAN
HARMONISED TARIFF NOMENCLATURE AND ASEAN TRADE IN
GOODS AGREEMENT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 440/2007]
w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS OF ASEAN COUNTRIES ORIGIN) (ASEAN
HARMONISED TARIFF NOMENCLATURE AND COMMON EFFECTIVE
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF) (AMENDMENT) (NO.3) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
Notes:- General Amendment- Substitutes for the name
“Customs Duties (Goods of ASEAN Countries
Origin) (ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature
and Common Effective Preferential Tariff) Order
2007” wherever appearing the name “Customs
Duties (Goods of ASEAN Countries Origin) (ASEAN
Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature and ASEAN Trade
In Goods Agreement) Order 2007.” and
- Substitutes for the word “CEPT” wherever
appearing the word “ATIGA”.
- Amends para.2, Sch.1 and 2, [P.U.(A) 440/2007]
w.e.f.:- 17.5.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS UNDER AGREEMENT ON COMPREHENSIVE
ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AMONG MEMBER STATES OF THE ASEAN
AND JAPAN) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 476/2008]
w.e.f.:- 19.8.2010
CUSTOMS ACT 1967 [ACT 235]
CUSTOMS DUTIES (GOODS UNDER THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN MALAYSIA AND NEW ZEALAND) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.11(1), Customs Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010
DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51]
DENTAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12(2), Dental Act 1971
Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Dental Act 1971 [Act 51]
w.e.f.:- 29.10.2010
DENTAL ACT 1971 [ACT 51]
DENTAL (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) (NO.2) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.12(2), Dental Act 1971
Notes:- Amends Sch.2 by adding “Vinayaka Missions University
Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S).”, Dental Act 1971
[Act 51]
w.e.f.:- 19.11.2010
EDUCATION ACT 1996 [ACT 550]
EDUCATION (TERMS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS YEAR 2011)
REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.130(2)(b), Education Act 1996.
Notes:- These Regulations shall apply to attendance at
educational institutions for the year 2011.
w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010
EDUCATION ACT 1996 [ACT 550]
EDUCATION (INSTITUTES OF TEACHER EDUCATION) REGULATIONS
2010
Issued under ss.49 and 130, Education Act 1996
w.e.f.:- 25.11.2010
EMPLOYMENT ACT 1955 [ACT 265]
EMPLOYMENT (PART-TIME EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.2(4A), Employment Act 1955
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
Bar Updates/Notices
352/2010 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] 270/2010
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM SOLID
WASTE TRANSFER STATION AND LANDFILL) REGULATIONS 2009
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 433/2009].
300/2010 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] 271/2010
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT) REGULATIONS
2009 CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 434/2009].
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 [ACT 127] 269/2010
353/2010 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (SEWAGE) REGULATIONS 2009
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 432/2009].
EXCHANGE CONTROL ACT 1953 [ACT 17] 273/2010
EXCHANGE CONTROL (PRESCRIPTION OF TERRITORY AND MANNER
OF PAYMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.26, Exchange Control Act 1953
255/2010 Notes:- Revokes the Exchange Control (Prescription of
Territory and Manner of Payment) Order 1998
[P.U.(A) 317/1998]
w.e.f.:- 18.8.2010
EXCISE ACT 1976 [ACT 176] 337/2010
EXCISE DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.6(1), Excise Act 1967
Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 5/2004]
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 380/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO FPG OLEOCHEMICALS
SDN. BHD., KUANTAN, PAHANG) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 357/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS
BERHAD GAS PROCESSING PLANT 2 COMPLEX A, KERTEH,
280/2010 TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967.
w.e.f.:- 22.10.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 350/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO ETHYLENE MALAYSIA
SDN. BHD., KERTEH, TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967.
254/2010 w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 306/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO SHELL MDS (M) SDN.
BHD., BINTULU, SARAWAK) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967
363/2010 Notes:- All steam boilers and unfired pressure vessels
registered with the Chief Inspector, with the
registration numbers and description as specified
in columns (1) and (2) of the Schedule, in the name
of Shell MDS (M) Sdn. Bhd., Bintulu Sarawak are
exempted from paragraphs 17(a) and (b) of the
383/2010
Factories and Machinery Notification, Certificate of
Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970 [P.U.(A)
43/1970].
w.e.f.:- 2.9.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 304/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO SHELL REFINING
COMPANY
351/2010
(FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BERHAD, PORT DICKSON, NEGERI
SEMBILAN)
ORDER 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967
Notes:- All unfired pressure vessels registered with the
Chief Inspector, with the registration numbers
and descriptions as specified in columns (1) and
388/2010 (2) of the schedule, in the name of Shell Refining
Company (Federation of Malaya) Berhad, Port
Dickson, Negeri Sembilan which have been issued
with certificates of fitness, are exempted from the
preparation required under paragraph 17(b) of the
303/2010 Factories and Machinery (Notification, Certificate
of Fitness and Inspection) Regulations 1970 [P.U.(A)
43/1970].
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 59
 Bar Updates/Notices

FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 387/2010 FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376] 240/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO KANEKA PASTE FEDERAL ROADS (WEST MALAYSIA) (AMENDMENT) (NO.7) ORDER
POLYMERS SDN. BHD., GEBENG, PAHANG) ORDER 2010 2010
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959
w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010 Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 401/1989]
w.e.f.:- 27.7.2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY ACT 1967 [ACT 139] 386/2010
FACTORIES AND MACHINERY (EXEMPTION TO PETRONAS GAS FEDERAL ROADS ACT 1959 [ACT 376] 263/2010
BERHAD, CENTRALISED UTILITY FACILITIES (COGEN E, F), KERTEH, FEDERAL ROADS (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) ORDER 2010
TERENGGANU) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.3, Federal Roads Act 1959
Issued under s.55(3), Factories and Machinery Act 1967 Notes:- Revokes the Federal Roads (Kajang-Seremban
w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010 Highway) Order 2010, [P.U.(A) 58/2010]
w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 347/2010
CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 257/2010
ORDER 2010 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF
Issued under art.122AB(1), Federal Constitution TOLLS) (MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE SECOND CROSSING BRIDGE AND
Notes:- Tuan Abdul Rahman b Abdol, Tuan Samsudin b EXPRESSWAY AND PERLING EXPRESSWAY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER
Hassan, Tuan Lee Swee Seng and Tuan Vazeer 2010
Alam b Mydin Meera are appointed to be Judicial Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
Commissioners for a period of two years. Notes:- Amends Sch.2, [P.U.(A) 97/1998]
w.e.f.:- 31.5.2010 w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 250/2010 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 256/2010
PUBLIC OFFICERS (CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE) (AMENDMENT) FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS)
REGULATIONS 2010 (SOUTH KLANG VALLEY EXPRESSWAY) ORDER 2010
Notes:- Amends reg.21, [P.U.(A) 395/1993] Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010 w.e.f.:- 1.8.2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 244/2010 FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) ACT 1984 [ACT 306] 319/2010
PROCLAMATION FEDERAL ROADS (PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) (COLLECTION OF TOLLS)
BY HIS MAJESTY THE YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG, BY THE GRACE (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) (JELEBU TOLL PLAZA) ORDER 2010
OF ALLAH, SUPREME HEAD OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES OF Issued under s.2, Federal Roads (Private Management) Act 1984
MALAYSIA. w.e.f.:- 20.9.2010
Notes:- All citizens of Malaysia who, on the date of this
proclamation, have attained the age of sixteen years FISHERIES ACT 1985 [ACT 317] 291/2010
and seven months but have not attained the age of FISHERIES (PROTECTED AREA FOR SEA-CUCUMBER) REGULATIONS
eighteen years are directed to be liable to undergo 2010
national service training under the National Service Issued under s.61(i), Fisheries Act 1985
Training Act 2003. w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010
w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010 FOOD ACT 1983 [ACT 281] 239/2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 274/2010 CONTROL OF TOBACCO PRODUCT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS
CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) 2010
ORDER 2010 Issued under s.36, Food Act 1983
Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Notes:- Amends reg.2,8A,9(2),11 and 15(1), [P.U.(A)
Notes:- Puan Supang Lian, Tuan Dr Prasad Sandosham 324/2004]
Abraham, Tuan Varghese a/l George Varughese, w.e.f.:- 22.7.2010
Tuan John Ko Wai Seng, Tuan Stephen Chung Hian INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 379/2010
Guan and Tuan Lee Heng Cheong are appointed to DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO
be Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. PEOPLE’S
w.e.f.:- 28.10.2009 DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) ORDER 2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 275/2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1),
CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967.
ORDER 2010 w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010
Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 246/2010
Notes:- Tuan Mah Weng Kwai is appointed to be Judicial INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) (NO.10) ORDER 2009 CORRIGENDUM
Commissioner for a period of two years. Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 473/2009]
w.e.f.:- 4.1.2010
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 302/2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 276/2010 DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS) SAN MARINO) ORDER 2010
ORDER 2010 Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1),
Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967.
Notes:- Datuk Hasnah bt Dato’ Mohammed Hashim, Dato’ w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010
Ahmad Zaki b Haji Husin, Datuk Hanipah b Farikullah
and Tuan Mohd Zaki b Abdul Wahab appointed to be INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 295/2010
Judicial Commissioners for a period of two years. INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR COST OF PREPARATION OF
w.e.f.:- 3.5.2010 CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE-BASED MASTER PLAN) RULES 2009
CORRIGENDUM
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 277/2010 Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 419/2009]
CONSTITUTION OF THE HIGH COURTS (JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS)
ORDER 2010 INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 296/2010
Issued under art.122(AB)(1), Federal Constitution INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE ON ISSUANCE OF
Notes:- Puan See Mee Chun, Tuan Gunalan a/l Muniandy ISLAMIC
and Puan Rosilah bt Yop appointed to be Judicial SECURITIES) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM
Commissioners for a period of two years. Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 420/2009]
w.e.f.:- 11.5.2010 INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53] 294/2010
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION [FGN (NS) 885/1957] 261/2010 INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR INVESTMENT IN AN APPROVED
RULES OF THE SPECIAL COURT (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) 2010 CONSOLIDATION OF MANAGEMENT OF SMALLHOLDING AND IDLE
Notes:- Amends rule.14A, [P.U.(A) 525/1994] LAND PROJECT) RULES 2009 CORRIGENDUM
w.e.f.:- 6.8.2010 Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 417/2009]

60 Praxis Jan–mar 2011


INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
INCOME TAX (DEDUCTION FOR PROMOTION OF MALAYSIA
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC FINANCIAL CENTRE) RULES 2009
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 416/2009]
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SEYCHELLES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1),
Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF
KUWAIT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1),
Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967
w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
INCOME TAX (SPECIAL TREATMENT ON INTEREST ON HOUSING
LOAN) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.36(1), Income Tax Act 1967.
Notes:- Amends reg.5, [P.U.(A) 109/2009]
w.e.f.:- y/a 2009-
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NOTHERN IRELAND)
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 and s.65A(1),
Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967.
w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010
INCOME TAX ACT 1967 [ACT 53]
INCOME TAX (DETERMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE WORKER,
QUALIFIED ACTIVITY AND SPECIFIED REGION) RULES 2010
Issued under s.154(1)(b), Income Tax Act 1967
w.e.f.:- y/a 2010-
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 2008 [ACT 686]
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES (COMPOUNDING
OF OFFENCES) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.54(2)(e), International Trade in Endangered Species
Act 2008
w.e.f.:- 23.7.2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96]
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND
STAMP DUTY) (NO.3) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
Notes:- Remits any tax payable under the Income Tax Act
1967 [Act 53] in full in relation to any income derived
from the Islamic Medium Term Notes in the nominal
value of eight thousand eight hundred million ringgit
(RM8,800,000,000,00) issued by GovCo Holdings
Berhad (“Issuer”) including the guarantee provided
or to be provided by the Government of Malaysia
(“Guarantee”).
w.e.f.:- 26.11.2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96]
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX AND
STAMP DUTY) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
w.e.f.:- 29.7.2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96]
LOANS GUARANTEE (DECLARATION OF BODIES CORPORATE)
(PENGURUSAN AIR SPV BERHAD) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.3, Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
w.e.f:- 30.9.2010
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 [ACT 171]
ADVERTISEMENTS (FEDERAL TERRITORY OF PUTRAJAYA) BY-LAWS
2002 CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 290/2002]
PEMBANGUNAN SUMBER MANUSIA BERHAD ACT 2001 [ACT 612]
PEMBANGUNAN SUMBER MANUSIA BERHAD (EXEMPTION) ORDER
2010
Issued under s.19, Pembangunan Sumber Manusia Berhad Act
2001.
Notes:- Exempts the employers who have registered with the
Corporation under subsection 13(1) of the Act from
the payment of the levy in respect of its part-time
employees under subsection 14(1) of the Act.
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
Bar Updates/Notices
293/2010 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2008 [ACT 685] 349/2010
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (REGISTRATION AND ISSUANCE OF KAD
OKU) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under ss.21(2) and 22(2), Persons with Disabilities Act 2008
w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010
286/2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] 331/2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) (REMISSION OF TAX
ANDSTAMP DUTY) (NO.2) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.10(1), Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
Notes:- Any tax payable under the Income Tax Act 1967
[Act 53] shall be remitted in full in relation to any
287/2010 income derived from the Islamic Medium Term
Note in nominal value of twenty billion ringgit
(RM20,000,000,000.00) issued by Pengurusan Air SPV
Berhad (“Issuer”) including the guarantee provided
or to be provided by the Government of Malaysia.
w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010
288/2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (BODIES CORPORATE) ACT 1965 [ACT 96] 377/2010
LOANS GUARANTEE (DECLARATION OF BODIES CORPORATE)
(GOVCO HOLDINGS BERHAD) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.3, Loans Guarantee (Bodies Corporate) Act 1965
Notes:- The body corporate known as GovCo Holdings Berhad
is declared to be a body corporate to which the Act
322/2010 applies.
w.e.f.:- 4.11.2010
MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION ACT 2007 [ACT 665] 292/2010
MALAYSIA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES COMMISSION (CENTRAL
LIQUIDITY FUND) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.42(3), Malaysia Co-operative Societies Commission
344/2010 Act 2007.
w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010
NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 [ACT 645] 328/2010
NATIONAL HERITAGE (DECLARATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE)
(HISTORICAL OBJECT) (NO.5) ORDER 2010
241/2010 Issued under s.67(1), National Heritage Act 2005
Notes:- Personal letters of Zainal Abidin b Ahmad
(ZABA)-SP.18, Personal letters of Tengku Omar Ibni
Almarhum Sultan Ahmad Shah (Baginda Omar) SP.6,
Proclamation of Malaysia 1963 (P.128), Kuala Lumpur
Agreement 1974 (P. 3/74), Declaration of Federal
389/2010 Territory Kuala Lumpur 1974 (P. 1/74) and Labuan
Agreement (P.24.84) are declared to be National
Heritage.
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 2005 [ACT 645] 267/2010
NATIONAL HERITAGE (DECLARATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE)
(HISTORICAL OBJECT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.67(1), National Heritage Act 2005
Notes:- Manuskrip Sejarah Melayu, is declared to be National
Heritage.
w.e.f.:- 13.8.2010
NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING ACT 2003 [ACT 628] 245/2010
249/2010 NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING (PERSONS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO
NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.16, National Service Training Act 2003
Notes:- Persons who are liable to undergo national service
training by virtue of the proclamation made
330/2010 under section 3 of the Act who are born in the
year 1993 and have been selected through the
computerizedselection system are required to
undergo national service training.
w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010
362/2010 PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] 379/2010
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAO
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and
361/2010 s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967.
w.e.f.:- 12.11.2010
PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] 302/2010
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SAN MARINO) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967and
s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967.
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010
Praxis Jan–mar 2011 61
 Bar Updates/Notices

PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] 286/2010 ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 313/2010
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LOCAL SPEED LIMIT (FEDERAL ROADS) (WEST MALAYSIA)
SEYCHELLES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987
s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. Notes:- Amends Sch.1, [P.U.(A) 462/1991]
w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010 w.e.f.:- 8.9.2010
PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] 287/2010 ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 327/2010
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF ROAD TRANSPORT (PROHIBITION OF USE OF ROAD) (FEDERAL
KUWAIT) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 ROADS) (NO.3) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and Issued under s.70(1) and (2), Road Transport Act 1987
s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967. w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010
ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 264/2010
PETROLEUM (INCOME TAX) ACT 1967 [ACT 543] 322/2010 SPEED LIMIT (KAJANG-SEREMBAN HIGHWAY) (AMENDMENT)
DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED ORDER 2010
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NOTHERN IRELAND) Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987
(AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 w.e.f.:- 9.8.2010
Issued under s.65A(1), Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 and
s.132(1), Income Tax Act 1967 ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 314/2010
w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010 ROAD TRAFFIC (PROHIBITION ON DRIVING OF GOODS VEHICLES)
(NO.2) RULES 2010
PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] 307/2010
Issued under s.88(1)(c) , Road Transport Act 1987
PRICE CONTROL (FIXING OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO.5) ORDER 2010
w.e.f.:- 8.9.2010
Issued under s.4, Price Control Act 1946
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-17.9.2010 SALES TAX ACT 1972 [ACT 64] 299/2010
PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] 365/2010 SALES TAX (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.4) ORDER 2010
PRICE CONTROL (FIXING OF MAXIMUM PRICE) (NO. 6) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.8, Sales Tax Act 1972
Issued under s.4, Price Control Act 1946 Notes:- Amends Sch.B, [P.U.(A) 91/2008]
w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010 – 9.11.2010 w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010

PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] 309/2010 SALES TAX ACT 1972 [ACT 64] 354/2010
PRICE CONTROL (LICENSING) (REVOCATION) REGULATIONS 2010 SALES TAX (EXEMPTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.5) ORDER 2010
Issued under s.29, Price Control Act 1946 Issued under s.8, Sales Tax Act 1972
Notes:- Revokes The Price Control (Licensing) Regulations Notes:- Amends Sch.A, [P.U.(A) 91/2008]
2000 [P.U.(A) 445/2000] w.e.f.:- 15.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m.
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010
SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1993 [ACT 498] 336/2010
PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] 308/2010 SECURITIES COMMISSION (AUDIT OVERSIGHT BOARD) (FEES) (NO.2)
PRICE CONTROL (PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS AND LABELLING OF REGULATIONS 2010
PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.159, Securities Commission Act 1993
Issued under s.13, Price Control Act 1946 w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010
STAMP ACT 1949 [ACT 378] 376/2010
PRICE CONTROL ACT 1946 [ACT 121] 364/2010 STAMP DUTY (REMISSION) ORDER 2010
PRICE CONTROL (PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS AND LABELLING OF Issued under s.80(2), Stamp Act 1949
PRICE-CONTROLLED GOODS) (NO. 2) ORDER 2010 Notes:- Remits the duty on any instrument executed between
Issued under s 13, Price Control Act 1946 a customer and a financier in accordance with the
w.e.f.:- 31.10.2010 – 9.11.2010 Shariah as approved by the Shariah Advisory Council
on Islamic Finance as established under the Central
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS ACT 1984 [ACT 301] 326/2010 Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 [Act 701] pursuant to the
PRINTING PRESSES AND PUBLICATIONS (CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE change of scheme for financing an existing loan from
PUBLICATIONS) (NO.6) ORDER 2010 conventional to Shariah to the extent of the duty that
Issued under s.7(1), Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 would be payable on the balance of the principal
Notes:- The printing, importation, production, reproduction publishing, amount of the existing loan.
sale, issue, circulation, distribution or possession of The March
- Revokes the Stamp Duty (Remission) (No.3) Order
To Putrajaya-Malaysia’s New Era Is At Hand is absolutely
2000 [P.U.(A) 315/2000]
prohibited throughout Malaysia.
w.e.f.:- 5.11.2010
w.e.f.:- 28.9.2010
POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] 248/2010 TABUNG HAJI ACT 1995 [ACT 535] 281/2010
POISON (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010 TABUNG HAJI DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.35, Poisons Act 1952 Issued under s.14, Tabung Haji Act 1995.
Notes:- Amends reg.24(2) and Inserts new reg.23A, [L.N. w.e.f.:- 24.8.2010
440/1952]
TABUNG HAJI ACT 1995 [ACT 535] 282/2010
w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010
TABUNG HAJI (DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEES AND DISCIPLINARY
POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] 340/2010 APPEAL COMMITTEES) REGULATIONS 2010
POISONS (AMENDMENT OF SECOND SCHEDULE) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.14, Tabung Haji Act 1995.
Issued under s.7(2), Poisons Act 1952 w.e.f.:- 24.8.2010
Notes:- Amends Sch.2, Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366]
w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010 TOURISM INDUSTRY ACT 1992 [ACT 482] 290/2010
TOURISM INDUSTRY (TOUR OPERATING BUSINESS AND TRAVEL
POISONS ACT 1952 [ACT 366] 341/201 AGENCY BUSINESS) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 2010
POISONS (AMENDMENT OF POISONS LIST) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.34, Tourism Industry Act 1992.
Issued under s.6, Poisons Act 1952 Notes:- Amends reg.9A, [P.U.(A) 333/1992]
Notes:- Amends Sch.1, Poisons Act 1952 [Act 366] w.e.f.:- 1.9.2010
w.e.f.:- 8.10.2010
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] 317/2010
ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 1987 [ACT 333] 301/2010 TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES) (AMENDMENT)
LOCAL SPEED LIMIT (FEDERAL ROADS) (SPECIFIED TIME PROHIBITION) REGULATIONS 2010.
(NO.2) ORDER 2010 Issued under s.38A, Trade Descriptions Act 1972
Issued under s.69(2), Road Transport Act 1987 Notes:- Amends reg.2, Form 1 of Sch, [P.U.(A) 96/1994]
w.e.f.:- 3.9.2010-18.9.2010 w.e.f.:- 15.9.2010

62 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] 266/2010
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (CHEAP SALE PRICE) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.38A, Trade Descriptions Act 1972
Notes:- Amends reg.2,3,5,11,14,Sch and Inserts new reg.12A,
[P.U.(A) 424/1997]
w.e.f.:- 11.8.2010
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1972 [ACT 87] 279/2010
Intellect Book Marketing
(since 1984)
TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (OPTICAL DISC LABEL) ORDER 2010
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(A) 142/2010]
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 371/2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF JOHOR) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.184(2)(A) and 179(I), Water Services Industry Act
2006
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 332/2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF KEDAH) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 333/2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF KELANTAN) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 372/2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF MALACCA) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.184(2)(A) and 179(I), Water Services Industry Act
2006
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY ACT 2006 [ACT 655] 334/2010
WATER SERVICES INDUSTRY (RATES FOR WATER SUPPLY SERVICES)
(STATE OF PENANG) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.84(2)(a) and 179(i), Water Services Industry Act 2006
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1972 [ACT 71] 278/2010
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2010
Issued under s.29, Weights and Measures Act 1972
Notes:- Amends Sch.9, [P.U.(A) 292/1981]
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
• Leading stockist of local and foreign
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1952 [ACT 273] 283/2010 law books
WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION (FOREIGN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
SCHEME) (INSURANCE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 • Major importers of Indian Law
Issued under s.26(2), Workmen’s Compensation Act 1952
Notes:- Amends Sch, [P.U.(A) 45/2005] Books
w.e.f.:- 23.8.2010
• All India Reporter 1914–2010
LATEST INDEX TO SELECTED – DVD Rom
P.U.(B) SERIES 2010 • Secondhand sets of major works
As at August-November 2010
Title P.U.(A)
• Subscription agents
No.
ANTI-TRAFFICKING (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1385] 500/2010
• Conveyancing forms
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 15 November 2010 appointed as the date on which
– NLC 14A, 16A, 16N, 19B, 19G,
the Act [A1385] comes into operation.
w.e.f.:- 15.11.2010
19D, 331(1)
BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT 1989 [ACT 372] 474/2010 – PDS 15
NOTICE UNDER SUBSECTION 12(4)
Notes:- Surrender of licence by Fulton Prebon (Malaysia) Sdn.
Bhd.
– Power of Attorney
w.e.f.:- 2.11.2009
CHILD ACT 2001 [ACT 611] 496/2010
APPOINTMENT OF PLACE OF SAFETY
Notes:- Rumah Perlindungan Ehsan, Batu 7½, Jalan Tuaran, 14, 1st Floor, Jalan Bunus Enam, 50100 Kuala Lumpur.
88300 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah appointed as a place of
safety. Tel: 03.2693.8260, 03.2698.7005, 03.2694.7206
w.e.f.:- 31.5.2010 Fax: 03.2693.1826
Email: intellectbookmarketing@gmail.com
 Bar Updates/Notices
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LICENSING BOARD ACT 1987 [ACT 334]
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to the Commercial Vehicles Licensing
Board Act 1987 [Act 334].
(a) Corrects by inserting after the definition of
“employees bus” the following definition:
“excursion bus” means a bus used exclusively for
the conveyance of tourists on a single journey
and in consideration of a single payment which
has no fare stages;”
(b) Corrects subparagraph 19(1)(a)(iv) by inserting
after the words “and in the case of excursion
buses also the itinerary” after the word “fare-
table” .
COMPETITION ACT 2010 [ACT 712]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 January 2012 appointed as the date on which the
[Act 712] comes into operation.
w.e.f.:- 1.1.2012
COMPETITION COMMISSION ACT 2010 [ACT 713]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 January 2011 appointed as the date on which the
Act 713 comes into operation.
w.e.f.:- 1.1.2011
COPYRIGHT ACT 1987 [ACT 332]
CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to the Copyright Act 1987 [Act 332].
- Corrects subsection 15(2) by substituting for the
words “subsection 13(1)” the words “subsection
(1)”.
ISLAMIC FAMILY LAW (FEDERAL TERRITORIES) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010
[ACT A1261]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act
A1261 comes into operation
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT
A1383]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act
A1383 comes into operation
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 [ACT 166]
NOTIFICATION UNDER SUBSECTION 76(1)
Notes:- The persons named in the Schedule have been
appointed as members of the Bar Council and
members of the State Bar Committees for the year
2010/2011; and
- Encik George Varughese a/l K.O. Varughese has
been elected as the Secretary of the Malaysian
Bar.
w.e.f.:- 30.7.2010
MALAYSIAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ACT 2006 [ACT
A1267]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 30 September 2010 appointed as the date on which
the [Act A1267] comes into operation.
w.e.f.:- 30.9.2010
MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACT 1983 [ACT 295]
DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3
Notes:- The Pulau Song Song Firing Ground (Yan, Kedah),
which was declared to be a firing ground vide [L.N.
273/58], shall cease to be a firing ground from the
date of this notification.
w.e.f.:- 6.8.2010
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621]
SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTERCORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(B) 246/2010]
- Delete the word “a” appearing immediately before
the words “foreign serious offences” in para. (a)
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621]
SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER CORRIGENDUM
Notes:- Corrigendum to [P.U.(B) 247/2010] Substitute for the
word “serious offences, that is offences” appearing in
paragraph (a) the words “serious offence, that is an
offence”.
64 Praxis Jan–mar 2011
509/2010 MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] 305/2010
SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER
Notes:- The Minister responsible for legal affairs in Malaysia,
do direct that the provisions of the Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters Act 2002 be applied in relation to
the request for mutual assistance in relation to that
criminal matter as if there was in effect in respect of
the Republic of Poland an order made under section
17 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act
2002 without any restriction, limitation, exception,
modification, adaptation, condition or qualification.
w.e.f.:- 20.7.2010
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT 2002 [ACT 621] 306/2010
SPECIAL DIRECTION OF THE MINISTER
410/2010
Notes:- The Minister responsible for legal affairs in Malaysia,
do direct that the provisions of the Mutual Assistance
in Criminal Matters Act 2002 be applied in relation to
the request for mutual assistance in relation to that
criminal matter as if there was in effect in respect of
499/2010 Spain an order made under section 17 of the Mutual
Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 without
any restriction, limitation, exception, modification,
adaptation, condition or qualification.
w.e.f.:- 20.7.2010
508/2010 377/2010
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 1994 [ACT 514]
NOTIFICATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CODE OF PRACTICE
Notes:- Industry code of practice known as the Occupational
Safety and Health Industry Code of Practice for Road
Transport Activities has been approved.
w.e.f.:- 17.2.2010
477/2010
PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] 379/2010
APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UP TO BE A PLACE OF CONFINEMENT
Notes:- The lock-up in the Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan
Syariah Court to be a place for the confinement of
persons remanded or sentenced to such terms of
imprisonment not exceeding one month.
478/2010 w.e.f.:- 27.8.2010
PRISON ACT 1995 [ACT 537] 385/2010
APPOINTMENT OF LOCK-UPS TO BE PLACES OF CONFINEMENT
Notes:- Lokap Balai Polis Menumbok, Sabah; Lokap Balai
Polis Bergosong, Sabah; Lokap Balai Polis Bongowan,
331/2010 Sabah and Lokap Balai Polis Desa Cemerlang, Johor to
be places for the confinement of persons remanded
or sentenced to such terms of imprisonment not
exceeding one month.
w.e.f.:- 31.8.2010
RAILWAYS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1377] 386/2010
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 15 September 2010 appointed as the date on which
the [Act A1377] comes into operation.
w.e.f.:- 15.9.2010
415/2010
REGISTRATION OF ENGINEERS ACT 1967 [ACT 138] 471/2010
NAME OF REGISTERED ENGINEER WHO HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
THE REGISTER
Notes:- Name of Pang Fook Sheng, registration number 4496
has been removed from the Register.
344/2010 w.e.f.:- 13.8.2010
476/2010
STAMP (AMENDMENT) ACT 2010 [ACT A1380]
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1November 2010 appointed as the date on which Act
A1380 comes into operation
w.e.f.:- 1.11.2010
338/2010 YOUTH SOCIETIES AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT 2007 [ACT 668] 414/2010
APPOINTMENT OF DATE OF COMING INTO OPERATION
Notes:- 1 October 2010 appointed as the date on which the
[Act 668] comes into operation in the States of Sabah
and Sarawak..
w.e.f.:- 1.10.2010
339/2010
 Bar Updates/Notices

DISCIPLINARY ORDERS
October – December 2009 Muhamad Zakuan b Mokhtar
Suziliayana bt Arifin
3 Oct 2009
3 Oct 2009
RM 1,500
RM 2,000
Mizuraini bt Muhamad 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
STRUCK OFF
Ahmad Sofian b Mohd Nor 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500

NAME ORDER DATED Liu Lee Ting 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000

Johari b Ahmad 10 July 2009 Mohamed Suradi b Ismail 3 Oct 2009 RM 500

Vasanta a/l Amarasekara 23 Oct 2009 Mohd Amir Nor Rabi b Ibrahim 3 Oct 2009 RM 500

Haranay b Mohd Noor 5 Nov 2009 Azreen bt Abu Noh 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000

Kuppusamy a/l Maruthy 5 Nov 2009 Mohd Firuz b Jaffril 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000

Pathmanabhan a/l Nalliannen 5 Nov 2009 Ahmad Azli b Abdul Aziz 23 Oct 2009 RM 2,000

Surendran a/l Nalliannen 5 Nov 2009 Idris b Idros 23 Oct 2009 RM 3,000

Jalidah bt Jalaludin 11 Dec 2009 Shahlawati bt Manap 23 Oct 2009 RM 2,000

Ahmad Johari b Hamzah 24 Oct 2009 RM 5,000
FINED
Md Nor b Md Din 5 Nov 2009 RM 5,000
NAME ORDER FINE Loo Wi-Chung, Alvin 5 Nov 2009 RM 5,000
DATED
Lee Yee How 5 Nov 2009 RM 1,500
Azmi b Juewani 2 Oct 2009 RM 5,000
Kasturi Kesveren a/l Balasamy 5 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Mohamad Hafidz b Abu Bakar 2 Oct 2009 RM 10,000
Fadzila bt Said 5 Nov 2009 RM 3,000
Nasarudin b Abdul Manaf 2 Oct 2009 RM 1,500
Nani Safinas bt Sulaiman 5 Nov 2009 RM 8,000
Sivarajah a/l A Palanisamy 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500
Muhamed Ariff Mahindar 5 Nov 2009 RM 10,000
Afzalina bt Abd Rani 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Selvaratnam a/l Vellupillai 5 Nov 2009 RM 10,000
Nor Izawati bt Zainal 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500
Mohamad Arfizi b Mohd Ramli 6 Nov 2009 RM 500
Syed Fadzil b Syed Shamsuddin 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Chelvarajan a/l R Suppiah 6 Nov 2009 RM 500
Mohd Rizaili b Sazali 3 Oct 2009 RM 2, 000
Shaari b Haji Md Nor 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000
Inderjeet Singh a/l Gurdeep Singh 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500
Robiha bt Mohamed 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Shenton Maniam a/l R Sivamaniam 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000
Kong Chee Phang 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Low Shih Yin 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000
Jimmy Goh Thian Szu 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Samry b Masri 6 Nov 2009 RM1,000
Rosilawati bt Ahmad Basir 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Johari b Baharuddin 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Mohd Rosly Khady b Mohd 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000
Ayub Khan Jeyendran a/l Ramachandran 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000

Rosina bt Zakaria 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000 Marina bt Abdul Muttalib 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000

Mohd Nawi b Ab Hamid 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Aida Naziaty bt Samingan 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

Zainorah bt Hassan 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Aifa Hananoon bt Abdul Hamid 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

Fredah bt Kassim 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Ainul Wardah bt Shahidan 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

Zakiah bt Hj Ahmad 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Mohd Bashir b Abd Kadir 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,500

Sulaimi b Sulong 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000 Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

Rezalman b Bahran 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Khairuddin b Abdullah 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

Sharifah Jaliha bt Tuanku Abdullah 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000 Jeeva Kumar a/l Marimuthu 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,500

Norhadiyatul Akma bt Jaafar 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000 Mohd Zulkifli b Mohd Rusad 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000

Abdul Ghany b Saad 3 Oct 2009 RM 1,500 Mohd Hanif b Abdul Rahman 6 Nov 2009 RM 1,000

Mohd Fauzi b Abdullah 3 Oct 2009 RM 500 Adura bt Dato’ Ibrahim 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,000

M. Tharuma Ratnam 3 Oct 2009 RM 2,000 Song Teik Kim 6 Nov 2009 RM 5,000

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 65

 Bar Updates/Notices

Mohd Radzwan b Mohd Amin 6 Nov 2009 RM 2,00 Robiha bt Mohamed 6 Nov 2009
@ Mat Taib
Wan M Razali b Wan A Kadir 6 Nov 2009
Lee Ah Kau @ Lee Han Yen 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Wan Shahril b Wan Mamat 7 Nov 2009
Tan Kim Minh Philip Sylvanus 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Mimi Lim 7 Nov 2009
Palanimmah a/p Mutu 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Loo Chea Chin 10 Dec 2009
Vickneswary a/p S Manickam 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Salmiah bt Salim 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Ramesh a/l K S Vasan 7 Nov 2009 RM 500 January – October 2010
Ahmad Nizam b Mohamed 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
STRUCK OFF
Saranjit Singh a/l Gurcharan Singh 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Yap Sze Yong 7 Nov 2009 RM 500 NAME ORDER DATED
Ahmad Farid b Hj Zakaria 7 Nov 2009 RM 500 Ibrahim b Soffian 22 Jan 2010
Che Zainol Rashid b Che Ahmad 7 Nov 2009 RM 500 Norsalawati bt Hussin 22 Jan 2010
Marhaini bt Mat 7 Nov 2009 RM 500 Lana Azman b Eli 6 Feb 2010
Selvadorai a/l Thandavan 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman 6 Feb 2010
Puvanendran Sivalingam 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman 6 Feb 2010
Harriri b Md Noor 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Chong Teck Hoi 19 Feb 2010
Nazri b Saad 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Gabriel Rupananda Seneviratne 19 Feb 2010
Zurina bt Hayati Meah 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Chan Yoong Heng 20 Feb 2010
Aini bt Othman 7 Nov 2009 RM 500
Teh Hock Kee 19 Mar 2010
Chan Chui Peng 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Azmi b Juewani 19 Mar 2010
Iszam Kamal b Ismail 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Marzaini bt Zainuddin 20 May 2010
Oh Swee Kar 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,500
Thashinamoorthy a/l Paramaguru 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,000
Tan Wai Meng 20 May 2010

Ilangovan a/l Dorairaj @ Suppiah 7 Nov 2009 RM 3,000 Tuah b Atan 24 July 2010
Ling Yoke Hooi 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,000 Hakiman Hafiz b Husain 23 July 2010
Lee Fong Ling 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,500 Low Chin Kiat 24 Sept 2010
Abdul Rauf b A Rahman 7 Nov 2009 RM 1,000 Suhairi b Sukor 8 Oct 2010
Nakaretanam a/l Narasamah 7 Nov 2009 RM 2,000
Zainudin b Maksom 7 Nov 2009 RM 5,000 SUSPENDED
Ong Swee Long 10 Dec 2009 RM 3,000
NAME ORDER DATED
Teoh Boh Choon, Walter 11 Dec 2009 RM 2,000
Gabriel Rupananda 19 Feb 2010 (Suspended for 1 month with effect
Yeow Joo Ming 11 Dec 2009 RM 2,000 Seneviratne 21 days from 19.2.10 and to expire on 12.4.10)
Hamzah b Mohd Kassim 11 Dec 2009 RM 1,000 Tan Wai Meng 20 Mar 2010 (Suspended for 6 months with effect
21 days from 20.3.10 and to expire on 10.10.10)
Govindarajoo a/l R Muniandy 11 Dec 2009 RM 20,000
Gunapati Suppiah 20 Mar 2010 (Suspended for 3 years with effect 21
days from 20.3.10 and to expire on 10.4.2013)
REPRIMANDED Pauline Sagau 24 July 2010 (Suspended for 3 years with
effect 21 days from 24.7.10 and is to expire on
14.8.2013)
NAME ORDER DATED
Ooi Chok Siew 3 Oct 2009
Lee Lim Huat 3 Oct 2009 FINED
Mohd Aidil b Rusli 3 Oct 2009 NAME ORDER DATED FINE
Mohd Nizam b Khamis 3 Oct 2009 Wong Siew Nam 15 Jan 2010 RM 10,000
Abdul Halim b Said 6 Nov 2009 Suppiah a/l Palanisamy 15 Jan 2010 RM 3,000
Lee Yin Chuan 6 Nov 2009 Cheang Chu Yong, Benedict 15 Jan 2010 RM 3,000

66 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 Bar Updates/Notices

Ong Yoke Chan, Rebecca 15 Jan 2010 RM 3,000 Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid 20 Mar 2010 RM 20,000
Tay Hang Song 15 Jan 2010 RM 5,000 Govindarajoo a/l R Muniandy 20 Mar 2010 RM 2,000
So Chien Hao 15 Jan 2010 RM 5,000 Charlotte Jennifer Thomas 20 Mar 2010 RM 10,000
Tan Pean Khoon 15 Jan 2010 RM 3,000 Nora Hayati bt Ismayatim 23 Apr 2010 RM2,000
Mohamad Lusfi b Yaakob 22 Jan 2010 RM 1,000 Lew Onn Yap 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Tuah b Atan 22 Jan 2010 RM 1,5000 Annie Maria a/p Norman Gregory 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Mohamed Nordin b Hj 23 Jan 2010 RM 2,000 Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Mohd Yusoff
Silvaraju a/l Ramu 23 Apr 2010 RM1,000
Noorzilan b Mohamed Noor 5 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Chan Wai Keong 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Suneth a/l A Nadesan 5 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Jayaprathap a/l Buloga Pothal 23 Apr 2010 RM3,000
Lee Pan Hai 5 Feb 2010 RM 10,000
Chandra Mohan a/l Narayanasamy 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Mohd Asri b Ahmad Rashidi 5 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Yeoh Tai Chuan 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Damian Pheny 5 Feb 2010 RM 2,000
Tan Sui Lin Nicholin Imelda 23 Apr 2010 RM5,000
Teoh Tai Eak 5 Feb 2010 RM 7,000
Azian bt Shaharum 20 May 2010 RM5,000
Lana Azman b Eli 6 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Raja Samsul Bahri b Raja Muhammad 20 May 2010 RM2,000
Lana Azman b Eli 6 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Ng Choo Hock 20 May 2010 RM5,000
Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman 6 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Leslie Bala a/l Bala Gopal 20 May 2010 RM3,000
Muhamad Sabri b Mohd Saman 6 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Andrew a/l Lourdusamy 20 May 2010 RM1,000
Mohd Azizan b Che Omar 6 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Majdah bt Idrus 20 May 2010 RM3,000
Sandosh a/l JN Anandan 6 Feb 2010 RM 10,000
John Willibrod Concisom a/l 20 May 2010 RM8,000
Jagdeep Kaur Bhullar a/p 19 Feb 2010 RM 2,000 Willie Brod
Sulwant Singh
Hadyati bt Harun 20 May 2010 RM8,000
Chan Yoong Heng 19 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Muhd Anuwar b Mustafa 21 May 2010 RM1,000
Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid 19 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Hasnal b Lassim @ Hashim 22 May 2010 RM2,000
Mohd Azizan b Che Omar 19 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Adi Azhar b Abdul Majid 22 May 2010 RM5,000
Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy 19 Feb 2010 RM 2,000
Raja Segaran a/l S Krishnan 22 May 2010 RM3,000
Gooi Hock Seng 19 Feb 2010 RM 900
Gurbachan Singh a/l Bagawan Singh 22 May 2010 RM2,000
Abdul Shukor b Mohd Khalid 19 Feb 2010 RM 1,000
Zainal Fikri Ahmad 22 May 2010 RM3,000
Mohd Faizal b Khalid 19 Feb 2010 RM 3,000
Shaiful Omar b Ahmad 18 June 2010 RM3,000
Kamar Ainiah bt Kamaruzaman 19 Feb 2010 RM 25,000
R Vigneswaran a/l Raju 18 June 2010 RM1,000
Mohd Azizan b Che Omar 20 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Tan Chee Keong 18 June 2010 RM5,000
Rozy Chazriani bt Beddu 20 Feb 2010 RM 5,000
Ledchumiah a/l Ramamoorthy 19 June 2010 RM3,000
Hamidon b Hayon 19 Mar 2010 RM 2,000
Cedric Nigel Miranda 19 June 2010 RM1,000
Teoh Tai Eak 19 Mar 2010 RM 8,000
Basri b Yusoff 19 June 2010 RM5,000
Dass K S (Susulin @ M Siladoss) 19 Mar 2010 RM 5,000
Brian Komathi @ S Komali 19 June 2010 RM500
Azlinda bt Zakariah 19 Mar 2010 RM 5,000
Marliana bt Rahmad 23 July 2010 RM4,000
Munawar b Hamim 19 Mar 2010 RM 5,000
R Vigneswaran a/l Raju 23 July 2010 RM9,500
Shivdev Singh 19 Mar 2010 RM 5,000
Mohd Azizan b Che Omar 23 July 2010 RM2,000
Ahmad Zolkifli b Ahmad Tabrani 19 Mar 2010 RM 5,000
Mohd Azizan b Che Omar 23 July 2010 RM1,000
Mohd Farid b Omar 19 Mar 2010 RM 3,000
Brijnandan Singh Bhar a/l 23 July 2010 RM5,000
Rozlina bt Abu Bakar 19 Mar 2010 RM 3,000 Gurcharan Singh
Zulkiflee b Zainudin 19 Mar 2010 RM 3,000 Selayamany a/l Muniandy 23 July 2010 RM5,000
Azlan b Kamis 19 Mar 2010 RM 3,000 Selvam a/l Shanmugam 23 July 2010 RM5,000
Ong Keh Keong 19 Mar 2010 RM 2,000 Chu Hon Fai Raymond 23 July 2010 RM500
Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah 20 Mar 2010 RM 3,000 Shahrul Nazim b Baharin 24 Sept 2010 RM3,000
Balaguru a/l Thiagarajah 20 Mar 2010 RM 3,000 Nur Addelene bt Mohd Nawi 24 Sept 2010 RM2,000

Praxis Jan–mar 2011 67

 Bar Updates/Notices

Ahmad Azli b Abdul Aziz 25 Sept 2010 RM3,000 Ekbal Singh Sandhu a/l Gorumak Singh 23 Jan 2010
Leong Mei Hing Richard 25 Sept 2010 RM10,000 Parvathi a/p Kandasamy 5 Feb 2010
Yoong Chee Min 25 Sept 2010 RM2,000 Sheela Menon a/p VK Girijan Menon 6 Feb 2010
Jagesh a/l Ponnaiha Mehalingam 24 Sept 2010 RM1,000 Jayaraj a/l Thurairaj 20 Feb 2010
Shanmugaraj a/l Chelliah 8 Oct 2010 RM3,500 Badrol Hisham b Mohamed Sani 19 Mar 2010
Thamotherampillai
Hari Krishnan a/l Jeyapalan 19 Mar 2010
Chew Chin Thai 8 Oct 2010 RM2,000
Lee Khim Huei 19 Mar 2010
Thangadurai a/l Govindarajoo 23 Apr 2010
REPRIMANDED Saiful Adli b Hj Mohd Arshad 23 Apr 2010
Muhd Anuwar b Mustafa 21 May 2010
NAME ORDER DATED
Tan Chee Keong 18 June 2010
Yau Lap Ho 15 Jan 2010
Ameruddin b Yunus 23 July 2010
Leong Wey Pyu 15 Jan 2010
Chong Weng Kong 24 July 2010
Fadzilah bt Hj Omar 15 Jan 2010
Sivanesan a/l Ramiah 23 Jan 2010
As at 21 Jan 2010

Notice Regarding Documents in Bar

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

Clients or interested parties who wish to claim documents that relate to cases that were handled by these legal firms are advised to contact the Bar
Council’s Intervention Department at 03-2031 3003.

List of Firms whose Clients’ Files are with Bar Council

(As at 28 Oct 2010)

Kuala Lumpur Messrs MW Lian & Assoc Malacca

Messrs KE Ooi & Partners Messrs Zihin Shariff & Partners Messrs Parthan & Associates
Messrs Adi Azhar Messrs Khalid Chung & Shankar Messrs YC Pok & Zurina
Messrs BC Low Messrs Nordin Hamid & Co Messrs Ganesan Mariapan & Co
Messrs Sooriyar & Co Messrs Raja Rohana & Co Pahang
Messrs YH Chan & Co Messrs Abdullah-Haniff & Assoc Messrs Zul & Co
Messrs Shaik Anwar Raja Messrs Andrew Lee & Co Johore
Messrs PL Low & Co Selangor Messrs Rosli Rahman & Co
Messrs Wan Nizar Rais Messrs Zainal Rashid & Partners
Messrs JL Lim & Co
Messrs Par Govind & Co Messrs Jaharberdeen & Ngo
Messrs Ooi Sun Nee
Messrs Hadi & Co Messrs Jauhari & Assoc
Messrs Mariam & Co
Messrs Michael Lim & Assoc Messrs HK Teh & Assoc
Messrs KY Teo & Associates
Messrs Yusuf Abdul Rahman & Co Messrs Sabri Nazli Lana & Azizan
Messrs Mohd Zawawi Amelda & Partners Messrs Penney Khoo Soh Ping & Co Negeri Sembilan
Messrs CK Kow & Co Perak Messrs M Kuppusamy & Co
Messrs Nazli Ghazali & Cheong Messrs Ravi Nair Maideen & Assoc Messrs Sasi Kumar & Assoc
Messrs Zaim Al-Amin & Assoc Messrs Mohd Azhar & Co Messrs SF Leow
Messrs Su How & Co Messrs Khalil Samsuni & Co Messrs Azizi Nizam & Anwar

68 Praxis Jan–mar 2011

 MALAYSIA
M

JL I
C
A

IS
P E GU UN
CO
AM BAR