INFO Johore Bar - October 2015 by INFO Johore Bar

For Members Only Private Circulation

INFO

OCTOBER 2015

JOHORE B

A Bulletin of the Johore Bar

IN THIS ISSUE

LEAD ARTICLE



PROFILE OF A DOYEN: THE LIFE OF ABDULLAH BIN ABDUL RAHMAN



HOW DOES THE 2015 BUDGET AFFECT THE RPGT?



FREE TOOLS FOR YOUR OFFICE



AG’S TERMINATION: CONSTITUTIONAL?



CASE REVIEW: DAMAI MOTOR KREDIT SDN BHD V KEMENTERIAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA

A step forward or two steps back? A commentary into the newly enacted Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 and recent amendments into the Sedition Act

Read this edition of the INFO online! Scan the following code with your phone or tablet or visit info.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

Dear Members, You would have noticed the new look and format of this latest issue of INFO. I would like to thank the editorial committee led by Mr Fadhil Ihsan for carrying out this task. I also would like to thank many senior members who had contributed to the survival of INFO all this years, for being supportive of the idea to refresh the INFO. The INFO is now almost 40 years old. From a humble publication started by several enthusiastic then young members, amongst them, Mr. S. Balarajah, Mr. Chandra Sekran and Mr. N. Jegatheesan; it has now become a full fledged publication of the Johore Bar. These senior members are still very passionate about the survival and standard of the INFO. I thank them for their concern. In recent years, the younger generation at the Johore Bar are somewhat lukewarm towards the INFO be it in contribution of materials, participation in publication or some say even in reading the INFO. The Bar belongs to the younger generation. Without them, the Bar cannot survive. I would think the same would also apply to INFO. For INFO to survive as a collective and continuing publication of the Johore Bar, the younger generation’s idea and contribution must be welcomed and embraced. However the role of the senior members is still important. They are like the anchor to the ship; the mainstay of the profession. The inevitability of moving with time should not be at the expense of our traditional and historical values. The seniors are there to ensure this. They have nurtured INFO. Their contribution is now equally important in ensuring INFO’s survival and standing.

The INFO Johore Bar (“INFO”) is a prized tradition and custom of the Johore Bar. It has been a pleasure to take helm of the editorial subcommittee for this term. As you may have already noticed, this year’s INFO features a new design and layout. It is our aim this year is to give the INFO a more contemporary appeal, maximizing space usage and reducing print costs. Starting this year (and hopefully for years to come) the INFO will be published online. Starting from this edition, you may read the INFO on your computer, smartphone or tablet at info.johorebar.org.my. Whilst it has been a challenge obtaining contributors for the INFO, I must convey my thanks to all whom have contributed to this edition. I would like to extend my appreciation to Mr S Balarajah, Mr R Jayabalan, Mr Yang Pei Keng and many others whom have contributed to this edition of the INFO. I wish to encourage more contributions from the members of the Johore Bar to ensure a continued success of our prized publication. Authors, reviewers and guest editors are always welcome. We also welcome your comments and suggestions.

JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE 2015/2016 Chairman R. Jayabalan Committee Members Andrew Wong Fook Hin Puan Shahareen Begum Abdul Subhan Hardip Singh Mathews George Ms. Santhi a/p Balachandran Ms. Punitha a/p Mariappan Ms. Gun Huei Shin Fadhil Ihsan Bin Mohamad Hassan Ng Kai Choy Representative to the Bar Council S. Gunasegaran Hon. Secretary Puan Nik Raihan Binti Nik Ja'afar INFO JOHORE BAR Fadhil Ihsan Chandra Sekran S Balarajah Yang Pei Keng Norman Fernandez Khairulazwad Sariman Ainna Sherina

Yours Truly, Fadhil Ihsan (Dale) INFO JOHORE BAR welcomes articles be they legal non legal or extra-legal. The views of the writers of articles etc are not reflective of the views of the Bar Committee neither does the Bar endorse or adopt their views.

Editorial Committee Info Johore Bar 2015/2016

I thank the editorial committee for this successful publication. I also note that this publication will be made available in e-format and can be accessed through electronic devices. This is another great idea to make the INFO appealing to the younger generation. I hope all members of the Johore Bar would welcome this issue.

JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE No. 5, Jalan Tun Abdul Razak Susur 1/1, 80000 Johor Bahru Johor Darul Takzim Tel: 07- 276 3888 Fax: 07- 276 1188 Email: secretariat@johorebar.org.my

R Jayabalan

www.johorebar.org.my www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 and Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 : A step forward or two steps back? R. Jayabalan / Fadhil Ihsan For the advocates of constitutional liberties, April 2015 may well be the month that took the nation back into the dark ages of liberty. On 7th April, whilst the citizens were in their sleep, the Dewan Rakyat, at 2.25 am passed the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 after only 15 hours of debates with 79 votes for and 60 votes against. Before the dust from that trampling of liberties had settled down, the Dewan sprang into action again. Three days later, on 10th April, again in the early hours when citizens were deep asleep, the Dewan Rakyat approved the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948. By doing this, not only did the Government thrust the nation back into the regressive days of fundamental liberties, the Government also openly broke its promise in 2012 that the Sedition Act has outlived its purpose and that the time was ripe for the Act to be brought to an unceremonious end. Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" popularized the ‘Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs’. Maslow’s hierarchy, mostly addressing psychological needs, places the human need for ‘safety’ (or ‘security’) as humans second most basic need. Maslow theorized that safety needs determine behaviour. Safety in this context would relate to safety from crime, natural disasters or even economic security.

It is in that same breath and under that very guise of national security (or rather, national safety) that governments around the world make laws to address concern over their citizen’s lack of “safety”. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and France brought before their citizen the human need for safety and security as justification for limiting and in some cases, eroding, their citizens’ liberty. The Malaysian Government treaded faithfully in those steps and peddled before us the IS or ISIL bogey as the justification to limit, erode and wash-away all that is left as our fundamental liberties under the constitution.

application. The question of whether there is sufficient ground for remand to be ordered is no longer relevant. 

Invasion of privacy : when a person is to be released the Public Prosecutor may apply to the Sessions Court Judge for attachment of electronic monitoring device on that person. The Judge has no discretion to refuse the application. The Courts appear to have been reduced to rubber stamping requests from the authorities.



Right to legal representation and right to be informed of grounds of arrest under the Constitution has been excluded.



The Inquiry Officer, being in charge of the case, is vested with enormous powers but with limited control and supervision over him.



The POTA Board has no express powers to inquire into the reports submitted by the Inquiry Officer. ...CONTINUED

THE DRACONIAN FEATURES OF POTA : A RESURRECTION OF THE ISA? Looking into the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) gets the impression that POTA was actively trying to outdo its predecessor, the Internal Security Act (“ISA”) when it comes to trampling of fundamental liberties. Some of the disturbing features of POTA : 

Ousting of judicial discretion : when the Prosecutor applies for remand order, which can be for maximum 60 days, the Magistrate has no discretion to refuse the

www.johorebar.org.my 3

INFO JOHORE BAR



The POTA Board has powers to order detention without trial up to 2 years or restricted residence up to 5 years and yet the accused has no right for legal representation.



The POTA Board determines its own procedures, usual rules of evidence and procedure do not apply.



Judicial scrutiny is absolutely ousted save for scrutiny over procedural compliance but this is illusory as POTA determines its own procedures.

Proponents of POTA will want us to believe that out there, outside and within the borders of Malaysia exists the real threat of terrorism. With extremists from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (“ISIS”) gaining momentum and growing, the threat of terrorism is sold as real. Malaysia has its share of acts of terrorism : the Memali incident in the 1980s, the extremist Mujahideen incident in 2001 and the recent Lahad Datu incident are events which show a propensity that terrorism, if left uncurbed, could bring about grave consequences to peace and security of the country. However, POTA has its share of criticisms. Its deractors would say that POTA is a revival of detention without trial laws such as the ISA. It is also argued that POTA may be too wide; extremely powerful and with almost zero accountability. The Act, in not defining its key operative terms (which sets the POTA powers in motion) such as “engaged”, “commission” and “support”, opens the Act to uncertainty, ambiguity and ultimately misuse. The carte blance guise of ‘public order’ or ‘national

trial is required? Who checks on the accused and scrutinises the Board? This lack of transparency may need to be ironed out in future amendments to the Act.

security’ can be used effectively to silent dissent; arrest political opponents; and protect the parties in power. The Malaysian Bar has taken the position that POTA is unconsitutional, vide its Press Release dated 5th April 2015 which stipulates “One of the most offensive aspects of POTA is its absolute ouster of judicial scrutiny. No judicial review of the detention order or the restriction order is possible. This violates our constitutional scheme, which invests judicial power in the Judiciary, and is further contrary to Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law. The small concession that courts can review procedural compliance is illusory in practice since POTB determines its own procedures.” One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is said that national security must be protected – even at the cost of personal liberties. Whether the right of an accused to due process can be curtailed by reasons of his acts or affiliations – is a question of fact. How great is the threat of terrorism that such laws of detention without www.johorebar.org.my

POTA could have been more convincing in justifying its rational if the Government had provided for built-in or layers of protective mechanisms within the Act so as to protect the constitutional liberties; much like the preventive laws in Australia, United Kingdom and United States. These countries have built-in provisions for legal representation, judicial oversight, automatic sunset clauses and prohibitions against unlimited renewals for detention without trial. Sadly, there was none such meaningful built-in protections in POTA and the inescapable impression is that the omissions could not have been accidental. There is also the question of whether POTA, in the form it is, is the only solution against the perceived threat. There is strong argument that there is already enough laws to deal with terrorism without need for a brand new law; much less in the form of POTA. Current laws such as the Penal Code, Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) already exists and could be deployed effectively in the fight against terrorism and if at all they are found to be inadequate, they can always be improved by way of amendments. So, why then the need for POTA? To what end does POTA achieve? Is it not a resurrection of the ISA?

AMENDMENTS TO THE SEDITION ACT: THE END TO FREE SPEECH? As a means to curb opposition to colonial rule, the British introduced the Sedition Act to the then Malaya in 1948. Sedition, under

INFO JOHORE BAR

English law carries the meaning “a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty...”. The Malaysian definition has of course been modified to suit local circumstance and includes acts or things done "to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution." Controversial at its very core, the Sedition Act has been responsible for many arrests due to liberal interpretation of ‘seditious tendency’ for certain acts. This liberal interpretation by our executive body has seen the arrests of prominent lawyers, activists and academicians on the premise of seditous acts. The recent amendments vide Sedition (Amendment) Bill 2015 has upped the ante. The amendments have included making it an offence to “cause to be published” (as opposed to just “publish”) seditious material. This is likely to address content in social media which can be ‘liked’, ‘shared’ or re-Tweeted whereby the person sharing the information did not publish the same. This is fortified by the Act making it an offence to “propagate” seditious publication – a term undefined in the Act. This again would effect persons whom share (on social media) and forward (by means of SMS or similar) content which is seemingly seditious. It must be noted that the crime of sedition need not require any seditious intent.

mandatory sentence of three (3) years – with no judicial discretion for first time offenders or other mitigating factors. Persons charged under the newly amended Sedition Act can be revoked their passport or restricted from leaving the country. This is, again, not at the descretion of the Court. In summary, the amendments to the Act include – 

denial of bail for suspects charged with sedition offences that cause bodily injury or property damage;



Punishments of 3 to 7 years jail for “causing” materials to be published or Propagating publications



Person who author/distribute digital version barred from accessing digital devices



Aggravated sedition causing bodily harm / property damage, 3 to 20 years jail.



No judicial dispensation for youth or first-time offenders.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. The right to free speech is a fundamental right. Any law (or amendment to the same) seen to restrict that right are laws passed for the purpose of limiting

The amendments to the Act also found increased penalties for acts of sedition. Offenders now face a

speech will also limit thought and ideas.

THE MALAYSIAN BAR’S RESPONSE. The joint statement issued by the Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association on 17.4.2015 perhaps summed it up best : “The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently flawed, and the amendments serve to expose and exarcebate its weaknesses. It is a law that undermines genuine unity and harmony, and is counterproductive to lasting peace, strong bonds of unity and real mutual respect in Malaysia. The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in our nation, which aspires to be a modern, moderate and progressive democratic society.” POTA and the amendments to the Sedition Act, whilst on the face of it remains untested, are Acts of Parliament that are slowly taking away individual liberties and powers of the Judiciary. The removal of judicial discretion, imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, non transparent due process for the accused (under POTA) are all actions towards undermining democracy and the separation of powers. The argument can be made of how well these laws protect us, but “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The Malaysian Bar has staken a firm and strong stand against these two laws. The statements issued by the Bar including joint statements with our counterparts at Sabah and Sarawak have made the Bar’s position very clear that the laws are reprehensive; goes against the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution; runs counter to the

www.johorebar.org.my 5

INFO JOHORE BAR

6 Steven Thiru, Past President of the Malaysian Bar Dato’ Yeo Yang Poh and members of the Bar Council namely En. Syahredzan Johan, Mr Ravi Nekoo and Mr Richard Wee.

universal values of human rights and freedom; and remains open to abuse or to meet the political ends of the government. The Malaysian Bar also recognised the fact that the ordinary public may not have fully understood the grave implications arising from POTA and the new Sedition Act. The public may not be fully aware that despite the apparent purpose of the laws – to combat terrorism and protect national security – they have also put the constitutional freedom of ordinary citizens at risk and open to misuse.

The good response from the public is a source of encouragement for the Malaysian Bar that we are not alone in our struggle against these two draconian laws. Whilst we may be, at the moment, someway from suceeding in persuading the Government to take a second look at the two laws, we are nevertheless on the right track in educating the public so that the public could form an informed opinion on the laws and the Government would realise one day that when it comes to governance and rule of law, they cannot afford to ignore public opinion. R. Jayabalan Fadhil Ihsan 23.8.2015

There is a need for the public to be educated on the workings of the two laws, the grave implications and the potential for misuse by the authorities. The public would then be able to make an informed decision over the two laws. Without the support of the informed public the Bar would not be able to succeed in its objective to have these two laws to be repealed or atleast for built-in protective mechanism to be added. For this purpose, the Bar Council has decided to embark on a national program in the form of roadshows and public forums at every state to educate the public on the two laws. So far such public forums were held at Kuala Lumpur, Kota Bahru, Seremban, Melaka, Johore, Penang, Selangor and Temerloh. The Bar’s effort has received good and encouraging response from the public, non-government organizations and the civil society. The forums had been an eye opener to the public in gauging the two laws. The Johore Bar, with the Bar Council, also organised a similar forum at Johore Bahru on 15.6.2015 and a second forum at Batu Pahat on 24.8.2015. The speakers at the forum included the President of the Malaysian Bar Mr

www.johorebar.org.my

PROFILE OF A DOYEN: ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN

INFO JOHORE BAR

CHAIRMAN JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE 1970-1981 PRESIDENT MALAYSIAN BAR 1978-1981

ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN

ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN (11.10.1919—16.04.1987) was affectionately known to all and sundry as “Che Lah”. He was a Barrister-at-Law of the Hon. Society of the Lincoln’s Inn, London and was called to the Bar States of Malaya on the 21st of October 1963. He practiced at the Bar from the date of his call till illness prevented him in 1987. Che Lah was not an enigma. He was open and transparent as much as he was opulent sophisticated and anglicized. The family of Che Lah is a most distinguished Johore family with Buginese ancestory. His father Dato Haji Abdul Rahman Bin Yasin was a direct Buginese descendant and was in his time the 1st President of the Senate and the 1st Chairman of Malayan Banking Berhad. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman had married (after Che Lah’s mother Zahara passed on), Kamariah, a sister of Dato Onn Jaafar of UMNO fame who was then Menteri Besar Johor. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was groomed to be Menteri Besar but as he would not be a privy to political and palace intrigues he stepped aside. He then was Johor State Treasurer. Che Lah’s brother Dato Sulaiman was an economist and a member of the first Malayan cabinet (1955) and later

a High Commissioner. Another brother, Tun Dr Ismail went on to become Deputy Prime Minister Malaysia. Tun Ismail was from the King Edward VII College of Medicine and was the first Malay eventually to obtain the MBBS from Melbourne. Another brother Dato Mohd Yassin did Political Science in Melbourne and went on to become the 1st Secretary General of UMNO and later on a Johor State Exco Member.Che Lah and his brother Yassin married 2 sisters, Che Lah, Tengku Esah and Yassin, Tengku Azizah. The noble ladies were from the Johor Royal lineage. After being called to the Bar in 1963 Che Lah set up practice in Johor Bahru and practiced under the name and style of Abdullah A Rahman & Co. The most popular and affable Puan Hendon Bte Mohamed (date of Call to the Malaysian Bar 18-4-1963 at the

Johor Bahru High Court before Azmi J. later Tun and Lord President) who was the 1st lady President of the Malaysian Bar was close to a decade, a confidante of Che Lah and practiced with him in his Johor Bahru office. The Chairmanship of the Johore Bar was held by Che Lah from 1970 to 1981. He then went on to become President of the Malaysian Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council Malaysia from 1978-1981. Johorean to achieve this. It is important to note that during Che Lah’s tenure a chair of the Malaysian Bar that the most important rule relating to practice at the Bar were formulated and gazetted on 2.10.1978 – Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rule 1978. These Rules are akin to the Magna Carta of the Malaysian Bar. He was a Senator in the Malaysian Dewan Negara from 19681974. Che Lah was a Director, inter

Family Album Family album: The young Ismail (back row, extreme right) in a family portrait taken around 1936. To his right, Yassin (later Umno secretary-general), esah, Abdullah (Later Bar Council chairman and senator), Khatijah and Suleiman (later Cabinet minister and ambassador). Front row from right: Fatimah, Zahara Abdul Bakar, Abdul Rahman Yassin, Zubaidah and Rafeah

www.johorebar.org.my 7

INFO JOHORE BAR

alia, of the Cold Storage Group of Companies and was also the 1st Chairman of Johore Tenggara. He was a part time Judicial Commissioner of the High Courts, Malaya, in the 1970s. Che Lah, Justice Dato Ali Hassan, ACP X.A. Nicholas (father of YA Indran Nicholas of Ipoh) who was then the Johor Police CID Chief and the then DPP Johor, Kadir Kassim (presently of Kadir, Andri & Partners KL) started the Johor Bench and Bar vs Johor Police games in 1967 which games are played till today for the coveted Ali Hassan Trophy for cricket. They were cricket lovers and relics of the colonial past, one might say.

Ali Hassan Trophy

Che Lah was a strict disciplinarian. He was unassuming and unrivalled for his humility but he had the temerity to correct the most pugnacious of judges in his own inimitable style. There was a Bar Dinner 1975 or 1976 when he gave such a bold speech protecting the members of the Bar and took the local Judge and Bench to task so much so that the Judge (Justice Dato Syed Othman Ali) was so embarrassed that he walked out of the dinner. The docile Bar Committee subsequently pondered if the Committee should have a preview and vet and veto all the Chairman’s future speeches! But Che Lah will have none of it. He was bold and upright. And honest. He even felt that members subscriptions could not be used to defray the coffee and kuih muih served at the monthly meetings as it was trust monies and so we the Committee members took turns to pay for the refreshments at the monthly Bar Committee meetings! He was not parsimonious but was cautious of the trust imposed on him by members. He was fearless sturdy and independent. He never kow towed to the rich famous and powerful. It was during his time that the Legal Profession (Practice of Etiquette) Rules 1978 were formulated and gazette and he was a strict adherent of the Rules. In the 1960s and 1970s the Johore Bar was inundated with weekend lawyers from Singapore. Che Lah almost singlehandedly caused legislation to be passed by way of amendment to the then Advocates & Solicitors Ordinance 1947 to encapsule citizenship, special qualification and residency status for lawyers to practice in Malaysia and this put an end to the week-enders preying our catch and ploughing our fields. Che Lah was a quiet unassuming person but never compromised on principles and always upheld the high standing and image of the Bar. He was a true British Barrister. He brought fame and name to the Johore Bar and always had the best interest of its members in his breast. Che Lah was my mentor at the local Bar. I was Johore Bar Secretary from 1973-1975 when he was Chairman and I was member of the Bar Committee for a number of years after that under his Chairmanship. It was during this period that we brought out the Johore Bar “Law List”, a legal directory of members and a cyclostyled newsletter which has now been transformed to the Info Johore Bar. The

From left: R Jayabalan Chairman Johore Bar, Tengku Esah (widow of Abdullah A Rahman), Dato’ Muthanna, Tengku Putri Marina Tengku Ibrahim, Cik Ferizadah and Mr S Balarajah

Annual dinners in his time were formal dinners (with fine French vintage wines and cheese boards and when his Havana is lit the evening is deemed brilliant!) and he was of the view that professionals should dress and behave as professionals to maintain and uphold the high standing of the Bar and its image. He would not compromise on this stand. It was to him non-negotiable. He expected lawyers to dress appropriately in jackets even when attending the AGMs and the Annual Dinners. Che Lah’s Hari Raya gatherings were wonderful and Tengku Esah’s Johor Laksa was out of this world! In 1965 the Yang Di Pertuan Agong bestowed upon Che Lah the title of Johan Mangku Negara (JMN). He also had the Johor State honour of SMJ. Che Lah had an indulgent eye and a forgiving mind but he never sought fame and name which with his pedigree and connections he could have achieved in a whisper. He carried on life very much like an English squire. He was bold upright and fearless and had priceless integrity and sturdy independence. A rare breed indeed. One could say that he was the pride of the Johor Bar. Che Lah’s only child Dato Muthanna Bin Abdullah of the Hon. Society of The Middle Temple a Barrister-at-Law was until recently the Managing Partner of Lee Hishammudin & Allen Gledhill Kuala Lumpur. He now practices in the firm of Abdullah Chan & Co. in Kuala Lumpur. One could assert with unabashed pride that Abdullah Bin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman is to the Johore Bar what YM Raja Aziz Addruse is to the Malaysian Bar. It is only just and proper to adhere to and comply with the wishes of the members of the Johore Bar to name the main hall at the Johore Bar Secretariat as the “Abdullah A. Rahman Hall”. Generations after generations of lawyers will remember this good man and lawyer who always had the best interest of the lawyers in general and Johore Bar in particular embedded in his breasts. Abdullah A. Rahman lived respected and died regretted. S. Balarajah 21-01-2015 Johor Bahru

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

AG’s termination: Constitutional? By Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar IT CAME as a surprise to everyone. In a curt statement issued by the government's chief secretary, the attorneygeneral (AG) was removed from office. Summarily and immediately – barely 66 days from his retirement date on Oct 6. He was terminated for "health reasons". Strangely his health was no impediment to the requirement that he continue as a "judicial and legal officer". Predictably, there is speculation over his termination. After all, AG Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was largely perceived to be the government's arch loyal servant. Under his watch, for example, he opposed vigorously any challenge to a minister's exercise of power under judicial review. The public seems also intrigued by the speed with which he was terminated; and the timing – simultaneously alongside the deputy prime minister and three other ministers – all vocal critics of the PM vis-à-vis the 1MDB controversy. They had, said the PM, acted "contrary to the concept of collective responsibility". Also the removal was in the midst of the investigations into 1MDB – where the AG was one of the four key members of the official task force. In fact – and perhaps this provides a clue – the AG has the complete discretion to bring criminal charges against anyone for an offence: Federal Constitution Article 145(3). Some courts have ruled that he has the sole power to do so: Repco Holdings v PP (1997). Many have questioned the legality of the sacking. Some say that he can only be removed after a tribunal hearing – and harken to the tribunals set up under the premiership of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for the sacking of the judges. Others opine that he must be given a prior right to be heard. Yet others say that he can be removed because he holds office at "the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong".

Let us examine the legal provisions. The AG is a public (or civil) servant. All such officers do not have security of tenure. They hold their office at "the pleasure of the Yang diPertuan Agong": Article 145 (5). Court decisions confirm this: "in Malaysia there is no such thing as permanent service ... because every member of the public service (other than judges and the auditor-general) holds office during the pleasure of the State": Haji Ariffin v Government of Malaysia Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar (1969).

In this the King must act on the advice of the Cabinet (or minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet): Article 40(1). Some commentators say that the AG can only be removed from office on the "like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court". Their view is based on Article 145(6) which says that "The person holding the office of the AG immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court". A straight reading suggests that the protection is only for the then incumbent AG – "holding office prior to the coming into operation of the Article". This article was amended by Act 26/93 on May 26, 1960 – but only came into force on Sept 16, 1963 (Malaysia Day).

www.johorebar.org.my 9

INFO JOHORE BAR

The earlier article read as follows: "The AG â&#x20AC;Ś shall not be removed from office except on like grounds and like manner as a judge of the Federal Court".

guardian of the public interest â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a right which is vested in him under the common law. That is why the AG lends his name by way of a relator action to any party seeking to protect the public interest.

So the protection afforded to the AG was removed by this amendment. The present article seems to provide for a one-off situation and to one person. Admittedly, this is unusual in a constitution, leading some to argue that the second part of the clause should be read disjunctively (separately) from the first part; with the result that any removal of the AG must be like the removal of a federal judge as provided for in Article 125 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for the same grounds (misconduct, ill-health, etc) and in like manner (tribunal, etc). It has also been suggested that the AG's rank has been reduced. He was not given the right to be heard. This is illegal because no public servant can be dismissed or reduced in rank without being first given the right to be heard: Article 135(2). This provision applies, as well, to a member of the judicial and legal service. However the AG is specifically excluded from the benefit of this provision by Article 132(4)(b). The government announced it had terminated the AG's services. Termination under a contract differs from a dismissal which involves a penalty or punishment.

This episode suggests a need to revisit the provisions relating to the AG, in particular to secure his independence and security of tenure. Interestingly the rationale provided by the government in 1957 for the original article that the AG be not removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Supreme Court was "to safeguard the AG's position" because "it is essential that, in discharging his duties, the AG should act in an impartial and quasi-judicial spirit". Of course this is predicated on the appointment of an AG with integrity in whom the public can repose their confidence of carrying out his constitutional duty. For the people have the right to expect such a high officer to "act honestly, without fear of powerful national and local figures or of the consequences to him personally or politically, and without favouring his relatives and friends and supporters": Federal Court in Johnson Tan Han Seng v PP (1977). Gurdial is Professor at the Law Faculty, University of Malaya.

If the termination is in accord with the AG's contract, fine. If not can the termination be wrongful for breach of contract? The Federal Court decided in 1969 that a contractual right could not override the cases which decided that a servant of the crown held office at pleasure: Haji Ariffin v Government of Malaysia. The general upshot is that constitutionally the PM has the final say for the removal of the AG. After all he is the government's legal adviser; and the "client" has the right to "change" his lawyer at any time. But aside from the role as a public prosecutor assigned to him by the Constitution, the AG continues to be the

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Judicial Ethics Restoring old-fashioned values to the bench—Tommy Thomas Preservation, protection and defence of the Federal Constitution includes institutions referred to in the Constitution, like the judiciary. I would like to spend some time considering the ethics of protecting the Federal Constitution with special reference to recent events. These words appearing in the Oath of Office presuppose attack or assault upon or challenge to the Federal Constitution and the institutions of Government, like the judiciary. The traditional sources of such attack are: I.

External to the country e.g. Indonesian Confrontation;

II. Executive; III. Legislature; The term “ethics” as usually I understood refers to a collection of rules or standards of conduct expected of a particular professional group. Any member of a professional group be he doctor, engineer, lawyer or any other who departs from these ethical standards to a sufficiently marked degree, runs the risk of being excluded from his profession. Judges qualify as a professional group with very definite duties to the community. All the characteristics of an ethical system as such are present in relation to the judiciary. Indeed, the ethical standards required from judges call for perhaps the highest and most rigorous standards, sacrifices and disciplines of any profession in the community. Therefore, there is no doubt that judicial ethics exist and all judges are bound by them. The Malaysian judiciary does not have a written code of ethics like the Legal Profession (Practise and Etiquette) Rules of 1978. One cannot find a document which sets out ethics for Malaysian judges. Accordingly, in my opinion, a starting point for purposes of discussion is the oath of office which all judges must subscribe to upon their appointment. Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court in Malaysia are required under Article 124 of the Federal Constitution before exercising any functions of their office to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule to the Federal Constitution.

IV. Conference of Rulers (this is special to Malaysia). What is striking about the episodes of the six judges is that attacks upon the Constitution came from a very unexpected source that is, judges themselves. Self-inflicted wounds hurt the judiciary far more than external assault. The Tun Salleh affair, the affair of the five Supreme Court judges and the conduct of the two tribunals comprising some eleven judges were the results of intrigue, manoeuvring and scheming within the judiciary without parallel or precedent in Malaysia or any other common law jurisdiction. In other words, if the judiciary had stood completely united, none of the judges would have been dismissed.Judicial disunity and in-fighting of such magnitude offers the following fivelessons: First: Judges can plainly and easily disregard basic notions of law, equity, justice and ethics which are studied in the first year of any law course, and which are ingrained in every lawyer in the land. Thus, the Chief Justice of Malaya had no qualms about taking the following actions which anyone with an elementary knowledge of the law would find repugnant: 

Acting as chairman of a Tribunal in circumstances where he could secure the vacant Lord President’s post if the incumbent is removed.

www.johorebar.org.my 11

INFO JOHORE BAR



Acting as chairman of a Tribunal when he attended a meeting of judges, and did not dissent from the decision taken thereat to write a letter to the King, which was the very subject matter of the charge before the Tribunal.



Exercising constitutional and statutory discretions vested in the office of the Lord President when he was the lst Defendant in a civil action relating to that action. This included convening a special sitting of the Supreme Court consisting of two Supreme Court judges and three High



Court judges to hear an application to set aside the interim stay order granted by the five Supreme Court judges on 2 July 1988.



Making representations to the King under Article 125 for the appointment of the Tribunal, which representations contained material non-disclosures and errors of fact.



Giving directions to the Chief Registrar relating to thecivil action to which he was 1st Defendant,including directions that the Court. staff should not cooperate with the Judges, the Court room should be locked, and the seal hidden.

secondly, that because he was a litigant the Acting Lord President was precluded from exercising any powers relating to that action, and therefore Justice Wan Sulaiman was the most senior judge solely for all matters relating to that action pursuant to Section 9 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Fifth: A Judge sitting in the High Court could drag exparte prohibition proceedings which normally last five minutes to three hearing days so as to deliberately render any decision he would make academic. The upshot was that three of our most senior judges, including the head of the judiciary, could not get justice from their own courts. What should be done in the wake of these lessons? in my opinion, one possible cure is the restoration of oldfashioned values. I say “restoration” because I would like to think that the Malaysian judiciary did at one time adhere to most of these values. It is a sort of Do’s and Don’ts for those sitting on the Bench. Eight values have been identified:

Second: Rules of natural justice can be easily ignored with out regard to established principles of law. Thus, two Supreme Court judges refused to disqualify themselves from sitting in the Supreme Court, although they had expressed a view on the sitting on 2 July 1988, which was the subject matter of the application before them. One of them, it may be recalled, described it as a revolution. According to these two judges, it was enough for them to declare in Open Court that they were not biased. Third: Six judges, two of them were from foreign lands, could draft a report in the first, tribunal without referrihg even once to the evidence filed by Tun Salleh in the prohibition proceedings, which were served upon them as Defendants therein at the outset of their deliberations. Fourth: Five judges, two of Whom were foreigners, could write their report in the second tribunal withoutreferring at all or sufficiently to two crucial facts. Firstly, that, as a litigant, the Acting Lord President was precluded from exercising his discretion in making representations for the appointment of the Tribunal under Article 125, and

1. Diligently discharging hisjudicial duties, including being punctual on the bench, sitting daily from 10 am to 4 pm and the like. Administering justice is a service industry. Judges are paid salaries from the public purse. They have a duty to the community to "deliver the goods.” It is compounded by the fact that judges must sit in public. Thus the glare of publicity is ever present. 2. Judges must possess judicial temperament. Having regard to their awesome powers, it is essential for judges to be polite to witnesses and parties. Other qualities include patience, tolerance and humility. Must recognise and acknowledge the important role of Counsel. 3. The ability to make decisions quickly. Parties have a right to expect judges to be decisive. After all, that is what they are paid for.If judgments are to be reserved and this is inevitable - they must be delivered as speedily as possible, say no longer than two months. 4. Must give written reasons for their decision. Otherwise, it would be “Mariner’s compass,” in Justice Krishna Ayer’s words, or palm tree justice. it has often been said that the most important person in the judicial process is the loser. He must know why he lost.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Hence the marked significance of judicial work is not the importance of making a decision, but giving reasons for a decision. 5. A judge must lead a sober life. He must not be a social animal.There must be no involvement whatsoever in business or commerce. There should be no Mafia economics, in Justice Krishna Ayer’s colourful phrase. A hermit’s life is recommended. 6. Integrity, both in public and private life. This includes ‘ the element of honesty, both intellectual and general. 7. Courage of convictions. A judge must act without fear or favour. The law must be applied even if the heavens fall. Obviously, it will be easier for him to take such courageous decisions if he leads a sober private life. This links up with the observations made in respect of the fifth value. 8. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. Recent developments clearly demonstrate that judges must not suffer undue ambition or crave promotion. Paper given at Bar Council Seminar on Independence of the Judiciary, Kuala Lumpur, 4-5 Nov, 1988. Paper given at Bar Council Seminar on Independance of the Judiciary, Kuala Lumpur, 4-5 Nov, 1988.

Rehashed with kind consent of Tommy Thomas 2015

THE LATE SETHU ARUMUGAM OF SEGAMAT, JOHOR (15-11-1946 - 24-02-2015) Sethu Arumugam who was popularly known as A. Sethu an Advocate and Solicitor practising under the name and style of Syarikat A. Sethu of Segamat Johor passed away peacefully on the 24th of Feb 2015, aged

69.

Sethu a Segamat lad who received his secondary education in the High School Segamat graduated initially from the University of Malaya with a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) degree in 1978 and embarked on a career with the Ministry of Education of Malaysia as a teacher.

THE LATE G SANTHARAN 4.8.2015 Mr. G. Santharan (usually known among friends as Sanjay 59, a Senior Member of the Johore Bar passed away on 4.8.2015 and his remains were cremated at Kluang on the same date. G. Santharan was from Guthrie Estate, Ladang Ulu Remis, Layang-Layang, Johore and was educated at Diamond Jubliee Primary School at Rengam and later at Sek Men. Dato. Hj. Hassan Yunus, Rengam. After completing SPM he was Medical Assistant at the Government Hospital and pursed his Bachelor of Laws, degree by distance learning with University of Wolverhampton. He obtained a Bachelor of Laws Degree and CLP. He was admitted to Malaysia Bar on 3.11.1997. He was a partner of Messrs Manian K. Marappan & Company.

Whilst in the teaching profession Sethu pursued a Bachelor of Laws programme and graduated with the LLB (Hons) (Ext) from the University of London in 1985. He then obtained the Certificate in Legal Practice. He was admitted and enrolled to the Malaysian Bar on 28.5.1988 at the age of 42. He practised in soleproprietorship in his home town Segamat ever since and was essentially a litigator. He handled Civil and Criminal, litigation, running down matters and medical negliThe late lawyer who was a member of gence claims. He was very dedicated in the Rotary Club of Segamat leaves behind his beloved wife K. Sarojah Sethu a re- his work. tired teacher and 3 children, Ir. Raj Sekar, Dr Vasanthi Sethu their spouses and sev- He leaves behind his beloved parents, eral grandchildren to mourn his loss and the youngest son Shankar. The funeral wife and two daughters who are qualified took place in Segamat. Doctors. The Johore Bar’s condolences are accorded and conveyed to the bereaved family of A Sethu with a quote from the 1st Non -European to win the Nobel Prize for Literature (1913) and who renounced the English knighthood bestowed upon him by King George V in protest against British aggression in India in 1919, Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote: “Say not in grief that he is no more but say in thankfulness that he was A death is not the extinguishing of a light but the putting out of the lamp because the dawn has come”. - Tagore

The love and devoted care that his wife and mother bestowed upon him during his last ailing years were a source of great solace. Manian K Marappan Johor Bar 2.9.2015

Now that his labours have ceased may the late Sethu Arumugam rest in everlasting peace in his God’s bosom and embrace. S. Balarajah Johor Bar 11.3.2015

www.johorebar.org.my 13

INFO JOHORE BAR

CASE REVIEW Damai Motor Kredit Sdn Bhd v Kementerian Kerja Raya Malaysia *2015+ 1 AMR 205; *2015+ 1 CLJ 44 (Court of Appeal) *and subsequent appeal to the Federal Court in Appeal No. 08-822-11/2012+ In this appeal (at the Court of Appeal), the 1st and 2nd Appellant were both owners and interested party to an acquisition by the Works Ministry (through the Government of Malaysia), the Respondent. At the hearing of the aquisition before the Land Administrator, the Respondent did not object to the compensation awarded to the tune of RM6,951,150-00 and RM4,450,000-00 respecively.

THE FEDERAL COURT The Government of Malaysia then applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Federal Court with the sole question of law “Whether in an application for extension of time to file an objection against the Land Administrator’s award under Section 38(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1960, failure to include the owner of the land as a party in the said application would render the application and subsequent order thereto null and void”

Unbeknownst to the Appellants, the Respondent had applied and obtained an order of Court on which purportedly granted the Appellant permission to bring objection to the Award to Court (“Extension Order”). The Extension Order was relied upon by the Appellant to file their objection to the Awards to the Land Administrator vide Form N which culminated into the Land Reference before the High Court. THE HIGH COURT By reason that the Appellants have not been named in the Land Reference, the Appellants filed an application to intervene in the Land Reference proceedings and sought to declare the Extension Order and the Land Reference as void. The High Court did not agree with this contention and dismissed the application. The Land Reference proceeded at the High Court in the absence of the Appellants as parties.

At the full hearing on the above question, the Federal Court took the unanimously view that the leave question need not be decided upon and dismissed the appeal by the Government of Malaysia. With this decision of the Federal Court, the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal stands. Fundamental issues which can be derived from this decision are – 

A ‘person interested’ as defined under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act may apply to intervene in Land Reference proceedings. The Court of appeal was guided by the Supreme Court decision of Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v Superace Sdn Bhd.



An application for extension of time, should for the purpose of justice be clear upon its terms and served upon the interested persons to the aquisition. This provision is absent inside the Land Acquisition Act, but the court opined that by the mere reason that the appellant would be affected by the extension order are enough grounds where service (of the application) is necessitated.

THE COURT OF APPEAL On 8.10.2012, after hearing parties, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal with the Government of Malaysia agreeing by consent for the Appellants’ right to intervention. The Court of Appeal also set aside the whole Land Reference for want of illegality and invalid extension order. The Court went as far as to declare the Form N as null and void.



no time is set, it falls under the principle of ‘convenient speed’ as stated in Section 54 of the Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967.

COMMENTS Whilst the decision of the Court of Appeal did canvas the lacuna in the Land Acquisition Act (with regard to requirement of service of an application for extension of time), the existing test for intervention suffices the right to intervene in such a proceedings. In this matter, the extension application was made by the Government of Malaysia (as paymaster) with Land Administor as Respondent. With the Land Administrator bieng under the purview of the State Legal Advisor’s office, it is incumbent on the Land Administrator to notify the interested or affected parties of such an application as to warrant a fair hearing of such application. This would fulfill its role as guardian of land titles. The above matter was conducted by Johore Bar members Leslie LM Looi, Fadhil Ihsan and Khairulazwad Sariman. Nadhirah Zulkharnain Fadhil Ihsan

Further, such extension order may require to set forth a time frame and to express in clear terms of such extension. The court accepts that when

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Naming of the Johore Bar Auditorium as the ‘Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium’ The Johore Bar held a naming ceremony of the auditorium on 15 June 2015 at the Johore Bar Building to name the Johore Bar Auditorium after the late Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium. The late Abdullah A. Rahman was the longest serving Chairman of the Johore Bar and the 1st Chairman of the Johore Bar was elected as President of the Malaysian Bar. The Ceremony was graced by the family of the late Abdullah A. Rahman and past Chairmen of the Johore Bar. The naming ceremony was officiated by Steven Thiru, President of the Malaysian Bar. S. Balarajah gave a citation on the late Abdullah A. Rahman. SPEECH BY THE CHAIRMAN MR R JAYABALAN

is also due to Mr Andrew Wong who was responsible for getting the building renovated the way it is today.

Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon, welcome to our Johore Bar Building.

Purchasing the building would not have been possible without the Bar Council’s aid. The purchase price was magnanimously borne by the Bar Council but that does not mean the Johore Bar had it easy. The costs for renovation and refurbishment was borne by the members of the Johore Bar. A one time subscription of RM 250.00 was imposed and the then 1,500 odd members made their contribution.

We are gathered today to mark the ceremony to name the Johore Bar Auditorium – where we are in now – as the “Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium”. Please allow me to refresh your memory a little about this building. The Johore Bar Building was officially opened on 9th October 2013 by the then President of the Malaysian Bar Mr Christopher Leong. This building was a fruition of the Johore Bar’s dream over several long years. It started as a wishful thinking before gaining momentum as a serious project and finally brought to realization in 2013. At the risk of repetition, I would like to express the Johore Bar’s appreciation to the then Chairman Mr. S. Gunasegaran and his Committee members for delivering this building. A special note of appreciation

This building now houses the Johore Bar Secretariat, library, this auditorium and several meeting rooms. This auditorium is used to conduct our seminars, forums, meetings and training programs for members, chambering students and sometimes the public. At full seating capacity, the auditorium can accommodate 100 participants. It is sound proof and feasible for multimedia presentation as well. The late Abdullah A. Rahman was the Chairman of the Johore Bar from 1970 – 1981. He was our longest serving Chairman and also the first Johor Bar Chairman to be elected as the President of the Malaysian Bar - for the years 1978 – 1980.

A gathering of local eagles with Abdullah A Rahman family at the naming ceremony on 15.6.2015

www.johorebar.org.my 15

INFO JOHORE BAR

His contribution to the Malaysian Bar and especially to the Johore Bar is widely acknowledged and appreciated. His contribution was long overdue for recognition and at the last AGM of the Johor Bar members had agreed to a suggestion that his contribution is to be recognized by dedicating this auditorium in his good name. A resolution to that effect was passed and the Committee was entrusted to put the resolution into effect. We thought it is only proper that the leader of the current generation at the Bar should lead the marking of respect to a past leader. It would be an acknowledgement and respect from one generation of the Bar to another. On this, I thank our current President of the Malaysian Bar Mr Steven Thiru for agreeing to officiate this ceremony. I have restrained myself from saying much about the late Abdullah A. Rahman. That task has fallen upon Mr. S. Balarajah – a senior member of the Johore Bar and also our Past Chairman. Thank you for agreeing to deliver the citation and I am sure it is task that you have taken close to your heart. I am also happy to acknowledge the presence of 3 of our Past Presidents of the Malaysian Bar Puan Hendon Mohamed, Dato’ Khutubul Zaman and Dato Yeo Yang Poh today. Your presence reflects the respect that you have for the late Abdullah A. Rahman. Thank you too to the family of the late Abdullah A Rahman for accepting the invitation to be here today. We have with us his wife Tengku Esah Abu Bakar, his son Datuk Muthanna bin Abdullah with spouse Tengku Putri Marina Tengku Ibrahim and daughter Cik Ferizadah binti Dato’ Muthanna. I hope today’s event will give you another opportunity to recall and cherish the memories of your late husband and father. Thank you also to the previous Chairmen of the Johore Bar for accepting our invitation and being here today. To the members of the Johore Bar, your presence is important to add meaning to this event. On a final note, thank you to the organizing committee led by Mathews George and Ms Thilaga for organizing this event. -R. Jayabalan CITATION The Late YBhg Abdullah Bin Dato Abdul Rahman (1919 – 1987) Five and Forty years ago after reading in the chambers of Paul Miller QC at the Goldsmith Building Middle Temple Lane London I found myself in the chambers of renowned Johor Lawyer Chelliah Paramjothy of the firm of Wong &

Paramjothy. The firm Wong & Paramjothy was in the 70’s a leading firm of solicitors. Wong Peng Tuck @ P T Wong was a grandson of Wong Ah Fook a great Johore builder after whom a major road in the city is named and Param was the son of a Dr Chelliah of Segamat after whom you will find a Jalan Dr Chelliah in Segamat. Che Lah was Johore Bar Chairman. Param was in 1970 Johor Bar’s representative to the Bar Council and I was instructed by Param to pay a courtesy call on the Chairman of the S Balarajah presented the Citation Johor Bar Abdullah bin Dato Abdul Rahman (affectionately referred to by all as “Che Lah”). As I stepped into his offices I found a rather pensive looking gentleman. At once I found him to be prim and polite much like an English country squire. He appeared rather pensive and gave the impression of a very private person. He spoke in a slow measured manner. It was at my very first encounter that I found that Che Lah had the interest of Johor lawyers deeply entrenched in his breast. He lamented that lawyers from Singapore were ploughing our fields and reaping the harvest and this was detrimental to Johoreans and as such that he had proposed an amendment to Section 5 of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1947 to read that only “citizens of Malaysia or permanent residents of Malaysia” may apply to practise in Malaysia. This amendment was passed by Parliament (PU(A)123/70) and the Johore lawyers had their manna,. Che Lah who was born into a very prominent Johore family on the 11th Oct 1919. He passed on the 16th of April 1987 at a relatively young age of 68. Incidently, Paramjothy passed away on the 7th of August 1987. Che Lah was not an enigma. But he was open and transparent as much as he was opulent sophisticated and anglicized. The family of Che Lah is a most distinguished Johore family with Buginese ancestory. His father Dato Haji Abdul Rahman Bin Yasin was a direct Buginese descendant and was in his time the 1st President of the Senate and the 1st Chairman of Malayan Banking Berhad. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman had married (after Che Lah’s mother Zahara passed on), Kamariah,

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

a sister of Dato Onn Jaafar of UMNO fame who was then Menteri Besar Johor. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was groomed to be Menteri Besar but as he would not be a privy to political and palace intrigues he stepped aside. He then was Johor State Treasurer. Che Lah’s brother Dato Sulaiman was an economist and a member of the first Malayan cabinet (1955) and later a High Commissioner. Another brother, Tun Dr Ismail went on to become Deputy Prime Minister Malaysia. Tun Ismail was from the King Edward VII College of Medicine and was the first Malay eventually to obtain the MBBS from Melbourne. Another brother Dato Mohd Yassin did Political Science in Melbourne and went on to become Inspector of Banks and the 1st Secretary General of UMNO and later on a Johor State Exco Member The sons of Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was the envy of the Muar groups of Malay leaders because the Johor Royally looked up to the Rahmanites – the sons of Dato Haji Abdul Rahman. Che Lah and his brother Yassin married 2 sisters, Che Lah, Tengku Esah and Yassin, Tengku Azizah. The noble ladies are from the Johor Royal lineage.

227. A daughter of a close friend of Che Lah, Shamsiah binti Dato Ibrahim Majid drew a salary from a Johor Corp whilst reading in Chambers and again the Johor Bar objected though the Judge over-ruled us. You will find it at Shamsiah bte Ibrahim vs Attorney General 1981(1) MLJ 164. It was during Che Lah’s time as Chair that we took up the case of Keith Sellah vs Lee Kwang 1980 (2) MLJ 191 which was decided by 5 of Malaysia’s greatest Judges namely Suffian L.P, Raja Azlan Shah C.J (Malaya), Wan Suleiman F.J, Abdul Hamid Omar F.J and Hashim Yeop A. Sani J. This case set the benchmark on the standard of proof in disciplinary cases against lawyers. Then there is the case of the Will of Ali Hasan where the Johore Bar prosecuted a lawyer for witnessing the will of a dying man in 3rd degree coma. The lawyer’s office was in the same building as Che Lah’s so he abstained but the Johor Bar Committee followed the law. You will find it in Amanullah Bin Haji Ali Hasan vs Hajjah Jamilah Binti Sheik Madar 1975 (1) MLJ 30.

Friend or foe Che Lah went by the law. The Advocates & Solicitors Ordinance 1947 provided vast After being called to the Bar in 1963 powers to the local Bar. The Legal Che Lah set up practice in Johor Profession Act 1976 diluted the Bahru and practiced under the powers. The Ordinance gave name and style of Abdullah A Bar President Steven Thiru, Dato Muthanna and S Balarajah powers of investigation into Rahman & Co. The most popular conduct of members. The Bar and affable Puan Hendon Bte Committee under the LPA 1976 has Mohamed (date of Call to the Malaysian Bar 18-4-1963 at become, with respects, social animal. the Johor Bahru High Court before Azmi J. later Tun and Lord Che Lah believed that it is the sacred duty of the Bar to resist President) is the 1st lady President of the Malaysian Bar was any attempts by the political powers to strip us of our close to Che Lah, She was a confidante of Che Lah and traditional legal safeguards and the self-disciplinary practiced with him in his Johor Bahru office. procedures. He felt that the independence of the Bar would Che Lah was truly an English Barrister and held steadfast all be adversely affected if its power of self-discipline contained principles and rules governing the Bar. He did not grant or in itself from time immemorial is removed. give favours or appear lenient when rules principles or laws The Chairmanship of the Johor Bar was held by Che Lah from appeared to be broken or breached. He was blind to 1970 to 1981. He went on to become President of the prejudices. Malaysian Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council Malaysia In 1972 Che Lah invited me to be the Hon Secretary of the from 1978-1981. He was the 1st Johorean to achieve this. It Johor Bar which office I held under him for 3 years. It was is important to note that during Che Lah’s tenure as during this period that I became more acquainted with the chairman of the Malaysian Bar that the most important rules man and his principles. He went by the rules and the law. A relating to practice at the Bar were formulated and gazetted pupil of a Bar Committee Member and Senior Member of on 2.10.1978 – it is the Legal Profession (Practice and Dato Dr Wong Kim Fatt applied for shortening of the period Etiquette) Rule 1978. These Rules are akin to the Magna of pupillage as he was a retired Police officer but Che Lah Carta of the Malaysian Bar. Che Lah was a Senator in the asked me to object to it which I did along with the Bar Malaysian Dewan Negara from 1968-1974. He was a Council but the Judge over ruled us. You will find it reported Director, inter alia, of the Cold Storage Group of Companies Ong Chee Seng vs Attorney General and ors 1976(2) MLJ and was also the 1st Chairman of Johore Tenggara. He was a

www.johorebar.org.my 17

INFO JOHORE BAR

part time Judicial Commissioner of the High Courts, Malaya, in proper to adhere to and comply with the wishes of the the 1970s. members of the Johore Bar to name the main hall at the Johore Bar Secretariat as the “Abdullah A. Rahman Hall”. Generations Che Lah, Justice Dato Ali Hassan, ACP X.A. Nicholas (father of YA after generations of lawyers will remember this good man and Indran Nicholas of Ipoh) who was then the Johor Police CID lawyer who always had the best interest of the lawyers in Chief and the then DPP Johor, Kadir Kassim (presently of Kadir, general and the Johore Bar in particular embedded in his Andri & Partners KL) started the Johor Bench and Bar vs Johor breasts. Abdullah A. Rahman lived respected and died Police cricket tournament in 1967 which games are played till regretted. today for the coveted Ali Hassan Trophy. The 3 gentlemen were cricket lovers and relics of the colonial past, one might say. Che Lah always wanted a building for the Johore Bar and told us that lawyers will be proud to see a Johore Bar Building on a Che Lah was a strict disciplinarian. He was unassuming and main thoroughfare. He planted the seeds but did not see it unrivalled for his humility but he had the temerity to correct grow. He believed as a per a Greek philosopher that “A society the most pugnacious of puisne judges no matter how senior in grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know his own inimitable style. There was a Bar Dinner 1975 when he they shall never sit in”. gave such a bold speech protecting the members of the Bar and took the local Judge and Bench to task so much so that the Che Lah passed away on the 16th April 1987. In 2017 2 years Judge (Justice Dato Syed Othman Ali) was so embarrassed that time, it will be 30 years since his passing. Though it is 3 decades, he walked out of the dinner. The docile Bar Committee the Johore Bar is be commended for the honor of remembering subsequently pondered if the Committee should have a preview the man and what he stood for, so that, future generation of and vet and veto all the Chairman’s future speeches! But Che lawyers will remember the stalwart of the legal profession of Lah will have none of it. He was bold and upright. And honest. Johore. Abraham Lincoln said: “All that I am, or hope to be, I He even felt that members subscriptions could not be used to owe to my angel mother.” For me all that I have been or even defray the coffee and kuih muih served at the monthly hoped to be at the Bar I owe it to my mentor Che Lah. This is meetings of the Bar Committee as it was trust monies and so my tribute of admiration and affection for Che Lah who urged we the Committee members took turns to pay for the me to follow the wise and profound words of Francis Bacon refreshments at the monthly Bar Committee meetings! He was (1561-1626) who said: “I hold every man a debtor to his not parsimonious but was cautious of the trust imposed on him profession; from the which as men of course do seek to receive by members. He was fearless sturdy and independent. He never countenance and profit, so ought they of duty to endeavour kow-towed to the rich famous and powerful. He insisted themselves by way of amends to be a help and ornament lawyers follow the Legal Profession (Practice of Etiquette) Rules thereunto.” 1978 and he was a strict adherent of the Rules. Thank you. In 1965 the Yang Di Pertuan Agong bestowed upon Che Lah the title of Johan Mangku Negara (JMN). He also had the Johor S. Balarajah State honours of Setia Mahkota Johor(SMJ). Che Lah had an Chairman Johore Bar indulgent eye and a forgiving mind but he never sought fame (1989-1991, 2004-2005 and 2010-2011) and name which with his pedigree and connections he could 15th June 2015 have achieved in a whisper. He carried on life very much like an English squire and Barrister. He was bold upright and fearless and had priceless integrity and sturdy independence. A rare breed indeed. One could say that he was the pride of the Johor Bar. I have always proclaimed him as my mentor. Che Lah’s only child Dato Muthanna Bin Abdullah of the Hon. Society of The Middle Temple a Barrister-at-Law was until recently the Managing Partner of Lee Hishammudin & Allen Gledhill Kuala Lumpur. He now practices in the firm of Abdullah Chan & Co. in Kuala Lumpur. One could assert with unabashed pride that YBhg Abdullah Bin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman is to the Johore Bar what YM Raja Aziz Addruse is to the Malaysian Bar. It is only just reasonable and

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Hyde Park Corner A Miscellany At Law and A Potpourri compiled by S. Balarajah

CRITISING JUDGES By Gurdial Singh Nijar JUDGES live in cloistered silos. They can only be really judged by their behaviour in court. The decisions they make are in the public domain and subject to public scrutiny. Quite naturally, these decisions are evaluated and commented upon. This is in the nature of an open society, where judicial pronouncements are made in full view of the public; and reproduced in law reports and the media. Criticisms or accolades are to be expected. Some expressed in temperate and nuanced language; others a little more stridently. Some cross the line and are rude and crude. (The Sun, 16-2-2015) SRI LANKA ARRESTS TOP JUDGE OVER SEX ASSAULT COLOMBO: Sri Lankan police Tuesday made the first ever arrest of a Supreme Court judge who was detained in connection with an alleged sexual assault, an official said. Sarath de Abrew was arrested following investigations into a complaint that he tried to force a 39-year-old woman to have sex with him on the outskirts of Colombo and beat her up when she refused, a police official said. The judge, who is in his 60s, was taken before a magistrate who ordered his release on personal bail of half a million rupees (RM14,500), police said. "The magistrate also ordered the judge to cooperate with the Criminal Investigations Department (of the police) and make a statement," a police official said. "He had previously refused to make a statement to the police." Victor Ivan, an author who has written ex-

tensively on the country's judiciary, said it was the first time in Sri Lanka's history that a judge from the apex court has been arrested. Supreme court judges can only be removed through a complicated impeachment process in parliament. Sri Lanka's parliament was dissolved last month ahead of elections next month. – AFP (The Sun, 9-7-2015) ‘FINGER RAPE MAN MUST PAY’ KUCHING: The mother of the “finger rape” victim wants the acquitted rapist to pay compensation and maintenance to her daughter. The 51-year-old mother, Rosmiati Abdullah, has sought legal help to pursue the RM40,000 compensation awarded by the Sessions Court when convicting Bunya Jalong in 2013. He was then convicted of four counts of raping the underaged girl at a hotel in Sibu in 2011. The girl became pregnant and gave birth on Feb 5, 2012. A DNA test confirmed Bunya as the baby’s father. Last year, the High Court dismissed Bunya’s appeal against the conviction, varied the imprisonment sentences and ordered him to pay the compensation. However, he was acquitted on May 7 by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the man could not be convicted based on the present legal definition of rape, which covers only penile penetration. (The Star, 11-6-2015)

Justice Mah retires PUTRAJAYA: Court of Appeal judge Justice Datuk Mah Weng Kwai (pic), who defanged the Peaceful Assembly Act and gave the Teoh Beng Hock case a second chance, will be retiring. Justice Mah turns 66 on Feb 4. He has reached the mandatory retiring age or as he joked “the age of statutory senility”.

Human rights worsened PETALING JAYA: The use of the Sedition Act to crack down on dissent has led to the suppression of freedom of expression, according to Amnesty International’s Report 2014/15 which surveyed 160 countries and territories “In Malaysia, human rights have worsened over the years. During the Chinese New Year celebration this year, we saw a crackdown on human rights defenders, opposition and student activists. They were arrested under the Sedition Act and the Penal Code was used in suppressing their voices. Jealous lover eats rival’s heart

“Everyone should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. We don’t have to agree with these opinions, but it can be debated,” said Amnesty International Malaysia executive director Shamini Darshni. (The Sun, 27-2-2015)

www.johorebar.org.my 19

INFO JOHORE BAR

Father of the pill dies at 91

SAN FRANCISCO: Carl Djerassi (pic), the chemist widely considered the father of the birth control pill, has died. Djerrasi died of complications of cancer in his San Francisco home, Stanford University spokesman Dan Stober said. He was 91. Djerassi, a professor emeritus of chemistry at Stanford, was most famous for leading a research team in Mexico City that in 1951 developed norethindrone, a synthetic molecule that became a key component of the first birth control pill. “The pill”, as it came to be known, radically transformed sexual practices and women’s lives. (The Star, 2-2-2015)

‘Adultery not a crime’ The whistleblower

SEOUL: South Korea’s Constitutional Court yesterday struck down a controversial adultery law which for more than 60 years had criminalized extra-marital sex and jailed violators for up to two years. The nine-member bench ruled by seven to two that the 1953 statute aimed at protecting traditional family values was unconstitutional. “Even if adultery should be condemned as immoral, state power should not intervene in individuals’ private lives,” said presiding justice Park Han-Chul.

Nagging wives and sex-crazed husbands

NAGGING wives and sexcrazed husbands are among the top five reasons cited by Muslim couples who filed for divorce in Selangor last year, reported Harian Metro.

KUALA LUMPUR: Online scams are on the rise, with six cases reported last year to MCA Public Services and Complaints Department.

Department head Datuk Michael Chong said the customer, who wished to be known only as Ong from Seri Kembangan, paid RM450 for the penis enlarger. Chong said this was among the cases of people falling victim to online scams. (The Sun, 4-6-2015)

SOMETHING is clearly rotten in the state of our enforcement. The latest bizarre episode involves the declared intention by the inspector-general of police (IGP) to investigate the person who leaked the documents relating to the land deal by 1MDB to Tabung Haji. In other words the IGP wants to go for the person who blew the whistle. (The Sun, 25-5-2015) Muslim girl won Bhagavad Gita contest

(The Sun, 27-2-2015)

Online shopping scams

Among the victims of this scam was a man who bought a penis enlarger but received a magnifying glass instead!

By Gurdial Singh Nijar

According to the Jais marriage and divorce department head registrar Aluwi Parman, the other three reasons are religious ignorance, financial instability and interference from third parties. “Muslim divorce rates in Selangor shot up to 6,912 cases last year, compared to 6,162 cases in 2013. Of these, 3,156 cases last year involved couples aged between 31 and 35 years,” he said. Aluwi also believed divorce cases in Selangor were constantly increasing due to population density and married couples from other states moving here for work.

A 12-year-old Muslim girl won a contest on the Hindu holy book Bhagavad Gita and then donated the prize money to improve childhood education, Tamil Nesan reported. Maryam Sidduqi from Mumbai, Maharashtra, won the yearly contest on Gita knowledge organised by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISCKON). Students study the Gita and answer questions in an exam format. Maryam won the contest, beating more than 3,000 participants. On receiving the 1.1 million Indian rupees (RM611,000) prize money, she handed it back to the Uttar Pradesh state chief minister. Maryam said she was inspired by Pakistani Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousafzai who campaigned for education rights for girls. (The Star, 11-6-2015)

BRIDE WALKS OUT AFTER MAN FAILS TO SOLVE MATHS PROBLEM

of a real limb and fighting phantom pain will be unveiled by researchers here today.

NEW DELHI: An Indian bride has walked out of her wedding ceremony after her groom-to-be failed to solve a simple math problem, police said. The bride tested the groom on his math skills and when he got the sum wrong, she walked out. The question she asked: How much is 15 plus six?

The innovation is the result of a two-fold process, developed by Professor Hubert Egger at the University of Linz in northern Austria.

His reply: 17

Six sensors were then fitted to the foot sole of a lightweight prosthesis, and linked to so-called stimulators inside the shaft where the stump sits.

(The Star, 14-3-2015)

WORLD’S FIRST ‘FEELING’ ARTIFICIAL LEG

Surgeons first rewired remaining foot nerve endings from a patient’s stump to healthy tissue in the thigh, placing them close to the skin surface.

VIENNA: The world’s fist artificial leg capable of simulating the feelings

www.johorebar.org.my

(The Sun, 9-6-2015)

INFO JOHORE BAR

HOW DOES 2015 BUDGET AFFECT THE REAL PROPERTY GAINS TAX ? By Yang Pei Keng - 5 May 2015

The Prime Minister cum Finance Minister Najib Razak delivered his 2015 Budget Speech on 10 October 2014. The 2015 Budget made some amendments to the Real Property Gains Tax 1976 *RPGT Act+. It affects the RPGT on any transfer of property, as well as the stamp duty payable on the transfers and loan documents. Pursuant to the 2015 Budget Speech, Parliament passed the Finance (No.2) Act 2014. The relevant provisions of the Finance Act relating to RPGT and stamp duty only came into effect on 1 January 2015. How does the 2015 Budget affect the RPGT? The amendments to the RPGT Act introduced by the 2014 Finance Act *passed pursuant to the 2015 Budget+ largely touch on the following issues: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The increase in the retention sum to be remitted to the Board The date of acquisition of any deceased’s asset acquired before 1-1-1970? The recipient’s acquisition price of transfer for love and affection (a gift) from a foreign donor. It is to be noted that there is no change in the rates of RPGT payable. The rates of RPGT remain the same as those in the year 2014.

The retention sum is increased from 2% to 3% *s.21B amended+ Before the amendments, in the sale or disposal of any property, the buyer *or acquirer+ was to retain or withhold 2% of the purchase price *or the value of the consideration+. But with effect from 1 January 2015, the buyer is to withhold or retain 3% (instead of 2%) of the purchase price, and remit it to the IRB within 60 days of the sale, and remit it to the Inland Revenue Board *IRB+ or LHDN *Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri+ within 60 days from the date of the sale *or disposal+ of the property. If the buyer fails to do so, he has to pay a penalty amounting to 10% of the retention sum. The real reason for the increase in the retention sum, does not seem to have been made known to the public. The IRB probably felt that the 2% retention sum is insufficient to cover the actual amount of RPGT payable in most of the cases. It has therefore increased the retention sum from 2% to 3% of the purchase

price. There is an increase of 50% of the original retention sum. 2.

What is the date of acquisition for a deceased’s asset acquired BEFORE 1-1-1970? *date of acquisition = 1-1-1970+

These are rare cases of disposal of any asset acquired many years ago, some 45 years ago (i.e. before 1-1-1970) by a person now deceased. For purposes of computing RPGT payable, under the latest amendment, the deceased is deemed to have acquired his asset on 1-1-1970, and that is deemed to be the date of acquisition of the deceased. The actual date of purchase *say much earlier, in the year 1960+ is not to be taken into account. *See para 4, Schedule 2+. By way of a ‘legal fiction”, it is deemed to be bought on 1-1-1970. Before the amendment, the words “the value of the asset for estate duty purposes” appeared in Schedule 2 of the RPGT Act. *See para 4(3)(d)+. But the estate duty has long been abolished in Malaysia since the year 1982. That was about 33 years ago. Such provision is therefore no longer applicable for purposes of computing RPGT. The recent amendment is to replace those words by the expression “the market value of the asset as at the date of death of the deceased person…”. Illustration 1: A person D bought a shophouse in the year 2000. He died in 2014. After winding up his estate, D’s executor sold it on 5/5/2015. The date of death of the deceased person *2014+ is deemed to be the date of acquisition by D. The actual date of purchase (year 2000) by D is not to be taken into account. The simple formula is : Date of death of the deceased = the date of acquisition by the deceased Facts given in the illustration : 1) Year 2000 - D bought a shophouse. 2) 1/1/2014 – D died . 3) 5/5/2015 - D’s executor sold the shophouse. Note: a. b. c.

The actual date of the purchase *year 2000+ is not D’s date of acquisition D’s date of death *1/1/2014+ is deemed to be the D’s date of acquisition. The executor sold the shophouse on 5/5/2015. It is a disposal more than 1 year *i.e. 1/1/2014 -- 5-5-2015+ after D is deemed to have acquired the property.

www.johorebar.org.my 21

INFO JOHORE BAR

It is a disposal in the 2nd year after acquisition. 30% RPGT is therefore payable.

This provision affects the disposal by an executor *or administrator+ of any asset of the deceased after Grant of Probate *or the Letters of Administration+, has been granted. If the assets of the deceased had been transferred to the beneficiaries, the date of acquisition of the beneficiaries is different. The date of acquisition of the beneficiary is the date of transfer by the executior/ administrator to the beneficiary. The simple formula is: Date of transfer to beneficiary by executor/administrator = date of acquisition by the beneficiary Illustration 2: 1. On 1/1/ 2012, an executor “as representative”, transferred a semi-detached house in Johor Bahru *an asset of the estate of the deceased+ to the beneficiary B *Malaysian citizen+ 2. On 28/2/2015, B sold the property to a third party at the price of RM950,000. Note: a. 1/1/2012 *date of transfer to the beneficiary+ is the date of acquisition of B the beneficiary. b. B sold it within the 4th year *1/1/2012 to 28/2/2015+. c. B, as a citizen, has to pay 20% RPGT. 3. Acquisition price of a gift = acquisition price paid by donor *+ permitted expenses+ In the case of any gift between close relatives *husband and wife, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild+ the acquisition price paid by the donor (plus permitted expenses) is deemed to be the acquisition price of the recipient of the gift *See Para 12 Schedule 2,+. In brief: Recipient’s acquisition price = donor’s acquisition price (plus permitted expenses). Illustration 3: 1. In the year 2000, a father F bought a double-storey terraced house in Taman Tasek, Johor Bahru at the price of RM200,000. 2. In 2015, F for love and affection, transferred it to his son S. Note: a. RM200,000 *F’s acquisition price (plus permitted expenses)+ is deemed to be S’s acquisition price. b. 2015 *date of transfer+ is S’s date of acquisition.

4. Gifts by foreigners: foreigner’s acquisition price = recipient’s acquisition price A foreigner’s acquisition price (plus permitted expenses) is deemed to be the recipient’s acquisition price, if the gift is made within 5 years after the donor acquired it. *See Schedule 2, para 12(2)(b)+ After the amendment pursuant to the 2015 Budget, a sub-para of Schedule 2 of the RPGT Act was replaced. It relates to the gift made by a foreign donor. If the donor is a foreigner *non-citizen and non-permanent resident+ the same principle mentioned in paragraph 3 above applies. In other words, if a foreigner *non-permanent resident+ donates a gift to a close relative *e.g. his wife or his son+, within 5 years of his acquisition of the property, the recipient (close relative) is deemed to have acquired the gift at the same price paid by the foreigner *plus permitted expenses+ within the 5 years of his acquisition. No gains tax is payable. llustration 4: 1. In 2013, a Singaporean bought a semi-detached house in Horizon Hills, Johor Bahru at RM900,000. 2. RM900,000 was his acquisition price. His date of acquisition was 2013. 3. In 2015, for love and affection, he gave the house to his wife, a Malaysian. 4. He therefore gave the house to his wife within 2 years *2013 - 2015+ 5. His wife’s acquisition price is RM900,000 (plus permitted expenses) Note: a) Foreign husband’s acquisition price = wife’s acquisition price *disposal within 5 years+ b) There is no gain and no loss in this case. No RPGT is payable

This would mean that the Singaporean in this case does not have to pay any RPGT, normally payable by a foreigner *or nonpermanent resident+ when he gave his house to his wife. Usually, a foreigner has to pay 30% RPGT for the first 5 years of his acquiring the property. But the recent 2015 amendment is to the effect that even a foreigner *or non-permanent resident+ is entitled to the same treatment as a citizen or permanent resident in cases involving gifts between close relatives.

Yang Pei Keng

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Congratulations To The Newly Admitted Members of The Bar (Johor) (As at time of publication) No Name

Firm

Farhana binti Tupani

A Rahim & Co

25/01/2015

Mohamad Zamzam bin Ramli

Zaid Ibrahim & Co

25/01/2015

Muhammad Firdaus bin Adnan

Muhammad Abd Kadir & Co

25/01/2015

Nur Syahirah binti Apisah

Othman Hashim & Co

08/03/2015

Sharmaine Fairuz binti Mohd Zulkifli

Syed Alwi, Ng & Co

08/03/2015

Sharmini a/p Jiwan

Syed Alwi, Ng & Co

08/03/2015

Baharudin bin Baharim

Yeo Hock Thye & Co

15/03/2015

Nur Adilah binti Bakeri

Kik Fenny & Co

15/03/2015

Nur Azizi binti Wagini

M N Halim Syaffie & Associates

15/03/2015

10.

Nurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ain binti Zaharudin

Hong & Fong

15/03/2015

11.

Siti Amizah binti Amdan

Keah & Choo

15/03/2015

12.

Muhammad Rafiq Akmal bin Mohd Daud

Syed Alwi, Ng & Co

19/04/2015

13.

Ragupathy Naidu a/l TVR Chinniah Naidu

Zulkafli, Rani & Co

19/04/2015

14.

Izzah Zahin binti Aliman

Syed Alwi, Ng & Co

07/06/2015

15.

Liew Ee Ling

Skrine

07/06/2015

16.

Yap Che Kai

KS Pang & Co

07/06/2015

17.

Deborah Joanne Samuel

Veizay & Company

15/06/2015

18.

Choong Pei Ying

Tan Chuah Shuaib & Co

17/06/2015

19.

Iskandar Shah bin Ibrahim

No Firm

17/06/2015

20.

Syafiqah Amirah binti Razali

Mohd Amin, Ng & Associates

17/06/2015

21.

Salma Sakeena binti Mohamad Hassan

Azwad Ihsan & Co

07/07/2015

22.

Ezzati binti Ahmad Salam

V P Nathan & Partners

12/07/2015

23.

Mohd Fazaly Ali bin Mohd Ghazaly

No Firm

12/07/2015

24.

Ainna Sherina binti Saipolamin

Zaid Ibrahim & Co

26/07/2015

25.

Eunice Teo Su Yin

Zaid Ibrahim & Co

26/07/2015

26.

Rabiatul Adawiyah binti Md Nordin

Zaid Ibrahim & Co

26/07/2015

27.

Amy Ling Leh Sang

Lee & Tengku Azrina

02/08/2015

28.

Ezyan Nadia binti Elias

Kamal Hisham & Associates

02/08/2015

29.

Kartiyaini a/p Jeyapalan

Iqbal Hakim Sia & Voo

02/08/2015

30.

Lennon Seow

Y K Chin

02/08/2015

31.

Mohamad Alias bin Rasman

Ikbal Salam & Associates

02/08/2015

32.

Nurhamizah binti Abdul Rahman

A Rahim & Co

02/08/2015

33.

Jackie Mary Fernandis

S E Wong & Co

09/08/2015

34.

Mohd Sharwan bin Abu Bakar

Albar & Partners

09/08/2015

35.

Muhammad Amir bin Arsad

Abdul Rahman & Partners

09/08/2015

36.

Nurul Aimi binti Osman

A K Yeong & Co

09/08/2015

Date of Admission

www.johorebar.org.my 23

INFO JOHORE BAR

BLAST FROM THE PAST Tun Abdul Razak’s Call To The Bar Contributed by Mr S Balarajah The Honourable Tun Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein then addressed the court: “May it please Your Lordship, I crave the indulgence of this court to say a few words. My Lord, I should like to thank Your Lordship for giving me the privilege of saying a few words today on my being admitted to the Malaysian Bar. I am grateful to the Attorney Mr. V.C. George Chairman of the Bar Council States of Malaya and to Mr. Ronald Khoo Chairman of the Bar Committee Selangor, for their kind and generous words of welcome to me. I am happy and honoured by the kindness and support shown not only by Members of the Bar but also by so many learned friends either present in this Honourable Court or outside. My Lord, when the news of my intention to be admitted to the Malaysian Bar was known, a number of my colleagues, friends and political supporters came to me asking me why I should decide to be admitted to the Bar at this time when I have an important and most responsible job as Prime Minister of this country. I explained to them that as one whose youth was spent in the studies of the law, my natural ambition of course was to carry out a legal practice and eventually, if luck would have it, to end my career on the Bench. However, due to a twist of fate, as soon as I completed my studies and was called to the Bar at the Lincoln’s Inn, I decided to go into politics and contribute my part in the struggle for independence of our country. Having now served in the political field for more than 25 years and reached the pinnacle of my career, I have therefore achieved my ambition in that field. I am now left with one other ambition, that is to be admitted to the Bar of my own country. My Lord, I do not think it is possible nor proper for me to aspire to sit on the Bench having spent the best years of my life in politics, nor will it be my intention to carry out legal practice as I intend to continue to serve the country in the political field for as long as the people want me to do so. However, I regard it as an honour and a personal satisfaction to be admitted to the Bar of this country and to join my other learned friends and contemporaries in the legal fraternity.

When my distinguished predecessor the Tunku was admitted to the Malaysian Bar last year at the late age of 71 years, he predicted that I would possibly be the only one who might be able to break his record of being called to the Bar at an even later age. However, unlike the Tunku, I decided to apply for admission now and not leave it to later years as I believe that whatever honour and privilege that one has, one should enjoy them while one has the strength and capacity to do so. After the age of 71 years whatever apparent strength that one may show, there is no doubt that one only has the capacity to enjoy such honour and privilege and indeed all the good things of life, only in mind. The Tunku also talked about the many surprises he had in the course of his life. There is no doubt that amid the changes and chances of political life, one meets with many surprises. In my own case, as life unfolds, I found that I received many more university degrees than the examinations I have ever passed. I was also elected Honorary Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn without having to distinguish myself in the legal profession. As I said, I regard it as an honour and real privilege to be admitted to the Bar at this stage of my life. I would like to thank all my friends and Members of the Bar for the support and the genuine friendship they have shown. It is also a privilege for me to be admitted today together with my old friend and colleague, Tan Sri Nik Ahmad Kamil. Whatever changes and chances the future may bring, today will remain a proud and happy moment of my life the memories of which I shall always treasure for as long as I live.”

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES

Professional Standards Course on 27 & 28 Jan 2015

Talk by Mr R Jayabalan

Mr K Mohan, imparting his wisdom

Professional Standards Course on 27 & 28 Jan 2015 And Dinner at KSL Resorts Johor Bahru

Pupils awaiting the Guests of Honour at the Ethics Course Dinner

On 27 - 28 Jan 2015, the Continuing Professional Development Committee together with the Social Committee organised the Professional Standards Course that was attended by 50 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at KSL Resort, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was Andrew Wong Fook Hin who shared his experience with the Bar and Bench.

www.johorebar.org.my 25

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES Seminar on the Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials on 9 Feb 2015

participants attended, concluded with a small token of appreciation to the speaker. The Johore Bar Gala Dinner & Dance 2015 was held on 14 Feb 2015 at Renaissance Hotel Johor Bahru. The event was graced by the presence of the two Judges of the Johor Bahru High Court, YA Datoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak and his spouse Datin Norhuda binti Hussin and YA Tuan Teo Say Eng.

Some senior ones and some juniors!

The seminar was presented by Brendan Navin Siva on the Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials. The seminar was attended by 74 participants. Seminar on Handling Drugs Trials and Appeals on 7 Feb 2015.

The dinner commenced with a welcome speech by the Johore Bar Social Committee Chairperson Fadhil Ihsan (Dale). This was followed by a sumptuous fusion course menu dinner, accompanied by a live band performance by The Jazz Clique and a stand-up comedy performance by Harith Iskander, while the Master of Ceremony for the night was Suriakala Sivalingam from Fly FM. Leading Advocate Hisham Teh Poh Teik

Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 14 February 2015 at JOTIC Auditorium

The Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee invited Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to deliver a talk on Handling Drugs Trials and Appeals. The talk which have 50

The JBC facing the firing squad at AGM

On 14 Feb 2015, the Johore Barâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Annual General Meeting (AGM) was held in JOTIC Auditorium with 70 members in attendance.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Futsal boys ready for the game.

North vs South Johore Bar Games 2015 The Johore Bar Sports and North Johore Affairs Committees jointly organised the North-vs-South Johore Bar Games 2015 on 6 June 2015 at Batu Pahat, after going into hibernation since 2007. Five games were played namely, golf, netball, futsal, table-tennis and badminton. The games were drew ended with prizegiving ceremony followed by high tea at PineTree Hotel, Batu Pahat, Johor. We are ready!

The evergreen Datoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Wong Kim Fatt with the boys

www.johorebar.org.my 27

28 INFO JOHORE BAR

[Johor Bar Galaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Dinner and Dance 2015]

www.johorebar.org.my

29 INFO JOHORE BAR

[Johor Bar Galaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Dinner and Dance 2015]

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES JBC Courtesy Call on the Judges and Judicial ommissioners of the High Court in Johor Bahru on 15 Apr 2015

Seminar on Family Law held on 9 Apr 2015 On 9 Apr 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar along with the Bar Council Continuing Professional Development (â&#x20AC;&#x153;CPDâ&#x20AC;?) Department, jointly organised a seminar on Family Law as part of the CPD Regional Training Series.

As a tradition, the re-elected Committee paid a courtesy call on the Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the High Court in Johor Bahru on 15 Apr 2015 Criminal High Court in Johor Bahru. Johore Bar Informal High Tea on 7 May 2015 The North Johor Affairs Committee organized a high tea to get together with Committee members and north Johor members at Muar Traders Hotel, Muar Johor.

Pushpa Ratnam was the invited speaker and she gave a lively and engaging talk to members of the Johore Bar. A total of 33 participants were present.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Professional Standards Course Dinner on 28 January 2015

Seminar for Lawyers on Managing Office and Clients’ Accounts on 8 May 2015

On 8 May 2015, Lim Kien Chai @ KC, a member of the KL Bar, presented the seminar for lawyers on Managing Office and Client’s Accounts, held at the Johore Bar Auditorium with a total of 90 participants were present.

Talk on Procedures in Industrial Court on 12 May 2015

The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee has invited Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor, Chairman of the Industrial Court Johor Bahru to gave a talk on Procedures in Industrial Court to members of the Johore Bar. There were 30 participants.

Advocacy Training Course On 12 and 13 June 2015, the Advocacy Training Course (ATC) was conducted at the Johor Bahru Court Complex jointly organised with the Bar Council Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Department. Had 11 members took part in the ATC. The trainers involved were Shahareen Begum, Ooi Huey Miin, Jaspal Singh and T. Sudhar. www.johorebar.org.my 31

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES Public Forum Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 On 15 June 2015 the Johore Bar Human Rights Committee jointly organised with the Bar Council a public forum on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) and the Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 at Tropical Inn Hotel, Johor Bahru. The forum featured three eminent speakers: Steven Thiru (President of the Malaysian Bar), Dato’ Yeo Yang Poh (Past President of the Malaysian Bar) and Syahredzan Johan (Co-Chairperson National Young Lawyers Committee). The forum was moderated by R. Jayabalan, Chairman of Johore Bar. The forum kicked off at 5.30 pm with a welcoming speech by Mathews George and followed by speeches from the three speakers. The forum was attended by members of public, reporters and members of the Bar.

Gleeful members at the forum

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Seminar on Technology for Law Firms: Revised To Cover GST Accounting The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar that was conducted by Ng Sheau Feng at two places on two different dates. The first seminar was held at Hotel Pelangi Muar, Johor on 27 May 2015 and the other took place at Johore Bar Auditorium on 28 May 2015. The total number of participants in Muar was 70, and at Johor Bahru had 90 participants.

Seminar on Milestone Cases in Malaysian Land Law The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar that was conducted by Sudharsanan Thillainathan on 11 June 2015 at the Johore Bar Auditorium. A total of 90 participants were present.

www.johorebar.org.my 33

INFO JOHORE BAR

Reference held at Johor Bahru High Court on 4 February 2015 We record with deep regret the death of the following members of the Johore Bar: (1) ZAINUDDIN BIN EMBONG who passed away on 5 March 2014; (2) LAU KOH KONG who passed away on 11 August 2014; (3) LOH SONG CHUAN who passed away on 4 November 2014; (4) RAVINDRAN A/L G.S PARAMASIVAN who passed away on 7 December 2014; and (5) NORISAH BINTI ABU AMAN who passed away on 18 December 2014. A Reference in their memory was held at the High Court in Johor Bahru on Wednesday 4 February 2015 at 9.00 a.m.

Zainuddin Bin Embong, Mr Lau Koh Kong, Mr Loh Song Chuan, Mr GSP Ravindran and Mdm Norisah binti Abu Aman. My learned friend Mr S. Gunasegaran is appearing for the Bar Council and Senior Federal Counsel Mr Lee Chee Thim is appearing for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. My learned friends En Ismail bin Mohd Tahir, Mr John Fernandez, Mr C Y Chok, Mr Mathews George and Puan Rodziah binti Idris are appearing to recall the life and memory of the respective departed members of the Bar. I also wish to acknowledge the presence of many members of the Bar today with the relatives and friends of our departed members to witness this solemn proceedings. Before I proceed further, on behalf of the Johore Bar I would like to express our appreciation to Your Lordships for graciously granting our request for this proceedings and also for presiding the same. My Lords,

The proceedings were presided over by the Honourable Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak and with his Lordship on the Bench were the learned judges of the Johor Bahru High Court namely, the Honourable Justice Tuan Teo Say Eng and Honourable Judicial Commissioner Dr. Sabirin bin Ja’afar.

Reference proceedings for a deceased lawyer or judge is an ancient tradition of the Bar. It is also quite unique. Whereas we welcome a new member by calling him to the Bar with the ceremonial long Call, when he is called upon to meet his Maker, we bid him farewell by holding reference.

Introductory speech by R Jayabalan Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee

The reference takes place when the High Court convenes a special sitting in open court in the presence of the departed member’s colleagues at the Bar, and witnessed by his loved ones, to recall his life at the Bar and honour his memory. It is also the Bar’s way of sharing the family’s loss, grief and bereavement.

Dengan izin Yang Arif-Yang Arif, saya R. Jayabalan hadir bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor. Saya memohon kebenaran untuk meneruskan dalam Bahasa Inggeris, My Lords, we are gathered today to recall the memory of our professional colleagues – five of them – who are dearly departed and to pay our respect. They are En

There is also another dimension to reference proceedings. For this, I can do no better than to quote the words of the eminent counsel Mr Cyrus Das, as he was then, at the reference held for another eminent counsel

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

the late Dato’ Ronald Khoo before the Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Dato’ Edgar Joseph Jr on 24.4.1998. This is what he said “The practice of references for deceased judges and lawyers served to remind us that we belong to one body with one objective, namely, the pursuit of justice through the legal process. In that collective effort, governed by the unwritten rules of etiquette and tradition which are just as important as the written ones, the death of one of us diminishes the whole, and so we gather to mourn the loss, to pay tribute and remind ourselves that the journey must be made and the faith must be kept.” We are here today for that very purpose. Thank you My Lords. R Jayabalan Chairman of Johore Bar Committee

Speech by S Gunasegaran Johore Bar Representative, Representing the President and Members of the Malaysian Bar May it please You My Lords, S. Gunasegaran appearing for the President and members of the Malaysian Bar at this Reference Ceremony. I recognise my learned friends R. Jayabalan appearing for the Johore Bar Committee, Senior Federal Counsel Lee Chee Thim appearing for the Honourable Attorney General of Malaysia and my colleagues at the Johore Bar En. Ismail bin Mohd Tahir, Mr. John Fernandez, Mr. Chok Chin You, Mr. Mathews George and Puan Rodziah binti Idris who shall be addressing Your Lordships this morning.

I also wish to recognise the presence of the distinguished members of the Bar and the families of our departed members, including Retired Judge of the Court of Appeal, Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, the elder brother of the late Lau Koh Kong. My Lords, first and foremost on behalf of both the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar, I wish to express our sincere gratitude to Your Lordships for graciously consenting to and presiding over this morning's Reference Ceremony, which is a long-established tradition of the Bar and which is unique to the legal profession. My Lords, we are gathered here today to remember and to pay our respects to our dear departed members of the Bar who have left us for a better world. On behalf of the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar, I associate myself fully with the sentiments expressed by the Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee and also the sentiments that will be expressed by the learned Senior Federal Counsel and my colleagues at the Johore Bar after this. Suffice it to say that the demise of the departed members is a tremendous loss to the profession and that we are deeply saddened by it. I must confess that I have had the privilege of knowing personally only the late Loh Seng Chuan and the late GSP Ravindran, while the other three members were known to me only in a professional capacity, which I consider to be my loss. But whether known to us or not, as members of the Bar we are tied by a very special bond and the passing away of any one of us is always a matter of grief and pain to the rest of us. The Malaysian Bar is truly proud of our departed

www.johorebar.org.my 35

INFO JOHORE BAR

colleagues and will always remember their contribution to the Bar and to the cause of justice that this profession proudly stands for. We shall be missing them forever. We pray that their Souls rest in eternal peace.

In conclusion, My Lords I respectfully move that the record of these proceedings be preserved in the archives of this Honourable Court and that a copy thereof be extended to each of the bereaved families.

My Lords, the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar take this opportunity to record and to convey our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families of:

Much obliged. S. Gunasegaran Johore Bar Representative

1. the late Zainuddin bin Embong En. Ismail Mohd Tahir paid his tribute to the late Zainuddin bin Embong

2. the late Lau Koh Kong 3. the late Loh Seng Chuan 4. the late Ravindran a/l G.S. Paramasivan 5. the late Norisah binti Abu Aman over the passing of their loved ones. Rest assured that you are not alone in your pain and suffering. Your loss and sorrow is as much a loss and sorrow for us. Shed tears if it is necessary but do not grieve too much. Just be reminded that Death is the inevitable consequence of birth. Death is a natural part of life. It is as natural and common as life. All life leads to death. And that the journey begins at birth. William Shakespeare described death as follows: "Thou know'st 'tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity. (Hamlet, Act I, scene 2, line 72) And Euripides said : "Death is a debt we all must pay." I am painfully aware that whilst words may provide some comfort in our hour of need, they will not remove the grief and pain completely, especially when we have lost someone close to us, and that Time alone is the ultimate Healer. In the meantime may you have the strength and fortitude to face your present calamity calmly and serenely and to overcome it swiftly. Finally My Lords, we take solace in the thought that though dead and gone, our departed colleagues will always remain in our memory. As George Eliot said : "Our dead are never dead to us, until we have forgotten them."

Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin Bin Embong was born in Johor Bahru on the 25th day of November 1958. At the time of his demise he was 56 years of age. He obtained his LLB(Hons) from the University of Malaya in 1983 and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on the 28th day of November 1987. Before starting his career at the Bar he was an Assistant Parliamentary Draftsman cum Federal Counsel for almost a year at the Attorney General's Chambers. He was also an academician when he joined the Law Faculty of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia as a tutor for a period of two years from 1982 to 1984. He had a complete and wide range of experience as a Parliamentary Draftman and also as an academician before embarking into the world of legal practice as a member of the distinguished Malaysia Bar. His wide range exposure has widen his horizon of experience and his ability of viewing legal matters from a totally different perspective that might escape the attention of others. Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin started his legal career at the Bar as a Legal Assistant at Messrs Ariff & Co and thereafter at Messrs Khaled Mutang Chan & Lim. Before his demise he was the Managing Partner of Messrs Khaled & Zainuddin which specializing in Corporate & Conveyancing and various other Commercial transaction. Being the Senior Partner of the firm he was equally impressive in Litigation arena especially with regards to Banking and Land matters. He had special attachment to the Johor Bar specifically and the Malaysian Bar generally. He was regarded as a great reference by the Junior members of the Johor. Bar and was very keen to lend a helping hand whenever any assistance was needed of him. To the senior and learned members of the Johor Bar and the Malaysian Bar as a whole he was well respected for his humble and kind

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

gesture and was never hesitant in sharing his vast experience at the Bar for 27 years. His demise was deeply felt by his wife Zaleha Muslan, two sons Mohamad Aiman and Mohamad Azim and two daughters Nur Suraya Hani and Nur Aliah Najiah and also his immediate family members. He also left behind his 84 year old mother whom he loved so much. His mother Datin Hajjah Zainun Hj Ab Rahman the widow of the late Dato' Hj. Embong Bin Yahya our former Deputy Information Minister while still bereaving the lost of her beloved son is very grateful to Allah The Almighty that her beloved son was . taken to rest in peace in the best soil ever of the Holy City of Makkah and at, the best time ever during his final Umrah trip. His wife and children together with the members of his immediate family would like to take this very opportunity to thank all members of the Johor Bar especially and the Malaysian Bar generally and those who had known Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin Bin Embong for being his wonderful counterpart and assistance during his lifetime. Al-fatihah Ismail Mohd Tahir Member of Johore Bar

Mr. John Fernandez paid tribute to the late Lau Koh Kong My Lords, this morning we are gathered here to remember Mr Lau Koh Kong an esteemed member of the Johor Bar, who had passed on 11th August 2014. My Lords, Mr Lau was a very ordinary person, someone who was unassuming who did ordinary things with ordinary habits. He was a honest and trustworthy lawyer to the core. My Lords in a call to the Bar we state the virtues of the petitioner but in a reference we speak of the antecedents and virtues of our deceased brethren as a lawyer. My Lords, the late Mr Lau was a teacher, teaching in a primary school in Kulai for several years and at the age of 30 embarked for a law degree at the University of London. After finishing his law degree in London, he then enrolled at the Honourable Society of the Lincoln’s lnn, London where he was admitted as Barrister-at-Law. My Lords, Mr Lau upon his return set up his practice in

Kulai where he primarily had a conveyancing practise. He always was a sole proprietor until his son Mr Lau Kei Jin joined him in 2013 and now continues his practice in the name and style of Messrs Lau Koh Kong & Associates. The legacy of the late Mr Lau continues. The late Mr Lau leaves behind his widow and 4 children to mourn their loss. Members of the Johore Bar offer their heartfelt and sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the late Mr Lau Koh Kong. May I pray my lords that a copy of these proceedings be preserved in the archives of this Court and a copy thereof be dispatched to the family of the late Mr Lau Koh Kong. May his soul rest in peace. Much obliged My Lords.

Mr. Chok Chin You paid tribute to the late Loh Song Chuan Loh Song Chuan @ Law Song Chuan was born on 26.12.1951. He hailed from Panchor, Muar. He was the second son of the late Mr Loh Swee and Mdm Chew Kwi Lian. Song Chuan has 3 brothers and 2 sisters. Song Chuan married Elsie Tan Lee Chu in 1987. They have 2 sons, namely Winston Loh Wen Sheng and Wilfred Loh Woon Hsien. They are now 26 years old and 22 years old respectively. Before he became a lawyer, Song Chuan (or more commonly referred to as “Loh” by his friends) was in the Singapore Police Force. He joined that police force as rank and file, and rose to assume the post of an inspector. It was when he was at the police force that he took up law. He later on obtained his LLB and CLP. He was admitted as a member of the Malaysian Bar on 28.8.1985. After having worked as a legal assistant in Johor Bahru for a few years, Loh then formed a partnership with Mr Renganathan, and both of them practiced under the name and style of Loh and Renga, with effect from 1991. Loh & Renga has offices in Johor Bahru, Pontian and Batu Pahat. One would need to work very hard to take care of 3 law offices in 3 different parts of the State of Johor. As Loh was no stranger to hard work and perseverance, he was able to successfully manage that 3 law offices, and at all

www.johorebar.org.my 37

INFO JOHORE BAR

times with the assistance of his partners Mr Renganathan and Mr Derek Low. In the beginning of his career as a lawyer (which was in the eighties), one could often see Loh regularly in Court. As time passes, he spent more and more time in conveyancing matters and less time in litigation. In the last few years, his appearance as a counsel in court was few and far between.

It has been my privilege to have been his friend and to have learnt from him that during the turbulent times in our life, we could always respond with fortitude and calmness, and that we need not resort to despair or bitterness.

Apart from being his friend, I have also worked together with Loh on some legal matters in the past.

In ending, I would like to offer my deepest condolence to the family members of Loh. I also humbly move that a record of this proceeding be preserved in the archives of this Court, and a copy thereof be sent to his widow and children.

On 1.11.2014, Loh was taken away from us. He was 63 years old. He succumbed to skin cancer.

Chok Chin You Member of Johore Bar

Loh was a private and reserved person. A private person and reserved person is also usually a stoic person. I have been told by his partners and his work colleagues that in the last stage of his life, Loh endured skin cancer with stoicism, and without making any complaint about that medical condition that was afflicting him. He did not tell all his friends that he was fighting that medical condition. I also did not know that he was suffering from that medical condition at all, until he has passed away. In looking back at our friendship of about 30 years, I now realised that all these years, I have not seen Loh lose his temper at all or speak ill of anyone. He took things in his stride, and would not allow himself to be flustered by the rough and tumble of legal practice or by the vicissitudes that life tossed his way. He would take each day as it comes, and was always calm.

Mr. Mathews George paid tribute to the late GSP Ravindran May it please my Lords, We are gathered here this morning to pay a short tribute to the memory of our late colleague, Ravindran a/l G.S. Paramsivan who passĂŠd away on 7.12.2014 aged 57. The late Ravindran was better known in the legal fraternity as GSP Ravi, was a trained teacher before he read law in England. To GSP Ravi, law was his ambition. GSP Ravi was a Barrister-at-law of the Hon-Society of Lincolnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inn and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 23.4.2006. He started practice as a Legal Assistant to the late Mr Robin Ravindran Mahendran of the firm of M/s R.R Mahendran & Co. After R.R Mahendranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s demise, GSP Ravi took over the practice and carried on as a soleproprietor under the name and style G.S.P Ravindran & Co. His practice was mainly in the Criminal Courts but he also had a fair share of civil litigation. GSP Ravi was in his own way an ardent member of the Johor Bar and served in the Human Rights Sub-Committee for many years. GSP Ravi was a close friend of mine. I have known GSP Ravi since 2006 and there was not a day that went by without us speaking about football which was a common passion in our life. GSP Ravi had immense knowledge in football and was a die hard supporter of Liverpool FC. We got along well despite I being a die hard fan of Manchester United FC. Perhaps, it was a case of opposite attracts. I recollect with great sadness the night he passed away. I

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

was in Jakarta and GSP Ravi and I were busy exchanging texts about the Liverpool vs Sunderland match. The last text I received from GSP Ravi was at 1.19 am on 7.12.2014 regarding an on going Italian football game. Little did I know that it would be the last time I communicated with a person i fondly referred to as a mate. GSP Ravi was a good lawyer who fought hard and did his best for his clients. He was an uncompromising lawyer in some ways who conducted his cases without fear or favour. GSP Ravi leaves behind his beloved spouse Susan, siblings, nephews and nieces to mourn his passing. We offer our deepest condolences to the family of the late GSP Ravi. To his family I say, that my mate was a good lawyer and a greater human being.

Kulai, yang mana beliau akan pergi membuat kerja-kerja pendaftaran di semua pejabat tanah di daerah-daerah di seluruh Johor. Ini adalah di awal tahun 1990an, pada masa itu saya baru menjadi peguam, dan kerja-kerja pendaftaran di luar pejabat dibuat oleh staff lelaki. Apa yang saya ingat, beliau sangat bersemangat di dalam melakukan kerja beliau dan telah menasihatkan saya untuk tinggalkan “ego” dalam poket, dan tebalkan muka apabila membuat urusan di jabatan-jabatan, yang penting urusan pelanggan dapat diselesaikan. Satu pesanan yang saya dapati amat berguna dan saya masih amalkan sehingga ke hari ini. Saya percaya ramai antara rakan peguam juga telah mengenali Kak Nor sebelum beliau diterima sebagai peguam pada 22 Februari 2013.

What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world

Atas galakan daripada mentor dan rakan sekerja beliau Pn Rani Shanmugam untuk melanjutkan pelajaran di bidang Undang-Undang, remains and is Kak Nor telah mengikut jejak Pn Rani immortal. I will end my speech with an extract untuk menyambung pelajaran secara Albert Pike from Liverpool’s signature tune You’ll jarak jauh. Berkat kegigihan beliau, Never Walk Alone as it types how GSP Kak Nor telah berjaya menjadi lived his life. It goes like this :graduan di dalam bidang Jurisprudens dari Universiti Malaya pada tahun 2003, dan lulus CLP When you walk through a storm, hold your head high and pada tahun 2012. Ini bukan suatu tugas yang mudah don’t be afraid of the dark. At the end of the storm, untuk belajar semula selepas bekerja dan berkeluarga. there’s a golden sky. And the sweet, silver song of a lark. Saya percaya banyak masa dan wang telah dikorbankan untuk mencapai cita-cita beliau untuk menjadi peguam. My Lords, thank you for your patience and I pray for the usual Order on such a solemn occasion. Selepas menjalani latihan di firma mentornya Pn Rani di Mathews George firma Zulkafli, Rani & Co di Kulai, Kak Nor akhirnya Member of Johore Bar diterima sebagai peguam pada Februari 2013. Ini adalah satu pencapaian yang amat bermakna bukan sahaja kepada Kak Nor dan keluarga tetapi kepada rakan-rakan Pn. Rodziah Idris paid tribute to the late Norisah binti Abu peguam. Pada masa tersebut beliau telah menjangkau Aman usia 57 tahun (melebihi usia bersara kakitangan awam pada masa itu) dan telah menjadi nenek kepada 2 orang Dengan izin Yang Arif; cucu. Beliau telah membuktikan bahawa jika kita Pertama sekali saya ingin memanjatkan kesyukuran berusaha dan sanggup berkorban, kita boleh mencapai kerana saya telah diberi penghormatan untuk membuat apa juga impian kita. rujukan bagi memperingati seorang sahabat yang saya kenali lebih daripada dua puluh tahun, dan juga rakan Sebelum menjadi peguam, Kak Nor telah bekerja di peguam Pn Norisah binti Abu Aman atau lebih dikenali beberapa firma guaman di sekitar Kulai, Johor dan banyak sebagai Kak Nor bagi kebanyakan rakan-rakan peguam menguruskan kes-kes tanah. Akan tetapi selepas menjadi terutama mereka yang lebih muda. peguam, Kak Nor juga telah menunjukkan minat yang mendalam di dalam kes-kes jenayah dan menjadi peguam Saya mula mengenali Kak Nor semasa beliau masih tetap yang mengendalikan kes-kes Yayasan Bantuan menjadi penghantar dokumen bagi firma CF Wong & Co Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK) terutama di Mahkamah

www.johorebar.org.my 39

INFO JOHORE BAR

Majistret Kulai dan Pontian.

seorang peguam setelah kedudukan firma beliau lebih stabil.

Malah saya dimaklumkan bahawa pada pagi kejadian kemalangan yang dihadapi oleh Kak Nor, beliau berada di dalam perjalanan untuk pulang ke Kulai daripada Mahkamah Majistret Kota Tinggi setelah menyelesaikan kes-kes YBGK di sana. Ini bukanlah suatu yang biasa bagi kebanyakan kita kerana pada masa tersebut beliau telah berumur 59 tahun, dan bagi kebanyakan peguam wanita pada peringkat tersebut, kebanyakan kita memilih untuk membuat kes-kes tempatan sahaja supaya tidak perlu berkejar ke Mahkamah di luar daerah. Tetapi itulah Kak Nor yang suka dengan cabaran dan selalu ingin mencuba sesuatu yang baru.

Tetapi di dalam kehidupan ini manusia hanya merancang, Allah jua yang menentukan

Walaupun Kak Nor hanya sempat menjadi rakan guaman kepada kita untuk tempoh yang agak singkat iaitu tidak sampai 2 tahun, beliau telah memberi inspirasi terutama kepada peguam-peguam muda untuk terus berusaha membaiki diri, dan bagi rakan-rakan sebaya untuk terus menjadi peguam yang aktif kerana sebagai peguam kita dapat banyak membantu orang lain. Saya berpeluang bertanya dengan anak perempuan beliau mengapa Kak Nor begitu bersemangat ingin menjadi peguam dan saya diberitahu bahawa ia merupakan hajat bapa beliau yang ingin Kak Nor menjadi peguam tetapi disebabkan kekangan hidup selepas tamat persekolahan, cita -cita tersebut terpaksa ditangguhkan. Ini juga adalah sebab beliau hanya bekerja di pejabat peguam di sepanjang alam pekerjaan beliau dan beliau telah meminta anak beliau Cik Nurul Afiah untuk memilih bidang Undang-Undang walaupun ingin menjadi seorang guru. Sekarang Cik Nurul telah menjadi peguam dan mengambilalih firma ibunya. Bagi mereka yang rapat dengan Allahyarhamah Kak Nor terutama mereka yang berurusan di Mahkamah Majistret Kulai, pastinya kita akan berasa kehilangan kerana beliau sering ceria dan tidak lokek untuk berkongsi pengalaman bersama rakan-rakan. Senyuman dan keceriaan beliau akan menjadi kenangan dan semangat kepada kami rakan-rakan beliau. Beliau juga adalah seorang isteri dan ibu yang sangat prihatin kepada kebajikan keluarga beliau. Saya diberitahu beliau telah membuka firma beliau di rumah iaitu Tetuan Norisah & Co kerana beliau dapat membahagikan masa untuk menjaga dan menemankan suami beliau yang telah bersara semasa beliau berada di â&#x20AC;&#x153;pejabatâ&#x20AC;?. Beliau ada memberitahu kami rakan-rakannya bahawa beliau ingin menjalankan amalan dengan anak perempuan kesayangan beliau yang juga

Kepada Kak Nor, kami doakan semoga rohnya dicucuri rahmat Perkenalan dan kenangan bersama kami jadikan azimat. Kak Nor pastinya akan sentiasa diingati oleh ahli keluarga tersayang iaitu suami En Ismail bin Osman, dua anak lelaki iaitu Khairul Faizal dan En Shahrul dan Cik Nurul Afiah yang mengambilalih perniagaan ibu beliau serta dua orang cucu beliau. Di sebalik itu, mereka adalah sangat beruntung kerana dianugerahkan seorang isteri, ibu dan nenek yang sentiasa aktif dan ceria di dalam hidup mereka. Akhir sekali, saya memohon supaya prosiding ini disimpan di dalam arkib Mahkamah Tinggi dan satu salinan diserahkan kepada waris Allahyarhamah. Terima kasih. Rodziah Idris Member of Johore Bar Senior Federal Counsel Mr. Lee Chee Thim in his tribute to the departed members Dengan Izin, Yang Arif â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Yang Arif, En. R.Jayabalan, Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor S.Gunasegaran, wakil Majlis Peguam Malaysia, wakil yang memperingati mendiang masing-masing, Datuk--Datuk, Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, Tuan-Tuan /Puan-Puan yang dihormati sekalian. Pada hari ini, kita sama-sama berkumpul untuk menghormati dan memperingati mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam Malaysia yang telah meninggalkan kita buat selama-lamanya. Sehubungan itu, saya hadir prosiding pagi ini bagi pihak YBhg Tan. Sri Peguam Negara Malaysia. Saya diwakilkan untuk menyampaikan rasa dukacita beliau atas ketidakhadiran beliau pada istiadat hari ini atas desakan tugas rasmi. Saya juga hadir bagi pihak kesemua pegawai Perkhidmatan Kehakiman dan Perundangan bagi melahirkan perasaan sedih kami di atas pemergian mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam Malaysia ini serta menyampaikan ucapan salam takziah kami kepada keluarga mereka.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, dengan rendah diri saya memohon izin Yang Arif untuk meneruskan ucapan saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

regular player for the Bar at our Bar-Bench Games. His enthusiasm and sportsmanship will be sorely missed by the Johore Bar. We are a man short now.

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, Today's proceedings should not be treated as a solemn and melancholic occasion. Instead it should be an opportunity for us to commemorate and honour the lives and memories of these 5 members.

As for the late Norisah, she spent most of her time at her fledgling law practice handling Legal Aid or YBGK cases. She almost always obliged whenever she was called upon to appear for a Legal Aid client at the smaller towns outside the city – distance was never a problem for her, even at her age. In that sense it is tragic that her time also came when she was rushing from one court to another. Her loss will be felt at the Bar and the National Legal Aid Foundation particularly will be hard pressed to find an equal replacement.

We thank God for their presence in our lives and we ask for God's blessing for their departed souls and the families they left behind. Yang Arif-Yang Arif, On behalf of the Honourable Attorney General and the officers of the Judicial and Legal Service, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the members we honour today. I would also like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments and tributes expressed by my learned friends throughout today's proceedings. Yang Arif-Yang Arif, Akhirkata, saya dengan rendah diri setuju dengan usul supaya Rekod Prosiding hari ini disimpan di Arkib Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dan sesalinan diserahkan kepada setiap keluarga mendiang ahli yang kita kenang dan ingati hari ini. Terima kasih.

The Johore Bar is indeed proud to acknowledge these five members as one of our own. We extend our deepest condolences to their family for their loss. May their souls rest in peace. The Johore Bar supports the motion that the record of this proceeding to be kept and preserved in the archives of this honourable court, and that a copy thereof be extended to the bereaved families. Much obliged, My Lords. R Jayabalan Chairman of Johore Bar Committee

Lee Chee Thim Senior Federal Counsel Closing Speech by R Jayabalan Chairman of Johore Bar Committee

Closing Speech by Honourable Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak

May it please you My Lords, On behalf of the Johore Bar, I associate myself fully with the feelings and sentiments expressed by my learned friends. I just wish to add a few words on behalf of the Johore Bar.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim;

These five members will live long in our memory. Their comradeship and contribution to the Bar will be cherished and will be surely missed.

The Honourable Justice Teo Say Eng, Judge of the High of Malaya, Johor Bahru and Justice Dr. Sabirin bin Ja’afar, Judicial Commissioner of High of Malaya, Johor Baharu. The Honourable Mr. Lee Chee Chuan, Senior Federal Counsel representing the Hon Attorney General, En. Ismail bin Tahir on behalf of Allahyarham En. Zainuddin bin Embong, Mr. John Fernandez on behalf of the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong, Mr. Chok Chin You on behalf of the late Mr.Loh SongChuan, Mr. Mathews George on behalf of the late Mr. Ravindran a/l G.S Paramasivam and Puan

The late Zainuddin, Lau Koh Kong and Loh Song Chuan were all very senior members, the wealth of their experience and knowledge at the Bar will be irreplaceable. The late GSP Ravindran, who was a good friend of mine we share the same passion for our club Liverpool - was a

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullah Wabarokatuh dan Salam Sejahtera

www.johorebar.org.my 41

INFO JOHORE BAR

Rodziah binti Idris on behalf of Allahyarhamah Puan Norisah binti Abu Aman, deceased members of the Bar and Mr.S. Gunasegaran on behalf of the Bar Council, Mr. R. Jayabalan on behalf of members of the Johor Bar, Members of the Judicial and Legal Services, Members of the Bar, distinguished Guests Ladies and Gentlemen. This is yet another occasion where we have gathered here this morningon this sad occasion to pay tribute to the memory and last respect to Allahyarham En. Zainuddin bin Embong, the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong, the late Loh Song Chuan, the late Mr. Ravindran a/l G.S Paramasivam and Allahyarhamah Puan Norisah binti Abu Aman, deceased members of the Bar and their respective eulogies read. Death is a sorrowful occasion and our memories of the dead ones are always so mingled with sadness as to make us regard the occasion with the utmost solemnity. Death awaits for no one, it struck at the preordained time and place. To the deceased members, it became very clear that one distinctive feature which is present in all of them that they were distinguished and dedicated members of the Bar steeped in the finest traditions of the professions discharging their noble duties as an advocate and solicitor in the true spirit of the Bar ‘without fear or favour’ Although it was not my privilege to have known them personally during my tenure as an office bearer of the Bar Council from 1997 to 2003 and later as a Judge of the High Court, Malaya, I wish to associate myself with the very eloquent and all the sincere tributes that have been made to them and as practicing members of the Bar all of them enjoy the respect and affection with which they were regarded by all those who had the privilege of coming in contact with them. Before we adjourned, permit me to say a few words about the departed members of the Bar although I personally have not had the privilege of knowing all the departed members of the Bar. Allahyarham En. Zainuddin bin Embong untimely demised on the 5th March 2014 and the age of 57 years in the Holy Land of Mecca is a loss to the family, the Bench and the Bar. However as a Muslim, to be called upon to meet your maker in the Holy Land is what most Muslim hope to be. To his wife, children and family I urge upon them to be patient at all times since ‘Every Soul Shall Have a Taste of

Death and Allah has also commanded ‘ To God We Belong, and to Him Is Our Return.’ Inna –LillahiwainnaIlaihirajiun and to the Muslim let’s recite the Surah Al-Fatihah for Allahyarham. It is without doubt that Allahyarham En Zainuddin was always humble, cheerful, ambitious and industrious. These attributes had indeed helped him to make him a lawyer. He was a man of high responsibility as a senior member of the Bar ready to render any assistance whenever it was required. He was well respected for his humble and kind gesture and was never hesitant in sharing his vast experience at the Bar for 27 years. Great men are judged by their little deeds, so the saying goes. His sudden demised is sadly missed by his wife, children, mother and members of Bar and the Bench. May his soul be placed amongst the ‘ambia and suhadah’. The late Mr. Lau Koh Kong untimely demised on 11th August 2014 is also a loss to his family, the Bench and the Bar. The deceased was a senior member of the Bar, a Barrister at- law of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and was admitted and enrolled as Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on 8th June 1984. He practiced under the name and style of Messrs Lau Koh Kong & Associate in Kulai. It has been brought to my attention that the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong comes from an illustrious family of lawyers It is an honour and privilege to know that retired Court of Appeal Judge, Datuk Wira Lau Hop Beng, who is present this morning is a brother of the deceased. I am also informed two of the children of the deceased are also lawyers and practice in the deceased’s firm. I myself did not have the pleasure of knowing the deceased personally, but the voice of good report has travelled through these Courts about him and I appreciate that very many of you here this morning feel that you have lost a personal friend and it is difficult to avoid a feeling of personal loss as we have rarely experienced before. Our hearts go out to the family in their great bereavement and if it help them to sustain their sorrow with greater fortitude I would like them to know that they do not grieve alone. His name will be gratefully remembered by lawyers and those connected with the legal profession. He has passed on. To his family he now belongs to history. May the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong rest in peace. The late Mr. Loh Song Chuan @ Law Song Chuan a senior member of the Johor Bar died peacefully on 1st November 2014. Joined the Singapore Police Force and resigned from the Force with the rank of an Inspector to pursue his life-

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

long ambition to become a lawyer and had to struggle hard. Upon graduating with a Bachelor’s Law Degree and CLP, the late Mr. Loh Song Chuan practice the name and style of Messrs Loh & Rengga and had offices in Johor Bahru, Pontain and Batu Pahat. The deceased was a humble but a quiet and unassuming person socially and professionally. His untimely death is a great loss to his family, the Bench and the Bar. On behalf of the judiciary, my colleagues and I would extend our most heartfelt condolences to the family of the late Mr. Loh Song Chuan. May his soul rest in peace. The late Mr. Ravindran a/l Paramasivam better known as ‘GSP Ravi’ passed away peacefully on 7th December 2014 at the age of 57 years. Like the late Mr. Loh Song Chuan, the late Mr. GSP Ravin also quit the teaching profession to pursue his life –long ambition to be a lawyer and read law at Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 23rd April 2006 where he joined the firm of Messrs R.R Mahendran & Co and took over the practice of the firm after the demised of the late Mr. R.R Mahendran and practiced as a soleproprietor under the name and style of Messrs G.S.P Ravindran & Co. His practice was mainly in the criminal courts. The deceased was also an ardent member of the Bar and will render any assistance in any Bar’s activity. He was a popular figure among the members of the Johor Bar. It would be no exaggeration to say that all who came in contact with him have occasion to remember him either for some favour done or some word of kindness and encouragement. His sudden demised is a great loss to the family, Bench and Bar. May I and my colleagues on behalf of the judiciary extend our heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family members and may his soul rest in peace.

become a lawyer. I would like to commend her gallant effort in striving hard to achieve what she treasured most in life, the pursuit of her deep devotion to the study of law and wanting to do her part in the administration of justice. Unfortunately her untimely demised has prevented her to materialize her dream. I am glad to know the her daughter will soldier on to relive the fond memories of her mother and dedicated her practice to her late mother. We have to accept this untimely demised with humility and full faith in God more so when He has commanded ‘Nor Can a Soul Die Except by God’s leave, the Term Being Fixed as By Writing.’ May I and my colleagues on behalf of the judiciary extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Allahyarhamah Pn. Norisah binti Abu Aman recite the surah Al-Fatihah for her. InnaLillahiwainnaIllahirajiun. May I in conclusion say that although we have lost them but their memories will always be cherished by us. In conclusion, I once again wish to extend my heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies on behalf of the judiciary, to the families and friends of the deceased in their sorrow. I would therefore make an order that a copy of the proceedings be kept in the archives of this Court and a copy thereof be forwarded to all the families to whom we all have extended our heartfelt condolences. Thank you for your presence and Court is adjourned. Wabillahi Taufiq Walhidayah Warahmatullahi Wabarokatuh.

Wassalammualaikum

Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak Judge High Court of Malaya, Johor Bahru

Allahyarhamah Norisah binti Abu Aman untimely death on 18th December 2014 is a great loss to her family, the Bench and the Bar. The deceased was fondly known among her colleagues as ‘Kak Nor’ as shining example of a person who will never give up until she had achieved her life long ambition to become a lawyer. Though busy with her other work commitment, Allahyarhamah struggled hard to achieve her ambition by enrolling herself in long distance learning at the University of Malaya and through her dedication, hard working and perseverance, she graduated in LLB (Jurisprudence) in 2003 and passed her CLP in 2012. It took her about almost 8 years to achieve her life- long ambition to

www.johorebar.org.my 43

INFO JOHORE BAR

High-Tea to Welcome YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali As Judicial Commissioner of the High Court in Johor Bahru The Social Committee of the Johore Bar organised a High Tea at Grand BlueWave Hotel, Johor Bahru on 16 June 2015, to welcome YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, who has been posted as Judicial Commissioner in Johor Bahru on 20 Apr 2015. The event was attended by 50 members of the Johore Bar and four Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the High Court in Johor Bahru, Director of Johor Courts and Chairman of the Industrial Court, Johor Bahru.

SPEECH BY MR R JAYABALAN

It is the tradition of the Johore Bar to officially receive the new judge with a welcoming hi-tea. The purpose is to introduce the judge to our members and to give an opportunity for the judge to get to know us in a less formal environment. Let me now give a brief introduction of our new JC : His formal education commenced at Sekolah Sultan Sulaiman 1, Kuala Terengganu in 1974 and then Sekolah Sri Petaling, Selangor before moving on to St. Michael's Institution, Ipoh and Malay College, Kuala Kangsar in 1984.

Fellow members of the Bar, good evening. We are gathered today to welcome our guest of honour, the new Judicial Commissioner YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali who had recently assumed office at the High Court at Johor Bahru. Yang Arif is present here with his charming spouse Puan Norhaidawati binti Mohamad Tahir. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to our High Court Judges Hakim Utama Yang Arif Dato' Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak, Yang Arif Tuan Teo Say Eng and Judicial Commissioners Yang Arif Dato' Mat Zara'ai Bin Alias and YA Dr Sabirin Ja'afar. Thank you for joining us in welcoming your brother judge. Greetings as well to Puan Rohani Binti Ismail, Sessions Judge and Pengarah Mahkamah Johor and Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor, the Chairman of the Industrial Court Johor Bahru. Yang Arif Tuan Mohd Nazlan was appointed as Judicial Commissioner on 10.4.2015 and commenced duty at Johor Bahru on 20.4.2015. The Johore Bar Committee paid a courtesy call on Yang Arif on 13.5.2015 and introduced ourself.

YA then did his A-levels at the Warwick School, England before enrolling into the prestigious Oxford University to pursue Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence between 1987-1990. Upon completion, he joined the Lincoln's Inn to obtain his Barrister at Law in 1991. YA commenced chambering in 1991 at Messrs Shook Lin & Bok and was briefly in practice before leaving to do his Master of Arts at Oxford again in 1995. Upon his return and between 1994 — 1997 YA was attached to the Securities Commission under the Takeovers & Mergers Unit in various positions; starting from Executive Officer then rising to Senior Executive Officer and Assistant Manager. Between 1997 —1998 YA was appointed as the Manager & Special Assistant to Executive Chairman & Secretary to the Commission of the Securities Commission. Then between 1998 — 2000 YA took up the position of General Manager & Head, Enforcement Division, Securities Commission. In the year 2000 YA came back to practice with Zaid Ibrahim & Co. in Kuala Lumpur. He was made a partner there and

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

took the position Head of Equity Capital Markets. YA left practice in 2005 and joined Malayan Banking Berhad as its Company Secretary & Head of Corporate Services. In 2006 he became the Group General Counsel & Company Secretary and also Group Head, Corporate & Legal Services for Malayan Banking Berhad. YA served Malayan Banking in that capacity until 2015 when he was appointed as Judicial Commissioner by the YDPA on 10.4.2015 One can understand that being appointed as a judge cannot be easy. It comes with heavy burden of expectation, trust and responsibility. It requires a thirst for knowledge and diligence, not only in hearing litigants and deciding cases, but also in the area of case management. Exercising judicial powers, judicial temperament and ensuring justice to litigants before the Courts is a great responsibility. Your decision reaches out of the confines of your courtroom and resonates within the society. The society places a lot of trust on the courts and looks up to the courts to resolve their misery and grievances. Take away the courts, and the society has no place left to seek justice. Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad lqbal, the Chief Justice from Lahore High Court in his article "The Role of Lawyers and Judges' published in (1977) 1 MU viii wrote : " A sine qua non for law and order in a society is that the public should have a complete confidence in the Law Courts of the country because when that is shaken, it becomes doubtful that law and order could be maintained. The failure of the system of law and order jeopardizes the entire democratic system. The common man looks to the Law Courts for the vindication of his basic rights and when he loses faith in them, he is likely to resort to the law of the jungle. By instilling into people distrust in the machinery of justice, society returns to a state of affairs where private feuds and vendettas are the law of the land, the outcome of which is disorder and anarchy. Take away the faith in the Courts and the last bastion is down. If our independences has to be maintained, justice has to prevail in the land. If the country is to be saved from despair, its confidence in the Judges should be strengthened. Failure there, is bound to result in chaos." This was written in 1977 and I think it remains very relevant today especially in the wake of legislations that

are chipping away fundamental liberties, judicial powers and restricting judicial discretion; the latest of which is the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA) and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948. It must have been a big change for Yang Arif â&#x20AC;&#x201D; coming from corporate settings and stepping into the judicial settings â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and having to deal with lawyers on a daily basis now. This change must be a challenge as well for Yang Arif and your family. More so when upon appointment Yang Arif was sent straight down to Johor Bahru from your familiar settings of Kuala Lumpur. I hope now that Yang Arif has been here for the last 1 month or so, we have made a good first impression and Yang Arif will grow to like Johor Bahru and Johore lawyers in the process. Let me say a few words about the Johore Bar. The Johore Bar Committee is a creature of statute. It comes into existence under s 68-70 of the Legal Profession Act 1976. Generally the Committee manages the affairs of the State Bar and its members. The Johore Bar, with 1,828 lawyers is now the 3rd largest state Bar in the country. We strongly believe in fostering a close rapport with the Bench that is based upon mutual understanding and respect. This is necessary to establish a good working relationship between the Bar and the Bench so that both sides are able to carry out their respective role meaningfully in the administration of justice. And hence the various traditions that we have here at the Johore Bar when it comes to Bar-Bench relationship â&#x20AC;&#x201D; some of which Yang Arif might have heard already. It is unavoidable that from time to time there can be issue in the workings of the courts and administration of justice. The good relationship has helped us to resolve our problems in an amicable manner and without the necessity of taking it further up in the hierarchy. Of course sometimes some problems cannot be resolved the way that we want but the relationship has helped us to at least pleasantly discuss the unpleasant. For this, I must record my appreciation to all the judges and judicial commissioners for being receptive to the Bar's concerns. I must particularly thank the Senior Judge Yang Arif Dato' Sofian for being pro-active and readiness to

www.johorebar.org.my 45

INFO JOHORE BAR

listen to our concerns. On behalf of the Johore Bar, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as the Judicial Commissioner and welcome you to Johor Bahru. We look forward to establish the same cordial working relationship with you. I pledge the Johore Bar's full support and co-operation to Yang Arif in carrying out your judicial responsibility. We wish for Yang Arif to enjoy a long and distinguished career on the Bench. We also hope for your family and you to have a pleasant stay in Johor Bahru. I along with the rest of us look forward to hearing from you shortly. Finally thank you Ms Gunn for organizing this wonderful hi-tea. R. JAYABALAN Speech by YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, Judicial Commissioner of the Johor Bahru High Court

Hakim Utama YA Dato Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak, YA Tuan Teo Say Eng, YA Dato Mat Zaraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ai Alias and YA Dr Sabirin Jaafar, Mr. R Jayabalan, the Honourable Chairman of the Johore Bar, Committee members distinguished guests and members of the Johore Bar. Assalamualaikum and good evening. First and foremost I would like to say how very grateful I am to the Johore Bar Committee for according me this privilege of having a special welcoming high tea event organized in my honor. I wish to also thank the Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee and members of the Committee for meeting me last month. That meeting provided me with an excellent introduction to the Johore Bar, which I surmise

must be one of the more active State Bars in the country. Reading the previous publications of the Bulletin of the Johore Bar, I am sure that the many activities organized by the Committee, both relating to legal practice as well as educational, social and recreational have been found most beneficial in not only strengthening the Bar but also in promoting an effective relationship with the Bench. Indeed, I see not an insignificant part of the December 2014 Bulletin being dedicated to articles not only welcoming new judges or judicial commissioners, but also on their promotions, elevations, and transfers. The year 2014 must therefore have been a very busy year for the Johore Bar Committee in its extra-judicial engagement with the Judges of the High Courts in JB. As the third largest State Bar in the country, the Johor Bar's steadfast adherence to its long tradition of honoring the judiciary on such occasions in my view is an important example that reflects the common belief held by those who care for the betterment of the nation of the need for a relationship of mutual trust, understanding and respect between Bar and Bench. As we all know, although it is clear that the roles of judges and lawyers are far from identical, we certainly have many common features, and one overriding single common function in the administration of justice. The performance of the duties involved in each role is made easier the more satisfactorily the duties of the other role are performed. To that ideal each side of the bar table should always aspire. The late Tun Suffian Hashim had made it very clear that the independence of the Bench and the independence of the Bar are the twin pillars of the Rule of Law. I am sure many would agree that it is indeed tough to envisage a society which could be characterized as being governed by The Rule of Law unless it has an independent judiciary. It is probably almost equally difficult to find one which could be so characterized unless it has an independent legal profession. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am sure many, if not all of you were previously wondering about my background or were asking an even more basic question as to who I was or if anyone had even heard of my name before, when it appeared in the letter on the transfer order issued by YAA Chief Judge of Malaya. I hope the kind introduction

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

made by the Chairman of the Johor Bar a short while ago, has addressed some of the questions you may have. Indeed I was probably even less familiar to the Bench that I should probably be to the Bar since I used to be a member of the Bar during different periods earlier in my working career. In fact, a standard question posed to me by a number of judges at the Annual Judges Conference April this year was whether I was from the Bar, or from the Bench's subordinate courts. Each time I replied neither Bar nor Bench, and stating instead I am from the Bank, of course in reference to Maybank being the largest bank in the country. My career background is probably non conventional when compared to that of most in the judiciary but I have found and relished the endless challenge in the complexities of the law in my experience as a legal practitioner, securities regulator and general counsel of a corporation, all of which involved the practice and administration of the law. I certainly now consider it a profound privilege and both an onerous as well as an enormous responsibility for me to play a role in applying the law to the questions and disputes we witness today. In the process, I strive not to fail to appreciate the real world consequences of judicial decisions on individuals, businesses and government. Indeed at my judicial oath taking ceremony with four other new Judicial Commissioners in April, we were reminded by YAA the RH CJ of Malaysia that judges must always remember the oath we declared on our appointment which of course includes to defend the Constitution. In fact judges were advised to place a copy of the oath on our office tables so that we are constantly reminded of the same. Ladies and Gentlemen, In my close to 2 months here in JB, in hearing cases at Civil Court No 3, I have had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing nothing but a display of fine advocacy, professionalism and courtesy by lawyers who have appeared before me so far which Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sure is not entirely due to CRT. The operative words are "so far", and I am not sure if this suggests that some JB lawyers are still somehow on long vacation or that the KL lawyers have not yet this year deemed the fees worthy of their appearance in JB. In any event I am truly hopeful that my brother judges and I in JB continue to enjoy an effective support from, and

a cordial relationship with, the Bar in the common pursuit of the administration of justice. Although my posting to JB represents the first time that I have to work outside of Kuala Lumpur since I started working in 1991, my family and I look forward to enjoying our stay in this beautiful and vibrant city of JB. Never once did it cross our minds that we should drive along the causeway to visit neighboring Singapore. Of course it does not quite help that we have no idea how long my tenure in JB will be but we certainly aspire that whilst we are here we should find time to explore JB and its surroundings, which are famed for its many attractions and places of interest. Since "finding time" are the operative words, so far we have focused our visits primarily on JB City Square. Before my appointment we had much earlier managed to find time to visit JPO a few times. As this is my first time outside KL, I initially accepted the news of my posting with a certain sense of anxiety. However I must say that within days I was able to make myself quite comfortably at home here in JB and this smooth transition was made possible by the support given to my family and I by brother judges, the Bar and court staff. Ladies and Gentlemen, Before I end this short thank you speech, I wish again to thank the Johore Bar Committee for having this event, and its members for taking the trouble to attend this event, and brother judges who turned up in full force, for your presence. I look forward to working with all of you towards strengthening the relationship between Bar and Bench and enhancing further the quality of the administration of justices in this State and in the country. As the Holy month of Ramadan is fast approaching, I wish to take this opportunity to wish every Muslim in attendance, "Selamat Berpuasa", and at the same time gently remind everyone that during Ramadhan, the Courts will start hearing cases at 8.30 a.m. Thank you. Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Johor Bahru

www.johorebar.org.my 47

INFO JOHORE BAR

Current Issues relating to RPGT and Stamp Duty [Answers given by the LDHN on 20-8-2014] On 20 August 2014, the Johore Bar Committee had a fruitful discussion with the Inland Revenue Board *LHDN – Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri+. A circular was issued to that effect. Various issues relating to the Real Property Gains Tax *RPGT+ and the Stamp Duty were discussed. Some doubts have been cleared. Conveyancing practitioners would do well to take note of this. The RPGT officer has given written answers in response to the various queries raised by the JBC. This article highlights the salient points discussed at the meeting. But since the meeting was held last year *2014+, it has been updated in this article in the light of amendments made pursuant to the 2015 Budget Speech. The relevant amendments to the RPGT Act by the 2015 Budget Speech, are incorporated in the Finance Act (No.2) 2014, which takes effect from 1 January 2015. THE SALIENT POINTS RELATING TO RPGT (Incorporating amendments made pursuant to the Budget Speech 2015)

By Yang Pei Keng – 7 May 2015

Note: The rates of RPGT payable by a company *whether foreign or local+ in the year 2015 remain the same as those payable in the year 2014. 4. Evidence to be produced (if there is no record of acquisition) If the seller *disposer+ has no record of acquisition of the property, he may produce the following evidence to prove the details of acquisition: 1. Sale and purchase agreement 2. Transfer form If the disposal took place within 5 years of his purchase, the seller may produce copy of the document of title *e.g. Grant+ as proof of his date of acquisition. For any property bought *acquired+ before 1.1.1970, the value of the property as at 1.1.1970 will be taken into account: Schedule 2, para 4, also Finance (No.2) Act 2014.

1.Retention sum - 3% is to be withheld from 1-1-2015 The buyer *acquirer+ has to withhold 3% *not 2%+ of the purchase price, and remit it to the Inland Revenue Board *LHDN+. *Note: With effect from 1-1-2015, the retention sum has been increased from 2% to 3%: see s.21B RPGT Act 1976.+ 2. Disposal with no gain There is no need to remit the retention sum to the Board if the seller *disposer+ makes no gain. But Form CKHT 3 must be submitted. For example, where the selling price is less than the seller’s acquisition price, the seller need not remit any retention sum to the Board. Illustration1: If Seller bought a house for RM900,000, and sold it for RM800,000, no retention sum is required, because he sold the property at a loss. 3. Rates of RPGT for disposal by a company in 2014 If a company sold its real property within 5 years after acquiring the property, the RPGT rates payable in the year 2014, *as shown in the minutes of the meeting+, were as follows *see Schedule 5, part II+:    

30% of the gain in year 1 30% in year 2 30% in year 3 20% in year 4 15% in year 5 5% in year 6 and thereafter

If any CKHT form is submitted without evidence of acquisition, the form will be returned. 5. No RPGT is payable by administrator/executor a.The date of acquisition of an administrator/executor = the date of death of the deceased *See Schedule 2, para 15B+. (The earlier date of purchase by the deceased is not to be taken into account) b.The market value as at the date of death of the deceased = acquisition price of the administrator/executor (not the price paid by the deceased at a much earlier date). c.Transmission to the executor/administrator: No gain, no loss. Therefore No RPGT is payable. The date of disposal is deemed to be the same as the date of acquisition. d.Transfer by executor/administrator to a beneficiary: No gain, no loss. No RPGT is payable. e.Transfer by an executor to any third party *say pursuant to a Court Order+ or a buyer: RPGT is payable if there is a gain. f.Transfer by an administrator to the beneficiary pursuant to the Distribution Act: No RPGT is payable. g.Transfer by an administrator to any third party (other than the beneficiary) pursuant to a Court Order *other than the beneficiary+ or a buyer:The administrator has to pay RPGT if there is a gain.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

*NB: Under the National Land code, the administrator/executor must be described as “as representative” (sebagai Wakil) (and not as administrator or executor) in the transfer form for the transfer to the beneficiary or any third party.+

purposes, a copy of such documents or receipts may be produced, but the original has to be produced for inspection by the RPGT officer. 10. Legal fees for bank loans – not allowed as “incidental costs”?

6.Disposal of assets of a deceased citizen If a non-permanent resident administrator (say a Singaporean) of the estate of a deceased Malaysian disposes of the assets of the estate: RPGT is payable (for the RPGT rates payable, see Schedule 5, Part 1, since it is the sale of the estate of a Malaysian deceased). 7. Conditional Agreement (not involving approval by the Authorities) – must remit 3% The retention sum has to be remitted even for conditional agreements. Retention sum of 2% *now 3%+ must be remitted for disposal under any type of sale and purchase agreement, except those cases exempt from RPGT as stated in Form CKHT 3 (e.g. gifts etc.) 8. Conditional agreement - remittance to be made within 60 days of date of SPA

Legal fees paid for obtaining loans and for Discharge of Charge are not allowed as incidental costs. The reason given is that such expenditure does not come within the definition of “incidental costs” under Schedule 2, para 6. Comment: This is an extremely restrictive interpretation of the meaning of “cost of transfer” under para 6 relating to “incidental costs”. In order to acquire or buy a property, you need to pay all legal fees for the transfer and the charge documents for completing the transfer of the property to the acquirer. Completion of the transfer of the property, entails payment of all costs incidental to the transfer *such as legal fees and stamp duty on the Transfer and the Charge, as well as the Discharge of Charge. “Costs of transfer” should therefore be given liberal interpretation to mean “the costs of completing the transfer, and not merely the costs for attending to the memorandum of transfer only”. 11. Penalties for late filing

The retention sum under a conditional agreement *not involving the approval from an authority+ must be remitted within 60 days of the signing of the conditional agreement (not after the condition has been fulfilled.) even though the condition is yet to be fulfilled. Exception: A conditional agreement requiring the approval of the EPU *Economic Planning Unit+, the seller may remit the retention sum after obtaining the approval. *See Schedule 2, para 16+ *16(a) Where … the acquisition or disposal requires the approval by the Government, etc. the date of disposal shall be the date of such approval.+ Johor Corporation: But if the conditional agreement requires the approval of Johor Corporation, the retention sum must be remitted to the Board within 60 days of the signing of the agreement. Johor Corporation is not an “authority or committee” appointed by the government. 9. Documents/ receipts for incidental costs The original documents or receipts for incidental costs *e.g. legal fees, stamp duty, broker’s commission, etc.+ must be produced. If the original documents or receipts are required for other

In law, a penalty equivalent to 3 times the amount of the RPGT payable will be imposed for late filing for the year concerned. *See s.29(3) of the RPGT Act+, but such provision has not been strictly adhered to. As at today, the penalties imposed by the Board are as follows:    

10% for delay up to 12 months 15% 24 months 20% 36 months 25% more than 36 months

 

RM100 minimum penalty for an individual. RM200 minimum penalty for non-individual.

12. Reasons for rejecting RPGT forms Form incomplete: Where RPGT forms submitted are incomplete, they may be returned and the date chop on the forms will be cancelled. A covering letter from the Board returning the forms will be issued. No tax ref. No.: Any RPGT form *CKHT 1A, 1B and 2A+ submitted without showing the tax reference number will not be rejected. *Note: The answer is silent on CKHT3 without tax reference number+.

www.johorebar.org.my 49

INFO JOHORE BAR

13. Paying income tax (instead of RPGT ) – no retention sum required If a disposer *not a developer+ intends to pay corporate tax, instead of RPGT, he does not have to withhold or remit the 3% retention sum. Any person doing the business of selling and buying real property is subject to income tax, but not RPGT.

18. Stamping documents for loans granted in foreign currencies Stamping a document for a loan given in any foreign currency, will be done through the STAMPS system. Example given: Type of document: Loan Agreement *in foreign currency+ Amount of loan: SGD10,000 x RM2.50 = RM25,000 19. Ad valorem stamp duty on “factoring” agreements

14. Transfer of houses by any developer *for settling debts+ Where a developer transfers houses as consideration for settling the debt due and owing to his supplier, he has to pay income tax on such transfers. No RPGT is payable. No retention sum is required.

A “factoring” agreement usually attracts RM10 stamp duty only: item 32(c) First Schedule, Stamp Act. But the explanation given is that a factoring agreement is a loan, and therefore, ad valorem stamp duty is payable: item 22 or item 27, Stamp Act. But “assigning book debt” which is a loan agreement, attracts RM10 stamp duty only under item 32(c).

ISSUES RELATING TO STAMP DUTY 15. Stamping principal and subsidiary Documents Subsidiary documents *e.g. any letter of guarantee and power of attorney+ can be stamped together with the principal documents *e.g. any facility agreement and charge document+. But the principal agreement must be stamped first before stamping the subsidiary document. 16. Rejection of documents because of Errors Inspection of documents will be made by the Board before rejecting them. Usually, common mistakes are typo errors, such as NRIC number, address of the property, dates, names of the parties, etc. Solicitors are advised to check the type-written particulars before submitting the documents. 17. Payment of stamp duty by way of bank draft or client account cheque Payment of stamp duty by way of bank draft or client account cheque will only be accepted by the Board within 3 days from the date of issue of the bankdraft or client account cheque. (Why 3 days only when a cheque is valid for 6 months?) Such ruling has caused unnecessary inconvenience or hardship to law firms. The Johore Bar Committee made a request for a longer period of time for such purpose. But no direct answer was given. Instead, to solve the problem, the Board has introduced the ePayment system to facilitate payment by solicitors. Such ePayment will help expedite the process and reduce the cost of operation of the law firms concerned.

“The absolute sale of any account receivables or book debts to a bank” should attract stamp duty under item 32(a). But if it refers to a factoring agreement, it attracts RM10 stamp duty under item 32(c). 20. 0.1% stamping duty on any “clean loan” Any loan not secured by a bank charge *e.g. by a loan agreement, loan document or personal guarantee+ is known as a “clean loan” in the banking industry. If such “clean loan’ is repayable on demand or by lump sum payment, stamp duty payable is only 0.1% *item 22(1)(b), see PU(A) 258+. On the other hand, if the loan is secured by a charge, stamp duty is payable under item 27(a)(iii) of Schedule 1. 21. Cancellation of stamp duty in the System. Cancellation of stamp duty can be effected in the System. An application must first be made, and the stamp duty paid will be refunded if the conditions under s.57 or s.58 of the Stamp Act 1949 have been complied with. 22. SME in the Stamp Act vis-à-vis SME Corporation The 2 definitions are not the same. The Stamp Duty Division takes note of the amendment of the definition of SME, which took effect from 1.1.2014. In the light of the joint discussion of Bahagian Analisa Cukai, Ministry of Finance, the existing interpretation remains and applies, until the Stamp Act has been amended. It is subject to the policy laid down by the Ministry of Finance.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

PAGES OF POETRY- A Meandering Mind S. Balarajah Four and fifty years ago on the 30th of October 1961 proceedings were held in the Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur to welcome Mr Justice Mohamed Suffian to the bench of the High Court, Malaya. Those present in Court for the ceremony were the then Attorney-General C.M. Sheridan, Registrar of the Supreme Court S.S Gill and the Chairman of the Bar Council, Malaya, R. Ramani. The Bar Chair, Ramani in his felicitatory address inter alia said: “These days it is unfashionable to refer to the traditions of British colonialism in any terms of praise. But I am unashamed to confess before you today that we, the Bench and Bar of this country are the heirs to three noble traditions deriving from that colonialism: first of all, the English Language, secondly the British system of justice: and lastly and by no means least important the British spirit of democracy.” People proclaim that history is written by the victors. Those who were colonialized by the colonialists be they the British , the French, the Spanish the Dutch or the Portugese say that their history is written by the colonialists. They claim that the Colonialists seem to inform them and educate all as to where we come from where we are and where we are heading to. They seem all knowing and all powerful. It appears that amongst the colonialists the British were perhaps the most benevolent. The system of Government (of course some freedom fighters and successors in the newfound regimes have adulterated and screwed up democratic notions and teachings and taken on more powers than what an English style democracy allows) and the doctrine of separation of powers are all left to us by the benevolent colonialists. These are in fact remnants of our colonial past, are they not? But we have polluted and adulterated them beyond recognition to near autocratic and dictatorial

governments. All organs of the government transformed to organs of people in power. The white Tuans were, on careful reflection, not too evil. They had embedded in the breasts a degree and fairness and their hands were guided by justice and their hearts full of benevolence an not greed and avariciousness. But the brown tuans and the black ones in some jurisdictions have brought their countries to doom dereliction and gloom. Like the whore in Jalan Meldrum and the cab driver in Jalan Ah Fook they say “jemput naik” only to bring their citizenry to doom and gloom. The Malaysian Penal Code and CPC were brought into the then Malaya from India by the English. The Indian Penal Code Evidence Act and Contracts Act were all brought by the English from India. First brought to the Straits Settlement and then to the rest of the Malay States. That is why we use Pollock and Mulla, Sarkar on Evidence and Ratanlal on Crimes etc. In the Highway Code you will find under Rule 25 this wee 4 liner: “Here Lies the body of Jonathan Gray, Who died maintaining his right of way, He was quite in the right as he sped along, But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.” An English Testator in his last Will and Testament penned: “As to all my worldly goods now, or to be, in store, I give to my beloved wife and hers for evermore. I give all freely, I no limit fix: This is my will, and she’s executrix.” A wise one once said that the English language is “the key to the world’s brains.” Narrow minded and parochial nationalists have deprived few generations of Malaysians from speaking the BBC or the Queen’s English as we once used to! Some politicians who have by default and effluxion of time have become leaders in public statutory and Governmental outlets of the nation can hardly hold a proper or fair conversation in the English Language. It is most embarrassing to see them on the International stage. An international embarrassment indeed but does anybody really care?. Don’t we owe to the English minds and civilization a whole world of gratitude for enriching our lives. The education and edification we received from wordsmiths like Byron Shakespeare Shelly Terryson GB Shaw

www.johorebar.org.my 51

INFO JOHORE BAR

Maugham etc cannot be measured. They all penned in English and their contribution to literature cannot be measured. India is a land of multitude of peoples, religions, languages tribes etc etc but somehow they preserved and promoted the English language. Some of the current popular writers of the English Language are from India China Indonesia and Japan are currently promoting the study of the English language. Some English have a wicked sense of humour. Be a little flippant and read of what Robert Burns (was he not a Scot?) wrote on rings and marriages: Robert Burns and The 3 rings. We have all heard it repeated ad nauseam in many a wedding banquet – “engagement ring, wedding ring and suffer-ring”! But Robert Burns (“Auld Lang Syne”) also wrote that there are 3 rings in a marriage. The engagement ring, the wedding ring and the suffering. He further wrote: “She asked why wedding rings are made of gold: I ventured this to instruct her: Why madam love and lightning are the same, On earth they glance from heaven they came. Love is the soul’s electric flame And gold its best conductor.” - Robert Burns Ibohal Kshetrimayum – An Indian Poet K. Ravikant Singh 61 years of age from India, is a Civil Engineer. Works as a Project Engineer in Shillong, India. (The place where former India President Abdul Kalem collapsed and passed away recently). His nom-de-plume is Ibohal Kshetrimayum. His famously accepted poem – “Who caused the Ripples?” was published in the last issue of INFO. A critic K. Satchidandan in a review after an interview with Ibohal says that the poet is an all time poet who never forces poetry to come out of him. He would wait and pontificate and then it comes to him in the form of scenes and images. Sometimes in his dreams and it explains the quantity of poems which are dreamy and dusky.

Ibohal crafted the rather quaint poem and titled it “BLACK”. It is like a rustic village tale. But it is said to be partially true. It is about his childhood acquaintance of his whose name was Musuk (“Black”). The protagonist Black, Ibohal’s old friend passed on in 1974. The poet penned that Black was born into a noble family of Brahmins but soon became an outcaste and a thief who was hated by all the villagers. As if in a Tamil/Hindi cinema fashion the poet and Black fall for the same lassie. To befriend the girl, Black stole the poet’s new shirt and walked past the poet with the girl in his arms wearing the poet’s shirt!. This shattered the poet. Black not only stole the poet’s shirt but also the girl of his dreams! What a twin shalter! Much later one cold January day Black was found hanging on a tree. Dead. The poet loved him and took back the shirt and kept it clean and safe. He has a forgiving heart and forgave Black for stealing his shirt and his heart! Strange, one is minded to say. But men’s ways are always strange, are they not. No magic or acute philosophy in “Black” but it shows the feelings of the poet and the love he had for a friend who was despised by the rest of the community. The words “he surprised me with his other colours” says much. Nicely coined. There is goodness even in a thief. Is this not a universally accepted truth? The sad and mundane poem goes like this: BLACK Black was a thief, who stole anything between pots and clothes. Son of a pundit, he became a thief, and humiliated the Brahmins. I did not want to be a thief but we were friends, Black and I. All hated him, but he surprised me with his other colors. We fell in love with the same woman, who loved him over me. I spat venom,

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

when Black walked past me with her in his arms wearing my new shirt I couldn’t find the other day sometime between noon and dusk. Sad and defeated, with vengeance nibbling my heart, I returned home late. I found my shirt on the bed, with a note from Black: “Sorry!! I’d to look clean for her.” On a frozen January morning they found his body, hanging from a tree. Now he has paid for her, said those who hated him; but I heard her tears saying - They killed him! I forgave him for the shirt and his love for her, and I still keep the shirt clean.

I'll still be living in a poverty that assaults my country. It's an irony that a land filled with milk and honey, Still cries "no money", With it's leaders becoming millionaires every second, And the people, poorer every minute, Thus making the leaders billionaires every hour, And the people paupers every day. A nation that sighs and cries for debt relief, Deceiving the world to believe in it's grief, But in reality, the leaders are living in luxury, Embezzling without thinking of me -, A poor, poor child with no hopes of being who I want to be. It's so hard living in a third world country That even if I somehow happened to win a lottery,

Nnamdi Osu (Nigeria)

I'll still be living in a poverty that The poet Nnamdi Osu is from Nigeria assaults my country and writes: “I’m just an average person trying to lighten the stress in this world And now a short poem of fellows who by offering inspiration poems, articles claim to be leaders and who bless us with nightmares by an Indian poet Vijay and advices through what I love best” Vishal. Vijay Vishal is from India and of the Poet, Bijay Kant Dubey wrote: “Vijay Vishal as an Indian English poet Is an author of two collections Published from Writers Workshop, Calcutta, Namely, Speechless Messages and Parting Wish

Reflections Of A Third World Child It's so hard living in a third world country

Born in 1949 at his maternal village, Mirzazaan Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab Vishal is a native of Amrtitsar Who did his M.A in English From Khalsa college, Amritsar in 1971”

That even if I somehow happened to win a lottery,

Portrait Of A Politician - Vijay Vishal A canker Who cankers the very wood Wherein he stays. A climber Who sucks The marrow of those Who nursed and nourished him With pills and potions of power. A snake Who stings and bites Those Who managed milk for him. Makes promises Which Never means to fulfill Wears smiles Which Emerge not from the heart Preaches precepts Which Flouts with impunity Propounds principles Which Violates with a vengeance. Swears by poverty But shuns the poor Castigates riches But sheathes the rich Declares war on corruption But shields the corrupt Loudly advises frugality But rolls in regality. A living and licentious example Not Of service-above-self But Service-unto-self.

Nowadays watching CNN BBC or CNA is altogether depressing. Malaysian News, Syrian news, ISIS news – all news reports are most depressing. Perhaps the Hindus are right – it is “Kali – Yugam” – end days. As Frank Sinatra sang perhaps it may be true that the end is near! As students in London in the 1970’s we spotted a geyzer (a sandwich man) in the Hyde Park

www.johorebar.org.my 53

INFO JOHORE BAR

carrying a poster “The End is Nigh.” Believe he is still around! Everything these days seem to collapse and people are so disappointing and so some of us are minded to say “Stop the world, I want to get down!” “Stop the world I want to get off”, is a musical with a book music and lyrics by Lesle Bricusse and Anthony Newley. The title was derived from a graffito. There was a Warner Brothers fils release in 1966. We may be able to get off but can we get back? Only ONE had a second coming thus far? So, it will be a one-way ticket! Stop The World I Want To Get Off! Stop the world I want to get off, I feel my time here is complete. I,ve no more the wanting nor the will, to stay another sunrise. My time of being calm, humane, has just excelled it's sell by date. So I wish to leave and hold no memories. Stop the world, please let me get off, for I know now I’m in hell. I see no light at the end of my tunnel, where's the heaven on which they speak? I need to find my own escape, perhaps another planet as yet unknown, just launch me there I shant turn around.

“When Roman General, Julius Caesar’s wife Pompeia was criticised for an alleged opprobrious behaviour with a young patrician, Clodius, Caesar divorced his wife despite no crime being proven against both of them., the wife Pompeia and the young Clodius. Caesar said : “My wife ought not even to be under suspicion” Now the desert (No: II) : Palladuz an ancient Greek philosopher said: “There are 2 happy days in a man’s life. They day he takes his bride to bed and The day he lays her in her grave.” And lastly please pass the vintage tawny port. “I can retain neither respect nor affection for a government which has been moving from wrong to wrong in order to defend its immorality.” Mahatma Gandhi S. Balarajah Johore Bar 21.8.2015

Stop the world, I beg to get off, I’m finding dreams a better reality. Within my dreams there are no wars, within a war dreams die too. This earth as got me down to much, I wish to pass on as an entity. To be released from these chains that bind me, so I can sail free to the wind. I beg your acceptance to my request, please stop the world and let me get off. Stop this damn world and let me off.

To wind up the meandering thoughts here are some further and better (?) thoughts! Food For Thought (No: I): Pause ponder and pontificate.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Just for Laughs

Credits:: Used with permission from Debbie Ridpath Ohi at Inkygirl.com | Content courtesy of bigfootjustice.com | Content courtesy of Web Donuts under Creative Commons courtesy of www.webdonuts.com | Content courtesy of mooselakecartoons.com | Content courtesy of xkcd.com | Content courtesy of www.lukesurl.com

www.johorebar.org.my 55

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR STATISTICS AS AT 30TH SEPTEMBER 2015 LAW FIRMS

Towns

LAWYERS

30.9.2015

Increase/Decrease

30.9.2015

Increase/Decrease

(1)

Johor Bahru

411

1312

(2)

Batu Pahat

137

(3)

Muar

127

(4)

Kluang

-5

(5)

Segamat

(6)

Kulai

(7)

Pontian

(8)

Kota Tinggi

(9)

Masai

-1

(10)

Yong Peng

(11)

Tangkak

(12)

Pasir Gudang

(13)

Mersing

-3

(14)

Gelang Patah

-1

(15)

Ulu Tiram

-1

(16)

Simpang Renggam

-1

(17)

Pekan Nanas

1 703

0 4

1 1838

0 43

(18) Labis In the State of Johor Total Membership

As at 30th September 2015, the total membership of the Johore Bar is 1838. There has been an increase of 43 members since the last statistics (on 31st December 2014). The total membership of the Johore Bar constitutes 11% approx. of that of the Malaysian Bar. 1.

Lawyers in Johor Bahru There are 1312 members practising in the city of Johor Bahru. They account for 71% of the total membership in the State of Johor (i.e. 1312/1838 members).

Law Firms in the State of Johor

The total number of law firms in the State of Johor is 703. There has been an increase of 4 law firms since December 2014. The number of law firms in Johor Bahru has increased (from 408 to 411). They constitute 58% approx. (i.e. 411/703) of the law firms in the State of Johor.