Saturday, December 23, 2017

Lawyer: Change loans rule and pay direct to developer

The Star
by Fatimah Zainal

PETALING JAYA: The Public Sector Home Financing Board (LPPSA) should change its loans rule to allow the money to be released straight into the developer’s account if it is a direct purchase from the developer, said a senior lawyer. 

“If it is a second sale or sub sale then I understand the money must be released to the seller’s lawyer to take care of other payments,” said Datuk Roger Tan, the chairman of the Malaysian Bar Council Conveyancing Practice Committee. 

LPPSA is a statutory body established under the Public Sector Home Financing Board Act 2015 to manage the provision of housing loans to civil servants. 

Tan was commenting on reports by The Star on Thursday about buyers of an affor­dable housing scheme in Johor Baru who were duped by a lawyer. 

The lawyer, who was supposed to help them secure housing loans, did not remit the money to the developer after the loans were approved. 

The lawyer siphoned off the money from the victims, mostly civil servants, and wrote invalid cheques to the developer instead. The developer then decided to hold back the keys to the houses, to the dismay of the buyers. 

The Star also reported that the victims, who lost more than RM620,000, lodged at least five police reports against the lawyer. 

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Interview: Of values and water

Roger Tan
The Sunday Star
by Christina Chin
Photo by Abdul Rahman Embong

AFTER eight years of helping to implement and enforce the country’s water supply and sewerage services laws, Datuk Roger Tan served his last day as commissioner of the Water Services Commission (SPAN) on May 31. Tan, a lawyer by trade, was instrumental in putting in place a disciplinary mechanism based on values he lives by – accountability, transparency and integrity.

Former fellow commissioner Datuk Zulkifly Rafique has this to say of Tan’s tenure: “He has discharged his responsibility admirably and is a pillar of strength for the staff and fellow commissioners who looked to him for support and guidance at a very challenging time. A job well done.”

Tan, from Yong Peng, Johor, graduated from the school of hard knocks and he never forgot his roots. 

Describing himself as a “simple man”, he’s pleased that his wife and children are equally grounded. Opening up about his family, Tan says those who rose from poverty, surviving only because of their parents’ resilience and sacrificial love, have no reason to lead an ostentatious life.

An illiterate labourer, his father, Sue Yong, toiled to put food – often porridge with soy sauce or a few slices of preserved bean curd – on the table.

The desire to honour his parents, family and God, is what drives Tan to excel.

An avid photographer, he shares how an image of the All Souls Church in Langham Place, London – with a cross of clouds forming just above the place he used to worship at as a student, is his favourite work. The best photographs are often accidental masterpieces, he muses.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Judicial independence is sacrosanct

The Sunday Star
With All Due Respect by Roger Tan

Assaulting the judiciary is as crude and uncivilised as assaulting a referee who impartially and fearlessly applies the rules of the game.

Just and fair: When the judiciary decides against the authority it is simply doing its duty under the Constitution which expresses the will of the people just as when it decides for authority.
Judicial independence – a sacrosanct concept which I have written quite a bit over the years – has been much talked about again, lately.

What then is judicial independence? I believe this can be best explained by one of our most celebrated judges, Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim when writing his foreword to The Role of the Independent Judiciary by Tun Salleh Abas on Dec 17, 1988 as follows:

“When the judiciary decides against authority there is no question of its being superior to Parliament or the Executive; the three branches are co-equal partners, each branch being like the leg of a three-legged stool. When the judiciary decides against the authority it is simply doing its duty under the Constitution which expresses the will of the people just as when it decides for authority.

“To accuse a judge of wanting to wrest power from the elected representatives of the people and thus destroy democracy is as absurd as accusing a football referee of wanting to take over the game and thus destroy football because from time to time he blows the whistle against one’s team-mate. There can be no justice for the people without independent judges as there can be no game without independent referees. Assaulting the judiciary is as crude and uncivilised as assaulting a referee who impartially and fearlessly applies the rules of the game.

“Those who stand by and do nothing to protect the independence of the judiciary will in the end get a judiciary they deserve – one powerless to stand between them and tyranny.”

This is echoed by the new Chief Justice, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif in his inaugural speech at the recent ceremony celebrating his elevation that it is his duty as well as everyone’s to ensure that the independence of the judiciary is safeguarded.

“As an institution, the judiciary is not and should never be beholden to anyone but the Federal Constitution,” said Md Raus. In other words, not even to the Executive nor Parliament!

To the legally trained, this is also known as the doctrine of separation of powers where the three branches of state – legislature (Parliament), executive (government) and the judiciary are independent of one another so that each has separate powers to become a check and balance on the other.

As the French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu puts it: “Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separate from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.”

Hence in the State of Washington v Trump, 2017, the USA Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order on travel ban is not unreviewable; otherwise, it will run contrary to the fundamental structure of a constitutional democracy which requires compliance with the US Constitution which is the supreme law.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Property transaction fees up

The Star
by Adrian Chan

PETALING JAYA: The sale and transfer of property valued at RM500,000 and below will now be subjected to a 1% conveyancing fee. 

Taking effect today, it came about with the revision of the fee structure in the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order by the Bar Council last year. 

The revision, which was approved by the Solicitors Cost Committee on Feb 28, will also see 0.8% conveyancing fee for properties worth above RM500,000 but below RM1mil. 

Previously, only properties worth RM150,000 and below were subjected to a 1% fee while those costing above RM150,000 and up to RM1mil were imposed with a 0.7% charge. 

However, like the old Order, property transactions from licensed housing developers will automatically get between 25% and 35% reduction in fees depending on the value. 

This means that for a property worth RM500,000, the new conveyancing fee is RM5,000 but will only come up to RM3,500 following reductions. In the past, the fee was RM2,765. 

For a RM1mil property, the fee is RM5,850, up from RM4,842.

According to the association, the sum is calculated by charging the 1% fee on the first RM500,000 before adding the 0.8% fee on the subsequent value. This total is then deducted with the 35% reduction.

Before the revision in March last year, the fee structure had remained the same for the past 11 years.