The role of lawyers in court

The Sunday Star

THE Aug 27 press statement of the Universiti Malaya Law Society on recent court cases caught my attention because it came from students at the best law school in this country whose alumni include the current Prime Minister, Chief Justice and Attorney General. 

They wrote, “As future rule of law bearers perusing the recent incidents, we believe that much is expected from legal luminaries to set a model of respect, courtesy and dignity. However, what is occurring thus far has been the downfall of such expectations even in the soil’s highest avenue of justice – the Federal Court.” 

It would be a tragedy if these prospective lawyers should feel disillusioned by the alleged conduct of some senior lawyers even before they join the legal profession. As a senior member of the Malaysian Bar, it behoves me to assure these future entrants to the profession that what they have learnt at law school relating to ethics, virtues, values and ideals of the legal profession still apply and will not be easily tossed away. There are still many senior lawyers out there who practise law with the highest standards of professional integrity and honesty, and who possess unblemished character and reputation. 

Dedicated: (From left, anti-clockwise) Lawyers Jaspal Singh, Lee Guan Tong, HR Dipendra, Kevin Wong and Janet Chai with others at the recent extraordinary general meeting of the Malaysian Bar. — Photo provided

These students should also be assured that there is an independent judicial system in this country worth associating with and defending for. Together with an independent Bar, we are in the vanguard of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. Otherwise, it is meaningless if at almost every National Day parade, our leaders and citizens raise hands, pledging aloud to uphold the five fundamental principles of Rukunegara which include the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. 

An independent judiciary saves American democracy

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Image: I Got This by Sousa & Machado

CONGRATULATIONS to Joseph Robinette Biden Jr and Kamala Devi Harris for having been successfully inaugurated as the 46th president and vice-president of the United States respectively. It almost did not happen on Jan 20, or at all, if not for the US judiciary. 

On Jan 6, the losers fomented mobs to storm the US Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 US presidential election results. To former President Donald Trump and his acolytes, this was perhaps their last hope to get rid of what they called the “rigged result” after American courts, including the US Supreme Court, twice refused to overturn the results in battleground states. Despite five deaths, the incident could have been a calamity had any elected legislator been taken hostage or killed by the insurrectionists. 

For a moment, the 245-year-old American republic almost became a banana republic devoid of the rule of law. On that day of infamy, democracy as the best form of government almost died in a country which has always prided itself on being the world’s greatest democracy. 

In the words of national youth poet laureate Amanda Gorman – who wowed the world at Biden’s inauguration ceremony with her poem – “This effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated.” 

The free world heaved a huge sigh of relief at this irenic victory for democracy, though this embarrassing episode has now diminished America’s moral authority as the keeper or beacon of democracy. 

Before I go on, I need to pause here to say that I have not been watching too much CNN. In fact, I watch the conservative-leaning Fox News Channel too. 

To the world at large, Biden did secure an emphatic victory. The world was just simply astounded to see how Trump, who was unable to accept defeat in an electoral democracy, could lie that the elections were rigged and urge his supporters to “Stop the steal”. It is even more mind boggling to see how some Americans could so easily turn cuckoo overnight, deluded by misinformation into believing in conspiracy theories. 

This reminds me of the tactic employed during World War II by the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels: Turn a lie into the truth just by repeating it often enough. He reportedly said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.... It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.” 

Of the Bench and the Bar

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Allyna Ng with her proud parents, Datuk & Datin Ng Kong Peng at the 2015 JPA Presentation Ceremony.

Malaysia’s rule of law can only be upheld if these twin pillars remain independent and fearless. And for that to happen, we need to eradicate one of their main threats — the mass production of lawyers who are ill-equipped and incompetent due to poor legal training and education. 

IT is always a proud moment for the nation whenever we learn of our young Malaysian students excelling in their legal studies overseas. 

On July 21, Allyna Ng Ming Yi obtained a first class honours in BA Jurisprudence (Law) from Oxford University. She was also the recipient of the Crystal Prize for best overall performance in Law; the Farthing Prize for best performance in Constitutional Law and the Monk Prize for best performance in Criminal Law. 

Allyna, the younger daughter of lawyer couple, Datuk Ng Kong Peng and Datin Amy Yeo of Melaka (pic), is a Public Services Department (JPA) scholar. An alumna from SMK Infant Jesus Convent, she was also in the top 20 of 2014 SPM candidates in Malaysia. 

In fact, this is not the first time a Malaysian youngster has done our country proud with their law studies overseas. In October 2010, an ex-Muar High School boy, Tan Zhongshan emerged as the overall best law student in the entire Cambridge University – an academic feat said to have surpassed even that of the university’s luminary alumni, Singapore’s former Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew and his wife. 

A son of a retired Federal Court judge and a holder of Singapore’s Asean scholarship, Zhongshan later graduated with a Master of Law degree from the prestigious Harvard Law School and is now reportedly a deputy public prosecutor in Singapore. 

I always marvel at such academic achievements by others, wondering how they could have done it with such ease. I have nothing much to boast about my own academic achievement, except perhaps being in the top 15 among Commonwealth students in the 1988 English Bar Finals. I must unashamedly confess that I chose law because I was hopeless in Mathematics and Science, having failed both in my Form 5 Malaysian Certificate of Education examinations! 

But it must be stressed that having a good academic result will not guarantee a successful career at the Bar in this dog-eat-dog world meant only for the survival of the fittest. Take for example, the late Karpal Singh only obtained a third-class honours law degree from the University of Singapore but he later became one of the most outstanding criminal lawyers this country has ever produced. 

On a more serious note, more than 1000 law graduates enter the legal profession every year, but there is no common system to evaluate, ascertain and ensure their levels of competence. Today, there are about 21,000 lawyers practising in Peninsular Malaysia, and the number of lawyers in Klang Valley alone will exceed the total number of lawyers in Singapore. 

Let justice be seen to be done

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Cousins Piya (left) and Prithep Sosothikul with a picture of their late grandmother Boonsom Boonyanit. — Filepic

I JUST recently learnt from an international arbitration news site that the Malaysian government had reached an amicable settlement with the estate of Boonsom Boonyanit, a Thai national, some time in October 2018. 

This news hitherto is not known to the Malaysian public. Neither is there any information available to the public on the exact settlement sum and whether the same has been paid. 

Be that as it may, the Malaysian taxpayers have obviously ended up once again having to fork out a sum probably in millions of ringgit to compensate for the criminal acts of the perpetrators who are still at large. There may be a requirement for confidentiality in the settlement agreement, hence the non-disclosure. 

Apparently, the October 2018 settlement had been reached with the Pakatan government after the estate issued a notice on July 31,2017 addressed to the then Prime Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister and Attorney General, accusing Malaysia of contravening her treaty obligations under the 1987 Asean Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments in not according fair and equitable treatment and providing full protection for Boonsom’s investments. 

The treaty has been signed by Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Under the treaty, if any dispute cannot be settled within six months after its being raised, then the affected party can choose to submit the same for conciliation or arbitration. 

But has justice been done or rather has justice been seen to be done to Boonsom? To quote the oft-repeated 100-year-old words of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] that “it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 

Sadly, Boonsom had already passed away on May 23,2000. She was a victim of land scam in 1989. All in, three generations of her family had carried on with this fight for justice with sheer grit and tenacity. But this long and arduous journey has also taken them some 30 years. 

It all started when Boonsom’s two beachfront lots in Tanjung Bungah, Penang (the said lands) were fraudulently transferred by an impostor claiming to be Boonsom to Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd, then known as Calget Sdn Bhd (‘Adorna”), on May 24,1989 for RM1,865,798. 

Malaysia too needs a Covid-19 Bill

The Star Biz

by Roger Tan

MALAYSIA should enact a law similar to the one proposed by the Singapore government to offer temporary relief to businesses, in particular SMEs and individuals who are unable to perform their contractual obligations because of the movement control order (MCO) brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. 

On April 1, the Singapore Ministry of Law announced that it intended to introduce the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill this week. 

The Bill will have a retrospective effect and cover contractual obligations that are to be performed on or after Feb 1,2020 and contracts that were entered into or renewed before March 25,2020. 

According to its statement, Feb 1 was used as the approximate date when the impact of Covid-19 started to be significantly felt in Singapore’s economy. 

These measures will be in place for a prescribed period, which will be six months from the commencement of the new law, expected to come into force this month itself, and may be further extended for up to a year from the commencement of the new law. 

In other words, the non-performing party’s liabilities will be suspended and non-enforceable during the prescribed period. 

Contracts covered by the Bill are: 

> Non-residential leases and licences in that if the commercial tenants or licensees are unable to pay rent for February and/or March, they may seek relief; 

> Construction and supply contracts in that the contractors will not have to pay damages for late delivery or non-performance of contractual obligations; 

> Contracts for the provision of goods and services (eg, venue, catering) for events (eg, the cancellation of weddings, business meetings) and for visitors to Singapore, domestic tourists or outbound tourists, or promotion of tourism (eg, the cancellation of cruises, hotel accommodation bookings), for example, there shall be no forfeiture of booking fees or deposits; and 

> Certain loan facilities granted by a bank or a finance company to SMEs with turnover of not more than S$100mil in the latest financial year. 

The Star

This letter was originally a Facebook post by Datuk Roger Tan, and is republished here with his permission. 

DURING the Christmas break, I chanced upon this 39-year-old A4-size cardboard mockup (pic) of a report on a student election held at Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC). The mockup was given to me by the editorial board of the 1980 magazine of the School of Pre-University Studies at TARC (which is now known as Tunku Abdul Rahman University College). It brought back lots of memories that I would like to share. 

The report was about the first student representative election held at TARC. In 1980, TARC comprised several schools, including the School of Pre-University Studies (SPUS). Many of the first-year SPUS (Lower Six) students studied outside TARC’s main Jalan Genting Klang campus, Kuala Lumpur, including myself; I attended the Jalan Cheras Secondary School, next to Taman Midah, KL, in 1979. All students, however, would continue their Upper Six studies on the main campus. 

Of course, without TARC, I would not have been able to do any A Level (or Higher School Certificate, HSC, as it was known then) studies at all, as I hailed from the little town of Yong Peng, Johor, and had to survive on an all-in monthly pocket money allowance of M$200. This included travelling daily from my brother’s house near Batu Caves to the Jalan Cheras Secondary School on a journey that usually took about an hour and half, including a 2km walk from the house to the main road to catch a stage bus. That explains why I was then only one third of my current size! 

Upholding the rights of house buyers

Dream house?: A young boy admiring the scale model of a housing project at a property fair in Penang last year. – Filepic

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

ON Tuesday , the Federal Court ruled that the housing controller has no power to waive or modify provisions of the contracts of sale as prescribed by regulations 11(1) and (2) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations, 1989 (1989 Regulations).

The 1989 Regulations were made by the housing minister pursuant to section 24 of the parent Act, namely the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act, 1966 (Act 118).

These contracts of sale are better known in the housing industry as Schedules G, H, I and J, depending on the types of housing accommodation being developed.

The prescribed contracts of sale include provisions stipulating the time for delivery of vacant possession and they have to be strictly followed; failing which the defaulting party can be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or to a jail term not exceeding five years or to both. Further, any person who aids, abets or counsels the commission of the offence will face similar punishment upon conviction.

Hence, regulation 11(3) which came into force on April 1, 1989 and remained unamended since, allowed the controller to waive or modify the provisions of the contract of sale if he was satisfied that there were special circumstances or hardship or necessity; compliance of which with any of the said provisions was impracticable or unnecessary.

Regulation 12 then provides for any person aggrieved by the controller’s decision to appeal to the minister whose decision is final and shall not be questioned in any court.

One common modification sought by the developers to the contract of sale is to apply, before the expiry of the stipulated date fixed for handing over of vacant possession, for an extension of time (EOT) so that the developers will not be sued for late delivery and face a claim for liquidated damages (LAD) by the house buyers.

On May 14, five questions were posed to the five-member panel of the apex court namely, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Justice Azahar Mohamed, Justice Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin (who has since retired), Justice Idrus Harun and Justice Nallini Pathmanathan. In delivering the unanimous decision of the apex court, Justice Tengku Maimun ruled that:

> the controller has no power to waive or modify any provision in the contract of sale;

> section 24 of Act 118 does not confer power on the minister to make regulations for the purpose of delegating his power to waive or modify the contract of sale to the controller; and

> regulation 11(3) is ultra vires (beyond the powers of) Act 118.

The apex court, however, declined to answer the following two questions posed by the developer, BHL Construction Sdn Bhd because the above ruling effectively meant that there was no decision by the minister:-

> whether the letter granting an extension of time after an appeal pursuant to regulation 12 must be signed personally by the minister and whether the minister could delegate his duties (signing of the letter granting the extension of time) to an officer in his ministry; and

> whether the minister having taken into consideration the interest of the purchaser is obliged to afford the purchasers a hearing prior to the minister granting the extension of time albeit there is no such provision or requirement in Act 118 or the 1989 Regulations.

'Review fees for loan documents'

The Bar Council said it is high time for banks to review its practice of imposing fees for loan documents. (Image by Pixabay:  For illustration purposes only)

New Straits Times

Banks' practice against the law, a burden to customers, says Bar Council official 

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council said it is high time for banks to review its practice of imposing fees for loan documents.

Bar Council conveyancing practice committee chairman Datuk Roger Tan said the practice was against the law and has a become a burden which consumers could do without.

He said the fee was imposed on the banks’ loan documents, which borrowers sign when taking, for example, a housing loan.

“These documents are largely standardised documents for each bank.

“The bank’s solicitors will typically download the documents from the bank’s website and, after completing the particulars relating to the borrower and the loan, print for the borrower’s signature,” said Tan.

He said banks currently charge a fee for the ‘purchase’ of these documents ranging from RM100 to RM500, even though the cost of printing the documents is borne by the solicitors.

He said that the document fee is usually passed on to the borrowers as part of the solicitor’s charges. However, Tan said that in some cases, solicitors are compelled by the banks to absorb these costs.

“This results in the borrowers having to pay additional costs when taking a loan from a bank and the solicitors getting peanuts for the professional work done especially purchasers of low- and medium-cost and affordable homes.

Unconscionable for banks to seek refuge behind exclusion clauses

The Star

by Roger Tan 

Protection needed: It is time for the government to introduce a legislation or extend the protection currently given to consumers under  the Consumer Protection act, 1999  to all types of contracts, including financial dealings and transactions, involving, particularly, purchasers and borrowers of a housing  development.

In April 2008, a British couple living in the United Kingdom obtained a loan facility of RM715,487 to finance the purchase of their property in Malaysia. It was a term of the loan facility that the bank would make progressive payments to the developer against certificates of completion issued by the architect at each progress billing.

In March 2014, the developer sent a notice for a progressive payment to the bank, supported by an architect’s certificate.

The bank’s disbursement department then sent several internal emails to its branch to conduct site visit inspection on the property.

The branch did not do anything, and meanwhile, the due date for payment had also expired on March 25, 2014.

Neither did the bank notify the developer nor the couple that a site visit inspection was an additional condition precedent to drawdown.

The bank also did not request for any extension of time to make the payment pending the completion of the site visit.

On April 10, 2015, the developer terminated the sale and purchase agreement (SPA), after about one year from the issuance of the invoice.

The couple then sued the bank for breach of agreement and/or negligence.

Senior lawyer: Shake-up a welcome change for now

The Star
by Royce Tan

PETALING JAYA: The rationalisation proposal to make nine agencies independent entities and which reports directly to Parliament is seen as a welcome change by many. 

However, several concerns have been raised, especially in the event of an elective “dictatorship”.

Senior lawyer Datuk Roger Tan said if there was an absolute majority in Parliament one day, the issue of an Executive dominance would arise. 

He called for the Committee of Institutional Reforms to look into how to prevent this from happening. 

“It is a good move to preserve the independence of institutions, such as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Election Commission, but it may not necessarily be good if one day the Government has an absolute majority in Parliament. 

“We must have necessary safeguards against any abuse, especially by the Government of the day that controls Parliament. 

“If one day we have an elective dictatorship, the Government will then be able to take control of these institutions,” he said. 

Tan said that posts such as the MACC chief commissioner or the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) commissioners should be elected by a bipartisan committee, comprising MPs from both divides. 

He said there was also a need to amend the Acts of the respective commissions for them to be appointed by the committee. 

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. 

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.

Resolving tugs of war

The Sunday Star 

With All Due Respect by Roger Tan

The Federal Court ruling on the custody battle between a Muslim convert and his Hindu ex-wife was a landmark decision. Can the thorny issue of unilateral conversion be finally be put to rest?

The much-awaited decision of the Federal Court involving S. Deepa and her former husband, now a Muslim convert, Izwan Abdullah, delivered on Feb 10, is sort of a landmark decision.

Deepa and Izwan (whose Hindu name is N. Viran) registered their civil marriage on March 19, 2003, under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976 (Act 164). They have two children, a girl, V. Shamila and a boy, V. Mithran. ­Both were Hindus at the time of their birth. 

On Nov 26, 2012, Viran converted to Islam. On Jan 4, 2013, Izwan unilaterally converted the two minors to Islam surreptitiously without the knowledge or consent of Deepa. 

Shamila’s Muslim name is Nur Nabila Izwan while Mithran is named Muhammad Nabil Izwan. On May 15, 2013, Izwan also managed to obtain a dissolution order of his civil marriage with Deepa from the Seremban Syariah High Court under section 46(2) of the Islamic Family Law (Negri Sembilan) Enactment 2003. Then on Sept 19, 2013, Izwan was granted permanent custody of the two children by the Syariah High Court with Deepa having visitation rights and access to the children.

Meanwhile, upon the application of Deepa, the civil marriage was dissolved by the Seremban Civil High Court on April 7, 2014. The same court also granted permanent custody of the children to Deepa with Izwan having weekly access to the children. However, two days later, Izwan took Mithran away from Deepa’s house. Deepa then applied for and obtained a recovery order from the Civil High Court pursuant to section 53 of the Child Act, 2001. 

Izwan appealed to the Court of Appeal against the custody order as well as the recovery order. On Dec 17, 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. 

On Feb 10, the Federal Court ruled that as long as one parent was non-Muslim, the Syariah Court had no jurisdiction to hear any matter pertaining to the marriage solemnised under civil law at the very beginning (ab initio). The court also granted custody of Shamila (Nurul Nabila), 11, to Deepa, while son Mithran (Nabil), eight, is to live with Izwan. 

To be fair to the panel of five Federal Court judges chaired by the Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Sharif who also delivered the decision of the apex court, the issue of unilateral conversion was not addressed simply because the court was asked to determine only two questions of law, namely:

131 receive awards from King

Proud moment: The King

bestowing the Darjah 

Panglima Jasa Negara upon

Tan at the investiture ceremony

in Istana Negara. — Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, presented awards and medals to 131 people in conjunction with his birthday on June 6.

Raja Permaisuri Agong Tuanku Hajah Haminah was also present at the investiture held at Istana Negara here.

Heading the list of recipients yesterday was Education Services Commission chairman Tan Sri Dr Haili Dolhan, who received the Darjah Panglima Setia Mahkota (PSM) award, which carries the title “Tan Sri”.

Among those who received the Panglima Jasa Negara award, which carries the title “Datuk” (PJN) were Roger Tan & Nurul senior partner Datuk Roger Tan Kor Mee.

Tan holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree from Queen Mary College, University of London, and Master of Laws from the National University of Singapore.

He is currently a commissioner of the National Water Services Commission (SPAN) and president of the Strata Management Tribunal. — Bernama

Case for judicial review

The Sunday Star 
Legally Speaking by Roger Tan

Landmark judgment: In the Nov 7 decision of the Court of Appeal in Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis & Ors v Negri Sembilan State Government, 2014, the court struck down section 66 of the Syariah Criminal Enactment (Negeri Sembilan), 1992 which criminalises Muslim men for cross-dressing, as unconstitutional.

Is judicial review the correct procedure to challenge the validity of a statute? 

IN the last two weeks, two interesting cases relating to homosexual and cross-dressing men were dealt with by the appeals courts in Singapore and Malaysia. However, the manner in which the two courts interpreted the equipollent provisions of our respective Constitution, described as consanguineous with one another as well as that of the United States and India, differed sharply.

In the Singapore case of Lim Meng Suang vs Attorney General, 2014, the highest court in Singapore, the Court of Appeal, ruled in a 101-page judgment on Oct 29 that section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises physical intimacy and sex between men, was not unconstitutional.

The appeals were brought by gay couple Lim Meng Suang and Kenneth Chee Mun-Leon who have been in a romantic and sexual relationship for the past 15 years, and Tan Eng Hong who had been arrested for engaging in oral sex with another man in a public toilet cubicle in 2010.

In a nutshell, the appellants had questioned the constitutionality of section 377A on the following grounds:

> that it infringed Article 9 of the Singapore Constitution (SC) that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”;

> that it infringed Article 12 SC in that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and

> that section 377A was a colonial legislation incorporated into the Singapore Penal Code in 1938 when she was a British colony and prior to the promulgation of SC.

Senior Counsel Deborah Barker (daughter of Singapore’s first post-Independence Minister of Law, EW Barker) argued for the gay couple that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 9 should also include a limited right of privacy and personal autonomy allowing a person to enjoy and express affection and love towards another human being.

Delivering the judgment of the court, Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong ruled that the phrase “life or personal liberty” in Article 9 when read in entirety refers only to a person’s freedom from an unlawful deprivation of life and unlawful detention or incarceration. Period.

He went on to caution that foreign cases (with particular references to those decided by the Indian Supreme Court) that have conferred an expansive constitutional right to life and liberty should be approached with circumspection because they were decided in the context of their unique social, political and legal circumstances.

As regards Article 12 SC, the court applied the Malaysian case of Malaysian Bar v Government of Malaysia, 1987 in that to determine the constitutionality of a statute under Article 12 SC, the test is one of reasonable or permissible classification. It is a two-stage test which is applied only if the impugned statute is discriminatory in nature.

In other words, any law that treats people differently can still be held as constitutional if it passes this test.

Keep it colour blind

The Sunday Star 
Legally Speaking by Roger Tan
 

Respected figure: The writer with Sultan Azlan.

Our judges, regardless of their race and religion, must always be mindful that they have taken an oath to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution not for some but for all Malaysians.

I HAVE wanted to write this for some time – my tribute to the late Sultan Azlan Shah who passed away on May 28, 2014. Not so much because he had been reading my column, but rather on two occasions which I had the honour of meeting him, he had encouraged me to keep on writing.

I was also troubled that when he passed away, he had not been accorded the appropriate recognition by leaders of our legal profession of his contribution to the administration of justice in this country.

This could be due to some differences with the Sultan’s decision not to call for fresh state elections when Pakatan Rakyat lost the majority control of the Perak state assembly in February, 2009. I had at that time written extensively that the Sultan’s decision was constitutionally correct.

Interestingly, the Federal Court’s judgment which subsequently endorsed the correctness of his royal decision is now being relied upon by his then most vociferous and sometimes insolent critics in Pakatan Rakyat to justify replacement of the embattled Selangor Mentri Besar, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim without the need for a state assembly sitting or the dissolution of the assembly.

Sultan Azlan belonged to the generation of great Malaysian jurists including the likes of Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim and Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader. He was, after all, the youngest ever appointed High Court Judge and Lord President.

Not many knew that whenever the Malaysian Bar stood up for the independence of the judiciary, he was always there with and for us.

I still remember the keynote address he gave at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference on October 29, 2007; of which I was the organising chairman.

The conference was held one month after 2,000 or so lawyers walked for justice from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s office to hand over a memorandum asking the government to set up a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the V.K. Lingam video tape which implicated the then chief justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Custodial deaths a national shame

Justice served: Kugan’s mother Indra Nalathamby leaving the court. Kugan’s family was awarded RM751,709 in damages and another RM50,000 in costs.

The Sunday Star

Legally Speaking by Roger Tan

Our enforcement officers must appreciate, if not be made to appreciate, that it is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system that a person, including a suspect, is innocent until proven guilty.

ON June 28, Justice Datuk V.T. Singham indeed retired with a bang! Two days before his retirement, he awarded RM751,709 in damages and another RM50,000 in costs to the family of Kugan Ananthan who died while in police custody on Jan 20, 2009. 

Singham held that the then Selangor police chief Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, now the Inspector-General of Police, had committed misfeasance in public office. 

In delivering his judgment, he also reportedly urged the government to urgently set up the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as recommended by the 2005 Royal Commission to enhance the operation and management of the Royal Malaysia Police (RCI).

However, at the time of writing this piece, his written judgment is still not available. In any event, the government and the IGP are expected to appeal against his decision.

This reminds me of the case of Mohd Anuar Sharip who vomited blood, collapsed and died in a police cell on Aug 19, 1999. In June, 2010, Justice Lee Swee Seng awarded about RM1.6mil in damages to his widow, Suzana Mohamad Aris. However, Lee’s decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal. In October 2010, Suzana failed to obtain leave from the Federal Court to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

But it is worthy to reiterate Lee’s words when he handed down his judgment: “Let the message go forth from this place that any more deaths in police custody would be one too many! Those with power to arrest and detain must ensure that the basic human rights (sic) of a detainee to seek medical treatment while in custody, is immediately attended to. There should be no more wanton and wasted loss of life in police custody for every life is precious … The safest place to be in should not by default be turned into the most dangerous place to be taken to.”

The stink of injustice

 

Justice not served: Cousins Piya (left) and Prithep Sosothikul with a picture of their late grandmother, Boonsom Boonyanit.

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

The police have to explain their tardiness in investigating the most infamous land forgery case in Malaysia.

This is a heart-rending story, a story about an incessant quest for justice by three generations of a Thai family.

It all happened on Dec 12, 1956 when a Thai of Chinese origin, Sie Guan Tjang @ Sie Hang Bok, purchased two pieces of land for investment – Lots 3606 and 3607 of Mukim 18 at Tanjung Bungah, Penang (“the said lands”).

During his lifetime, Sie visited Penang very often with his Thai wife, Boonsom Boonyanit, also known as Sun Yok Eng. They loved Penang and her people so much that they had intended to build their retirement home on the said lands. On Jan 18, 1967, the two lots of land were transferred to Boonsom by way of a memorandum of transfer (“Form 14A”).

Under section 81(3) of the National Land Code (Penang and Malacca Titles) Act 1963 (Act 518), Form 14A was then treated more or less as proof of ownership over the said lands. Section 92 of Act 518 also provides that pending the issuance of a final title, an advance certificate of title (“ACT”) would be issued. Since Jan 18, 1967, Boonsom had been at all times in possession of the Form 14A apart from faithfully paying all the quit rents and assessments due on the said lands.

Some time in June 1989, Boonsom’s eldest son, Phiensak Sosothikul, chanced upon an advertisement in a Thai newspaper, Thairat, dated June 11, 1989, which was inserted by a law firm from Penang, Messrs Khor, Ong & Co (“KOC”). The advertisement requested that any person who had any right to the said lands or any heir to Boonsom residing at a house No. 87, Cantonment Road, Penang, Malaysia to contact KOC. The court was later told that when Boonsom’s accountant did contact KOC, the latter could not give any useful information.

Boonsom then engaged the law firm, Messrs Lim Kean Siew & Co (“LKSC”) to conduct investigations which revealed that the said lands had been fraudulently transferred by an impostor claiming to be Boonsom to Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd, then known as Calget Sdn Bhd (“Adorna”) on May 24, 1989.

Boonsom then sued for the return of the said lands. The Penang High Court ruled in favour of Adorna on April 28, 1995. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in its judgment dated March 17, 1997 reversed the High Court’s decision. Adorna then appealed, and the Federal Court comprising Eusoff Chin, Wan Adnan Ismail and Abu Mansor Ali allowed Adorna’s appeal in its judgment dated Dec 13, 2000 and pronounced in open court on Dec 22, 2000 (“Adorna Judgment”). Sadly, Boonsom had already passed away on May 23, 2000.

Boonsom’s second son, Kobchai Sosothikul, being the representative of her estate, soldiered on and filed two separate motions to the Federal Court for review of the Adorna Judgment.

Bar must be apolitical

The Star
by Roger Tan

I KNEW this was coming because as I said it would be painful for some lawyers to read what I wrote in “Unswayed by fear or favour” (Sunday Star, May 20).

I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early yesterday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga tweeted that their joint statement, “Bar’s resolution proper”, (The Star, May 23) was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not totally unfounded. Of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one whom I follow on Twitter.

Fallacies spun by critics of the Bar — LoyarBurokkers (loyarburok.com)

MAY 22 — The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its extraordinary general meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in the Sunday Star on May 20, 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.

2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.

3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.