Is our Covid-19 Bill the panacea?

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

   

Hit hard: Covid-19 has left a wide swathe of destruction in its wake in Malaysia too. Banners of property for sale in front of a row of closed shops in Kuala Lumpur.

This Bill does not appear to be fulfilling its real purpose, which is to suspend, for a specified period, enforcement of contractual obligations against a defaulting party, who is usually the weaker party and does not have an equal bargaining strength with the other contractual party.

FINALLY. Malaysia’s much awaited version of the Covid-19 Bill (“the Bill”), entitled the Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Bill was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday.

The Bill comprises 19 parts and 59 clauses. It seeks to modify 16 written laws. The modifications will have retrospective effect with most of the main provisions coming into effect on 18 March 2020, the day when the movement control order first came into operation. If passed, this law will prevail over any other written law in the event of any conflict or inconsistency between them.

The Bill is not expected to come into force until probably after September 2020, that is, after it has been passed by Senate; royal assent has been obtained and it is published in the Gazette. Singapore was able to pass her COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, all on the same day on April 7,2020, primarily because her Parliament is unicameral.

The following are some of the statutory modifications proposed by the Bill:

> A one-time extension to 31 December 2020 is given to any limitation period which falls between 18 March 2020 to 31 August 2020 under the Limitation Act, 1953, Sabah Limitation Ordinance, Sarawak Limitation Ordinance and the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1948. The limitation period for a homebuyer to file his claim at the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims is also extended from 4 May 2020 to 31 December 2020 if it has expired during the period from 18 March 2020 to 9 June 2020.

> The monetary threshold to take bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings against individuals is increased to RM100,000 from RM50,000 until 31 August 2021, unless further extended by the Minister.

> An owner’s right to repossess goods under a hire-purchase agreement due to non-payment of instalments during the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020 is suspended until 31 December 2020, unless further extended by the Minister. However, this does not apply to a case where the owner has already exercised his power of repossession before this law comes into force.

> Before 31 December 2020, a landlord cannot recover the arrears of rent by a warrant of distress for the period from 18 March 2020 to 31 August 2020 unless the warrant has already been executed before coming into force of this law.

> The calculation of the period for according recognition of a trade union or otherwise making of a report or filing of representation on dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 shall exclude the period from 18 March 2020 to 9 June 2020.

However, I am more concerned with two main parts: Part 2 which deals with inability by parties in performing contractual obligations and Part 11 which deals with modifications to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing Act, 1966 (Act 118).

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. 

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.

Ex-judges must remain ethical

The Sunday Star

Legally Speaking by Roger Tan

Who a former judge later associates with and what he subsequently does or says will still be closely scrutinised by the public.

THE morning after I retired, a Rolls Royce arrived at my house with a message that I was required to attend a very important board meeting. Without further ceremony, I was taken to the penthouse of the Chartered Bank. Here, I was appointed chairman and required to call the meeting to order.

“There were only three items on the agenda. Caviar, champagne and any other matters arising therefrom. At noon, we adjourned to a private room in the Shangri-La for a sumptuous lunch. When I was driven back home at 3pm, I greatly regretted I had not retired years earlier!”

Those were the bantering words of one of Malaysia’s most celebrated judges, Tun Mohamed Suffian, at a dinner given in his honour shortly after his retirement as Lord President on Nov 12, 1982. At first glance, these may well be facetious remarks, but it does go to show that a retired judge can be commercially marketable and become an asset for any organisation to be associated with.

Needless to say, who an ex-judge later associates with and what subsequently he does or says will still be closely scrutinised by the public. His judicial conduct during his pre-retirement or resignation days may even be called into question if he later exhibits strong inclinations or preferences whether politically, socially or morally.

However, currently, the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009, made pursuant to Article 125(3B) of the Federal Constitution, does not deal with the conduct of judges after their retirement or resignation. Hence, an ex-judge will have to be guided by his own conscience when he embarks on any post-retirement activities. Most of them will become an arbitrator or join a legal firm as its consultant or a statutory body as its chairman. To date, only three are said to have returned to the court as counsel – Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas, Datuk Kamalanathan Ratnam (better known as R.K. Nathan) and Datuk Gopal Sri Ram.

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.

Raja Aziz Addruse: A gentleman who believed in honesty and fair play

The Star

 by Roger Tan

THE social media was quickly overwhelmed with tributes and accolades for one of our nation's most renowned lawyers, Raja Aziz Addruse the moment news came in that he had passed away yesterday afternoon.

Ungku, as he was fondly known within the legal fraternity, was indubitably a legal luminary and a doyen of the Malaysian Bar.

His unequivocal commitment to the independence of the Bar and the independence of the judiciary - which are two essentials of the rule of law - is legendary. It is, therefore, not surprising that his departure is deeply felt by many lawyers, young and old, as Ungku could always be depended upon to speak up courageously for the Bar, and fairness and justice without fear and favour.

It is no wonder that by popular request he became the president of the Bar three times between 1976-1978, 1988-1989 and 1992-1993. He was also a member of the Bar Council intermittently for 21 years.

Born in Chemor, Perak on Feb 10, 1936, Ungku left for England in 1954 to read law at the University of Bristol.

He was called to the English Bar by the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn in 1960. He returned to Malaya the same year to join the Federal Judicial and Legal Services as a deputy public prosecutor and later a Deputy Parliamentary Draftsman.

Six years later, he resigned and entered private practice after having been admitted to the Malaysian Bar on Jan 8, 1966.

When he became the president of the Bar in March 1988, it was also one of the most tumultuous periods of the Bar with the dismissal of the then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas and two senior judges of the Supreme Court as well as the suspension of three others.

He not only represented Tun Salleh but stuck to his principle by refusing to appear in the Supreme Court when Tun Hamid Omar was Tun Salleh's successor albeit he was a senior counsel often sought after by many for major cases at the apex court.

Though small in built, he was a giant of a man both in personality and character. He was always able to bring across his points of arguments forcefully and effectively but in a soft-spoken and courteous manner.

What a mockery

Unmasked: Giggs obtained a super injunction to keep his alleged six-month extra-marital affair with reality TV star Thomas a secret but it soon became the world's most revealed secret. - AFP

The Sunday Star
by Roger Tan

The Ryan Giggs’ drama goes to show that rights to privacy and free press have to keep up with technological changes in this age of social media.

It had been a hell of a week for one of Manchester United’s most celebrated players, Ryan Giggs. Hitherto often portrayed as a family man, Giggs had earlier obtained a super injunction to keep his alleged six-month extra-marital affair with 28-year-old reality TV star Imogen Thomas secret. Of course, last week saw it become the world’s most revealed secret.

With the super injunction in force, neither Thomas nor the media could reveal or even mention the Premier League star’s name. (A super injunction is a temporary injunction which restrains a person from publishing private or confidential information concerning the applicant or informing others of the existence of such injunction and the court proceedings.)

But this had not impressed the Wild West of social media because by May 21, tens of thousands of Twitter users had already tweeted and re-tweeted Giggs’ name. This is by far the biggest act of mass civil disobedience on the Internet, making a mockery of the court order.

Needless to say, Britain’s feral and sanctimonious media were not amused at all, as it did not make sense to them that they could still be gagged from publishing something which is already an open secret on Twitter.

Even British Prime Minister David Cameron weighed in, describing the privacy law of Britain as no longer sustainable in this age of social media since everybody already knew the footballer’s identity.

Then May 22 in Scotland, which has a different legal system, saw The Sunday Herald emblazoning a large picture of Giggs on its front page. The next day, British MP John Hemming finally used parliamentary privilege, in clear defiance of the court order, to unmask Giggs as the subject footballer.

“With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all,” argued Hemming in Parliament.

Shortly after that on the same day, the News Group Newspapers (NGN) asked the High Court to lift the anonymised injunction in the wake of Hemming’s revelation. Senior media judge Justice Michael Tugendhat again rejected NGN’s attempt, arguing that while it was obvious that the purpose of the injunction to protect a secret had failed, it had not, however, failed in so far as its purpose was to prevent intrusion or harassment.

Legal aid centres lack funding

The Star
by P. Aruna and Wong Pek Mei

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council has been struggling to provide aid through its 15 legal aid centres nationwide due to lack of funding and a shortage of lawyers willing to provide free service.

President Ragunath Kesavan said it was difficult to cope with the demand as lawyers could not sacrifice much time to do pro bono work as they had a heavy workload of their own.

In welcoming the National Legal Aid Foundation launched by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak on Friday, he said the RM5mil grant provided by the Government would assist the foundation in paying lawyers for their work.

He said the foundation would also facilitate the process of providing legal aid with the cooperation of the police.

“There will now be a ‘duty lawyer’ for every police station,” he said, adding that the police could contact the lawyers “on call” to inform them of new cases which needed legal aid.

The foundation aims to provide legal aid for the low-income group from the day they are charged with an offence until the trial stage.

Bar: Karpal fit to be counsel

The Star

By M. Mageswari

Meanwhile, senior lawyer Roger Tan said it was for the courts and the disciplinary board to decide whether Karpal Singh was in breach of ethics, adding that the Bar Council should not prejudge the issue.

“It’s unacceptable to describe any member of the Bar raising the issue as mischievous,” he said in a tweet. 

PETALING JAYA: There are no grounds for DAP chairman Karpal Singh to be called as a witness in the ongoing sodomy trial of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the Bar Council said.

Its president Ragunath Kesavan said there was also no basis for misgivings regarding the legal and moral standing of the veteran lawyer to serve as a defence counsel in the trial.

“It is therefore mischievous of any party, let alone members of the Bar, to now intimate that Karpal should be disqualified on the basis of his access to so-called knowledge in the previous sodomy trial,” he said.

“The issues that have been raised in recent days might have been relevant in that earlier trial, had the then Public Prosecutor voiced any opposition to Karpal’s role as a potential prosecution witness, and his subsequent appearance as defence counsel.

A bargain for justice

The authorities must always bear in mind that when implementing plea bargaining, the system is open to possible abuses. It is important to ensure the system is more advantageous than disadvantageous for all the stakeholders in our criminal justice system to practise it.

CHIEF Justice Tun Zaki Azmi announced on Monday that plea bargaining will be implemented soon. The plea bargaining will allow those who plead guilty to serve a prison term which is not more than half of the maximum punishment imposed under the law for the offence for which an accused has been convicted.

This is made possible after Parliament passed the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2010 (Act A1378). Royal assent was obtained on June 2, and Act A1378 was gazetted on June 10. It will now come into operation on the date to be fixed by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.

What then is a plea bargain? In simple terms, it is an agreement reached after negotiation between the prosecutor and the accused in a criminal case whereby, if the accused agrees to plead guilty, the prosecutor will reduce the original criminal charge to a lesser charge or withdraw any other remaining charges or the accused will receive a lighter sentence if he faces the original criminal charge.

It is said that plea bargaining existed as far back as 1485 involving an English statute prohibiting unlawful hunting. The statute stated that an accused would be convicted only of a summary offence if he pleaded guilty; otherwise, he would be charged with a felony offence punishable by imprisonment.

In Malaysia, plea bargaining hitherto is done in an indirect way whereby the accused’s counsel will make representation to the Public Prosecutor to reduce the charge, for example, from a murder charge to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the accused pleads guilty.

However, the court is not involved in this process, and sentencing remains the sole prerogative of the presiding judge. As put trenchantly by Justice Wan Yahya in New Tuck Shen v Public Prosecutor (1982):

“This court does not consider it bound by the private bargaining between the prosecution and the defence in respect of which bargaining it is not a party and in which it has been judicially prohibited to participate. The right to impose punishment on a guilty party is absolutely the discretion of the court. It will exercise that power judicially but will not tolerate any encroachment or even semblance of encroachment either by the prosecution or the defence in respect of such right.

“An agreement between the prosecution and the defence as to the nature of sentence to be imposed on the accused creates no obligation on the court and is good only for pricking the conscience of the defaulting party.”

In fact, this is still the current position practised in common law jurisdictions such as England, Canada and Singapore, albeit plea bargaining is now statutorily permitted in Pakistan and India since 1999 and 2006, respectively.

Fishermen get injunction against firm

The Star

JOHOR BARU: The Johor Fishermen’s Association has obtained an interim injunction preventing Power Corporate Consultant Sdn Bhd from entering its oil palm estate to harvest the fruit.

High Court Justice Vernon Ong Lam Kiat made the order after dismissing a similar application by the company against the association as the company would be adequately compensated should it later succeed in its action filed against the association.

In his affidavit, association chairman Mohamad Dolmat said that in 1995, in order to improve the economic welfare of the 8,000 members of the association, the Johor government alienated the land — measuring about 405ha in Tenang, Segamat — to the association for the purpose of cultivating oil palm trees.

The parties then entered into a harvesting agreement on the land for 15 years.

In return, the association would receive 8% of the net profit from the fourth till the 10th year and 10% from the 11th till the 15th year, but to date, it has not received any payment.

The association had charged the land for a loan of RM2.5mil given to the company to develop the land.

Mohamad said that when the company refused to show the accounts to the association and failed to pay quit rent, it terminated the harvesting agreement and took possession of the land in September 2006.

He claimed that subsequently, the company re-entered the land and sent unidentified persons to threaten the security guards employed by the association by deliberately sharpening their parangs in front of them.

In December 2006 and January 2007, judges Datuk Azahar Mohamed and Datuk Syed Ahamd Helmy Syed Ahmad respectively issued a temporary injunction in favour of the association until the hearing of the application today.

The association was represented by Roger Tan and L.M. Yap while Manian Marappan represented the company.

Persatuan nelayan Johor dapat injunksi

Utusan Malaysia

JOHOR BAHRU 6 Feb. – Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini mengeluarkan perintah sementara bagi menghalang Syarikat Power Corporate Sdn. Bhd., daripada memasuki dan menguruskan ladang kelapa sawit milik Persatuan Nelayan Johor di Mukim Sungai Segamat, Segamat.

Perintah berkuatkuasa serta merta itu dibuat oleh Hakim Datuk Azhar Mohamed atas permohonan defendan menerusi peguamnya, Roger Tan sehingga injunksi itu didengar pada 13 Mac ini.

Ekoran perintah itu, kesemua pekerja termasuk pihak pengurusan Syarikat Power Corporate serta ejennya dihalang daripada memasuki ladang seluas 400 hektar itu.

Mereka turut dilarang dengan apa cara sekalipun memindah atau mengeluarkan buah kelapa sawit daripada ladang yang diusahakan sejak Julai 1996.

Sebelum ini, Persatuan Nelayan Johor mengemukakan satu injunksi interim (sementara) terhadap Power Corporate selepas mendakwa syarikat itu melanggar perjanjian yang dibuat ketika melantiknya memajukan tanah tersebut pada 1996.

Menurut Pengerusinya, Mohamad Dolmat, perjanjian itu termasuk membabitkan kegagalan syarikat mengagihkan keuntungan daripada hasil memajukan projek tersebut kepada persatuan berkenaan.

Beliau berkata, tanah berkenaan merupakan kurniaan kerajaan Johor bagi membantu meningkatkan ekonomi masyarakat nelayan.