Worry that some parents may forgo responsibility

The Star

By Soo Ewe Jin

ROGER Tan, who is a member of the Bar Council, said it is understandable that concerns have been raised on the need to amend Section 95 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976.

This was after the Federal Court ruled in the Karunairajah case in 2004 that the word disability in this section only covers “physical” and “mental” disability and cannot cover financial dependence.

The court held that there was no legal basis for interpreting the exceptions in Section 95 to include financial dependence for the purpose of pursuing tertiary and/or vocational education after the “child” had completed the age of 18.

It overruled the Court of Appeal which had attempted to extend the obligation of the parent after the child turned 18 by using a creative interpretation of “disability” to include financial dependence as well.

The Federal Court ended by saying: “A case had to be decided according to the law as it stands, irrespective of a judge’s personal view on it and moral obligations can never take precedence over the law. What the law should be is a matter for the legislature.”

Tan pointed out that despite the court’s interpretation of Section 95, it was clear from other provisions and other laws that the age of majority is not so clear-cut.

Under Section 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961, for example, the guardian is responsible for the support, health and education of the child until he/she reaches 21.

Tan argued that the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976, which limits the maintenance of a child only up to 18 years of age, is thus contrary to the Guardianship of Infants Act and unfairly discriminates against children of divorced parents.

On a more obvious practical level, many people are aware that income tax provisions allow taxpayers to continue to claim relief (at a higher rate) for children beyond 18 years of age if the children are pursuing tertiary education thus acknowledging the responsibility of a parent to maintain his/her children beyond the age of 18.

Furthermore, in other provisions of the Law Reform Act 1976 a father’s responsibility for his child in other areas extends beyond 18 to 21 years.

For example, a person under 21 is still required to obtain his father’s consent if he/she wants to marry.

It is because of such uncertainties that lawyers feel the legislature should step in to amend Section 95 to compel the obligation to pay maintenance for children beyond 18 if they are receiving education or training.

Otherwise, parents can refuse to do so, seeking refuge behind the Federal Court decision of Karunairajah which has stated in no uncertain terms that parents are not obliged to maintain children above 18.

As the letter to The Star dramatically puts it in its headline, “Law allows dad to dump girl at 18”, it will be the children of divorced parents who will suffer the most and who would be indirectly penalised by the breakdown of their parents’ marriages.

Tan said he could understand what the “Deprived 18-year-old” is going through as she is still in college and is certainly in no position to financially fend for herself.

“It is sad that these children who are at the threshold of their education would have to waste their talent and potential, and sacrifice their future merely because the legislature has not deemed it fit to compel their parents to maintain them once they attain 18,” said Tan.

Corruption will slay the innocent

GEORGE Washington, the first President of the United States, once described the judiciary as "the firmest pillar of government".

In other words, of the three pillars of government, namely the legislature, executive and judiciary, the last-named is the pivotal pillar that supports democracy and the rule of law.

In our country, I cannot stress how important the role of the judicial branch is in defending the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land because our courts have the power to nullify any law passed by Parliament after Merdeka Day, which is inconsistent with the Constitution.

This explains why, when our judges are appointed, they take an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It is therefore worrying to read about judicial corruption, a topic which has been dominating our newspapers in recent weeks.

It is worrying because if there is indeed any truth in any allegation of judicial corruption, this firmest pillar which is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution will crack and ultimately collapse.

But judicial corruption is not just exclusive of a particular country. It is an insidious disease capable of pervading any country if left unchecked.

In one of his extra-judicial writings in 2001 entitled Tackling Judicial Corruption — Globally, Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia wrote: "In the days of the British Empire, the spectre of a corrupt judge or magistrate was so horrible that it could largely be dismissed as impossible.

"The judicial traditions had a strong ethos of honesty and integrity. A judge on the take was unthinkable.

"The problems of the judiciary were different: Laziness, bad temper, dilatoriness, ignorance of the law, prejudice.

"Financial corruption was out of the question, although it was not unknown for judges sometimes to be corrupted intellectually by ambition, the hope of promotion or the prayer for a title.

"Nowadays, this fundamental assumption of the legal profession cannot always be taken for granted in every country of the Commonwealth of Nations, still less of the whole world.

"The international principles of human rights may promise that the judge shall be competent, independent and impartial. But in many countries, especially in the lower judiciary, corruption is sadly a way of life.

"Insidiously, it has invaded the judicial seat. It has intruded into court registries. Without a ‘tip’, a file may be lost and will never make its way to a hearing. Without a bribe, a favourable decision may not be assured."

Indeed in the days before the time of Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin (who was the Chief Justice from 1994 to 2000), venal allegations against our judiciary were almost unheard of.

But during his time, the most talked-about allegation of judicial graft was that contained in a 33-page pamphlet written by a High Court judge, Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid.

This missive later caused Syed Ahmad to resign on July 1, 1996. In it, there were 112 allegations: 39 of corruption, 21 pertaining to abuse of power, and 52 of personal misconduct, immorality or other indiscretions.

On March 15, 1996, when ordering an investigation into the matter, the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was quoted by the New Straits Times a day later to have said: "The investigation is aimed at striking at the venomous elements who are out to discredit the judiciary and subvert justice in our beloved country.

"As Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor, it is my duty and responsibility to ensure that the judiciary and the legal profession be cleansed of these treacherous elements who, by their vile, insidious, devious, and scurrilous allegation in this pamphlet had sought to undermine the integrity of the judiciary and administration of justice in this country.

"Today is the Ides of March. But unlike that fateful day in ancient Rome where the brutish beasts succeeded in killing Caesar, today we launch this pre-emptive strike at these conspirators and Insya Allah, we will ferret them out, whoever they are, and bring them to justice."

Then on July 9, 1996, Mohtar announced the completion of the investigation and revealed that the police and the Anti-Corruption Agency had questioned 12 top judges, including Eusoff, and had also examined their assets.

But Mohtar said the police had found the judges clean, adding that the matter had been closed with Syed Ahmad’s resignation, which was sufficient punishment for him.

Mohtar was also quoted to have said: "I hope the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will not be doubted henceforth."

But the Bar Council did not think so. It immediately called upon Mohtar to review these complaints from the standpoint not only of criminal wrong, but whether they disclosed grounds of judicial misconduct rendering a judge unfit for office. But Mohtar was not moved.

To my mind, such a decision undermined the integrity and impartiality of our judiciary. Mohtar’s Ides of March statement at the commencement of the investigation made it crystal clear that it was actually aimed at identifying the authorship of the allegations.

In his words, what was launched on March 15, 1996 was his "pre-emptive strike" at the "treacherous elements" in the judiciary and legal profession who had authored the "vile, insidious, devious, and scurrilous" allegations.

That is why it is correct for the Bar Council, former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaikh Daud Md Ismail and many other senior lawyers to now call for the allegations to be investigated again. After all, there is no limitation period for prosecuting and punishing criminal wrongs.

In fact, some of the allegations in the pamphlet cast aspersions on judges who appeared to have an impeccable record of integrity and are known to be incorruptible.

I do not know whether that was the writer’s ploy to avoid being identified, but when the name of a good judge is maligned, we owe it to him to have his reputation restored so that whoever appears before him will not doubt his judicial integrity and impartiality.

It follows that if at all any of the allegations against the judiciary is found to be untrue and calumniatory, Syed Ahmad should also face the legal consequences of his action.

Resignation might be a sufficient punishment for him, but it could not undo the damage he did to the Malaysian judiciary.

Likewise, if the allegations are true and action is taken, this will no doubt repair and re-strengthen the damaged pillar of justice while at the same time undo the injustice caused to Syed Ahmad.

The other report of alleged judicial corruption was related in a court proceeding at the Muar High Court on April 22, 2005. The case involved a deceased lawyer and four others who were accused of murder.

One of the prosecution witnesses, a court clerk, gave evidence on the role he played in "shopping for judges".

The New Straits Times on April 23, 2005 reported that the deceased lawyer had told the witness that he wanted a certain panel to hear the appeal.

The presiding High Court judge then immediately ordered a media blackout of the evidence before the court on the grounds that it would be unfair to allow the publication of names of persons who had yet to be implicated.

Most cases involving judicial corruption reported in other countries normally involve corrupt lawyers who acted as intermediaries between the litigant and the corrupt judge.

In some cases, family members of the corrupt judges were also involved. More often than not, the litigants would not know how much had been paid to the judges or pocketed by the corrupt lawyers as there was no direct contact between the litigants and the judges.

Such perfidious complicity between a lawyer and a judge stinks to high heaven.

Therefore, the allegations by Syed Ahmad and the court clerk in the Muar case were indeed troubling.

Allegations of judicial corruption are very serious, and every such allegation must be investigated thoroughly and not swept under the carpet so that the citizenry will continue to have faith in the administration of justice.

In fact, judicial corruption threatens not only judicial independence but also the rule of law. It saps our nation’s soul. It saps our spirit as a nation in coming to grips with governmental corruption when this firmest pillar should have been in the forefront in the fight against this evil.

We must devise a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that corruption does not seep into the administration of justice.

Eradicating judicial graft is the joint responsibility of all stakeholders in the administration of justice — the judges, lawyers, litigants, government, legislature, the community and the media.

It is of cardinal importance that judges and members of the legal profession are imbued with strong ethical values of honesty and integrity.

We must perpetuate a culture whereby any bribe will be met with such public revulsion that public shame will deter any thought of bribery in the administration of justice.

All said, the problem lies with the person who sits in the seat of justice.

Corruption cannot be exterminated by having more than one judge to hear the case or replacing bench trials with jury trials.

At the end of the day, a corrupt judge, a corrupt lawyer or a corrupt juror will always have this innate inclination for ill-gotten and quick enrichment.

The Chinese have a proverb which says: "Though the sword of justice is sharp, it will not slay the innocent."

But let me tell you, the innocent man will still be slain if the swordsman is corrupt.

For this reason and as proven elsewhere, the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission in sieving through judicial appointees is still the most effective way to arrest judicial graft.

Tell your dad 'I love you' now before it's too late for that

Tan Sue Yong (missing since 23 May 2000)

TODAY is Father’s Day. May I wish all fathers a Happy Father’s Day.

Let me tell you a story about a great dad. Applying our societal standards, he was a nobody. He possessed neither wealth nor fame. But to his children, he was the greatest gift from God.

Sue Yong was born on Sept 24, 1917 to a huge and wealthy Zheng family in the province of Fuzhou, China. Sue Yong’s grandfather, Zheng Peng Hui was a renowned and wealthy physician sharing the lineage of the famous Chinese poet in the Qing Dynasty, Zheng Ban Qiao.

They lived in a huge mansion and were served by many servants. He was the 19th generation of the Zheng family.

In 1947, with the prospect of the communists taking control of China, Sue Yong and his young wife Swee Mei decided to leave China. The Zheng’s family assets were later sequestrated by the communists when they came to power on Oct 1, 1949.

Upon arrival, the young childless couple decided to settle down in Sepang, Selangor. There, they laboured as pig-farmers.

Living under poor and malnourished circumstances, Swee Mei’s pregnancies were often fraught with problems. She suffered several miscarriages and three sons died a few days after their births.

For Sue Yong, the life of luxury of his China days had also come to an end. There was no way he would return to China. Malaya was his new home.

In Sepang, they lived in poverty and under constant fear of the communist insurgents Malaya was fighting at that time. As the pig farm was located far away from home, their livelihood was severely affected by the many curfews imposed by the security forces.

In 1958, they decided to move down to Yong Peng. By this time, he had to work even harder to feed his five young children. Lunch and dinner were often porridge with soya sauce or a few slices of preserved bean curds.

In Yong Peng, Sue Yong toiled as a labourer for landowners who required him to clear their smallholdings of weeds and lallang or make drains along the perimeter of the land. He did all these by using his cangkul, and for a meagre wage of six ringgit a day.

Apart from having to work under the hot sun with his bare hands, such job offers were not regular. So, the household income was partly supplemented by his two elder daughters who gave up school to work as rubber tappers at the tender age of 10, each earning about two ringgit a day.

Their quality of life only started to improve from the mid-1970s when Sue Yong started to get tree-felling contracts. But this job required him to live in jungles for one or two months, felling trees and clearing secondary jungle with his chain saw.

Beloved Dad and Mum

It was an extremely dangerous job. So, whenever the taxi pulled up in front of the house with his tools, it meant Sue Yong had come home safely.

But when he had to leave again for new assignments, his family would worry for his safety again.

Often, Sue Yong had to dye his grey hair whenever he went around trying to secure contracts, fearing that prospective employers would find him too old to take up the job. He did not retire until he was 71, and that was also upon his children’s insistence.

For him, education for his children was the best investment. Despite advice from relatives that he should get his children to stop studying and start tapping rubber or helping him out with his contract work, Sue Yong was adamant that he would do everything for his children so that they would not be deprived of education and end up to be like him.

This is one fine example of what Ruth E. Renkel said: "Sometimes the poorest man leaves his children the richest inheritance."

He was also a loyal Malaysian as he would often say Malaysia was his home and would be his final resting place.

Since he came over here in 1947, he only went back to China once in 1983. That trip meant a lot to him because he had always wanted to make this "pilgrimage" to fulfil his wish and duty of paying his belated respects to his departed parents.

A duty no doubt he fulfilled with admiration by collecting the relics of his late parents and having them buried with a beautiful tomb erected in their memory.

But alas, just as he was able to enjoy the fruits of his labour in his twilight years, Sue Yong went missing on May 23, 2000 after taking an evening walk. He was 83. It was devastating for me. Tan Sue Yong is my father.

When I received a call from my mother on that fateful evening, I immediately rushed back. With the help of local Rela members, we mounted a search around Yong Peng town but could not find him.

For the next few days, the police field force and dog units joined the search. After one whole week of looking out for him in Yong Peng without any success, the reality of never seeing my dad again began to sink in.

I remember hugging my wife and crying together as we agonised over our missing dad. We could not understand why someone who had given so much to us, would have his life end in this manner.

When news came that dad was spotted taking a bus in Air Hitam, Johor, I knew he was now on the move, and no longer in Yong Peng. So, I had to abandon the search in Yong Peng and return to work.

That evening, when driving my family home, tears just flowed down as I felt so helpless at that time. I felt as if I had failed him for not being able to find him. I felt as if I had not done enough despite all the time, money, resources spent and help from so many kind people.

So, on Father’s Day 2000, which also fell on June 18, I took out advertisements in national newspapers seeking help in locating him, but to no avail.

Six years have passed. By the seventh year, the law will presume he is dead if he is still missing. But hope is what I will not give up and will continue to pray that God will help us find him — whether dead or alive.

Until then, it is difficult to have any closure on our part. The tomb that he himself designed and which was built some 20 years ago is still empty.

Our tears still flow whenever we look at his photo or dream of him. We have dreamt of him many times hoping that he would reveal to us his whereabouts, but we would wake up each time just as he was about to tell us where he was.

Dear Malaysians, though we are not rich, our lives have been enriched by him. Our dad taught us honesty, hard work and filial piety.

Always more concerned about providing for his family, he did not drink, smoke or gamble, let alone indulge in unfruitful activities. He even helped around with household chores.

Many a time, the mere thought of what our dad went through to bring us up would always provide us the much-needed jolt to remind us how blessed we are because of him.

On this special day, I pay tribute to this great man in my life. We are not who we are today if not for our beloved dad. The toil and sweat he had put in would not be in vain.

Because of him, all his grandchildren are now able to receive tertiary education. We are a family brought up by a man deprived of everything but who gave his all to us. He will remain in our hearts forever.

So Malaysians, I have no doubt this evening many of you will take your dad out for dinner. But except for this special day, when was the last time we took our dad out for a meal or sat down to have a good chat with him?

And when was the last time we gave him a pat or a hug or said, "I love you"?

In fact, just a week ago, our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, when launching the Royal Malaysia Police Family Day, advised us to value our family members while they are still alive and shower them with love so that there will be no sense of guilt later.

I could not agree more with our Prime Minister, and I leave you to read Robert Paul Moreno’s The Time is Now:

If you are ever going to love me
Love me now while I can know
All the sweet and tender feelings
From which the true affection flows

Love me now while I am living
Do not wait until I am gone
And then have it chiselled in marble
Sweet words on ice-cold stone

If you have tender thoughts of me
Why not whisper them to me?
Don’t you know it would make me happy?
And as glad as can be

If you wait until I’m sleeping
Never to waken here again
There will be walls of earth between us
And I won’t hear you then

I won’t need your kind words
When the grass grows over my face
I won’t crave your love and kisses
In my last low resting place

So if you love me, even a little bit
Let me know while I’m living
So that I can treasure it

The writer is a lawyer. Please visit www.missingourdad.com for more information about his missing father.

Bar Council: Know your rights and liabilities

The Sun

The Bar Council wants to create greater public awareness about the rights and liabilities of property owners and occupiers. This, says Roger Tan, the chairman of the council's Conveyancing Practice Committee, is part of the Bar Council's aims to facilitate the acquisition of legal knowledge by those who are not lawyers.

"The Bar Council is happy to work with theSun in our efforts to create public awareness on legal issues related to real estate. The title of the column 'Law & Realty" is apt, as it deals with different aspects of the law involving acquisition, disposal and dealings of immovable properties," says Tan, who is based in Johor.

The first article touches on forgery related to the transfer of property ownership, which Tan describes as a "serious problem" which he hopes the Government would tackle by making changes to the law.

He adds that Malaysians ought to be conscious and aware of the law as they "have a constitutional right not to be deprived of their properties save in accordance with the law". The column will be undertaken by members of the Conveyancing Practice Committee. Tan says committee members would write on issues related to lodging a private caveat, dealing with Land Offices, compulsory land acquisition and other issues of interest.

On legal problems encountered by the public in relation to property, Tan says these usually involve late delivery, legal fees and housing loans.