This is another undesired scene that we do not want to see in the legal education system in Malaysia.

A parent of one of the law graduates of Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) wrote to The Star complaining that his/her daughter are now left in a limbo as she cannot proceed with her chambering due to the fact that UUM law degree is not recognised by Bar Council for admission to Malaysian Bar.

On the next day the complain letter of the angry parent being published, the director of Legal Profession Qualifying Board, Muniandy Kannyappan, responded that UUM law degree is definitely recognised by the Qualifying Board, however, they are still decising if UUM law graduates are exampted from taking Certificate in Laegal Practice (CLP) exam, if the said graduates want to practise law in Malaysia. 

(more…)

The recent Political Tsunami in our country has yielded many changes for us, the Rakyat. We have seen the emergence of a dual-party system (well, almost), where a bigger and tougher opposition shares the limelight with the ruling party. We have seen giant-killers and the almighty falls of ministers. We have seen the weakening of racial politics and the strengthening of democracy.

For the legal community, the change came in the form of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, the new de facto law minister. Hailed as “the most promising appointment” in the new cabinet by The Economist (Reference - “Shuffling deckchairs“, The Economist, 2008-03-19.), he has so far lived up to the name. From forcing the government to apologize for the 1988 judicial crisis (a huge leap, that one), the introduction of the Common Bar Examination, to his staunch support for establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip –  Datuk Zaid is here to stay.

Thus, eLawyer, as your local legal community portal, would like to hear your views and concerns regarding some of the issues currently affecting the legal community and the country, as a whole.

We would like to invite all lawyers, law students and bloggers to participate in our blog writing competition, which features some ‘hot’ topics right now:

1) Towards an independent judiciary in Malaysia

2) Common Bar Exams: The creation of a new problem or a solution for an old one?

3) Welcome CheDet.com: the impact of Tun Mahathir’s blog

4) Anti-party Hopping Law- Agree or Disagree?

Choose EITHER ONE of the above topics, give your two-cents worth in not more than 1,000 words and you stand to win up to RM 500 cash! Successful entries will be featured in an exclusive section on our website.

(more…)

by Yong Ling Loong

Yet again, a substantive issue of law is being dismissed on technical grounds as the report shows. This is the chance for the Court of Appeal to settle the issue of whether a Muslim convert can renounce Islam and revert to her original religion. Yet, instead of coming up with a precedent, the court has dismissed the case in a 2-1 majority decision on technical grounds. The grounds being that that there are 2 names stated in the appeal - one a Chinese name and the other one, a Muslim name. Based on the report of The Malaysian Insider, it is quite clear that the 2 judges are harping on this most minor of issue - it’s become almost a travesty of justice. Laughable, in fact.

As counsel for the appellant said, what does it matter whether the names are different as “the Chinese name and Muslim name were the same person in the appeal.” Common sense should prevail here. Substantive issues should prevail over objections based only on form. Yes, Edmund Bon did not stick to just one name in the documents, as desired. This is something that is easily rectified and in the interest of justice, should have been allowed, so that the more substantive matter, the subject matter of the appeal can be fully argued and disposed off.

But instead, all resorting to flimsy excuses to deny this claim. We have Selangor legal advisor Datin Paduka Zauyah Be Loth Khan, representing the state, citing the same incompetency reason, to reject the appeal. So what if the appellant had used her Muslim name in her SD but signed it with her Chinese name?

If I had been using my Chinese name all my life to sign off all my documents and letters, am I going to change my signature just because I changed my religion? If I do that, won’t all all my documents be invalid because the signature is different. Is there a rule in Islam that makes it mandatory for all Muslim converts to change their signatures in all official documents? Is there a rule that I can’t be a Muslim and at the same time practise my Chinese culture like reading, writing and signing off documents in Chinese? If that is the case, then the Chinese Muslims in China are not quite the proper Muslims that they should be, going by the standards imposed here.

Say, my passport has my Chinese signature. When I convert to Islam, do I need to go to the Immigration Department to change my signature on my passport, or worse, be told to renew my passport based on my new name and new signature? In the process, I am charged another RM300 for the 32-page forced renewal. Will the Immigration Department pro-rate the amount or give me a rebate, if I still have another 4 years to go before its expiry? (more…)

by Yong Ling Loong

It would appear that one of the most important documents that can shed light on the alleged sodomy act by Anwar is off limits to everyone - Saiful’s police report. 

I thought police reports are public documents and any member of the public can obtain copies of them by paying the requisite amount at the police station where it was lodged. I wonder if denying the public the contents of Saiful’s police report is tantamount to abuse of the system?  Indeed, I would like to put here what the Deputy police chief  Ismail Omar told the New Straits Times newspaper after the spectacular expose of Saiful’s first medical report: “This is an attempt to sabotage police investigations and confuse people.”

Yes, Deputy police chief, the public is indeed confused. Perhaps, the Deputy police chief care to enlighten the public by explaining to them what the duties of the police are when conducting this type of investigations. Police accountability to the public has never been more pressing and needed here. Already, the Malaysian police’s credibility is in tatters. Maybe it’s time to educate the public on police investigative powers and procedures. 

As far as I know, the first thing that the police always does is to suspect the maker of the police report. The allegations, especially such serious allegations, are always suspect and the police should query Saiful over his allegations. And examine the 2 medical reports. As well as why he met Najib twice days before he went to have his ass examined and made his police report following that. Further, why he met Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel in Kuala Lumpur one day before the alleged sodomy took place.

Separately, a televised report of Najib explaining his (Najib) meeting with Saiful cast even more doubt on the real purpose of the visit. Is it really to ask for scholarship, as alleged by Najib? Bear in mind Saiful is a university dropout and Najib is NOT the Education Minister.

(more…)

by Yong Ling Loong

It would seem from news reports since yesterday that indeed the first medical report on Saiful Bukhari Azlan (aka The most talked-about ASS in Malaysia) appears to have some semblance of truth. The good doctor did indeed examine Saiful at 2.14 pm on 28th June 2008. And has allegedly come out with zilch sodomy claim by alleged victim.

How genuine is the medical report? The police have admitted that they had questioned the doctor early on during their investigations. The hospital has yet to come out with an official statement, although a representative had confirmed that the said doctor did examine Saiful. Bear in mind that the maker of the medical report, one Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid is now on an indefinite leave of absence.

The question now that should be on everyone’s mind is: What about the second medical report, purportedly conducted by a medical officer in a government hospital. If this is also in the negative, case closed. Why do we still need Anwar’s DNA?

(more…)

We are pleased to inform you that the Family Law Committee of the Bar Council Malaysia will be organising a half-day forum for the General Public. The details are set out as below:

Title:  “Conversion to Islam: Art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini & Shamala Revisited”

Date: 9th August 2008

Time: 8.30am-1.00pm

Venue: Bar Council Auditorium, 1st Floor, Bar Council Secretariat, No.13, 15 & 17, Leboh Pasar Besar,  50050, Kuala Lumpur

Registration: RM 20 per person (Refreshments will be provided)

Preamble

How should conflicts in matrimonial and family matters i.e. divorce, custody, maintenance and distribution be resolved, upon conversion to Islam of one party in a non-Muslim marriage: Ought the Civil Courts to have exclusive jurisdiction?

The talkshow will be in two (2) parts:-

(1) The Human & Social Perspective: Effect on families faced with such conflicts.

Come hear Civil Society representatives and family members of converts share real-life stories on the Human & Social Perspective of Art 121 (1A).

(2) The Legal Perspective: Subashini and Shamala Revisited: Should Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution be reviewed and amended?

Join talkshow host/moderator Zarizana Abdul Aziz (K Ahmad & Yong) with:

* Tuan Dr. Haji Naim Haji Mokhtar (Pendakwa Syarie, Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & ex-Syariah Court Judge)
* Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad (Pengarah Pusat Syariah Undang-undang dan Sains Politik/Fellow Kanan, Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia)
* Ravi Nekoo (Ravi Nekoo & Pushpa Ratnam)
* K. Shanmuga (Kanesalingam & Co)
* Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla (Haniff Khatri)

Who should attend?

Law practitioners
Ministry of Family, Women and Community Development
AG Chambers
Civil Society/NGOs
Religious Bodies
University/College administrators and students
General Public

For further enquiries, please contact 03-2031 3003 Sumitha (194) / Vasantha (210). You can either e-mail your confirmation to Sumitha at sumitha@malaysianbar.org.my / Vasantha at vasantha@malaysianbar.org.my or fax the registration form to the Secretariat (at 03-20261313 / 20725818 / 20342825).
Introduction:

The forum is inter alia one of several projects by the Family Law Committee of the Bar Council Malaysia to draw attention to the various areas of family law that requires urgent reform.

It is of concern to the Bar Council that the issue of conversion to Islam of one spouse without the knowledge of the spouse and the conversion to Islam of the children by one spouse without the knowledge and consent of the other spouse has caused so much grief and discord to families from the ensuing legal wrangles.

The legal implications are far reaching beyond the question of the jurisdiction of the Courts as the division of properties, custody battles for the children and the marital status of the couples and issue of alimonies are thrust into the open and into turmoil.

(more…)

Once again, KL Bar is having its annual Charity Nite but this time there is no KL Bar Idol. Instead, they have come up with another witty idea, by organising the ‘Battle of the Bands 2008′. Charity Nite is held every year to help raise money for the charity they choose to adopt yearly.

By organising ‘Battle of the Bands’, KL Bar hopes that it will be able to attract as many people as possible as the more people, the merrier it would be, and the charity funds will be higher too. It might be a surprise but among the lawyers, there are hidden talents of rockers too.

This coming Friday, June 27 2008, you will be entertained by 5 very promising bands at SaVanh Too, Plaza Mont Kiara. It is guaranteed an exciting night of rock and roll while at the same time doing charity. This year, KL Bar has adopted the Persatuan Penjagaan Kanak-Kanak Cacat Klang, Selangor.

It is a home for children that are physically handicapped, mentally retarded, deaf, dumb, autistic and suffering from Down’s Syndrome. It is a tax-exempt shelter but the operation and administration costs run up to almost RM31,950.00 monthly. The most important thing to maintain this home is to teach the children basic surviving skills so they can be more independent as they become adults.

(more…)

Background

The dispute regarding the sovereignty of Batu Puteh first arose when Malaysia published a map in 1979.

According to the map, the island was claimed to be Malaysia’s. As a result of that publication, Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia in 1980 by arguing that it has exercised sovereign rights there since the 1800s, when the British colonial government occupied it and built Horsburgh lighthouse on that island.

Also some maps published in 1962, 1965, 1975 showed that the island belonged to Singapore.
In response, Malaysia says it has had sovereignty over the islet since the early 16th century, led to an exchange of correspondence and subsequently to a series of intergovernmental talks in 1993-1994 at which the respective positions of the two Parties were developed, but without any conclusion. Subsequently Singapore proposed submitting the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1989. This followed by an agreement on the part of Malaysia in 1994.

At the court,  Singapore argued that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius (No Mans Land) when Britain took possession of it from 1847 to 1851.They then went on to argue that it had conducted various activities there for over 150 years to show that it had exercised sovereignty powers on Pulau Batu Puteh, which it calls Pedra Branca (White Rock in Portuguese) while Malaysia had not done so.

Malaysia on the other hand counters by saying that Singapore’s claim that the island was terra nullius was flawed. Malaysia emphasized the fact that Johor had the original title to the island and the two marine features since time immemorial and that Britain was merely given permission by the Johor Sultanate to build the Horsburgh lighthouse on the island. Singapore was merely the administrator of the lighthouse built on Pulau Batu Puteh and activities that have taken place there were just acts required of a lighthouse administrator. Since the British activities in relation to the Horsburgh lighthouse and the island after 1851 were purely operational and did not reflect any intention to acquire sovereignty over the island.
Hence, the Singaporean’s activities in respect of the lighthouse did not amount to a conduct of sovereignty as claimed.

Decision

This long standing dispute was finally been laid to rest when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case acting president Judge Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawesh handed down the court’s judgment recently. 

(more…)

On 14 May 2008, our de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim announced the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) Examination will be abolished and will be replaced with the Common Bar Examination (CBE). He said the main reason is to standardise the quality of the legal profession.

Currently, law students who graduated from overseas universities will need to sit for CLP Exam in order to practise law in Malaysia. On another hand, law students from local public universities are exampted from CLP Exam.

Based on Malaysian Bar website CLP Exam was introduced in 1984 as a “rescue programme” for Malaysian law graduates who were not able to sit for the English Bar exam due to their LLB -Law Degree’s result. (only those who score 2:1 or exceptional 2:2 are qualified to sit for English Bar vocatonal exam.)

(more…)

We normally hear of regular folks being duped of their hard-earned cash, but this time we get a member of the law fraternity getting hit.

A 30-something lawyer, who was shopping in Jalan Wong Ah Fook, Johor Baru, was approached by a foreigner who wanted to get directions to a mobile shop. He then told the lady that he had 30 mobile phones, each costing RM3,000 and was selling them at a discounted price of RM1,000.

At that point two other men joined the conversation and they too, were asking questions regarding the mobile phones. The foreigner then brought out a Rolex watch which he claimed was going cheap. The lady and the two men did not believe his claim until one of the men took the watch to a nearby watch shop and on his return, told the others that the watch actually cost RM100,000.

(more…)