‘Do action speaks louder than words’??? However, the Bar Council Human Rights Committee proved vice versa. They decided to talk rather than walk in conjunction with the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDNR) 1948 as well as the Human Rights Day on the 10th of December 2008.

Hence, The Bar Council Human Rights Committee will be organizing the Bar Council Human Rights Debate 2008 to make known towards the public about our rights as homosapiens. In addition, this debate will cultivate moral values and narrow the gap regardless culture, ethnic and language because all rights allied issue will be debated. The debate ought to be the right place to express your opinion on international and national policies. The theme for the debate is “UDHR @ 60 and still not all is right”. The event will take place on the 9th-12th of December, 2008 at KDU college (PJ Campus).
If you are interested to know more about the Articles in UDNR, you can click the link ,http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Each team consist of two person. The debate will be held in the British Parliamentary style. Thus, there will be opening and closing arguments for both the government and the opposition. Each person will be given 7 minutes to present his/her argument. Audi Alteram Partem is exercised in the debate.The debate do not requires you to only speak, but hearing the other party is essential too! Watching debates has never been mundane to me, most of the speakers were very eloquent people. If you think you are one of them, quickly register for this debate. Attractive prizes are awaiting the winner. If debate is not your cup of tea, perhaps you can opt to participate as an adjudicator or in the Public Speaking competition.

However, if you wish to assist or donate a token of appreciation for this event. Please do not hesitate to do so because it is never easy to organize and make it successful event without support from everyone. Let’s participate and celebrate this event to show that WE CARE and we are concern about our rights. If we do not even care about our rights, who will?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The applicable fees in respect of the Debate Tournament and Public Speaking Competition are as follows:

I. Debate Tournament

For participants

RM250 per person (for debater)
RM250 per person (for adjudicator)
RM250 per person (for officer/ observer)
(Fee includes food and hotel accommodation)
Every team must have 2 debaters and 1 adjudicator. (For participating institutions, the maximum number of teams permitted is 5 per institution)

For ‘Stay At Home’ participants

RM180 per person (for debater)
RM180 per person (for adjudicator)
RM180 per person (for officer/observer)
(Fee includes food)
Every team must have 2 debaters and 1 adjudicator. (For participating institutions, the maximum number of teams permitted is 5 per institution)

II. Public Speaking Competition

RM50 per person (Fee includes food)

Registration Process:

Kindly send to us via wire transfer the requisite fee(s) by 30 October 2008, details of which are as follows:

Bar Council
HSBC, No 2, Leboh Ampang, 50050 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Account No: 301-022166-001
SWIFT Code No: HBMBMYKL
(Please pay all bank charges so that the Bar Council receives the full amount of the fees.)

Alternatively, send your cheque(s) made in favor of the ‘Bar Council’ to them.

After transferring or sending your fee, e-mail them at hrdebate08@malaysianbar.org.my, and tell them your name, institution, and the amount of money you transferred/sent.

Attach a copy of the transfer slip/cheque and the registration form to the e-mail you sent. They will not cover transaction costs.

Please visit http://hrdebate08.wordpress.com/ for more information.

P/S: eLawyer.com.my is proud to be one of the sponsors of the above event.

By Khairul Anuar bin Shaharudin (Advocate & Solicitor)

There are a lot of politicians from the legal background either as a graduate of law school but never practice law or famous law practitioners who are fodder for their soundbites in or out of Parliament. They are well-known to be hardliners and don’t care what people say about them. Either to their face or behind them. Some of the best politicians, which are subjective (I mean, what is a good politician? A good bullshitter?) are lawyers. Either in the opposition side or the current government side. Either in the Parliament of Malaysia or as a state assemblyman. All are known for being very good in talking the talk. But do they walk the walk?

Currently, there is a kind of a upheavel among lawyers on the lack of lawyers willing to take the mantel of a presidency of the Bar Council or being on the council itself. There are a few articles in newspaper like in the Star newspaper on 21.11.08 by the Putik Lada columnist or a campaign by http://www.elawyers.com/ aboth the lack of voting papers being returned to the Bar Council secretariat. We vote by post you see.

If any one of the candidate want to rig the voting, I think its plausible as it is just a piece of paper with the name of the candidate and a column for you to tick your choice. This year, there are 23 candidates for 12 post. Everyody remember the fiasco of last year’s Bar Council election? I think, but am not sure, the case on that election is still on appeal. That what’s I love about the Bar Council, half of our yearly fees go to defending the Bar from litigations due to some members not being satisfied with the Council’s decision.

Choose me as the next Bar Council President and I will act cute to get what I want

According to that article in the Star newspaper (pg. N55) by Janet Chai Pei Ying, it is said that out of the 13,000 current registered Bar Council member, only 3,500 will return their ballot paper. The other ballot paper will be recycled as rough paper (that’s what I usually do with all the circular sent by the Bar Council before they started to send me emails) or even worse just thrown out into the trash. If the list of candidates of this year is anything to go by, nearly 80% of it are the same candidate you see year in, year out.

Why you say? Like what Janet said in her article, the Bar members who will always itching for a fight and argument during the Annual General Meeting, have no interest in being leaders or charts the course of the Bar Council. They were willing to let a few who sometimes have to sacrifice their time to sleep to fight for all the things the Bar Council stands for. Some I may not even agree with but I have just realised the power of my vote and I voted this year. I even sent SMSes to a few of my lawyer friends and asked all the lawyers in my firm to vote.

I have experienced the localised version of the Bar by being a member of a Committee in a Bar Committee of a state in Malaysia. My partner is a chairperson of one of the Committee in the same Bar Committee and we have found out the hardship and the sacrifice that we have to make worthwhile. It was great to learn about being a member of a society like we did once in university but it is a different ballgame althogether. Next year, we may do a role reversal…

Back to my comment on lawyers in general especially with regard to the Bar Council. Lawyers just don’t want to care when they are supposed to. They should vote and don’t just bitch about the lack of support or the fights that the Bar is fighting is not up their alley or they don’t agree on it. Vote and determine who leads. Then you can make a change. Like that guy in a country halfway across the world says,

“Yes, we can…!!!”

By Fahri Azzat

I was reading the decision of GS Gill Sdn Bhd v Descente, Ltd and another appeal [2008] 6 MLJ 181 recently where the Court of Appeal had yet another instance to reaffirm the principle (which really needs no further affirmation or re-affirmation, but perhaps things are the way they are because some judges still need regular reminders every now and again; so I’m also not quite sure why this case even merits a report since it just rehashes principles long stated) that an appellate court would not interfere with an actual finding of fact by a trial court. What they would interfere with is only the inference of fact drawn from a finding of fact. Gopal Sri Ram JCA wrote the lead judgment and referred to the decision of Clarke v Edinburgh Tramways [1919] SC 35 and the dicta of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline which bears reproduction so that the thoughts it provoked from me can be better appreciated:

When a judge hears and sees witnesses and makes a conclusion or inference with regard to what on balance is the weight of their evidence, that judgment is entitled to great respect, and that quite irrespective of whether the judge makes any observations with regard to credibility or not. I can of course quite understand a Court of Appeal that says that it will not interfere in a case in which the judge has announced as part of his judgment that he believes one set of witnesses, having seen them and heard them, and does not believe another. But that is not the ordinary case of a cause in a court of justice. In courts of justice in the ordinary case things are much more evenly divided; witnesses without any conscious bias towards a conclusion may have in their demeanour, in their manner, in their hesitation, in the nuance of their expressions, in even the turns of the eyelid, left an impression upon the man who saw and heard them which can never be reproduced in the printed page. What in such circumstances, thus psychologically put, is the duty of an appellate court? In my opinion, the duty of an appellate court in those circumstances is for each judge of it to put to himself, as I now do in this case, the question, Am I — who sit here without those advantages, sometimes broad and sometimes subtle, which are the privileges of the judge who heard and tried the case — in a position, not having those privileges, to come to a clear conclusion that the judge who had them was plainly wrong? If I cannot be satisfied in my own mind that the judge with those privileges was plainly wrong, then it appears to me to be my duty to defer to his judgment.

So the rationale for this principle is actually found in the practical realities of record keeping of the early 20th century i.e. before the ubiquity of the video (both in terms of recording and reproduction) and the computer age. That we have entered the age where anybody can take a video from their cameraphones or PDA’s or even just our cameras; and where we live in an age of such lense making precision and accuracy of camera control so as to capture ‘their demeanour, … their manner, … their hesitation, … the nuance of their expressions, … even the turns of the eyelid’, I think it rather strange that we should still apply this principle fashioned from an age without video and computers.

I would have thought that the appellate courts would have wanted to implement videotaping trial proceedings with the camera trained on the witnesses face and body the entire time (or whoever else since cameras are so cheap and plentiful these days) so that they would not just have the documentary record but could now judge the performance of the witness with their own eyes and make their own finding as to their demeanour and manners. So clearly video recording would eradicate such inaccurate record keeping where the witnesses’ performance is concerned and improve the accurace of the record of appeal. If section 3 of the Evidence Act defines a document as ‘any visual recording (whether of still or moving images)’ then clearly the video performance of the witness can be included in the record of appeal as well. In that sense, there’s actually no need to change make any major change in substantive law since a video recording of the witness can be included in the record of appeal (although it is envisaged that there would be some amendment on the procedural aspect).

I find it even more puzzling that the legal systems in the commonwealth have been so slow to take this up especially when one of the principal modes of thoughts in our Commonwealth judicial system is concerned with the objective ascertainment of facts (I’m applying one of Lord Justice Laws’s many superb thoughts in his excellent meditation titled ‘What is Virtue?’ [2004] 4 CLJ i). Facts are the basis of laws. Facts are the basis of a claim. Someone’s credibility is a question of fact. That credibility is surmised from their performance in court. Since we now have equipment that can ensure an accurate record of the witnesses performance, surely the important issue of fact findings should not be left open to the possibility of being incorrect when there is an avenue to reduce error.

This line of thought has also got me thinking: How many of our legal principles were fashioned or influenced heavily due to the lack of or only availability of inferior technology when the principle was declared? The other observation I draw from this is that the legal communities in general are not good at implementing technology into legal and judicial practise.

This article was originally published at Loyarburok.com

Bar Council is holding their council members election during the month of November 2008. As mentioned in our previous post, the voting rate was always unsatisfactory.

eLawyer, as an online law portal wishes to contribute our small bit by providing a space at our law blog to allow the candidates who are running for the council members’ election to introduce themselve and shout out their manifesto so that the voters will get to know them better.

In addition to creating awaraness amongst the existing members of Malaysian Bar, we also hope such awareness can be created amongst the future members of the Bar i.e. law students.

We are glad to receive the first election statement from one of the running candidate Mr Colin Pereira.

I am offering myself as a candidate for election to the Bar Council, having served the Bar in the following capacities:

2008/09: Deputy Chair Professional Standards and Development Committee, Bar Council

2007/08: Deputy Chair Professional Standards and Development Committee, Bar Council

2006/07: Chair, Continuing Legal Education Committee, KLBC

2004/05: Chair, Social and Pupil’s Welfare Committee, KLBC

2003/04: Chair, Social and Welfare Committee, KLBC

2002/03: Chair, Social Committee, KLBC

2001/02: Chair, Social Committee, KLBC

There are two issues which I care passionately about, which are, improving our skills as lawyers and alleviating the problems we face in our practice. I have done my best during the last 3 years to organise as many professional development programs for lawyers. However, one area in which I believe the Bar has failed, is in its dealings with the judiciary. It has, on many occasions, compromised our interest when dealing with the judiciary resulting in great hardship for many lawyers in our day to day practice. We are accorded little respect by the judiciary whilst those who purport to represent our interests appear to be more focused on organising social events with the judges. For many of us, who do not have the benefit of a large firm behind us, we rely on the Bar to defend our interests. Those of us who have had to deal with registry clerks and have been given the run around will appreciate my concerns. We are professionals and ought to be treated as such.

I do believe that all the candidates have a contribution to make. I will not therefore ask you to vote for me specifically as opposed to the other candidates. My concern is that the majority of lawyers do not vote at all. My appeal to members is that whoever you decide to vote for, please take some time to vote and return the ballot papers.

And, if I myself am not successful, my hope is that my message will be heard by the winning candidates.

~By Mr. Colin Pereira~

P/S: For other candidates, please do not hesitate to email your election ststement to us at sarah@elawyer.com.my

Hi, my name is Sasha Lyna Abdul Latif. I’m a member of the Malaysian Bar.

I’m truly sorry that I have to clog your email inbox but I would like to raise this important issue for your consideration.

As most of you are aware, November is when members of the Bar are given an opportunity to elect 12 members onto the Bar Council. Any time soon you will receive a ballot paper where you can vote for the 12 persons that you feel most qualified to lead the Malaysian Bar.

Every year, the Bar Council secretariat will issue more than 12,000 ballot papers but it is disappointing to note that only about 3,000 or so ballots are filled and sent back to the Secretariat.

Are we part of the 9,000 or so members who don’t bother to vote?  Are we the ones responsible for the trees that have to be cut down just so that these ballot papers end up in the waste bin?

I urge ALL of you, fellow members of the Bar not to put the ballot papers to waste! I urge you, to cast your vote; I urge you to tick those who you believe can get the job done; I urge you to urge others to vote!!
Send your ballot paper back to the Bar Council Secretariat by 30 November!

Get others to VOTE too!! Please end this email to all lawyers that you know!

The list of attendance of Council Members at Meetings from 15 March 2008 to 11 October 2008 is as follows:

• 1 Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan 9   
• 2 Mr Ragunath Kesavan 8 
• 3 Mr Lim Chee Wee 7   
• 4 Mr George Varughese  9   
• 5 En Anuwar Mohd  5   
• 6 Mr G Balakrishnan  9   
• 7 Mr Edmund Bon  9   
• 8 Mr R R Chelvarajah  6   
• 9 Pn Hendon Mohamed  9   
• 10 Ms Asbir Kaur Singha  8   
• 11 Mr Paul Krishnaraja a/l Selladurai  3   
• 12 Mr Ravindra Kumar  9   
• 13 Datuk Hj Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari  8
• 14 Mr Lee Leng Guan  8
• 15 Mr Christopher Leong Sau Foo  5 
• 16 Ms Low Beng Choo  5 
• 17 Ms Lalitha Menon  8
• 18 Mr K Mohan K Kumaran  7  
• 19 Dato’ Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah  6
• 20 Mr Murelidaran Navaratnam  4
• 21 Mr Ng Kong Peng  7
• 22 Mr Indran Rajalingam  9
• 23 Mr Cecil Rajendra  9
• 24 Mr Rajpal Singh s/o Mukhtiar Singh  9
• 25 Dato’ M Ramachelvam  9
• 26 Mr R S Maniam  9
• 27 Dato’ Hj Sukri Hj Mohamed  3
• 28 Tn Hj Sulaiman Abdullah  8
• 29 Tn Syed Azimal Amir Syed Abu Bakar 4
• 30 Mr Roger Tan Kor Mee  7
• 31 En Hisyam Teh Poh Teik  8
• 32 Mr Shan Theivanthiran  8
• 33 Mr Steven Thiruneelakandan  9
• 34 Mr Tony Woon Yeow Thong  8
• 35 Pn Yasmeen Haji Mohd Shariff  7
• 36 Mr Yeo Yang Poh  9

And I would also like to draw your attention to the booklet that has been sent to each individual member of the Bar which consists of a write up of all the candidates.

Vote wisely; Vote for those who will contribute to the Bar; and Vote for Change!

Thank you

Sasha Lyna
www.purplesasha.blogspot.com

By Loke Yuen Hong

Imagine while you were leisurely enjoying your tea, reading newspaper. Life is blissful as it is serene. Suddenly, in the front page of Business section, you found out that XYZ Corporation is embarking on a billion dollar project on land plot ABC. You had a funny feeling, not because of the intensity of the project at this time of global economic meltdown, but rather, plot ABC is yours and you definitely had nothing to do with XYZ Corp nor its project.

You went to Land Office, and lo! the records showed that you sold your land to XYZ Corp two weeks ago. Whats more, the Document of Title that was used in the transaction is a duplicate one as you had “lost” the original ones some three weeks ago, though now you had it in your hand.

Had you had some amnesia? A quick check showed that “you” had done the transaction, though XYZ Corp. officers had seen you not.

Obviously, someone sold your land to XYZ Corp using your name. What can you do?

Nothing.

Yupe, you read it right.

Kiss your land goodbye and keep the document of title as a memory of a long gone land.

Because that was what happened in Adorna Properties Sdn. Bhd. v Boonsom Bonyanit. It all begins when a rogue pretending to be Boonsom managed to convinced the Land Office that she was Boonsom and that the original document of title went missing. When she got the duplicate, she sold the land to Adorna. By the time the real Boonsom knew of it, the title had already been registered in Adorna’s name.

Before we go far, in Malaysian Land Law, we practice Torrens System. One of the main feature of our Torrens System is indefeasibility of title which means once the land is registered as your, no one can say it isn’t. Section 340(2) National Land 1965 though provided for some exception to it, prompting some writers to define it as to mean Malaysia practised deferred indefeasibility of title. This work does not seek to examine whether Malaysia really practised deferred indefeasibility or to go through all the exceptions but rather only to examine the effect of Section 340(3) of the same Code where it was provided that a bona fide buyer for a valuable consideration will be excluded from the exception in Section 340(2), which basically means you cannot challenge at all, just like the opening scenario.

Back to Adorna, when the case reached Court of Appeal, Gopal Sri Ram CJA held that the title should be returned Boonsom. The word “purchaser” in Section 340(3) should not include immediate purchaser but only apply to subsequent purchaser.

The Federal Court, the apex court in Malaysia held otherwise. It was held that the word “purchaser” applies to all purchaser. Hence Adorna was exempted from the provision of Section 340(2) and its title cannot be challenged, though it is gotten though a forgery/fraud.

This ruling caused some outroar in Malaysia and no solution seems to be in sight, be it then or now.

To better understand the ruling and its effect, it is beneficial to examine why the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court had such a different decision.

Gopal Sri Ram CJA had since a few opportunity to explain his view, and the most recent one is in Au Meng Nam v Ung Yak Chew. Basically, His Lordship argued that such interpretation by Federal Court would be unjust and unfair. The rest of his argument is centred on why the Federal Court judgment is per incuriam and should not be followed. One of the main contention is the Federal Court equated proprietor (registered owner of title) with purchaser, of which Adorna becomes both. His Lordship also mentioned that Federal Court did not consider previous authority such as MJ Frozen Food case which stated that Malaysia practiced deferred indefeasibility.

It is submitted as far as interpretation goes, Gopal Sri Ram CJA effectively added his own word into the Code. He argued that to obtain fairness, this should be the way to interpret the section. His Lordship, as far as the principle of interpretation goes, has a valid point. It is widely accepted that the Parliament may not be able to ensure justice to all, especially minority opinion. Further, during formulation of law, the Parliament cannot, trying as hard as they may. envisage all situation and provide for it. Hence, the Judges, as the last bastion of Justice, would have to be creative in interpreting law to ensure justness and fairness, and not to decline a just decision just because the Parliament did not provide for it.

On the other hand, as for justness and fairness, it is submitted that Gopal Sri Ram CJA had miss out the justice for the equally pity innocent buyer. The buyer paid hard cash for the land. They would not be able, such as in Adorna case, be able to tell if the Boonsom they are seeing is the real Boonsom. And if the government agency, with all the information, and the fact that they are the one who issue the document of title, cannot detect a forged identification, what chance a person or corporation had? Was it not they too are victims and must be remedied?

Personally, it is believed that the buyer are normally not much considered in apportionment of justice due to a) deep pocket principle and b) caveat emptor(let the buyers beware).

It is always believed that the buyer must be capable to absorb the losses, such as in Adorna case where the buyer is a corporation. However, let us consider this - what if the buyer is a husband and wife, who pinched every penny to pour into their dream home. When they found one, they thought everything is alright. The procedure is a breeze and if the Land Office is satisfied, what else should they be wary of? And so they paid their deposit and gotten a loan, and all relevant procedure is done.

Then suddenly they realised the one who sold them the house is a rogue who managed to even fooled the Land Office. If the Court does not side them, they would have lost the house AND still have to pay for the housing loan. Now go figure what justice we can give them if Adorna is judged otherwise.

It is also always believed that the buyer must be beware of anything they buy and if anything happen then it is too bad. Yeah, try tell that to those babies who ate melamine tainted milk. Furthermore, as in the case in Adorna, the rouge can get everyone fooled and just how much can a buyer bewares?

Hence, to adjudge for either side would have caused injustice. And the interpretation of “purchaser”, if done according to Goapl Sri Ram CJA, would render unfairness to immediate buyer vis-a-vis subsequent buyer. What difference would they have other than the unfortunate timeline of their purchase?

It would seem to this author that there is no absolutely fair way to interpret the word “purchaser” and the best way would be those by the Federal Court.

As for equating both the word proprietor and purchaser, it shall be noted that as Adorna paid for the land, it becomes purchaser. When it is registered, it becomes proprietor. There is nothing irregular, at least for this case.

It shall also be noted that the Federal Court is free to overrule any previous ruling, even if done by its predecessor or itself. Even if it disregards previous authorities, there is nothing to render it per incuriam.

If Adorna is decided correctly, what then can the injured party seek?

At this juncture, it shall be mentioned that Torrens System is based on three principles namely the mirror principle, curtain principle and insurance principle. Insurance principle are of concern here, where if the Registrar of Titles committed a mistake which resulted in loss, the injured party may claim for compensation. There is, however, no provision to this effect in the National Land Code 1965. If there is, then Boonsom and many others might not go back empty-handed.

But as currently there is no such provision, the injured party may not claim for compensation from the Registrar or the State Authority. Then can the State Authority be sued in tort for its mistake? It would seem in ordinary course of dealing the answer would be in affirmative though the State Authority may be protected by statutory immunity, such as in the case of Steven Phoa v Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya (Highland Tower case) among others where statutory immunity protected the State Authority from liability or claim.

In conclusion, even if you hide your land title in bank vault, it might avail to you nothing once a bona fide buyer bought over your land. In the meantime, try lobby for the Parliament to set up a claim mechanism where losses due to the mistake by State Authority in land matters can be claimed.

by Khairul Anuar bin Shaharudin (Advocate & Solicitor)

As a member of some sub-committee in Bar Council and Selangor Bar Committee, I was invited for the officiation of Lawasia just now, 29.10.08, at KL Convention Centre.

Lawasia is like a coalition of Bar Associations around Asia-Pacific region up until Brazil. Its current outgoing President is the former Malaysian Bar Council President, Mr. Mah Weng Kwai. It seems that Malaysia had hosted Lawasia Conference twice before in 1968 and 1998. Our turn seems to come every 20 years.
There were 4 speeches after a percussion group (I think they were the HAND, quite good!) hammered the eardrums of the newly installed Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki and the new President Court of Appeal. Their investiture was today in front of DYMM Agung and how much you shouted or blogged about them being UMNO cronies or how much lawyers hated them, it wouldn’t matter. They are in…

Anyway, the highlights of the speeches were when Dato’ Ambiga let rips about ISA in front of the international delegates and press. She was even praised by the MC, who herself is a lawyer, on “telling it as it is”. How apt…

Then Pak Lah, our beloved PM, had to do something about the parting shot by Ambiga. He suddenly said in his speech that the Bar Council is taking the initiative to amend the Legal Profession Act 1974, to let foreign lawyers to practice in Malaysia.
Yeah, right!

I am one of the sub-committee on this matter which is still under negotiation with various government agencies and under a gag order and now he says that its already agreed upon and told the whole world about it. Ambiga was exchanging glances with Christopher Leong, who was also in the thick of things on the foreign lawyers matter, when this was announced.
So, there you have it. Politics at the highest level. Oh, you want to know what Pak Lah has to say about ISA? Using some holy scripture quotes from Quran in which he has a duty to the people to ensure justice is for all.
Go figure!

By David Oh
Intellectual Property Consultant and Director
Mindvault Sdn Bhd

• Trademarks/brands;
• Copyright;
• Patents/inventions;
• Industrial designs; and
• Trade secrets/confidential information

• Catalogue all known and uncover all unknown IP to answer the following two questions — is my IP adequately protected? And is there IP that I have failed to recognise and protect?;
• Determine the scope, strength and vulnerabilities in those rights;
  Value the IP;
• Classify the IP according to its business use, product categories and market segments indicating its competitive significance;
• List IP which may be of value to other business units in the organisation or to strategic partners in the value chain such as distributors and suppliers;
• Map out the IP that have been commercialised, detailing the form of commercialisation such as licensing as well as its business life cycle; and
• Collate and review all IP-related company policies.

• Strategic IP that gives the business a competitive edge and which can be used for competitive purposes;
• Valuable IP which is not part of the company’s plans but can be commercialised through licensing; and
• IP that is not part of the company’s present or future plans that can be abandoned.

As mentioned in our previous post, we have participated in the 2nd legal career convention this year.

The LCC was jointly organised by United Kingdom Malaysian Student Law Union (KPUM) and the Law Society of University of Malaya (UM) and officiated by Y.B Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham (Alumni of Faculty of Law, UM 1985).

LCC started at 9am till 5pm. Aprt from visiting the participanting booths, the visitors can also attend a series of legal seminars.

“In conjunction with the Opening Ceremony, Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham was invited to give a speech entitled Judicial crisis in Malaysia”

“The president of the Law Society of UM, Kiang Lee Lian”

“[from left] Professor Dr. Cheong May Fong (Dean of UM law faculty), Dato’ Ngeh Koo Ham and wife, Eddie Law (eLawyer)”

“eLawyer’s representative were ready for the day!- [from left] Leanne, Gerald and Christine”

“our representative was answering visitors enquiries”

“Leanne was introducing our law portal to a law lecturer”

“Christine was explaining about our Legal Blog Writing Contest“

 “Entrance to the LLC”

There were 16 law firms and 7 non law firms participated in this year LCC namely:

Law Firms

1. Albar & Partners

2. Azmi & Associates

3. Cheang & Ariff

4. Chooi & Co

5. Jeff Leong, Poon & Wong

6. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill

7. Mah Kamariyah & Phillip Koh

8. Michael Chai & Co

9. Raja, Darryl & Loh

10. Shearn Delamore & Co

11. Shook Lin & Bok

12. Skrine

13. Tay & Partners

14. Zaid Ibrahim & Co

15. Zain & co

16. Zul Rafique

Non Law Firms

1. Bar Council

2. eLawyer

3. KL Bar

4. KPMG

5. Securities Commission

6. Shell

7. SUARAM

Law Firms’ Booths

Non Law Firms’ Booths

“Shell has actually brought a car racing game for the visitor to test drive!” 

“Shell’s representatives in discussion”

Representatives from the participating law firms/companies

Refeshment provided by respective participant

“what is SLB stand for ?”

“This law firm has even bought a fridge to serve drink to its visitors”

“We were so impressed by this participating law firm, which has bought its tea lady to serve tea to its visitors”

Closing Ceremony

The LCC were closed with last speech by Mr Steven Thiru (representative of Bar Council) to talk about the “Common Bar Course”

“Mr Steven Thiru was giving a speech”

“Souvenier from the organiser”

At last, we wish to thank Ms Racheal and Ms Kiang Lee Lian for giving us such a good opportunity to partake in the event. We really have a good day during the LCC and look forward to seeing you again next year!

 by Nur Farzana Mohd Zulkifli

When Ben Franklin said, ”It is better to know than to wonder”, he probably didn’t know how powerful those words are, or many people they would touch.  before law school or the Community Outreach programme and Clinical Legal Education course in University of Malaya I never would have envisioned a prison (at least not much) , let alone be able to talk about one from an INSIDE perspective.

Movies or books often dictate a pre-conceived set of emotions to feel ‘if and when’ you’re entering one, like fear and sympathy. Some say we should feel appalled after such an experience. What I felt after my first visit and those after that were different. There was empathy and humility, but most of all, gratitude and empowerment.

To clarify things a bit, what I saw in all my visits include physical infrastructures, like buildings that looked like hostel dorms, huge impenetrable-looking gates and barbwire, but also the human side of the prisons - among other things, fierce-looking wardens, extremely disciplined detainees. Note that I use the term detainees here instead of prisoners or convicts because I had only visited the juvenile-detention-center part of Kajang Prison, known as Sekolah Integrity Kajang or Kajang Integrity School. How is this different from a real prison? Well, for one the detainees there were found guilty for crimes while they were juveniles in age, while others were juveniles remanded or awaiting trial, mostly too poor to afford bail to be set free in the process; and their living quarters are separated from adult convicts in the prison, as the law demands so.

I was involved (and still am) in the Community Outreach Programme ( and later the Clinical Legal Education course) and our access into the Kajang Integrity School was allowed as we were there to teach these detainees about the laws, unorthodoxly using interactive teaching methods and laymen terms. Among the things I remember very clearly was what or CLE Advisor Assoc. Prof Hjh Norbani Mohamed Nazeri said to us the first time we arrived to teach,”…it’s not about you, its about them”. She was right. We were there to teach and we taught them law, but in the end, the teachers became the students.

We had learned so many things from our learners in that first visit and in the later ones. They had shown us too many things about the field we were studying as law students- court procedure, substantive law,( mostly what could be found in the Penal Code ) , and the shortcomings of the justice system. Sure we all knew how ‘fast’ things work in courts from the media and so many other sources, but I suppose none of us would have really understood how much that truth affected real people, their lives and their families. Add that with the punitive tendencies of the criminal justice and adversarial frame, and you get what is known as our legal system.

We were shown how layman who don’t understand terms like stare decisis or actus reus and mens rea, but could demonstrate a mock trial setting almost accurately, despite having many comrades who barely knew how to read or write properly. THIS brought out our empathy and our humility. We were then grateful with the opportunities we have been accustomed to our whole lives. The access to a good education, comfortable homes, secured financial status in our families and a shot at a successful future.

These are rare gems in the life stories of those we met. And we could change all that- as possible practitioners, educators,  policy makers and enforcement members in executing whatever our future roles are in the society. If we could teach them and everyone else the substance of the laws, but also its purpose and aims, we have a shot at keeping people from breaking the law, keeping young people with so much ahead of them OUT of prisons or detention centers, then maybe, just maybe-we could work to achieve a tomorrow that everyone would want to be in.