Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Liew Vui Keong has said that making our laws more business-friendly is the primary focus of the Malaysia Law Reform Committee (MLRC), which he heads.


He said this during a talk on the MLRC at the inaugural session of The Daniel Lectures organised by the Youth Department of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, on Aug 5 in Petaling Jaya.

Just as Pemudah has made streamlined some aspects of law and administration and made these more efficient, the MLRC hopes to review approximately 703 laws.

It will focus on those with specific reference to businesses, companies, insolvency, bankruptcy, land, and then laws relating to the registration of births and minor offences. Liew (left) also mentioned the Contracts Act 1950 and the Civil Law Act 1956.

In an interview reported by Star on May 25, 2009, he was quoted as saying that, “These laws are not as 'glamorous' as the ISA 1960 but they are as important for people's welfare, so they are also at the top of our priority list.”

Various press reports have also referred to possible changes to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Penal Code, also focusing on obsolete and outdated laws.

When did the MLRC start work? According to its website, it was set last December. Liew was more specific - Dec 4, 2009. If that is the case, why did Star report on May 4, 2009, in an interview with Liew, that the MLRC was formed on April 29, 2009?

The impression given was that as soon as Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak took office on April 3, 2009, he quickly got down to the task of law reform.

In fact, in a subsequent report dated May 25, 2009, Star quoted Liew as saying, “We are now at an early stage (of forming the MLRC). I am currently compiling a list of possible candidates for the committee which will be recommended to (minister Mohd) Nazri (Abdul) Aziz….for shortlisting before we propose it to the PM for approval and announcement.”

So what has happened since? It is not clear where the delay was, but the names of the six other members of the MLRC were only announced on Jan 27 this year - nine months after the press report on the formation of the MLRC first came out.

The website also carries a statement by Liew that the MLRC “intends to convene four road-shows this year to achieve this target (of its work) and make the right contribution to the nation's transformational process”.

The 'Events' section of the website contemporaneously scales down the number of road-shows to three, one each in May, August and October 2010.

However the reality is - and Liew has confirmed this - that to date, not a single road-show has been carried out. Until now the 'Forum' page on the website, to invite feedback on law reform, has yet to be activated.

Disclaimer of responsibility

The Star report of May 4, 2009 begins with the words 'The government has taken the first step towards reviewing the (ISA) with the formation of a Law Reform Committee' and goes on to quote the deputy minister as saying, “The ISA is a law that is close to the hearts of many and we will work together with the Home Ministry to amend the relevant parts”.

As such, those attending the lecture were quick to question Liew on the progress of the amendments. But they were shocked to find out that oversight of this legislation belongs to the Home Ministry. As such, the MLRC had nothing to do with the proposed amendments.

What then does Liew make of the Star report dated Nov 13, 2009 quoting him as saying, “As chairman of the committee I can say here that we have submitted the review (of the amendments) to the cabinet and it is up to the cabinet to approve it”?

If members of MLRC were only appointed on or around Jan 27, 2010, who undertook the review? Star got it wrong, Liew said, clarifying that the MLRC did not study amendments to the ISA or any other preventive detention legislation. In fact, it will also not look at laws like the Official Secrets Act 1972 or Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.

But if this is the case, why were the reports by Star never corrected? At the very least, an incorrect impression has been given that the MLRC was up and running, and involved in the amendments to the ISA.

Notwithstanding this disclaimer of responsibility for the proposed amendments, the deputy minister was nonetheless asked when exactly the amendments to the ISA will be tabled in Parliament.

Liew replied that it would be tabled during the sitting beginning Oct 11 this year. However the fact is that he had been reported in Star of Sept 17, 2009 as saying that the amendments would be tabled during the session beginning Oct 19, 2009, and then again in Star of Nov 13, 2009 as saying Parliament's review of the amendments would be completed in December 2009.

Earlier this year it was reported that the amendments would be tabled during the July sitting. This has now ended, with no sign of these amendments at all.

So the Malaysian public is none the wiser. And neither is the deputy minister, by the look of things, even though it is his minister (Nazri) who is in charge of parliamentary affairs.

Limited ambition

So what should Malaysians make of the law reform agenda of the government? Firstly, it seems to have a very limited ambition.

Secondly, the question has to be asked why the government did not just appoint a parliamentary select committee instead. After all, this was what was done with respect to amendments to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code which came in to effect in 2006.

At the time, Parliament established the Special Select Committee on the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code which served from 2004 to 2005. This comprised members of parliament from both sides of the political divide.

They toured the country, heard oral submissions from members of the public, met with interested parties and received written submissions. Eventually they made recommendations about proposed amendments.

Liew did not rule out the possibility of the creation of a select committee in the future. For now, the MLRC will do the initial work of vetting the existing legislation. However it is not clear how exactly the MLRC will function, and how much time each member can devote to the work.

They are scheduled to hold bi-monthly meetings and to date, have met four times. Each member is supposed to be allocated specific areas to cover, and to establish his or her own sub-committee. Again, it is not clear whether any of the sub-committees are up and running.

If recent public disagreement about the function of Commissioners of Oaths (CoA) is anything to go by, the MLRC will find it tough going. Liew had said in June that CoA have the responsibility of checking the factual correctness of statements contained in a statutory declaration, and not merely verify the identity and attest the signature of those signing such declarations.

Malaysian Bar president Ragunath Kesavan has responded that CoA are not meant to perform such functions. They do not operate as investigators checking whether or not what is stated in a statutory declaration is true or false. That is ultimately left to the law, as there are penalties for making a false statutory declaration.

The deputy minister has disagreed.

It remains to be seen how other proposed amendments to other laws will be received, and whether anything positive will come of them.


ANDREW KHOO is chair of the Bar Council's Human Rights Committee, but writes here in his personal capacity. He moderated the lecture.