This item has been updated since initial publication.
Resolution Regarding the Continuing Professional Development Scheme
WHEREAS:
(1) The object and powers of the Bar in section 42(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 stipulate that the purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be, inter alia: (b) to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Malaysia; (c) to facilitate the acquisition of legal knowledge by members of the legal profession and others; and (e) to represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in Malaysia and to promote in any proper manner the interests of the legal profession in Malaysia; and
(2) This motion is pursuant to these objects and powers, and the need for exemplary standards of professional practice, etiquette and conduct to be achieved by Members of the Malaysian Bar (“Members”), and to inculcate a culture of continuing professional development in Members.
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:
A. New Entrants: Members Admitted to the Malaysian Bar from 1 July 2011 Onwards
(3) All new entrants shall be required to obtain a minimum of 16 CPD points per 24–month CPD cycle, or as shall be specified thereafter, from the date their first Practising Certificate is issued (“CPD requirements”).
(4) Where the new entrant’s Practising Certificate is issued after the commencement of the CPD cycle, the CPD points to be obtained during that cycle shall be prorated based on the table below:
| Duration | Prorated CPD Points |
| 12 months or more until end of the current CPD cycle | 8 |
| More than or equal to 6 months, but less than 12 months, until the end of the current CPD cycle | 4 |
| More than or equal to 2 months, but less than 6 months, until the end of the current CPD cycle | 2 |
| Less than 2 months until end of the current CPD cycle | Nil |
(5) All new entrants shall continue in the CPD Scheme unless otherwise resolved by the Members at the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (“AGM”) in 2018.
B. Other Members: Members Admitted to the Malaysian Bar On or Before 30 June 2011
(1) The CPD Scheme shall take effect on other Members in the manner set out in Appendix 1 annexed hereto, subject to the decision of the Members at the AGM in 2018.
C. Compliance with the CPD Requirements
(1) New entrants who obtain 16 CPD points within the first 24–month cycle from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2018 shall receive two Event Vouchers for selected Bar Council and/or State Bar Committee professional development events, which will be valid for one year from the date of issue.
D. Non–Compliance with the CPD Requirements
(1) Any new entrant who fails to obtain the required CPD points in any CPD cycle shall be given:
(a) an automatic six–month extension to obtain the required CPD points for that cycle; and(b) a further extension not exceeding three months may be granted by the Bar Council Professional Standards and Development Committee and/or the Bar Council, if the required CPD points are not obtained within the automatic six–month extension period.
The granting of an extension will not affect the number of CPD points that the new entrant will be required to obtain in any subsequent cycle.
(2) In the event of non–compliance upon the expiry of the extension(s) granted under D(1) above, the following penalties will be applicable:
| No | Status of CPD Point(s) at the End of the Extension Period(s) | Amount of Fine |
| (1) | From 9 to 15 CPD points (inclusive) | RM100 |
| (2) | From 1 to 8 CPD points (inclusive) | RM200 |
| (3) | No CPD point | RM500 |
In this regard, the Bar Council shall be authorised to take any and all action that it deems appropriate or necessary to implement D(2) above, including through the making of Rules or Rulings, or through amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976.
E. New Pupils
(1) The implementation of the CPD Scheme shall be applicable for all pupils in chambers who commence their pupillage (“new pupils”) on or after 1 July 2016.
(2) All new pupils will be required to obtain a total of 8 CPD points, inclusive of 4 CPD points for the Ethics and Professional Standards Course, during their pupillage, which is the duration between the date Borang 1 is filed and the dates Borang 6, 7 and 8 are filed.
(3) Any new pupil who fails to obtain the required CPD points in any CPD cycle shall be given:
(a) an automatic three–month extension to obtain the required CPD points for that cycle; and(b) a further extension not exceeding three months may be granted by the Bar Council Professional Standards and Development Committee and/or the Bar Council, if the required CPD points are still not obtained within the automatic three–month extension period.
The granting of an extension will not affect the number of CPD points that the new pupil will be required to obtain in any subsequent cycle.
(4) In the event of non–compliance upon the expiry of the extension(s) granted under E(3) above, the following penalties will be applicable:
| No | Status of CPD Points at the End of the Extension Period(s) | Amount of Fine |
| (1) | From 1 to 7 CPD points (inclusive) | RM100 |
| (2) | No CPD point | RM300 |
In this regard, the Bar Council shall be authorised to take any and all action that it deems appropriate or necessary to implement E(4) above, including through the making of Rules or Rulings, or through amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976.
F. Ancillary Matters
(1) The Bar Council shall be authorised to take any and all action that it deems appropriate or necessary towards the implementation and enforcement of the CPD Scheme, including, if considered necessary:
(a) adopting the CPD Guidelines;(b) accrediting courses, seminars, workshops, conferences and other appropriate events for the CPD Scheme;(c) organising courses, seminars, workshops, conferences and other appropriate events for the CPD Scheme;(d) putting in place measures to ensure participation in the CPD Scheme and to inculcate a culture of continuing professional development amongst Members and pupils; and(e) doing any and all such other things that are incidental or conducive to the successful achievement or betterment of the CPD Scheme.
(2) The Bar Council Professional Standards and Development Committee will report on the progress of the CPD Scheme at each subsequent AGM.
Appendix 1
Members Admitted to the Malaysian Bar On or Before 30 June 2011
| No | CPD becomes mandatory from: | Applicable to Members who commenced legal practice on or after: | Exemption for Members with 30 years of legal practice, who commenced legal practice before: |
| (1) | 1 July 2018 | 1 July 2008 (10 years or less) | 1 July 1988 |
| (2) | 1 July 2020 | 1 July 2005 (15 years or less) | 1 July 1990 |
| (3) | 1 July 2022 | 1 July 1992 (20 years or less) | 1 July 1992 |
| (4) | 1 July 2024 | 1 July 1984 (30 years or less) | 1 July 1994 |
The motion was proposed by Steven Thiru (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council.
Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia
WHEREAS:
(1) It is important that the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is both independent, and perceived to be independent, especially when it comes to prosecuting persons and entities that have broken Malaysian laws, irrespective of whether they are currently Ministers, holding senior positions in public service and/or legal entities owned by the government.
(2) It is the Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, who is vested with the power to prosecute persons and/or entities that have acted against the laws of Malaysia, including criminal laws.
(3) Of late, there have been several allegations of corruption and/or other breaches of the law made against Najib Tun Razak, who is also the current Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance, in connection with large amounts of monies, amounting to more than RM2 billion, that were found in the personal bank accounts of Najib Tun Razak.
(4) There have been allegations of wrongdoings with regard to a Malaysian government–owned company, 1MDB, SRC International and/or other related companies, where Najib Tun Razak also sits as the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the said 1MDB.
(5) Investigations have been commenced by the relevant authorities including the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (“MACC”).
(6) In the midst of investigations about these alleged offences, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s services as Attorney General was suddenly terminated as of about 27 July 2015, and Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was appointed new Attorney General effective 27 July 2015.
(7) Our Federal Constitution states that it is “on the advice of the Prime Minister” that the Yang Di–Pertuan Agong appoints the Attorney General. In practice, this means that the Prime Minister decides on the appointment and removal of the Attorney General.
(8) Now, given the fact that this happened when there was an ongoing investigation of Najib Tun Razak personally, and also matters that concern the Minister of Finance, who is also Najib Tun Razak, there are concerns about the appointment of the new Attorney General.
(9) In early December 2015, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was scheduled to provide an explanation to Parliament about all these allegations. However, he did not do so, apparently on the advice of the Attorney General.
(10) The Malay Mail Online report dated 3 December 2015 stated, amongst others, that (emphases added):
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was only acting on the Attorney General’s (AG) advice in declining explaining personally in Parliament the RM2.6 billion donation he received, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman [Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department] said today . . . . the federal government made a collective decision to issue a ministerial statement in their response to questions after AG Tan Sri Apandi Ali said Najib may be risking “subjudice” if he attempted to answer in person with investigations into the surrounding controversy still ongoing. “The AG is the government's lawyer. We are guided by his advice”…
(11) The Attorney General, whilst also acting as Public Prosecutor involved in the ongoing investigation which may lead to the prosecution of Najib Tun Razak, Government of Malaysia, Government–Owned Companies and/or GLCs, should not also be providing legal advice to those being investigated?
(12) The results of the investigations of the MACC were submitted to the Public Prosecutor to consider commencement of trial, but as reported on 26 January 2016 in New Straits Times which stated, amongst others (emphasis added):
…Attorney–General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said their investigation had showed that the prime minister had committed no wrongdoing in the cases. . . . “I am satisfied that there was no evidence to show that the donation was a form of gratification given corruptly. The evidence showed that the donation was not an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing in relation to his capacity as a prime minister,” he said. He said that investigation also showed that in Aug 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Najib to the Saudi royal family, as the sum was not utilised.
No mention was made about what the monies were for, and for what were some of the monies utilised.
(13) The report also stated (emphases added):
The Attorney–General’s Chambers today cleared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing in the case involving a donation from the Middle East, as well as that involving SRC International. The AG’s Chambers will also return the three investigation papers on the cases, and has instructed the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (MACC) to close the IPs.
(14) The pronouncement of the Attorney General about the guilt/innocence of parties being investigated, may be contrary to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, in particular Article 10, which states that, “The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions”. The determination of guilt or innocence is a function of the Judiciary, not the Attorney General.
(15) The power to commence investigations and discontinue investigations rests with the relevant investigative authorities, and not with the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor. The duty of the Public Prosecutor is merely to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and if it is determined that the evidence is insufficient, then investigation papers are returned to the investigating authorities to do further investigation.
(16) On 24 February 2016, the MACC issued a statement on the advice of its Operation Review Panel concerning the case involving SRC International and allegations regarding the RM2.6 billion (“berhubung kes membabitkan SRC International dan dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion”).
(17) The Operation Review Panel agreed that the MACC should re–submit the investigation papers concerning SRC International to the Attorney General for his consideration. With regard to the matter of the investigation concerning the RM2.6 billion, it acknowledges that the investigation is yet to be completed, and urges the MACC to apply to the Attorney General to issue the required permission for Mutual Legal Assistance to enable the MACC to get evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries in connection with the RM2.6 billion investigation. The relevant text from the MACC statement (which was in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows (emphases added):
…PPO bersetuju bahawa SPRM perlu mengemukakan kembali kertas siasatan berhubung SRC International kepada Peguam Negara untuk pertimbangan. Memandangkan siasatan SPRM berhubung dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion masih belum lengkap, Panel telah mengesyorkan agar SPRM meneruskan siasatannya dan memohon Peguam Negara agar mengeluarkan kebenaran Bantuan Undang–undang Bersama (MLA) bagi SPRM memperoleh bukti dan dokumen–dokumen daripada institusi kewangan di luar negara sebagai sebahagian daripada siasatan ke atas isu RM2.6 bilion…
(18) The MACC’s request for the necessary action by the Attorney General for Mutual Legal Assistance is not new. It was also made before, in December 2015, as reported in Bloomberg Business. Despite efforts made, the said MACC statement could not be accessed from the MACC website.
…The Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission said it made several proposals and recommendations for action in the case, according to a statement Thursday. While it has completed investigations involving witnesses in the country, the MACC said it still needs permission from the attorney general to get documents and evidence from overseas financial institutions. “This evidence can only be taken by the Mutual Legal Assistance process because it is tied to the provision of banking legislation of the country concerned,” the agency said. “MACC has made an application under the MLA to attorney general to obtain documents and evidence.” — “Malaysian Anti–Graft Agency Submits Probe Results of Najib Funds”, Bloomberg Business, 31 December 2015 (emphasis added).
(19) On the face of it, it looks like the Attorney General has procrastinated in providing the necessary permission for Mutual Legal Assistance, which was essential for the completion of investigations, and this could be perceived as an act “obstructing” criminal investigations.
(20) It is now revealed that Mohamed Apandi Ali is a Director of the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, whereby the date of appointment is uncertain.
(21) An Attorney General, also the Public Prosecutor, should not be Director of any legal entity, as this would compromise his independence.
(22) The Federal Constitution, in Article 145, stipulates, among others, as follows:
(1) The Yang di–Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court–martial.
(23) The Attorney General, as such, has many roles and responsibilities, and some of these are competing obligations and, if exercised at the same time is impossible. It is absurd when the Attorney General is considering instituting criminal proceedings, and at the same time is also seen to be personally providing legal advice to the suspect(s) or the potential accused.
(24) The Federal Constitution, in Article 8, states that, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” As such, it can be said that no one is above the law, even the Prime Minister or a government–owned legal entity. When a person and/or legal entity commits an offence, it is the Attorney General, without any other special consideration or treatment, to do the needful to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.
(25) Article 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors stipulates: “Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.”
(26) Article 13(a) of the said Guidelines states (emphasis added): “In the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kinds of discrimination”.
(27) Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. Public Prosecutors’ powers should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.
(28) If the Attorney General is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, then rightly he should not. Malaysian law, in 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593), states (emphasis added): “The Solicitor General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.”
(29) As such, in this case involving Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, and government–owned companies, Mohamed Apandi Ali clearly is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, and the Solicitor General should act as Public Prosecutor.
(30) With reference to the abovementioned and other matters, the following points of concern, among others, have arisen concerning Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali:
(a) The manner and timing of his appointment raises the perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have been appointed to speedily replace a Public Prosecutor who may have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) and/or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government;(b) That there may exist a perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have acted to derail or delay investigations against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government. The fact that the MACC, which has been asking for the required Attorney General’s permission since December 2015 for usage of the Mutual Legal Assistance that is required to obtain evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries, has yet to be given the relevant authorisation required to complete investigation, is a matter of concern;(c) That Mohamed Apandi Ali may have failed to have acted professionally as a Public Prosecutor, when it was alleged that he had advised the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the suspect and possible future accused in an ongoing criminal investigation, to not provide an explanation to Parliament;(d) That Mohamed Apandi Ali allegedly attempted to speedily clear Najib Tun Razak and SRC International of alleged crimes, including corruptions and/or other breaches of law, and to stop investigations;(e) The failure of Mohamed Apandi Ali to acknowledge that in these circumstances when the Prime Minister and Government were the subject of investigations, he would be unable to perform the duties of the Public Prosecutor as required by law, and thereby should have disqualified himself, enabling the Solicitor General to carry out the duties and obligations of the Public Prosecutor, while he as Attorney General continued to carry on his role as adviser and “government lawyer” to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Government; and(f) The fact that he still is a Director of Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and maybe also other companies and/or legal entities, raises the question of his independence, and his ability to carry out the duties of the Attorney General impartially, without fear and favour.
(31) As such, even if Mohamed Apandi Ali may personally not be guilty of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duties, for the good of Malaysia and for the improvement of public perception of the administration of justice, we may have to take drastic actions, including the appointment of a new Attorney General.
(32) The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, whereby prosecutors play a crucial role in the administration of criminal justice, and as such prosecutorial discretion should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.
(33) Events of the recent past, especially concerning the RM2.6 billion, have eroded the confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and immediate and even drastic steps need to be taken to restore confidence in the administration of criminal justice, for the good of Malaysia.
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved:
(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.
(B) That the Malaysian Bar calls for the Solicitor General, pursuant to section 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to assume the role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor in the cases involving Najib Tun Razak, 1MDB, SRC International and the RM2.6 billion, considering the disability of the Attorney General to continue to act as Public Prosecutor for these cases, by reason of past conduct and the existing competing and conflicting roles of the Attorney General.
(C) That the Malaysian Bar also calls on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Director in Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and any positions held in companies, statutory body and/or legal entities, save those positions that the law specifically requires.
(D) That the Public Prosecutor and prosecutors should always not only be independent but also be seen to be independent. They should not be receiving any other income, “donations” or benefits from any other sources. They should also not be Directors of companies, or holding any other positions in legal entities, save those specifically provided for in law.
(E) That the Malaysian Bar promotes and works towards the adoption and application of the principles contained in the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, and such international standards, in Malaysia.
(F) That the Malaysian Bar promotes the establishment of an independent commission or committee for the purposes of the selection and recommendation to the Yang di–Pertuan Agong for the appointment of the Attorney General.
(G) That the Malaysian Bar continues doing all that is necessary to promote the rule of law, and a just administration of justice in Malaysia.
The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.
Resolution to Amend Order 6, First Schedule and Third Schedule of the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005
WHEREAS:
(1) The remuneration of a solicitor in respect of non–contentious business is governed by the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 (“SRO 2005”).
(2) The SRO 2005 came into force on 1 January 2006, and there is to be no discount on fees specified in the SRO 2005 although a reduced rate of the scale fee is applicable for any transactions governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966.
(3) The rate of the scale of fees prescribed by the SRO 2005 was last revised by the Solicitors Costs Committee on 12 December 2005, ie more than 10 years ago.
(4) Taking into consideration:
(a) the recommendations of the Bar Council Conveyancing Practice Committee on 14 November 2015 for the Bar Council to take appropriate steps to increase the rate of the scale of fees in respect of specified non–contentious business, to enable Members of the Bar to cope with the increase in costs in conducting such non–contentious business;(b) the Malaysian Bar at the Annual General Meetings of 13 March 2010, 14 March 2009 and 22 October 2005 rejected motions to abolish the “No Discount Rule”, although a majority of Members of the Bar who responded in a referendum[1] and in a survey[2] conducted by the Bar Council expressed their view that the scale of fees be maintained, but that they be allowed the discretion to give a discount on the scale of fees;(c) the interests of Members of the Bar; and(d) the interests of members of the public;
the Bar Council has decided that the following steps be taken in respect of the scale fees for non–contentious business:
(i) that the remuneration of a solicitor in respect of non–contentious business be continued to be fixed in accordance with a scale of fees that provides for a maximum and minimum fee that can be charged;(ii) that the rate of the scale of fees in respect of specified non–contentious business be increased; and(iii) that Members of the Bar be permitted to grant a discount of up to 25% on the fees for specified non–contentious business.
(5) A Schedule containing the present scale of fees chargeable by a solicitor, and the proposed new scale of fees that may be charged, is annexed herewith as APPENDIX I.
(6) Recognising that the remuneration of solicitors in respect of non–contentious matters under a scheme of scale fees is fair and workable across the board only where there is full compliance by all Members of the Bar, and recognising that the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules 2004 (“SRER 2004”) was invalidated by the High Court,[3] the Bar Council is to finalise and pursue the implementation of a new set of rules for enforcement of the SRO 2005 as amended herein.
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:
(1) The Bar Council shall take all necessary steps to cause the Solicitors Costs Committee to be convened pursuant to Section 113(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, to make the following orders pertaining to remuneration of solicitors:
(a) Order 6 of the SRO 2005 is amended as follows (amendments as marked):
6.No discountDiscount(1) A solicitor may give a discount of up to 25% on fees specified in the First and Third Schedules, except for any transaction governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 [Act 118] or any subsidiary legislation made under that Act.(2) There shall be no discount on fees specified inthis Orderthe Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Schedules.
(b) The First Schedule to the principal Order is amended as follows (amendments as marked):
| Consideration or Adjudicated Value (whichever is higher) | Scale of Fees |
| For the first | 1.0% (subject to a minimum fee of |
| For the next | |
| For the next RM2,000,000 | |
| For the next RM2,000,000 | |
| For the next RM2,500,000 | |
| Where the consideration or adjudicated value is in excess of RM7,500,000 | Negotiable on the excess (but shall not exceed |
Notwithstanding the above rates, in the case of any transaction governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 [Act 118] or any subsidiary legislation made under that Act, the remuneration of the solicitor having the conduct of and completing the transaction, whether acting for the vendor or the purchaser, shall be—
(a)RM250RM300, if the consideration isRM45,000RM50,000 or below;(b) 75% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration is in excess ofRM45,000RM50,000 but not more thanRM100,000RM250,000;(c) 70% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration is in excess ofRM100,000RM250,000 but not more than RM500,000; or(d) 65% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration is in excess of RM500,000.
(c) The Third Schedule to the principal Order is amended as follows (amendments as marked):
| Amount secured or financed | Scale of Fees |
| For the first | 1.0% (subject to a minimum fee of |
| For the next | |
| For the next RM2,000,000 | |
| For the next RM2,000,000 | |
| For the next RM2,500,000 | |
| Where the amount secured or financed is in excess of RM7,500,000 | Negotiable on the excess (but shall not exceed |
Notwithstanding the above rates, in the case of any transaction governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 [Act 118] or any subsidiary legislation made under that Act, the remuneration of the solicitor having the conduct of and completing the transaction, whether acting for the financer/chargee or the borrower/chargor, shall be—
(a)RM250RM300, if the consideration as well as the loan sum isRM45,000RM50,000 or below;(b) 75% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration as well as the loan sum is in excess ofRM45,000RM50,000 but not more thanRM100,000RM250,000;(c) 70% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration as well as the loan sum is in excess ofRM100,000RM250,000 but not more than RM500,000; or(d) 65% of the applicable scale fee specified, if the consideration as well as the loan sum is in excess of RM500,000.
(2) The Bar Council is hereby mandated to take any and all such further action as it deems appropriate or necessary in order to amend Order 6, the First Schedule and the Third Schedule of SRO 2005.
(3) The Bar Council is hereby further mandated to take any and all such further action as it deems appropriate or necessary to cause a revised Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules to be implemented pursuant to Section 77 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, and to ensure strict compliance by all Members of the Bar.
APPENDIX I
First Schedule and Third Schedule of the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 2005
| Purchase Price | 2005 | New Proposed Rate | 25% Discount |
| RM100,000.00 | RM1,000.00 | RM1,000.00 | RM750.00 |
| RM150,000.00 | RM1,500.00 | RM1,500.00 | RM1,125.00 |
| RM200,000.00 | RM1,850.00 | RM2,000.00 | RM1,500.00 |
| RM250,000.00 | RM2,200.00 | RM2,500.00 | RM1,875.00 |
| RM300,000.00 | RM2,550.00 | RM3,000.00 | RM2,250.00 |
| RM350,000.00 | RM2,900.00 | RM3,500.00 | RM2,625.00 |
| RM400,000.00 | RM3,250.00 | RM4,000.00 | RM3,000.00 |
| RM450,000.00 | RM3,600.00 | RM4,500.00 | RM3,375.00 |
| RM500,000.00 | RM3,950.00 | RM5,000.00 | RM3,750.00 |
| RM600,000.00 | RM4,650.00 | RM5,800.00 | RM4,350.00 |
| RM700,000.00 | RM5,350.00 | RM6,600.00 | RM4,950.00 |
| RM800,000.00 | RM6,050.00 | RM7,400.00 | RM5,550.00 |
| RM900,000.00 | RM6,750.00 | RM8,200.00 | RM6,150.00 |
| RM1,000,000.00 | RM7,450.00 | RM9,000.00 | RM6,750.00 |
| RM1,200,000.00 | RM8,650.00 | RM10,400.00 | RM7,800.00 |
| RM1,400,000.00 | RM9,850.00 | RM11,800.00 | RM8,850.00 |
| RM1,600,000.00 | RM11,050.00 | RM13,200.00 | RM9,900.00 |
| RM1,800,000.00 | RM12,250.00 | RM14,600.00 | RM10,950.00 |
| RM2,000,000.00 | RM13,450.00 | RM16,000.00 | RM12,000.00 |
| RM2,200,000.00 | RM14,650.00 | RM17,400.00 | RM13,050.00 |
| RM2,400,000.00 | RM15,850.00 | RM18,800.00 | RM14,100.00 |
| RM2,600,000.00 | RM17,050.00 | RM20,200.00 | RM15,150.00 |
| RM2,800,000.00 | RM18,250.00 | RM21,600.00 | RM16,200.00 |
| RM3,000,000.00 | RM19,450.00 | RM23,000.00 | RM17,250.00 |
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
[1] Referendum conducted in 2001 by the Bar Council.
[2] Survey conducted in 2003 by the Bar Council.
[3] See the case of Abdul Razak bin Hashim v Badan Peguam Malaysia [Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No. R2–17–5–2006] (Unreported).
The motion was proposed by Steven Thiru (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council.
Resolution on the National Security Council Bill
Whereas:
(1) The National Security Council Bill (“NSC Bill”) had its first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on 1 December 2015 and was passed on 3 December 2015 by a voice vote, without sufficient time for public consultation and legislative scrutiny;
(2) The NSC Bill was passed on 22 December 2015 by the Dewan Negara on a voice vote;
(3) Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, justified its introduction as necessary to improve and strengthen national security, through the establishment of a National Security Council, the declaration of security zones, and the granting of special powers to the security forces;
(4) During the debates in the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, members from both sides of the Houses expressed deep concern about the wide–ranging nature of the NSC Bill and the extensive powers that it would confer upon the NSC. In particular, the NSC Bill raises issues regarding:
Related2
- A Organization of the Year Award 2012 (24 Oct 2012)
- Acceptance Speech by Lim Chee Wee, President, Malaysian Bar, at the United Nations Malaysia Organization of the Year Award 2012 Presentation Ceremony, Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur (24 Oct 2012)
- United Nations celebrates 67th anniversary (News Release: The Malaysian Bar presented UN Malaysia Award for its pivotal role in Malaysias democratic development)