This item has been updated since initial publication.
Yang Amat Arif Tun Arifin Zakaria, Ketua Hakim Negara;
Yang Amat Arif Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Md Raus Sharif, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan;
Yang Amat Arif Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Hakim Besar Malaya;
Yang Amat Arif Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum, Hakim Besar Sabah dan Sarawak;
Hakim–hakim dan Pesuruhjaya–Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman; dan
Peguam Negara Malaysia.
Yang Amat Arif, saya dengan rendah diri memohon izin meneruskan ucapan saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris.
Ambassadors and High Commissioners;
And, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence of our foreign guests:
Justice Chao Hick Tin, Judge of Appeal, Singapore;
Associate Justice Robert J Torres, Supreme Court of Guam;
Ms Malathi Das, President, Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA);
Mr Lok Vi Ming, President, Law Society of Singapore;
Mr Joseph Catanzariti, President, Law Council of Australia;
Mr Stephen Hung, Vice President, Law Society of Hong Kong; and
Puan Sharifah Safinatul Najah bte Mali Hj Abdul, Treasurer, Brunei Law Society.
My Lords and My Ladies,
I am privileged to speak not only for the Malaysian Bar but also on behalf of the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and the Sabah Law Association, who are represented here today by the presence of their respective Presidents, Khairil Azmi Mohd Hasbie and GBB Nandy @ Gaanesh.
A. In Pursuit of An Excellent Justice System in Malaysia
At last year’s Opening of Legal Year (“OLY”), the Honourable Attorney General made an ominous prophecy that “the Attorney General’s Chambers fully expects 2012 to be paved with cobblestones and lined with tripwires”.1 Being the eternal optimist that I am, at that OLY I foreshadowed instead, in my concluding “pantun”, collaboration between the stakeholders to improve the administration of justice, in the words “bantu–membantu sesama kita, agar usaha bertambah mutu”.2
It has come to pass that my optimism was not unfounded.
It would be fair to say that whilst not all events of the past year were “kumbayah” moments, nonetheless, the Bench, the Bar and the AGC had a relatively successful journey in 2012, as we travelled together on a road paved with the flagstones of cooperation and lined with good intentions. We had to sidestep — but occasionally tumbled into — potholes of disagreement, but we always kept our eye on the destination: an effective system of administration of justice, and free and equal access to justice.
On this occasion, as all three stakeholders in the administration of justice take stock of the past year and lay out their respective plans for 2013, the Bar’s New Year wish is that our system of justice strives not only to dispense justice but to do so with excellence, fairness and compassion.
B. An Independent and Strong Bar
A pillar of any excellent justice system must be an independent and strong Bar, such as ours, which possesses these four characteristics:
(a) A strong voice both within and outside the courtroom, speaking on behalf of the weak and vulnerable;(b) Courage to criticise and condemn any abuse of power by the authorities and enforcement agencies;(c) Nevertheless retains the ability to work hand–in–hand with the Bench (as well as the Legislature and Executive) to strengthen the rule of law and promote Malaysia as an investment and dispute resolution centre; and(d) Strives to improve and increase the knowledge, skills and ethics of its members.
Today I wish to highlight seven examples that reflect these characteristics.
(1) Public Recognition of the Role of the Malaysian Bar
2012 was a momentous year for the Malaysian Bar because of the public recognition, domestically and internationally, of our important, if not pivotal, role in the administration of justice.
It was perhaps no coincidence that it was at the International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”)3 organised by the Malaysian Bar, that The Right Honourable Prime Minister and The Right Honourable Chief Justice described the Bar as “an important partner”4 and “an equal partner”5 in the administration of justice, respectively.
These encouraging words were uttered by the Prime Minister not too long after various politicians had been vociferous in their criticisms of the Bar (including making threats of establishing an alternative law society in, for example, the form of an Academy of Law). These criticisms were in reaction to the Bar’s condemnation of police brutality during the BERSIH 3.0 public assembly in April 2012. The Prime Minister’s message perhaps signalled a change of mind in how the Government views the Bar. In this context, the Prime Minister’s words gave great reassurance, for which reason I now quote them:
The Malaysian Bar is an important partner in the rule of law and the administration of justice. When it speaks, we listen. We may not always agree with the views emanating from the Malaysian Bar, or even some of the activities that they undertake, but we hear what they say and observe what they do with interest. We may make the occasional joke about lawyers, but they nonetheless have a unique and important role to play in our country.
The Malaysian Bar was recognised by the United Nations [of Malaysia], when the latter conferred the UN Organisation of the Year 2012 Award to the Bar.6 This Award, initiated under the UN Resident Coordinator System, recognises the outstanding contributions of organisations in the country on issues of human rights (in particular, the promotion and protection of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN human rights conventions and instruments), social justice and equality.
If I may shamelessly quote from the UN Citation for the Malaysian Bar for the award, describing the role of the Malaysian Bar:
Throughout its 66–year existence, the Malaysian Bar has admirably fulfilled its role as guardian of the rule of law, and defender of human rights and the public interest, in Malaysia. The Malaysian public has come to know it and look towards it for guidance on what the law is, what the law should be, and what the law must never be. . . . The Malaysian Bar has been exemplary in discharging its responsibilities. In particular, the Malaysian Bar has shown unfailing commitment in standing up, and unwavering zeal in speaking out, against abuse of power by those in authority.
These expressions of recognition encourage the Bar to continue with its good work.
(2) Access to Justice
Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution provides that every person arrested is entitled to legal representation. This constitutional entitlement is being fulfilled through one of the most successful public–private partnerships in Malaysia, the Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (“YBGK”, or National Legal Aid Foundation). The Foundation is the institution that guarantees access to justice by way of delivery of legal services to all Malaysians entangled in the criminal justice system. It is an institution that the Prime Minister unhesitatingly agreed to establish and to fund (including making provision for payment of legal fees). The Attorney General generously provides leadership in chairing the Foundation, and all three Bars responsibly provide their lawyers to assist Malaysians who require legal representation during arrest, detention, remand, bail, trial7 or appeal.
I will defer to the Attorney General as Chairman of the Foundation to reveal the facts and figures of the scheme, which is a success to date.
We expect that with the imminent increase in legal fees, there will be a substantial increase in the number of lawyers providing legal services for YBGK, helped in no small way by the Prime Minister’s increased YBGK allocation, to RM20 million for 2013. The change in the Government’s mindset, i.e. that the provision of free legal representation in the criminal justice system is a public service, and not an obligation of the private sector alone, is a very positive step.
For those who do not come within the YBGK scheme, either because they are not Malaysians or are involved in civil proceedings, the Bar Council’s 16 Legal Aid Centres, with at least one centre in each state, stand ready to provide its services through volunteer lawyers who assisted 21,380 clients in 2012. We are one of the few law associations in the world that runs a widespread legal aid scheme, funded solely by a levy imposed on all Members of the Bar.
In recent years, the Bar has given special attention to a special group of Malaysians, the Orang Asli. They have endured dispossession, marginalisation and discrimination in preserving and developing their continued existence as indigenous peoples in accordance with their own cultural practices, social institutions and legal systems. We have provided legal representation, through 20 lawyers, in 11 cases representing 20 Orang Asli. The Bar gratefully acknowledges the substantial financial assistance of the German Government in these legal proceedings.
With legal representation to this extent freely and widely provided throughout Malaysia, the rule of law, in particular access to justice, is indeed strengthened and promoted in Malaysia.
(3) Mandatory Continuing Professional Development
I am pleased to announce that the Members of the Bar have come round to recognising the importance of continuous learning. After a number of failed attempts in the past, we finally adopted a resolution at our last Annual General Meeting to implement a mandatory Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) for our Members.
In 2012, we conducted 110 courses with a total number of 7,146 registered attendees. The most successful and important programme is our series of two–day Advocacy Training Courses, with the participation of judges8 as trainers, and the use of courtroom facilities. Last year, there were 80 active trainers providing guidance, and 239 lawyers benefited from the nine courses conducted in five cities. The Bar expresses its gratitude to the Chief Justice for encouraging Judges to be trainers, and for the use of the courtroom facilities.
These CPD activities should translate into better advocacy in the courtroom and better legal advice in the boardroom.
(4) State of Legal Education in Malaysia
One area that requires a lot of work is in our legal education system, and this assessment is based on feedback from the Bar Council’s survey of employability of new law graduates,9 examiners of the Certificate of Legal Practice examination papers, and evaluators for the law schools of Universiti Utara Malaysia, Multimedia University and Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.
The problems revealed by the feedback include lack of proficiency in English, poor communications skills and poor legal knowledge. Whilst the top local lawyers are as good as, if not better than, those elsewhere in the region, the Bar is concerned with the standard of the average lawyer, which is largely dependent on the capability of the graduates from local and foreign institutions.
The Attorney General and I have agreed to setting up a high–level task force comprising representatives from the various stakeholder groups to study and review the state of legal education in Malaysia, and to recommend how to raise standards to a level of excellence.
(5) Foreign Lawyers
The Bar Council, working with the Selection Committee to be co–chaired by the Attorney General, hopes to issue licences to foreign lawyers and law firms to practise foreign law in Malaysia this year. This will hopefully retain local talent, bring back foreign law work presently being done abroad, and enhance the depth of the legal profession.
(6) Ethical Standards in the Profession
The Bar Council, as the guardian of the profession (together with the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) as the disciplinarian of the profession), seeks to improve and promote the ethical standards of the Bar. The year 2012 saw 953 complaints registered, six suspension orders issued and 15 Members struck off the Roll, compared to the previous year, 2011, which had 1,083 complaints, four suspension orders and 24 Members struck off. While these figures perhaps reflect progress towards a more ethical profession, there is no room for complacency, and the Bar Council will continue to focus on ethics in its CPD courses.
On behalf of the Bar, we thank Tan Sri Khalid bin Ahmad, the Chairman of DB who is stepping down in February this year, for his almost nine selfless years of service leading the DB, and a total of thirteen years as a Board member. It would not be wrong of me to say that Tan Sri Khalid was instrumental in clearing the backlog of cases at DB.
(7) Conferences — International Malaysia Law Conference and IBA’s 3rd Asia Pacific Regional Forum Conference
Last year, the Malaysian Bar promoted Malaysia as an investment and dispute resolution destination at two international conferences: the Bar’s signature biennial conference, which was revamped as the premier IMLC, and the International Bar Association’s 3rd Asia Pacific Regional Forum Conference.
The IMLC in September 2012 was a resounding success10 and boasted several firsts: the first international law conference organised entirely by the Bar; the first Fundamental Freedoms Fringe Fest; the first Bar conference the Prime Minister spoke at; and the first Bar conference Tun Arifin bin Zakaria spoke at as Chief Justice.
C. A World–Class Judiciary
I now turn to the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. At last year’s OLY, the Chief Justice declared the Judiciary’s commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary, and the objective of transforming the Judiciary into a world–class Judiciary.11
The Bar supports these declarations and aspiration whole–heartedly.
(1) Rule of Law and Independence of the Judiciary
The Judiciary’s commitment is reflected in a few significant court decisions: abuse of power by the Executive was condemned, and the victims promptly awarded damages;12 legislation that unreasonably restricted the exercise of the right of a university student to express support for, or opposition against, a political party was struck down for being unconstitutional;13 Opposition politicians successfully sued for defamation against newspapers owned by the ruling party;14 and Orang Asli’s native land rights were recognised.15 These civil cases show that victims of abuse of Executive power can hold the Executive accountable, unreasonable Parliamentary restrictions on constitutional freedoms will be struck down, and Opposition politicians and minorities have equal access to justice.
The obligation of the Prime Minister to uphold the independence of the Judiciary is mandated in section 2 of the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 (“JAC Act”), which obliges the Prime Minister “to uphold the continued independence of the Judiciary… [having regard] to the need to defend that independence, the need for the judiciary to have the support necessary to enable them to exercise their functions, the need for public interest to be properly represented in regard to matters relating to the judiciary, the administration of justice and related matters.”
This statutory provision would be a pious platitude if it were not followed up with real action by the Government, which must include, at minimum:
(a) The Courts’ development budget, which has been managed by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department since 2003, must be rightfully returned to the Judiciary to manage;16 and(b) The remuneration scheme for members of the Judiciary cannot be benchmarked to that of the civil service, for the Judiciary is separate from the Executive. The Honourable Minister in charge of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz has acknowledged that the main difficulty in attracting private practitioners to join the Bench is the lower salary of Judges compared to lawyers in private practice.17 This will change if the Judiciary has greater say over its remuneration scheme, which must be formulated independently; only then will more top legal talent move to the Bench. Apart from basic salary and benefits, the issue of pension deserves immediate revision, where the present maximum pension qualification of 15 years of service as a Judge should be reduced, given the current trend of appointment of judges who are in their 50s.
The greatest test of the Judiciary’s commitment to the rule of law is the resolution of the pending sensitive and extremely difficult cases involving issues of faith. Our courts, as the last frontier of conflict resolution, must always ensure that anyone, and everyone, has access to justice — no matter how emotionally charged, politically laced, or tough the legal questions involved — and that our Judges uphold the rule of law, and not prioritise personal beliefs instead.
(2) Transformation into a World–Class Judiciary
The Chief Justice’s vision for the Judiciary is that it be transformed into a world–class Judiciary with global recognition. Permit me to share a few of the Bar’s suggestions on how this can be achieved.
(i) Appointment and Promotion of Judges — Criteria and Consultation
On the appointment and promotion of Judges, section 23 of the JAC Act sets out the criteria for the selection of Judges. To the Bar, the most important criteria are:
(a) integrity, competency and experience;(b) objectivity, impartiality, fairness and good moral character;(c) decisiveness, ability to make timely judgments and good legal writing skills; and(d) diversity of legal expertise and knowledge in the Judiciary.
In terms of integrity, at last year’s OLY, the Chief Justice reminded Judges and judicial officers not to expose themselves to corrupt practices and not to abuse their position at any time. He also reminded lawyers not to make any wild and baseless accusations against Judges and judicial officers. I am afraid, however, that accusations are still being made. The Chief Justice’s widely–applauded announcement that Judges will declare their assets to the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (“MACC”)18 should go some way to reduce the number and volume of accusations, as we trust that MACC will conduct an asset verification exercise to confirm the accuracy of these asset declarations.
On the part of the Bar, we will approach and work with MACC whenever there is any serious hint of corruption involving a member of the Bar or the Bench. We hope to at least address one serious hint soon, and we acknowledge the MACC’s cooperation with us on this matter. The Bar pledges its support for the Chief Justice’s will to combat both corruption, and the perception thereof.
Regarding diversity of legal expertise and knowledge in the Judiciary, this would be enhanced if there were more private practitioners on the Bench. This addition will boost the depth and breadth of commercial knowledge and experience in our courtrooms, especially specialist courts such as the Commercial Courts, the Admiralty Court and, if established, the Construction Court.
I wish to take this opportunity to address a comment made by Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz in Parliament that Indian lawyers are not keen to become Judges because of better pay in private practice and restricted lifestyle on the Bench.19 While this may be true of some lawyers, others who are good and reputable lawyers are prepared to make personal and financial sacrifices for “national service”.
As permanent and regular users of the courts, and more importantly as officers of the Court, the Bar has thorough knowledge of which Judges satisfy — or don’t — the prescribed statutory criteria for appointment and promotion. The Bar Council, as leader of the Bar, is well–placed to advise the Chief Justice on the performance of Judges. The Bar is confident that the convention of confidential consultation between the Chief Justice and the President of the Bar will continue for each round of consideration for appointment and promotion.
Further, the Bar is hopeful that the Prime Minister will appoint four new eminent persons20 to the JAC who will, like their predecessors, work with the other JAC members to scrutinise each candidate in a vigorous and comprehensive manner. We hope that JAC will ensure, with more rigour, that the prescribed statutory criteria are strictly complied with.
(ii) Room for Improvement in Quality of Judgments
As the Chief Justice acknowledged at last year’s OLY, the quality of court decisions must be improved. The focus on quality comes on the back of a successful and well–documented overhaul of the engine of judicial machinery, resulting in a complete clearance of backlog of cases and an efficient and modern Judiciary.
For the Bar, the quality of a decision can only be determined by the quality of the written judgment. A high–quality judgment must have at least these five features:
(a) Clear, and easy to understand;(b) Intelligent, with reasoned analysis of the facts and law;(c) Addresses all arguments raised by counsel, no matter how silly or difficult;(d) Does not raise any issue (of fact or law) not argued by counsel or put by the Judge to the counsel for submission; and(e) Does not dispose of the entire case on a technicality that will not do justice to the case. For instance, a mere failure to comply with directions, without contravention of an unless order made after past instance(s) of non–compliance, must not result in the dismissal of a claim.
These features are necessary for a losing litigant to understand the basis for an unfavourable decision, for counsel to be able to advise the losing litigant whether to appeal, and for other counsel to advise with certainty how the court will decide in a similar dispute between other litigants. This, by itself, will reduce litigation and provide greater certainty to the law.
If a written judgment has to be lengthy in order to satisfy these five requirements, then this would be in the interest of justice. Therefore, the advice of the late Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim, the then–Lord President of the Federal Court, in his letter dated 18 April 1979 to Presidents and Magistrates, where he chided Judges for writing long and protracted judgments,21 does not apply universally or without qualification.
Written judgments are always examined carefully by litigants and counsel, and constructive criticism is to be encouraged and considered by the Judiciary. However, unwarranted, unfair and malicious criticism, and allegations against the institution of the Judiciary and individual judges, are discouraged, and must be dealt with swiftly if they are tantamount to contempt of court.22
(iii) The Role of the Judiciary in Achieving Malaysia’s 2020 Vision
One of the important steps towards achieving developed nation status by 2020, less than seven years away, is the promotion of Malaysia not only as a premier investment destination but also as a dispute resolution destination. The Malaysian Judiciary has to demonstrate that it is able to adjudicate disputes in an honest, efficient, effective and certain manner. Further, it also has to demonstrate that it is arbitration–friendly, so that businesses would opt for Malaysia as a seat for arbitration. Based on industry feedback,23 the Judiciary — working with the industrious Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration — has to increase its efforts to encourage businesses to choose Malaysia as a seat for arbitration, and there is no better mode of persuasion than court decisions that are arbitration–friendly and sound in law.
That the competition for the business of dispute resolution is hotly contested is amply demonstrated by a recent article penned by The Right Honourable Lady Justice Arden to discourage English judges from making English judgments “less competitive internationally”,24 and the recent announcement by Singapore Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon of the possibility of establishing a Singapore International Commercial Court.25
The Malaysian legal system — like the Malaysian economy — has to adapt and lift its standards to be competitive in the global legal market. Otherwise, it can never claim to be a serious contender, in terms of having a world–class Judiciary.
D. The Government — The Bar’s Wish List for a Better Political Transformation Programme
I now turn to the Executive, and the Bar’s wish list for a Part Two of the Political Transformation Programme announced by the Prime Minister on Malaysia Day in 2011.26
The Prime Minister at the IMLC last year said that, “(j)ust as Rome was not built in a day, the building of a just, equitable and democratic Malaysia cannot be achieved overnight. And as the ancient Chinese saying goes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. We have embarked on many steps already…”.27
Whilst a number of positive steps have been taken in law reform, the steps to build a just, equitable and democratic Malaysia must necessarily include the establishment of strong and independent institutions that will not be personality– or government–dependent, the strengthening of existing institutions, and further law reform which are, in the words of the Attorney General, “proportionate” and “necessary”.
(1) New Institutions
As a first step, the Bar reiterates its call for the establishment of four new institutions that will strengthen the rule of law in Malaysia.
(i) Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission
An independent and credible external mechanism for oversight of the Polis DiRaja Malaysia (“PDRM”) is urgently needed, namely the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) proposed by the Royal Commission on the Enhancement of the Management and Operations of the Police which was chaired by Tun Dato’ Seri Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Haji Abdullah, a former Chief Justice. The existing Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (“EAIC”) is a watered–down substitute for the IPCMC28 and would therefore be a less–than–effectual oversight body. The Government must recognise, as governments elsewhere have, that whilst the majority of the police force are honest and competent individuals, the police are unable to police themselves.
(ii) Coroner’s Court
A Coroner’s Court must be established with the clearly–stated aim of identifying the deceased and ascertaining how, when and where the person died. There should be the creation of the official position of a State Coroner, and Coroners appointed by the Prime Minister upon the recommendation of the Chief Justice. The Coroner would be responsible for supervising investigations by the police, ensuring that all relevant evidence is gathered, presiding over enquiries, and making findings. The Court would make specific use of pathologists and forensic pathologists.
Recent enquiries into deaths of persons that occur whilst in the custody of, or in or around the premises of, law enforcement agencies, have resulted in “open” verdicts. The grieving families of the deceased are unable to find comfort and closure in such a verdict.29
(iii) Law Reform Commission
The Bar urges the establishment of an independent law reform commission that would undertake research, public consultations and legal policy development, and make recommendations to Parliament, without fear or favour. The Bar remains hopeful that the announcement made by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Liew Vui Keong, on 8 November 2011 will come to fruition this year.30
(iv) Sentencing Council
The Bar welcomed the announcement, by Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz, that the Government has agreed in principle to the establishment of a sentencing council.31 A sentencing council would promote consistency by having guidelines for Judges to decide on the appropriate sentence to reflect the crime committed, proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, and would increase public understanding of sentencing.
However, the Bar opposes any amendment to the law to impose mandatory sentences, as this would be an unnecessary fetter on the discretion of the Judge and an unwarranted impediment to the free flow of justice.32 This respect for the discretion of the judge is also one of the reasons why the Malaysian Bar welcomes recent public statements by the Attorney General and Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz calling for the abolition of the mandatory death sentence for drug–related offences.
These four institutions require a statutory underpinning in order to ensure permanence of existence, transparency in deliberations, accountability to the people and, equally important, continuity in funding.
(2) Maintaining Existing Institutions
Apart from setting up new institutions, the second step to be taken by the Government must be to maintain existing independent and effective institutions, and such individuals in it who ensure that the institution achieves its statutory object and lives up to public expectation. One of the more — if not the most — outstanding current institutions, worthy of mention here, is the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (“SUHAKAM”), which is tasked with championing human rights in Malaysia.
The seven Commissioners, so ably led by Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, have surpassed expectations in the courage, tenacity and perseverance they have shown in the discharge of their statutory obligations: to promote awareness of and provide education relating to human rights; to advise and assist the Government in formulating legislation and procedures, and recommend the necessary measures to be taken; and to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human rights.
The first term of the Commissioners will come to an end in a few months. The Bar trusts that the Prime Minister will recommend the reappointment of these advocates of human rights.
(3) Further law reform
The third step is law reform, especially with respect to the death penalty, where the Bar anticipates a Cabinet decision imposing a moratorium on all death sentences and, eventually, the abolition of the death penalty. When this happens, Malaysia will be regarded by others as a progressive, modern and compassionate nation.
I wish to acknowledge here that whilst the Bar was initially anxious about the prohibition of assemblies in motion in the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, events have come to pass that show that the Government has allowed these in a number of rallies, and this is positive. We hope that this remains the practice for any upcoming public assemblies.
E. Pantun
In the event that my advocacy today has been ineffectual, I wish to recite a pantun in Bahasa Malaysia that I hope better conveys the message of my speech.
Indah dipandang si bunga raya,Tumbuh mekar pelbagai warna,Kalau kita ingin berjaya,Tetapkan matlamat tingkatkan usaha.Petik setangkai bunga melati,Bunga melati kembang setaman,Jikalau semuanya bersatu hati,Cemerlang pasti dalam genggaman.Perahu layar mudik ke pengkalan,Tiba di pengkalan memunggah barangan,Ayuh rakan, handai dan taulan,bersatu hati menuju kecemerlangan.
~ Siti Nurbaya Yusoff
F. Reaffirmation and Best Wishes for the New Year
On behalf of the Malaysian Bar, Advocates’ Association of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association, we reaffirm our commitment to, and support of, the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary.
We wish members of the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s Chambers a productive, meaningful and healthy year ahead, during which we will, together, move much closer towards our common goal of being a world–class Judiciary, an independent and strong Bar, and an excellent Attorney General’s Chambers.
Lim Chee Wee
President
Malaysian Bar
12 January 2013
1 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
2 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
3 IMLC was held from 26 to 28 September 2012 in Kuala Lumpur.
4 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
5 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
6 The award was presented on the occasion of UN Day, observed on 24 October annually.
7 If the accused’s yearly income does not exceed RM36,000.
8 The Bar thanks Justices Mah Weng Kwai, David Wong, Mary Lim, Lee Swee Seng and Vazeer Alam for sacrificing their weekends to train our Members.
9 Please see the press release available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
10 This conference had 589 registered delegates, who were inspired by 48 local and foreign speakers and moderators, including leaders of society.
11 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
12 Unreported case of Muthammal A/P Rose Udayar & Anor. v ACP A Paramasivam & 3 Ors, judgment of Justice Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. Unfortunately the High Court decision in Suzana Md Aris v DSP Ishak Hussain & Ors [2010] 6 CLJ 712 was set aside by the Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court did not grant leave.
13 Muhammad Hilman bin Idham & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2011] 6 MLJ 507 (CA).
14 Lim Guan Eng v Utusan Malaysia [2012] 2 MLJ 394, Khalid Abdul Samad v Datuk Aziz Isham and Utusan Malaysia [2012] 7 MLJ 301, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Datuk S Nallakaruppan [2012] 8 CLJ 939, and Karpal Singh v Utusan Malaysia unreported.
15 Khalip bin Bachek case, Johor Baru High Court, and Bukit Rok case, Shah Alam High Court.
16 See paragraph 5 on page 8 of the World Bank Report entitled “Malaysia: Court Backlog and Delay Reduction Program — A Progress Report, published in August 2011.
17See press report here.
18 See press report here.
19 See press report here.
20 The current four eminent persons will complete their maximum two terms, as provided for in section 6 of the JAC Act, in February 2013.
21 Quoted in the Court of Appeal case of Mohamad Deraman v PP [2011] 3 CLJ 601.
22 See press report here.
23 See Global Arbitration Review Guide to Regional Arbitration 2013, page 20.
24 “Judgment Writing: Are Shorter Judgments Achievable?” (2012) 128 LQR 515.
25 Speech at Opening of Legal Year 2013 and Welcome Reference for the Chief Justice on 4 January 2013.
26 The speech is available here.
27 The speech is available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
28 The proposed IPCMC Act provides IPCMC with wider powers of investigation, prosecution and sentencing.
29 Please see the press release available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
30 Please see the press release available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
31 Please see the press release available here on the Malaysian Bar website.
32 Please see the press release available here on the Malaysian Bar website.