annual report 2005 / 2006

Transcription

CONTENTS
Agenda ........................................................................................................... 1
Minutes of the 13th Annual General Meeting
held on 10th March 2005 ......................................................................... 2-30
Chairman’s Report ................................................................................ 31-34
Secretariat Report .................................................................................. 35-36
Reports of Sub-Committees
Continuing Legal Education ................................................................... 37-41
Conveyancing Practice ............................................................................ 42-43
Court Liaison (Civil) ................................................................................. 44-45
Criminal Practice ..................................................................................... 46-47
Environmental Law .................................................................................. 48-49
Information Technology ................................................................................ 5 0
Publications .................................................................................................. 5 1
Social & Pupils Welfare .......................................................................... 52-53
Sports ....................................................................................................... 54-55
Young Lawyers ........................................................................................ 56-59
Legal Aid .................................................................................................. 60-86
Laporan Pengerusi ................................................................................. 87-90
Laporan Sekretariat ............................................................................... 91-92
Laporan-Laporan Jawatankuasa Kecil
Pendidikan Undang-Undang Lanjutan ................................................... 93-96
Amalan Konveyansing ............................................................................ 97-98
Perhubungan Mahkamah (Sivil) ...........................................................99-100
Amalan Jenayah .................................................................................. 101-102
Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar ............................................................ 103-104
Teknologi Maklumat ................................................................................... 105
Penerbitan .................................................................................................. 106
Sosial & Kebajikan Pelatih .................................................................. 107-108
Sukan ................................................................................................... 109-110
Peguam Muda ..................................................................................... 111-114
Bantuan Guaman ................................................................................ 115-128
Audited Accounts for the year ending 31st December 2005 .......... 129-140
ANNUAL REPORT 2005 / 2006
KUALA LUMPUR BAR COMMITTEE
14TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Kuala Lumpur Bar to
be held on Thursday 2nd March 2006 at 4:00 p.m. in the Ballroom,
Royal Selangor Club, Jalan Raja, Kuala Lumpur.
AGENDA
1
To confirm and adopt the minutes of the 13th Annual General Meeting held on 10th
March 2005.
2
Matters arising.
3
To consider, and if thought fit, to adopt the Annual Report 2005/06.
4
To consider, and if thought fit, to pass the Audited Accounts for the year ending 31st
December 2005.
5
To fix subscription for the year 2006.
6
To elect the Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for 2006/07.
7
To elect six (6) members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for 2006/07.
8
To elect one (1) member to represent the Kuala Lumpur Bar on the Bar Council for
2006/07.
9
General.
9.1 To elect the Chairperson, Secretary and five (5) members to the Kuala Lumpur
Bar Young Lawyers Committee for the year 2006/07. [Note: Only lawyers with
less than 7 years of practice at the Bar are eligible to stand for election to this
Committee]
R Ravindra Kumar
Hon Secretary
Agenda
1
13TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
KUALA LUMPUR BAR
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING HELD ON 10TH MARCH 2005 AT 2.00 P.M. AT THE GRAND BALLROOM,
THE LEGEND HOTEL, KUALA LUMPUR.
Jerald Gomez, as Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee, chaired this meeting and called the meeting to order at
2.30 p.m. He then requested all members to rise and observe one-minute silence in memory of the following members who
passed away during the year under review:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Zainoon Zakariah
Divakaran M Nair
Loo Han Keang
T. Selvarasan
Datuk Sivalingam Munusamy
Pertaf Singh
ITEM 1 OF AGENDA: To confirm and adopt the minutes of the 12th Annual General Meeting held on 11th March 2004
The minutes were confirmed and adopted as proposed by S. Radhakrishnan and seconded by Muralee Menon subject to
the following amendment:Page 5, no. V, line 2
The word “dubbed” should read “dud”.
ITEM 2 OF AGENDA: Matters arising
2.1
2.1.1
Page 4, no. 6.11 – Section 46A of the LPA
Latheefa Koya asked that she be allowed to read out what the Chairman had said at the last Annual General
Meeting in response to her question on his stand on Section 46A of the LPA. With the Chairman’s leave, she read
out the relevant section as follows:“He said that with regard to the 7-year aspect ie lawyers below 7 years of practice be allowed to stand for election,
he would support it without any hesitation simply because if one is an authorised person who is allowed to practice
law and is permitted to defend a person charged under S.39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act or even allowed to initiate
or defend a multi million dollar suit there is no valid reason why that person could not also stand for election.”
She believed that the Chairman had actually backtracked because somewhere in June 2003, the Bar Council had
put up a resolution to allow 2 observers from amongst the young lawyers to sit in the Bar Council meetings and
she had been given to understand that the Chairman had voted against it. She requested the Chairman for an
explanation.
2.1.2
The Chairman said that the motion was tabled at the Bar Council meeting on 17.04.2004. The motion states:“That the Bar Council forthwith or at its next Council meeting co-opt 2 members with less than 7 years of practice
to sit on the Council with all the rights and privileges of a Council member, except voting rights, until the conclusion
of the Annual General Meeting next year.”
What he had said at the last AGM was his position on Section 46A. He did not think that it was constitutional to
prevent a young lawyer from standing for election but he does not support a position in which Council’s deliberations
are done with people who are not qualified under the Statute. This was because he did not want any tainted
decisions being given. He stressed that the Bar Council makes all kinds of very important decisions such as
suspending lawyers, the no-discount rule etc and if the people participating in those meetings are not qualified
under the Act, the Council might get a Suit out of that. That was his concern.
2
Minutes
2.1.2.1 He added that he would need to let members know that any Committee that he chaired, the Defence of the
Malaysian Bar Committee, the Human Rights Committee, he had brought in young lawyers. Even in the
KLBC, he had brought in the young lawyers. He had nothing against young lawyers sitting as observers in
these Committees but at the Council level, if they were to immediately co-opt two young members, he felt
that it offends the legislation and he would not want to put the Bar Council in that position. That was his
position and explanation.
2.1.3
Latheefa Koya said that if that was the case, he could have actually amended the resolution to adapt the practice
of the KLBC where 2 representatives of the young lawyers, this year they were Dinesh and Mogan, sit on the KLBC
without voting rights. Perhaps he could have suggested the amendments to reflect what he had been saying about
being pro young lawyers.
2.1.4
The Chairman took her point but asked if she had read the latest case, Ngeow’s case, with regard to the Disciplinary
Board hearing. The President of the Malaysian Bar happened to be in the hearing. He did not even participate but
they had held that the fact that he was present was sufficient to taint the proceedings. The Bar Council was even
sued for postal ballots just because some ballots were hand delivered to the Bar Council and not by post. In his
view, he was finding it difficult to put the Bar Council in that position. Whereas for other sub-committees where the
issues were not so grievous, young lawyers were co-opted without making it too obvious. That was his position with
regard to the said issue.
2.1.5
Edmund Bon told the Chairman that he was missing the point. He said that in Ngeow’s case, when he was under
him (the Chairman) in the “Defence of the Malaysian Bar” Committee, he (Edmund) had given that opinion and
everyone supported it. Ngeow’s case was totally different. There was a statutory bar on the President under the
Legal Profession Act. Thus that was entirely different. The point that they were making here was that the Chairman
had said and pledged that he would assist in the abolishment of the Section 46A provision. If he had said that on
the Council level one cannot have observers because he was afraid that there might be challenges to decisions,
why then was the KLBC having 2 young lawyers sitting in their meetings deliberating, discussing and debating
issues on the Committee level. He had sat in the Committee 2 years ago and the practice of having 2 young
lawyers in the Committee had continued till today. He asked the Chairman if he was trying to say that all the
decisions made in the meetings of the KLBC also would be null and void when challenged.
2.1.6
The Chairman responded that he was not saying that and Edmund remarked that as the bar for young lawyers
below 7 years also applied to State Bar Committees, the Chairman’s position was a little inconsistent.
2.1.7
The Chairman said that the point he was trying to make was that there was a resolution at the KL Bar level
stipulating that the KLBC had to take 2 young lawyers as observers. He could thus fall back on the resolution.
However, at the Malaysian Bar level, there was no such resolution. That was his first point. His second point was
that the Bar Council handles much more serious matters than the KLBC. The KLBC does not handle serious
matters. Bar Council matters might be challenged.
2.1.8
The Chairman further said that when he said that he would take the issue of Section 46A up, he did. He had taken
it up with Dato’ Radzi, the Minister in charge of Legal Affairs. He had stressed the point to the Minister who had
taken the point and said that he would look into the matter. That was as far as he could go unless there is a Court
Order to say otherwise or a resolution is passed by members forcing the Bar Council to co-opt 2 young members.
2.2
2.2.1
Page 4, no. 6.14 – Resolution of the Malaysian Bar that every lawyer has to do at least one legal aid case a year
Fahri Azzat read out the following excerpts:“Jerald said that he would write to the Senior Partner of each legal firm forwarding the resolution of the Malaysian
Bar and asking if they have complied with the resolution that every lawyer has to do at least one legal aid case a
year. If the letter does not work, he would make personal phone calls.”
He then asked the Chairman if he had written to every senior partner of each legal firm in Kuala Lumpur and if that
did not work, he wanted to know if he had made the calls. He would like to know when those letters were sent out
and when those calls were made.
2.2.2
The Chairman said that he had at the 1st meeting of the KLBC raised the matter with the Committee members. He
read out the relevant excerpts from the said minutes as follows:-
Minutes
3
“Legal Aid – the Chairman said he would need every member of the Committee to take on at least one legal aid file
first before he could approach senior partners of firms to handle legal aid matters. He would want to be able to state
confidently that every member of his Committee has taken a legal aid file.
The Chairman requested Sa’adiah to provide the statistics of unassigned files and list of firms that have taken on
legal aid cases or provided other forms of assistance to the Legal Aid Centre.”
“The Chairman then proceeded to discuss the list of issues raised at the AGM on 11.03.2004.
Legal Aid – need to get more lawyers involved in legal aid and not to depend solely on pupils
The Chairman said that the plans were, as discussed earlier, each member of the Committee to take on at least one
file and senior partners of firms that have not rendered any assistance to the KL LAC be approached to take on files
or help out in any of the Legal Aid projects.
The Chairman requested Sa’adiah to provide the necessary information as requested of her earlier and also a list of
all the projects or areas that would require assistance of lawyers. He further requested Sa’adiah to approach him
or Ragu for assistance should she find it uncomfortable to approach certain lawyers.”
At the 4th meeting of the KLBC held on 23.06.2004, Sa’adiah reported that the KL LAC was doing alright and had
no problem with the assigning of files. In the circumstances, he found it unnecessary to write those letters. He
stressed that he had every intention to write and had requested the Legal Aid Centre to provide him with the number
of unassigned files. Initially there were 17 files and then 25 and he was told that the KL LAC could handle the
assigning of the files. That was the position he had taken in the matter.
2.2.3
Fahri Azzat said that he completely understood what the Chairman was saying all those time. His question was very
simple, did he (Chairman) write the letter and made personal phone calls as reported in the minutes of the last AGM.
2.2.4
The Chairman said that he had just explained very clearly that was the intention in the 1st and 2nd meeting of the KLBC but
he needed to know the number of files that could not be assigned. If there were files that were not assigned, he would definitely
do it. There was no doubt about that. The intent was clear from the minutes of the KLBC meetings. It was to do it. There was
no reason why he should not want to do it. But when the feedback received was that there was no problem with the assigning
of files, he had to abide by that. It would be superfluous to write and ask for help from every legal firm to handle one file when
there would be no file to pass to them. That he felt, was not the appropriate thing to do.
2.2.5
Edmund Bon said that the Chairman was missing the point. The point that the Chairman had made at the AGM was
that every firm or every senior partner would be written to in respect of complying with the resolution of the Malaysian
Bar. One must realise that cases would come to the KL LAC over and over again and there would be backlog. The
Chairman cannot just say at one point in time that there were no cases and therefore he would not write anymore.
The point Fahri Azzat was making was whether the Chairman had asked the firms whether they had complied with
the resolution and it was the answer to that point that they were waiting for.
2.2.6
The Chairman said that he saw no necessity in writing the letter when he was informed that all cases had been
assigned. He would have done it if there was a need.
2.2.7
Amer Hamzah said that he would need to know from the Chairman whether the information and statistics were
being provided to him on a daily basis or weekly basis because the number of people being arrested and remanded
increases day by day. He personally had been receiving a lot of phone calls from the KL LAC asking him to take up
files. There was only so much that he could do as an individual. It was thus necessary to check whether or not the
number of files had increased. The statistics provided by Sa’adiah was just a one-off statistics. There need to be
a daily or weekly check on whether there was an increase in the number of remands in the respective prisons. As
Edmund Bon had correctly pointed out, the numbers keep on changing. One cannot start to make an appeal only
when there was need. In any event, the need was always there. The question therefore was why was the letter not
written. It should be made compulsory for all lawyers to do legal aid or at least all firms should be urged to advise
their lawyers to take up at least one legal aid file a year or to assist the KL LAC in any manner that they could.
2.2.8
Sa’adiah said that each time when she was notified by the staff of the KL LAC that there was a list of unassigned
files, she would always instruct the staff to forward it to the Executive Secretary of the KLBC for it to be put in the
KL Bar e-mail group. From her recollection, such a list was brought to her attention a few times and the particular
staff had sent it to the KLBC and the Executive Secretary had circulated the same through the e-mail group.
4
Minutes
2.2.9
Puravalen said that the request that was posed to the Chairman regarding the letter that was to be sent out to all the
legal firms was a result of much discussion by the House. He believed it was not confined to the assignment
of files that needed legal representation in Court. To give an example of the type of problems faced by the KL
LAC, he referred to page 43 paragraph 3 of the Annual Report. He respected the measure that was taken by
the Chairman in asking Sa’adiah to find out whether there was any assistance needed but that was just
confined to assigned files. The Centre needed volunteer lawyers, supervisors and people to run the clinics
and to work with the NGO partners. It was the human resource constraints issue that they were talking about
and this was reflected in the report of the Secretary of the KL LAC in page 43. He pointed out to the
Chairman that the House had asked him to send out the resolution that was passed by the Malaysian Bar
and he had given the House an assurance that he would do so. That was all that the Chairman had to look
at and provide an answer. He certainly respected the Chairman’s answer that he had done his best and that
he was guided by the response of the Chair of the KL LAC but he felt that the Chairman did not answer the
question raised and that there were human resource constraints. He said the buck stopped at the Chairman
and he must take responsibility for it.
2.2.10 The Chairman clarified that it was not the House that requested him to write the letter. It was he himself who said
that he would do it. The question asked at the AGM last year was what steps would he take to help legal aid out.
The steps that he had wanted to take were to write to each senior partner and tell them about the existence of the
resolution and to request them to take up legal aid files. That was the answer he had given during the AGM. He had
then at the 1st meeting of the KLBC raised the matter with the Committee and also with the Chair of the KL LAC.
He did the same at the 2nd meeting. He had asked the Chair of the KL LAC to list out the areas that require
assistance and to approach Ragu or him should she require any assistance to speak to any lawyers. It was clear
that he had wanted to help the KL LAC. However, at the 4th meeting of the KLBC, it was reported that the KL LAC
was doing fine. There was no issue. He had left it at that and the House will see, by the end of this meeting, the
other issues with regard to the KL LAC and why he did not even go further and take further action. He requested the
House to bear with him for another hour or two.
2.3
2.3.1
Bahasa Malaysia version of the Annual Report
Akbar Hussain said he had with him a copy of the translated Annual Report. He asked if there was any particular
reason why the minutes had been left out in the translated version and the departure from publishing it together with
the English version.
2.3.2
The Chairman said that the minutes had always been in English only and that was the reason why the Bahasa
Malaysia version of the Annual Report did not carry the minutes. In respect of printing the Bahasa Malaysia version
separately, it was the decision of the Committee. The Committee considered seriously as to the amount of money
that it would save if the Bahasa Malaysia version was to be printed separately. It would be about RM7,000.00. The
Committee therefore decided to make available at the AGM hall 200 copies for members who might want the
Bahasa Malaysia version. The Bahasa Malaysia version could also be found on the KL Bar website.
2.3.3
Zainudin Ismail said he wondered how the Committee members sitting up on the stage had decided to save the
RM7,000.00 but at the same time wasted members’ money on other things that he did not think were more
important than the language issue. That was his first point. His second point was, were the Committee members
not sensitive enough that Bahasa Malaysia is the national language of this country and of the Courts and for all
Malaysians. He asked if the Committee did ever consider that issue for members. Members want the Committee
to represent them and not to lead or mislead them on national issues that are important to them all. He requested
the Chairman to explain and apologise to the House that the Committee had made a wrong decision on the matter.
2.3.4
The Chairman said that all he could say was that the Committee had deliberated seriously and there were
representations with regard to that view and the Committee said that they wanted to provide the maximum to the
members. The Committee felt that by having 200 solid copies of the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Annual Report
at the AGM hall as well as on the website, it would serve the purpose. He told Zainudin Ismail that he would take
his suggestion on board and put it to the next Committee for them to take a decision.
2.3.5
Amer Hamzah asked if the Chairman was trying to say that the Committee was running on a deficit that it had to
have this extra measure to save cost. He believed that there were certain activities like the Appreciation Dinner, not
that he was trying to say that the Committee should not have it, but having it at the expense of like RM7,000.00,
was that reasonable. Further, he had been informed that the notice board in the auditorium cost RM4,000.00. He
asked if there was a necessity to have such a notice board.
Minutes
5
2.3.6
The Chairman explained that when the Committee wanted to do the KL Bar Auditorium, it decided that it would not
want to tax members. It would not want to use members’ money and neither would it want to ask members for
donations. The Committee went and obtained donations from outside the Bar. At the same time, the KL Bar Annual
Dinner & Dance was also taking place and the Committee went and sought donations from various people. He went
and saw Yeo Yang Poh and Catherine Eu and managed to get for the KL Bar Auditorium the chairs from the Bar
Council’s old auditorium for free. The Committee also managed to get RM10,000.00 from an IT vendor to sponsor
the PA system. He then approached certain Insurance companies to see if they could donate the remaining
chairs, carpet etc and as he was going along, he found that Jardine Lloyd Thompson was prepared to give some
money. He spoke to Ragunath who informed him that he could get RM10,000.00 as a contribution towards the KL
Bar Auditorium and the Annual Dinner & Dance. He did ask if it was for any p articular area and was told that the
Committee could use it in any way it wished. He then requested the Executive Secretary to contact the CEO of
Jardine Lloyd Thompson to find out if they were prepared to sponsor a notice board to display the names of the past
Chairmen and Secretaries and the current Committee much like the one in the Bar Council. He felt that such a
board would enhance the ambience of the auditorium. Further, the Committee was inviting all the past Chairmen to
officiate the opening of the auditorium and he thought it would be a nice gesture to have the board displaying their
names. The board was a donation from Jardine Lloyd Thompson. It came completely free to the KL Bar and that
was confirmed in writing by the Executive Secretary to the CEO who confirmed the same in return. He read out the
two letters to the House. On 9.12.2004, he thanked the CEO for the contribution by way of a letter. He just wanted
members to know that he got the board completely free. He did not use any of the money from the Committee’s
fund nor did he seek donations from members.
2.4
2.4.1
Pages 10/11, no. 9.3 – Problems faced by Pupils-in-Chambers
Low Beng Choo said that she would like to know the steps that had been taken by the Committee to resolve the
problem of pupils being left in the lurch by their “Movers” on their Call day which the Committee had promised to
look into. She pointed out that the problem was even worse than it was a year ago i.e. pupils were not able to get
“Movers” even until the very last minute. What was even worse was that members who had agreed to move the
Calls would inform the pupils at the very last minute, either the evening before or on the morning itself that they were
unable to appear leaving the pupils in a lurch. She felt that was not just unethical but also unbecoming of an
advocate & solicitor and something had got to be done.
2.4.2
Colin said that since he started chairing the Social & Pupils’ Welfare Committee, he had on the Monday preceding
the Calls (Calls take place on Thursdays and Fridays), conducted a briefing for all pupils on the Call proceedings.
Previously, one of the Senior Assist ant Registrars would do it but since he had left for Sabah there was no one doing
it. The KLBC thus started handling it. During those briefings he would also ask all the pupils who had yet to
organise a “Mover” to come forward and the Secretariat will try and assist them to find a “Mover”. Usually, the pupils
would be asked to contact lawyers who move Calls frequently.
2.4.3
Low Beng Choo felt that the Committee needed to do something more proactive than that. She understands that
the Committee now requires Masters to write to the KLBC to confirm the “Mover” for their pupils’ Call to the Bar but
that was not sufficient. Members who had agreed to move Calls and for some reason could not appear on the Call
day must make sure that they get a replacement. She was certain that members who had agreed to do a case and
could not attend Court would get someone to replace them and not leave their clients and in this case the pupils in
a lurch. She reiterated the need for the KLBC to take more proactive steps than just leaving the situation as it was
and leaving it to the Masters.
2.4.4
The Chairman noted the point.
ITEM 3 OF AGENDA: To consider, and if thought fit, to adopt the Annual Report 2004/05
3.1
3.1.1
6
Page 12 - Chairman’s Report - Meeting with the Chief Justice
Edmund Bon referred to the Chairman’s report on the meeting with the Chief Justice. He said that the matter was
an issue close to his heart. When the circular came out after the meeting with the Chief Justice, he had immediately
written to the KLBC requesting for the names of the members who attended the meeting and also in respect of the
conversation with the Chief Justice as regards the EGM of the Malaysian Bar on the promotion of Judges. It took the
Committee almost 4 months to reply after 3 reminders from him and the reply came with no satisfactory answer. The
names of those who attended the meeting were not given and there was no answer as to why the KLBC was silent
when the Chief Justice said that he could promote who he wanted to promote. He had to raise this issue as he had to
do his own investigation and after doing his own investigation he found out that the meeting with the Chief Justice was
Minutes
not notified to any of the KLBC members except for some people whom the Chairman had sms or called up. The KL
Bar’s representative to the Bar Council who was elected from the floor, Ragunath Kesavan, did not attend the meeting
as he did not know about it. The 2 young lawyers’ representatives also elected from the floor, Dinesh and Mogan, were
not informed of the meeting. Dinesh only knew about the meeting because he happened to be at the KL Bar Secretariat
for a Pulau Redang Trip meeting at the same time the Committee members were leaving for the meeting with the Chief
Justice. He only knew who were the members who attended the meeting from the picture that appeared in the Annual
Report. He requested the Chairman to explain why such an important meeting with the Chief Justice was not notified to
all the Committee members and gathering from the report, no young lawyer issues were brought up. There were no
issues about Magistrates and Judges shouting at young lawyers and pupils being raised and this was because the
young lawyers were not allowed to attend the said meeting. He thus was very concerned that the young lawyers had
been sidelined especially on this very important issue. He added that when Dinesh questioned the Chairman in the
Committee meeting, the Chairman had said that it was just an informal chat with the Chief Justice and that was why he
only selected certain people to go for the meeting. He said Dinesh could confirm that before this House.
3.1.2
Dinesh said that he would just like to elaborate further. He confirmed that he was in a Pulau Redang Trip meeting on
that day. No one had informed him of the meeting with the Chief Justice and while he was on his way out he noticed all
the other Committee members were coming in. Obviously he was not prepared to go for that meeting at all. He was
not appropriately dressed. He was a little confused and thought perhaps he had missed the e-mail. He immediately
checked his e-mail when he got back to the office but could not find any notice about the meeting. He then realised that
he was not invited. At the next meeting, he questioned the Chairman who informed him that it was an informal meeting
and when pushed further, the Chairman said it was a judgement call to leave the young lawyers out. That was what
transpired.
3.1.3
The Chairman in clarifying the situation read out excerpts from the minutes of the KLBC meeting pertaining to the
said issue as follows:“Dinesh questioned why the two representatives of the YLC were not informed of the meeting with the Chief Justice.
He said that members of the YLC had expressed to him their unhappiness over the exclusion of their representatives
from the said meeting. They felt that the YLC was being sidelined by the KLBC.
The Chairman explained at length the reasons for the approach that he had taken in respect of the meeting with the
Chief Justice. His main concern was to build the bridge because of the strained relationship between the Bar and
the Chief Justice. It was his fervent hope that the meeting would open the door for a good working relationship with
the Chief Justice that would benefit members of the Bar. He mentioned that it must be appreciated that at this
juncture there were many related sensitivities.”
3.1.3.1 The Chairman said that when he stood for office last year, his first and foremost pledge to members was to try and
improve the relationship between the Bench and the Bar. That was his first pledge to member but at that time there was
a problem. The Chief Justice was not in talking terms with the Bar Council and there was a very strained relationship.
He felt that the Bar was on a slippery slope. He did not want to revert to the position where the Bar was in with Justice
Eusoff Chin where matters were struck off at 9.00 a.m. and the one-inch margin issue and where the doors started to
close. The KLBC had tried repeatedly to see the Chief Justice before he was elected Chair and even after he was
elected Chair, the Chief Justice had refused to see the Committee. He tried writing letters, knocking on the Chief
Justice’s door but to no avail. He felt that the doors were slowly closing. Eventually, Justice Dato’ James Foong did not
want to see the Committee, Justice Dato’ Raus too, nobody wanted to meet the Committee. He could not allow a
deadlock to take place. He therefore tried and got someone to speak to the Chief Justice and through that person’s
kind assistance, he received a call informing him that the Chief Justice was willing to see him. To him, it was a
breakthrough for the KL Bar. He asked if he could bring along the Hon. Secretary as he did not want to go alone. The
request was granted and later he asked if he could bring a few of his Committee members and that was allowed too but
their names had to be given. He therefore brought in the Chair of the Public Relations & Court Liaison Committee, the
Chair of the Sports Committee who could organise a Bench and Bar games and the Chair of the IT Committee because
of the website. The Hon. Secretary and Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah too went along. In total 6 of them attended the meeting.
He did not take along the whole Committee because it was a first meeting and could probably be sensitive. It certainly
was difficult for him to take everyone at that stage. He did not know whether the Chief Justice will see the Committee
in his Chambers or the waiting room. He spoke to Ragunath before going for that meeting and explained to him the
difficulty. Ragunath was an office bearer of the Bar Council. There was hostility towards the Bar Council then and if
Ragunath was to attend the meeting it might be called off. That was his concern. He did not want to jeopardise the
meeting. He felt that if the meeting could open doors, the Bar would have a much better relationship with the Judiciary.
Minutes
7
3.1.3.2 The Chairman further said that at the Bar Council meeting, the Chairman of the Bar Council had repeatedly said
that each State Bar was encouraged to build the rapport with the Bench even though the Bar Council could not
build the rapport. He had spoken to the Chairman of the Bar Council and the latter had no issue and requested
him to go ahead and build that rapport.
3.1.3.3 The Chairman pointed out that after the door was opened, the Committee had several meetings with the Chief
Justice and all members of the Committee including the young lawyers were invited for those meetings.
Unfortunately, the young lawyers could not make it for those meetings. He had no idea why the young
lawyers were not able to attend those meetings. Perhaps it was time constraints as such meetings could be
a whole day affair having to travel to Putrajaya. All subsequent meetings with the different Judges as listed
out in his Chairman’s report, the young lawyers were invited but they only attended one or two of those
meetings. The first meeting with the Chief Justice was a difficult call to make as he was trying to build the
rapport between the Bench and the Bar. It was a judgement call and he felt that he had made the right
judgement call. If he was put in that situation again, he would still do the same thing. The relationship with
the Bench had since improved.
3.1.4
On the point about why the Committee did not disagree with the Chief Justice on the issue of the promotion
of Judges, the Chairman said that the purpose of the meeting was to try and build the rapport and that was
the atmosphere. The position taken by the Committee was that it agreed to disagree. The Chief Justice
knew the Committee’s stand and was well aware that he (the Chairman) chaired the special committee at the
Bar Council on the very issue on the appointment of Judges. He was one of the most outspoken members
and was therefore appointed by the Bar Council to chair that committee. He arranged a Press Conference,
arranged the press statement and had it published. The Chief Justice was fully aware of all those things.
3.1.4.1 The Chairman stressed that the Committee did not go and see the Chief Justice to fight. That was not on his
mind. The position of the Bar on the issue of the promotion of Judges was that the Bar disagreed with the
recommendation of the Chief Justice with regard to the appointment of Judges and as it could not discern
from the appointment any objective criteria, it was felt that seniority should be the basis for the appointment.
That was the Bar’s position and the position was made clear by the Press Statement issued by the Bar
Council. It was carried in the papers and even on television. There was thus no benefit to go and drum it into
the Chief Justice’s head again. The Committee wanted the meeting to end beautifully and it did and one
could see the things that were happening throughout the year as a result of that.
3.1.4.2 The Chairman further remarked that it was not a case like the Eusoff Chin or Hamid Omar situation where
there was a standing resolution of no confidence against the Chief Justice. In this case, the Bar had stated
its position and had stood on a principle and that had been made known. The Bar had to move forward and
he thought that was in the best interest of the KL Bar.
3.1.5
Stanley Sinnappen asked the Chairman if he could not have considered explaining the situation to the young
lawyers when he made the judgement call and not leave them out completely. He further questioned the
Chairman’s making of the judgement call without discussing it with any of his office bearers. He said the
young lawyers were observers on the Committee. He questioned how could the Chairman take their opinion
when he wanted to and when he did not want to he just left them out. If he was the junior lawyer, he would
have kicked up a fuss.
3.1.6
The Chairman said that the answer could be found in the minutes of one of the meetings. He read out the
excerpts as follows:“The Chairman said that it was discussed at the KLBC meeting. We were only informed at short notice by
phone that the CJ will meet, within the next few days. He contacted Chee Wee and later Mary to call the
members. He also recalled referring to the said meeting in one of his e-mails to the Committee. Other
members of the Committee confirmed having received the e-mail.”
3.1.7
Stanley Sinnappen asked the Chairman if he did call the junior lawyers.
3.1.8
The Chairman replied that he did not call the junior lawyers. He was in an arbitration at the material time and
requested the Secretariat and the Hon. Secretary to call the Committee members and inform them of the
meeting. They did the calling. He did not call any member of the Committee.
8
Minutes
3.1.9
Stanley Sinnappen pointed out to the Chairman that he had earlier on said that he had made a judgement call to
exclude the 2 young lawyers but now he was saying that he had requested the Secretariat and the Hon. Secretary to
call the Committee members. He asked the Chairman if he did tell the Secretariat and the Hon. Secretary not to call
the young lawyers.
3.1.10 The Chairman said that he did not but decided to keep the group small.
3.1.11
Asked by Stanley Sinnappen as to who decided, the Chairman replied the Hon Secretary, him and the Executive
Secretary. Stanley Sinnappen remarked that so there were now only 3 persons in the Committee.
3.1.12 Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah said that he would like to inform the House that he was not consulted on the decision not to
invite the junior lawyers. He would also like to say that he was not consulted when the Chairman decided to buy the
notice board for the auditorium.
3.1.13 Colin Andrew Pereira echoed what Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah had said. He said that he was not consulted to exclude
the junior lawyers. He just received a sms informing him that there was a meeting with the Chief Justice. He was
not comfortable and therefore did not go for the meeting. Further, he was also not consulted and knew not why the
Committee was spending of RM4,000.00 on a notice board.
3.1.14 Chew Swee Yoke remarked whether there was a mutiny on the Committee. She was a little disappointed earlier
on when the Chairman said that only the Bar Council deals with serious issues. She said that this Bar Committee
represents the biggest State Bar in the country and it has big problems, sometimes even bigger than those that
the Bar Council faces. She then asked the Chairman if he could remember that she made a complaint to the
Committee about a family Court. She was very disappointed in the way that the Chairman had handled the
problem. She felt that the Chairman should re-assess the relationship with the Chief Justice as she did not think
that the Chief Justice respects his Committee at all, the way the Chief Justice has handled this. Firstly, the Chief
Justice had told the Committee one thing, his special assistant had told her something and the Chairman had told
her something. When it came to the crunch, the Chairman said he had nothing in black and white. The Chairman
further denied having said certain things to her. She then put the matter in writing to the Chief Justice’ s CR
indicating what was told to her by the KLBC, what was told by the Chief Justice’s special assistant and the Chief
Justice had the decency not to deny that. All the Chief Justice did was to give her a simple direction ie to apply
to recuse the Judge. The point that she was trying to make was if the Chief Justice had so little respect for the
Committee telling them one thing and doing something else for reasons best known to himself, she was beginning
to think that perhaps the Committee could not deal with the problem. There now appeared to be a mutiny and thus
she had no idea who did not know how to deal with the problem and perhaps that was something that the Bar
Council should take up. She, however, felt very offended that the Committee that represents the KL Bar had been
treated this way and she would like to know if the Chairman had asked for an explanation from the Chief Justice.
3.1.14.1 Chew Swee Yoke further told the Chairman that when he had said something to a member of the Bar, he should
stick by what he had said and not tell her that he did not say this or that. She would feel very offended. She said
members of the Bar would know her reputation for being a straightforward talker. She would stand by what she
said and would like an explanation from the Chairman.
3.1.15 The Chairman said that the Chief Justice did speak to the Committee and gave various options but they were told in
confidence. He did not only raise Chew Swee Yoke’s issues but also several other issues pertaining to a particular
Judge raised by other members. It was a sensitive matter and the Chief Justice had said that he would look into the matter.
3.1.15.1 The Chairman further said that Chew Swee Yoke had called him repeatedly, about 30 times, to ask what the Chief
Justice had said. He responded that the Chief Justice had said that he would look into the matter. She then asked how
long was the Chief Justice going to take to look into the matter and he replied that the Chief Justice had indicated that
he would take about a month or two. She continued to ask more questions; was the Judge going to be transferred?
What was the Chief Justice going to do? He told her he could not disclose those matters. He recalled one of the
questions asked by her was whether it was possible that the Judge would be transferred and he replied that it was
possible. She called again and again and finally she called the special assistant and he had been given to understand
that the special assistant had told her certain things. Eventually she called the Hon. Secretary of the KLBC and asked
him what the Chief Justice had said. He had no idea how the Hon. Secretary had responded but that matter went up
to the Bar Council. At the Bar Council level, Chew Swee Yoke gave a written document of what transpired and in that
document she said that it was the special assistant who told her. He asked Chew Swee Yoke if he could read out the letter.
Minutes
9
3.1.16 Chew Swee Yoke told the Chairman that he need not read out the letter as she could remember what she had written.
She had said that the special assistant and a member of the Bar Committee had told her. The term she had used in
Bahasa Malaysia was “ahli Jawatankuasa” and that could cover the Chairman or any other member of the Committee.
3.1.17 The Chairman said he was not denying that the Chief Justice had said those things to him. What he was trying to
say was that they were said in confidence. He could not go out and tell members what the Chief Justice had said.
He could not go out and tell members that he had met Justice Dato’ Raus and the Judge had said how he was going
to deal with the matter because they were said in confidence. He told Chew Swee Yoke that she must not forget
that she is representing a litigant on a particular side. There is another lawyer on the other side. That person’s view
must be taken into consideration as well. He therefore could only raise the problem as objectively as he saw it.
Thus, the idea of filing an application to recuse the Judge was the best mode of action that she could take and he
believed she had done it.
3.1.18 Chew Swee Yoke told the Chairman that he had missed the point. Her point was that he had said something to her
and the special assistant to the Chief Justice had said something to her. At least the special assistant had the
decency not to deny anything whereas he (Chairman) was denying that he had said certain things to her. She found
that totally unacceptable on the part of a Chairperson. She did not want to go into the details of the case as it was
now the subject of a recusal application. All that she was concerned with was the conduct of the Committee and
the Chairman in particular. She felt that the Chairman should admit that he had said certain things to her and she
had at the Bar Council meeting said very clearly what exactly he had said.
3.1.19 The Chairman believed that there were Council members at this AGM who might have been present at that
Council meeting and he proceeded to read from the letter from Chew Swee Yoke addressed to the Bar
Council, “I then telephoned the Chief Justice’s special assist ant, Encik Ahmad Terriruddin and he asked me
to fax a note to him and he will bring it to the Chief Justice’s attention. A few days later, I also applied to the
Chief Justice through his special assistant to have another Judge take over the file in question as well as the
other files. Subsequently I was told over the phone by Encik Ahmad Terriruddin that Justice Raus Sharif was
supposed to take over the file. I am not sure if he has also said that the other 2 cases of mine were also
supposed to be handed to Justice Raus. My mistake was to assume that what I was told over the telephone
would follow by letter.”
3.1.19.1 The Chairman said that Chew Swee Yoke then went on to state that, “on the 17.01.2005 when the divorce case
came up for continued hearing, I obtained a postponement pending the Chief Justice’s letter. I indicated that I was
told that Justice Raus will take over the file.” That became a problem and the Chief Registrar sent her a letter
asking her how she could tell that to the Judge. The Chairman continued to read from the letter, “When I came back
from Court, I found a letter dated 2.2.2005 faxed by the Chief Registrar to me asking for an explanation why I told the
Court that my application for change of a Judge from Dato’ Faiza to Dato’ Raus has been removed...”.
3.1.20 Chew Swee Yoke interrupted and said that the Chairman was losing them now. She would be blunt seeing that the
Chairman obviously did not know what her point or question was. She asked the Chairman whether he did or did not
tell her that there would be a change of Judge and another Judge would take over the file.
3.1.21 The Chairman replied that he never said that another Judge would take over. When she asked him if there was a
possibility of a transfer, he said possibly. “Possibly” was the word he used. He did not want to implicate any Judge
because he was concerned that she would go and raise it with these Judges and create a problem which was being
faced today.
3.1.22 Chew Swee Yoke said that her grouse was that she did not mishear the Chairman. She was sorry that the
Chairman would not stand by what he had said to her. The other member of the Committee was decent enough to
tell her exactly what he had heard and he did not deny it. She never did mention the name of any Committee
member. In fact her letter covered the Chairman as well. She felt that the Chairman should admit to having said
something instead of going into this round about fashion missing the point.
3.1.23 The Chairman told Chew Swee Yoke that if she had got the answer from him she need not have called any other
Committee member. It was because he had refused to confirm what the Chief Justice had said that she had gone
round calling up several other people. He would not want to breach the Chief Justice’s confidence or that of Justice
Dato’ Raus. The other member who attended with him the meeting with Justice Dato’ Raus was Ravindra Kumar
and he knew what transpired. They would not breach the Chief Justice’s confidence and he would stand by that.
10 Minutes
3.2
3.2.1
Page 16 – Chairman’s Report, item 4 – The Proposed Bar Council Rulings
Simran Gill pointed out that the Chairman in his report had said that the Committee sought the views and comments of
a number of senior members of the Bar with regard to the Bar Council Rulings. She asked why only the comments of
senior members were requested when the Bar Council Rulings affect all members. She also wanted to know who
those senior members were and what was the rationale in choosing them. Further, views and comments were compiled
and presented to the Bar Council but as far as she was concerned she did not receive any of those comments.
3.2.2
The Chairman explained that firstly, those were draft rulings of the Bar Council. Therefore it was for the Bar Council to
decide whether or not those rulings were to be circulated. The Committee had privately and confidentially passed the
draft rulings to a few senior lawyers whom it felt could address the Committee on the issues. Some of them were willing
to give their views but for some reason did not want their names to be revealed. The Committee received their views and
comments, compiled and sent them to the Bar Council. That was all that the Committee did, to assist the Bar Council.
As far as the Committee was concerned, it was a private and confidential document that it had received and it wanted
to give some form of feedback to the Bar Council.
3.2.2.1 As to why the comments were not circulated, the Chairman said that he did not think that it was the duty of the
Committee to do so. It should be the duty of the Bar Council. The Bar Council is the proper forum to raise the issue and not
this forum. It was just an effort that the Committee had taken to ensure that some of the rights of members were protected.
3.3
Wee Choo Keong said that he was a little happy today to see so many members attending the AGM of the KL Bar.
However, he was very sad to see those sitting up on the stage were not with the Chairman. Like what Chew Swee Yoke
had said, it was a mutiny and he felt it was with good reasons. He was shocked to hear the Chairman saying that when
he received a call from the Chief Justice’s office, he made his judgement call to attend the meeting. That to him was
not a judgement call. He said the Chairman had no right to make that judgement call. For such a serious matter as
meeting the Chief Justice of Malaysia, the Chairman ought to have called for a meeting of his Committee to decide, first
and foremost, whether he should go or not because he was representing the KL Bar and bearing in mind that the
authority did not want to see our parent body, the Bar Council. The KL Bar must at least show respect to the Bar
Council who represent members of the Bar nationally. The Bar Council too must be consulted whether the Committee
ought to go for the meeting as they also have an interest in the matter. He stressed again that the Chairman cannot
make that judgement call. There was also the question of collective responsibility. He reiterated that the Chairman
must seek the views of his Committee and not make his own decision saying that it was a judgement call. If that was
the case, he believed there would be more judgement calls from now on by the Chairman, the Hon Secretary and the
Committee members. Each would go their own way saying that they had made their judgement call. Where would we
be heading to then? There was no point having a Chairman or Secretary then. Might as well everybody be the
Chairman. The Chairman therefore must not come here and tell members that he had made a judgement call. The
Chairman must admit the responsibility that he was wrong to have attended the meeting. The Bar does not want to see
the Bar Council Chairman or Secretary or the Bar Committee Chairman, Secretary or any Committee member bow and
kneel down to go and see the authorities just because the door was about to close. If the door had to close, so be it.
We will fight. We, lawyers had fought during Tun Hamid’s time and everybody had stood up.
3.3.1
Wee Choo Keong further told the Chairman that not just because he had received a call and made a judgement call to
attend the meeting, he should feel great. In fact there was no respect for the Bar. The Court ought to have written a
formal letter inviting the Committee for a meeting and the Committee should put up a proper agenda for discussion as
they were official matters. The Committee was not going there to discuss their personal matters but issues affecting
the Bar such as appointment of Judges, Judges telling off Counsel etc. He was certain the Bar would not want that sort
of situation. Members of the Bar would want to have their honour and integrity. Judges must be told that without
Counsel there will be no Judges. Counsel represent the litigants and without the litigants there will be no Judges. The
Judges will be out of job. He therefore hoped that the Chairman will admit that he was wrong and do not try to give the
House all sorts of reasons.
3.3.2
Naidu asked for leave to respond to Wee Choo Keong. He said that he had the benefit of practising both in Kuala
Lumpur before, and then Kelantan and now back in Kuala Lumpur. He believed Wee Choo Keong too is from Kelantan.
He said that the Bar Committee in Kelantan had developed a different form of relationship with the Chief Justice and
they were able to get whatever they wanted. Be it parking to seeing the Judges. That was the kind of relationship they
had built up. The last meeting that they had, he sent a letter to the Chief Justice complaining about the manner in which
lawyers were being handled. The idiosyncrasy of the Judges. The Chief Justice told him that there was very little that
he could do. Nonetheless, he had a meeting with all the judicial officers. The next day he went to Court, he was made
to wait till 3.45 p.m. before his file was called up. That was the treatment he received. Nevertheless, the Secretary to
Minutes
11
the Chief Justice gave him a card and said that should he need anything he could call him. Relationship has changed
but if we keep saying Judges are Judges and lawyers are lawyers and if we lawyers are not there, there will be no
Judges, we can go on talking about it and achieve nothing. We must not forget that without the Judges, there too will
be no lawyers or litigants. A decision therefore had to be taken because Judges and lawyers are all on the same side.
If he was asked whether the Chairman had made a right judgement call or not, his answer would be he did make a right
judgement call. We must understand that we are living in our Malaysian society which is a peculiar society. We have
to deal with it in the manner that we got to deal with it. We may have our own perception of justice but towards the end
of the day are we achieving the results that we want for ourselves as lawyers and for the litigants. For that we have to
change our approach.
3.3.3
Tommy Thomas said that he was glad that the House had been speaking for the last 15 to 20 minutes on the issue of
the KLBC meeting the Chief Justice which he believed took place in June 2004. What he would like to say was that it
raises a fundamental issue which the Bar had gone through 20 or 25 years ago ie the relationship between the Bench
and the Bar. He told the Chairman that when he went to see the Chief Justice he was seeing him in his capacity as the
Chairman of the KL Bar. There was no such thing as an informal visit. The Chief Justice sees him as either the
Chairman of the KL Bar or not at all. It was when he was wearing the hat of the Chairman of the KL Bar that members
become interested as he was seeing the Chief Justice on members’ behalf. In the last 20 or 25 years what had
happened was there had been an unbroken tradition and that is when it comes to relationship between the Bench and
the Bar, the proper organ as far as the 12,000 lawyers are concerned is the Bar Council. The President of the Bar and
the office bearers of the Bar Council pays their traditional visit to the Chief Justice. They take office in March and try to
visit the Chief Justice in March or April. Everyone in this room knew the time when Hj Kuthubul started his second term
of office which was March this year, Hj Kuthubul, Yeo Yang Poh and the team had not been able to have access to the
Chief Justice. Everybody knew that the Chief Justice had no time for the President of the Bar. Hj Kuthubul is his
President and the Chief Justice as the head of the Bench had no time for the head of the Bar. No one in the
representative capacity therefore should pay any visit to the Bench because we must recognise hierarchy. As far as
the Bar was concerned the President of the Bar speaks for the Bar externally. He told the Chairman that he cannot say
that he did not know this because he was sitting in the Bar Council qua Chairman of the KL Bar. He was certain that
the Chairman knew all these things more than he did. He was saying all these from anecdotal evidence. The Chairman
knew far more about this than anyone else in this room. If the Chief Justice for whatever reason did not want to see the
President of the Bar, did not want to attend a function or dinner where the President of the Bar was present, then there
is a problem and as far as the Bar was concerned, he was certain that he was speaking for a large majority of the
members of the KL Bar, we do not want to see a breaking of ranks. There is divide and rule between the Bench and
some members of the Bar. He pointed out that in 1993 or 1994, the Perak Bar did just that. They had the unilateral
declaration of independence when the Bar had the Hamid resolution and the Perak Bar was hammered. There was
also the incident of Puravalen as Chairman or Secretary of the KL Bar tried to do this some years ago and he was
rapped at the AGM of the Malaysian Bar. Thus, there is a tradition and this raises a fundamental issue. To him, it was
not whether the young Bar or the KL Bar Representative was invited or not; all that was neither here nor there. It just
raises a fundamental issue of why did the Chairman of the KL Bar meet the Chief Justice when the President of the Bar
was not allowed to see the Chief Justice. That was the question that he would want an answer from the Chairman. If
the Chairman is going to run for office for another year, he would want to know whether that is the style of government
that he is going to lead next year which is regardless of who the President of the Bar is, as long as he is the Chairman
he is going to take a different position from the Malaysian Bar. He stressed again that it is a fundamental issue and if
the Chairman is going to say that then he would like to discuss the matter and bring a resolution saying that the
Chairman is bound by the Malaysian Bar because unity is strength and it is very important for the KL Bar to do that.
3.3.4
The Chairman said that in response to Tommy’s first question, the meeting with the Chief Justice was a formal and
not informal meeting. There was a circular issued out to members of the said meeting.
3.3.4.1 The Chairman said that he agreed one hundred per cent with the 2nd point made by Tommy ie recognise hierarchy
and do not divide and rule. He said that he was the one who questioned Puravalen when he took the position that
the KL Bar was having a good relationship with the Judiciary when the Bar had a standing resolution against Hamid
Omar. When the Chairman of the Perak Bar, Jeffrey Tan did what he had done with his Perak Bar Committee,
members of the Bar including himself disagreed with it. But in this case, there was a distinction. The Bar Council
had discussed the matter and decided to leave it to each State Bar to build the rapport with the Judiciary. It was not
a situation where there was a resolution of no confidence in the Chief Justice and we all have to take that position.
Here the Bar only disagreed with the Chief Justice’s recommendation of appointment of Judges on the basis that he
did not have an objective criteria. The Bar therefore thought seniority should be used. That was the issue. Does
that call for a complete split with the Judiciary and not have any relationship with the Chief Justice moving back to
12 Minutes
the Hamid and Eusoff Chin era? He did not think so. If the Bar Council had asked all State Bar to take that stand, be
rest assured he would follow. But that was not the Bar Council’s stand. The President and Vice President of the
Malaysian Bar had requested all State Bar Committees to try and build the rapport. Other State Bars such as the
Perak Bar, Penang Bar and Kelantan Bar had gone ahead to build the rapport and if he did not do so, members would
ask what was wrong with him. What he was trying to tell members was that he had followed the Bar Council’s directive.
There was no dividing and ruling. The KLBC was working in tandem with the President of the Malaysian Bar and the Bar
Council for the mutual benefit of the Malaysian Bar and the KL Bar. That was all the KLBC was doing.
3.3.5
At the clarification sought by Alex De Silva whether it was a formal or informal meeting, the Chairman replied that it was a formal
meeting. Alex De Silva then asked if it was appropriate for the Chairman to have talks in confidence when he had attended the
meeting in his capacity as the Chairman of the KL Bar. He recalled that the Chairman had earlier on mentioned in his response
to Chew Swee Yoke that the talks were held in confidence. He further asked why would the KL Bar be sending the Chairman
and the Committee to go and see the Chief Justice and have talks in confidence and not come back and be able to be in a
position to report what was being discussed. He would want an explanation from the Chairman whether it was appropriate for
the Chairman of the KL Bar to go and meet the Chief Justice and have talks in confidence.
3.3.6
The Chairman said that he had seen Bar Council Chairs doing that. They had told him many things in confidence.
At the Bar Council level too there were many matters that were discussed in confidence. There were things that
can be disclosed and there were things that cannot be disclosed because of their sensitivity. The issue that Chew
Swee Yoke raised was about a particular Judge and there were a lot of sensitivities involved. Matters discussed at
the first meeting with the Chief Justice were disclosed. In fact he had disclosed so transparently that he was
questioned by the Committee as to why he needed to disclose everything. However, subsequent meetings with the
Chief Justice were impromptu meetings where the issues discussed were sensitive in nature. The issues were
pertaining to the Family Law Court and many things were said in confidence.
3.3.6.1 In response to the question of whether it was appropriate for the Chairman of the KL Bar to go and meet the Chief
Justice and have talks in confidence, the Chairman felt that one should have a Chairman who can discern what he
can disclose completely and what he cannot. If not, we cannot have that rapport. We want to have the rapport in
order to be able to resolve all the disputes that members of the KL Bar might have with the Courts. There were a lot
of problems that the Committee had helped to resolve.
3.3.7
Muralee Menon said that he had listened patiently back and forth of the issue of the Chairman’s visit to the Chief
Justice with several of his Committee members. The Chairman had gone to see the Chief Justice as the head of
the KL Bar representing members of the KL Bar. He congratulated the Chairman for he could get to see the Chief
Justice when the President of the Bar could not. That was the victory for the Chairman and perhaps he should
stand for the President of the Malaysian Bar.
3.3.8
Low Beng Choo said that she would like to clarify the position taken by the Bar Council. She said that the Bar Council
had repeatedly asked for a meeting with the Chief Justice but there was no response. Meanwhile, State Bar Chairmen
including the Chairman of the KL Bar had also made requests to meet the Chief Justice and they wanted to know the
Bar Council’s position should they receive a positive reply from the Chief Justice. The Bar Council’s response was to
leave it to the respective State Bar Committees to decide whether or not to go ahead with the meeting.
3.3.9
The Chairman asked Low Beng Choo if the point she was trying to make was that there was no embargo and State
Bar Committees can decide. Low Beng Choo said that the stand of the Bar Council was to leave it to the State Bar
Committees to decide because the Bar Council would not know whether or not they would receive a positive
response from the Chief Justice to their request for a meeting.
3.4
Simran Gill reverted to the issue she had raised earlier about the Bar Council Rulings. She asked the Chairman if
he was trying to say that the Bar Council Rulings were private and confidential. She said the Bar Council Rulings
affect every single member of the Bar and yet the Chairman had conversation with a few senior members and put it
in his report but members were not allowed to see what those comments were. She felt that certainly members of
the KL Bar were entitled to know what those comments were and who the Chairman got them from.
3.4.1
The Chairman said that he was afraid that was the position because it is the duty of the Bar Council to then circulate
the draft proposed Rulings to members and seek their comments. What he had done was he extracted the minutes
from the Bar Council and sent them to a few senior members and when they responded, the feedback was forwarded
to the Bar Council. The Bar Council may circulate the proposed draft Rulings but he did not think that the KLBC could do that.
Minutes 13
3.5
K Siva Segara said that he was a little perturbed by what was happening here today. The Chairman of the Bar
Council was not able to get any audience with the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the KL Bar had succeeded
and slowly one by one all State Bars were going to keep succeeding. He had no idea why the Chairman had
called it a judgement call. He knew not who was standing in judgement. He reminded the Chairman that not
too long ago the Bar had a titular head in the form of a Minister. The titular head attended every Bar AGM until
the case of a 14 year old boy, something to do with some security case. He had given an assurance that the ISA
will not be used to take away the life of the said boy and when attempts were made along those lines, members
of the Bar passed a resolution against their own titular head statutorily established under the previous Ordinance.
That was before the Legal Profession Act and after that they solved the problem by introducing the Legal Profession
Act which does not provide for a titular head. He said that he could not understand and perhaps the Chairman
could enlighten him on whether the KL Bar was going to let the so called powers that be to ignore our President
of the Bar while State Bar Chairmen were going to feel so glorified that some hand was being extended to meet
them. They were anxious to meet the KL Bar Chairman but was it really necessary for the KL Bar to feel so
comforted and happy about it when the President of the Bar was being ignored. He asked the Chairman to think
about this seriously or perhaps he (the Chairman) could do something to rectify the position like the suggestion
made by someone earlier on that perhaps he should stand for the post of the President of the Bar.
3.5.1
The Chairman said that the advantage that he had with the access was that he raised with the Chief Justice and his
special assistant to have a meeting with the President of the Bar. He had explained to the Chief Justice that the
President was only doing his statutory duty. The President had sometime in October informed him that he had a
meeting with the Chief Justice at the IIU Conference. They had a chat and the relationship was slowly getting
better. That was all he could tell members. It was a difficult situation.
Naidu interjected and urged the Chairman to move on with the other matters as too much of time had been spent on
discussing the Chief Justice issue.
3.6
3.6.1
Pages 35 and 36 – Report of the Social and Pupils’ Welfare Committee
The Chairman said that he had been requested by the Chair of the Social and Pupils’ Welfare Committee to make
2 amendments:i.
Page 35 - Annual Dinner & Dance - the month “October” should be “December”;
ii.
Page 36 - Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Bench and Bar Get Together - the year “2004” should be “2005”.
The Chairman then took the Meeting through the reports of each sub-committee.
3.7
3.7.1
Pages 41 to 73 - Legal Aid
The Chairman said that he would need to give members a little of the background on why there were two
reports, one by the Chairperson and another by the Hon. Secretary of the KL Legal Aid Centre (KL LAC), the
legal opinions obtained and what had transpired till then. He then proceeded to present (on powerpoint) as
follows:“6.10.04 The Assistant Secretary of the KL LAC appeared at my office without an appointment. He raised
various allegations ranging from allegations of staff missing from work, touting at the LAC to financial
improprieties. He informs me that he is being framed because he has raised some of these issues
and is now being accused by certain MP members.
8.10.04 I meet with Sa’adiah, Chairperson of the KL LAC. All these complaints and allegations were raised with her. To
her credit she candidly confirmed that some of these allegations are true and some are not and that the others
needed to be investigated. She was asked to deal with it and revert if she needed any assistance.
A week later the Assistant Secretary of the KL LAC writes to the KLBC enclosing all the correspondence
and his explanation of the events.
27.10.04 KLBC MEETING: The letter from the Assistant Secretary and the documents enclosed therewith are
placed before the KLBC. I disclose that the Assist ant Secretary has come to see me and narrate what he
has said and my meeting with Sa’adiah. KLBC decides:
14 Minutes
(1)
to appoint Sa’adiah and Mogan to investigate and report; and
(2)
that the Administrator of KL LAC be invited to attend our next meeting.
24.11.04 KLBC MEETING: We are informed that Sa’adiah is yet to complete her investigations. KLBC decides to
have a special meeting for Sa’adiah to report and discuss the matter. A date, 9.12.04, was fixed.
9.12.04 KLBC SPECIAL MEETING: Sa’adiah presents a report and discusses some of the problems. The issue that
arose was whether we have jurisdiction to investigate. There has been this long standing problem on who has
jurisdiction over the KL LAC. The KL LAC is known as the “Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur)” but
the Chair is appointed by the KLBC and the funds allocated by the Bar Council is disbursed through the KLBC
to the KL LAC. The KLBC also publishes the KL LAC’s reports and accounts in their Annual Report for the KL
Bar AGM. The KLBC unanimously decides to write to the Bar Council for direction on who is to investigate.
[Minutes dated 9.12.04 para 3.19]
18.12.04 KLBC MEETING: Sa’adiah informs that after the KLBC meeting on the 9.12.04 she received a call the same
night from Stanley who says he is unhappy with what she did. We are informed that the Legal Aid Management
(MP) had a meeting on the 14.12.04 and are unhappy with what she had said at the meeting and her report.
I briefed the KLBC members on the calls I received, in particular from Stanley and Valen. The KLBC
decided to leave it to the Bar Council to decide whether we should investigate. If we are, then we will
proceed. If not, we will hand everything to the Bar Council to do so.
22.12.04 A letter is sent to all Bar Council members seeking direction on this issue.
19.1.05 KLBC Meeting: KLBC is informed of Bar Council’s decision that the KLBC is to investigate and report.
The MP had a meeting with us that same night. They were not happy with our decision to write to Bar Council.
I explained the nature of the complaints and allegations. They then concluded in not too many words saying
that Sa’adiah, Chairperson of the KL LAC is incompetent and we should sack her. [Notes of Meeting with MP]
KLBC decides not to do so and decides to proceed with the investigations. It was a unanimous decision.
[Minutes dated 19.1.05 para X]
3.2.05 MP has a meeting and gives Stanley the mandate to give Sa’adiah an ultimatum to resign or they will move
a vote of No Confidence. Sa’adiah was not present at that meeting.
17.2.05 Sa’adiah writes on 17.2.05 informing KLBC that she has resigned as Chair of KL LAC on 14.2.05 and
states the reasons and the circumstances that have led to her resignation.
We needed a report for KL LAC. The Annual Report had to be ready for the mock up and then printing by
21.2.05 at the latest in order to reach members by the 3.3.05.
18.2.05 The Secretariat gets the KL LAC’s report (evening) signed by the Hon Secretary, Fahri.
21.2.05 The Secretariat gets a report from the KL LAC Chairperson, Sa’adiah. Mary sends an e-mail to the KLBC
members informing them of the 2 reports and mentioning that all the other reports have been sent to the
printers. There are no objections from the KLBC members and the 2 reports are sent to the printers.
22.2.05 KLBC meeting: Sa’adiah withdraws her resignation. The KLBC felt that she must make the appropriate
amendments in her report to reflect the situation. She makes the appropriate amendments.
THAT’S HOW there came to be 2 reports on Legal Aid, one by the Chair and the other the Secretary.
3.3.05 THE AGM was adjourned for lack of quorum.
The KLBC meets for a short while on the letter dated 3.3.05 from the volunteer lawyer’s lawyer stating that
the portion of Fahri’s report is defamatory demanding a retraction of it before the next AGM.
Minutes 15
KLBC unanimously takes the position that there was nothing wrong in publishing both reports. It had
received 2 reports and decided to publish both as it did not want to suppress anything. We would leave it
to the house to decide on the reports. Nevertheless the KLBC agreed to seek legal opinions.
The 2 KLBC members appointed to investigate the various issues pertaining to the KL LAC, Colin and
Anand, were unable to agree on the way to go about the investigation and the conclusion of the report to be
given to the KLBC for consideration.
6.3.05 Meeting with the Chairman of the Bar Council. I informed him that my term of office ends in a few days and
I have to report. The 2 KLBC members appointed to investigate the various issues pertaining to the KL LAC
are in a deadlock as to how to go about their investigations and the results. There has been too much
hostility, which has become personal. I handed him all the complaints and allegations I have received and
asked him to take the appropriate action.
7.3.05 I spoke to Dato’ Cecil Abraham on the potential defamation suit.
We received a written legal opinion from Dato’ Cecil Abraham.
9.3.05 In the morning we receive the 2 other written legal opinions, one from Christopher Leong and another from
Nahendran Navaratnam.
All 3 legal opinions were sent to all KLBC members for a decision by 3pm on the route to take.
I asked the KLBC to vote on whether we are to retract the offending paragraphs and present the report
without same.
I called SBS Maniam, the lawyer acting for the volunteer lawyer and he confirmed that his client will not
initiate any action against the KLBC or the Bar Council if the KLBC retracts the offending paragraphs. I
asked for the same in writing. He confirmed in writing.
In the evening, I received a joint legal opinion by the 3 Counsel on how to handle the report at the AGM in
light of the impending suit. I want to bring it to your attention:
1: It is no part of the function of the meeting to establish the accuracy of the allegations made by or against
the volunteer lawyer mentioned in the report.
2: This meeting is only to receive a report of the KL Bar Committee’s activities. To the extent that the LAC
activities are under the supervision of the KL Bar Committee, their report is included in the Annual Report
3: The meeting is not required to adopt or confirm any of the reports before it. These reports are merely
presented to the meeting
4: The KL Bar Committee has already received a notice of possible legal action and on the advice from its
lawyers declines to comment further on the LAC report.
5: On no account should the identity of the volunteer lawyer be revealed, debated or discussed.
We received a letter from Ravichandran a/l Verumandy which raises concerns about legitimacy and accuracy
of the complaint against the volunteer lawyer.
The KLBC has, by a majority, decided to retract and expunge the words beginning with “After carrying out
an investigations to… without basis” in the 1st paragraph [Page 42].
The words “Having completed an investigation… against the volunteer lawyer” in the 2nd paragraph [Page 42].
The last sentence of the report starting with “It is hoped… serve others” [Page 43].
The rest of the report is presented for your consideration.”
16 Minutes
3.7.2
Vinayak said that he had just been listening to the Chairman’s recitation of the events relating to the two reports.
He was afraid that he was of a very simple mind. He referred to the statement that the Chairman had made that the
KLBC had retracted and expunged the report but he happened to be reading it. He wanted to know if there was
really any seriousness in the statement that the KLBC wanted to retract the report when it had already been
presented. He wondered whether it was capable of a retraction after having been presented to the House.
3.7.3
The Chairman said that he takes Vinayak’s point but there was a letter from the volunteer lawyer’s lawyer
saying that if the KLBC retract and expunge the report at this meeting by way of an announcement he will not
initiate any action against the KLBC or the members of the Bar Council. Based on that and Ravichandran’s
letter that the KLBC had just discovered, the Committee did not want to expose the KLBC or the Bar Council
to any suit unnecessarily. The significance of doing this was basically we have settled the dispute. If the
objective was to inform members, that objective had been met by the Legal Aid Management Panel’ s report
but the objective was to settle the suit because based on the opinions given by the lawyers whom the KLBC
had approached, the KLBC felt that was the appropriate action to take.
3.7.4
Vinayak said he appreciated the concerns which the Chairman or whoever made the decision must have had
not to expose the Bar to yet another legal suit but it seemed quite clear to him that whatever intent it might
be or attempt to retract or expunge the report, there was really no effect as the report was before the House.
The House was entitled to discuss it and it would be a question of whether what were stated in the report
were facts or not. If they were facts, there was no reason why the Bar should not be apprised of those facts.
If they were not facts, why then were they placed in the report in the first place.
3.7.5
The Chairman said that he would leave it to the House to decide whether or not to discuss the report. He had
given the House a narration of events. The letter of demand was received at the last minute. He had briefed
the House on the legal opinions obtained and the position taken by the Committee. It was now up to the
House to decide.
3.7.6
Dato’ Cecil Abraham said that he could not recall ever having advised the KLBC to retract the report. He
believed he had merely advised the Committee that, based on the letter forwarded to him, if what was stated
in the report was true then the Committee would have the defence of justification and also possibly the
defence of qualified privilege provided that there was no malice. He was never provided with any other
information such as what was the actual investigation etc. If he recalled correctly, he did tell the Committee
that he could not advise on the merits or demerits of the case. He thus felt that the Chairman had kind of
misrepresented his opinion. He reiterated that he did not say anything about retracting the report.
3.7.7
The Chairman asked Dato’ Cecil Abraham if he could have the liberty to quote from his opinion as the letter
was marked “Private & Confidential”. He said that the words “retracting the report” were in the letter when
Dato’ Cecil Abraham said that he did not think that he had said “retract”. Dato’ Cecil Abraham then requested
the Chairman to read the whole sentence and the Chairman read it out as follows:
“I am of the view that if the Legal Aid Management Panel is able to justify the allegations against the volunteer
lawyer then perhaps the report should not be retracted but if it is not able to do so then serious consideration should
be given to retracting the report.”
3.7.8
Dato’ Cecil Abraham said that was the point he was making. His advice was if the Committee was not able to justify
the report then retract it but if it was able to justify the report then do not retract it.
3.7.9
The Chairman said that, that was true. Members of the Committee knew exactly what was happening and had
made a decision applying their mind to whatever information they had received.
3.7.10 Dato’ Sethu said that he had very little knowledge on the law of libel but he believed any retraction ought to
take place before it was published. The Committee cannot publish the report and then come here and say
you retract. One cannot let 3 legs of the mouse out of the bag and hold the 4 th leg and say that it is inside.
The harm had already been done unless you apologise.
3.7.11 The Chairman told Dato’ Sethu that he takes his point. He was just telling the House that based on the legal
opinion that the Committee had received, if we retract, the suit would not be proceeded with but the House
can overrule the Committee’s decision if members felt there was no need to retract the report.
Minutes 17
3.7.12 Francis Soh believed that most of the members present do not know the basis of the allegations. It had
appeared over the Malaysian_Lawyers eGroup, which consist of over 900 lawyers, that there were some
allegations of mismanagement of funds. Members had only heard replies from one side of the table about the
legal aid funds being mismanaged. Sa’adiah had also posed on the eGroup this morning that she will answer
at the AGM on the basis of the allegations and whether there was a mismanagement of the funds. He said
members needed to be enlightened as it involved members’ funds.
3.7.13 The Chairman said that what the Committee had were allegations. There were a lot of allegations. He was
not saying whether they were true or false. There were Statutory Declarations and there were letters. There
were also written statements by lawyers. There were complaints by Management Panel members given in
confidence. Some were willing now to come out in the open. There were all those allegations and they had
not been investigated to conclusion. The Committee did not have a concluded report in which it can provide
to members and say that it had investigated and completed the investigation. The Bar Council had now taken
all those complaints, the documents and they would then proceed with the matter. He would let Sa’adiah
respond first as to what those complaints were and if members still needed clarifications and insisted that he
should disclose them, he would narrate them one by one.
3.7.14 Vinayak said that before letting Sa’adiah respond, he would like to just pick up the point which he was at
before he stood down the last time. He wanted to know whether the allegation that a volunteer lawyer had
been using the KL LAC as a source for his work was true or not. It is a very serious allegation if true. It
denigrates and brings into disrepute the KL LAC and really diminishes the tremendous work that has been
done by so many people in creating that Centre so successfully.
3.7.15 The Chairman said that he shared the sentiments expressed by Vinayak but investigation had to be carried
out to know whether or not that was actually happening because the particular volunteer lawyer had said that
he was framed. When he checked with the Chair of the KL LAC, she explained why the volunteer lawyer had
said that. If members want the Chairman to get into it he would. However, he would let Sa’adiah respond. He
said that the truth will come out and everybody would hear it.
3.7.16 Sa’adiah said that sometime in June last year at the Administrative Committee meeting of the KL LAC, some
issues were brought up by a member of the Administrative Committee which were discussed in the presence
of the complainant who was the Assistant Secretary of the KL LAC and the Hon. Secretary, Fahri Azzat. The
complaints were mainly administrative and staff issues. She and Fahri spoke to the staff and instructed
them to take certain measures to address those complaints. A few days af ter that, the Administrator of the
Centre, for the first time, brought to her attention that the particular complainant had photocopied some
interview sheets. She told the Administrator to prepare a report on the matter for the Administrative Committee
to take up the issue with that particular volunteer lawyer. Sometime in October last year, the report was
completed and a decision was taken to write to the said volunteer lawyer. At the Management Panel meeting,
it was decided that the matter be referred to the National Legal Aid Committee (NLAC). There was a written
complaint by a member of the public against the particular volunteer lawyer and the Management Panel
decided that it was in no position to investigate and resolved to forward the matter to the NLAC. At the same
time the particular volunteer lawyer had gone to see the Chairman of the KL Bar and she believed the Chairman
had already briefed the House. The volunteer lawyer had said that he was being framed because he had
brought up certain issues regarding the KL LAC. Now certain members of the MP are after him. The KLBC
decided to seek the sanction of the Bar Council whether the KLBC was to investigate the complaint and on
19.1.2005, the Bar Council wrote giving the KLBC the mandate to investigate. The investigation by the KLBC
however had not yet been completed until today. The KLBC could not justify the allegations because the
investigation had yet to be completed.
3.7.17 Fahri said that he would like to clarify. First, he would like to address Vinayak’s question about whether what the
volunteer lawyer had been doing was in fact true. The Management Panel had carried out an investigation and found
the allegations to be true. A report was forwarded to the NLAC for a decision to be taken on the next course of
action.
3.7.17.1 Fahri said that there was also a need to clarify why there were 2 reports, the Chairperson’s report and the
Hon. Secretary’s report. He wrote to the Chairman and tried to get some of the letters circulated before the
meeting. He explained that where the KL LAC was concerned, Sa’adiah was no longer their Chairperson.
Sa’adiah tendered her resignation on 14.2.2005 and tried to withdraw it on 23.2.2005. What was not disclosed
18 Minutes
at this meeting was that on 25.2.2005, the KL LAC rejected her withdrawal of her resignation. Therefore from
14.2.2005 onwards, Sa’adiah was no longer the Chairperson of the KL LAC. Rightly her report should not be
in the Annual Report.
3.7.17.2Fahri further said that members would probably ask why there was this resignation. He felt that it was not
quite clear from the explanations given earlier on by the Chairman and Sa’adiah and thought it was necessary
for him to explain a little how the KL LAC came to this very sorry condition. He referred to Sa’adiah’s report
wherein she had stated that “reporting any allegations made against the Centre to elected members of the KL
Bar cannot be a fault.” This, he said would give the impression to readers that the Management Panel
wanted her out, persecuted or victimised her simply because she had reported to the KLBC. That was not
quite true. Firstly, the Management Panel had no problem with the Chairperson reporting to the KLBC. In
fact he had come to understand as Secretary that there was a dual reporting system in place. The KL LAC
reports not only to the NLAC but the KLBC as well. Basically, the Management Panel members were not
upset that Sa’adiah had reported the staff issues to the KLBC. What the Management Panel members were
not happy about was that she did not discuss these allegations with them before reporting to the KLBC or
even after. The Management Panel members were very upset with that and they made it very clear at one of
the Management Panel meetings that it was not right and she ought not to have done it without first approaching
the Management Panel. Sa’adiah was told that whatever she would like to table at the KLBC or the NLAC, it
must go to the Management Panel first. It must be discussed and approved by the Management Panel
before being sent up. The whole issue was merely the staff issue which could have been taken care of by the
KL LAC. He then gave a flavour of what the allegations were: some staff not reporting for work on time, some
purportedly went on medical leave without producing medical certificates, staff missing during office hours
and failure to carry out staff rotation exercise. He said those were the main allegations against the KL LAC
about the staff. Other allegations such as financial mismanagement and administrative mismanagement, the
KL LAC had not received any such particular complaint. They were just rumours but nevertheless the KL
LAC investigated. The KL LAC managed to get a copy of Sa’adiah’s report to the KLBC and he and Amer
Hamzah were appointed to investigate into the matters. They investigated and came up with a report. Some
findings contradicted what Sa’adiah had said for e.g. the medical leave issue and staff missing during office
hours.
The Chairman requested Fahri to wrap up as he had been having the floor for quite sometime. K.Shanmuga
responded that he would want to hear Fahri’s explanation in full.
3.7.17.3Fahri apologised and said that it was a long matter taking place over almost a full year. He therefore
would need a little more time to talk about it. He then continued from where he had left off. He said the
report prepared by him and Amer Hamzah was tabled at one of the Management Panel meetings. Sa’adiah
was present at the meeting that approved the report. Every member of the Management Panel endorsed
the report and Puravalen asked Sa’adiah point blank, “do you agree or not agree with this report?” and
she said she agreed. This was reflected in the minutes of the said meeting. The report was then sent
to the KLBC for consideration and a dialogue was sought. The dialogue was held on 19.1.2005 where a
full panel of the Management Panel met the KLBC and had a discussion. The report that he and Amer
prepared was discussed and throughout the course of the entire meeting, Sa’adiah did not dissociate
herself or said that she did not agree with the report. A fter the discussion, the Management Panel
members left the meeting. Right after that he heard some allegations that Sa’adiah had told the KLBC
af ter the dialogue that she actually did not agree to the report prepared by Amer and him. She only
agreed for the report to be sent to the KLBC but did not agree with the contents. When the Management
Panel members heard that, naturally they were very angry and a Management Panel meeting was held
to discuss Sa’adiah’s stand on the report.
Naidu interrupted. He apologised as he knew it was rather rude to interrupt but he could not go on with Fahri
comparing notes and evidences and someone was going to adjudicate on the issues that he was raising. He felt
that this could be done at another time. He said members came here today for a very important matter; they
came to elect their office bearers. He said the Chairman’s patience truly amazed him but he has some limit and
requested the Chairman to move on.
Fahri asked, when members applauded after Naidu had spoken, if nobody cared about the KL LAC and what
happened to it. He said it was members’ call and not his.
Minutes 19
3.7.18 Chew Swee Yoke said that as the first Chairperson of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre, she had to say something.
She was appalled by the situation. There seemed to be something wrong with this Committee. First there was a
mutiny on the Committee and now there was a mutiny on the Legal Aid Management Panel. She asked the
Chairman what was wrong with his Committee. She felt that members of the KL Bar deserved an explanation.
3.7.18.1She further said there appeared to be no understanding of the Law of Associations or Law of Clubs. She asked
how could the Chairperson of the Management Panel dissociate herself from the report. If the Chairperson was
wrong and resigned, she does not withdraw her resignation. If the Management Panel had no confidence in her,
she should not be allowed to withdraw her resignation. She asked the Chairman how did he allow a situation like
this to continue. She said the LAC is a very important body and felt that this State Bar deserved a better explanation
and perhaps it is about time to have a change. She had been sitting down for 2 hours listening to a lot of nonsense.
She appealed to the members present to go for a change and have a new Committee.
3.7.19 Richard Wee said that he would hope and implore the Bar Committee to allow his good friend, Fahri, who had been
sacrificing a lot of his time for the KL LAC to at least finish what he was going to say because he had done a very
thorough report. The election can take place after Fahri had finished.
3.7.20 The Chairman said that Fahri had made his point and he would like Sa’adiah to respond as regards whether she
agreed with the report.
3.7.21 Fahri said that he had yet to finish.
3.7.22 The Chairman said that he would leave it to the House to decide. If the House want to have this continuing in this
manner then he would allow it to continue. He then asked Fahri to take 2 minutes to round up.
3.7.23 Puravalen pointed out to the Chairman that he had the benefit of using his powerpoint to present his case and took his
time telling the whole House his version of the events. Documents were exhibited which when the KL LAC requested
for the same, he (Chairman) had declined to furnish. The KL LAC had difficulty in circulating the events as seen and
perceived by them. He therefore would urge the Chairman, whom he had always known to be a fair and equitable
person, to grant them natural justice, an indulgence in giving them some time to present their side of the story.
3.7.24 The Chairman said that he had no problem if the House agrees. Chairman asked Fahri to continue.
3.7.25 Sa’adiah wanted to respond but Fahri suggested that perhaps she could do so after he had finished. He then continued
that at the 10th meeting of the Management Panel on 3.2.2005, Sa’adiah’s stand on the report was discussed.
Sa’adiah was supposed to turn up for the meeting. Initially she said that she would be late but subsequently she called
to say that she could not make it as there was some urgent business to attend at the office. Nevertheless, the meeting
proceeded and everybody in that meeting expressed dissatisfaction with Sa’adiah’s leadership and hence it resulted in
Stanley being tasked to ask her to resign failing which the Management Panel will move a motion of no confidence
against her. Sa’adiah put in her resignation on 14.2.2005 and sought to withdraw it but was rejected by the Management
Panel. That was the reason why there were 2 reports. The report that he had signed off was actually drafted for
Sa’adiah to sign as Chairperson. It had always been the practice that the Chairperson signs the report but since
Sa’adiah had resigned, he as the Hon. Secretary had to sign it. He had to say that he was shocked when Sa’adiah’s
report came out because it did nothing, it said nothing and he had no idea what it was supposed to be.
3.7.26 Dato’ Sethu said that it would be wrong to ask the House to adopt the report because of the many controversies
over it. It had now turned out that there were allegations that were unsubstantiated. Even those that had been
investigated were not acceptable to certain group of people. He felt that the House should not take any steps
except to reject the 2 reports and wait till a formal inquiry comes up and the reports be dealt with later. He therefore
moved that the 2 reports be deferred for consideration at a later time and no decision be taken in this current sitting.
The House unanimously agreed with Dato’ Sethu.
3.7.27 The Chairman said since the House had agreed, the 2 reports would be deferred. However, before closing the
matter and moving on to the other matters on the Agenda, it would not be fair if he did not allow Sa’adiah to respond.
3.7.28 The House wanted the issue closed and to move on with the meeting. The Chairman said it was fine and he would
let the superior body then investigate. He proceeded to ask for a proposer and a seconder to adopt the rest of the
reports except the 2 Legal Aid reports.
20 Minutes
3.7.29 The Annual Report 2004/05 (except the 2 Legal Aid Report s) were approved and adopted as proposed by
S. Radhakrishnan and seconded by Teh Yoke Hooi.
ITEM 4 OF AGENDA: To consider, and if thought fit, to pass the Audited Accounts for the year ending 31st December 2004
The Audited Accounts were approved and passed as proposed by Alvin Julian and seconded by S. Radhakrishnan.
ITEM 5 OF AGENDA: To fix subscription for the year 2005
The Meeting unanimously agreed that the subscription for the year 2005 remains at RM100.00.
ITEM 6 OF AGENDA:
To elect the Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for 2005/06
6.1
The Chairman said that he would hand over the meeting to Ravindra Kumar, the most senior member on the
Committee, as he may be standing for re-election.
6.2
S.S. Muker said that by convention, the most senior member present at the meeting should be invited to preside.
6.3
Dato’ V.C. George who was the most senior member present was invited to take the Chair.
6.4
Lim Chee Wee declared that he might be standing for the position and would not know whether there would be a
conflict since Dato’ V.C. George is a consultant in his firm of Skrine. Jerald said that there should be no problem.
6.5
Dato’ Cecil Abraham said as a point of order, he would like to ask one question which is addressed to Jerald. He
had been given to understand that there had been a decision of the Disciplinary Board in which he (Jerald) had been
found guilty of misconduct. In the circumstances, he wondered if it would be proper for him (Jerald) to offer himself
as leader of the KL Bar. He had been reading the recent exchange of correspondence on the internet by the
Malaysian_Lawyers eGroup and they seemed to insist on transparency, accountability and good governance. If the
Bar wants to achieve all that, he would want to ask whether it would be proper for Jerald to stand.
6.6
Dato’ Sethu said that having been the 1st Chairman of the KL Bar, he would like to express his personal view. He
had just heard what Dato’ Cecil Abraham had said about this finding of guilt and misconduct. He shared the
sentiments of Dato’ Cecil Abraham. He said one must seriously consider if one aspires to be the leader of the Bar
that one must stand by the principles that one preaches and what requires of us. If there was this finding and if the
finding had not been satisfied in an appeal then it attaches a stigma and the Bar ought not to have somebody with
that problem. He would like to urge Jerald to consider whether he ought to stand. Perhaps another time but not so
long as there is this finding of misconduct because as leaders of the Bar one should be above all that and he felt that
the line should be drawn with a ruler.
6.7
Puravalen said that he had been asked to express his views on the views expressed by his predecessors, Dato’
Sethu and Dato’ Cecil Abraham. He had taken the liberty, and it was a difficult and unpleasant situation, to discuss
the issue at length with several people. He had the opportunity to discuss with Haji Zainudin who was also a
previous Chairman of the KL Bar and Ragunath Kesavan and they had tried to be objective and professional about
it. They found that if one aspires for high office, one has to deal with questions of fairness or unfairness, right and
wrong and there are some very fundamental prerequisites of office that is one of integrity and good character.
Therefore, when one has a conviction or finding of wrongdoing by his/her peers that would create an untenable
situation when one represents the Bar in third party forums. All three of them support Dato’ Sethu’s view that it
would be very awkward and uncomfortable and they are constrained to ask Jerald to reconsider his decision to offer
himself for the post.
6.8
Vinayak said he was not a past President of the Bar nor had he held any offices at the Bar but it seemed to him that
in the circumstances that Jerald was in and the fact that he is the Chairman of the KL Bar, and the fact that he has
a conviction and from what had been said he understands that there is an appeal against the conviction. He hoped
that the appeal would be successful and this stigma would not be with Jerald anymore but so long as it is there,
there is always a potential for embarrassment that anyone whom the Bar is dealing with be it at the Government
level or otherwise, could turn around in public and say, “Oh, haven’t you got a conviction before. Is this the moral
stand you are taking?” He believed that at this time and age, that is eminently possible. He said in fact many years
Minutes
21
ago, it happened in Singapore when the Prime Minister of Singapore (two Prime Ministers’ ago, Mr Lee Kuan Yew)
was questioning the Law Society of Singapore before the Committee of Privileges in Parliament. The Prime
Minister had actually brought up a very embarrassing fact relating a member of the Law Society and it was extremely
bad for the Bar at that stage. He therefore hoped that Jerald’s appeal would be successful but until that happens,
he would also join the chorus of voices and urge Jerald not to offer himself for re-election this time but to wait until
the successful conclusion of his appeal.
6.9
The Presiding Chairman, Dato’ V.C. George, said that time was running a little short and he hoped not to hear the
same views expressed again and again. He asked if the House could hear some different views.
6.10
Sivarasa said that he was not going to repeat the views that were expressed earlier. He just wanted to point out
something that had been brought to his attention which was a different aspect of the ethical issue that members
were trying to express here. Jerald had been the Chairman of the KL Bar for a year. He was elected at the AGM last
year and he believed that for the first time the KL Bar started the practice of a little hustings between the candidates.
Candidates were invited to speak to the voters and present their reasons why they wanted to be the Chair and what
they were going to do for the KL Bar and so on. The record would speak for itself because he believed that Jerald
did not disclose to the voters present last March that he had this finding of misconduct against him. That was
another dimension that perhaps members needed to know leaving aside the fact whether it would disqualify him per
se. He told Jerald that he ought to have informed members last March of the finding and that he had appealed and
left it to the voters to make up their mind. He just wanted to bring this to the attention of the House.
6.11
Kuhanandan said that he would like to know what the misconduct was about. What he had been given to understand
was that it was something to do with the firm for charging excessive fees. Perhaps Jerald could explain.
6.12
Sreesanthan said that if the Bar was to follow the yardstick it was using today then the likes of Lim Guan Eng, Anwar
Ibrahim and all of these people, after they had been convicted by the Courts of our land will never again be able to lead
this nation. He stressed that it was important to understand what was the nature of the allegations made and further
there were those like him who would like Jerald to stand for another year because Jerald had done a very good job
leading the Bar last year. He felt that it was important to give Jerald an opportunity to say what those allegations were
and what were the circumstances at the time when he stood for the Chairmanship the last time.
6.13
Jerald explained that the firm that he practises in is divided into a conveyancing and a litigation department. He
handles the litigation department and another lawyer handles the conveyancing department. The complaint involved
a conveyancing matter worth 3.5 million done for developers more than 10 years ago. The complainant, the
developers, were billed for a S&P and for negotiating the terms and conditions with the vendor and the vendor’s real
estate agent. The purchaser agreed to the item on the negotiations on the bill and paid RM4,500.00 on 28.2.1995.
The date, February 1995, is important. Thereafter the complainant continued to give work to his firm and the firm
had handled in excess of 300 files for this complainant for both conveyancing and non-conveyancing matters. There
were outstanding fees due in August 1995 and a demand was made which preceded the filing of an action by the
firm against the complainant’s company. After nearly 2 years, on 5.12.1996, a complaint was lodged stating
amongst others that the lawyer did not negotiate the terms and conditions as the complainant had a real estate
agent at that time i.e. 2 years ago. The complainant raised many complaints against him which were all dismissed
as being without merit. The Disciplinary Committee decided that a fine of RM3,000.00 for overcharging on the
conveyancing matter would suffice but included that there should not be any charge for urgency too where there
was no complaint on that issue. He immediately went and saw Raja Aziz and presented the matter to him and
argued his case. Raja Aziz agreed to do his appeal to the High Court and he immediately filed an application for
stay because he felt that the finding was erroneous. He appointed Ramdas and Sreesanthan who argued the stay
and proved the likelihood of success and special circumstances and he got the stay. The conviction thus
was stayed and for all intent and purposes it does not bind him. He stressed again that the conviction was
stayed by the High Court of Malaya. He had to disclose the reasons he appealed. There were contemporaneous
documents showing that the lawyer had negotiated on behalf of the client. Even the terms which she had
negotiated were reduced to writing. The bill that was issued at the material time stated so. The complainant
paid the bill and the amount due for negotiations. How could the complainant now, after 2 years, claim that
there were no negotiations.
6.13.1 Jerald said that the second point was that the Investigating Tribunal had made a finding of fact that the whole
transaction was handled by another lawyer in the firm. It had also breached the rules of natural justice. The lawyer
handling the whole transaction and the billing was never charged. The Disciplinary proceedings were quasi criminal
22 Minutes
and it beats him how the Disciplinary Committee could find him guilty for the misconduct of another lawyer. There
were so many complaints and the Disciplinary Committee just made a finding that he pays a RM3,000.00 fine and
the matter rest. Further at the Disciplinary Committee stage there was no evidence tendered except the allegations
that the complainant made. His point was that he is entitled to appeal just like any other lawyer and he did so in the
year 2002 long before he was elected to the Bar Council in 2003 and as the KL Bar Chairman in 2004. The reason
why the appeal was not coming up was because he was told that his matter does not affect his practising certificate.
It was just the issue of principle that he was challenging after all it was just a fine of RM3,000.00. He had insisted
for his appeal to be heard quickly but was told that they would give priority to those members who had been struck
off the Roll and suspended from practice. His appeal thus had been pending but he had got a stay to ensure that
it does not affect or stifle his growth and progress at the Bar or even in practising law. He wanted members to know
that whatever it was, it does not go to his integrity and character and more importantly when the stay was obtained
there has been no final determination on the matter. He therefore must be allowed to do like any other litigant, to
proceed with life normally until the determination of the matter. He asked members to just put themselves in his
shoes. You have 25 lawyers in your firm and 1 lawyer did a transaction, the client paid. 2 years later the client
complained and they go after you because you were named in the firm. You answer all the allegations but this one
allegation you said you had no idea because it was handled by another lawyer and that they should charge her.
They said no and that you just pay a RM3,000.00 fine. That was the scenario and that was why he went for a stay.
He asked members to just put themselves in his position. When he looked at that, certainly it does not impinge on
integrity or dishonesty as placed by the honourable members of this House.
6.14
Kuhandan thanked Jerald for the explanation and agreed that it certainly does not go to his integrity or he was
dishonest. He felt that Jerald has the right to decide whether or not to stand for re-election.
6.15
Naidu said that he would like to add in since he handles a lot of runner matters that it was just like the DC telling
you, like the Police coaxed “mengaku lah, Rule 10, bayar 2 atau 3 ribu, macam itu.” He believed that was what
happened in Jerald’s case. He told Jerald that he has full confidence in him and asked him to make a decision
whether he would want to stand and tell the House why he would want to stand again.
6.16
In response to the Presiding Chairman’s question, Jerald said that if he was proposed and members want him, he
will always serve the KL Bar.
6.17
The Presiding Chairman then invited nominations of names for the election to the position of Chairman of the Kuala
Lumpur Bar Committee 2005/06.
6.18
The following names were proposed and seconded:1.
2.
Jerald Gomez
Proposer
Seconder
:
:
Lim Chee Wee
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Mah Weng Kwai
Hendon Haji Mohamed
Tommy Thomas
Zainudin Ismail
6.19
Nominations were closed and voting by secret ballot took place.
6.20
The Presiding Chairman invited the 2 candidates to introduce themselves and say a few words.
6.21
Lim Chee Wee introduced himself and said that he was offering himself as an alternative candidate. There were 3
reasons why he was offering himself. The first reason was the track record that he had, the experience in the
Committee having served 3 terms. He had served in the IT Committee for 2 terms and in the recent term, he had
served as the Secretary, Editor-in-Chief of Relevan newsletter and Chair of the Conveyancing Practice Committee.
He had also served in various Committees in the Bar Council over the years.
6.21.1 The second reason was the agenda that he had. He hoped to improve the welfare of the members. Firstly, the issue
of the SRO enforcement and waiver rules. He believed that all members would have received the recent issue of
Relevan by now with the title, “Mixing Apples with Oranges.” He said that there is a survey form sent together with the
newsletter regarding the enforcement and waiver rules. He hoped that with members’ feedback, the Committee would
Minutes 23
then know how to move on the waiver rules as there is a great amount of concern on the impact of the waiver rules on
the income of lawyers. Next on his agenda are the young lawyers. He said that young lawyers are the future of the Bar
and more funds ought to be allocated to the young lawyers for CLE activities and other activities. There should also be
an increase in non-subscription income. Gone are the days where the Committee relied on subscriptions to finance its
activities and the Committee in the last few years had been very successful in raising funds from IT fairs, LexisNexis
and advertisements in Relevan etc. Raising non-subscription income is something that the Committee ought to focus on.
6.21.2 He further said that in so far as new sub-committees are concerned, there ought to be established a
separate Criminal Law Committee and a Building Committee to look into the possibility of purchasing a new
building near Jalan Duta. Also on his agenda is the role of the Bar Council. He believed the 5-year plan that the Bar
Council had come up with should receive the support of the KL Bar.
6.21.3 Finally, there is a difference in approach that he could offer. He believed in full consultation with Committee
members and relevant stakeholders, transparency to the members of the Bar, full disclosure of facts and the challenge
of assumptions and perceptions in Committee deliberations. It is only with this approach that he thinks the Committee
can have a better decision and a unity in purpose in implementing decisions.
6.22
Jerald said that last year he stood before the House and gave 5 areas that he wanted to work on. Today he
gives 5 points why members should elect him as Chairman. He said Chairmen come and go, that was his first point,
but the structure they put in place remains. He wants to put in place a structure that will ensure continuous
communication, exchange of ideas, cooperation and solving of problems between the Bench and the KL Bar. This can
be done by forming a committee comprising of 3 members from the Bench and 3 members from the KL Bar and the
committee meets once a month. The Chief Justice had agreed to this idea and this morning they had informed him that
Justice Dato’ Raus, Justice Dato’ Alauddin and Justice Dato’ PS Gill had been appointed to form this committee
together with 3 members of the KL Bar. He wants to see that this committee becomes a permanent feature so that any
problems that members have can go to this committee and be resolved at that level.
6.22.1 That brings him to his second point. He would like to establish the same type of committee with the Police
force. Members are facing a lot of problems with the Police such as getting access to an arrested person, the need to
know the ground of arrest, the arrested person’s whereabouts and information on when and where the arrested person
would be taken for remand proceedings etc. He said that there is a need to be able to discuss the problems with high
ranking officers and come out with solutions. With this committee, complaints could be taken up much faster which
would also cover a wider area. The committee would also provide adequate pressure for the Police to respond to complaints
quickly. The outgoing Committee, through its Criminal Section of the PRCL Committee had approached Dato’ Musa, the
Deputy IGP and he was in agreement with the proposal. He wants to make this particular committee a permanent feature.
6.22.2 Thirdly, a lot had been done this past one year and what members had experienced this past one year he
would strive to maintain if not improve on. He wants to particularly ensure that the CLE programme continues this new
term and becomes a permanent feature of the KL Bar.
6.22.3 The fourth point, an important point. He said it has always been the tradition of the KL Bar and the
Bar Council that the Chairman serves for 2 terms. It is recognised that not much can be achieved in a year.
Therefore when he agreed to stand for this position, he agreed to give 2 years of his life. He had already
served 1 year and is offering himself for only one more year. He remarked that the only time when a Chairman
is unseated is when he is fundamentally wrong or something is fundamentally wrong with him on what he had
done which takes him to his next point. He had no idea what members have heard or been told but his view
was, make no mistake; the only reason for this challenge was because he did not agree to drop the allegations
made and relieve Sa’adiah, the Chair of the KL LAC, of her duties. He said for one moment, consider how
easy it would have been for him to go with the flow. Nail this young lawyer without proper investigations or a
proper hearing. Sack Sa’adiah, the hand behind the scene would have been most pleased. Thus, his fifth
point; if any member complains to him that there has been a problem or that he/she has been unfairly treated
within his jurisdiction, be rest assured he will do whatever he can to get to the truth of the matter without fear
or favour. For the present, if elected, he will ensure that the Bar Council will conduct a proper and complete
investigation into all allegations raised against the KL LAC and he will report to members at the next AGM, if
not earlier. He said that he cannot be Chair and do otherwise and leave it to the House to make a choice.
At Stanley Sinnappen’s suggestion, the Presiding Chairman called for Item 8 of the Agenda to be dealt with while waiting for
the results of the counting of the ballot papers.
24 Minutes
ITEM 8 OF AGENDA:
8.1
To elect one (1) member to represent the Kuala Lumpur Bar on the Bar Council for 2005/06
2.
3.
Lee Swee Seng
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Mah Weng Kwai
Jerald Gomez
Colin Andrew Pereira
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Zainudin Ismail
Reggie Wong
Oommen Koshy
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Koh Yew Chong
8.2
Nominations were closed and voting by secret ballot took place.
8.3
The Presiding Chairman invited the candidates to introduce themselves and say a few words.
8.4
Oommen introduced himself and said that he had served on the KLBC for 6 years. Last year he lost to Jerald
for the Chairman’s position. This year he is offering himself as the State Bar representative to the Bar
Council. He had also served on various committees on the KL Bar and the Bar Council and hoped to be of
service to all members of the KL Bar.
8.5
Colin introduced himself and said that he had served on the KLBC for the last 4 years and this year he is
offering himself as the representative to the Bar Council. He had not had the pleasure of working with Lee
Swee Seng, one of his opponents but he had the pleasure of working with Oommen Koshy. He believed
Oommen to be a worthy opponent and he has every confidence in his integrity. He believes that whoever is
elected today, the Bar will be well-served.
8.5.1
Colin then proceeded to give a few of his ideas. He said the ideas that he would like to pursue if he is elected
were firstly, CLE. CLE is something which is very close to his heart. 2 years ago when he was the Chair of
the Social & Welfare Committee, he had set up a CLE programme for members. The programme was
targeted mainly at junior members but it received a lot of support from the senior members who had taken the
time to present the seminars. This year Steven Thiru had done an excellent job as the Chair of the CLE
Committee. He would like to build on that and felt that the Bar Council should build on that by offering
perhaps more advance courses. However, what is pertinent is that these courses should be set at an
affordable rate so that all members will be able to attend.
8.5.2
Secondly, he would like to touch on the Bar Council Rulings which Simran had raised earlier on. He said that
he had actually worked with Anand to look at the revised rulings circulated by the Bar Council. He believed
that some of the rulings needed to be revised because they were not relevant to a modern practice which we
have in Kuala Lumpur. He assured members that should he be elected, he will push for those rulings to be
amended so that members can practise effectively and compete on a level playing field.
8.5.3
Finally, he must address the young lawyers. He said about 2/3 of the KL Bar members are less than 7 years
and the Bar must do everything that it could to repeal Section 46A of the Legal Profession Act because the
Bar cannot say that it is a democratic body when 2/3 of its members are disenfranchised. He had been given
to understand that the Young Lawyers Convention in Pangkor recently was successful and he will push for
greater funding and resources to ensure that the young members who attend such conferences are accorded
the status that befits professionals.
8.5.4
He asked members to give him 1 year to represent them on the Bar Council. He had set a very modest
agenda and is being realistic. He will come back in one year and members can judge him at the next AGM.
8.6
Lee Swee Seng introduced himself and said that he did not have any fierce agenda or manifesto. He supposed
judging from his simple understanding as to what a Bar Council representative should do; his task is to
Minutes 25
represent the interest of the members of the KL Bar, now numbered at more than 6,000, to the Bar Council. The
KL Bar’s problems may be peculiar because of its sheer size. He had not worked with Oommen or Colin but he
believed he can work with almost anyone. He thus hoped to be able to serve KL Bar members as their representative
on the Bar Council. He is offering himself from the floor to serve the KL Bar members though he did not manage
to get in the first twelve highest votes in the Bar Council election. He managed to garner some votes to get into
the 14th position. He thus believed that he has some support from members. He thanked the members for giving
him this one minute to address them. He said that he had in the past served on the KL and Selangor Bar
Committee and also for 2 terms on the KLBC. Currently he is serving in various sub-committees of the Bar
Council.
The Presiding Chairman wanted to call for Item 7 of the Agenda to be dealt with but V inayak asked if calling
for the nominations now would deprive the unsuccessful candidate for the Chairmanship to serve on the
Committee. The Presiding Chairman noted the point.
Raja Eileen believed that Jerald had a tough afternoon. She said that sometime it is easier to sit down here
in judgement. She knows that Jerald and all the other Committee members had put aside and sacrificed a lot
of their personal time to serve the KL Bar. Whatever the outcome of today’ s election, she just wanted to thank all
the Committee members for all the wonderful job done and she wished them all the best.
ITEM 7 OF AGENDA:
To elect six (6) members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for 2005/06
7.1
The Presiding Chairman said that while waiting for the results of the counting of the ballots, he would call for the
nominations of names for the election of the 6 Committee members. He would not close the nomination until the
results for the Chairman’s position were received.
7.2
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Steven Thiru
Proposer
Seconder
:
:
Hendon Haji Mohamed
B. Balakumar
R. Ravindra Kumar
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Jayaletchumi Rajaretnam
Francis Soh
Ravi Nekoo
Proposer
Seconder
:
:
K. Parames
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Asmet Nasruddin
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
K. Siva Kumar
N. Kamraj
Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Reggie Wong
K. Shanmuga
Baljit Singh
Proposer
Seconder
Loo Phaik Har
Rajinder Singh
:
:
Stanley Sinnappen
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
M. Puravalen
R. Sivarasa
Anand Ponnudurai
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Christopher Leong
Robert Low
26 Minutes
9.
10.
Teh Yoke Hooi
Proposer
Seconder
:
:
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Aimee Liew
Jerald Gomez
Ng Sai Yeang
Jerald Gomez
The Presiding Chairman invited all the candidates to go up on stage so that members of the floor could see them.
He then introduced them one by one to the House.
At Francis Soh’s suggestion, the Presiding Chairman called for Item 9 of the Agenda to be dealt with.
ITEM 9 OF AGENDA: General
9.1
To elect the Chairperson, Secretary and five (5) members to the Kuala Lumpur Bar Young Lawyers Committee
for the year 2005/06 [Note: Only lawyers with less than 7 years of practice at the Bar are eligible to stand for
election to this Committee]
9.1.1
The Presiding Chairman invited nominations of names for the election to the position of Chairperson of the KL
Bar Young Lawyers Committee.
9.1.1.1 The following names were proposed and seconded:1.
Richard Wee Thiam Seng
Proposer
:
Edward Saw
Seconder
:
Edmund Saw
2.
Dinesh Kanavaji
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Melissa Ram
Wong Ee-Lynn
9.1.1.2 Nominations were closed and the Presiding Chairman asked for the ballot papers to be distributed. He clarified that
both senior and junior members were eligible to vote.
9.1.2
The Presiding Chairman called for nominations of names for the election to the position of Secretary of the KL Bar
Young Lawyers Committee.
9.1.2.1 Melissa Ram was proposed by Dinesh Kanavaji and seconded by Vincent Te y. There being no other
nominations, Melissa Ram was declared elected as the Secret ary of the KL Bar Young Lawyers
Committee for the year 2005/06.
RESULTS OF THE ELECTION UNDER ITEM 6 OF THE AGENDA
The Presiding Chairman announced the results as follows:1.
Jerald Gomez
-
258 votes
2.
Lim Chee Wee -
335 votes
Spoilt votes
-
18
Lim Chee Wee was declared elected as Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for the year 2005/06.
ITEM 7 OF AGENDA (continued)
7.3
The Presiding Chairman closed the nominations for Committee members and requested members of the floor
to proceed with the voting. He said that each member can only choose up to a maximum of 6 candidates.
Minutes 27
7.4
Vinayak said that unless it is clear that none of those who had stood for the position of representative to the
Bar Council would be interested in serving on the Committee, perhaps the option ought to be left open. It
would be unpopular because of the time factor but if any of them do want to serve on the Committee, it would
only be fair to give them the opportunity.
7.5
The Presiding Chairman checked with all the 3 candidates whether they would be offering themselves for
election to the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee as a Committee member should they fail to make it as the State
Bar representative and all 3 replied in the negative. The Presiding Chairman then requested the House to
proceed with the voting.
Item 9.1 (continued)
9.1.3
The Presiding Chairman then called for nominations of names for the election of the five (5) members to the KL Bar
Young Lawyers Committee.
9.1.3.1 The following names were proposed and seconded:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Puteri Shehnaz Majid
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Robyn Choi
Bhavanash Sharma
K. Parames
Proposer
Seconder
Ravi Nekoo
Fahri Azzat
:
:
Will Fung Jui Seng
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Francis Soh
James Chew
Vincent Tey
Proposer
Seconder
Dinesh Kanavaji
Melissa Ram
:
:
Razanna Raslan
Proposer
:
Seconder
:
Edmund Bon
Amer Hamzah
There being no other nominations, the abovenamed members were declared elected to serve on the KL Bar Young
Lawyers Committee for the year 2005/06.
9.1.4
Edmund Bon asked if the House could hear the 2 candidates standing for the position of Chairperson of the KL Bar
Young Lawyers Committee (YLC). The Presiding Chairman invited the 2 candidates to each say a few words:-
9.1.5
Richard Wee said that his actual name is Wee Thiam Seng but the name “Richard” had been with him for almost
15 years now and it is quite common for people to call him Richard Wee. It had been a long wait for him to get this
chance to come on stage and address his friends at the Bar and he noticed that almost half of them had already
left. He would like to start by saying, no pun intended against Jerald Gomez, that he had to confess that he was
recently summoned by DBKL to pay some summonses and therefore he had a conviction in the DBKL records but
he did not think that should affect his campaign here today.
9.1.5.1 Richard Wee said that he was called to the Bar in September 1999 which makes him just below 6 years in
practice. He felt that not enough had been done to push the one most important thing which is suffocating all
lawyers who are below 7 years of practice. The infamous Section 46A of the Legal Profession Act. The YLC has
got to do something more than what they did last year. That was his first and foremost opinion.
9.1.5.2 He also has other plans for the YLC. YLC should not just be about Section 46A. If it is just about that then
it should be called Anti-Section 46A Committee and not YLC. As such his ideas encompass things like
having debates, forums, something like what Jerald had mentioned earlier on; inviting top Police Officers to
28 Minutes
come and have talks with the young lawyers giving the young lawyers an insight into what the Police do
during Police investigations. He would like to invite prominent senior lawyers to give lectures on what to do in
Court, to share their experience in Court so that the young lawyers can learn from them.
9.1.5.3 He would also like to implore and push more members to do legal aid. He is a legal aid lawyer and had done many
legal aid cases particularly since his entry to the KL Bar in 2003. Prior to that he was practising in Selangor. He
had discussions with some junior lawyers in particular chambering pupils doing their dock brief in the KL Magistrates’
Courts. Their biggest fear was to meet up with the Magistrate alone. Perhaps something like a buddy system
should be started to push through more representation from young lawyers to the legal aid. That might alleviate
or diminish a little of the fear factor.
9.1.5.4 He added that other than that, he had to be honest, he had no track record in the KL Bar. He is virtually unknown
prior to today but the difference between him and any other candidates and in this case his learned friend, Dinesh
Kanavaji, was that he has ideas to do certain things and he wants to do them. Being a partner in a firm gives him
a lot of avenue where he is not constrained by his office manager or his employer who may or may not allow him
to do certain things. In his office, he is the boss. He therefore can leave at any time to do anything and if he did
not do a good job by next year he cannot then say that he was busy. After seeing what happened today to his
fellow friends up on the stage, he was a little concerned that he might fail all the members but he believed in his
own capabilities and if members vote for him he was certain that he could do something.
The Presiding Chairman said that before moving on to the next speaker, he would like to announce the results of the election
of the State Bar representative to the Bar Council:1.
2.
3.
Lee Swee Seng
Oommen Koshy
-
120 votes
153 votes
199 votes
Oommen Koshy was declared elected as the State Bar representative to the Bar Council for the year 2005/06.
Item 9.1 (continued)
9.1.6
Dinesh said that he started practice in January last year and in the month of March he decided that he belonged to
the YLC. He therefore decided to take on the position of the YLC Chairperson. From that point onwards, he
realised that there was a real problem with the young lawyers. A lot of them do not feel that they are part of this Bar.
He then looked through all the things that previous YLCs had done and felt that there ought to be a change of course
and that the YLC should not only concentrate on Section 46A. The YLC represents many lawyers and therefore
should do many things. He had always maintained that Section 46A is important but other things are also important.
Hence, today some members may complain that the YLC has become a sports or social committee and that was
not true. The YLC contributed to the Pangkor Convention and he believed the YLC did a lot of things at the said
Convention. His main concern was that he had reached out to the young lawyers and made sure that they feel that
they are part of this Bar. He had been there from the first day, he did not wait for a few years to serve on the YLC.
He is not a partner of any firm but he had been there for the YLC. Whenever the YLC needed him he was there.
Hence he hoped members will make a wise decision and vote for him.
9.1.7
The Presiding Chairman said that he had no idea what the young lawyers are agitating for these days. In the
1970s, he had a pupil reading in Chambers under him and he led the agitation to reduce the number of
months that one should be under pupillage. The pupil made representations to a committee and said that
pupillage should only be for a maximum of 3 months and to bring the point home, he said that he had been
serving his pupillage with V.C. George and everything that V.C. George could teach him, he learnt it in one
month. But they still stuck to 9 months.
9.1.8
The Presiding Chairman announced the results of the election of the YLC Chairperson as follows:1.
2.
Richard Wee
Dinesh Kanavaji -
71 votes
50 votes
Richard Wee was declared elected as the Chairperson of the KL Bar Young Lawyers Committee for the year 2005/06.
Minutes 29
The Presiding Chairman announced the results as follows:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Steven Thiruneelakandan
Anand Ponnudurai
Teh Yoke Hooi
Ravindra Kumar Rengasamy
Stanley Sabastien Sinnappen
Abdul Rashid Bin Ismail
Ravi Nekoo
Asmet Nasruddin
Baljit Singh
-
233 votes
212 votes
164 votes
157 votes
149 votes
143 votes
142 votes
140 votes
126 votes
122 votes
The following members were declared to serve on the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee for the year 2005/06:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Steven Thiruneelakandan
Anand Ponnudurai
Teh Yoke Hooi
Ravindra Kumar Rengasamy
Stanley Sabastien Sinnappen
Abdul Rashid Bin Ismail
The Presiding Chairman proposed a vote of thanks to all the scrutineers who had laboured hard and effectively. He congratulated
everyone for conducting the meeting in the way it was conducted. He said it was a joy being regarded erroneously as the
eldest person present.
Puravalen moved a vote of thanks to the outgoing Committee in particular the Chairman for the hard work put in the last one
year. The Presiding Chair seconded the motion.
The Presiding Chairman declared the 13th Annual General Meeting of the Kuala Lumpur Bar closed at 6.15 p.m.
R. Ravindra Kumar
Hon Secretary
Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee
30
Minutes
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
A. Introduction
It is my pleasure as Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee
(“KLBC”) to report to members that the term of 2005/6 has been a busy
and productive term as a result of the hard work of the Kuala Lumpur Bar
Committee, Secretariat, Sub-committees and other volunteers from KL
Bar. In the Bar Council, I worked with Oommen Koshy our Represent ative
to the Bar Council to make appropriate representations on matters
concerning the Kuala Lumpur Bar.
The overriding objective of the KLBC is to promote the interests and welfare
of its members and towards this end, for this term the principal aims of
the KLBC were:
·
·
·
·
·
to engage in regular dialogues with other stakeholders in the legal
system such as the Judiciary, Attorney General’s Chambers and Land
Office to improve the effectiveness and productivity of our practice;
to improve on and increase our activities in comparison to last term,
especially those involving young lawyers and the Young Lawyers
Committee;
to increase non-subscription income so as to fund such activities
without relying entirely on members’ subscriptions;
to increase non-professional services to members such as special
packages with better services or lower rates;
improvements in the Secretariat by way of empowerment of the
Secretariat with emphasis on documentation of work processes and
office procedure, and training.
This report will show that for this term we have met substantially our
principal aims. This is however, as ever , a long-term process and we can
only hope that progress continues to be made after this term.
B. Committee Activities
(i) Meetings with the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal
and Chief Judge of Malaya
The Committee paid courtesy calls on the President of the Court of Appeal
and the Chief Judge of Malaya on 24 May 2005 and 16 June 2005
respectively. Various issues were raised at the meetings and we continued
to follow up with the Chief Judge of Malaya on such issues as the progress
of construction of the new KL Court Complex in Jalan Duta, court
transcription services, and the standardisation of case management
directions and getting up fees.
The Committee met the Chief Justice on 8 February 2006 to follow up on
issues discussed at the previous meeting held on 11 June 2004 with the
previous Committee, and to raise new issues. The Chief Justice agreed
to engage the Bar in dialogues regarding reforms to court procedure. On
matters specifically af fecting the KL Bar there will be an Ad Hoc
Committee comprising one Federal Court Judge and one KL High Court
Judge and representatives of the KLBC, and a Bar Council Of fice Bearer.
We hope to have the first Ad Hoc Committee meeting before the end of
Chairman’s Report 31
the present term. At the meeting of 8 February 2006, we
raised various issues such as the need for a Judicial
Appointment Commission, the need for a Law Reform
Commission, the need for regular dialogues between the
3 principal stakeholders in the legal system namely the
Bar, Judiciary and the Attorney General’s Chambers and
the need for more quality judges and magistrates in KL.
(ii) Non-professional Services
The following services were provided to members during
this term as part of the KLBC’s ongoing drive to leverage
its membership numbers so as to secure the best deals
for members:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Complimentary Law Books
In June 2005, we managed to secure for members’
use some law books with compliments from the
Malayan Law Journal. These law books were placed
in the respective Bar Rooms at Wisma Denmark and
the KL Sessions & Magistrates Courts.
Amanah Raya Berhad
Our first collaboration was with Amanah Raya Berhad,
a company specialising in trusts and legacy
management. The sponsorship sum secured was also
the highest this year at RM30,000.00.
Celcom
In December 2005, after a long negotiation, we entered
into a collaboration with Celcom and brought to
members exclusive 3G and Minutes packages.
Through this collaboration we also secured a
sponsorship of RM10,000.00 from Celcom for our
activities.
Maxis
For our efforts in securing the Maxis Blackberry
package and sponsorship money for the Malaysian
Bar, the Bar Council granted us RM5000.00 from the
sponsorship money received by them.
Subang Jaya Medical Centre (SJMC)
In January 2006, we entered into a collaboration with
SJMC to provide our members and their immediate
family S pecial Health Screening packages. SJMC
has confirmed taking a full-page advertisement in 4
issues of Relevan bringing in revenue of RM5400.00
for KLBC.
The Sun Daily Newspaper
In April 2005, arrangement s were made with the Sun
Daily to provide at no charge their newspaper at the
3 Bar Rooms at Bangunan Sult an Abdul Samad,
Wisma Denmark and KL Sessions & Magistrates
Courts.
32
Chairman’s Report
(iii) Legal Aid Centre – Appeal for More Volunteers and
Investigations
On behalf of the KLBC I wrote to the respective Managing
Partner or Senior Partner of 121 law firms (of which 36 firms
were already contributing) requesting for assistance from
their lawyers in the various projects of the Legal Aid Centre.
Arising from this, lawyers from 38 firms volunteered.
Thereafter the request for assistance was made by the
President to the entire Malaysian Bar. We will assess the
situation again before end of term as to whether another
round of letters ought to be sent.
The team of lawyers appointed to investigate allegations
involving the Legal Aid Centre has completed their
investigation and their report is pending finalisation. We hope
to report on this issue at the Annual General Meeting if the
report is ready.
(iv) Committee Meetings
As at 10.02.2006, the Committee met 10 times and the
attendance of each member was as follows:
Lim Chee Wee
Steven Thiru
Anand Ponnudurai
Teh Yoke Hooi
R Ravindra Kumar
Stanley Sinnappen
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
-
10
10
9
10
10
8
9
7
9
Oommen Koshy, the representative to the Bar Council, was
invited to attend the Committee meetings as observer and
also to report to the Bar Council on relevant matters as and
when pertinent and necessary. He attended a total of 7
meetings.
The Chairperson and Secretary of the Young Lawyers
Committee, Richard Wee and Melissa Ram, were invited to
attend the Committee meetings as observers. They attended
a total of 10 and 9 meetings respectively.
(v) Finance, Subscription and Non-subscription Income
The financial position of the Committee remains stable with
a sum of RM671,034.00 in Fixed Deposit and RM258,422.00
in Trust Account with Amanah Raya Berhad. Details of the
financial position are set out in the Audited Accounts ending
31.12.2005.
The subscription for the year 2005 was fixed at RM100.00
at the last AGM on 10.03.2005. At the closing of the
Committee’s financial year on 31.12.2005, 63 members were
in arrears of the 2005 subscription.
We raised a total of RM132,890.00 from sponsorships,
website and newsletter advertisements and CLE lectures,
with the sponsorship money of RM30,000.00 from Amanah
Raya Berhad being the single largest contribution.
This term, we had planned to have a balanced budget so as
to return to members their value of subscriptions by way of
activities but at the end of the financial year we are still in
the surplus.
C. Sub-Committee Activities
This term, the KLBC established a new Sub-committee being
the Criminal Practice Committee with Ravindra Kumar as
the Chair and Sivananthan as the Deputy Chair as we were
of the view that a separate Sub-committee is required so as
to allocate more resources towards the needs of the Criminal
Bar in KL.
The 11 Sub-committees and their heads are:
i Continuing Legal Education :
Steven Thiru
ii Conveyancing Practice
:
Lim Chee Wee
iii Court Liaison (Civil)
:
R Ravindra Kumar
iv Criminal Practice
:
R Ravindra Kumar
v Environmental Law
:
Stanley Sinnappen
vi Information Technology
:
Abdul Rashid Ismail
vii Legal Aid
:
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
viii Publications
:
Teh Yoke Hooi
ix Social & Pupils Welfare
:
Ivan Wong
x Sports
:
Anand Ponnudurai
xi Young Lawyers
:
Richard Wee
The Committee members regularly help out each other in
terms of participation and other assistance. The respective
Chairpersons of the various Sub-committees led very well
and the list of activities as seen from the accompanying
Sub-committees’ reports is a testament to the strategic
planning and smooth execution of the plans by the Subcommittees.
D. Representation in Bar Council
In the Bar Council, Oommen Koshy and I addressed various
matters affecting the KL Bar, including the LAC, premises
for the Secretariat in the Bar Council building, amendments
to the Legal Profession Act 1976, the quorum issue and
the Solicitors Remuneration Order. Due to the expense of
purchasing a building (for example a 3-storey shoplot in
Hartamas costs anywhere from RM1.65M to RM2.75M),
we requested and Council agreed to provide space to us, if
available, in the existing or proposed additional building,
free of rental. If this happens, we will have more funds
available for our members’ benefit.
In respect of quorum for the Annual General Meeting of the
Malaysian Bar and the State Bars, representations were
made by an Ad Hoc Committee of the Bar Council (of which
I am a member), to YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul
Aziz and YB Tan Sri Abdul Gani Pat ail on separate
occasions for its reduction.
E. Other Projects
The Committee tried to revive the previous LexisNexis
package for law firms with less than 20 lawyers, on similar
terms, and held regular discussions with the Regional
Managing Director of LexisNexis but to no avail. We also
tried to source for cheaper hotel rates for our members when
they go outstation but the hotels were unable to offer better
corporate rates than they already do.
We are in the midst of negotiating with a major Bank to
provide special financing facilities to members who may
need financial assistance in setting up or enhancing their
practice. Parallel with this, we approached Bumiputra-
Commerce Bank Berhad to include the legal profession within
its special financing packages for various professional
associations. We were told to liaise with Credit Guarantee
Corporation Berhad to persuade them to issue the necessary
guarantees which is a requirement in this special package.
We will follow up with these 2 financial institutions and hope
to be able to bring this additional service to our members soon.
F. Obituaries
We record with deep sorrow the passing of the following
members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar during this Committee’s
tenure, from March 2005:
Mok Li Za on 02.03.2005
Kum Chee Mon on 09.03.2005
Mohamad Halim bin Ismail on 16.04.2005
Chitravathy a/p Balasingham on 22.06.2005
KA Karpaya a/l Andiappan on 09.07.2005
Datin Roquaiya Hanim Hussein on 17.09.2005
A Reference Proceedings in respect and in memory of Low
Beow Kheng and Pertaf Singh who departed on 31.08.2004
and 16.10.2004 and the abovementioned members will be
held on 16.02.2006. The Proceedings will be presided over
by YA Dato’ Md Raus bin Sharif.
G. Challenges Ahead
There are three challenges ahead of us and the future
Committees have to continue to address them. Firstly to
increase the level of participation by a broader spectrum of
Chairman’s Report
33
members. The second challenge is to increase the nonprofessional services to members and giving value to
members from their subscriptions. Finally, the future
Committee has to constantly seek improvements in the
efficiency and productivity of the administration of justice
system and authorities such as land offices so as to ensure
a better practice for all members. We have tried our best to
meet these ongoing challenges.
H. Acknowledgments and Conclusion
The Committee acknowledges the cooperation and
assistance received from the Chief Justice, the President
of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge and High Court
Judges, Registrars of the High Court, Deputy and Senior
Assistant Registrars, the Senior Sessions Court Judge,
Sessions Court Judges, Magistrates and Registrars of the
Sessions and Magistrates Court of both the KL and Selangor
Courts and the Land Office and Stamp Duty Office of KL
and Selangor.
I have enjoyed serving members this term and the pleasure
was due in great part to the support and hard work of the
Committee and Sub-committee members, and the
encouragement and support of the members. My thanks to
all of you who helped in the pursuit of our objectives. Special
mention must be made of the Honorary Secretary Ravindra
34 Chairman’s Report
Kumar and the Executive Secretary Mary Tan who both worked
tirelessly and with unwavering dedication. Their support and
encouragement have made my work easier.
My apologies for the fact that no one is perfect and that no
one can get everything right, least of all me. Any criticisms of
the KLBC must be borne by me alone as Chairman.
Although we have great challenges ahead of us, I am optimistic
that goodness will prevail and that the profession will continue
to prosper. The young lawyers are the future of the Bar and
the enthusiasm, energy and contribution of the Young Lawyers
Committee augurs well for the future. On a final note, I urge
members to give the incoming Committee the same
encouragement and support which you have given us this term.
Thank you.
Lim Chee Wee
Chairman
Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee
2005/06
SECRETARIAT REPORT
Brief Background
Perhaps it may be a little apt to give a very brief background of the Secretariat
for this inaugural report. The Secretariat was in existence way before the KL
Bar was established on 01.07.1992. It was set up in 1977 under the Selangor
Bar Committee. At that time and until 30.06.1992, all members practising in
the Wilayah Persekutuan of Kuala Lumpur were deemed to be members of
the Selangor State Bar. When the KL Bar was established on 01.07.1992, it
took over the Secretariat which was located in Kuala Lumpur including the
entire Secretariat staff of 8. The Secretariat staff then assisted the Selangor
Bar Committee with the setting up of their Secretariat in Shah Alam.
Functions and the staff members
The Secretariat supports the work of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (“KLBC”)
and its sub-committees. For the term 2005/06, the KLBC established 11 subcommittees to undertake a host of projects and activities involving lawyers and
others. Except for the Legal Aid Management Panel which has its own staff, the
projects and activities of the other 10 sub-committees were coordinated and
managed by the Secretariat staff. Full details of the projects and activities are
contained in the Chairman’s report and reports of the sub-committees.
Besides managing and coordinating the projects and activities of the KLBC
and its sub-committees, the Secretariat has many other functions too. It
carries out the policies of the KLBC, maintains the accounts, the register of
members and BC Box System, collects annual subscriptions and BC Box
rent al, processes Petitions for Admission to the Bar, keeps records of meeting
proceedings, attends to day-to-day enquiries from members of the Bar, pupilsin-Chambers and members of the public, to name a few.
As the KL Bar grows larger, from 2132 at the time of the establishment of the
KL Bar on 01.07.1992 to close to 6500 today, activities have also increased
many folds to cater to the different needs of the members. Two additional
Executive Officers have been engaged in the last two years to manage the
many activities of the sub-committees and they are supported by the other
staff at the Secretariat. Set out below is the list of staff members:
Executive Secretary
Mary Tan
Executive Officers
Kavitha Thilagar
Azura Zakaria
Administrative Officer
Uvanarajan Sinniah
Accounts & General Admin Officer
Siti Affaeza Bolot
Admission Clerk
Indira Anggappan
Secretariat Report
35
General Clerk
Masni Abu Bakar
Admin Clerk
Rosilawati Ibrahim
Despatch Clerk
Yazid Yusof
Bar Room Staff
Sulochana Ramalingam - High Court Wisma Denmark
Thirumahil Ramalingam - Sessions & Magistrates Court
Jalan Raja
The Organisation Structure with detailed information of the
portfolios of each staff member is posted on the KL Bar
webite www.klbar.org.my.
The staff are further encouraged to identify and attend relevant
courses to enhance their skills that would help improve further
the productivity of the Secretariat.
The staff were given the opportunity to participate in the two
in-house IT trainings conducted by the Bar Council in 2005.
The staff also participated in the para-legal training conducted by
the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) on 19.11.2005.
Acknowledgement
The Secretariat staff would like to express our gratitude to
the KLBC Chairman Mr Lim Chee Wee, Hon. Secretary
Mr Ravindra Kumar and all the Committee members for their
support in ensuring the smooth running of all the projects
and activities. Many thanks too to members of the KL Bar
who have assisted and supported us in one way or another
in the carrying out of our functions.
Employees Policy Guidelines and Office Manual
The Secretariat is drawing up an office manual which the
staff (present and future) can use as a guide in the handling
of the respective tasks at the Secretariat.
We would also like to thank the Bar Council and the Legal
Aid Management Panel for giving us the opportunity to
participate in their in-house trainings. These trainings have
not only helped us improve our skills and knowledge but
have also allowed us to interact with the staff of the Bar
Council and Legal Aid Centre which have brought about a
better working relationship amongst the staff of the 3 bodies.
This augurs well for the profession as the staff would be able
to work together to serve the profession better.
Empowerment of the Secretariat Staff - the way forward
Feedback and Comments
To meet the needs of the ever-growing KL Bar and to serve the
profession better, the Secretariat staff must be empowered to
play an active role in the carrying out of the policies and
activities of the KLBC and its sub-committees. The staff must
be the moving force in support of the KLBC and its subcommittees. Various programmes are being planned for the
staff to improve their skills to take on such a role.
The Secretariat will certainly endeavour to improve its service
to the profession and welcomes feedback and comments
from members of the KL Bar which may be conveyed via
e-mail to klbc@klbar.org.my.
At the suggestion of the Chairman, an Employees Policy
Guidelines was prepared which is being studied by the
Chairman and Hon. Secretary before tabling it for
endorsement by the Committee.
36 Secretariat Report
Mary Tan
Executive Secretary
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
Steven Thiru
Members
E Sreesanthan
Ken St. James
Balvinder Singh Kenth
Mariette Peters
Joanne Long
Sharmila Sekaran
Sunita Sankey
Iyanathan Ayasamy
B Balakumar
Ooi Huey Ling
Ramesh Sathasivam
Nor Suhaila Abd Latif
Leonard Yeoh
Balbir Singh a/l Shingara Singh
Wong Keat Ching
K Parames
Janice Leo
Tan Cheng Siong
It was about two years ago that we embarked on a mission to establish
a formal continuing legal education programme for the Kuala Lumpur Bar.
This was due to the concern that our ad-hoc lecture series, although
useful, was ultimately insufficient to meet the ever growing professional
needs of members. We therefore resolved to craft a programme that
would meet the requirements of members as well contribute towards the
overall professional development of the legal profession. These dual
purposes broadly underpin the comprehensive continuing legal education
structure that we have now put in place. It was also important that the
programme should foster a continuing legal education culture amongst
members. The commendable participation of members suggest that this
objective has also been met.
In our first term, the programme had two themes; “Essentials in Legal
Practice” and “Specialist Seminars”. The former dealt with fundamental
areas of practice whilst the focus of the latter was on new developments
in the law. The programme was well received and we decided to build on
it. Thus, in the current term we divided the programme into four modules:(a) Module 1 (Fundamentals)
This covers areas such as appellate advocacy, advocacy in arbitration
proceedings, due diligence (practice and procedures), conveyancing practice,
Islamic banking and finance, fundamentals of legal practice (interviewing
clients, file management and legal research) and language skills for lawyers.
(b) Module 2 (Substantive Law)
This incorporates the previous “Specialist Seminar” series and areas such as
probate and administration of estates, maritime law, marine insurance,
establishment of off-shore hedge funds, the protection and enforcement of
trade marks, securities law, banking law and administrative law were dealt
with.
(c) Module 3 (Workshops)
This is practical training in key areas such as corporate litigation commercial
transactions and criminal law.
(d) Module 4 (Miscellaneous)
This is to give the programme a different colour and a lighter side. Extra-legal
areas such as interpreting statutory accounts, forensic science, life insurance
and psychology were covered. And on the lighter side, we had a “CLE Quiz
Night” at Souled Out, Sri Hartamas.
Continuing Legal Education
37
The full programme that we have had for 2005/06 is set out below:-
Date
31.03.2005
Topic/s
Speaker/s
Moderator/s
Evidence International
Arbitration : The Civil/
Common Approach? and
Construction Arbitration
– PAM Arbitrator’s
View Point”
1 Mr Michael Polkinghorne
14.05.2005
The Essentials of Islamic
Banking and Finance
Encik Mohamed Ismail
bin Mohamed Shariff
Cik Nor Suhaila Abdul Latif
18.05.2005
Probate and Administration
Of Estates
Ms Low Beng Choo
Ms Janice Anne Leo
Selvanathan
01.06.2005
Maritime Law - Arrest
of Ships and Cargo as
Security for Arbitration
1 Dr Irwin Ooi
2 Ms Sitpah Selvaratnam
Ms Joanne Long
11.06.2005
Opinion Writing - The
Lawyer & Client’s
Perspective
1 Mr David Alfred
2 Mr Steven Thiru
Mr Steven Thiru
15.06.2005
Principals of Drafting
Pleadings
Mr Nahendran Navaratnam
Ms Sunita Sankey
30.06.2005
Appellate Advocacy
Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das
Ms Sharmila Sekaran
06.07.2005
Due Diligence :
Practice & Procedures
Encik Julian M Hashim
Ms Ooi Huey Ling
09.07.2005
Establishment of
Offshore Hedge Funds
Ms Karen Kaur
Mr Balvinder Singh
13.07.2005
Protection & Enforcement
of Trade Marks : Practical
issues every lawyer
should know
Mr Teo Bong Kwang
Mr Ken St James
23.07.2005
Corporate Litigation
Workshop
1
2
3
4
Mr Ramesh Sathasivam
38 Continuing Legal Education
Ms Joanne Long
2 Dato’ Kevin Woo
Mr Ranjit Singh
Mr P Gananathan
Mr Lim Tuck Sun
Mr Sean Yeow Huang Meng
Date
Topic/s
Speaker/s
Moderator/s
26.07.2005
(organised
jointly with
YLC)
Fundamentals of Legal
Practice : (Interviewing
Clients, File Management,
Legal Research, Managing
Client’s Accounts and
Office Accounts)
1 Mr Ronald Tung Ghee Meng
2 Mr Ravi Nekoo
3 Dr Pathmavathy Satyamoorthy
Ms K Parames
03.08.2005
Interpreting Statutory Accounts
Mr Chong Shao Yuen
Ms Janice Anne Leo Selvanathan
13.08.2005
Arbitration Proceedings –
Construction Disputes
Mr Christopher Lau SC
Mr Leonard Yeoh Soon Beng
20.08.2005
Sale & Purchase and
Registration of Ships
1 Mr Roslee Mat Yusof
2 Mr Andrew Wilding
3 Ms Joanne Long
4 Mr Nazery Khalid
Ms Joanne Long
27.08.2005
Advocacy in Arbitration
1 Mr Michael Hwang SC
2 Mr Vinayak Pradhan
Ms Joanne Long
14.09.2005
Marine Insurance
Ms Sitpah Selvaratnam
Mr B Balakumar
17.09.2005
Basic Conveyancing Practice
Ms Low Beng Choo
Mr Ivan Wong
27.09.2005
Framework of Securities Law
1Ms Shanti Geoffrey
2 Ms Alina Tong
Ms Mariette Peters
15.10.2005
Life Insurance and Estate
Administration
Mr K Karunamoorthy
Mr Balbir Singh
26.10.2005
Taxation Issues in Merger
& Acquisition
1 Mr Nicholas Crist
2 Ms Leanne Koh
Mr Balbir Singh
12.11.2005
Structuring a Commercial
Transaction
Mr William Leong Jee Keen
Ms Ooi Huey Ling
15.11.2005
Practical Guide To Islamic
Banking & Finance
Encik Mohamed Ismail Bin
Mohamed Shariff
03.12.2005
Bank Recovery Litigation
Mr Chandran G Nair
Mr A I Nathan
39
Date
Topic/s
Speaker/s
Moderator/s
05.12.2005
Lecture Series on The Legal
Profession, The Law of
Taxation, The European
Constitution and The Law
on Extradition
1 Lady Lowry QC
2 Mr John Gardiner QC
3 Mr Gerard Berscheid
4 Mr Nicholas Evans
Mr James Reily
Mr Steven Thiru
Ms Mariette Peters
07.12.2005
(organised jointly
with YLC)
Forensic Science Importance of Biological
Evidence And the Role of DNA
Dr Seah Lay Hong
Mr Balbir Singh
07.12.2005
CLE Quiz Night
14.12.2005
Contemporary Issues Affecting
Claims in Medical Negligence
Raja Eileen Soraya
Ms Wong Keat Ching
15.12.2005
Judicial Review of Local
Authority Decisions
Mr S Nantha Balan
Ms Janice Anne Leo Selvanathan
18.01.2006
Solicitors Account
Mr Wang Kuo Shing
21.02.2006
Rights and Remedies of
Ms Rajeswari Karupiah
a Dismissed Workman under
S.20 of the Industrial Relations
Act 1967
Ms Wong Keat Ching
25.02.2006
Modern Legal Language
1 Sr Noushad Ali Naseem Ameer Ali
2 Ms Jackie Yeoh
Mr Steven Thiru
Ms Mariette Peters
25.02.2006
Seminar on Native
Peoples’ Land RightsClaims, Issues & Procedures
1 Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das
2 Assoc Prof Ramy Bulan
3 Dr Colin Nicholas
4 Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail
5 Mr Jerald Gomez
Ms Sharmila Sekaran
Mr Yapp Hock Swee
TBC
Disciplinary Board Procedures
1Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Ahmad
2 Encik Mubashir bin Mansor
Mr B Balakumar
TBC
Criminal Advocacy
1 Mr V Sithambaram
2 Mr Jagjit Singh
3 Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon
4 Mr N Sivananthan
Mr Balvinder Singh
40
Ms Sunita Sankey
Ms Sharmila Sekaran
In all, between March 2005 to January 2006 we organised
31 events and the total number of attendees was about 1652.
This is an increase in member participation (compared to
the concurrent period in 2004/05) of about 81%. This is
indeed very heartening and it augurs well for the future of the
programme. Further, we have also collated basic data on
the various programmes that have been conducted and the
feedback has been very encouraging. Participants have found
the various programmes to be “informative” and the
performance of the speakers was rated largely as “good” or
“excellent”. We have also collated data on the types of
lectures/seminars that members would like us to organise
in the future.
As part of the programme this year, we also decided that we
should encourage our members to participate in law
conferences, both international and domestic. From the
perspective of continuing legal education, we felt that
members would derive valuable experience from attending
conferences which they can then share with other members.
We sponsored attendance at the following conferences:(a)
The Commonwealth Law Conference, London,
11-15 September 2005 – Puteri Shehnaz Abdul
Majid.
(b)
The IBA Law Conference, Prague, 25-30
September 2005 – Edmund Bon.
(c)
The Lawasia Conference on International
Trade Law, Ho Chi Minh City, 7-8 October 2005
– Wan Kai Chee
(d)
(e)
The Asia Pacific Lincoln’s Inn Meet 2005, Kuala
Lumpur, 25-27 August 2005 1
Jayamurugan Vadivelu
2
Vilasini Chandrasekaran
3
Melissa Ram
The 13th Malaysian Law Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 16-18 November 2005 –
1 Ahmad Termizi bin Mohd Piah
2
Hani Widyawati
3
Ng Yee Leng
4
Ani Munirah Bt Mohamad
5
G Nanda Goban
6
Chua Yen Hwa
7
Nor Suhaila Abdul Latif
While our continuing legal education programme has been
well received, the challenge for us is to improve on it further.
In this regard, the programme must include aspects of risk
management as well as matters which result in disciplinary
complaints. This would be a holistic programme that would
benefit members.
The Continuing Legal Education committee wishes to thank
all our speakers, moderators and participants for their
contribution to the programme.
Steven Thiru
Chairman
Continuing Legal Education committee
Continuing Legal Education 41
CONVEYANCING PRACTICE COMMITTEE
The Conveyancing Practice committee caters to the needs and demands
Chairman
Lim Chee Wee
of KL Bar members who practise conveyancing. For the term 2005/06, the
committee achieved the following activities:
Deputy Chair
Wong Lu Peen
1
Member
Yeap Siew Teng
Woon Lee Been
Jennifer Wong Fu Man
Kalathevy Sivagnanam
Elizabeth Lee Chai Li
P.S. Khoo
Joycelyn Ong
Doris Liew Lee Mei
Michael Chai Woon Chew
Angelyn Lee Wei Ching
Karin Lim
Shanti Ramu
Cheong Yoke Ping
Patrick Chiam Tow Loon
Meeting with Selangor Land Office
Two members of the committee and representatives from the
Selangor Bar Committee attended the meeting with the officers of
the Selangor Land Office on 18.04.2005 to discuss issues of
common concern including collection of titles and waiver of penalty
fees.
2
2nd Dialogue Session on Solicitor’s Remuneration Order, No
Discount Rule
A dialogue session on “Solicitor’s Remuneration Order, No Discount
Rule” was successfully held on 28.07.2005 at the Bar Council
Auditorium. The panel of speakers comprised the President of the
Malaysian Bar Mr Yeo Yang Poh, Chair of the Enforcement
Committee Mr Tony Woon, representatives from REHDA and
FOMCA, and a Singapore Lawyer Mr. Derrick Wong. The dialogue
was held to seek views on the No Discount Rule from the
perspectives of developers, consumers, practitioners and the
Singapore experience. REHDA expressed their position opposing
the Rule.
Prior to the dialogue, a survey on “Enforcement & Waiver Rules”
was conducted by the committee to seek the views of the members
of the Bar. Eighty four members responded. The results were
inconclusive as the views were equally divided as to whether they
were in favour of the Enforcement Rules or not.
The following are the questionnaire and answers for the survey on
“Enforcement & Waiver Rules”.
i
Do the SRO enforcement rules have a positive effect on your
practice e.g. income from conveyancing matters has increased?
Ye s
40
ii
Should the Rules be amended?
Ye s
40
iii
Conveyancing Practice
No
39
Do the Bar Council guidelines on waiver of fees in conveyancing
matters require amendment(s)?
Ye s
31
42
No
43
No
51
iv
Ye s
31
3
·
·
·
·
·
No
51
Workshop on e-Taksiran
A workshop on e-Taksiran was organised by the
committee on 06.05.2005 and was well attended.
The workshop was held to inform and train
members on the system, and seek feedback from
members.
4
the services of the Wilayah Persekutuan Office.
Various issues of concern were discussed in the
meeting. Among others, were issues regarding:
Review of Quit Rent
Security Measures to Prevent Fraud
Registration of Dealings
Appeal to Waive Late Registration Fees and
Malay Reserve Land
Do you have personal knowledge of any firm in
breach of the No Discount Rule?
Meeting with Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala
Lumpur Land Office and Association of Banks
in Malaysia
The meeting was held on 28.09.2005 at Pejabat
Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan
and attended by the representatives from the
W ilayah Persekutuan Land Office, Association
of Banks in Malaysia, KL Bar Committee and
Bar Council Malaysia.
The purposes of the meeting were to resolve the
problems that arise when dealing with the
Wilayah Persekutuan Land Office and to improve
5
Challenges Ahead
Dealings with the authorities are improving with regular
engagement. The challenge ahead is how do we
maintain the integrity of the No Discount Rule when
the enforcement may not be able to “catch” the most
devious contravention by way of cash rebate. We
have no answer other than whistle-blowing by those
who know of such incidents.
Finally, I would like to thank all members of this
committee for their valuable contributions, commitment
and support throughout the term in ensuring the
committee delivers. Special thanks must go to Wong Lu
Peen whose dedication kept all of us going.
Lim Chee Wee
Chairman
Conveyancing Practice committee
Conveyancing Practice
43
COURT LIAISON COMMITTEE (Civil)
I had the privilege once again to chair this committee. A survey form was
Chairman
R.Ravindra Kumar
Deputy Chairperson
Dahlia Lee Wooi Mien
Members
Lee Chin Peow
Justin Voon Tiam Yu
Rajesh Kumar Gejinder Nath
Francis Soh
Gopi Krishnan Seshadari
Dato Zuraidah Atan
Elaine Law Soh Yong
Dipendra Harshad Rai
Audrey Jacqueline Pillai
Dinesh Nair
Brian Foong Mun Loong
Mathew Thomas Philip
issued at the beginning of this term to obtain feedback from members of the
Kuala Lumpur Bar on concerns with regard to the administration of justice
in the Kuala Lumpur Courts. We were encouraged by the feedback obtained
from members and embarked on a plan for the year to address these
concerns.
Meeting with the Kuala Lumpur Lower Court Judges and Magistrates
of the Civil Division on 15.07.2005
After a lapse of 2 years, we had managed to have this meeting with the
Lower Courts. The meeting was made possible with the appointment of
Tuan Hamdan Indah as the Senior Judge in the Lower Court. Tuan
Hamdan was very receptive to several of our proposals and had assured
members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar that he will attend to any problems
that members have with the Lower Courts. Tuan Hamdan has welcomed
this 2-way process of consultation between the Bar and the Bench and
has emphasised the need for members to raise concerns through the
Court Liaison committee as opposed to raising it with the higher
authorities. We had a fruitful meeting and a copy of the minutes of this
meeting was posted to members via circular no. 20/05 on 06.08.2005. I
wish to thank Justin Voon for having prepared the minutes for this meeting.
Meeting with the Appellate & Special Powers Division on 26.08.2005
The committee had a good meeting with the Judges, TPs and Registrars
of the Appellate & Special Powers Division. We had urged the Judge to
hear the interlocutory appeals expeditiously so that cases in the Court
below are not hampered by the delay in the disposal of appeals. The
Judges were doing their best to address this issue given the volume of
cases registered in the said Division. The meeting was very positive and
several of our suggestions and concerns were duly addressed. The Court
has also given us a statistics of the number of cases disposed of to date
and this information was posted on our website. A copy of the minutes of
this meeting was posted to members via circular no 23/05 dated
06.09.2005. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Lee Chin Peow
for preparing the minutes for this meeting. My special thanks to Dato’
Zuraidah Atan for arranging the meeting with the Appellate and Special
Powers Division.
Meeting with the Shah Alam High Court Judges and Registrars on
24.11.2005
This meeting was at the invitation of the Selangor Bar Committee and
our representative Francis Soh attended this meeting. A copy of the
minutes of the meeting was sent out to members via circular no. 64/05
dated 23.12.2005. I wish to record my thanks to Francis Soh for putting
across various issues that were raised by this committee.
Meeting with the Commercial Division and Bankruptcy Division
on 16.12.2005
We had arranged for this meeting in view of the numerous concerns
received regarding the problems in the Bankruptcy Division. YA Dato’
Vincent Ng had assured the committee that these problems would be
looked into and addressed accordingly. Some of the problems encountered
44
Court Liaison
in the Bankruptcy Division, in particular the long queue for
the next date was partly attributed to the Insolvency officers
who invariably inform the Court on the morning of the hearing
as to whether the papers were in order. The various issues
were discussed and it was proposed that a tripartite meeting
be held with all the parties to overcome any shortcoming. A
copy of the minutes of the meeting was sent out to members
via circular no. 03/06 dated 16.01.2006. My thanks to
Dipendra for recording the minutes and to Dahlia Lee for
arranging the meeting.
Meeting with the Civil Division of the High Court
The committee has been liaising with the Head Judge of
the Civil Division of the High Court and is looking forward to
the meeting with this Division on 24.02.2006. We shall
endeavor to address issues of concern received from
members and a copy of the minutes will be circulated to all
members after the meeting.
Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Bar and Bench get
together at RSC on 17.02.2006
The committee has taken on this task to organise this
year ’s get together. Last year, we had a good response
from the Judiciary. The committee hopes that this event
will be held annually to ensure that we continue to build
on the good relations with the Judiciary. The event also
gives our younger members of the Bar an opportunity to
meet the Judges on a social occasion. My thanks to
Elaine Law, Audrey and Chin Peow for organising some
of the activities for this event.
I am pleased to report that the committee was able to
achieve our plans for this year.
My tasks in leading this committee was made easier with the
dedication shown by members of this committee. I express
my sincere thanks to the Deputy Chair, Dahlia Lee and each
members of this committee for sacrificing their valuable time
and effort to address concerns and issues raised at all levels
to improve the system of legal practice in Kuala Lumpur . It is
my sincere hope that the current members would volunteer to
serve this committee in the next term.
My sincere thanks also to Mary, Kavitha, Azura and the staff
of the secretariat for their assistance rendered during my term.
My thanks also to the Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Bar,
Mr Lim Chee Wee and to the rest of the committee members
for their involvement in our meetings with the Judiciary.
It is my sincere hope that the incoming committee will
continue to build on the existing good relationship the
committee has maintained with the Judiciary. It is further
hoped that members of the Kuala Lumpur Bar would
continue to give suggestions and raise issues of concern
with this committee to overcome and address any
shortcoming in the administration of justice in our KL
Courts.
R Ravindra Kumar
Chairman
Court Liaison committee (Civil )
Court Liaison 45
CRIMINAL PRACTICE COMMITTEE
For the first time during the 2005/2006 session, the civil and criminal
Chairman
R Ravindra Kumar
division of the Court Liaison committee was split and a separate Criminal
Practice committee was set up. A Deputy Chairman who is a Criminal
Practitioner was appointed to help run the committee with members made
up of lawyers active in Criminal Practice.
Deputy Chairman
N Sivananthan
The committee met 4 times in 2005 and will be meeting at least twice before
the Annual General Meeting in March 2006.
Members
Sivanesan Nadarajah
Baljit Singh
Abdul Shukor bin Ahmad
Kuldeep Kumar
Suresh Thanabalasingam
Venkateswari Alagendra
Meeting with the Selangor Prosecution Unit
A milestone of sorts was achieved in April 2005 when a meeting was held
between the committee and the Selangor Prosecution Unit on 15.04.2005.
The Prosecution Unit was led by the Head of Prosecution, Encik Sallehuddin
Bin Saidin and a number of Deputy Public Prosecutors from his Unit. A
report of the matters that were discussed was distributed to all members of
the KL Bar subsequent to the meeting. Many issues were resolved during
the meeting and what was encouraging was that the Prosecution Unit clearly
was interested in having a cordial and effective working relationship with the
Bar to ensure that matters proceeded smoothly in Court and that where
possible, charges could be amended or even withdrawn, depending on the
circumstances of each case, before the trial even commenced.
The Prosecution Unit was also very open to complaints made by lawyers
being attended to promptly and assured the committee that lawyers who
complain are not in any way blacklisted where the Prosecution Unit was
concerned. The issue of delay in receiving documents etc. was also dealt
with and instructions were subsequently given for all relevant documents
which an accused would be entitled to be given promptly. The committee
also assured the Head of Prosecution that the committee was open to
resolving problems that the Prosecution Unit may have with lawyers and
would try to resolve matters in an amicable manner.
Meeting with the Judges and Magistrates of the Criminal Division of
the Kuala Lumpur Subordinate Courts
The committee also met the Judges and Magistrates of the Criminal
Division of the Kuala Lumpur Subordinate Courts on 16.09.2005 and various
issues affecting the day to day practice of criminal lawyers were brought
up. The Judges were very receptive to the issues raised and subsequent
to the meeting, new procedures in respect of remand proceedings and
payment of bail bonds were implemented. Previously, the police used to
be able to obtain remand extensions without the lawyers being aware of
when the remand hearing was taking place. With the new system, once
a suspect’s lawyer registers himself in the morning, the Magistrate will
be made aware that the suspect has counsel representing him/her and
will then instruct the Interpreter to call the lawyer in before proceedings
commenced.
As far as the bail bond is concerned, fixed deposit certificates are once
again being accepted by the Courts and this allows an accused’s family
to prepare the amount of bail bond in advance without the need for an
accused to be kept in the Court lock-up while waiting for the bank savings
46
Criminal Practice
book to be issued. A report of the matters discussed and
the steps taken was subsequently distributed to members of
the Bar via circular no. 36/05 dated 07.10.2005.
Setting up of 2 sub-committees
Subsequent to the meeting, the committee set up 2 subcommittees i.e. one committee to deal with complaints
against lawyers by the Courts and another to deal with
urgent assistance to accused held in remand without
counsel. This, the Judges felt, was required since more
often than not counsel from the Legal Aid Centre who turned
up was not totally familiar with criminal trials especially
drug related offences which were not bailable and where
the sentences were fairly lengthy.
Overall, the committee takes the view that the setting up of
this separate committee has gone a long way towards
solving the problems that occur in the Criminal Justice
System and bearing in mind that issues of liberty and human
rights are at stake, the committee feels that a separate
committee should continue to exist in the future.
Acknowledgement
I must express my deepest appreciation to Sivananthan,
Deputy Chairman of the Criminal Practice committee who
has helped me tremendously in carrying out the activities
of this committee. Without his assistance, the committee
would not have achieved so much. Special thanks too to
all the committee members who worked hard and made a
difference for our Criminal Law practitioners.
Meeting with the Kuala Lumpur Prosecution Unit
The committee hopes to organise a meeting with the Kuala
Lumpur Prosecution Unit and this should take place in the
next 2 months.
R Ravindra Kumar
Chairman
Criminal Practice committee
Criminal Practice
47
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW COMMITTEE
The primary aim of the Environmental Law committee this year was to
Chairman
Stanley Sinnappen
Members
Asmet Nasruddin
Wong Ee Lynn
Karen Kimkana
Nurliza Bt. Ramli
Shishila Suriya Kasim
Rajasundram
Elizabeth Lee Pei Shen
Heng Hiang Swee
raise awareness of environmental issues, to encourage and promote sound
environmental practices and lifestyles among members of the Bar, and to
gradually and ultimately assume a position of leadership in the implementation,
development and use of sound environmental policies, practices and
opportunities.
As the Environmental Law committee is a relatively young committee, our
biggest challenge lies in harnessing the support and involvement of members
of the Bar in environmental issues.
Kuala Lumpur Bar Environmental Law committee activities from March
2005 to March 2006:
31.03.05
A meeting was coordinated by the Department of the Environment to review
and appraise the Environmental Quality Act 1974.
28.05.05
Members of this committee attended the screening of ‘Guardians of the
Rainforest’, an independent documentary on the Temuan Orang Asli
community, at the Asia-Europe Institute of University Malaya. A Question &
Answer session was held later by the producers of the documentary to enable
the members of the audience to discuss the environmental concerns and
political realities pertaining to the Orang Asli community.
23.07.05
An Evening at the Zoo was held to increase publicity for the night zoo and
other activities at Zoo Negara, and to raise funds for the Zoo’s and wildlife
breeding and rehabilitation programmes. This activity was open to members
of the public as well, and announcements were made over certain radio stations
to encourage public participation. This event, which was organised by the
Environmental Law committee, had increased the gate takings for the Zoo. It
was reported by Zoo Negara that their gate taking had been increased by
300% on that day. A live band was also engaged to entertain the visitors at the
Zoo auditorium. Although there was initial scepticism over the merit of supporting
the cause of keeping wildlife in captivity, almost all the participants expressed
enjoyment, and agreed that the National Zoo needs all the help it can get,
including continued public support.
12.10.05
Apart from a Press Statement drafted and endorsed earlier on the issue of the
Air Pollution Index and transboundary haze, a Press Statement backing the
Biofuel Bill was issued and published in The Star on 12.10.2005. Follow-up
evaluation of the Bill and a discussion on alternatives to fossil fuels will be
carried out at a later date before the tabling of the said Bill in Parliament.
26.11.05
The day trip to the Kuala Gandah Elephant Sanctuary received encouraging
response. 45 adults and 16 children participated in the outing. At the Sanctuary,
visitors learned of the need to relocate wild or orphaned elephants to a sanctuary,
and the threats faced by the Asian Elephant population due to poaching and
48
Environmental Law
habitat destruction. Close contact with the elephants at
the Sanctuary helped us better appreciate the need to
conserve the habitats of these gentle mammals. The
committee later made a donation for the upkeep of the
Sanctuary.
be handed over to the relevant Ministries and Government
agencies.
14.01.06
A talk on air pollution was to be delivered by Dr. Azmi Sharom
at the Rimba Ilmu Auditorium in University Malaya. The talk
was to cover issues such as the Air Quality Act, the recurring
haze and the Air Pollution Index. After the talk, the participants
were to be taken on a guided tour of the Rimba Ilmu botanical
gardens and herbarium. Nevertheless, due to poor
participation, the committee decided to reschedule the talk
to a new date in February 2006.
1
18-19.01.06
The British High Commission Kuala Lumpur hosted a
workshop on ‘Principle 10 (of the Rio Declaration) in Malaysia’
and an invitation was extended to the committee. The
workshop revolved around the issues of involving the
community at large in the decision-making process, and
consulting the public on environmental policies. The 2-day
course provided our delegates with a foundation by which to
provide and promote public education and interpretation of
environmental issues.
January - February 2006
As part of our ongoing efforts to get involved in the law
reform and decision-making processes, the committee
undertook to study and review the Water Bill, and compare
it with the progressive water management legislation of both
developed and developing nations.
The committee also discussed and evaluated a Draft
Memorandum on Sustainable Development issues and
policies under Principle 21 of the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development of 1992 (‘Earth Summit’)
drafted by a committee member. The Memorandum, will
Other Activities planned for the KL Bar Environmental
Law committee:
3 activities have been planned in concert with the
Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) with the aim of
educating and empowering members of the Bar in
conservation work, namely:
i
Cleanup project at the MNS-Boh Te a
Plantation Chalets in Cameron Highlands;
ii
Park Ranger Apprentice training; and
iii
Raptor Watch W eek at Tanjong Tuan, Melaka.
2
A trip to Pulau Sibu has also been planned and tentatively
fixed for February.
3
The handing over of the Memorandum on
Sustainable Development to the Ministry of Housing
and Local Government and the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment.
4
A guided tour of the Centre for Technology ,
Development and Environment Malaysia
(CETDEM)’s Energy-Efficient House has been
planned for February/March.
As other environmental challenges and legal issues develop,
the Environmental Law committee hopes to work with other
interested community agencies and members of the Bar to
heighten public awareness and develop and enhance a strong
environmental ethic.
Stanley Sinnappen
Chairman
Environmental Law committee
Environmental Law
49
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Chairman
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Members
Fahri Azzat
Hasnal bin Hashim
Goh Siu Lin
Nga Tsing Tao
The committee concentrated this term on using information
1
technology to improve and upgrade the facilities and services provided
to the members particularly using the website to inform members of
upcoming events on a regular basis via the e-Newsletter.
2.
Moreover, the introduction of Information Technology to various aspects of
the KL Bar’s services will no doubt result in substantial savings in costs.
The Secretariat would then be able to concentrate on providing value added
services to members as the manpower previously utilised to provide clerical
services will be replaced by the introduction of on-line services.
Online Services
3.
We are pleased to announce that the KL Bar will be the first State Bar
to introduce online services for its members.
4.
The online services which will be introduced include:
.
.
.
.
.
.
5.
The submission for registration and payment of annual subscriptions.
The submission for renewal and payment of rental for Bar Committee
Boxes (BC Boxes).
The registration of new pupils.
The registration of new lawyers and law firms.
The submission for registration and payment for KL Bar events including
the continuing legal education seminars.
Updating the members’ contact details.
Conveniently, members who use the online services will be able to view
the status of their own registrations and/or payments through the website.
The KL Bar Website
6.
The KL Bar Website has recorded hits of approximately 10,000 per day on
average. This is a vast improvement and it is clear that the revamped
website has attracted significantly more usage than previous years. The
advertising on the KL Bar Website has provided an income of RM19,250.00
compared to a sum of RM8,600.00 in 2004/05 for the KL Bar.
The KL Bar IT Fair
7.
An IT Fair will be held on 09.03.2006 at the Legend Hotel to enable the
members to view the latest Legal IT products available in the market.
A Note of Appreciation
8
I would like to extend my gratitude to all the committee members for
their participation and input.
9.
I hope that the innovations introduced have been of benefit to the members. We welcome suggestions and comments to enable us to continue to serve the members well and efficiently.
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Chairman
Information Technology committee
50
Information Technology
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE
RELEVAN newsletter
Chairman
Teh Yoke Hooi
Members
Cheng Poh Heng
Nicole Wee
Brendan Navin Siva
Rishwant Singh
Bernard Francis
Edmund Balthazar
The year for RELEVAN began with its first issue in May 2005, followed by
the second issue in September 2005 and a third in January 2006.
Under the current year, the Publications committee has carried on the work
started by its predecessors to publish the writings and views of our very own
members, and that of eminent practitioners, experienced lawyers and legal
experts.
The Publications committee has attempted to bring to our members the
views and opinions of other members of current trends in practice, and the
future of legal practice. Thus ‘Can the Bar cope with Globalisation?’ was
published in issue 2/05 and articles which touched on specific areas of
office management such as ‘Why is an Internal I.T. Security import ant to
you as a legal firm?’ was also published in issue 2/05.
It is also felt that because many members were unable to join the rest in
many KL Bar activities, the Publications committee would bring to absent
members a report on each such activity, thus photographs and narrations of
the activities carried out by our Continuing Legal Education committee, Young
Lawyers committee, Sports committee, Social and Pupils Welfare committee
and that of the Environmental Law committee are carried in every issue of
RELEVAN.
Reports of our members who have attended or presented papers in local or
international Conferences have also been included so that we all can learn
from the experience of the delegates and the skills of the experts. Thus, we
published reports from the 1st National Congress on Integrity Corruption,
the 14th Commonwealth Law Conference in London, the IBA Conference in
Prague, and the Lawasia Conference in Ho Chi Minh.
It is however regretted that increasingly, writings appear more and more
difficult to come by and to source for. Admittedly, writing is an art, and one
which sees contributions from only a rather small group amongst our
members, and even less from our younger members.
Accordingly, the Publications committee is looking into the possibility of
having RELEVAN professionally published and efforts are ongoing to study
the feasibility of this. Whether this will materialise remains to be seen.
As RELEVAN would not be possible but for the dedication of it s committee
members, its contributors and other supporters, these people all deserve a
pat on their back and it is fervently hoped that RELEVAN continues to see
even more participation and contributions from all members of the KL Bar.
Teh Yoke Hooi
Chairperson
Publications committee
Publications
51
SOCIAL & PUPILS WELFARE COMMITTEE
Annual Dinner & Dance
Chairman
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
Members
Andrew Shee
Chua Sook Mun
Elizabeth Lee Pei Sheh
Reggie Wong
The Annual Dinner and Dance was held on 10.09.2005 at the JW
Marriott, Kuala Lumpur with the theme “International Costumes”. More
than 480 guests attended the function, many of them looking truly
resplendent in their outfits from around the world. The dinner was generally
well received with free flowing drinks throughout the night with a host of
activities and entertainment and culminating with very attractive prizes
for many lucky winners. The committee would like to take this opportunity
to thank the many firms and individual members for their unwavering
support in ensuring that the Annual Dinner remains an enjoyable and
important tradition.
The Dato’ Dr Peter Mooney Oratory Contest
The third Oratory Contest is scheduled to be held on 18.02.2006. The
contest will be open to all lawyers of up to 3 years post qualifying
experience and pupils-in-chambers.
Reference Proceedings
Reference proceedings for members who have departed during the year
is scheduled to be held on 16.02.2006.
Blood Donation
A blood donation drive was held at the Bar Room at the Lower Courts in
Jalan Raja on 24.11.2005 with the assistance of Pusat Darah Negara. A
total of 33 units of blood was collected from generous donors.
Treasure Hunt
After an absence of six years, the Kuala Lumpur Bar Motor Treasure
Hunt is scheduled to take place on 25 to 26.02.2006. The Hunt shall take
place from Kuala Lumpur to Melaka with an overnight stay at the Riviera
Bay Resort. The committee targets close to 200 participants for the Hunt
which is also open to non members of the Malaysian Bar. Mr Christopher
Foo has very kindly agreed to offer his services as course master for this
Hunt. All nett proceeds of the Hunt is to be channeled towards charitable
causes.
Pupils’ Briefings
The committee members continued to conduct briefing sessions on a
regular basis for all pupils prior to their respective calls.
Pupils’ Questionnaire
The committee had devised a questionnaire for pupils to obtain some
feedback and to ascertain their interest in participating in the Kuala Lumpur
Bar activities or even to serve on the various sub-committees. The said
questionnaires are provided and then collected from the pupils during
their respective meetings with the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee. It is
52 Social & Pupils Welfare
intended that the answered questionnaires would not only
provide information for the type of activities that the
younger members are interested in but also provide as a
valuable resource of interested members to serve on future
sub-committees of the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee.
concerned by the large numbers that had initially signed
up for the course but only approximately half of those
pupils actually turned up on the respective course dates.
Course on the Simple Basics of Court Appearances
The committee is also in the process of updating the
Pupils Handbook which is currently on sale at the
Secretariat as we had received feedback that the contents
were outdated.
Based on the early feedback derived from the
questionnaires, the committee decided to commence a
course on the basics of Court appearances. Two courses
was held on 15.09.2005 and 13.10.2005 free of charge.
Though the general consensus amongst the attendees
was that the course was very useful, the committee was
Update of Pupils Handbook
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
Chairman
Social & Pupils Welfare committee
Social & Pupils Welfare
53
Social & Pu
SPORTS COMMITTEE
1
Committee Members
Chairman : Anand Ponnudurai
The following convenors were appointed to assist in the organising of the
following games :i
ii
ii.
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
Badminton
Cricket
Golf
Hockey
Netball
Soccer
Squash
Tennis
Volleyball
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
A.I. Nathan
Alex De Silva
Koh Yew Chong
K. Vijayraj
Wong Keat Ching
Peter Ling
Jayne Koe
Yeoh Cho Keong
Cheow Wee
2
Annual Series
2.1
6th Sports Carnival – KL Bar vs Royal Selangor Club
(Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim Challenge Trophy)
The 16th Sports Carnival which was postponed by the RSC in January
2005 was subsequently held on the 14 & 15.10.2005.
The KL Bar started strongly when its Golf team beat their counter
parts on 14.10.2005. However, save for both hockey teams drawing
their match at 1-1, the KL Bar ’s soccer, netball, squash, tennis and
snooker teams were all beaten by the RSC teams on 15.10.2005.
The margins of RSC’s wins were quite slim which gives the KL Bar
team some hope in future series. For the record, the KL Bar has won
this series only once in the past 16 years.
2.2
5th KL/Selangor Bar Games
(Lall Singh Muker Challenge Trophy)
The 5th series was hosted by the KL Bar at various venues on the 25 &
26.02.2005. The Selangor Bar started on a winning note when they
beat the KL Bar and won the Kandiah Chelliah Trophy for Golf on the
25.02.2005. However, the KL Bar came back strongly the next day and
managed to re-capture the Lall Singh Muker Challenge Trophy when it
beat the Selangor Bar in badminton, netball, snooker and volleyball.
Selangor Bar won the hockey game and soccer ended in a draw.
The dinner was hosted by the KL Bar at the RSC Kiara Annexe on
the 26.02.2005 which was well attended by all participants and
supporters wherein Mr Ajit Singh Muker was present to give away the
challenge trophy.
The 6th series will be hosted by the Selangor Bar on the 20 &
21.01.2006.
54 Sports
pils Welfare
3
Inter-State Bar Tournaments
3.1
An Inter-State Bar Badminton Tournament was
organised by the Bar Council and hosted by the
Johor Bar in Johor Bahru on 16.07.2005. The KL
Bar Badminton Team emerged champions.
3.2
An Inter-State Bar Tournament was organised by
the Bar Council for 03 & 04.12.2005 for netball,
hockey and soccer. The said tournament was to be
hosted by the Perak Bar in Ipoh. However, the
tournament was postponed and is now scheduled
to be held in Johor Bahru on 17 & 18.02.2006 hosted
by the Johor Bar Committee. The KL Bar will be
sending teams to participate in all 3 games.
3.3
4
An Inter-State Golf Tournament was held in Penang and
was hosted by the Penang Bar on 20.08.2005. The KL
Bar sent a team consisting of 12 players. Home ground
advantage was obviously critical as Penang Bar emerged
Champions and the KL Bar Team emerged fourth after
losing to the judiciary on a countback.
Soccer
The 17th Thayalan Memorial Cup 7-A-Side Football Tournament
for the Challenge Trophy donated by Messrs Skrine was held
on the 12.03.2005 at the UNITEN ground in Bangi. The
tournament was keenly contested with participation from
various teams from all over the country. The Selangor lawyers
appeared to be the best footballers as reflected by the results
wherein the Selangor Bar B team emerged as champions and
the Selangor Bar A team were runners up. The 18th Annual
Tournament will be held in March 2006.
5
Golf
The Golf Section has seen an increase in activity this year,
wherein there has been an increase in participation from
some of the younger members of the Bar. The KL Golfers
apart from representing the KL Bar in the various tournaments
often regularly meet and have smaller “friendlier” tournaments
among themselves.
This year, we decided to revive the KL Bar Closed Invitational
Tournament which had not been held for the past several
years. The tournament was held at the prestigious Sungai
Long Golf and Country Club on 11.11.2005. Participants
included Judges and Lawyers from all over the country
including East Malaysia and Singapore. The tournament was
keenly contested with Sunil Abraham emerging as the Gross
Champion. The prizes for the competition were very attractive
which included 4 return tickets to Bali and Phuket, courtesy
of Malaysia Airlines.
The committee also would like to place on record its
appreciation to Dato’ Cecil Abraham, Dato’ Zahir and Capt.
Razak for their donations and contributions. Thanks also
goes to the firms of Messrs Chooi & Co and Messrs Ranjit,
Ooi and Robert Low for sponsoring the tournament t-shirts
and some prizes.
It is hoped that this closed tournament becomes an annual affair.
6
General
Members of the KL Bar regularly meet to play the various
sports which include volleyball, badminton and netball. Tennis
has also seen an increase in activity and participation wherein
members meet and play on Wednesdays at the Jalan Duta
Tennis Courts.
7
Note of Thanks
The committee wishes to place on record its thanks to all
convenors for sacrificing their time and effort in organising
their respective games. The committee also wishes to thank
all donors for the trophies and sponsorship in various forms
in the past years which greatly contributed towards the
success of the various sports activities. Last but not least,
the committee thanks all “sporting members” who have
participated and supported the various activities of the Sport
committee over the p ast year. Whilst p articipation has
increased and is encouraging in general, it is hoped that
more members in particular the younger lawyers, will
participate in the coming years’ activities.
Anand Ponnudurai
Chairman
Sports committee
Sports
55
YOUNG LAWYERS COMMITTEE
YLC Chairman’s report
Chairman
Richard T.S. Wee
The Young Lawyers Committee (YLC) set out to reach out to our members,
in particular the younger set of lawyers. We aimed to create awareness among
young lawyers of the struggles, the ambition and the achievements of KL Bar.
Secretary
Melissa Ram
Members
K.Parames
Razanna Raslan
Vincent Tey
Will Fung
The YLC this year is supported by many able members. The Head of each
sub-committee was pro-active, led from the front, and sincere and honest in all
their endeavours. Each sub-committee Head was assisted by equally a
dedicated set of members.
The 2005/06 YLC had organised many events or were party to the organisation,
namely:
1
The drafting of the Bill to abolish S46A Legal Profession Act 1976, and
eventually the handing over of the same to the Bar Council in July 2005;
2
Charity Night on 30.06.2005;
3
Majlis Berbuka Puasa on 07.10.2005;
4
Public debate under the YLC Human Rights sub-committee, on the policing
of public morality by the public authorities;
5
Visits to unfortunate children homes;
6
Trainings, workshops and lectures (including a recent visit to University of
Malaya on 14.01.2006 to conduct a workshop with the University’s final
year law students on the realities of practice from the view of young lawyers);
7
Bowling games
I wish to take this opportunity to thank all members of the YLC and to all our
members who supported our events.
Richard Wee
YLC Chairman
Human Rights sub-committee
The Human Rights sub-committee aims not only at creating awareness amongst
young lawyers, but seeks to encourage proactive participation in the discourse
of our human rights jurisprudence. The sub-committee has singled out a number
of current issues to address for the year. The 1st was the topic of policing
public morality. This was specifically highlighted in the light of the raid at Zouk
by religious authorities early last year and the arrest of 2 non-Muslims for
allegedly indecent behaviour in a public area. The debate forum, entitled
“Enforcing Public Morality: For God’s Sake, Who Should Be In Charge?”,held
on 04.10.2005 focused on whether the State has any role to play, or right to
interfere, in policing individual moral choices. It was open to members of the
Bar as well as the public. The prominent panel comprised Dr Siti Mariah
Mahmud, Information Chief in the Dewan Muslimat PAS, Salbiah Ahmad, an
independent researcher and Malaysiakini columnist, Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah
56 Young
Lawyers
and Haris Ibrahim, both advocates and solicitors. The debate
was moderated by Professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, Legal
Adviser and Professor of Law at UiTM. There were close to 70
participants, including college and university students,
academicians, NGO members, lawyers and interested
members of the public.
Following the recent infamous “squat-in-the-nude” scandal,
the sub-committee released a strong statement voicing its
outrage at the incident, and at the attempts by top government
and law enforcement authorities to trivialise and scuttle the
issue. The statement also implored young lawyers to unite in
the plight to condemn and act against the apparent abuse of
human rights. The statement ended with a reiteration of the
demand made by the Bar Council for the establishment of an
independent body to police the police.
The sub-committee was also concerned with the constitutional
issue of freedom of religion, including the sensitive topic of
apostasy. This came to light in the Ayah Pin/Sky Kingdom
case. In this respect, the sub-committee has also offered its
assistance to more senior members of the Bar who are involved
in the case, held watching briefs on behalf of a human rights
NGO, and are developing a close working relationship with
concerned NGOs.
The last event planned for the term is a talk to be presented
by Datuk Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Minister of Women and Family
Development. The talk is intended to cover current issues
affecting women’s rights, including topics addressed in the
“squat-in-the-nude” incident and freedom of religion cases.
Head of Human Rights sub-committee
Sports & Social sub-committee
The KL Bar Young Lawyers’ Sport s & Social sub-committee
held 2 events till date, namely bowling and the charity night
(with the KL Bar Young Lawyers’ Welfare sub-committee).
A friendly football match between the Kuala Lumpur lawyers
and the Kuala Lumpur Court officers is currently being planned
for January/February 2006.
The first event which this sub-committee together with the
Welfare sub-committee organised was the Charity Night held
at Souled Out, Sri Hartamas on 30.06.2005. This event
attracted about 300 lawyers and was acknowledged as one of
the most successful events ever held by the young lawyers.
Donations and profits were given to the Stepping Stones Home
in Taman Seputeh which houses mostly young girls and boys
who suffered from neglect, abuse and abandonment.
All members of the KL Bar Young Lawyers’ Committee put
in a commendable effort and with careful and thorough
planning ensured the success of this event.
Bowling was held on 02.09.2005 at Cosmic Bowl, Mid Valley.
About 20 lawyers came and supported this event. All the
participants (playing and non-playing) had a great time. The
event started at 7.30 p.m. and ended at approximately
9.30p.m.
Both events mentioned above have successfully enhanced
interaction and promoted the spirit of camaraderie among
lawyers in Kuala Lumpur.
Vincent Tey
Head of Sport and Social sub-committee
Welfare sub-committee
Career Advancement sub-committee
This sub-committee which aims to assists the young lawyers
on matters pertaining to “good lawyering” has managed to
organise various talks on different disciplines throughout the
year. The talk on “Rape and Sexual Assault” was organised
by the YLC which was held on 21.07.2005, a Family Law
talk was held on 06.10.2005 and a Forensic Science–
Importance of Biological Evidence and the Role of DNA talk
was held on 07.12.2005. The response was good both from
the young budding lawyers and in fact there were request
made to have more talks of this kind. There are two other
upcoming talks during the months of January and February
2006. One of which is entitled “Stress and Its Management”
and the other “Domestic Violence Act : How It Works”. Some
of these talks are jointly organised with the CLE committee.
We have had positive feedback from the participants and we
hope to do more in the coming years. We are hopeful that
there would be more freshies who would join us and lend us
a helping hand to help organise these talks.
Parames K
Head of Career Advancement sub-committee
The objective of the sub-committee was to create awareness
on social and community issues amongst the young lawyers
and instill the importance of charity. The list of active
members in the sub-committee is as follows:
Razanna Raslan (Head)
Hanie Izawatie
Azrina Isa
Christopher Soon
The sub-committee was set up with the aim to provide relief
and assistance to the poor and needy regardless of race,
religion and nationality in the fields of charity. Below are the
events held:
1
Stepping Stones Home
30.06.2005 (7.30 pm) – Young Lawyers Charity Night
at Souled Out Café
A charity night at Souled Out was organised by the
YLC to raise money for Stepping Stones Home, a
Young
Lawyers
57
home for the orphanage, single mother and
underprivileged. We have successfully collected a net
amount of RM10,971.10 from the charity night. Part
of the proceeds received from the donation, sale of
tickets and auction were used to buy groceries for
the home and portion of the proceeds were earmarked
for the party that will be held for the home sometime
in January/February and will also be used to buy
necessities such as food, clothing, stationeries and
others. It was a night to remember as the young and
senior lawyers got together, had fun and released
themselves from work strain apart from doing charity.
2
Majlis Berbuka Puasa
7 October 2005 (7 pm)
The Majlis Berbuka Puasa was held at Kiara Golf
Club. The function was open to all KL Bar members
regardless of their race and religion.
3
Encik Abdul Razak Abdul Rahim
During the said Majlis Berbuka Puasa, the YLC
organised a mini fund raising event to ease the plight
of fellow lawyer, Encik Abdul Razak Abdul Rahim
who was suffering kidney ailments. Well over RM150
was collected within 30 minutes of the fund raising
and all monies have been depositied at Johor Bar
Committee’s fund for their onward transmission to
Encik Abdul Razak Abdul Rahim.
Mr Amer Hamzah.
The Opposition Leader, YB Mr Lim Kit Siang was
also present in the meeting.
Although YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri had on
principle agreed to the said repeal, no time frame
has been set. He had also agreed to bring this
issue up for discussion in the Cabinet’s meeting in
due course, and is optimistic that the tabling of the
bill for repeal would be carried out soonest possible
once the Cabinet has approved the same.
The Legal Struggles sub-committee is working
closely with the Bar Council as well as the National
Young Lawyers’ Committee (“NYLC”) so that
continuous efforts are expended to ensure that this
ultimate goal is achieved in the near future.
Follow Up Session / Chronology of Events:On 09.06.2005, a follow-up call was made to the Executive
· Director
of the Bar Council, Ms. Catherine Eu by Will Fung
and was informed that the Bar Council had written to Datuk
Seri Mohamed Nazri enquiring on the development of the
matter. We were further informed that a letter to AG’s
Chambers has also been sent, to schedule for a meeting
between the Bar Council and the AG himself;
A Bill for the said repeal was drafted by the Legal Struggles
· Team
and presented to the Bar Council President through
the NYLC sometime in the month of July, 2005;
Razanna Raslan
Head of Welfare sub-committee
Legal Struggles sub-committee
1
Repeal of S. 46A, Legal Profession Act 1976:
The Legal Struggles sub-committee is entrusted with
the responsibility to continue the work on the repeal
of Section 46A of the Legal Profession Act 1976
(“S.46A”). This year, we witnessed a breakthrough
in the development / campaign to repeal S.46A.
In view of the on-going issue pertaining to Quorum, Council
· advised
us to withhold the same because the Council is
considering to arrange a formal visit to the Minister in Charge
/ AG’s Chambers;
On 15.12.2005, some Bar Councillors, including Yeo Yang
· Poh,
Ambiga Sreenevasan, Mah Weng Kwai, Haji Kuthubul
Zaman bin Bukhari, Lim Chee Wee and Catherine Eu visited
Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri once again with regard to the
proposed amendments to the LPA, issue pertaining to
Quorum & s.46A of the LPA, 1976;
The Bar Council office bearers, with the concerted
effort by some Members of the Parliament who also
happen to be members of the legal profession, met
the Minister in the PM’s Dept in charge of
Parliamentary Affairs - YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz on 10.05.2005 and presented the
Memorandum to repeal S.46A officially at the
Parliament House.
On 19.12.2005, the same parties arranged a further visit to
· the
Attorney General’s office and met up with AG Tan Sri
The Bar Council was represented by Mr Yeo Yang
Poh (President), Ms Ambiga Sreenevasan (V icePresident), Mr Ragunath Kesavan (Secretary), Ms
Catherine Eu (Executive Director) and along with 3
young lawyers, Mr Will Fung, Mr Edmund Bon and
The ongoing campaign to repeal S.46A LPA 1976 is still our
main objective and we continue to sensitise and create
awareness among the young lawyers of the struggles of the
Malaysian Bar against this oppressive section. In the
meanwhile, we will be working and following closely with the
development of the said provisions, which indeed, it was a
58 Young
Lawyers
Abdul Gani Patail and Dato’ Idrus bin Harun (Parliamentary
Draftsman) for the same purpose and at the same time
presented the Memorandum of the Bar Council on the Repeal
of s. 46A of the LP A 1976 (dated 10.05.2005) and
Memorandum on Quorum for General Meetings of the
Malaysian Bar (dated 15.09.2005) to the AG.
Legal Struggles for the legal profession for decades.
We, the Young Lawyers do look forward for a positive
response from all parties involved and we shall continue to
campaign for the said repeal until S.46A of the LPA 1976, is
in its substance and essence, repealed!
2
Other Struggles
The Legal Struggles team is also monitoring closely
the latest development in law and happenings of
the legal profession at large with regard to problems
faced by, particularly, young lawyers.
Discussions, forums, dialogues were organised and
held to discuss and deliberate on the issues which
affects the welfare and interests of the “younger”
practitioners not merely in Kuala Lumpur, but
nationwide too. This includes the recent Pangkor
Convention Statement 2005 and the representations
of the Young Lawyers in all State’s Bar, amongst
others.
We pray that more and more young lawyers,
especially within Kuala Lumpur would step forward
and express their willingness to participate in
activities organised by the Bar Council, Kuala
Lumpur Bar Committee and for that purpose, when
occasion arise, we are able to mobilise lawyers to
reach out not just for the Bar/Legal Profession, but
to reach out to the Society as well.
Will Fung
Head of Legal Struggles sub-committee
Young
Lawyers
59
BAR COUNCIL LEGAL AID CENTRE
(KUALA LUMPUR)
THE PANEL
A.REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT PANEL 2005
Chairperson
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
INTRODUCTION
Honorary Secretary
Stanley Sinnappen
Asst Hon Secretary
Fahri Azzat
Treasurer
So Chien Hao
Members
Sivarasa Rasiah
M Puravalen
Alexis Diana
Ravi Nekoo
B Murugayah
Arunan Selvaraj
Pushpa Ratnam
Preetam Kaur
Renuka T Balasubramaniam
Anne Santhiago
Nik Nurul Atiqah Nik Yusof
Meera Samanther
Amir Hamzah Amha
The Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) (“LACKL”) in 2005 assisted
11,144 clients, about level with the previous year, with declines mainly in
migrant and prisons clients. Files opened also declined, due to stricter
enforcement of the means test and file opening criteria. (Please see
“Statistics for Year 2005”, for more details and explanatory notes).
It was not an auspicious start in 2005. There were serious allegations by a
previous office-bearer of, among other things, financial and managerial
improprieties and staff indiscipline, which cast a dark cloud over the LACKL
and volunteer lawyers. The Bar Council has investigated the allegations and
has largely exonerated LACKL. In the meantime, the LACKL conducted its
own investigations, reviewed its policies and procedures, and took numerous
steps to get its house in order , to the satisfaction of the Bar Council
investigating team. (Please see the Summary of “Achievements,
Shortcomings and Recommendations” prepared by the Administrator of the
LACKL, Ms Stephanie Bastian).
The objectives of this term were to (1) provide quality service to the needy
and (2) address the shortage of volunteer lawyers (only 3.6% of the KL Bar
is involved in LACKL work) for Legal Aid work. We took step s towards
achieving those objectives, including improving motivation of pupils which
we believe goes towards quality service and better prospects that pupils will
return as volunteer lawyers and better registration and follow-up procedures
for volunteer lawyers, as are set out in the Summary.
Much remains to be done. Various recommendations have been made by
the Administrator, for the next Management Panel to consider. A key
recommendation that we would wish to adopt is that the LACKL shall
establish its priority of the objects of Legal Aid; we believe that the primary
priority and focus should be on assistance to the needy.
We owe a great debt of gratitude and offer our heartfelt thanks to our NGO
partners, volunteers, staff, project heads and committee members, and pupils
in their support and efforts towards the work of the LACKL, for quality and
meaningful service to the needy.
Ngooi Chiu Ing
Chairperson
60
Legal Aid
B Administrator’s Summary of Achievements, Shortcomings and Recommendations
I Achievements
1.Data collection and resource management
a) Introduction of new formats of data collection. Analyses and monitoring of use of LAC resources, esp pupils
b) Closer monitoring of the effectiveness and efficiency of LAC programs.
2. Improvements in Office management
a) New accounting software system
b) Appointment of Treasurer and new accounting guidelines, including reporting of budgeted vs actual expenditures,
to monitor and oversee the LAC accounts
c) Meeting with auditors and short-term outsourcing of accounts - to review and improve accounting procedures
d) Introduction of punctuality, attendance and leave records and reports
e) Monitoring telephone usage and introduction of economical effective telephone systems
f) Installation of better lighting, storage and pantry for improved working conditions and staff welfare
g) LAC Office Manual - LAC policies and procedures.
3. Pupils
a) Improved motivation of pupils to serve in and learn from compulsory Legal Aid duty– Orientation, trainings
sessions / KLBC pupils introductions
b) Presence of office bearers at mid-terms reviews and encouragement to pupils to give constructive feedback
c) Coordination with KLBC to register and inform pupils of legal aid duty as soon as they sign up for pupillage so
that they can complete their 14-week duty before being called to the Bar
d) Policy to accommodate pupils’ 1st and 2nd choices for LAC programs as far as possible, to assist in motivating
them
e) Ad hoc pupils trainings, eg UNHCR training on refugees and asylum seekers and Dock Brief training on bail.
4. Volunteer lawyers
a) New system for registration of volunteer lawyers, follow up and reports on follow-ups
b) Volunteer lawyers database and email list
c) Regular circulation of list of unassigned files to all KLBC lawyers to request adoption of files.
d) Disbursements guidelines to assist lawyers/clients (disbursements are paid by clients directly to volunteer
lawyers)
e) Criminal law training by LAC to improve the skills of lawyers and to increase the pool of criminal law volunteer
lawyers, as the problem is with unassigned criminal files
f) Zero-tolerance of touting policy.
5. Programs
a) Merging the Dock Brief and Prisons Clinics to integrate them, being different parts of the same process; resulting
in reduced travel costs and time
b) Improved interview sheets for prisons, juvenile and LAC clinics.
6. Trainings/Attachments
a) 1st Paralegal training LAC staff (of KL and other states) and NGOs
b) Training by UNHCR on Refugees and Asylum seekers
c) Custodial deaths training for lawyers, with the Bar Council
d) Outreach programs in schools.
e) Increased attention to and emphasis on attachment programs for school, college and university students.
7. Networking
a) Cooperation with Selangor LAC - Selangor pupils join KL pupils in several programs and training for those
programs
b) Much improved cooperation and coordination with KLBC, NLAC and Bar Council with regard to information
sharing, joint programs and assistance.
Legal Aid
61
II Shortcomings
1. Office management
a) Lack of staff motivation
b) Extensive use of IT communication discouraged participation from non IT savvy lawyers
c) Tendency to ignore prescribed procedures after some time
d) Administration problems/difficulties consumed much time and attention of office-bearers.
2. Pupils
a) Poor follow-up with pupils – during and after compulsory duty
b) Lack of contact and dialogue with pupils during compulsory duty.
a) Lack of participation by lawyers in committees and programs
b) Poor response to attempts to bring lawyers together for social occasions (eg File Destruction Party, Legal Aid
Anniversary Dinner and KLBC Quiz Night).
4. Programs
a) Insufficient monitoring and attention paid to individual programs
b) Insufficient client care - clients treated routinely and occasional neglect of individual cases that require special
attention
c) Difficulty in assigning files, esp criminal files.
5. Training
a) Sometimes trainings are not properly planned
b) Training methods employed not conducive to teach pupils.
6. Networking
a) Insufficient time and effort given to networking and liaison building.
7. Vision and Direction of LAC
a) Lack of continuing leadership, vision and planning
b) Low participation by Management Panel members at meetings and email discussions.
III Recommendations for the future
1. Data collection
a) To be able to use data collection for law reform, research or other specific purposes.
2.Office management
a) Restructuring of secretariat to include office manager, liaison coordinator for lawyers and pupils and program
officer for clients and programs.
b) Staff training on computer usage, accounting, office management and inter-personal skills.
3. Pupils
a) Proper follow up programs for pupils after their legal aid duties.
b) Maintain contact with pupils who wish to serve after their legal aid duties
c) More dialogues with pupils in the course of their compulsory duty.
a) Active campaign by individual lawyers to recruit new volunteers
b) Encourage volunteer lawyers to join LAC committees
c) Keep volunteer lawyers informed of LAC programs
d) Build new leadership.
5. Programs
a) Develop support committees for programs
b) Conduct an in-depth study into the shortcomings of existing LACKL programs
62
Legal Aid
c) Regular audits/field visits to existing programs
d) Greater emphasis on the quality of service to clients
e) Explore alternative methods of assigning files.
6. Training
a) Streamline and consolidate areas and modules of training
b) Make training available to other LACs and NGO partners
b) Expose lawyers to alternative and human rights trainings
c) Conduct paralegal trainings for NGOs and communities
d) Build a pool of trainers with proper facilitation skills.
7. Networking
a) Better cooperation and coordination with KLBC, NLAC, other state LACs, and the Bar Council
b) Build liaisons with government agencies
c) Strengthen network with NGOs.
8. Vision and direction
a) Need to review the role of legal aid and explore future directions
b) Need to establish the philosophy/principles/objects and their priorities, of legal aid
c) Education and law reform.
C STATISTICS AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2005
Remand Population, Clients, Files Status, Bail Applications and Volunteer Lawyers
A.
REMAND POPULATION STATISTICS: 2004/2005
Prison/Home
As at
As at
Dec 2004
Dec 2005
1
Sungei Buloh Prison
17,596
18,648
2
Kajang Women Prison
Not available
Not available
3
Kajang Women Migrant Prison
Not available
Not available
4
Juvenile Remand Home
82
104
Not available
97
Asrama Sentosa
Tunas Bakti
Remarks
B. CLIENT STATISTICS: Summary - 2004/2005
Clinic/Programme
Clients
2004
Clients
2005
Sungai Buloh Prison:
·Malaysian clients
1298
(860)
1294
(876)
2
·Migrant clients
Kajang Women Prison
(438)
236
(418)
181
0.9
3
4
Kajang Women Migrant Prison
Juvenile Remand Home
473
107
153
121
0.9
2.1
5
6
Dock Brief
LAC/Syariah Clinic
5100
1691
5216
1898
2.1
3.0
7
8
SIS
AWAM
707
542
523
571
5.4
1.4
9
10
PTF
WAO
10
5
87
102
1.1
1.3
11
Tenaganita
Total
1121
11290
998
11144
2.5
1
Clients/duty day/pupil
2005
2.5
Legal Aid
63
Aid
Explanatory Notes:
·Sungai Buloh – with a five-day workweek, visits that were on Saturdays are now on weekdays, which has
resulted in fewer clients being brought out.
·Migrant clients – perhaps due to stepped-up government al measures to curb illegal entry, there are fewer potential clients.
·Kajang Women Prison – reduced no. of clients referred to us by the prison authorities.
C. FILES: OPENED, ASSIGNED & UNASSIGNED - 2004/2005
2004
Category
2005
Opened
Assigned
Unassigned
Opened
·LAC Clinic
144
116
28
·Prisons Program
285
285
-
2
Employment
22
22
3
Family
55
4
Syariah
5
Others
1
Assigned
Unassigned
141
96
45
123
114
9
-
28
28
-
55
-
64
64
-
41
41
-
24
20
4
·SOCSO
-
-
-
4
4
-
·Public Interest Litigation
4
4
-
5
3
2
Criminal
·H/Tenancy
2
2
-
7
6
1
·Misc
6
6
-
6
6
-
Total
559
531
28
402
341
61
Explanatory Notes:
·LAC Clinic – stricter enforcement of means test; more clients disqualified.
·Prisons Program – considerable number of files opened in 2004 were opened prematurely as many accused
entered pleas of guilty before commencement of or during proceedings. New files now only opened upon finding
that the accused has a good case and is certain he wishes to claim trial.
·LAC/Syariah Clinic – lack of publicity and no committee members. Further, perhaps clients are going to SIS or
Biro Bantuan Guaman instead.
D. BAIL APPLICATIONS: 2004/2005
2004
2005
21
17
E. ACTIVE VOLUNTEER LAWYERS (VL): 2004/2005
2004
2005
New
New
New VL
Total VL,
New
New
Total
New
Total
Sel VL
KL VL
2004
2004
Sel VL
KL VL
KL VL
VL 2005
VL, 2005
7
20
27
224
4
40
231
44
271
Total
% of KL Bar
3.6
D. PROGRAM REPORTS
1.
LEGAL AID CENTRE CLINIC (LAC CLINIC)
Report prepared by Alexis Diana - Project Head
Committee Members
Molly Gomez
Ramesh Lachmanan
Kalaiichelvii N
Loh Mei Fun
64
Legal Aid
Ong Chin Siong
Andrew Teh
Alexis Diana Louis
Introduction
This Clinic provides legal advice and representation to the public, and assists clients by accompanying them to the
Welfare Department, Industrial/Civil/Family Courts, the Police Station and the Commissioner of Oaths where necessary.
The LAC Clinic is manned by pupils, with the assistance of member of the Committee.
Activities
i)
(a)
Outreach Clinics
Outreach Clinic Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) (8 am – 6:30 pm, 21.8.2005)
The Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) is a non-profit organization under the banner of the Hindu Sangam, a Hindu
based organization. Unfortunately, attendance was poor.
(b)
Outreach Clinic at Brickfields (10 am – 2 pm, 16.10.2005)
This Outreach was under the banner of the Rukun Tetangga Sektor Brickfields. Unfortunately, attendance again
was poor.
ii)
Schools Project
The objectives of this program are to familiarise school authorities and students on the Law and its implications
on various social ills and to create legal awareness through motivational sessions and Martial Arts-Karate Do
demonstrations. There was active NGO participation and strong support from the Attorney General’s Chambers,
All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), Pink Triangle Foundation, Positive Malaysia Treatment Access & Advocacy
Group, MTAAG, and LAC Clinic committee members and volunteer lawyers.
(a)
Sekolah Menengah Kepong (8:30 – 10 am, 27.9.2005) - for Forms 4 and 5 students. The topics, which were
covered, were basic Criminal Procedure on remand, arrest, bail and some simple Case Study.
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Perempuan Jalan Ipoh (17, 27 and 29.10.2005) - for Forms 1, 2 and 3 students
respectively. LACKL volunteer lawyers and staff prepared students for role plays. There were individual testimonies
which inspired the students. The school committed to similar sessions next year, and to network on our behalf
with other schools in the Klang Valley.
(b)
Strengths
·
Assists the poor to get justice through legal advise and representation
·
Helps to create legal awareness amongst the public through outreach programs.
Weaknesses
·
Lack of volunteer lawyers to supervise pupils at the Centre and to handle files.
Recommendations
·
More outreach clinics for urban settlers and flat dwellers
·
Network with NGOs to enhance better working relationship
·
Review of current means test.
2.
SYARIAH CLINIC
Report prepared by Secretariat
Introduction
This Clinic provides legal advice and representation to the public pertaining to Syariah laws. This Clinic is manned by
pupils, with the assistance of Syariah lawyers.
Strengths
·
The program help s to enlighten Muslims on their rights and obligations under Syariah law.
Weaknesses
·
Lack of volunteer lawyers to supervise pupils at the Centre, to handle files, or to sit on the Committee
·
No proper planning for the smooth running of the program
·
Not enough skilled trainers to conduct trainings
·
Pupils do not take their duties seriously
·
Not enough publicity to the public on this clinic.
Legal Aid
65
Aid
Recommendations
·
To recruit more volunteers and reactivate the committee
·
To have good working relationship with Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Syariah Courts
·
To organize more outreach sessions to create awareness amongst the public on syariah law.
3. DOCK BRIEF PROGRAM
Report prepared by B Murugayah - Joint Project Head for Dock Brief and Prisons Program
Arunan Selvaraj – Joint Project Head for Prisons and Dock Brief Program
Mary Song
Amir Hamzah Amha
Introduction
The program provides legal advice, representation and assistance to unrepresented persons in seven Magistrate Courts in
Jalan Raja, Kuala Lumpur. Pupils interview, and offer assistance for remand hearings, bail applications and mitigation of
sentences. They also do legal research, prepare submissions and liaise with the courts, prosecution and police.
Strengths
·
The program provides a vital service of legal advice and representation to remand detainees and their families
·
Helps to give remand detainees a second chance to rehabilitate themselves.
Weaknesses
·
Low number of bail applications
·
Lack of representation in remand hearings
·
Lack of confidence and initiative of pupils
·
Need for cooperation between the Prosecution, Judiciary and LAC
·
Lack of supervisors to assist pupils in court.
Recommendations
·
To have more talks and seminars on legal matters such as UNHCR workshop on refugees and asylum seekers
·
Systematic training and briefing for pupils especially by senior practitioners
·
Meetings with Judiciary to facilitate the process of representation
·
To build a team of legal supervisors to assist pupils in courts
·
To come up with plans and strategies to decrease the remand population.
4.
SG BULOH AND KAJANG WOMEN PRISON CLINIC, SUNGAI BULOH AND KAJANG MIGRANT WORKERS
CLINIC AND JUVENILE REMAND HOME CLINIC
Report prepared by Arunan Selvaraj (Oct – Dec) - Joint Project Head for Prisons and Dock Brief Program
Kitson Foong (Jan-Oct)
Introduction
The objectives are to reduce remand/prison time and the remand/prison population, to ensure that detainees, especially
juveniles, have access to legal advice and representation and to assist family members with advice and information.
The prisons program encompasses the Sungai Buloh and Kajang Women Prison Clinic, Sungai Buloh and Kajang Migrant
Workers Clinic and Juvenile Remand Home Program. These programs were merged earlier this year for better coordination
and use of resources and costs.
Pupils interview detainees at the prisons, contact and help family members to obtain bail and assist Dock Brief Program
in preparing mitigations. Pupils also contact Embassies to inform them of their citizens in remand, and also refer cases
involving detainees from other states to the relevant Bar Council Legal Aid Centres for their assistance.
Strengths
·
The program helps to reduce the remand population in prisons
·
The program is an important avenue for remand detainees to seek justice.
66
Legal Aid
Weaknesses
·
Lack of volunteer lawyers to handle files
·
Lack of feedback on the cases referred to the other State Legal Aid Centres
·
Pupils’ inability to extract proper facts from the detainees, facts not being in order and Interview Sheets not being
completed properly
·
Pupils’ inability to give adequate advice to the detainees.
Recommendations
·
To have proper place to conduct interviews at the Sungai Buloh Prison
·
To have interpreters available for remand prisoners who are not conversant in English or Malay
·
To ensure that remand prisoners do not remain in remand for more than three months
·
To increase liaisons and cooperation with the authorities
·
To have more exposure and training to be given to the pupils and to improve pupils advocacy skills
·
To recruit more volunteer lawyer to assist in handling of the cases.
·
To have LAC posters in Prisons and Juvenile Homes for the public and family members to contact LAC.
5.
LAC/TENAGANITA – MIGRANT WORKERS CLINIC
Report prepared by Aegile Fernandez / Florida S
Introduction
Migrant workers have sacrificed much, leaving their families behind and paying exorbitant amounts to agents, to work
in Malaysia. They contribute towards our prosperity and well-being by doing the Dirty, Dangerous & Demeaning work
that Malaysians no longer want to do. There are unfair and inaccurate negative images of migrant workers, eg that
they bring in diseases and commit crimes. Migrant workers are among the most marginalised communities in Malaysia,
and suffer many abuses eg not being paid wages, poor working and living conditions, and sometimes physical injury
and death. They have many serious difficulties with employers and government authorities (such as the Immigration
dept, Police, EPF), and often their embassies do not help. This Clinic, with duty pupils, assists documented migrant
workers of many nationalities with those problems.
Strengths
·
Sensitizes pupils towards human rights and inhumane treatment of migrant workers and increases empathy towards
migrant workers. Debunks negative images of migrant workers
·
Pupils, as lawyers from the Legal Aid Centre representing migrant workers elicit better responses from employers
and government officers.
Weaknesses
·
Pupils’ lack of experience result in lack of assertiveness when representing migrant workers and lack of critical
analysis of cases especially when there are conflicting laws and policies
·
Pupils very often give priority to their Masters, which adversely affects punctuality and attendance
·
Pupils’ resistance to weekend outreach programs with migrant workers
·
Decreased number of pupils per batch - adversely affects services
·
Tenaganita has a module for the two-day pupils training program but has yet to develop a manual
·
Lack of lawyers for Arrest, Detention and Deportation cases
·
Legal aid lawyers do not charge legal fees, but clients, including migrant workers must pay disbursements eg court
fees and mileage claims. Migrant workers are unable to pay disbursements as they cannot work at the time, and
further must raise RM100 per month for special Immigration passes to remain in Malaysia. Accordingly, many
migrant workers cannot pursue their legal rights.
Recommendations
·
Preparation of Materials and pamphlets for distribution in various languages to migrant workers, eg Arrest, Detention
and Bail, Employment Act and Immigration Act
·
To increase dialogue/consultation with Judiciary on conflicting laws eg Immigration Act and legal status and
Employment Act remedies
·
Coordination with other NGOs in other clinics at Legal Aid Centre:
o
To evaluate, discuss common issues/concerns to strengthen the services/interventions
o
For collaborative action, eg Prisons Clinic and Migrant Workers Clinic can collaborate on the Arrest of
Legal Aid
67
Migrants and Trafficked Women
Empowerment of and legal education of Migrant Communities as to their rights, eg by Sunday outreach programs
Review of LAC policy against representation for Undocumented Migrant Workers. They should not be denied
justice and basic human rights merely because they lack proper documentation.
·
·
6.
LAC/AWAM LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICE CLINIC
Report prepared by Pushpa Ratnam - Project Head
(Declined editing by Chairperson)
Committee Members BCLACKL
Zoe Leong
Stefeny David
Mary Manickam
Wendy Lee
Raymond Tan
Hanita Naliane
Michelles, Foo Li Mei (new member)
AWAM Representatives
Azila Bakri
Wong Lai Cheng
PROGRAM AND OBJECTIVES
The Clinic is run in co-operation with the All Women’s Action Society (AWAM), an independent feminist organization committed
to improving the lives of women in Malaysia. To this extent, AWAM lobbies and advocates for improved legislations and policies
and has carried out extensive research. As a result of such research, AWAM has published books on Rape and Sexual
Harassment. AWAM is also focused in raising awareness on a range of issues with the hope of changing the perceptions,
which restricts women’s freedom and rights.
AWAM also conduct trainings and provides counseling services and legal information service. Together with the Bar Council
Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) the clinic offers women free legal advice in the areas of family, rape, domestic violence and
violence against women generally. We also assist in other civil and syariah matters. For women who are unable to afford legal
representation, the Clinic assists in arranging for this to be obtained at a nominal fee.
STRENGTHS OF THE CLINIC
The pupils play a very important role in this Clinic by providing the necessary legal information services. The pupils during
their reviews have indicated that they found the Clinic very useful and that they had learned a lot on issues faced by
women. Whereas on our part, we take pride that we have successfully sensitized a majority of these pupils.
This year the committee had set up a rota for each and every committee member to be on duty as the supervisory lawyer
for a period of one week and they are required to be at AWAM at least once during their duty week to oversee the pupils
and to look through the Interview sheets. This ensures check and balance and maximum utilisation of each volunteer
lawyer in the team. Whilst on duty, the volunteer lawyer would take all calls from the pupils. This reflects consistency in
the advice given.
Let us take this opportunity to extend our thanks to our committee members for their consistent effort and consistent
attendance at AWAM in assisting and ensuring the success of the Clinic. Meanwhile, we welcome our new member Ms
Michelles Foo Li Mei who has shown such enthusiasm in joining us as of December 2005.
The Clinic is run everyday from Monday to Saturday from 10.00 am to 4.30 pm. In addition, the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre
(Kuala Lumpur) managed to network successfully with the Selangor Legal Aid Centre pupils to take part in this Clinic as part
of their legal aid duty.
The committee met on the 13 August 2005 to hold its inaugural new committee meeting upon taking of fice for the year 2005.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YEAR 2006
.
OUTREACH CLINIC
The committee proposed outreach clinics with the community leaders at grassroots level. The committee has now identified
Pantai Dalam as a potential area and hope to conduct an outreach sometime in March 2006.
68
Legal Aid
TELEVISIONS AND RADIO NETWORK
The committee is looking into going on air to publicize the activities of LAC/ AWAM and we proposed to do this in February
or March 2006.
7.
LAC/SISTER’S IN ISLAM (SIS) CLINIC
Report Prepared by SIS
SIS Representative
Razlina Razali
Introduction
This Clinic provides legal advice, education and assistance to the public on civil and syariah law. Pupils provide advice to
clients, document the problems faced and do legal research. They also liaise with relevant authorities eg: police, courts and
religious departments.
Strengths
·
Sensitisation of public on Muslim Women’s issues
·
Avenue for Muslims to raise concerns and lobby for law reform
·
Addresses issues of public interest such as policing public morality.
Weaknesses
·
Lack of support from syariah practitioners
·
Lack of ex-pupils joining as supervisors.
Recommendations
·
Lobby for law reform and conduct research
·
To conduct training for women on their rights under Syariah laws
·
To conduct outreach clinics at Muslim settlements
·
To encourage critical analysis of laws and gender discrimination, and to lobby relevant authorities such as the AG
Chambers, JAKIM, State Authorities, the newspaper, etc
·
Build up rapport with the Syarie lawyers to encourage them to assist this program.
8.
LACKL/PTF LEGAL INFORMATION SER VICE CLINIC
Report prepared by Preetam Kaur - Project Head
Committee Members
LACKL representatives
So Chien Hao
Loh Wei Leong
Wong Ee Lynn
Lim Ka-Tsung
Lee Choo Suat, Tevina
Pink Triangle Foundations representatives
Hisham Hussein (PTF Chair)
Sulastri Ariffin
Introduction
This joint Clinic with Pink Triangle Foundation (PTF) has been conducting the legal clinic for the most marginalized communities
such as drug users, sex workers, people living with HIV/AIDS, transsexuals and homosexual men and women. The main
objective of the clinic is to protect and create awareness of their fundamental human rights.
This was a difficult year for the PTF committee with many changes in officers; disrupting several proposed activities.
However, the recent widely publicized case of police harassment of Mumtaz was from this clinic. (Mumtaz, a transsexual
was compelled to strip and was humiliated by the Ipoh police). The treatment of Mumtaz is a prime example of what the six
communities face daily; Mumtaz alone has been brave enough to pursue this issue.
We therefore appeal for more volunteer lawyers to support us in our struggle to assist these six communities.
Legal Aid
69
a)
Pupils Program- Legal Information Clinic at PTF
The committee takes this opportunity to stress that the PTF clients are not your usual walk-in clients, as
compared to other clinics. These clients feel intimidated and/or are not comfortable to come to LACKL; they
prefer to attend gatherings ie talks and seminars where they are more comfortable to voice individual or
collective problems. Advice and assurance are the only things that they seek, not legal action. We have
reverted to talks and seminars, as this has produced the best results with respect to attendance and issues
being raised.
b)
Workshop cum Legal Clinic (4 – 6:30 pm, 24.6.2005)
1)
A higher than expected 25 members of the Transsexual and Sex Workers community attended the session. Ms S,
a homeless and destitute sex worker had her newborn baby stolen by another sex worker. Despite two police
reports, no action was taken for several months although she had identified the sex worker to the police. WE
assisted her in making another police report. The police arrested the sex worker on the very same night and she
has now been charged.
2)
Session (2 – 4 pm, 26.8.2005)
40 members from the drug users’ community attended. There was active participation regarding police supervision
and police harassment, particularly the lack of sensitivity of police officers or prison wardens to HIV+ detainees in
their refusal to give immediate access to the suspects’ medication, which is vital. The PTF committee plans a
dialogue session with the police, prison authorities and members.
Strengths
·
Commitment and efforts of members of the marginalized communities in arranging sessions and conducting outreach
programs
Sensitisation and insight of pupils to the realities and problems of the marginalized communities
Support of JAWI and other relevant government departments.
·
·
Weaknesses
·
Lack of support from the Syariah practitioners, although a large number of the PT community are Muslims and
require legal representation in the Syariah Courts;
Lack of volunteer lawyers to oversee the Clinic and assist the clients
Lack of support from the relevant law making agencies charged with safeguarding the interests of the communities.
·
·
Recommendations
·
·
·
Recruitment of more committed lawyers to assist in this project
More seminar sessions with the six communities preferably once or twice a month;
Dialogue sessions with the relevant government departments i.e. NRD, police, and prison authorities.dle
9.
LAC/WAO Legal Information of Advocacy
Report prepared by WAO
This is a joint clinic with Women’s Aid Organisation, a voluntary, non-government women’s organization. Pupils assist the
social workers in educating clients on their legal rights and with client programmes. They accompany women to the courts
and police stations and assist by explaining the procedures and required actions; to give the clients more confidence. To
assist in research, monitoring courts and advocacy work on law and policies that discriminate women and around violence
against women issues.
Recommendations
·
Regular meetings and visits with LAC coordinators and WAO to sort out administrative matters such as attendance,
documentation and a review of the means test in view of urban costs of living.
70
Legal Aid
10. FUND-RAISING PROGRAM
Report prepared by So Chien Hao – Project Head
Committee Members
So Chien Hao
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Vivien Lim
Junny Erfisyahry Khairul Anwar
N Vijaya
Lee Shet Mei
Ramanaambigai Marimuthu
Introduction
As Legal Aid funds are limited, the objective was to raise funds to improve the efficiency of the operations of LACKL and
working environment for employee welfare.
Activities
The film premiere “National Treasure” was organized for 13.1.2005. RM20, 000 was collected.
Strengths
·
Support and generosity of members of the Bar and other generous individuals.
Weaknesses
·
Lack of volunteer lawyers
·
Lack of ideas.
Recommendations
·
Better planning mechanisms.
11. LEGAL AWARENESS PROGRAM (ORIENTATION)
Report prepared by Secretariat
Committee Members
Charles Hector
Sivarasa Rasiah
Sharmini Thiruchelvam
Latheefa Koya
N Surendran
Stanley Sinnappen
Harleen Kaur
Amer Hamzah Arshad
Introduction
This program intends to give pupils a “real dimension” as to what is required from them in their 14-day compulsory Legal Aid
duty and to introduce them to the various clinics and programs conducted by Legal Aid Centre.
Objectives
·
To assist pupils to discover their role and responsibility as lawyers in society, and to develop a sense of social
obligation and a concern for human rights, rule of law and justice
·
To introduce pupils to new ideas, and to instill and develop long term commitment towards legal aid and access to
justice, beyond the compulsory Legal Aid duty.
The sessions (about 5 hours each), uses a participative methodology, with group dynamics and general discussions. The structure is new, and is being modified and developed according to pupils’ evaluations.
Strengths
·
Motivation of pupils on the need to serve the needy and marginalized
·
Education of pupils on human rights and instills in them a sense of justice.
Weaknesses
·
Time, Human Resources / Volunteers with the appropriate skills or those open to undergoing training
·
Budget constraints and Follow-Up Actions.
Legal Aid
71
Recommendations
·
To be able to organize more awareness and human rights sessions for lawyers and/or even the public
·
To organize training and formation sessions for lawyers involved in Legal Aid/Human Rights work at the Legal Aid &
Human Rights Centres of the Malaysian Bar.
11. SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Report prepared by Ravi Nekoo – Project Head
Committee Members
Ravi Nekoo
Sreekant Pillai
Andiappan Arumugam
Kurien Ray
Jescey
Mary Manickam
A. Balakisnan
Doreen Wan
K. A. Ramu
Vilashini Menon
Introduction
This Program aims to develop/enhance skills and increase motivation amongst all pupils, NGO partners and volunteer
lawyers in order to improve the quality of service delivered to the clients.
Objectives:
.
Organizing/evolving training programs for current and future volunteers lawyers and paralegals to meet the needs of
LACKL
.
Assisting with training programs for pupils
.
Reviewing the training programs making recommendations for improvements, as appropriate
.
Training of trainers.
Activities
i)
Criminal Law Training on “Learn How to Conduct a Criminal Trial – A Step by Step Guide” (24.9.2005)
40 lawyers attended the training program, together with 30 volunteer lawyers who took part in the role-plays for the
Moot Trials.
-
The goal was to create a pool of criminal law practitioners to assist the LACKL by handling criminal files. Many
criminal files remain unassigned, and this hampers our work in reducing the prisons remand population
For continuity in the training and to bolster the confidence of lawyers to handle criminal files, a “Buddy System” was
introduced, for experienced criminal defence lawyers to guide fresh criminal law practitioners.
-
ii)
Para-Legal Training for Legal Aid Staff and NGO Partners (19.11.2005)
-
32 participants - including staff of LACKL, Kedah LAC, Kangar LAC, Sungai Petani LAC, Kelantan LAC, Kuala
Lumpur Bar Committee and NGO Partners, namely Suaram, Community Development Centre (CDC), Pusat
Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS), All Women Action Society (AWAM), Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), Sisters In Islam (SIS), Women And Health Association of Kuala Lumpur (WAKE) and Pink Triangle Foundation.
Due to shortage of volunteer lawyers, paralegal training is important to take up the slack
This was intended to motivate and equip staff to have a broader understanding of and be better able to carry out their
work
The training included basic criminal law, family law, employment law and syariah law.
-
Strengths
·
Enhances the legal skills, knowledge and confidence of participants, to equip and encouraged them to handle files
and carry out Legal Aid work.
·
Facilitates and complements existing LACKL programs.
Weaknesses
·
Budget constraints.
72
Legal Aid
Recommendations
·
Duration - Most participants prefer shorter hours and for the program to be spread over a few more days as opposed
to the long hours now.
·
Crowd Capacity- Sessions should be conducted in smaller groups to be more effective
·
Concise - Topics held should be more focused. The reading materials should be more compact and organized
·
Inviting senior lawyers as trainers.
·
Videotape training sessions, for future training sessions and to incorporate into training materials for pupils
Future training:
·
Staff training (Part II)
·
Training of trainers
(The Committee had planned training sessions on Employment law and Family law, but the Bar Council Finance Committee
has suggested that generally trainings should be conducted by the Bar Council Continuing Legal Education).
Legal Aid
73
E
BAR COUNCIL LEGAL AID CENTRE (KUALA LUMPUR) AUDITED ACCOUNTS 2005
BAR COUNCIL LEGAL AID CENTRE
(KUALA LUMPUR)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - 31 DECEMBER, 2005
SINGAM & YONG
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
KUALA LUMPUR
74
Legal Aid
Legal Aid
75
76
Legal Aid
Legal Aid
77
78
Legal Aid
Legal Aid
79
80
Legal Aid
FACTIVE VOLUNTEER LAWYERS 2005
Name
Firm
A Balakisnan
Bala Naido & Partners
Abd Nasir Abd Aziz
Malik & Partners
Abdul Halim Bin Bahari
A. Halim, Hanafi & Zulkarnain
Abdul Rashid Bin Abdul Rahman
A Rashid & Azlin
Ahmad Badri Idris
Ram Reza & Muhamad
Ahmad Nazery B. Shamsudin
Y H Teh & Quek
Ahmad Ridza
Ahmad Ridza & Assoc.
Ahmad Rizal Effande
A. R. Effande & Hisham
Ahmad Tarmizi Bin Shariff
Tarmizi & Marzuki
Alexis Diana
A Diana & Co
Alice Hoo
Vazeer Akbar Majid & Co.
Amer Hamzah Arshad
Zain & Co
Amir Hamzah Amha
Raja Nor & Su Lynn
Ananthakrishnan
Yahaya Krishnan
Andrew Teh
Wong Lu Peen & Tunku Alina
Andy Yong Kim Seng
S B Cheah & Associates
Andiappan Arumugam
Hariharan Mohanna & Co
Anna Poorani Alagendra
N Saraswathy Devi
Anne Pang
Nordin Torji & Yusoff Ahmad
Anne Wong Wai Yee
Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis
Arunan Selvaraj
Rusmah Arunan & Associates
Avtar Dhaliwal
Dhaliwal & Naicker
Azizzul Shahriman Bin Mat Yusoff
Azizzul Shahriman & Adzly
Azmer B. Md Saad
Lainah Yaacob & Zulkepli
Azrol Abdullah
Skrine
Baljit Singh Sidhu
Shukor Baljit & Partners
Ben Lee Kam Foo
Ken Yong & Ben Lee
Bernard A/L Francis
Shamiah K.E. Ng & Siva
Bernard Gomes
Bernard Gomes & Co
Bernard Lewis
Ainul Rohan Anuar & Associates
Bhupinder
Firdaus Shanti Cross & Bhupin
Chandra Segaran
Prem & Chandra
Charles Hector
Hector & Co
Cheh Chooi Jing
Cheh & Co
Cheng Poh Heng
Cheng Poh Heng & Co
Chitra Devi Sundram
Kim & Devi
Chong Chee Yin
Chow Wai Hing, Agnes
Naqiz & Partners
Choy Lai Yi
Ng Yook Woon, Andrew T.C. Saw & Co
Chuah Huan Bee
Chuah Teo & Co
D M Rao
D M Rao & Associates
Deepinder Kaur
Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners
Devika Sothinathan
Sothi & Ang
Dianah Hashim
Edlin Ghazali & Rahim
Dir Kheizwan Bin Kamruddin
Manjit Singh Sachdev Mohammad Radzi & Partners
Doreen Wan
Michael Chai & Co
Legal Aid
81
Name
82
Firm
Edmund Bon
Chooi & Co
Edward Lee Chee Kid
Lee Leow & Co
Edward Saw Keat Leong
Ng Yook Woon, Andrew T C Saw & Co.
Ee Eng Joo, Jeremy
Ee Eng Joo & Partners
Ellen Cheran Devendran
Malik & Associates
Ezane Chong
Skrine
Fadhlina Dato’ Sidek
Mohamed Isa & Assoc.
Fadil Azuwan Bin Zainon
Arifin & Partners
Fahri Azzat
Azzat & Izzat
Faridah Hanim Ibrahim
Francis Goh
Francis Goh Alvin John & Co
Francis Pereira
Francis Pereira & Shan
Francis Peter
Syed Mubarak, Francis, Zainal & Partners
G Nanda Goban
Goban & Company
Halimaton Sa’adiah Baharuddin
Albar & Partners
Hanita Naliane
Hanita & Associates
Harleen Kaur
Michael Chai & Co
Hasshahari Johari Mawi
Zakiah Hasshahari & Co
Heama Latha Nair
Anthony Chew & Lim
Helen Chin
L M Chin & Co.
Hendon Mohamed
Rastam Singa & Co
Heng Hiong Swee
Yeoh Mazlina & Partners
Heng Sue Yin / Poong Mun Yee
Kadir Andri & Partners
Herlina Ahmad Basri
Khairuddin Lina Leong & Co.
How Boon Seng
How & Associates
Indran K. Naidu
Indran Malar & Co.
Irene Yong
Khaw & Partners
J Chamundeeswari
Azam Malik & Soh
J. J. Naidu
J. J. Naidu & Rakan-Rakan
Jackie Bevan
Bevan & Co
Jag Ramachandran
The Chambers Of Jag Ramachandran
Jagdish Kaur
A. S. Jag & Co.
Jane Carlos
Ong Kok Bin & Co
Lim Jaya & Co
Jayamurugan Vadivelu & Partners
Jegathesan Govindaraju
Najah Raw Jega & Co
Joachim Maria
Chooi & Co.
Joseph Iruthayam
Joseph Iruthayam & Co
Josephine Wong
Soraya Chuah & Assoc
Joshua Kevin
Syed Alwi Ng & David Chong
Joyce Joan Fernandez
Vazeer Akhbar Majid & Co
Ram Reza & Muhammad
K A Ramu
K A Ramu Vasanthi & Associates
K M Nachammai
Meg Nacha & Co
K Maheswari
Maheswari & Co
K Parameswary
Nekoo Parames & Tung
Kamaleswari Shanmugam
S Kandasamy & Co
Legal Aid
Name
Firm
Kamarul Azman Yahaya
Azri, Chuah & Yap
Kamarul Zaman Abdul Rahman
Kamarul Abdul Rahman
Kasthuri Krishnan
Kasthuri & Co
Kasthuri Sellapan
Azariah & Associates
Kevin Koo S.K.
Koo Chin Nam & Co.
Khabir Dhillon
David Morais & Co.
Khairul Arifin
Norahayati Deol & Partners
Kiswaty Bte Haji Abdullah
Abu Bakar & Yong
Kitson Foong
Kitson Foong & Associates
Kuldeep Kumar
J Kuldeep Kumar & Co
Kurien Ray
-
L H Wong
The Law Office Of L H Wong
L I Kannan
Shahrizat Rashid & Lee
Latheefa Koya
Daim & Gamany
Lee Choo Suat
Azman Davidson & Co
Lee Shet Mei
E T Lim & Partners
Lee Tee Kiat
Saibullah M V Nathan
Lee Tiong Hooi
Chim Yiam & Associates
Leela Baskaran
Skrine
Leelawathy Rajasingam
R Leela & Associates
Leong Yeen San
San Leong
Lim Jit Kiong
H. S. Lim & Assoc.
Lim Ka-Tsung
Raslan Loong
Liow Boon Lee
Norma Goh & Co
Loh Mei Fun
M F Loh & Co
Loh Ping Kit
Abu Talib Shahrom & Zahari
Loh Wei Leong
Raslan Loong
Low Bin Hwa
Chye Chow Chung & Co
M Kaliaperumal
Kamar Kali & Associates
M Kamalam
M Kamalam & Associates
M Mogan Mariappan
Ho Mogan & Nor’aini
M Sathiaseelan
M Sathia & Associates
M Visvanathan
Saibullah M V Nathan
Mabel Yong
P L Yong & Partners
Mageswaran Rajangom
Muthu Suppiah & Assoc
Manjeet Kaur
Manjeet K. Sarjit & Co.
Manogaran
Manogar & Co
Mary Manickam
Mary & Partners
Mary Song
Mary Song & Associates
Marzuki B. Hassin
Tarmizi Marzuki & Sulaiman
Maxine Wong Phui May
Michelles Foo Li Mei
Foo Li Mei & Co
Mk Rajasegaran
Ravi Ram & Vjay Aziana
Mohd Fadly
Zuraidah Fadly & Associates
Mohd Firdaus
Mohd Hafiizh Bin Mohd @ Ghazali
Ahmad Fuad Amin & Partners
Mohd Harris
Mohd Harris Mohan & Partners
Legal Aid
83
Name
84
Firm
Mohd Ridzuwan
Suhaimi, Yahya & Co.
Mohd Zaharudeen Harun
Jahaberdeen & Co
Mohd. Hanif Idris
Nazri Aziz & Wong
Molly M. Gomez-Kerisnan
Molly M. Gomez & Associates
N Kalyana Sundram
Kalyana Maslinda & Co
N Surendran
Edwin Lim & Suren
N Vijaya
S Y Lai & Co
N. Kalaichelvi
Chelvi & Co
Nageswary Palanisamy
Halimation Sa’adiah & Nages
Naraendran Thiagarajah
Naraendran & Suria
Ng Sai Yeang
Raja Darryl & Loh
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Ngooi & Partners
Nicole Wee
Chooi & Co.
Nik Mohd Nik Ikhwan
Chooi & Co.
Onn Hussein & Yee
Noor Jihan Binti Noor Yadah
Noor Jihan, Ghazali & Co.
Noorhafiza Izura
Arun & Co.
Nor Azmi Baharom
Nor Azmi & Co
Norafiza Ahmat @ Ahmad Baharuddin
Shariza & Anis
Norhusniah Husin
Zain & Co
Nur Azlin Arif fin
Abdullah & Zainudin
Nurfitra Binti Mohamed Alias
Ong Chin Siong
Siong & Rita
P Jayendran
Jay & Co
P M Arimuthu
Arimuthu & Associates
P. Selvaraj
Raj & Co
P. Vasuvi
P. Vasuvi & Associates
Pannir Selvam A/L Mannar
Nurliny, Pannir Malar & Co.
Parvathy
Par Govind & Co.
Pasupathi Sithamparam
Pathi & Associates
Preetam Kaur
Rithauddin & Azlin
Premala Navaratnam
Prem & Chandra
Pushpa Ratnam
Pushpa Ratnam
R. Shanmugan
Rajadevan Vamadevan
Rajadevan & Associates
Rajasekaran Thiyagarajan
T. Raja & Co.
Rama
Rama, Samuel & Associates
-
Ramesh Lachmanan
Azman Davidson & Co
Ramkarpal Singh
Karpal Singh & Co.
Ramlah Begum
Ramlah & Associates
Ravi Nekoo
Nekoo Parames & Tung
Ravichandran
V. Samynathan & Co.
Ravindran Ramanujam
Ravi Ram & Vjay Aziana
Ravindren Krishnan
Ravi Krish & Co.
Raymond Tan
K H Low & Raymond Tan
Razanna Raslan
Skrine
Legal Aid
Name
Firm
Reena
Lokman Reena & Co.
Shearn Delamore & Co.
Ric Cheah Weng Kah
Putra Ray & Partners
Richard Wee
Azizah Sarina & Khoo
Rodiah Mustafa
Ros Aini Idris & Co
Ros ‘Aini Idris
Ros ‘Aini Idris & Co
Ros Shimah
Kheng Hoe & Partners
Roslin Bahtim
Shaharool Nizam & Co.
Rozita Shaikh Salleh
Ros ‘Aini Idris & Co
S Muhendaran
Muhendaran Sri
S. Sivakumaresan
Syarikat K L Rekhraj
S. Thilagavathy
Hisham Sobri & Kadir
Sa’adiah Din
Sa’adiah Khoo Lo & Co
Samsul Norazudin
Sabri Nazli Lana & Azizan
Santha Devi
Santha Devi
Saodah Md. Yasin, Datin
Saodah & Associates
Saravanan
Saravanan
Saroop Rampal
Norendra & Yap
Seira Sacha Abu Bakar
Mah Kamariyah & Philip Loh
Selvabalan Sinnan
Azman Joseph & Associates
Shabbir Hussain Dhajudeen
Sheila Hussain Vijay & Partners
Shahin A.M. Yunus
Megat Najmuddin Leong & Co.
Shane Cheng
Shanta
Mann & Associates
Shanti
Sharen Rosli
Peter Goh & Nor Jaswa
Shaun Tan Kee Shaan
Shaun K S Tan & Co
Sheila Lingam
Shearn Delamore & Co.
Shirley Ling Siew Lee
Lee Ong & Kandiah
Shobah Veera
Shobah Veera & Associates
Sin Yoong Ming
Raja Ariff & Sin
Sivanesan Nadarajah
Vicknaraj, R D Ratnam, Rajesh Kumar & Associates
Sivarasa Rasiah
Daim & Gamany
So Chien Hao
C H So & Partners
Sonia Jayantkumar Shah
Mak Ong & Ng
Sreekant Pillai
Sreekant Pillai
Sri Kumar
The Chambers Of Sri
Srimurugan
Sri & Co.
Stanley Sinnappen
Vazeer Alhbar Majid & Co
Stefeny David
Stefeny & Co
Su Tiang Joo
Cheah Teh & Su
Suaran Singh Sidhu
Skrine
Subatra Rajaratnam
Subatra & Co.
Sunil Vijayan
The Chambers Of Sunil Vijayan
Suria Kumar
Suria Kumar & Co
Suria Preba
Naraendran & Suria
Legal Aid
85
Name
86
Firm
Susan Joseph
Azman Joseph & Associates
Susielan Thambipillay
Susielan & Associates
Suthesh Perumal
Suthes & Associates
Suzanawati Ismail
Suzana Ismail & Partners
T Vijayandran
T Vijay & Co
T. Samidurai
T. Rajagopalu & Co
Tee En Peng
Lee & Tee
Toh Ah Noi
Mei Noi & Rakan-Rakan
Toh Mi Chele
Raja Darryl & Loh
Tuan Hj Khamshah
Khamshah & Partners
V K Lashmi
V K Lashmi & Co
V Ram
Sivananthan
Vanithamany Sivalingam
S N Fam & Co.
Vasandi Kandasamy
K Vasandi & Co
Vasanthi
K A Ramu Vasanthi & Associates
Vasanthi Clement
Vasdev G. Bakshani
Vasdev Bakshani & Assoc.
Vijeyini Krishnan
Muru & Associates
Vijian Padavvttan
Vijian Chandran & Partners
Viknes
Viknes & Co
Vilasini Menon
Vilasini Menon & Co
Vivien Lim
K H Lim & Kong
Wan Azmir
Shahrizat Rashid & Lee
Wan Sharifah Wan Yusoff
Jamilah Fathiam & Wan
William Edwin
Tee & Edwin
Wong Hin Leong
Azman Davidson & Co.
Wong Kee Them
K T Wong & Co
Yap Siew Yee
Tai King & Partners
Yasmeen Shariff
Mahani Hamid & Yasmeen
Yoganathan Ramasamy
R Y Nathan & Partners
Yong Lai Ling
Yong & Company
Yoong Weng Leong
Hisham & Yoong
Zainab Derahman
Zainab Derahman & Suzana
Zalina Md Rahim
Nedu & Partners
Zoe Leong
Shearn Delamore & Co
Zolkifli Zainudin
Amir Yussof & Zol
Zulkafli Abd Hamid
Zulkafli Hamid & Co
Legal Aid
LAPORAN PENGERUSI
A. Pengenalan
Ia adalah satu kebanggaan bagi saya selaku Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Peguam
Kuala Lumpur (”JPKL”) untuk melapor kepada ahli-ahli bahawa penggal 2005/
6 adalah satu penggal yang sibuk dan produktif disebabkan usaha keras
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur, Sekretariat, Jawatankuasajawatankuasa Kecil dan juga sukarelawan-sukarelawan dari Bar Kuala Lumpur.
Di Majlis Peguam, saya bekerjasama dengan Oommen Koshy, iaitu wakil
kita ke Majlis Peguam untuk membuat representasi sepatutnya dalam perkaraperkara yang melibatkan Bar Kuala Lumpur.
Objektif utama JPKL adalah untuk berusaha dalam memastikan kepentingan
dan kebajikan ahli-ahlinya dan untuk mencapai tujuan ini bagi penggal ini,
matlamat utama JPKL merupakan:
·
·
·
·
·
Untuk mengambil bahagian dengan lebih kerap dalam dialog dengan
pemegang amanah lain di dalam sistem undang-undang seperti Badan
Kehakiman, Jabatan Peguam Negara dan Pejabat Tanah untuk
memperbaiki keberkesanaan dan produktiviti amalan undang-undang kita;
Untuk memperbaiki dan meningkatkan aktiviti-aktiviti kita berbanding
dengan tempoh sebelum ini terutamanya yang melibatkan peguam-peguam
muda dan Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda;
Untuk meningkatkan pendapatan bukan yuran bagi pembayaran aktivitiaktiviti tanpa bergantung sepenuhnya kepada yuran ahli-ahli;
Untuk meningkatkan servis-servis bukan profesional kepada ahli-ahli seperti pakej
istimewa dengan servis yang lebih baik atau kadar yang lebih rendah; dan
Untuk memperbaiki Sekretariat melalui pemberian kuasa kepada
Sekretariat dengan memberi penekanan kepada dokumentasi prosesproses kerja dan prosedur pejabat dan latihan.
Laporan ini akan menunjukkan bahawa kami telah berjaya memenuhi sebahagian
besar objektif utama kami. Namun demikian ini adalah, seperti biasa, suatu
proses yang memerlukan jangkamasa yang panjang dan kita hanya boleh
berharap bahawa kemajuan boleh diteruskan selepas penggal ini.
B. Aktiviti-aktiviti Jawatankuasa
(i) Mesyuarat-mesyuarat dengan Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden
Mahkamah Rayuan dan Hakim Besar Malaya
Jawatankuasa ini telah melawat Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan Hakim Besar
Malaya pada 24 Mei 2005 dan 16 Jun 2005 masing-masing. Pelbagai isu
telah dibangkitkan di mesyuarat-mesyuarat itu dan kami akan mengambil
tindakan susulan dengan Hakim Besar Malaya dalam isu-isu seperti
perkembangan pembinaan Kompleks Mahkamah KL di Jalan Duta, servisservis transkripsi mahkamah dan penyamaan perintah-perintah pengendalian
kes dan penyediaan fee guaman.
Jawatankuasa ini bertemu dengan Ketua Hakim Negara pada 8 Februari 2006
untuk mengambil tindakan susulan dalam isu-isu yang dibincangkan di
mesyuarat sebelum ini yang diadakan pada 11 Jun 2004 dengan Jawatankuasa
penggal sebelum ini, dan untuk membangkitkan isu-isu baru. Ketua Hakim
Negara setuju untuk melibatkan Badan Peguam dalam dialog berkenaan
Laporan Pengerusi
87
pembaharuan kepada prosedur mahkamah. Dalam perkaraperkara yang melibatkan Bar KL, suatu Jawatankuasa Ad Hoc
yang terdiri daripada seorang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan
dan seorang Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dan wakil-wakil dari
JPKL, dan seorang Pemegang Jawatan Majlis Peguam. Kami
berharap supaya mesyuarat pertama Jawatankuasa Ad Hoc
ini boleh diadakan sebelum akhir penggal ini. Di mesyuarat
pada 8 Februari 2006, kami telah membangkitkan pelbagai
isu seperti perlunya suatu Suruhanjaya Perlantikan Hakim,
perlunya Suruhanjaya Reform Undang-undang, perlunya dialog
yang lebih kerap diantara 3 pemegang amanah prinsipal dalam
sistem undang-undang iaitu Badan Peguam, Badan
Kehakiman dan Jabatan Peguam Negara dan perlunya hakimhakim dan majistret-majistret yang berkualiti di KL.
(ii) Perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan Bukan Profesional
Perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan berikut diberikan kepada ahliahli dalam tempoh penggal ini sebagai sebahagian daripada
usaha berterusan JPKL untuk mendapatkan tawaran yang
paling baik untuk kesemua ahli-ahli dengan menggunakan
jumlah ahli-ahli sebagai pengaruh:
·
Surat Khabar Sun Daily
Pada April 2005, aturan telah dibuat dengan Sun Daily
untuk membekalkan surat khabar mereka tanpa
mengenakan bayaran di 3 Bilik-bilik Peguam di
Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad, Wisma Denmark dan
Mahkamah Sesyen & Majistret KL.
(iii) Pusat Bantuan Guaman – Rayuan untuk Lebih
Sukarelawan-sukarelawan dan Penyiasatan-penyiasatan
Bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur, saya telah
menghantarkan surat-surat kepada rakan-rakan kongsi
pentadbir atau rakan-rakan kongsi kanan sebanyak 121 firmafirma guaman (yang mana 36 firma telah menyumbang) untuk
meminta bantuan peguam-peguam mereka dalam pelbagai
projek-projek Pusat Bantuan Guaman. Berbangkit daripada
ini, peguam-peguam dari 38 firma-firma guaman telah
menawarkan diri mereka. Selepas itu, permintaan untuk
bantuan dibuat oleh Presiden kepada ahli-ahli seluruh Bar
Malaysia. Kami akan menilai keadaan sekali lagi sebelum
akhir penggal bagi memutuskan sama ada surat-surat patut
dihantar sekali lagi.
·
Buku-buku Undang-undang Sumbangan Ikhlas
Pada Jun 2005, kami berjaya mendapatkan untuk
kegunaan ahli-ahli beberapa buku-buku undang-undang
sumbangan ikhlas dari Malayan Law Journal. Buku-buku
undang-undang ini diletakkan di Bilik-bilik Peguam di Wisma
Denmark dan Mahkamah Sesyen dan Majistret KL.
Penyiasatan kumpulan peguam yang dilantik untuk
menyiasat tuduhan-tuduhan melibatkan Pusat Bantuan
Guaman telah selesai dan laporan mereka sedang
dimuktamadkan. Kami berharap untuk melaporkan mengenai
isu ini di Mesyurat Agung Tahunan sekiranya laporan ini
telah selesai disediakan.
·
Amanah Raya Berhad
Kerjasama pertama adalah dengan Amanah Raya
Berhad, sebuah syarikat yang pakar dalam bidang
amanah dan pengurusan legasi. Jumlah tajaan yang
diperolehi dari Amanah Raya Berhad adalah yang paling
tinggi tahun ini iaitu RM30,000.00.
(iv) Mesyuarat-mesyuarat Jawatankuasa
·
·
·
Celcom
Pada Disember 2005, selepas rundingan yang sekian
lama, kami memasuki suatu kerjasama dengan Celcom
dan membawa kepada ahli-ahli pakej-pakej eksklusif
3G dan Minutes. Melalui kerjasama ini, kami juga
memperolehi tajaan sebanyak RM10,000.00 dari Celcom
untuk aktiviti-aktiviti kita.
Maxis
Untuk usaha-usaha kami memperolehi pakej Maxis
Blueberry dan wang tajaan untuk Bar Malaysia, Majlis
Peguam memberi kami RM5000.00 dari wang yang
diterima oleh mereka.
Subang Jaya Medical Centre (SJMC)
Pada Januari 2006, kami memasuki suatu kerjasama
dengan SJMC untuk memberi kepada ahli-ahli dan ahliahli keluarga terdekat pakej-pakej “Special Health
Screening”. SJMC juga mengesahkan bahawa mereka
akan mengambil suatu mukasurat penuh untuk 4
keluaran Relevan bagi tujuan pengiklanan yang
membawa hasil sejumlah RM5,400.00 kepada JPKL.
88 Laporan Pengerusi
Sehingga 10.02.2006, Jawatankuasa berjumpa sebanyak
10 kali dan kehadiran setiap ahli adalah seperti berikut:
Lim Chee Wee
-
10
Steven Thiru
-
10
Anand Ponnudurai
-
9
Teh Yoke Hooi
-
10
R Ravindra Kumar
-
10
Stanley Sinnappen
-
8
Abdul Rashid Ismail
-
9
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
-
7
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
-
9
Oommen Koshy, wakil ke Majlis Peguam dijemput untuk
menghadiri mesyuarat-mesyuarat Jawatankuasa sebagai
pemerhati dan juga untuk melapor ke Majlis Peguam mengenai
perkara-perkara yang berkaitan apakala penting dan diperlukan.
Beliau telah menghadiri 7 mesyuarat kesemuanya.
Pengerusi dan Setiausaha Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda,
Richard Wee dan Melissa Ram, juga telah dijemput untuk
menghadiri mesyuarat-mesyuarat Jawatankuasa sebagai
pemerhati-pemerhati. Mereka menghadiri sejumlah 10 dan
9 mesyuarat masing-masing.
(v) Kewangan, Yuran dan Pendapatan Bukan Yuran
Kedudukan kewangan Jawatankuasa kekal stabil dengan
jumlah wang sebanyak RM671,034.00 di Deposit Tetap dan
RM258,422.00 di dalam Akaun Amanah dengan Amanah
Raya Berhad. Perincian bagi kedudukan kewangan adalah
sepertimana yang dibentangkan di dalam Akaun Teraudit
berakhir pada 31.12.2005.
Yuran bagi tahun 2005 dikekalkan pada RM100.00 di
Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan pada 10.03.2005. Pada akhir
tahun kewangan bagi Jawatankuasa pada 31.12.2005, 63
ahli-ahli masih belum menjelaskan yuran bagi tahun 2005.
Kami dapat memungut sejumlah RM132,890.00 dari tajaantajaan, pengiklanan di laman web dan surat berita dan
syarahan Pendidikan Undang-undang Lanjutan, dengan
sumbangan tajaan sebanyak RM30,000.00 dari Amanah
Raya Berhad sebagai penaja tunggal terbesar.
Penggal ini, kami membuat sasaran untuk mendapatkan
belanjawan yang seimbang supaya nilai yuran dapat
dimanfaatkan kepada ahli-ahli dengan cara mengadakan
aktiviti-aktiviti. Namun, setelah aktiviti-aktiviti diadakan, kami
mendapati masih terdapat lebihan kewangan pada akhir
tahun kewangan
C. Aktiviti-aktiviti Jawatankuasa Kecil
Penggal ini, Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur telah
menubuhkan suatu jawatankuasa kecil yang baru iaitu
Jawatankuasa Amalan Jenayah dengan Ravindra Kumar
sebagai pengerusi dan Sivananthan sebagai naib pengerusi
kerana kami berpendapat bahawa suatu jawatankuasa kecil
yang berasingan diperlukan supaya lebih banyak sumbersumber boleh diperuntukkan kepada keperluan-keperluan
Bar Jenayah di Kuala Lumpur.
11 Jawatankuasa-jawtankuasa Kecil dan pengerusipengerusi mereka adalah:
i Pendidikan Undang-undang Lanjutan : Steven Thiru
ii Amalan Konveyansing
: Lim Chee Wee
iii Perhubungan Mahkamah (Sivil)
:R Ravindra Kumar
iv Amalan Jenayah
:R Ravindra Kumar
vUndang-undang Alam Sekitar
:Stanley Sinnappen
vi Teknologi Maklumat
:Abdul Rashid Ismail
vii Bantuan Guaman
:Ngooi Chiu-Ing
viii Penerbitan
:Teh Yoke Hooi
ix Sosial dan Kebajikan
:Ivan Wong
x Sukan
:Anand Ponnudurai
xi Peguam Muda
:Richard Wee
Ahli-ahli jawatankuasa tersebut seringkali menolong satu
sama lain dari segi penyertaan dan bantuan-bantuan yang
lain. Pengerusi-pengerusi bagi setiap Jawatankuasajawatankuasa kecil telah memimpin dengan amat baik dan
senarai aktiviti-aktiviti yang dapat dilihat di dalam laporanlaporan Jawatankuasa kecil adalah bukti kepada rancangan
strategik dan perlaksanaan lancar rancangan-rancangan oleh
Jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa kecil.
D. Perwakilan di Majlis Peguam
Dalam Majlis Peguam, Oommen Koshy dan saya telah
mengemukakan pelbagai perkara yang melibatkan Bar Kuala
Lumpur, termasuk Pusat Bantuan Guaman, premis untuk
Sekretariat di dalam bangunan Majlis Peguam, pindaanpindaan kepada Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976, isuisu korum dan Perintah Saraan Peguamcara. Oleh kerana
perbelanjaan yang tinggi untuk membeli satu bangunan
(contohnya lot kedai 3 tingkat di Hartamas berharga RM1.65M
ke RM2.75M), kami membuat permintaan dan Majlis Peguam
telah bersetuju untuk menyediakan ruang untuk kami, jika
ada, di bangunan kini atau bangunan tambahan yang
dicadangkan tanpa sewa. Jika ini berlaku, kita akan
memperolehi lebihan dana tersedia untuk manfaat ahli-ahli.
Berkenaan korum bagi Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan Bar
Malaysia dan Bar-bar Negeri, kenyataan-kenyataan telah dibuat
oleh Jawatankuasa Ad Hoc Majlis Peguam (yang mana saya
adalah seorang ahli), kepada YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz dan YB Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail beberapa kali
mengenai pengurangnya pada waktu yang berasingan.
E. Projek-projek Lain
Jawatankuasa ini telah cuba mengembalikan pakej
LexisNexis untuk firma guaman dengan kurang daripada 20
orang peguam, atas terma yang serupa, dan telah
mengadakan perbincangan-perbincangan dengan Pengarah
Pengurus Serantau LexisNexis tetapi tidak berhasil. Kami
juga cuba memperolehi kadar hotel yang lebih rendah untuk
ahli-ahli apabila mereka berada di luar Kuala Lumpur, tetapi
hotel-hotel tidak bersetuju untuk menawarkan kadar korporat
yang lebih baik berbanding dengan apa yang ditawarkan
mereka sekarang.
Kami dalam proses rundingan dengan sebuah Bank utama
untuk menawarkan kemudahan kewangan istimewa kepada
ahli-ahli yang memerlukan bantuan kewangan untuk
menubuh dan memperbaiki amalan mereka. Pada masa yang
sama, kami telah berjumpa Bank Bumiputra-Commerce
Berhad untuk menambah profesion undang-undang ke dalam
pakej kewangan istimewa mereka untuk pelbagai kesatuan
profesional. Kami diberitahu untuk berhubung dengan Credit
Corporation Guarantee Berhad untuk menyakinkan mereka
untuk memberi jaminan yang diperlukan yang merupakan
syarat pakej istimewa ini. Kami akan mengambil tindakan
susulan dengan kedua-dua institusi kewangan ini dan
berharap akan dapat membawa servis tambahan ini kepada
ahli-ahli kami secepat mungkin.
Laporan Pengerusi
89
F. Obituari-obituari
Kami merekod dengan sedihnya kematian ahli-ahli Bar
Kuala Lumpur berikut sepanjang penggal Jawatankuasa ini,
dari Mac 2005:
Mok Li Za pada 02.03.2005
Kum Chee Mon pada 09.03.2005
Mohamad Halim bin Ismail pada 16.04.2005
Chitravathy a/p Balasingham pada 22.06.2005
KA Karpaya a/l Andiappan pada 09.07.2005
Datin Roquaiya Hanim Hussein pada 17.09.2005
Suatu Istiadat “Reference” bagi menghormati dan
mengingatkan Low Beow Kheng dan Pertaf Singh yang
meninggal pada 31.08.2004 dan 16.10.2004 dan ahli-ahli
yang tersebut di atas akan diadakan pada 16.02.2006.
Prosiding ini akan dipersidangkan oleh YA Dato’ Md Raus
bin Sharif.
G. Cabaran-cabaran Seterusnya
Terdapat tiga cabaran di hadapan kami dan Jawatankuasa
akan datang perlu terus berhadapan dengannya. Pertama,
untuk meningkatkan tahap penyertaan oleh ahli-ahli dengan
lebih banyak. Cabaran kedua adalah untuk meningkatkan
servis-servis bukan profesional kepada ahli-ahli dan untuk
memberi nilai kepada ahli-ahli dari yuran-yuran mereka. Akhir
sekali, Jawatankuasa selepas ini perlu sentiasa mencari
peningkatan-peningkatan dari segi kecekapan dan produktiviti
pentadbiran keadilan dan autoriti-autoriti seperti pejabatpejabat tanah agar boleh memastikan amalan yang lebih
baik untuk kesemua ahli-ahli. Kami telah cuba sedaya upaya
untuk mengatasi cabaran-cabaran yang berterusan ini.
Penolong Kanan Pendaftar, Hakim Kanan Mahkamah
Sesyen, Hakim-hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, Majistretmajistret dan Pendaftar-pendaftar Mahkamah Sesyen dan
Majistret kedua-dua Mahkamah di KL dan Selangor dan
Pejabat Tanah dan Pejabat Duti Setem KL dan Selangor.
Saya gembira berkhidmat untuk ahli-ahli bagi penggal ini
dan sebahagian besar kegembiraan ini adalah kerana
sokongan dan usaha keras Jawatankuasa dan ahli-ahli
Jawatankuasa kecil, dan galakan dan sokongan ahli-ahli.
Ucapan terima kasih ditujukan kepada kesemua yang telah
membantu dalam mengejar objektif-objektif kami. Ucapan
terima kasih yang khas ditujukan kepada Setiausaha
Kehormat Ravindra Kumar dan Setiausaha Eksekutif Mary
Tan yang kedua-duanya bekerja bertungkus-lumus dan
dengan penuh dedikasi dan tanpa mengenal penat lelah.
Sokongan dan galakan mereka memudahkan kerja saya.
Saya memohon maaf sebagaimana tiada seorang pun yang
sempurna dan dapat lari dari melakukan kesilapan, apatah
lagi saya. Segala kritikan-kritikan terhadap Jawatankuasa
Peguam Kuala Lumpur mesti ditanggung oleh saya sendiri
sebagai Pengerusi.
Walaupun kami mempunyai cabaran hebat di hadapan kami,
saya optimistik bahawa kebaikkan akan mengatasi dan
bahawa profesion kami akan terus makmur. Peguampeguam muda adalah masa hadapan Badan Peguam dan
penggal ini, keghairahan, tenaga dan sumbangan
Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda adalah petanda baik untuk
masa depan. Akhirnya, saya menggesa ahli-ahli untuk
memberi Jawatankuasa yang akan datang galakan dan
sokongan yang sama sepertimana yang telah diberi kepada
kami dalam penggal ini.
Terima Kasih.
H. Penghargaan dan Kesimpulan
Jawatankuasa menghargai kerjasama dan bantuan yang
diterima dari Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden Mahkamah
Rayuan, Hakim Besar Malaya dan Hakim-hakim Mahkamah
Tinggi, Pendaftar-pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi, Timbalan dan
90 Laporan Pengerusi
Lim Chee Wee
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur
2005/06
LAPORAN SEKRETARIAT
Ringkasan Latarbelakang
Agak bertepatan sekiranya dimaklumkan serba sedikit latarbelakang mengenai
Sekretariat di dalam laporan sulung ini. Sekretariat ini sebenarnya telah wujud
sebelum Bar KL di tubuhkan pada 01.07.1992. Ia telah dibentuk pada 1977
dibawah Jawatankuasa Peguam Selangor. Pada masa itu dan sehingga
30.06.1992, kesemua ahli yang mengamalkan perundangan di Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur dianggap sebagai ahli Bar Negeri Selangor. Apabila
Bar KL ditubuhkan pada 01.07.1992, ia mengambilalih Sekretariat yang
bertempat di Kuala Lumpur, termasuk kesemua 8 orang kakitangannya.
Kakitangan Sekretariat kemudiannya membantu Jawatankuasa Peguam
Selangor dalam penubuhan Sekretariat mereka di Shah Alam.
Fungsi dan Para Kakitangan
Sekretariat ini memberi sokongan untuk kerja-kerja Jawatankuasa Peguam
Kuala Lumpur (JPKL) dan jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa kecilnya. Untuk
penggal 2005/2006, JPKL telah menubuhkan 11 jawatankuasa kecil bagi
mengusahakan pelbagai aktiviti dan projek yang melibatkan para peguam
dan lain-lain pihak. Kecuali bagi Panel Pengurusan Bantuan Guaman yang
mempunyai kakitangan sendiri, projek-projek dan aktiviti-aktiviti bagi 10
jawatankuasa kecil yang lain adalah diselaras dan diurus oleh kakitangan
Sekretariat. Maklumat terperinci mengenai projek-projek dan aktiviti-aktiviti
terkandung di dalam laporan Pengerusi dan laporan-laporan jawatankuasajawatankuasa kecil.
Selain daripada mengurus dan menyelaras projek-projek dan aktiviti-aktiviti
JPKL serta jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa kecilnya, Sekretariat ini juga
mempunyai pelbagai fungsi lain. Ia antaranya melaksanakan polisi-polisi JPKL,
penyelenggaraan akaun, pendaftaran ahli dan Sistem BC Box, kutipan yuran
tahunan dan sewaan “BC Box”, pemprosesan Petisyen untuk Penerimaan
Masuk Bar, penyimpanan rekod prosiding mesyuarat, melayani pertanyaan
daripada ahli-ahli Bar, Pelatih-dalam-Kamar dan ahli masyarakat.
Dengan berkembangnya Bar KL, iaitu dari 2132 ahli pada masa penubuhannya
pada 01.07.1992 hingga hampir 6500 ahli pada hari ini, bilangan aktiviti telah
meningkat berkali ganda dalam usaha memenuhi kehendak berbeza ahliahlinya. Didalam dua tahun kebelakangan ini, dua orang Pegawai Eksekutif
telah diserap masuk untuk menguruskan pelbagai aktiviti yang dijalankan oleh
jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa kecil dan mereka dibantu oleh kakitangan lain di
Sekretariat. Yang berikut adalah senarai kakitangan Sekretariat:
Setiausaha Eksekutif
Mary Tan
Pegawai Eksekutif
Kavitha Thilagar
Azura Zakaria
Pegawai Pentadbiran
Uvanarajan Sinniah
Laporan Sekretariat 91
Pegawai Akaun dan Pentadbiran Am
Siti Affaeza Bolot
Kerani Kemasukan
Indira Anggapan
Kerani Am
Masni Abu Bakar
Kerani Pentadbiran
Rosilawati Ibrahim
Kerani Penghantaran
Yazid Yusof
Kakitangan Bilek Peguam
Sulochana Ramalingam
– Mahkamah Tinggi Wisma
Denmark
Thirumahil Ramalingam
– Mahkamah Sesyen dan
Majistret Jalan Raja
Struktur Organisasi dengan maklumat terperinci mengenai
portfolio bagi setiap kakitangan boleh didapati di laman web
Bar KL www.klbar.org.my
Garispanduan Polisi Kakitangan dan Manual Pejabat
Dibawah cadangan Pengerusi, satu Garispanduan Polisi
Kakitangan telah disediakan dan ia sedang dikaji oleh
Pengerusi dan Setiausaha Kehormat sebelum dikemukakan
untuk kelulusan Jawatankuasa.
Sekretariat ini sedang melakar sebuah manual pejabat
untuk kegunaan kakitangan (sekarang dan masa depan)
sebagai rujukan dalam menjalankan tugasan masingmasing di Sekretariat.
“Empowerment” Kakitangan Sekretariat – Langkah ke
hadapan
Untuk memenuhi kehendak Bar KL yang sedang
berkembang dan memberi khidmat yang lebih baik,
kakitangan Sekretariat perlu diberi kuasa untuk memainkan
peranan yang aktif di dalam melaksanakan polisi-polisi dan
aktiviti-aktiviti JPKL dan juga jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa
kecilnya. Kakitangan perlu menjadi kuasa penggerak dalam
menyokong JPKL serta jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa
kecilnya. Pelbagai program telah dirancang untuk para
kakitangan bagi meningkatkan keupayaan mereka dalam
memainkan peranan ini.
92
Laporan Sekretariat
Kakitangan juga digalakkan untuk mengenalpasti dan
menghadiri kursus yang berkaitan bagi meningkatkan
kemahiran mereka yang akan membantu dalam
meningkatan lagi produktiviti Sekretariat.
Para kakitangan telah diberi peluang untuk mengambil
bahagian di dalam dua buah latihan dalaman yang
dijalankan oleh Majlis Peguam pada tahun 2005. Para
kakitangan juga mengambil bahagian di dalam latihan
“para-legal” yang dijalankan oleh Pusat Bantuan Guaman
Majlis Peguam (Kuala Lumpur) pada 19.11.2005.
Penghargaan
Kakitangan Sekretariat ingin menyampaikan penghargaan
kepada Pengerusi JPKL Encik Lim Chee Wee dan
Setiausaha Kehormat Encik Ravindra Kumar serta
keseluruhan ahli Jawatankuasa diatas sokongan mereka
dalam memastikan kelancaran perjalanan projek-projek
dan aktiviti-aktiviti. Ucapan terima kasih juga ditujukan
kepada ahli-ahli Bar KL yang banyak membantu dan
menyokong kami secara langsung atau tidak langsung
di dalam perlaksanaan fungsi-fungsi kami.
Kami juga berterima kasih kepada Majlis Peguam dan
Panel Pengurusan Pusat Bantuan Guaman yang sudi
memberi peluang kepada kami untuk mengambil
bahagian di dalam latihan-latihan dalaman mereka.
Latihan-latihan tersebut bukan sahaja meningkatkan
kemahiran dan pengetahuan kami tetapi ia juga
membolehkan kami berinteraksi dengan kakitangan
Majlis Peguam serta Pusat Bantuan Guaman dan
seterusnya meningkatkan usahasama diantara ketigatiga badan ini. Ini merupakan petanda baik bagi profesion
dimana para kakitangan dapat berkerjasama dalam
memberikan perkhidmatan yang lebih cemerlang.
Maklumbalas dan Komen
Sekretariat akan terus berusaha memperbaiki servisnya
kepada profesion ini dan mengalu-alukan maklumbalas
dan komen daripada ahli-ahli Bar KL. Maklumbalas dan
komen boleh disampaikan melalui e-mel kepada
klbc@klbar.org.my.
Mary Tan
Setiausaha Eksekutif
JAWATANKUASA PENDIDIKAN
UNDANG-UNDANG LANJUTAN
Pengerusi
Steven Thiru
Ahli-ahli jawatankuasa
E Sreesanthan
Ken St. James
Balvinder Singh Kenth
Mariette Peters
Joanne Long
Sharmila Sekaran
Sunita Sankey
Iyanathan Ayasamy
B Balakumar
Ooi Huey Ling
Ramesh Sathasivam
Nor Suhaila Abd Latif
Leonard Yeoh
Balbir Singh a/l Shingara Singh
Wong Keat Ching
K Parames
Janice Leo
Tan Cheng Siong
L
ebih kurang dua tahun yang lalu kami telah memulakan satu misi untuk
membentuk satu program pendidikan undang-undang lanjutan yang formal
bagi Bar Kuala Lumpur. Ini adalah berikutan kebimbangan bahawa siri-siri
ceramah kami yang dikendalikan secara ad-hoc, walau pun amat bermanfaat,
namun adalah tidak memadai untuk menampung keperluan profesional ahliahli kami yang semakin bertambah pesat jumlahnya. Justeru itu, kami telah
memutuskan untuk membentuk satu program yang akan dapat memenuhi
keperluan ahli-ahli dan juga menyumbang terhadap kemajuan dan
pembangunan profesional yang menyeluruh bagi profesion undang-undang.
Matlamat dua penjuru ini dengan secara meluas menunjang struktur
komprehensif pendidikan undang-undang lanjutan yang kami telah membentuk
ini. Adalah juga penting bahawa program berkenaan hendaklah memelihara
budaya pendidikan undang-undang lanjutan di kalangan ahli-ahli. Penyertaan
yang sepadan dengan ahli-ahlinya menunjukkan bahawa matlamat ini juga
telah turut tercapai.
Dalam penggal pertama kami, program berkenaan mempunyai dua tema iaitu
“Essentials in Legal Practice” dan “Specialist Seminars”. Tema yang pertama
merangkumi ruang-ruang amalan guaman yang asasi manakala tumpuan tema
kedua pula adalah terhadap perkembangan baru dalam undang-undang.
Program berkenaan mendapat sambutan yang baik dan kami telah membuat
keputusan untuk terus berkembang daripada asas itu. Sehubungan dengan
itu, maka dalam penggal ini kami telah membahagikan program berkenan
kepada empat modul:(a) Modul 1 (Asasi)
Ini merangkumi jurusan seperti kepeguaman rayuan, kepeguaman dalam
prosiding-prosiding timbang tara, due diligence (amalan dan prosedur), amalan
cara pindah hak, perbankan dan pembiayaan Islam, amalan asasi guaman
(menemu-bual klien, penyelidikan guaman dan pengurusan fail) dan kepakaran
bahasa bagi peguam-peguam.
(b) Modul 2 (Undang-Undang Substantif)
Ini turut menggabungkan siri-siri dan jurusan yang diliputi oleh “Specialist
Seminar” yang sebelum ini seperti probet dan pentadbiran harta pusaka,
undang-undang maritim, insurans marin, pembentukan dana luar pesisir lindung
nilai, pelindungan dan penguatkuasaan tanda-tanda niaga, undang-undang
sekuriti, undang-undang bank dan undang-undang pentadbiran.
(c) Modul 3 (Bengkel Kerja)
Ini adalah latihan praktikal dalam bidang-bidang utama seperti litigasi korporat,
transaksi-transaksi perdagangan dan undang-undang jenayah.
(d) Modul 4 (Pelbagai)
Bermaksud untuk memberikan program berkenaan suasana yang berbeza
dan lebih menyenangkan. Bidang-bidang tambahan seperti mentafsir akaunakaun berkanun, sains forensik, insurans hayat dan psikologi turut dirangkumi.
Dan untuk menceriakan lagi suasana, kami telah menganjurkan “CLE Quiz
Night” di Souled Out, Sri Hartamas.
Pendidikan Undang-Undang Lanjutan
93
Program yang sepenuhnya sebagaimana yang kami telah anjurkan bagi tahun 2005/06 adalah seperti
berikut:-
Tarikh
31.03.2005
Tajuk
Penceramah
Moderator
Evidence International
Arbitration : The Civil/
Common Approach? And
Construction Arbitration
– PAM Arbitrator’s View Point”
1 Encik Michael Polkinghorne
14.05.2005
The Essentials of Islamic
Banking and Finance
bin Mohamed Shariff
18.05.2005
Probate and Administration
Of Estates
Cik Low Beng Choo
Cik Janice Anne Leo Selvanathan
01.06.2005
Maritime Law - Arrest of
Ships and Cargo as Security
for Arbitration
1 Dr Irwin Ooi
2Cik Sitpah Selvaratnam
Cik Joanne Long
11.06.2005
Opinion Writing The Lawyer & Client’s
Perspective
1 Encik David Alfred
2 Encik Steven Thiru
Encik Steven Thiru
15.06.2005
Principals of Drafting `
Pleadings
Encik Nahendran Navaratnam
Cik Sunita Sankey
30.06.2005
Appellate Advocacy
Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das
Cik Sharmila Sekaran
06.07.2005
Due Diligence : Practice
& Procedures
Encik Julian M Hashim
Cik Ooi Huey Ling
09.07.2005
Establishment of Offshore
Hedge Funds
Cik Karen Kaur
Encik Balvinder Singh
13.07.2005
Protection & Enforcement of
Trade Marks : Practical issues
every lawyer should know
Encik Teo Bong Kwang
Encik Ken St James
23.07.2005
Corporate Litigation Workshop
1
2
3
4
Encik Ramesh Sathasivam
26.07.2005
(organised jointly
with YLC)
Fundamentals of Legal
Practice: (Interviewing Clients,
File Management, Legal
Research, Managing Client’s
Accounts and Office Accounts)
1 Encik Ronald Tung Ghee Meng
2 Encik Ravi Nekoo
3 Dr Pathmavathy Satyamoorthy
Cik K Parames
03.08.2005
Interpreting Statutory Accounts
Encik Chong Shao Yuen
13.08.2005
Arbitration Proceedings –
Construction Disputes
Encik Christopher Lau SC
Encik Leonard Yeoh Soon Beng
20.08.2005
Sale & Purchase and
Registration of Ships
1 Encik Roslee Mat Yusof
2 Encik Andrew Wilding
3 Cik Joanne Long
4 Encik Nazery Khalid
Cik Joanne Long
27.08.2005
Advocacy in Arbitration
1 Encik Michael Hwang SC
2 Encik Vinayak Pradhan
Cik Joanne Long
14.09.2005
Marine Insurance
Cik Sitpah Selvaratnam
Encik B Balakumar
17.09.2005
Basic Conveyancing Practice
Cik Low Beng Choo
Encik Ivan Wong
94
Cik Joanne Long
2 Dato’ Kevin Woo
Encik
Encik
Encik
Encik
Ranjit Singh
P Gananathan
Lim Tuck Sun
Sean Yeow Huang Meng
Tarikh
Tajuk
Penceramah
Moderator
27.09.2005
Framework of Securities Law
1 Cik Shanti Geoffrey
2 Cik Alina Tong
Cik Mariette Peters
15.10.2005
Life Insurance and Estate
Administration
Encik K Karunamoorthy
Encik Balbir Singh
26.10.2005
Taxation Issues in Merger
& Acquisition
1 Encik Nicholas Crist
2 Cik Leanne Koh
Encik Balbir Singh
12.11.2005
Structuring a Commercial
Transaction
Encik William Leong Jee Keen
Cik Ooi Huey Ling
15.11.2005
Practical Guide To Islamic
Banking & Finance
Bin Mohamed Shariff
03.12.2005
Bank Recovery Litigation
Encik Chandran G Nair
Encik A I Nathan
05.12.2005
Lecture Series on The Legal
Profession, The Law of
Taxation, The European
Constitution and The Law
on Extradition
1 Lady Lowry QC
2 Encik John Gardiner QC
3 Encik Gerard Berscheid
4 Encik Nicholas Evans
Encik James Reily
Encik Steven Thiru
Cik Mariette Peters
07.12.2005
(organised
jointly with YLC)
Forensic Science - Importance
of Biological Evidence And the
Role of DNA
Dr Seah Lay Hong
Encik Balbir Singh
07.12.2005
CLE Quiz Night
14.12.2005
Contemporary Issues
Affecting Claims in
Medical Negligence
Raja Eileen Soraya
Cik Wong Keat Ching
15.12.2005
Judicial Review of Local
Authority Decisions
Encik S Nantha Balan
18.01.2006
Solicitors Account
Encik Wang Kuo Shing
21.02.2006
Rights and Remedies of a
Dismissed Workman under
S.20 of the Industrial Relations
Act 1967
Cik Rajeswari Karupiah
Cik Wong Keat Ching
25.02.2006
Modern Legal Language
1 Sr Noushad Ali Naseem Ameer Ali
2 Cik Jackie Yeoh
Encik Steven Thiru
Cik Mariette Peters
25.02.2006
Seminar on Native
Peoples’ Land RightsClaims, Issues & Procedures
1 Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das
2 Assoc Prof Ramy Bulan
3 Dr Colin Nicholas
4 Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail
5 Encik Jerald Gomez
Encik Yapp Hock Swee
TBC
Disciplinary Board Procedures
1Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Khalid Ahmad
2 Encik Mubashir bin Mansor
Encik B Balakumar
TBC
Criminal Advocacy
1
2
3
4
Encik Balvinder Singh
Cik Sunita Sankey
Encik V Sithambaram
Encik Jagjit Singh
Encik Manjeet Singh Dhillon
Encik N Sivananthan
95
Secara menyeluruh, antara bulan Mac 2005 hingga
Januari 2006 kami telah menganjurkan sejumlah 31 acara
dan jumlah peserta atau hadirin adalah di anggaran 1652
orang. Ini menunjukkan satu peningkatan dalam
penyertaan ahli-ahli (berbanding dengan tempoh yang
sama dalam tahun 2004/2005) iaitu sebanyak 81%. Ini
amat menggalakkan dan menampakkan masa depan
yang cerah bagi program ini. Tambahan pula, kami telah
juga mengumpul data-data berhubung dengan jenis
ceramah-ceramah/seminar-seminar yang ahli-ahli
inginkan kami anjurkan di masa depan.
Sebagai sebahagian dari program tahun ini, kami juga
telah memutuskan bahawa kami sepatutnya
menggalakkan ahli-ahli kami untuk menyertai
persidangan-persidangan undang-undang iaitu di
peringkat antarabangsa dan juga di dalam negeri. Dari
segi aspek pendidikan undang-undang lanjutan, kami
berpendapat bahawa ahli-ahli akan memperoleh
pengalaman yang bernilai dengan menghadiri
persidangan-persidangan, dan yang mana mereka boleh
berkongsi pengalaman ini dengan ahli-ahli yang lain.
Kami telah menaja kehadiran di persidangan-persidangan
yang berikut:(a)
The Commonwealth Law Conference, London,
11-15 September 2005 – Puteri Shehnaz Abdul
Majid.
(b)
The IBA Law Conference, Prague, 25-30
September 2005 – Edmund Bon.
(c)
The Lawasia Conference on International
Trade Law, Ho Chi Minh City, 7-8 Oktober 2005
– Wan Kai Chee
(d)
(e)
The Asia Pacific Lincoln’s Inn Meet 2005, Kuala
Lumpur, 25-27 Ogos 2005 1
2
Vilasini Chandrasekaran
3
Melissa Ram
The 13th Malaysian Law Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 16-18 November 2005 –
1
Ahmad Termizi bin Mohd Piah
2
Hani Widyawati
3
Ng Yee Leng
4
Ani Munirah Bt Mohamad
5
G Nanda Goban
6
Chua Yen Hwa
7
Nor Suhaila Abdul Latif
Di samping hakikat bahawa program pendidikan undangundang lanjutan kami mendapat sambutan yang baik, wujud
cabaran untuk kami meningkatkan lagi mutunya.
Sehubungan dengan ini, program berkenaan hendaklah turut
merangkumi aspek-aspek mengenai pengurusan risiko dan
juga perkara-perkara yang mengakibatkan aduan-aduan
disiplin. Ini akan menjadi satu program holistik yang akan
memberi manfaat kepada ahli-ahlinya.
Jawatankuasa Pendidikan Undang-Undang Lanjutan ingin
merakamkan ribuan terima kasih kepada semua
penceramah, moderator dan juga peserta-peserta kami atas
sumbangan mereka kepada program ini.
Steven Thiru
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Pendidikan Undang-Undang Lanjutan
96
JAWATANKUASA AMALAN KONVEYANSING
Pengerusi
Lim Chee Wee
Naib Pengerusi
Wong Lu Peen
Yeap Siew Teng
Woon Lee Been
Jennifer Wong Fu Man
Kalathevy Sivagnanam
Elizabeth Lee Chai Li
P.S. Khoo
Joycelyn Ong
Doris Liew Lee Mei
Michael Chai Woon Chew
Angelyn Lee Wei Ching
Karin Lim
Shanti Ramu
Cheong Yoke Ping
Patrick Chiam Tow Loon
J awatankuasa Amalan Konveyansing ini ditubuhkan bagi tujuan
memenuhi keperluan ahli-ahli Bar KL yang terlibat di dalam amalan
konveyancing. Untuk penggal 2005/06, jawatankuasa ini telah berjaya
menjalankan beberapa aktiviti:
1
Mesyuarat dengan Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor
Dua orang ahli jawatankuasa ini bersama dengan wakil-wakil dari
Jawatankuasa Peguam Selangor telah menghadiri suatu mesyuarat
dengan para pegawai Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor pada
18.04.2005 untuk membincangkan isu-isu yang membabitkan keduadua pihak termasuk isu kutipan hakmilik dan pengenepian yuran
penalti.
2
Sessi Dialog Kedua Berkenaan Perintah Saraan Peguamcara
Suatu sesi dialog berkenaan dengan “Perintah Saraan
Peguamcara” telah diadakan dengan jayanya pada 28.07.2005 di
Auditorium Majlis Peguam Malaysia. Ahli-ahli panel penyampai
terdiri daripada Presiden Bar Malaysia Encik Yeo Yang Poh,
Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Penguatkuasa Encik Tony Woon, wakilwakil dari REHDA dan FOMCA serta peguam dari Singapura, Encik
Derrick Wong. Tujuan dialog ini diadakan adalah untuk
mendapatkan pandangan mengenai Peraturan Tiada Diskaun dari
perspektif pemaju, pengguna dan pengamal undang-undang dan
juga untuk mendapatkan pengalaman negara Singapura dalam
isu tersebut. Pihak REHDA mengambil pendirian untuk menentang
Peraturan tersebut.
Sebelum dialog itu diadakan, suatu tinjauan berkenaan dengan
“Penguatkuasaan dan Peraturan Pengenepian” telah dijalankan
oleh jawatankuasa ini untuk mengetahui pendapat ahli-ahli Bar.
Lapan puluh empat orang ahli memberi respon kepada tinjauan
tersebut. Keputusan tinjauan itu tidak dapat ditentukan
memandangkan pendapat para responden masih berbelah-bahagi
sama ada mereka memihak kepada Peraturan Penguatkuasaan
atau tidak.
Berikut adalah soalan-soalan dan maklumbalas bagi tinjauan berkenaan dengan
“Penguatkuasaan dan Peraturan Pengenepian”:
i
Adakah peraturan penguatkuasaan Perintah Saraan Peguamcara
memberikan impak positif kepada amalan konveyancing anda?
Contohnya pendapatan daripada hal-hal konveyancing meningkat .
Ya
40
ii
Perlukah peraturan-peraturan dipinda?
Ya
40
Tidak
43
Tidak
39
Amalan Konveyansing
97
iii
Ya
31
iv
Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan dan untuk
mempertingkatkan mutu perkhidmatan Pejabat Tanah
dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan. Pelbagai isu yang
merisaukan telah dibangkitkan di dalam mesyuarat
tersebut. Diantara isu-isu yang dibincangkan adalah:
Adakah Garispanduan Majlis Peguam berkenaan
pengenepian yuran guaman dalam hal-hal
konveyancing memerlukan pindaan?
Tidak
51
Berkenaan Sewa Beli
· Ulasan
Langkah-Langkah
· Mencegah PenipuanKeselamatan Dalam
Urusan
· Pendaftaran
Rayuan
Pengabaian
Yuran Pendaftaran Lewat
· Tanah Simpanan Melayu
·
Secara peribadi, adakah anda tahu tentang firma
yang melanggar Peraturan Tiada Diskaun?
Ya
29
3
Tidak
53
Bengkel e-Taksiran
Suatu Bengkel e-Taksiran telah dianjurkan oleh
jawatankuasa ini pada 06.05.2005 dan ia mendapat
sambutan ramai. Bengkel itu diadakan untuk
memberi maklumat dan latihan kepada para ahli
mengenai sistem tersebut, serta mendapatkan
maklumbalas daripada para ahli. Kita bakal
menganjurkan bengkel kedua sebelum akhir
penggal ini.
4
Mesyuarat dengan Pejabat Tanah dan Galian
Wilayah Persekutuan dan Persatuan BankBank di Malaysia
Mesyuarat tersebut berlangsung pada 28.09.2005 di
Pejabat Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah
Persekutuan dan telah dihadiri oleh wakil-wakil dari
Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan,
Persatuan Bank-Bank di Malaysia, Jawatankuasa
Peguam Kuala Lumpur dan Majlis Peguam Malaysia.
Tujuan mesyuarat itu diadakan adalah untuk mencari
jalan penyelesaian bagi masalah-masalah yang
berbangkit apabila berurusan dengan pihak Pejabat
98
Amalan Konveyansing
5
Cabaran Akan Datang
Urusan dengan pihak berkuasa terus diperbaiki
dengan adanya kerjasama yang kerap. Cabaran
seterusnya adalah bagaimana kita mengekalkan
integriti Peraturan Tiada Diskaun apabila
penguatkuasaan mungkin tidak berupaya untuk
“menangkap” perlakuan paling tidak jujur yang
dilakukan menerusi rebate tunai. Kita tidak
mempunyai jawapan melainkan dengan “whistleblowing” yang dibuat oleh mereka yang tahu
tentang insiden sebegini.
Akhir sekali, saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada
semua ahli jawatankuasa ini diatas sumbangan, komitmen
dan sokongan yang diberikan sepanjang penggal dalam
memastikan jawatankuasa ini mencapai matlamatnya.
Ucapan terima kasih juga ditujukan kepada Wong Lu Peen
diatas daya usahanya untuk jawatankuasa ini.
Lim Chee Wee
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Amalan Konveyansing
JAWATANKUASA PERHUBUNGAN
MAHKAMAH (SIVIL)
Saya diberi penghormatan untuk mempengerusikan jawatankuasa ini
Pengerusi
R.Ravindra Kumar
Naib Pengerusi
Dahlia Lee Wooi Mien
Lee Chin Peow
Justin Voon Tiam Yu
Rajesh Kumar Gejinder Nath
Francis Soh
Gopi Krishnan Seshadari
Dato’ Zuraidah Atan
Elaine Law Soh Yong
Audrey Jacqueline Pillai
Dinesh Nair
Brian Foong Mun Loong
Mathew Thomas Philip
sekali lagi. Satu borang bancian telah dikeluarkan pada permulaan penggal
ini untuk memperolehi maklumbalas daripada ahli-ahli Bar Kuala Lumpur
mengenai pengurusan keadilan di Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur. Kami didorong
oleh maklumbalas yang diperoleh daripada ahli-ahli dan telah memulakan
satu cadangan tahunan untuk memyelesaikan kebimbangan ini.
Mesyuarat dengan Hakim-hakim dan Majistret-majistret Mahkamah
Rendah Bahagian Sivil pada 15.07.2005
Selepas 2 tahun berlalu, kami telah berjaya mengadakan mesyuarat ini
dengan Mahkamah-mahkamah Rendah. Mesyuarat ini telah berjaya diadakan
dengan perlantikan Tuan Hamdan Indah sebagai Hakim Kanan dalam
Mahkamah Rendah. Tuan Hamdan telah menerima cadangan kami dan
telah menyakinkan ahli-ahli Bar Kuala Lumpur bahawa beliau akan memberi
perhatian kepada masalah yang dihadapi oleh ahli-ahli terhadap Mahkamah
Rendah. Tuan Hamdan telah mengalukan proses rundingan 2 hala antara
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur dan Anggota Kehakiman dan
menegaskan bahawa ahli-ahli harus membangkitkan kebimbangan mereka
melalui Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Mahkamah selain daripada
membangkitkan kepada kuasa tinggi. Kami telah mengadakan satu
perjumpaan yang memberangsangkan dan sesalinan catatan mesyuarat
perjumpaan ini telah diposkan kepada ahli-ahli melalui pekeliling bernombor
20/05 pada 06.08.2005. Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Justin Voon kerana telah menyediakan catatan mesyuarat perjumpaan ini.
Mesyuarat dengan Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas pada
26.08.2005
Jawatankuasa ini telah mengadakan mesyuarat yang effektif dengan
Hakim-hakim, Timbalan-timbalan Pendaftar dan Pendaftar Bahagian
Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas. Kami telah menggesa Hakim untuk
mendengar rayuan-rayuan interlokutori secepat mungkin supaya kes-kes
di Mahkamah Rendah tidak ditangguh oleh kelewatan akibat penyelesaian
rayuan. Hakim-hakim telah mencuba sedaya-upaya untuk menyelesaikan
isu ini memandangkan bilangan kes yang banyak yang telah didaftarkan
di bahagian tersebut. Hasil mesyuarat tersebut sangat positif dan
beberapa cadangan dan kebimbangan telahpun dibincangkan. Mahkamah
telahpun memberi kami statistik kes-kes yang telah diselesaikan sehingga
hari ini dan maklumat ini telahpun diposkan dalam laman web kami.
Sesalinan catatan mesyuarat telahpun diposkan kepada ahli-ahli melalui
pekeliling bernombor 23/05 yang bertarikh 06.09.2005. Saya ingin
mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Lee Chin Peow yang telah
menyediakan cacatan untuk mesyuarat ini. Terima Kasih juga diucapkan
kepada Dato’ Zaraidah Atan kerana telah mengaturkan mesyuarat dengan
Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas.
Mesyuarat dengan Hakim-hakim dan Pendaftar-pendaftar Mahakamah
Tinggi Shah Alam pada 24.11.2005
Mesyuarat ini adalah di atas jemputan Jawatankuasa Peguam Selangor dan
wakil kami, Francis Soh telah menghadiri mesyuarat ini. Satu salinan catatan
mesyuarat telahpun diposkan kepada ahli-ahli menerusi pekeliling bernombor
64/05 bertarikh 23.12.2005. Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada
Francis Soh kerana telah membentangkan beberapa isu yang telah
dibangkitkan oleh jawatankuasa ini.
Perhubungan Mahkamah
99
Mesyuarat dengan Bahagian Dagang dan Bahagian
Kebankrupan pada 16.12.2005
Kami telahpun mengaturkan mesyuarat ini dengan
mengambil kira pelbagai kebimbangan yang diterima
mengenai masalah-masalah di Mahkamah Kebankrapan. YA
Dato’ Vincent Ng telahpun menyakinkan jawatankuasa
tersebut bahawa masalah-masalah ini akan diambil kira dan
akan didalami dengan sepatutnya. Antara masalah-masalah
yang dihadapi di Bahagian Kebankrapan, terutamanya perlu
berbaris panjang untuk mendapatkan tarikh seterusnya
adalah sebahagiannya disebabkan oleh Pengawai
Kebangkrapan yang memberitahu mahkamah samada
dokumen-dokumen adalah teratur hanya pada pagi
perbicaraan. Bermacam-macam isu telah dibincangkan dan
adalah dicadangkan bahawa perjumpaan tiga-pihak diadakan
dengan kehadiran semua pihak untuk mengatasi segala
kekurangan. Satu salinan catatan mesyuarat telahpun
diposkan kepada ahli-ahli menerusi pekeliling bernombor 03/
06 bertarikh 16.01.2006. Terima Kasih saya kepada
Dipendra kerana merekodkan catatan itu dan kepada Dahlia
Lee kerana mengaturkan mesyuarat itu.
Cadangan mesyuarat dengan Bahagian Sivil
Mahkamah Tinggi
Jawatankuasa telah berhubung dengan Hakim Utama
Bahagian Sivil Mahkamah Tinggi dan menanti mesyuarat
dengan Bahagian ini yang telah ditetapkan untuk diadakan
pada 24.02.2006. Kami dengan sesungguhnya akan cuba
untuk menyelesaikan isu-isu yang diterima daripada ahliahli dan sesalinan catatan mesyuarat akan diedarkan kepada
kesemua ahli selepas mesyuarat tersebut.
Majlis Pertemuan Ahli-ahli Bar Kuala Lumpur dan
Selangor dan Badan Kehakiman di Kelab DiRaja
Selangor pada 17.02.2006
Jawatankuasa ini telah ditugaskan untuk mengaturkan majlis
pertemuan tahun ini. Pada tahun yang lepas, kami telah
mendapat balasan yang baik daripada Badan Kehakiman.
Jawatankuasa ini berharap bahawa pertemuan ini akan
diadakan tiap-tiap tahun untuk memastikan bahawa kami
terus membina pertalian yang baik dengan Badan
Kehakiman. Majlis pertemuan ini juga memberikan peluang
100 Perhubungan Mahkamah
kepada ahli-ahli Bar yang muda untuk bertemu dengan
Hakim-hakim di pertemuan sosial seperti ini. Saya berterima
kasih kepada Elaine Law, Audrey dan Chin Peow kerana
mengaturkan beberapa aktiviti untuk majlis pertemuan ini.
Saya dengan ini berbangga untuk melaporkan bahawa
jawatankuasa ini telah berjaya mencapai rancangan untuk
tahun ini. Tugas saya dalam mengetuai jawatankuasa ini
telah dimudahkan dengan dedikasi yang ditunjukkan oleh
ahli-ahli jawatankuasa ini. Saya dengan ikhlasnya berterima
kasih kepada Timbalan Pengerusi, Dahlia Lee dan setiap
ahli jawatankuasa ini kerana mengorbankan masa yang
sangat berharga dan usaha untuk mendalami perkaraperkara dan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan di semua peringkat
untuk memperbaiki sistem praktis perundangan di Kuala
Lumpur. Ia adalah harapan ikhlas saya bahawa ahli-ahli kini
akan dengan sukarelanya berkhidmat dalam jawatankuasa
ini pada penggal yang akan datang.
Ucapan terima kasih yang tulus dan ikhlas juga ditujukan
kepada Mary, Kavitha, Azura dan kakitangan sekretariat di
atas bantuan sepanjang jangkamasa perkhidmatan saya.
Ucapan terima kasih juga ditujukan kepada Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur, Encik Lim Chee Wee
dan ahli jawatankuasa yang lain di atas penglibatan mereka
dalam mesyuarat bersama Badan Kehakiman.
Adalah menjadi harapan saya yang ikhlas agar
jawatankuasa yang akan datang akan terus membina
hubungan baik yang telah sedia terjalin dengan Badan
Kehakiman.Diharapkan juga ahli Bar Kuala Lumpur akan
terus sentiasa memberi cadangan dan membangkitkan isuisu yang berkaitan dengan jawatankuasa ini untuk mengatasi
dan mengemukakan sebarang kelemahan dalam pentadbiran
keadilan dalam Mahkamah KL.
R Ravindra Kumar
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Mahkamah (Sivil)
JAWATANKUASA AMALAN JENAYAH
S
Pengerusi
R Ravindra Kumar
Naib Pengerusi
N Sivananthan
Ahli-ahli
Sivanesan Nadarajah
Baljit Singh
Abdul Shukor bin Ahmad
Kuldeep Kumar
Suresh Thananalasingam
Venkateswari Alagendra
emasa persidangan sesi 2005/2006, bahagian-bahagian sivil dan jenayah
di bawah Jawatankuasa Perhubungan Mahkamah telah dipisahkan untuk kali
pertama dan suatu jawatankuasa Amalan Jenayah (Criminal Practice
committee) yang berasingan telah ditubuhkan. Seorang Naib Pengerusi yang
merupakan seorang pengamal undang-undang jenayah telah dilantikkan untuk
menguruskan jawatankuasa ini dengan ahli-ahli yang terdiri daripada peguampeguam yang aktif dalam pengamalan undang-undang jenayah.
Jawatankuasa ini telah bersidang sebanyak 4 kali pada tahun 2005 dan akan
mengadakan mesyuarat untuk sekurang-kurangnya 2 kali lagi sebelum
Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan 2006 pada bulan Mac 2006.
Mesyuarat dengan Unit Pendakwaan Selangor
Awal bulan April 2005 menyaksikan suatu peristiwa penting yang boleh
dikatakan sebagai suatu pencapaian apabila suatu mesyuarat telah
diadakan di antara jawatankuasa dengan Unit Pendakwaan Selangor
(Selangor Prosecution Unit). Unit Pendakwaan Selangor tersebut adalah
di bawah pimpinan Ketua Unit Pendakwaan, Encik Sallehuddin Bin Saidin,
bersama dengan beberapa orang Timbalan Pendakwaraya daripada unit
beliau. Suatu laporan tentang perkara-perkara yang dibincangkan telah
diedarkan kepada semua ahli Bar KL selepas tamatnya mesyuarat
tersebut. Banyak isu telahpun dibangkitkan dalam mesyuarat tersebut dan
apa yang menggembirakan ialah Unit Pendakwaan jelas menunjukkan minat
untuk menjalin hubungan yang ikhlas dan efektif dengan Badan Peguam
untuk memastikan urusan-urusan dalam Mahkamah boleh berjalan lancar
dan, jikalau boleh, pertuduhan boleh diubah ataupun dibatalkan,
bergantung kepada hal keadaan sesuatu kes sebelum permulaan
perbicaraan tersebut dalam Mahkamah.
Unit Pendakwaan tersebut juga amat mengalu-alukan aduan-aduan yang dibuat
oleh peguam supaya diterima perhatian yang sewajarnya dan telah memberi
jaminan kepada jawatankuasa Amalan Jenayah bahawa sesiapa yang
membuat aduan tidak akan disenarai-hitamkan. Isu tentang kelewatan dalam
penerimaan dokumen-dokumen dan sebagainya juga telah dibincangkan dan
arahan yang sewajarnya berkenaan semua dokumen yang berkaitan telah
diberikan kemudiannya supaya seorang tertuduh akan berhak untuk menerima
dokumen dengan segera. Jawatankuasa juga memberi jaminan kepada Ketua
Unit Pendakwaan bahawa jawatankuasa bersikap terbuka terhadap
penyelesaian masalah-masalah yang mungkin timbul di antara Unit Pendakwaan
dan Peguam-peguam dan akan cuba menyelesaikan perkara-perkara secara
persahabatan (amicably).
Mesyuarat dengan Hakim-hakim dan Majistret-majistret Bahagian
Jenayah Mahkamah Rendah Kuala Lumpur
Jawatankuasa juga mengadakan mesyuarat dengan Hakim-hakim dan
Majistret-majistret dari Bahagian Jenayah Mahkamah Rendah Kuala Lumpur
pada 16.09.2005 dan pelbagai isu yang berkenaan dengan hal-ehwal harian
peguam-peguam jenayah telah dibangkitkan. Para Hakim dan Majistret telah
memaparkan kerelaan untuk menerima isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dan selepas
mesyuarat tersebut, prosedur-prosedur baru yang berkenaan prosiding remand
dan bon ikat jamin telah dilancarkan. Pada masa yang lepas, polis biasanya
Amalan Jenayah 101
menjalankan amalan untuk memohon memanjangkan
reman tanpa memberitahu peguam-peguam tentang masa
bila pendengaran reman akan diadakan. Dengan adanya
sistem yang baru, apabila seorang peguam kepada orang
yang disyaki telah melaporkan diri pada waktu pagi,
Majistret yang bertugas akan mendapat tahu bahawa
orang yang disyaki mempunyai peguam yang mewakilinya
dan akan mengarahkan Jurubahasa untuk memanggil
peguam tersebut masuk untuk prosiding sebelum ianya
bermula.
Setakat mana yang berkenaan dengan bon ikatan jamin
tersebut, Sijil Simpanan Tetap (fixed deposit certificates)
akan sekali lagi diterima oleh Mahkamah dan ini
membenarkan keluarga seseorang yang tertuduh
menyediakan jumlah ikatan jamin terlebih dahulu tanpa
perlunya untuk mengurungkan orang tertuduh tersebut
di dalam lokap Mahkamah semasa menunggu buku
simpanan bank dikeluarkan. Suatu laporan tentang
perkara-perkara yang dibincangkan dan langkah-langkah
yang diambil telah kemudiannya diedarkan kepada ahliahli Bar melalui pekeliling bernombor 36/05 yang bertarikh
07.10.2005.
Penubuhan dua jawatankuasa kecil
Selepas mesyuarat tersebut, jawatankuasa tersebut telah
menubuhkan dua jawatankuasa kecil iaitu, suatu
jawatankuasa yang berurusan dengan aduan-aduan oleh
Mahkamah tentang peguam-peguam dan yang satu lagi
bertanggungjawab untuk menghulurkan bantuan kecemasan
kepada orang tertuduh yang berada dalam reman tanpa
perwakilan seorang peguam. Ini, mengikut pendapat Hakimhakim, adalah amat diperlukan kerana kebanyakan masa
peguam dari Pusat Bantuan Guaman yang muncul langsung
102 Amalan Jenayah
tidak mahir dalam perbicaraan jenayah terutamanya
berkenaan kesalahan-kesalahan yang berkaitan dengan
dadah yang tidak boleh diikat jamin dan di mana hukumanhukumannya adalah agak berat.
Mesyuarat dengan Unit Pendakwaan Kuala Lumpur
Jawatankuasa ini berharap supaya dapat mengadakan satu
mesyuarat dengan Unit Pendakwaan Kuala Lumpur dan ini
seharusnya dapat dilaksanakan dalam lingkungan masa 2
bulan lagi. Pada keseluruhannya, jawatankuasa tersebut
berpendapat bahawa penubuhan jawatankuasa yang
berasingan ini mempunyai masa depan yang cerah dalam
penyelesaian masalah-masalah yang berlaku di dalam
Sistem Keadilan Jenayah dan dengan adanya dalam minda
bahawa isu-isu tersebut mungkin menggugat hak-hak
kebebasan dan hak asasi manusia, Jawatankuasa ini berasa
bahawa jawatankuasa yang berasingan ini sepatutnya terus
wujud pada masa depan.
Penghargaan
Saya mesti mengucapkan setinggi-tinggi penghargaan
kepada Sivananthan, Naib Pengerusi jawatankuasa Amalan
Jenayah, yang telah banyak membantu saya dalam
melaksanakan aktiviti-aktiviti bagi jawatankuasa ini. Tanpa
bantuan daripadanya, jawatankuasa ini tidak mungkin
berupaya memiliki pencapaian seperti yang ada sekarang
ini. Ucapan terima kasih juga ditujukan kepada para ahli
jawatankuasa ini yang telah banyak berkerja keras dalam
membawa perubahan untuk para pengamal Undang-undang
Jenayah.
R Ravindra Kumar
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Amalan Jenayah
JAWATANKUASA UNDANG-UNDANG
ALAM SEKITAR
Pengerusi
Stanley Sinnappen
Ahli-ahli Jawatankuasa
Asmet Nasruddin
Wong Ee Lynn
Karen Kimkana
Nurliza Bt. Ramli
Shishila Suriya Kasim
Rajasundram
Elizabeth Lee Pei Shen
Heng Hiang Swee
Objektif-objektif asas jawatankuasa Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar adalah
untuk meningkatkan kesedaran mengenai isu-isu alam sekitar, menggalakkan
kegiatan dan gaya hidup yang memelihara alam sekitar di kalangan para
peguam, dan memainkan peranan sebagai pemimpin dalam usaha
menguatkuasa, membentuk dan menjayakan polisi dan perlaksanaan undangundang alam sekitar.
Oleh kerana jawatankuasa Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar merupakan satu
jawatankuasa yang boleh dikatakan masih baru, cabaran kami yang utama
adalah dalam mendapat sokongan dan penglibatan ahli-ahli Bar dalam isuisu alam sekitar.
Aktiviti-Aktiviti jawatankuasa Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar dari bulan
Mac 2005 sehingga Mac 2006:
31.03.05
Mesyuarat mengenai Kajian Semula Undang-undang Akta Kualiti Alam Sekitar
1974 yang dianjurkan oleh Jabatan Alam Sekitar.
28.05.05
Ahli-ahli jawatankuasa menghadiri tayangan rencana “Guardians of the
Rainforest” , mengenai komuniti Temuan, di Institut Asia-Eropah Universiti
Malaya. Ini diikuti oleh suatu sesi soal-jawab berkenaan isu-isu alam sekitar
dan sosial berkaitan komuniti Orang Asli.
23.07.05
Lawatan malam ke Zoo Negara diadakan untuk meningkatkan publisiti untuk
kegiatan lain-lain Zoo Malam serta pengumpulan dana bagi program-program
pembiakan dan pemuliharaan haiwan. Aktiviti ini dibuka kepada masyarakat
awam, dan pengumuman telah dilakukan menerusi beberapa stesyen radio.
Aktiviti ini yang telah dianjurkan oleh jawatankuasa Undang-undang Alam
Sekitar telah meningkatkan kutipan bagi Zoo. Ia adalah dilaporkan oleh Zoo
Negara bahawa kutipan mereka pada hari tersebut telah meningkat sebanyak
300%. Sekumpulan ahli muzik diundang untuk menghiburkan para pelawat di
auditorium Zoo. Walaupun pada asalnya kami menghadapi kritikan mengenai
sokongan kami untuk kausa mengurung hidupan liar, hampir kesemua pelawat
ke Zoo Negara menyatakan perasaan seronok mereka, dan bersetuju bahawa
Zoo Negara memerlukan bantuan dan sokongan pihak awam.
12.10.05
Selain daripada suatu Kenyataan Akhbar yang disediakan oleh ahli
jawatankuasa berkenaan isu jerebu dan Indeks Pencemaran Udara, suatu
Kenyataan Akhbar menyokong Bil Biofuel juga dikeluarkan dan diterbitkan
dalam akhbar The Star pada 12.10.2005. Penilaian dan kajian Bil tersebut dan
perbincangan sumber tenaga hijau dan alternatif akan diadakan pada tarikh
yang akan datang.
26.11.05
Lawatan ke Pusat Pemuliharaan Gajah Kuala Gandah mendapat sambutan yang
sungguh menggalakkan. 45 orang pelawat dewasa dan 16 orang kanak-kanak
menghadiri lawatan tersebut. Di Pusat tersebut, para pelawat dididik mengenai
program pemindahan gajah liar ke pusat pemuliharaan, dan juga dimaklumkan
Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar 103
mengenai ancaman-ancaman terhadap populasi gajah liar,
umpamanya pemburuan haram dan pemusnahan habitat.
Dengan menjalinkan hubungan dengan gajah-gajah di pusat
pemuliharaan tersebut, para pelawat dapat menghayati dan
menghargai perlunya perlindungan habitat hidupan liar dan
alam semulajadi. Jawatankuasa kami kemudiannya membuat
satu sumbangan kewangan kepada Pusat Pemuliharaan
tersebut.
Lingkungan 1992 (“Konferensi Puncak Dunia”) yang
disediakan oleh salah seorang ahli jawatankuasa.
Memorandum tersebut, akan diserahkan kepada
Kementerian dan ajensi-ajensi Kerajaan yang berkaitan.
Aktiviti-Aktiviti Lain Yang Dirancang
jawatankuasa Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar:
1
14.01.06
Satu ceramah berkenaan pencemaran udara oleh Dr. Azmi
Sharom telah dirancang untuk diadakan di Auditorium Rimba
Ilmu di Universiti Malaya. Ceramah tersebut merangkumi
aspek-aspek seperti jerebu dan indeks pencemaran udara.
Selepas kuliah, para hadirin juga boleh melawat taman botani
dan herbarium Rimba Ilmu. Walaubagaimanapun, oleh kerana
kekurangan penyertaan, ceramah ini telah ditundak ke bulan
Febuari 2006.
18-9.01.06
Suruhanjaya Tinggi Britain Kuala Lumpur telah menganjurkan
satu kursus ‘Prinsip 10 (Deklarasi Rio) di Malaysia’ dan
jawatankuasa kami diundang untuk mengambil bahagian
dalam perundingan tersebut. Kursus tersebut meliputi isuisu yang melibatkan masyarakat awam dalam proses
membuat keputusan dan memantau pendapat pihak awam
mengenai polisi-polisi alam sekitar. Kursus tersebut
membantu ahli-ahli jawatankuasa kami membentuk satu
dasar untuk meningkatkan kesedaran dan pendidikan isuisu alam sekitar.
Januari - Februari 2006
Sebagai sebahagian daripada usaha-usaha berterusan kami
untuk mengkaji dan meminda undang-undang dan proses
membuat keputusan, jawatankuasa kami melibatkan diri
dalam kajiselidik Bil Industri Perkhidmatan Air, dan
membandingkan Bil tersebut dengan undang-undang
pengurusan air negara-negara maju dan membangun yang
lain. Jawatankuasa kami juga membincangkan dan menilai
satu deraf memorandum mengenai isu-isu dan polisi-polisi
pembangunan lestari atau berkelanjutan (sustainable) di
bawah Prinsip 21 Deklarasi Rio tentang Pembangunan dan
104 Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar
Oleh
3 aktiviti telah dirancang untuk dikelolakan bersama
Persatuan Pencinta Alam Malaysia (MNS) dengan
objektif membolehkan ahli-ahli Bar melaksanakan aktiviti
pendidikan dan perlindungan ekologi alam sekitar:
i.
Projek gotong-royong MNS-Chalet Kebun Teh
Boh di Cameron Highlands;
ii.
Program Pelatih Renjer Taman Rimba; dan
iii. Minggu Memerhati Penghijrahan Burung
Pemangsa di Tanjong Tuan, Melaka.
2
Satu lawatan ke Pulau Sibu juga dirancang untuk
bulan Februari.
3
Penyampaian memorandum mengenai isu-isu dan polisipolisi pembangunan lestari atau berkelanjutan kepada
Kementrian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan dan
Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar.
4
Satu lawatan ke Rumah Jimat Tenaga Pusat Teknologi,
Pembangunan dan Alam Sekitar Malaysia (CETDEM)
dirancang untuk bulan Februari/Mac.
Oleh kerana cabaran-cabaran alam sekitar dan isu-isu
perundangan yang lain akan tetap bangkit, jawatankuasa
Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar berhasrat untuk berkerjasama
dengan ajensi-ajensi komuniti dan ahli-ahli Bar yang lain
untuk menerapkan ilmu pengetahuan dan membentuk dan
menyempurnakan etika perlindungan dan keseimbangan
alam sekitar yang kukuh.
Stanley Sinnappen
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Undang-Undang Alam Sekitar
JAWATANKUASA KECIL
TEKNOLOGI MAKLUMAT
1
Pengerusi
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Fahri Azzat
Hasnal bin Hashim
Goh Siu Lin
Nga Tsing Tao
J awatankuasa ini telah menumpukan perhatian penggal ini untuk
menggunakan teknologi maklumat bagi memperbaiki dan meningkatkan taraf
kemudahan-kemudahan dan perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan yang diberikan
kepada ahli-ahli terutamanya menggunakan Laman Web Bar Kuala Lumpur
untuk memaklumkan ahli-ahli berkenaan aktiviti-aktiviti Jawatankuasa Peguam
Kuala Lumpur dengan cara lebih teratur melalui “e-Newsletter”.
2
Selanjutnya, pengenalan teknologi maklumat kepada pelbagai
perkhidmatan Jawatakuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur akan menyebabkan
penjimatan kos yang banyak dan pemberian perkhidmatan yang lebih efisien.
Sekretariat juga akan boleh memberi perhatian untuk memberikan
perkhidmatan yang berkualiti oleh kerana kakitangan yang sebelum ini
digunakan untuk perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan perkeranian akan digantikan
dengan pengenalan perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan “on-line”.
Perkhidmatan “Online”
3
Kami gembira untuk mengumumkan bahawa Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala
Lumpur akan menjadi Jawatankuasa Negeri yang pertama di dalam
mengenalkan perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan “online” kepada ahli-ahlinya.
4
Perkhidmatan-perkhidmatan “online” yang akan diperkenalkan termasuk:
Penyerahan untuk Pendaftaran dan pembayaran yuran tahunan.
Penyerahan untuk Pembaharuan dan pembayaran BC Box.
Pendaftaran pelatih dalam kamar baru.
Pendaftaran peguam baru dan firma baru.
Penyerahan untuk Pendaftaran dan pembayaran aktiviti-aktivi
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur termasuk seminar-seminar
latihan perundangan berterusan.
Mengemaskini butir-butir ahli-ahli.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Lebih memudahkan, ahli-ahli boleh menggunakan perkhidmatanperkhidmatan untuk melihat status pendaftaran dan/atau pembayaran
mereka melalui Laman Web Bar Kuala Lumpur.
Laman Web Bar Kuala Lumpur
6
Laman Web Bar Kuala Lumpur telah menunjukkan lawatan lebih kurang
10,000 sehari secara purata. Ini menunjukkan peningkatan yang besar dan
jelas bahawa Laman Web yang telah diubahsuai tahun lepas telah menarik
penggunakan yang banyak berbanding daripada tahun-tahun yang lalu. Iklan
di Laman Web Bar Kuala Lumpur telah memberi pendapatan sejumlah
RM19,250.00 berbanding dengan jumlah RM8,600.00 di dalam tahun 2004/
05 untuk Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur.
Pesta Teknologi Maklumat
7
Pada 09.03.2006, jawatankuasa akan mengadakan Pesta Teknologi
Maklumat di Hotel Legend untuk membolehkan ahli-ahli melihat produkproduk Teknologi Maklumat yang terkini yang ada di pasaran.
Ucapan Terima Kasih
8
Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada kesemua ahli-ahli
jawatankuasa untuk penyertaan dan sumbangan mereka.
9
Kami berharap bahawa inovasi-inovasi yang diperkenalkan telah memberi
manafaat kepada ahli-ahli. Kami berharap ahli-ahli dapat memberi
cadangan atau komen untuk membolehkan kami menyumbang kepada
ahli-ahli dengan lebih bagus dan efisien.
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Teknologi Maklumat
Teknologi Maklumat
105
JAWATANKUASA PENERBITAN
Surat berita RELEVAN
T
Pengerusi
Teh Yoke Hooi
ahun bagi RELEVAN bermula dengan isu pertamanya di bulan Mei 2005, diikuti
dengan isu kedua di bulan September 2005 dan yang ketiga di bulan Januari 2006.
Cheng Poh Heng
Nicole Wee
Brendan Navin Siva
Rishwant Singh
Bernard Francis
Edmund Balthazar
Pada tahun ini, jawatankuasa Penerbitan telah meneruskan tugasnya yang telah
dimulakan oleh jawatankuasa terdahulu dengan penerbitan hasil-hasil penulisan
dan pandangan dari kalangan ahli-ahli kita, yang mana adalah terdiri daripada
pengamal-pengamal professional yang terkenal, peguam-peguam yang
berpengalaman dan pakar-pakar undang-undang.
Jawatankuasa Penerbitan telah cuba membawa kepada ahli-ahli kita pandanganpandangan dan pendapat-pendapat dari kalangan ahli-ahli yang lain dalam
amalan aliran terkini, dan amalan undang-undang akan datang. Oleh yang
demikian, ‘Can the Bar cope with Globalisation?’ telah diterbitkan di dalam isu 2/
05 dan artikel-artikel yang menyentuh bahagian-bahagian tertentu tentang
pengurusan pejabat seperti ‘Why is an internal I.T. Security important to you as a
legal firm?’ telah juga diterbitkan di dalam isu 2/05.
Kami juga berpendapat bahawa oleh kerana ramai dari kalangan ahli-ahli kita tidak
dapat menyertai ahli-ahli yang lain dalam kebanyakan aktiviti-aktiviti Bar KL,
jawatankuasa Penerbitan telah membawa kepada ahli-ahli yang tidak hadir, laporanlaporan ke atas setiap aktiviti tersebut, maka gambar-gambar dan cerita-cerita
berkenaan dengan aktiviti-aktiviti yang telah dijalankan oleh jawatankuasa Pendidikan
Undang-undang Lanjutan, jawatankuasa Peguam-Peguam Muda, jawatankuasa
Sukan, jawatankuasa Sosial dan Kebajikan Pelatih dan juga jawatankuasa Undangundang Alam Sekitar kita adalah dimuatkan di dalam setiap isu RELEVAN.
Laporan ahli-ahli kita yang telah menghadiri atau mengemukakan kertas-kertas
kerja di dalam Perundingan-Perundingan tempatan atau peringkat antarabangsa
telah juga dimuatkan supaya kita semua boleh mempelajari daripada pengalaman
golongan-golongan delegasi dan kemahiran golongan-golongan pakar. Oleh yang
demikian, kami telah menerbitkan laporan-laporan daripada Kongres
Kebangsaaan Pertama berkenaan dengan Rasuah Bersepadu, Perundingan
Undang-Undang Komanwel yang ke-14 di London, Perundingan IBA di Prague,
dan Perundingan Lawasia di Ho Chin Minh.
Walaubagaimanapun adalah dikesalkan di sini bahawa penulisan-penulisan adalah
semakin hari semakin susah untuk diterima dan untuk di cari. Adalah diakui, penulisan
merupakan satu seni, di mana sumbangan-sumbangan yang dibuat adalah
datangnya dari hanya sebuah kumpulan kecil antara ahli-ahli kita, dan jarang-jarang
sekali datangnya dari ahli-ahli yang lebih muda dari kalangan kita.
Oleh sebab itu, jawatankuasa Penerbitan sedang mencari sebarang kemungkinan
bagi menerbitkan RELEVAN secara professional dan usaha-usaha sedang
dijalankan untuk mengkaji kebolehlaksanaannya. Samada ini boleh dilaksanakan
hanya akan di ketahui kelak.
RELEVAN tidak mungkin ujud jikalau tiada dedikasi oleh ahli-ahli
jawantankuasanya, penyumbang-penyumbangnya dan penyokong-penyokong yang
lain, maka mereka ini patut menerima satu tepukan penghargaan dan adalah
diharapkan dengan sesungguhnya bahawa RELEVAN terus menerima lebih banyak
lagi penyertaan dan sumbangan-sumbangan dari semua ahli Bar KL.
Teh Yoke Hooi
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Penerbitan
106 Penerbitan
JAWATANKUASA SOSIAL &
KEBAJIKAN PELATIH
Majlis Makan Malam & Tari-Menari Tahunan
Pengerusi
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
Andrew Shee
Chua Sook Mun
Elizabeth Lee Pei Sheh
Reggie Wong
Majlis Makan Malam & Tari-Menari Tahunan yang bertemakan “International
Costumes” telah diadakan pada 10.09.2005 di Hotel JW Marriot, Kuala Lumpur.
Seramai lebih daripada 480 orang tetamu telah menghadiri acara tersebut,
kebanyakannya kelihatan begitu terserlah dan menarik dengan pakaian masingmasing dari serata dunia. Majlis tersebut telah mendapat sambutan baik daripada
para tetamu dengan hidangan minuman sepanjang malam dan diserikan dengan
pelbagai aktiviti dan hiburan serta hadiah-hadiah menarik kepada pemenangpemenang bertuah. Ahli jawatankuasa ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk
mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada firma-firma dan pihak individu yang
telah memberikan sokongan penuh bagi memastikan Majlis Tahunan ini kekal
menjadi suatu tradisi penting yang menyeronokkan.
Pertandingan Pidato Dato’ Dr Peter Mooney
Pertandingan Pidato ketiga ini telah dijadualkan pada 18.02.2006. Pertandingan
ini adalah terbuka untuk semua peguam yang mempunyai pengalaman pascakelayakan tidak melebihi 3 tahun dan juga untuk pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar.
Istiadat “Reference”
Suatu Istiadat “Reference” bagi menghormati dan mengingatkan ahli-ahli Bar
KL yang telah meninggal dunia pada tahun lalu bakal diadakan pada 16.02.2006.
Derma Darah
Kempen menderma darah telah diadakan di Bilek Peguam, Mahkamah Rendah,
Jalan Raja pada 24.11.2005 dengan bantuan Pusat Darah Negara. Sejumlah 33
unit darah telah dikumpul daripada penderma-penderma yang murah hati.
Mencari Harta Karun
Setelah ketiadaannya selama enam tahun, “The Kuala Lumpur Bar Motor
Treasure Hunt” kini dijadualkan berlangsung pada 25-26.02.2006. Acara ini akan
bermula dari Kuala Lumpur ke Melaka, dengan tempat bermalam di Riviera Bay
Resort. Pihak jawatankuasa menganggarkan hampir 200 peserta akan menyertai
acara ini, yang turut dibuka kepada bukan ahli Bar Malaysia. Encik Christopher
Foo telah bermurah hati untuk menawarkan khidmatnya sebagai “course master”
untuk acara ini. Semua hasil bersih yang diperolehi daripada acara ini akan
disalurkan untuk tujuan kebajikan.
Taklimat Pelatih Dalam Kamar
Ahli-ahli jawatankuasa sering dan sentiasa mengadakan sessi taklimat untuk
pelatih-pelatih sebelum mereka diterima masuk sebagai Peguambela dan
Peguamcara.
Sosial & Kebajikan Pelatih 107
Soal Selidik Pelatih Dalam Kamar
Pihak jawatankuasa telah mereka suatu soal selidik bagi
mendapatkan maklumbalas pelatih-pelatih dan menentukan
minat mereka di dalam menyertai aktiviti-aktiviti Bar Kuala
Lumpur atau berkhidmat di mana-mana jawatankuasa kecil.
Soal selidik tersebut diberikan dan kemudiannya dikumpul
daripada pelatih-pelatih semasa perjumpaan mereka dengan
pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur. Jawapanjawapan yang diperolehi bukan sahaja memberikan
maklumat tentang jenis-jenis aktiviti yang menarik minat ahliahli muda, malah juga merupakan sumber ahli-ahli yang
berminat untuk berkhidmat di jawatankuasa kecil
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur pada masa hadapan.
dalam menghadiri Mahkamah. Dua kursus telah diadakan
pada 15.09.2005 dan 13.10.2005 secara percuma. Secara
amnya pelatih-pelatih yang hadir mendapati kursus tersebut
sangat bermanfaat bagi mereka; yang membimbangkan
ialah jumlah pelatih yang telah mendaftarkan nama untuk
menghadiri kursus tersebut adalah ramai tetapi secara
kasarnya hanya separuh daripada mereka yang hadir pada
tarikh kursus tersebut.
Pengemaskinian Buku Panduan Pelatih
Pihak jawatankuasa juga sedang di dalam proses
mengemaskinikan Buku Panduan Pelatih yang kini dijual di
Sekretariat, setelah menerima maklumbalas bahawa
kandungan Buku Panduan tersebut telah lapuk.
Kursus Tentang Asas-asas Dalam Menghadiri Mahkamah
Berdasarkan maklum balas awal yang diperolehi daripada
soal jawab di atas, pihak jawatankuasa telah membuat
keputusan untuk mengadakan kursus tentang asas-asas
108 Sosial & Kebajikan Pelatih
Ivan Wong Ee-Vern
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Sosial & Kebajikan Pelatih
JAWATANKUASA SUKAN
Pengerusi
Anand Ponnudurai
Konvenor-Konvenir
1
Series Tahunan
1.1
Karnival Sukan Yang Ke 16 – Bar KL lwn Kelab DiRaja Selangor
(Piala Pusingan Tan Sri Dato’ Harun Hashim)
Badminton
A.I. Nathan
Karnival Sukan Yang Ke 16 yang telah ditangguhkan oleh Kelab
DiRaja Selangor (RSC) daripada bulan Januari 2005 telah di adakan
pada 14 & 15.10.2005.
Kriket
Alex De Silva
Pihak Bar KL telah mempunyai memulaan yang bagus apabila
kumpulan Golf mengalahkan kumpulan menentang pada 14.10.2005.
Padahal melainkan kumpulan hoki yang mendapatkan markah seri
1-1, kumpulan-kumpulan bola sepak, bola jaring, skuash, tenis dan
snooker untuk Bar KL semuanya telah dikalahkan oleh kumpulankumpulan RSC pada 15.10.2005. Kemenangan RSC adalah jidar yang
memberikan kumpulan Bar KL harapan untuk permainan-permainan
yang akan datang. Untuk rekod, Bar KL hanya memenangi siri ini
sekali sahaja dalam jangka masa 16 tahun.
Golf
Koh Yew Ching
Hoki
K. Vijayraj
Bola Jaring
Wong Keat Ching
Bola Sepak
Peter Ling
Skuash
Jayne Koe
1.2
Tenis
Yeoh Cho Keong
Sukan Bar KL/Selangor Yang Ke-5
(Piala Pusingan Lall Singh Muker)
Bar KL telah menjadi tuan rumah untuk siri ke-5 dibeberapa tempat
pada 25 & 26.02.2005. Bar Selangor telah mula dengan satu
kemenangan dimana mereka telah mengalahkan Bar KL dan
memenangi Piala Kandiah Chelliah untuk permainanan Golf pada
25.02.2005. Walaubagaimanapun, Bar KL telah kembali dengan
kuatnya pada hari keesokkan dan telah berjaya mendapatkan Piala
Pusingan Lall Singh Muker apabila mereka mengalahkan Bar Selangor
dalam permainan-permainan badminton, bola jaring, snooker dan bola
tampar. Bar Selangor telah memenangi permainan-permainan hoki
and bola sepak yang telah diakhiri dengan seri.
Bola Tampar
Cheow Wee
Bar KL telah menjadi tuan rumah untuk upacara makan malam di
RSC Kiara Annexe pada 26.02.2005 dan upacara ini telah mendapat
kehadiran yang baik dengan kehadiran semua peserta-peserta dan
penyokong-penyokong dimana Encik Ajit Singh Muker hadir untuk
menyampaikan piala pusingan.
Bar Selangor akan menjadi tuan rumah untuk Siri ke-6 pada 20 & 21.01.2006.
2
Permainan – Permainan Bar Diantara Negeri-Negeri
2.1
Satu pertandingan Bar Badminton antara negeri-negeri telah diaturkan
oleh Majlis Peguam di Johor Bahru pada 16.07.2005 dan tuan rumahnya
ialah Bar Johor. Kumpulan Badminton Bar KL telah muncul sebagai juara.
2.2
Satu pertandingan diantara negeri-negeri telah diaturkan oleh Majlis
Peguam pada 03 & 04.12.2005 untuk bola jaring, hoki dan bola sepak.
Bar Perak di Ipoh telah menjadi tuan rumah untuk pertandingan
tersebut. Walaubagaimanapun, permainan tersebut telah ditangguh
Sukan
109
dan sekarang dijadualkan untuk berlangsung di
Johor Bahru pada 17 & 18.02.2006 dan tuan
rumahnya ialah Jawatankuasa Peguam Johor. Bar
KL akan menghantar kumpulan-kumpulan untuk
menyertai ketiga-tiga permainan tersebut.
2.3
3
Satu pertandingan golf diantara negeri-negeri telah
diadakan pada 20.08.2005 di Pulau Penang dan
Bar Pulau Pinang telah menjadi tuan rumah. Bar
KL telah menghantar pasukan seramai 12 pemain.
Bar Pulau Pinang telah muncul sebagai juara and
Bar KL telah mendapat tempat ke-empat dalam
pertandingan ini.
Bola Sepak
Pertandingan Bola Sepak 7-Sebelah yang ke-17 Piala Memorial
Thayalan untuk Piala Pusingan yang diderma oleh Tetuan
Skrine telah diadakan pada 12.03.2005 di UNITEN Bangi.
Pertandingan ini disertai oleh beberapa peserta yang berminat
dari seluruh negeri. Peguam-peguam Selangor muncul sebagai
pemain-pemain bola sepak yang terbaik apabila kumpulan
Bar Selangor B muncul sebagai juara and kumpulan Bar
Selangor A muncul sebagai naib juara. Pertandingan yang ke18 akan berlansung pada bulan March 2006.
4
Golf
Dalam tahun ini, aktiviti untuk permainan Golf telah
bertambah, iaitu peserta-peserta pemuda daripada Bar telah
bertambah. Permain Golf daripada mewakili Bar KL didalam
beberapa pertandingan, telah juga bermain dalam beberapa
pertandingan persahabatan diantara mereka.
Tahun ini, kami telah mengambil keputusan untuk memulih
semula Pertandingan “KL Bar Closed Invitational” yang tidak
berlansung dalam beberapa tahun yang lepas. Pertandingan
tersebut diadakan di Sungai Long Golf and Country Club
pada 11.11.2005. Peserta-peserta termasuk Hakim dan
peguam-peguam daripada Malaysia Timur dan Singapura.
Sunil Abraham telah muncul sebagai juara didalam
110 Sukan
pertandingan tersebut. Hadiah-hadiah menarik, iaitu 4 tiket
ke Bali dan Phuket untuk pertandingan ini telah
disumbangankan oleh Malaysia Airlines.
Kami juga ingin merakamkan penghargaan kepada Dato’
Cecil Abraham, Dato’ Zahir dan Capt. Razak diatas derma
dan sumbangan mereka. Ucapan terima kasih juga ditujukan
kepada firma Tetuan Chooi & Co dan Tetuan Ranjit Ooi dan
Robert Low kerana menaja kemeja-T dan hadiah-hadiah
untuk pertandingan ini. Diharapkan pertandingan ini akan
berlangsung secara tahunan.
5
AM
Ahli-ahli Bar KL sering bertemu untuk bermain permainan
bola tampar, badminton and bola jaring. Permainan tenis
juga telah bertambah dan ahli-ahli sering bertemu dan
bermain di gelanggang tenis di Jalan Duta.
6
Ucapan Terima Kasih
Jawatankuasa ini ingin berterima kasih kepada semua
konvenor untuk masa dan usaha mereka dalam
mengendalikan permainan-permainan tersebut.
Jawatankuasa juga berterima kasih kepada pendermapenderma atas sumbangan-sumbangan hadiah, piala-piala
dan berbagai penajaan dalam tahun-tahun terdahulu untuk
menjayakan pelbagai aktiviti sukan. Akhir sekali,
jawatankuasa berterima kasih kepada semua ahli-ahli
yang mengambil bahagian dan memberi sokongan dalam
pelbagai aktiviti dalam jawatankuasa Sukan dalam
beberapa tahun ini. Walaubagaimanapun, penglibatan
ahli-ahli telah bertambah dan secara umumnya amat
menggalakkan, adalah diharapkan lebih banyak ahli
terutama peguam-peguam muda akan mengambil
bahagian dalam aktiviti-aktiviti dalam tahun-tahun yang
akan datang.
Anand Ponnudurai
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Sukan
JAWATANKUASA PEGUAM MUDA
Laporan Pengerusi
Pengerusi
Richard T.S. Wee
Setiausaha
Melissa Ram
K Parames
Razanna Raslan
Vincent Tey
Will Fung
Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda (JPM) bercita-cita untuk berdamping dengan
ahli-ahli terutama sekali ahli-ahli yang muda. Kami berniat untuk memastikan
peguam-peguam sedar akan pengorbanan, cita-cita dan pencapaian Bar KL.
JPM tahun ini disokong oleh ramai ahli-ahli yang berkebolehan. Setiap satu
Ketua jawatankuasa kecil amat pro-aktif, mengetuai dari barisan depan dan,
ikhlas dan jujur dalam setiap kerja. Setiap satu Ketua jawatankuasa juga
disokong oleh ahli-ahli yang berdedikasi.
JPM tahun 2005/06 telah menanjurkan banyak aktiviti atau sekurang-kurangnya
sebahagian daripada pihak penganjur, antaranya:
1
Bil Parlimen untuk memansuhkan S46A Akta Profesion UndangUndang 1976, dan juga penyampaian Bil tersebut kepada Majlis
Peguam pada bulan Julai 2005;
2
Malam Amal pada 30.06.2005;
3
Majlis Berbuka Puasa pada 07.10.2005;
4
Perbahasan umum dibawah naungan JPM Hak Asasi Manusia, tentang
pengawalan isu moral rakyat oleh pihak berkuatkuasa;
5
Lawatan ke rumah-rumah anak-anak yang kurang bernasib baik;
6
Latihan, bengkel dan syarahan (termasuk perlawatan ke Universiti
Malaya pada 14.01.2006 untuk mengadakan satu bengkel bersamasama dengan pelajar tahun terakhir kursus undang-undang di Universiti
tersebut berkenaan hakikat pengamalan undang-undang dari segi
peguam muda);
7
Boling
Saya mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengucapkan terima kasih kepada
semua ahli-ahli JPM dan juga ahli-ahli yang menyokong upacara-upcara kami
Richard Wee
Pengerusi
Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda
Jawatankuasa kecil Hak Asasi Manusia
Jawatankuasa kecil Hak Asasi Manusia bukan sahaja bertujuan menimbulkan
kesedaran di kalangan peguam-peguam muda, malahan cuba menggalakkan
penyertaan mereka secara proaktif dalam perbincangan jurisprudens hak asasi
manusia kita. Jawatankuasa kecil ini telah memilih beberapa isu semasa bagi
tahun ini. Yang pertama adalah perkara mengenai mengawasi maruah awam. Ini
telah secara spesifik terserlah memandangkan serbuan di kelab malam Zouk
oleh pihak berkuasa agama awal tahun lalu dan tangkapan 2 orang bukan Islam
yang dikatakan berkelakuan tidak bermaruah dengan berpegang-pegangan tangan
Peguam Muda 111
di khalayak ramai. Jawatankuasa kecil ini telah menganjurkan
satu forum perbahasan, berjodol “Enforcing Public Morality:
For God’s Sake, Who Should Be In Charge?” yang telah
diadakan pada 04.10.2005. Perbahasan itu bertumpu kepada
sama ada Negeri mempunyai peranan untuk dimainkan, atau
hak untuk campur tangan, dalam mengawasi pembawaan
maruah orang perseorang. Perbahasan itu dibuka kepada ahliahli Badan Peguam dan juga orang awam. Anggota panel itu
yang terkemuka adalah terdiri daripada Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud,
Ketua Penerangan bagi Dewan Muslimat PAS, Salbiah
Ahmad, seorang penyelidik bebas dan kolumnis Malaysiakini,
Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah dan Haris Ibrahim, keduaduannya peguambela dan peguamcara. Dr Shad Saleem
Faruqi, Penasihat Undang-Undang dan Profesor UndangUndang di UiTM, telah menjadi pengantara bagi perbahasan
ini. Hampir 70 orang peserta telah hadir, termasuk penuntut
kolej dan universiti, ahli akademik, ahli NGO, peguam dan
orang awam yang berminat.
Berikutan skandal “ketuk ketampi bogel” yang dahsyat barubaru ini, jawatankuasa kecil ini telah mengeluarkan satu
pernyataan menyuarakan kemarahannya terhadap peristiwa
itu, dan terhadap percubaan pihak atasan kerajaan dan pihak
berkuasa penguatkuasaan undang-undang untuk mengecilngecilkan dan menenggelamkan isu ini. Pernyataan itu juga
merayu kepada peguam-peguam muda supaya bersatu dalam
usaha untuk mengutuk dan bertindak menentang pencabulan
secara ketara hak asasi manusia itu. Pernyataan itu berakhir
dengan mengulangi tuntutan yang dibuat oleh Majlis Peguam
supaya ditubuhkan satu badan bebas untuk mengawasi polis.
Jawatankuasa kecil itu juga bimbang dengan isu
perlembagaan berhubung dengan kebebasan beragama,
termasuk perkara “murtad” yang sensitif itu. Ini timbul dalam
kes Ayah Pin/Sky Kingdom. Dalam hubungan ini,
jawatankuasa kecil ini telah menawarkan bantuannya kepada
ahli-ahli Bar yang lebih kanan yang terlibat dalam kes itu,
membuat arahan memerhati bagi pihak NGO terhadap hak
asasi manusia, dan sedang memupukkan perhubungan kerja
yang rapat dengan NGO berkenaan.
Peristiwa terakhir yang dirancangkan bagi penggal ini adalah
satu ceramah oleh Datuk Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Menteri
Kemajuan Wanita dan Keluarga. Ceramah itu dicadangkan
supaya meliputi isu-isu semasa yang menjejaskan hak wanita,
termasuk perkara-perkara yang disebutkan dalam peristiwa “ketuk
ketampi bogel” itu, dan kes tentang kebebasan beragama setakat
yang menjejaskan hak wanita dan kanak-kanak.
Ketua, jawatankuasa kecil Hak Asasi Manusia
Jawatankuasa kecil Kerjaya
Jawatankuasa kecil ini yang bertujuan untuk menolong peguam
muda dalam isu-isu yang menyentuh “good lawyering” telah
menganjurkan beberapa ceramah dalam berbagai-bagai displin
112 Peguam Muda
sepanjang tahun. Ceramah mengenai “Rogol dan Serangan
Seks” telah dianjurkan oleh JPM dan telah berjalan pada
21.07.2005, ceramah mengenai Undang-undang Keluarga
telah diadakan pada 06.10.2005 dan ceramah Sains
Forensik - Pentingnya Keterangan Biologikal dan Peranan
DNA telah diadakan pada 07.12.2005. Kami telah menerima
sambutan yang baik dari peguam muda dan kami juga telah
mendapat permintaan dari peguam-peguam muda ini untuk
mengadakan lebih banyak ceramah sebegini. Masih ada
dua lagi ceramah yang akan diadakan pada bulan Januari
dan Februari 2006. Satu daripada ceramah tersebut berjudul
“Tekanan dan Pengurusannya” dan satu lagi ceramah adalah
mengenai “Akta Keganasan Rumah Tangga - Cara-cara
pemakaian”. Beberapa ceramah di atas dianjurkan bersama
dengan jawatakuasa Pendidikan Undang-Undang Lanjutan.
Kami telah menerima sambutan positif daripada pesertapeserta dan kami harap akan dapat melipat ganda usaha
kami dalam masa-masa yang akan datang. Kami juga harap
peguam-peguam muda akan dapat menyertai jawatankuasa
kami dan menolong kami menganjurkan ceramah-ceramah
sebegini rupa.
K Parames
Ketua, jawatankuasa kecil Kerjaya
Jawatankuasa kecil Sukan & Sosial
Jawatankuasa kecil Sukan & Sosial Peguam Muda Bar KL
mengadakan dua acara sehingga kini, iaitu boling dan
malam amal (dengan jawatankuasa kecil Kebajikan Peguam
Muda Bar KL). Suatu perlawanan bola sepak persahabatan
antara peguam-peguam Kuala Lumpur dan kakitangankakitangan Mahkamah Kuala Lumpur kini sedang dirancang
untuk bulan Januari/Februari 2006.
Acara pertama yang mana jawatankuasa kecil ini
rancangkan, bersama jawatankuasa kecil Kebajikan, adalah
Malam Amal yang telah diadakan di Souled Out, Sri
Hartamas pada 30.06.2005. Acara ini menarik minat kirakira 300 peguam dan telah diiktiraf sebagai salah satu acara
yang paling berjaya pernah diadakan oleh peguam-peguam
muda. Derma-derma dan keuntungan telah diberikan kepada
Stepping Stones Home di Taman Seputeh yang
menumpangkan kebanyakan kanak-kanak perempuan dan
lelaki yang mengalami pengabaian, penganiayaan dan
peninggalan.
Kesemua ahli Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda Bar KL
memberikan suatu usaha yang dipuji dan dengan rancangan
yang berhati-hati dan teliti telah memastikan kejayaan acara
ini.
Boling telah diadakan pada 02.09.2005 di Cosmic Bowl,
Mid Valley. Kira-kira 20 peguam hadir dan menyokong acara
ini. Kesemua peserta (yang main dan tidak bermain)
menikmati suatu masa yang seronok. Acara tersebut
bermula pada pukul 7.30 malam dan berakhir pada kira-
kira pukul 9.30 malam.
Kedua-dua acara yang dinyatakan di atas telah berjaya
meningkatkan interaksi dan menggalakkan semangat
keakraban di kalangan peguam-peguam di Kuala Lumpur.
2
Majlis Berbuka Puasa
07.10.2005 (7.00 malam)
Majlis Berbuka Puasa JPM telah diadakan di Kelab
Golf Kiara. Majlis tersebut telah dianjurkan untuk
semua ahli Bar KL tidak mengira agama dan
bangsa.
Vincent Tey
Ketua, jawatankuasa kecil Sukan dan Sosial
3
Jawatankuasa kecil Kebajikan
Encik Abdul Razak Abdul Rahim
Di dalam Majlis Berbuka Puasa, JPM telah
menganjurkan satu acara kutipan derma/
sumbangan bagi meringankan beban Encik Abdul
Razak Abdul Rahim, seorang peguam yang menderita
sakit buah pinggang. Dalam masa 30 minit sahaja,
lebih RM150 telah berjaya dikumpul dan kesemua
sumbangan tersebut telah didepositkan kepada
Jawatankuasa Peguam Johor untuk diserahkan
kepada Encik Abdul Razak Abdul Rahim.
Objektif jawatankuasa kecil Kebajikan adalah untuk
memberi kesedaran kepada peguam muda mengenai isuisu komuniti dan sosial dan untuk menanam sifat
menyedari betapa pentingnya membuat kerja-kerja amal.
Senarai ahli jawatankuasa yang aktif adalah seperti yang
berikut:
Razanna Raslan (Ketua)
Hanie Izawatie
Azrina Isa
Christopher Soon
Razanna Raslan
Ketua, jawatankuasa kecil Kebajikan
Jawatankuasa kecil “Legal Struggles”
Jawatankuasa kecil ini ditubuhkan dengan tujuan untuk
memberikan bantuan kepada orang miskin dan yang
memerlukan tidak mengira bangsa, agama atau
kewarganegaraan dalam lapangan kebajikan. Berikut
adalah acara-acara yang dikendalikan:
1
Rumah Stepping Stones
30.06.2005 (7.30 malam) – Malam Amal Peguam
Muda di Souled Out Café
Satu malam amal telah dianjurkan di Souled Out
oleh JPM untuk mengumpul dana untuk Rumah
Stepping Stones iaitu sebuah rumah untuk anakanak yatim, ibu tunggal dan anak-anak yang
kurang bernasib baik. Kami telah berjaya
mengumpulkan jumlah bersih RM10,971.10
daripada malam amal tersebut. Sebahagian
daripada wang yang diterima daripada hasil
sumbangan, jualan tiket-tiket dan juga lelong
malam amal tersebut telah digunakan untuk
membeli barang-barang runcit untuk rumah
tersebut dan sebahagian lagi daripada dana telah
diketepikan untuk majlis yang akan diadakan di
rumah tersebut pada sekitar bulan Januari/
Februari. Dana tersebut juga akan digunakan
untuk membeli keperluan rumah tersebut seperti
makanan, pakaian, alatulis dan sebagainya.
Malam Amal Peguam Muda merupakan satu
malam untuk dikenang kerana selain daripada
membuat amal, peguam kanan dan muda dapat
menghabiskan masa bersama-sama, bergembira
dan merehatkan diri daripada tekanan kerja.
1
Pemansuhan S.46A Akta Profesyen Guaman 1976:
Jawatankuasa kecil “Legal Struggles” telah
ditugaskan dengan tanggungjawab untuk
meneruskan misi pemansuhan Seksyen 46A Akta
Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 (“S.46A”). Tahun ini
kami telah menyaksikan kejayaan di dalam
perkembangan/kempen untuk memansuhkan S.46A.
Pemegang Jawatan di dalam Majlis Peguam Malaysia, bersama-sama dengan usaha gigih
sesetengah Ahli Parlimen yang juga merupakan ahli
profesion guaman, bertemu dengan Menteri di dalam
Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang bertugas di dalam
Hal-Ehwal Parlimen – YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri
Abdul Aziz pada 10.05.2005 dan mengemukakan
Memorandum untuk memansuhkan S.46A secara
rasmi di Parlimen.
Majlis Peguam telah diwakili oleh Encik Yeo Yang
Poh (Presiden), Cik Ambiga Sreenevasan (NaibPresiden), Encik Ragunath Kesavan (Setiausaha),
Cik Catherine Eu (Pengarah Eksekutif) bersamasama dengan 3 peguam muda, Encik Will Fung,
Encik Edmund Bon dan Encik Amer Hamzah.
Ketua Parti Pembangkang, YB Encik Lim Kit Siang
juga turut hadir di dalam mesyuarat tersebut.
YB Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri telah pada dasar
prinsip, bersetuju berkenaan pemansuhan tersebut,
tetapi tiada jangka waktu yang telah ditetapkan.
Peguam Muda 113
Beliau juga telah bersetuju untuk membawa isu ini
untuk diperbincangkan di dalam mesyuarat Kabinet,
dan berpendapat positif bahawa penjadualan rang
undang-undang untuk pemansuhan akan dilakukan
dengan secepat mungkin apabila Kabinet telah
meluluskannya.
Jawatankuasa kecil “Legal Struggles” telah berkerja
rapat dengan Majlis Peguam dan juga Jawatankuasa
Peguam Muda Majlis Peguam (“NYLC”) agar usaha
yang diteruskan diperluaskan bagi memastikan ianya
dicapai pada jangka masa akan datang.
Undang 1976 (bertarikh 10.05.2005) dan Memorandum
berkenaan Korum untuk Mesyuarat Agung Bar Malaysian (bertarikh 15.09.2005) kepada Peguam Negara.
Kempen berterusan untuk memansuhkan S.46A Akta
Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 masih lagi menjadi tujuan
utama dan akan berterusan demi mewujudkan kesedaran
dikalangan peguam-peguam muda mengenai perjuangan
Bar Malaysia terhadap seksyen yang menindas ini. Pada
masa yang sama, kami akan berkerja dan mengikuti rapat
perkembangan dalam perkara tersebut, yang
sememangnya, merupakan suatu perjuangan untuk
profesion guaman yang sudah lama diwujudkan.
Sessi Susulan / Kronologi Peristiwa:-
·
Pada 09.06.2005, panggilan telah dibuat kepada
Pengarah Eksekutif Bar Council, Cik Catherine Eu oleh
Will Fung yang mana dia telah diberitahu bahawa Majlis
Peguam telah menulis kepada Datuk Seri Mohamed
Nazri bagi menanyakan mengenai perkembangan
perkara tersebut. Kami telah selanjutnya dimaklumkan
bahawa surat kepada Jabatan Peguam Negara juga
telah dihantar, bagi menetapkan mesyuarat di antara
Majlis Peguam dan Peguam Negara;
·
Rang undang-undang untuk pemansuhan tersebut telah
disediakan oleh jawatankuasa kecil “Legal Struggles”
dan telah dikemukakan kepada Presiden Majlis Peguam
melalui NYLC pada bulan Julai, 2005.
·
Berpandangan kepada isu korum yang masih
berlanjutan (pada ketika itu), Majlis Peguam telah
menasihatkan kami untuk menangguhkan sementara
isu berkenaan pemansuhan S.46A tersebut kerana
Majlis Peguam sedang mempertimbangkan untuk
mengaturkan lawatan rasmi kepada Menteri yang
bertugas di dalam Hal-ehwal Undang-undang/Peguam
Negara.;
.
·
Pada 15.12.2005, beberapa Ahli Majlis Peguam
termasuk Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Mah
Weng Kwai, Haji Kuthubul Zaman bin Bukhari, Lim Chee
Wee dan Catherine Eu telah membuat lawatan rasmi
dengan Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri sekali lagi
berkenaan dengan cadangan pindaan kepada Akta
Profesion Undang-Undang, isu berkenaan dengan korum
dan S.46A, Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976;
Pada 19.12.2005, pihak-pihak yang sama telah
mengaturkan lawatan lanjut di Pejabat Peguam Negara
dan bertemu dengan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul
Gani Patail dan Dato’ Idrus bin Harun (Parliamentary
Draftsman) bagi tujuan tersebut dan pada masa yang
sama mengemukakan Memorandum Majlis Peguam
untuk memasuhkan S.46A Akta Profesion Undang-
114 Peguam Muda
Kami, Peguam-Peguam Muda harap semoga suatu jawapan
yang positif dapat diperolehi daripada semua pihak yang
terlibat dan kami akan meneruskan kempen untuk
pemansuhan tersebut sehingga S.46A Akta Profesion
Undang-Undang 1976, di dalam isi halnya dan inti patinya,
dimansuhkan!
2
Lain-lain:
Kumpulan “Legal Struggles” juga sedang
memerhatikan rapat perkembangan terkini di dalam
undang-undang dan perkara-perkara di dalam
profesion undang-undang secara keseluruhan
berkenaan dengan masalah yang dihadapi oleh,
terutamanya, peguam-peguam muda.
Perbincangan-perbincangan, forum, dialog-dialog
telah
diaturkan
dan
diadakan
untuk
membincangkan dan menimbangkan isu-isu
berhubungan kebajikan dan kepentingankepentingan pengamal-pengamal undang-undang
“muda” bukan sahaja di Kuala Lumpur, malah
seluruh negara jua. Ini termasuk Penyataan
Konvensyen Pangkor 2005 dan wakil-wakil
Peguam-peguam Muda dari negeri-negeri masingmasing, antara lainnya.
Kami berharap bahawa lebih ramai peguampeguam muda, terutamanya di sekitar Kuala
Lumpur demi tampil kehadapan dan menunujukkan
keinginan mereka untuk menyertai aktiviti-aktiviti
yang diadakan oleh Majlis Peguam, Jawatankuasa
Peguam Kuala Lumpur dan pada masa-masa
tertentu, bukan sahaja kami boleh menghulurkan
pertolongan dan sumbangan kepada Bar Malaysia/Profesion Guaman, namun juga kepada
masyarakat umum yang memerlukan pertolongan
daripada ahli-ahli Profesion Guaman.
Will Fung
Ketua, jawatankuasa kecil “Legal Struggles”
PUSAT BANTUAN GUAMAN
(KUALA LUMPUR)
A. LAPORAN PANEL PENGURUSAN 2005
PANEL PENGURUSAN
Pengerusi
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Setiausaha Kehormat
Stanley Sinnappen
Penolong Setiausaha Kehormat
Fahri Azzat
Bendahari
So Chien Hao
Ahli-Ahli
Sivarasa Rasiah
M Puravalen
Alexis Diana
Ravi Nekoo
B Murugayah
Arunan Selvaraj
Pushpa Ratnam
Preetam Kaur
Anne Santhiago
Meera Samanther
Amir Hamzah Amha
PENGENALAN
Pada tahun 2005, Pusat Bantuan Guaman (Kuala Lumpur) (“PBGKL”) telah
membantu sejumlah 11,144 anak guam dengan mencatatkan pengurangan
jumlah anak guam yang di bantu terutamanya anak guam dari golongan
pekerja asing dan banduan penjara. Fail-fail yang dibuka juga turut berkurangan
atas sebab-sebab penguatkuasaan dasar “Ujian Kelayakan” serta kriteria untuk
kelayakan membuka fail yang juga diperketatkan. (Sila rujuk statistik tahun
2005 untuk maklumat lanjut).
Terdapat beberapa isu yang dibangkitkan pada awal tahun 2005. Terdapat
pelbagai dakwaan yang yang serius oleh pemegang jawatan yang terdahulu
antaranya dakwaan kewangan dan pengurusan yang kurang terurus dan disiplin
kakitangan yang kurang menyenangkan. PBGKL dan peguam sukarelanya
mendapat reputasi buruk dan melalui tempoh yang menyukarkan. Majlis
Peguam telah menyiasat dakwaan-dakwaan tersebut dan telah membebaskan
PBGKL daripada dakwaan-dakwaan itu. Sementara itu, PBGKL telah
menjalankan siasatan serta menyemak semula polisi-polisi dan prosedurnya
dan telah mengambil langkah untuk memastikan masalah tersebut dapat
diatasi untuk kepuasan penyiasat Majlis Peguam (Sila rujuk rumusan
“Pencapaian, Kelemahan dan Cadangan Mengatasinya’ yang telah disediakan
oleh Pentadbir PBGKL, Puan Stephanie Bastian).
Objektif-objektif bagi penggal ini adalah (1) untuk menyediakan atau memberi
perkhidmatan yang berkualiti kepada yang memerlukan (2) menyelesaikan
masalah kekurangan peguam sukarela (terdapat cuma 3.6% ahli Jawatankuasa
Peguam yang terlibat dalam kerja-kerja PBGKL). Kami telah mengambil
langkah untuk mencapai matlamat tersebut dengan meningkatkan motivasi
Pelatih Dalam Kamar yang mana kami percaya bahawa perkhidmatan yang
berkualiti dari PBGKL akan meningkatkan prospek Pelatih Dalam Kamar untuk
kembali sebagai peguam sukarela. Prosedur pendaftaran yang lebih baik dan
tindakan susulan bagi peguam sukarela, seperti yang dinyatakan dalam
kesimpulan juga adalah langkah-langkah yang diambil.
Masih banyak perkara yang harus dilakukan. Pelbagai cadangan telah dibuat
oleh Pentadbir kepada Panel Pengurusan untuk dipertimbangkan. Intipati
cadangan kami ialah supaya PBGKL dapat mencapai objektif utama Bantuan
Guaman, kami percaya bahawa kepentingan utama dan fokus seharusnya
tertumpu kepada membantu mereka yang memerlukan
Kami merakamkan jutaan terima kasih kepada rakan Badan Bukan Kerajaan
(NGO), Peguam-peguam Sukarela, Kakitangan PBGKL, Ketua-ketua Projek,
ahli-ahli jawatankuasa dan Pelatih-pelatih Dalam Kamar terhadap sokongan
dan pertolongan terhadap kerja-kerja PBGKL, atas perkhidmatan yang berkualiti
dan amat bermakna kepada mereka yang memerlukan.
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Pengerusi
Bantuan Guaman 115
B. RINGKASAN PENTADBIR MENGENAI PENCAPAIAN, KELEMAHAN DAN CADANGAN
I Pencapaian
1. Pengumpulan data dan pengurusan sumber
a) Pengenalan format baru pengumpulan data. Analisis dan kawalselia penggunaan sumber LAC, terutamanya
pelatih dalam kamar.
b) Kawalselia yang lebih teliti kepada keberkesanan dan kecekapan program PBG.
2. Peningkatan dalam pengurusan pejabat
a) Sistem Perisian Akaun yang baru
b) Perlantikan Bendahari dan panduan perakaunan yang baru, termasuk laporan kewangan (bajet) berbanding
perbelanjaan sebenar, untuk kawalselia dan penjangkaan akaun PBG.
c) Perjumpaan dengan juruaudit dan sumber-sumber luar akaun jangka pendek – untuk menilai semula dan
meningkatkan prosedur perakaunan.
d) Pengenalan kepada ketetapan masa, kehadiran dan rekod cuti dan laporan
e) Kawalselia penggunaan telefon dan pengenalan kepada system penggunaan telefon yang lebih ekonomi
f) Pemasangan lampu yang lebih baik, stor dan ‘pantry’ untuk peningkatan persekitaran kerja dan kebajikan
pekerja.
g) Manual Pejabat PBG – Polisi dan prosedur PBG.
3. Pelatih Dalam Kamar
a) Peningkatan motivasi pelatih dalam kamar untuk berkhidmat dan belajar dari tugasan wajib Pusat Bantuan
Guaman – Orientasi, sesi latihan/KLBC pelatih dalam kamar pengenalan.
b) Kehadiran pemegang-pemegang jawatan di “ Semakan Separuh Penggal” dan galakan kepada pelatih
dalam kamar untuk memberi maklum balas yang membina.
c) Koordinasi bersama KLBC untuk mendaftar dan memberitahu pelatih dalam kamar tentang tugasan bantuan
guaman sebaik sahaja mereka mendaftar untuk Latihan Dalam Kamar supaya mereka boleh menyempurnakan
tugasan 14 minggu mereka sebelum dipanggil ke Bar.
d) Polisi menyesuaikan seboleh mungkin, pilihan pertama dan kedua pelatih-pelatih mengenai programprogram PBG bagi membantu memotivasikan mereka.
e) Latihan ‘ad-hoc’ Pelatih dalam kamar, contohnya latihan pelarian dan pencari perlindungan UNHCR dan
latihan Dock Brief untuk jaminan.
4. Peguam Sukarela
a) Sistem baru untuk pendaftaran peguam sukarela, susulan dan laporan untuk susulan.
b) Pengkalan data untuk peguam sukarela dan senarai e-mail
c) Menyediakan senarai fail-fail yang tidak mempunyai peguam kepada semua peguam KLBC untuk meminta mereka
mengendalikan fail-fail tersebut.
d) Garis panduan tentang perbelanjaan untuk membantu peguam/klien (perbelanjaan dibayar oleh klien terus kepada
peguam sukarela)
e) Latihan undang-undang Jenayah oleh PBG untuk meningkatkan kemahiran peguam dan menambahkan lagi bilangan
peguam sukarela undang-undang Jenayah, oleh kerana masalah utama ialah fail-fail jenayah yang tidak ada peguam.
f) Polisi tiada tolak ansur berkaitan “ touting”.
5. Program-program
a) Penggabungan antara Dock Brief dan Klinik Penjara kerana ia adalah bahagian yang berbeza dalam proses yang
sama, menghasilkan pengurangan kos perjalanan dan masa.
b) Pertingkatkan kertas temuduga untuk klinik penjara, juvana dan PBG.
6. Latihan/Tugasan Sementara
a) Latihan “para-legal” yang pertama untuk pekerja-pekerja PBG (KL dan negeri-negeri lain) dan NGO-NGO.
b) Latihan oleh UNHCR tentang Pelarian dan Pencari Perlindungan
c) Latihan ‘Kematian Dalam Tahanan’ untuk peguam bersama Majlis Peguam
d) Program “outreach” sekolah-sekolah.
e) Meningkatkan tumpuan kepada dan penekanan terhadap program tugasan sementara untuk pelajar-pelajar sekolah,
kolej dan universiti.
116
Bantuan Guaman
7. Rangkaian
a) Kerjasama dengan PBG Selangor – Pelatih dari selangor menyertai pelatih Kuala Lumpur dalam beberapa program
dan latihan untuk program tersebut
b) Peningkatan yang lebih dalam kerjasama dan koordinasi bersama KLBC, NLAC dan Majlis Peguam berkenaan
dengan perkongsian maklumat, program bersama dan bantuan.
II Kelemahan
1. Pengurusan Pejabat
a) Kekurangan dalam motivasi pekerja
b) Penggunaan komunikasi IT secara meluas kurang menggalakkan penyertaan dari peguam yang tidak mahir IT.
c) Kecenderungan untuk mengabaikan prosedur yang telah ditetapkan setelah beberapa lama.
d) Masalah-masalah pentadbiran memakan masa yang lama dan memerlukan perhatian pemegang jawatan.
a) Kurang tindakan susulan dengan pelatih dalam kamar – semasa dan selepas tugasan wajib
b) Kurang berhubung dan berdialog dengan pelatih dalam kamar semasa tugasan wajib.
3. Peguam-peguam sukarela
a) Kurang penyertaan oleh peguam-peguan dalam jawatankuasa-jawatankuasa dan program-program
b) Kurang respon untuk membuat dan mengumpul peguam-peguam bersama dalam acara sosial (contohnya parti
pemusnahan fail-fail, Majlis Makan Malam Ulangtahun Pusat Bantuan dan Malam Kuiz KLBC).
4. Program-program
a) Pengawasan dan tumpuan yang tidak mencukupi untuk program-program individu
b) Penjagaan anakguam yang tidak mencukupi-anakguam dilayan secara bersahaja dan kadang-kala berlaku kecuaian
bagi kes-kes yang memerlukan tumpuan khas.
c) Kesukaran dalam melantik peguam, terutamanya bagi fail-fail jenayah.
5. Latihan
a) Kadangkala latihan yang diberikan tidak dirancang dengan baik.
b) Cara latihan yang dijalankan tidak berkesan untuk pelatih dalam kamar
6. Rangkaian
a) Kekurangan masa dan tenaga yang diberikan untuk jalinan rangkaian dan hubungan antara jabatan
7. Visi dan Halatuju PBG
a) Kekurangan dalam kepimpinan yang berterusan, wawasan dan perancangan
b) Penglibatan yang kurang dari ahli panel pengurusan dalam mesyuarat dan diskusi e-mail
III Cadangan untuk masa depan
1. Pengumpulan Data
a) Untuk membolehkan penggunaan pengumpulan data bagi pembaharuan undang-undang, penyelidikan atau tujuantujuan spesifik yang lain
2. Pengurusan Pejabat
a) Pengubahsuaian secretariat untuk memasukkan Pengurus Pejabat, Pegawai Perhubungan bagi peguampeguam dan pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar dan Pegawai Program bagi klien-klien dan program-program
b) Latihan untuk kakitangan dalam penggunaan komputer, perakaunan, pengurusan pejabat dan kemahiran
pergaulan.
a) Program susulan yang sesuai bagi pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar selepas tugasan bantuan guaman mereka.
b) Mengekalkan hubungan dengan pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar yang ingin berkhidmat selepas tugasan bantuan
guaman.
c) Menambah dialog-dialog dengan pelatih sepanjang tempoh tugasan yang diwajibkan kepada mereka.
Bantuan Guaman
117
4. Peguam-peguam sukarela
a) Kempen yang aktif oleh peguam-peguam individu untuk menarik peguam sukarela baru
b) Menggalakkan peguam-peguam sukarela menyertai Jawatankuasa PBG
c) Memberitahu peguam-peguam sukarela mengenai program PBG
d) Membina kepimpinan baru
5. Program-program
a) Membangunkan jawatankuasa sokongan untuk program-program.
b) Mengkaji dengan mendalam kelemahan dalam program-program PBG yang sedia ada
c) Kekerapan audit/lawatan keatas program-program sedia ada
d) Penekanan yang lebih ke atas mutu perkhidmatan kepada klien-klien
e) Meneroka cara alternatif pengagihan fail.
6. Latihan
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Mengukuhkan dan menggabungkan bahagian-bahagian dan modul-modul latihan
Memberi peluang latihan kepada PBG-PBG lain dan rakan kongsi NGO
Mendedahkan peguam-peguam kepada alternatif dan latihan hak asasi manusia
Mengendalikan latihan “para-legal” kepada NGO-NGO dan komuniti-komuniti
Membina kumpulan tenaga pengajar dengan kemahiran fasilitator yang sesuai
7. Rangkaian
a) Kerjasama dan hubungan yang lebih baik dengan KLBC, NLAC, PBG negeri-negeri lain, dan Majlis Peguam
b) Membina perhubungan dengan agensi-agensi kerajaan
c) Mengukuhkan jalinan dengan NGO-NGO
8. Wawasan dan hala tuju
a) Perlu menyemak peranan bantuan guaman dan meneroka hala tuju masa depan
b) Perlu mengukuhkan falsafah/prinsip-prinsip/objektif-objektif dan keutamaan, bantuan guaman
c) Pelajaran dan pembaharuan undang-undang
C STATISTIK SETAKAT 31 DISEMBER 2005
Populasi Tahanan Reman, Klien-klien, Status fail-fail, Permohonan Jamin dan Peguam-peguam Sukarela
A. STATISTIK POPULASI TAHANAN REMAN: 2004/2005
Penjara/Rumah
1
2
3
4
Penjara Sungai Buloh
Penjara Wanita Kajang
Penjara Wanita Pendatang Asing Kajang
Rumah Tahanan Reman Juvana
.
Asrama Sentosa
.
Tunas Bakti
Setakat
Disember 04
17,596
Tiada Maklumat
Tiada Maklumat
Setakat
Disember 05
18,648
Tiada Maklumat
Tiada Maklumat
82
Tiada Maklumat
104
97
Catitan
B. STATISTIK KLIEN: Rumusan- 2004/2005
Klinik/Program
1
Penjara Sungai Buloh:
· Klien Warganegara
· Klien Pendatang Asing
2 Penjara Wanita Kajang
3 Penjara Wanita Pendatang Asing Kajang
4 Rumah Tahanan Reman Juvana
5 Dock Brief
6 LAC/Klinik Syariah
7 SIS
8 AWAM
9 PTF
10 WAO
11 Tenaganita
Jumlah
118
Bantuan Guaman
Klien
2004
1298
(860)
(438)
236
473
107
5100
1691
707
542
10
5
1121
11290
Klien
2005
1294
(876)
(418)
181
153
121
5216
1898
523
571
87
102
998
11144
Klien/hari bertugas/ pelatih dalam kamar
2005
2.5
0.9
0.9
2.1
2.1
3.0
5.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
2.5
Nota Keterangan:
Sungai Buloh – dengan lima hari bekerja, lawatan hari Sabtu sekarang telah ditukar kepada hari bekerja
menyebabkan berkurangan klien yang dibawa keluar
Klien pendatang asing – mungkin peningkatan tindakan kerajaan untuk menghalang kemasukan pendatang
haram menyebabkan berkurangnya klien
Penjara Wanita Kajang– jumlah klien yang dirujuk oleh pihak berkuasa berkurang
·
·
·
C FAIL: DIBUKA, ADA PEGUAM & TIADA PEGUAM- 2004/2005
2004
1
·
·
2
3
4
5
·
·
·
·
Kategori
Jenayah
LAC Klinik
Program Penjara
Pekerjaan
Keluarga
Syariah
Lain-lain
PERKESO
Litigasi Hak-hak Awam
Perumahan/ Penyewaan
Lain-lain
Jumlah
Buka
2005
Ada Peguam Tiada Peguam Buka
Ada Peguam Tiada Peguam
144
285
22
55
41
116
285
22
55
41
28
-
141
123
28
64
24
96
114
28
64
20
45
9
4
4
2
6
559
4
2
6
531
28
4
5
7
6
402
4
3
6
6
341
2
1
61
Nota Keterangan:
LAC Klinik – Penguatkuasaan lebih tegas ujian kelayakan (‘means test”); lebih ramai tidak layak
Program Penjara- Sejumlah yang agak besar daripada fail-fail 2004 telah dibuka sebelum masa oleh kerana
ramai tertuduh telah mengaku bersalah sebelum atau ketika prosiding, fail baru kini dibuka hanya sekiranya
tertuduh mempunyai kes yang baik dan agak pasti ia akan minta dibicarakan.
LAC/Syariah Klinik–Kurang publisiti dan tiada ahli jawatankuasa. Kemungkinan juga klien mendapatkan
bantuan daripada SIS atau Biro Bantuan Guaman.
·
·
·
D. PERMOHONAN JAMIN: 2004/2005
2004
2005
21
17
E. PEGUAM SUKARELA AKTIF (VL): 2004/2005
2004
Baru
Baru
Baru VL Jumlah VL,
Sel VL KL VL
2004
,2004
Jumlah 7
20
27
224
4
% daripada KL Bar
Baru
Sel VL
40
2005
Baru
KL VL
231
Jumlah
KL VL
44
3.6
Baru
Jumlah
VL 2005 VL, 2005
271
D LAPORAN-LAPORAN PROGRAM
1. KLINIK PUSAT BANTUAN GUAMAN (KLINIK PBG)
Laporan disediakan oleh Alexis Diana – Ketua Projek
Molly Gomez
Ramesh Lachmanan
Kalaiichelvii N
Loh Mei Fun
Ong Chin Siong
Andrew Teh
Alexis Diana Louis
Bantuan Guaman 119
Pengenalan
Klinik ini memberikan nasihat undang-undang dan perwakilan kepada masyarakat umum, dan membantu para klien dengan
menemani mereka ke Jabatan Kebajikan, mahkamah perusahaan, sivil, keluarga, balai polis dan pesuruhjaya sumpah
sekiranya diperlukan. Klinik LAC dikendalikan oleh pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar dengan bantuan Ahli-ahli jawatankuasa.
Aktiviti
i)
Klinik-klinik Bergerak
a)
Klinik Bergerak Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) (8pagi – 6.30 petang, 21.8.2005)
Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) ialah pertubuhan bukan kerajaan dibawah naungan Hindu Sangam, satu pertubuhan
Hindu. Malangnya kehadiran tidak memuaskan.
b)
Klinik Bergerak di Brickfields (10 pagi – 2 petang, 16.10.2005)
Klinik bergerak ini di bawah Rukun Tetangga kawasan Brickfields. Malangnya sekali lagi, kehadiran kurang
memuaskan.
ii)
Projek Sekolah-sekolah
Objektif program ini adalah untuk membiasakan pihak berkuasa sekolah dan para pelajar mengenai undang-undang
dan kesannya ke atas pelbagai masalah sosial dan untuk mewujudkan celik undang-undang menerusi sesi-sesi
motivasi dan demonstrasi seni mempertahankan diri iaitu Karate-Do. Terdapat penyertaan yang aktif dari badan
bukan kerajaan dan sokongan pejabat Peguam Negara, AWAM, Pink Triangle, Positive Malaysia Treatment Access
& Advocacy Group, MTAAG dan Ahli Jawankuasa Klinik LAC dan peguam-peguam sukarela.
a)
Sekolah Menengah Kepong (8.30 pagi – 10 pagi, 27.9.2005)- untuk para pelajar Tingkatan 4 dan 5. Tajuk-tajuk yang
dibincangkan ialah Asas Prosedur Jenayah untuk Tahanan Reman, jaminan dan beberapa kajian kes yang mudah
b)
Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Perempuan Jalan Ipoh (17, 27 dan 29.10.2005) - untuk Tingkatan 1, 2 dan 3.
Peguam-peguam sukarela dan pegawai LACKL menyediakan para pelajar untuk terlibat sama. Terdapat testimoni
secara individu yang menarik minat pelajar. Sekolah ini akan menyertai sesi yang sama untuk tahun depan dan
untuk bekerjasama bagi pihak kami dengan sekolah-sekolah yang lain di Lembah Klang.
Kelebihan
golongan miskin mendapatkan keadilan menerusi nasihat guaman dan perwakilan
· Membantu
Membantu
mewujudkan
celik undang-undang di kalangan umum menerusi program-program “outreach”
·
Kelemahan
Kekurangan peguam sukarela untuk mengawasi pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar di Pusat dan untuk mengendalikan
fail-fail
·
Cadangan
klinik-klinik bergerak ke kawasan setinggan dan penghuni-penghuni pangsapuri
· Memperbanyakkan
Kerjasama
dengan
badan-badan
kerajaan untuk mempertingkatkan hubungan kerja yang lebih baik
· Mengkaji semula kaedah-kaedah bukan
ujian
kelayakan
(means test) semasa.
·
2. KLINIK SYARIAH
Laporan disediakan oleh Sekretariat
Pengenalan
Klinik Syariah menyediakan khidmat nasihat dan perwakilan kepada masyarakat berkaitan dengan undang-undang syariah.
Klinik ini dikendalikan oleh pelatih dalam kamar dengan bantuan dan seliaan peguam-peguam syarie bertauliah.
Kelebihan
Program ini membantu menerangkan kepada orang-orang Islam mengenai hak dan tanggungan mereka di bawah undangundang syariah.
Kelemahan
Kekurangan peguam-peguam sukarela yang bertauliah untuk menyelia pelatih-pelatih di sekretariat, mengendalikan
kes-kes syariah atau untuk menjadi ahli jawatankuasa di Pusat Bantuan Guaman.
Tiada perancangan yang lengkap untuk program berjalan lancar
Kekurangan tenaga pengajar berpengalaman untuk mengendalikan latihan
Pelatih dalam kamar tidak serius ketika menjalani tugas yang diberikan
Kekurangan publisiti kepada orang ramai terhadap program ini
·
·
·
·
·
120
Bantuan Guaman
Cadangan
lebih ramai peguam sukarela dan mengaktifkan semula jawatankuasa
· Menarik
Mengadakan
kerja yang baik dengan Mahkamah-Mahkamah Syariah Kuala Lumpur dan Selangor
· Menganjurkanhubungan
lebih
banyak
· undang-undang syariah. program-program luar untuk membangkit kesedaran dikalangan orang awam tentang
3. PROGRAM DOCK BRIEF
Laporan disediakan oleh B Murugayah – Ketua Projek Program Dock Brief dan Penjara
En Arunan Selvaraj – Ketua Projek Program Penjara dan Dock Brief
Cik Mary Song
En Amir Hamzah Amha
Pengenalan
Program ini menawarkan khidmat nasihat guaman, representasi dan bantuan dalam mewakili seseorang yang tidak diwakili
dalam tujuh Mahkamah Majistret Jalan Raja, Kuala Lumpur. Pelatih dalam kamar menemuduga dan menawarkan bantuan
didalam kes perbicaraan reman, permohonan jamin dan rayuan untuk meringankan hukuman. Pelatih dalam kamar juga membuat
penyelidikan undang-undang, menyediakan penghujahan dan berhubung dengan Mahkamah, Pendakwaraya dan Polis.
Kelebihan
ini menawarkan khidmat guaman dan representasi kepada tahanan reman dan keluarga mereka
· Program
Membantu
memberi peluang kedua kepada tahanan reman untuk pemulihan diri
·
Kekurangan
Bilangan yang sedikit dalam permohonan jaminan
Kekurangan wakil didalam perbicaraan reman
Kekurangan keyakinan dan inisiatif pelatih-pelatih dalam kamar
Amat memerlukan kerjasama diantara pihak Pendakwa, Kehakiman dan Pusat Bantuan Guaman
Kekurangan pemantau untuk membantu pelatih di Mahkamah
·
·
·
·
·
Cadangan
lebih ceramah dan seminar dalam hal undang-undang seperti bengkel UNHCR mengenai pelarian dan
· Memerlukan
pencari suaka
sistematik dan taklimat kepada pelatih terutamanya daripada Peguam berpengalaman
· Latihan
Pertemuan
dengan Kehakiman bagi memudahkan proses perwakilan
· Untuk membina
pemantau bagi membantu pelatih di Mahkamah
· Mengemukakan pasukan
pelan dan strategi untuk mengurangkan populasi tahanan reman
·
4. KLINIK PENJARA SUNGAI BULOH DAN PENJARA WANITA KAJANG, KLINIK PEKERJA ASING SUNGAI BULOH
DAN KAJANG DAN KLINIK RUMAH TAHANAN JUVANA
Laporan disediakan oleh Arunan Selvaraj (Okt – Dis) – Ketua Projek Bersama Program Penjara dan Dock
Brief Kitson Foong (Jan – Okt)
Pengenalan
Objektif program ini adalah untuk mengurangkan masa tahanan reman/penjara dan populasi tahan reman/penjara, untuk
memastikan para tahanan terutama juvana memperolehi nasihat undang-undang dan hak untuk diwakili serta membantu ahli
keluarga mereka mendapat nasihat dan informasi yang secukupnya.
Program penjara ini merangkumi Klinik Penjara Sungai Buloh dan Penjara Wanita Kajang, Klinik Pekerja Asing Sungai Buloh
dan Kajang dan Klinik Rumah Tahanan Juvana. Kesemua program tersebut telah digabungkan pada awal tahun 2005 untuk
kebaikan koordinasi dan penggunaan sumber-sumber serta kos.
Pelatih Dalam Kamar menemuramah para tahanan di penjara, menghubungi dan membantu ahli keluarga tahanan untuk
mendapatkan ikat jamin dan membantu program “Dock Brief” dalam menyediakan mitigasi. Pelatih Dalam Kamar juga turut
menghubungi pihak Kedutaan untuk memaklumkan mengenai warganegara mereka yang berada di dalam tahanan, dan juga
merujuk kes-kes yang melibatkan tahanan daripada negeri lain ke pusat-pusat Bantuan Guaman Majlis Peguam yang berkenaan
untuk bantuan.
Bantuan Guaman 121
Kelebihan
ini membantu mengurangkan populasi tahanan reman di dalam penjara.
· Program
· Program ini merupakan laluan penting bagi para tahanan untuk mendapatkan keadilan.
Kelemahan
Kekurangan Peguam sukarela untuk mengendalikan fail-fail.
Kurang mendapat maklumbalas bagi kes-kes yang dirujuk ke Pusat-pusat Bantuan Guaman Majlis Peguam yang
lain.
Pelatih Dalam Kamar tidak mampu untuk mendapatkan fakta-fakta yang berkenaan daripada tahanan, fakta-fakta
yang diberi tidak tersusun dan kertas temuduga tidak dilengkapkan dengan betul.
Ketidakmampuan Pelatih Dalam Kamar untuk memberi nasihat yang secukupnya kepada para tahanan.
·
·
·
·
Cadangan
Menyediakan tempat yang sesuai untuk menjalankan temuramah di Penjara Sungai Buloh.
Menyediakan jurubahasa bagi para tahanan reman yang tidak fasih berbahasa Melayu atau Bahasa Inggeris.
Memastikan para tahanan reman berada di dalam tahanan tidak lebih daripada 3 bulan.
Meningkatkan kerjasama dengan pihak-pihak berkuasa.
Menyediakan lebih pendedahan dan latihan kepada Pelatih Dalam Kamar dan meningkatkan kemahiran guaman
Pelatih.
Menarik lebih ramai Peguam Sukarela dalam membantu mengendalikan kes-kes.
Menyediakan lebih banyak poster LAC di penjara dan Rumah Tahanan Juvana bagi memudahkan orang ramai dan
ahli kelurga tahanan menghubungi LAC
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
5. LAC/TENAGANITA – KLINIK PEKERJA ASING
Laporan disediakan oleh Aegile Fernandez / Florida S
Pengenalan
Pekerja asing telah banyak berkorban, meninggalkan keluarga di kampung halaman dan membayar amaun yang terlampau
tinggi kepada agen-agen untuk berkerja di Malaysia. Mereka menyumbang kepada kemajuan dan kemakmuran kita dengan
melakukan kerja-kerja yang kotor, berbahaya dan hina yang tidak lagi mahu dilakukan oleh rakyat Malaysia. Wujud imejimej negatif yang tidak adil dan salah, seperti mereka membawa masuk penyakit dan melakukan jenayah. Pekerja asing
adalah diantara komuniti yang paling terpinggir di Malaysia, dan menanggung berbagai salah-laku umpamanya, tidak
dibayar gaji, persekitaran pekerjaan dan kediaman yang daif dan kadang-kala kecederaan fizikal dan kematian. Mereka
berdepan dengan kepayahan yang serius dengan majikan dan pihak berkuasa kerajaan ( seperti jabatan Imigresen,
Polis,KWSP) dan seringkali kedutaan mereka tidak membantu. Klinik ini dengan Pelatih yang ditugaskan, membantu
pekerja asing yang berdokumen dari pelbagai kerakyatan dengan masalah-masalah tersebut.
Kelebihan
pelatih terhadap hak asasi manusia dan layanan kejam terhadap pekerja asing dan meningkatkan
· Memekakan
kesefahaman terhadap pekerja asing. Menghilangkan imej negatif pekerja asing.
selaku peguam daripada Pusat Bantuan Guaman yang mewakili pekerja asing mendapat gerak balas yang
· Pelatih,
lebih baik daripada majikan dan pegawai kerajaan.
Kelemahan
Kekurangan pengalaman Pelatih menyebabkan kekurangan ketegasan ketika mewakili pekerja asing dan
kekurangan analisa kritikal kes-kes terutama apabila wujud undang-undang dan polisi yang bertentangan.
Pelatih kerap-kali mengutamakan Pengajar yang menyebabkan kesan buruk terhadap ketepatan dan kehadiran
mereka.
Kedegilan Pelatih terhadap program “ outreach” dengan pekerja asing pada hujung minggu.
Jumlah pelatih yang berkurangan setiap kelompok – memberi kesan buruk kepada perkhidmatan.
Tenaganita mempunyai modul latihan dua hari untuk Pelatih tetapi masih belum menyediakan manual.
Kekurangan peguam untuk kes-kes Tangkapan, Tahanan dan Pengusiran
Peguam Bantuan Guaman tidak mengenakan bayaran perundangan, tetapi klien termasuk pekerja asing terpaksa
membayar “disbursement” contohnya, yuran mahkamah dan tuntutan perjalanan. Pekerja asing tidak dapat
membayar disbursement kerana mereka tidak boleh bekerja pada waktu itu dan selanjutnya perlu mengadakan
RM100.00 satu bulan untuk Pas Imigresen Khas untuk kekal di Malaysia. Dengan itu ramai pekerja asing tidak
dapat menuntut hak mereka
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
122 Bantuan Guaman
Cadangan
Penyediaan bahan-bahan dan risalah dalam pelbagai bahasa untuk diagihkan kepada pekerja asing, contoh, Tangkapan,
Tahanan dan ikat jamin, Akta Kerja dan Akta Imigresen.
Meningkatkan dialog/rundingan dengan badan kehakiman mengenai percanggahan undang-undang- contohnya Akta
Imigresen dan status dan remedi-remedi Akta Kerja.
Penyelarasan dengan NGO-NGO lain dalam Pusat Bantuan Guaman.
Untuk menilai, membincang isu sesama bagi mengukuhkan perkhidmatan.
Bagi tindakan bersama, umpamanya Klinik Pengajar dan Klinik Pekerja Asing boleh bekerjasama dalam Penahanan
Pekerja Asing dan Penjualan Wanita.
Memperkasaan dan pengajaran undang-undang kepada komuniti pekerja asing mengenai hak-hak mereka – contohnya
program “outreach” hari Ahad.
Kajian semula polisi Pusat Bantuan Guaman terhadap perwakilan berkaitan Pekerja Asing Tanpa Dokumen. Mereka tidak
sepatutnya dinafikan keadilan dan hak asasi yang asas hanya kerana mereka tidak mempunyai dokumen yang sah.
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
6.
LAC/AWAM KLINIK PERKHIDMATAN MAKLUMAT PERUNDANGAN
Laporan disediakan oleh Pushpa Ratnam - Project Head
(Tidak dikemaskini oleh Pengerusi)
Ahli Jawatankuasa LACKL
Zoe Leong
Stefeny David
Mary Manickam
Wendy Lee
Raymond Tan
Hanita Nalaine
Michelles, Foo Li Mei (ahli baru)
Wakil AWAM
Azila Bakri
Wong Lai Cheng
Program dan Objektif
Klinik ini dikendalikan dengan kerjasama AWAM, sebuah organisasi bebas Wanita yang komited memperjuangkan hak dan
memperbaiki taraf sosial wanita di Malaysia. Bagi tujuan ini, AWAM secara berterusan menjalankan kajian menyeluruh ke atas
peruntukan undang-undang bersangkutan hal-ehwal wanita dan senantiasa memberikan sokongan penuh terhadap usaha
pembaikan undang-undang dan polisi berkaitan. Rentetan daripada kajian seumpamanya, AWAM telah menerbitkan bukubuku berkenaan isu Rogol dan Gangguan Seksual. Daripada aktiviti-aktiviti yang dijalankan, AWAM mensasarkan kesedaran
sosial terhadap isu-isu kemasyarakatan dapat ditingkatkan dengan harapan persepsi sempit dan tanggapan songsang masyarakat
terhadap kebebasan dan hak-hak wanita akan berubah.
Selain itu, AWAM juga menganjurkan latihan-latihan khidmat kaunseling dan menawarkan khidmat nasihat guaman. Bersama
Pusat Bantuan Guaman Kuala Lumpur, Klinik ini menawarkan khidmat guaman tanpa dikenakan sebarang bayaran kepada
golongan wanita yang berhadapan dengan masalah kekeluargaan, rogol, jenayah rumahtangga dan jenayah ke atas wanita
secara umumnya. Kami juga membantu dalam perkara-perkara sivil dan syariah. Bagi wanita yang kurang berkemampuan,
klinik ini sedia membantu mendapatkan khidmat guaman dengan bayaran yuran yang rendah.
Kelebihan
Pelatih dalam kamar memainkan peranan penting bagi Klinik dengan menyediakan khidmat maklumat perundangan yang
diperlukan. Pelatih dalam kamar semasa tugasan mereka, mendapati bahawa kewujudan Klinik sangat berfaedah dan pelbagai
isu yang membelenggu wanita dipelajari dan ditanggapi sewajarnya. Pihak Jawatankuasa Klinik tumpang berbangga dengan
usaha menyemai sensitiviti kemasyarakatan yang akhirnya membuahkan hasil hampir pada keseluruhan pelatih.
Bagi tahun ini, jawatankuasa telah menyediakan satu rutin untuk setiap ahli jawatankuasa berkhidmat sebagai peguam bagi
tempoh 1 minggu untuk menyelia Pelatih Dalam Kamar dan kertas temuduga. Ini bagi memastikan tenaga setiap peguam
sukarela dimanfaatkan sepenuhnya. Dalam rutin tersebut peguam sukarela akan menjawab kesemua panggilan Pelatih dalam
Kamar yang bertugas. Ini memastikan nasihat yang diberikan sepanjang tugasan adalah selari dan konsisten.
Kami mengambil kesempatan di sini untuk mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kepada ahli-ahli jawatankuasa di atas usaha
keras dan kedatangan yang berterusan bagi membantu dan memastikan kejayaan klinik AWAM. Sementara itu, kedatangan
ahli baru yang penuh bersemangat, Puan Michelles Foo Li Mei, yang telah menyertai kita pada Disember 2005 yang lalu sangat
kita alu-alukan.
Bantuan Guaman
123
Klinik ini beroperasi pada setiap Isnin hingga Sabtu mulai jam 10 pagi hingga 4.30 petang. BCLACKL telah berjaya dalam usaha
berurusan dengan rangkaian pelatih dalam kamar Selangor LAC untuk mengambil bahagian dalam klinik ini sebagai sebahagian
tugasan bantuan guaman.
Jawatankuasa telah bersidang pada 13 Ogos 2005 bagi mengadakan mesyuarat sulong ahli jawatankuasa baru bagi tahun 2005.
Cadangan bagi Tahun 2006
Klinik Bergerak
Ahli jawatankuasa mencadangkan klinik bergerak bersama pemimpin komuniti di peringkat akar umbi. Jawatankuasa telah mengenal
pasti Pantai Dalam sebagai tempat yang berpotensi dan berharap dapat menjayakan klinik bergerak di dalam bulan Mac 2006.
Rangkaian Televisyen/Radio
Jawatankuasa bercadang untuk mempromosi/menghebahkan program-program Pusat Bantuan Guaman/AWAM melalui stesen
TV dan Radio dan tarikh cadangan adalah pada Februari atau Mac 2006.
7.
LAC/KLINIK SISTER’S IN ISLAM (SIS)
Laporan disediakan oleh SIS
Wakil SIS:
Razlina Razali
Pendahuluan
Klinik ini memberi nasihat undang-undang, informasi dan bantuan kepada orang ramai mengenai undang-undang sivil dan
syariah. Pelatih dalam kamar memberi nasihat kepada anak guam, mendokumentasikan masalah-masalah yang dihadapi dan
membuat penyelidikan undang-undang. Mereka juga berhubung dengan pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan seperti Polis, mahkamah
dan jabatan agama negeri-negeri.
Kekuatan
sensitiviti orang ramai mengenai isu-isu berkenaan wanita Muslim
· Meningkatkan
Tempat
untuk
orang
melahirkan kebimbangan dan melobi untuk reformasi undang-undang
· Mengutarakan isu-isuMuslim
berkaitan
kepentingan awam seperti pengawalan akhlak orang awam
·
Kelemahan
Kekurangan sokongan daripada pengamal undang-undang syariah
Kekurangan penyertaan bekas-bekas pelatih dalam kamar sebagai penyelia
·
·
Cadangan
untuk reformasi undang-undang dan membuat penyelidikan
· Melobi
Memberi
latihan kepada wanita mengenai hak-hak mereka di bawah undang-undang syariah
· Mengadakan
“outreach” di kawasan-kawasan kediaman Muslim, terutamanya di kawasan pinggir bandar
· Menggalakkanklinik
analisa
kritikal tentang undang-undang dan diskriminasi berdasarkan jantina dikalangan pengamal
· undang-undang, dan melobi
autoriti berkenaan seperti Jabatan Peguam Negara, JAKIM, pihak berkuasa kerajaan
·
8.
negeri, khabar dan sebagainya bagi menggalakkan diskusi diperingkat umum
Membina hubungan dengan Peguam-Peguam Syarie untuk menggalakkan mereka membantu program ini
LACKL/PTF KLINIK PERKHIDMATAN MAKLUMAT PERUNDANGAN
Laporan disediakan oleh Preetam Kaur - Ketua Projek
Ahli Jawatankuasa
Wakil-wakil LACKL
So Chien Hao
Loh Wei Leong
Lim Ka-Tsung
Lee Choo Suat, Tevina
Wong Ee Lynn
124
Bantuan Guaman
Wakil-wakil Yayasan Pink Triangle
Hisham Hussein (Pengerusi PTF)
Sulastri Ariffin
Pengenalan
Klinik bersama dengan Pink Triangle Foundation (PTF) ini telah menjalankan Klinik Undang-Undang untuk komuniti yang paling
tersisih seperti penagih dadah, pekerja seks, penghidap HIV/AIDS, transeksual dan lelaki dan wanita homoseksual. Objektif utama
klinik ini ialah untuk melindungi dan memberi kesedaran kepada mereka tentang hak-hak asasi manusia kepada mereka.
Tahun ini adalah tahun yang mencabar bagi komuniti PTF dengan peletakkan jawatan pegawai di PTF, menggangu beberapa
aktiviti yang dicadangkan. Walaubagaimanapun, publisiti meluas terhadap kes gangguan oleh pihak polis terhadap Mumtaz
(Mumtaz, seorang transeksual telah dipaksa berbogel dan telah dimalukan oleh polis di Ipoh). Layanan yang terhadap Mumtaz
adalah contoh apa yang dihadapi oleh enam komuniti ini setiap hari; Mumtaz seorang yang berani menyuarakan isu ini.
Kami dengan itu, merayu kepada peguam sukarela untuk menyokong kami dalam perjuangan untuk membantu enam komuniti ini.
a)
b)
1)
2)
Program Pelatih Dalam Kamar- Klinik Informasi Undang-Undang di PTF
Jawatankuasa mengambil kesempatan untuk menekankan bahawa klien-klien, PTF bukanlah seperti klien-klien
yang biasa berbanding dengan klinik-klinik lain. Klien-klien ini berasa segan dan/atau tidak selesa untuk berkunjung
ke PBGKL, mereka lebih suka menghadiri perjumpaan beramai; ie ceramah dan seminar dimana mereka lebih
selesa untuk menyuarakan masalah-masalah individu atau bersama. Mereka sekadar mencari nasihat dan jaminan,
bukanya tindakan undang-undang. Kami telah berubah-balik kepada ceramah dan seminar kerana ia lebih berkesan
berkenaan kehadiran dan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan.
Bengkel bersama Klinik Undang-undang
Lebih dari jangkaan, 25 orang dari komuniti transeksual dan pekerja seks telah menghadiri sesi ini. Cik S, seorang
pekerja seks yang tiada tempat tinggal dan melarat serta dicuri anaknya oleh seorang pekerja seks yang lain.
Setelah 2 laporan polis dibuat, tiada tindakan diambil untuk beberapa bulan walaupun beliau telah memberikan
identiti pekerja seks yang tersebut kepada pihak polis. Kami telah membantunya membuat laporan baru. Pihak
polis telah menangkap pekerja seks yang tersebut pada malam itu juga dan beliau kini telah didakwa.
Sesi (2-4 pm, 26 Ogos 2005)
Seramai 40 ahli daripada komuniti pengguna dadah telah hadir. Terdapat penyertaan aktif berkenaan pengawasan
dan gangguan pihak polis, terutamanya ketiadaan keprihatinan pegawai polis dan penjara terhadap tahanan HIV+
dalam keengganan mereka memberikan akses kepada perubatan suspek. Jawatankuasa PTF bercadang
mengadakan sesi dialog dengan pihak polis, penjara dan ahli-ahlinya.
Kelebihan
dan usaha ahli-ahli komuniti ini dalam mengaturkan sesi dan mengadakan program-program yang berfaedah
· Komitmen
dan kesedaran pelatih dalam kamar tentang realiti dan masalah komuniti ini
· Sensitisasi
Sokongan
daripada
JAWI dan Jabatan Kerajaan yang lain
·
Kelemahan
Kekurangan sokongan daripada pengamal syariah walaupun kebanyakan komuniti PT adalah Islam dan
memerlukan wakil peguam syarie di dalam Mahkamah Syariah.
Kekurangan peguam sukarela untuk membantu Klinik dan anak guam
Kekurangan sokongan daripada agensi penggubal undang-undang yang telah dipertanggung-jawabkan untuk
memlihara kepentingan komuniti ini
·
·
·
Cadangan
lebih ramai peguam-peguam untuk membantu dalam projek ini
· Melatih
Mengadakan
lebih banyak seminar dengan enam komuniti ini, sebaik-baiknya satu atau dua kali sebulan
· Sesi dialog dengan
Jabatan Kerajaan berkaitan seperti Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, Polis dan Penjara
·
9.
LAC/WAO INFORMASI AMALAN GUAMAN
Laporan disediakan oleh WAO
Ini ialah klinik bersama dengan Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), satu pertubuhan sukarela wanita bukan-kerajaan. Pelatih-pelatih
membantu pekerja sosial mengajar klien tentang hak undang-undang mereka dan dalam program-program klien. Mereka menemani
wanita ke mahkamah, dan balai polis dan mereka membantu dengan menerangkan prosedur dan langkah-langkah yang perlu diambil
agar klien lebih yakin. Juga membantu dalam penyelidikan, pemantauan mahkamah dan kerja-kerja kepeguaman berkenaan undangundang dan polisi yang mendiskriminasi wanita dan disekitar keganasan terhadap wanita.
Bantuan Guaman 125
Cadangan
dan lawatan yang kerap diantara petugas PBGKL dan WAO untuk menyelesaikan hal-hal pentadbiran
· Perjumpaan
seperti kehadiran, dokumentasi dan penyemakan semula ujian kelayakan “means test” memandangkan kos
sara-hidup Bandar.
10. PROGRAM PENGUMPULAN DANA
Laporan disediakan oleh So Chien Hao – Ketua Projek
Ahli Jawatankuasa
So Chien Hao
Ngooi Chiu-Ing
Vivien Lim
N Vijaya
Lee Shet Mei
Pengenalan
Program ini adalah bertujuan untuk mengumpul dana bagi meningkatkan kelancaran kerja-kerja Pusat Bantuan Guaman
Kuala Lumpur serta menyediakan suasana yang selesa dan untuk menjaga kebajikan kakitangan kerana sumber dana
yang terhad.
Aktiviti
Tayangan filem “National Treasure” telah dianjurkan pada 13.1.2005 dan RM20, 000 telah dikumpulkan melalui tayangan
tersebut.
Kelebihan
serta sokongan daripada ahli-ahli Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur serta individu-individu yang
· Galakan
prihatin.
Kelemahan
Kekurangan peguam sukarela
Kekurangan sumber idea.
·
·
Cadangan
· Mekanisma perancangan yang lebih baik.
11. PROGRAM KESEDARAN UNDANG-UNDANG (ORIENTASI)
Laporan disediakan oleh Sekretariat
Ahli Jawatankuasa
Charles Hector
Sivarasa Rasiah
Latheefa Koya
N Surendran
Stanley Sinnappen
Harleen Kaur
Amer Hamzah Arshad
Pengenalan
Program ini bertujuan untuk memberikan pelatih “Dimensi Sebenar” mengenai apa yang diperlukan daripada mereka dalam
tugasan 14 hari Bantuan Guaman yang diwajibkan ke atas mereka dan untuk memperkenalkan mereka kepada berbagai
klinik dan program yang dijalankan oleh Pusat Bantuan Guaman.
Objektif
·
Untuk Membantu pelatih dalam kamar mengenali peranan dan tanggungjawab mereka sebagai peguam di dalam
masyarakat dan untuk memupuk rasa tanggungjawab terhadap masyarakat dan mengambil berat tentang hak-hak
asasi manusia, “rule of law” dan keadilan.
·
Memperkenalkan idea-idea baru kepada pelatih dalam kamar, menanam serta memupuk penglibatan dalam
jangkamasa yang panjang terhadap Bantuan Guaman dan akses kepada keadilan, melangkaui tugasan bantuan
guaman yang diwajibkan.
126
Bantuan Guaman
Sesi (selama 5 jam setiap satu) yang diadakan telah menggunakan pendekatan secara “penglibatan bersama” dengan
kerjasama dalam kumpulan dan perbincangan secara am. Struktur yang digunakan adalah baru dan diubahsuai serta
dibangunkan mengikut penilaian pelatih dalam kamar.
Kelebihan
motivasi kepada pelatih mengenai keperluan berkhidmat kepada yang memerlukan dan yang tersisih.
· Memberi
Memberi
pendidikan kepada pelatih tentang hak asasi serta memupuk kesedaran tentang keadilan.
·
Kelemahan
Masa, Sumber Manusia / Peguam Sukarela dengan kebolehan yang bersesuaian atau mereka yang terbuka
untuk menjalani latihan.
Masalah peruntukan kewangan dan tindakan susulan.
·
·
Cadangan
untuk mengatur lebih banyak sesi kesedaran dan hak asasi manusia untuk peguam-peguam dan/
· Kemampuan
atau orang awam.
sesi latihan dan pembentukan bagi peguam-peguam yang terlibat di dalam kerja-kerja Bantuan Guaman/
· Mengatur
Hak Asasi di pusat-pusat bantuan Guaman & Hak Asasi Manusia Majlis Peguam.
12. PROGRAM PEMBANGUNAN KEMAHIRAN
Laporan disediakan oleh Ravi Nekoo – Ketua Projek
Ravi Nekoo
Sreekant Pillai
Andiappan Arumugam
Kurien Ray
Jescey
Mary Manickam
A. Balakisnan
Doreen Wan
K. A. Ramu
Vilashini Menon
Pengenalan
Program ini bertujuan untuk membina/meningkat kepakaran dan meningkatkan motivasi dikalangan pelatih-pelatih dalam
kamar, rakan-rakan Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO) dan peguam sukarela bagi meningkatkan kualiti perkhidmatan yang
diberikan kepada pelanggan/klien.
Objektif:
. Menganjurkan/merencanakan program latihan untuk peguam sukarela yang sedia ada dan yang akan datang
serta “para-legal” bagi memenuhi keperluan Pusat Bantuan Guaman Kuala Lumpur
. Membantu memberikan program latihan untuk pelatih dalam kamar
. Membuat kajian semula program latihan dan seterusnya memberi cadangan untuk meningkatkannya dimana
wajar.
. Melatih para pelatih
Aktiviti-aktiviti
i)
Latihan Undang-Undang Jenayah Mengenai “Belajar Bagaimana Hendak Mengendalikan Bicara Untuk Kes
Jenayah – Langkah-Langkah Panduan” (24.9.2005)
40 peguam menghadiri program latihan ini bersama-sama 30 orang peguam sukarela yang telah mengambil
bahagian dalam memainkan peranan untuk perbicaraan moot.
Matlamatnya ialah untuk menghasilkan suatu kumpulan peguam jenayah untuk membantu PBGKL dalam
mengendalikan fail-fail jenayah. Banyak fail jenayah tidak dapat diagihkan dan ini menyekat usaha kita
untuk mengurangkan populasi reman penjara.
Untuk kesinambungan latihan dan merangsang keyakinan peguam-peguam mengendalikan fail-fail jenayah,
satu system “Buddy” telah diperkenalkan bagi peguam yang berpengalaman membimbing pengamal undangundang jenayah yang baru.
Bantuan Guaman 127
ii)
-
-
Latihan “Para-Legal” Untuk Kakitangan Pusat Bantuan Guaman Dan Rakan-Rakan Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO)
(19.11.2005)
32 peserta – termasuk Kakitangan PBGKL, PBG Kedah, PBG Kangar, PBG Sungai Petani, PBG Kelantan,
Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur dan rakan-rakan Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGO), iaitu Suaram, Community
Development Centre (CDC), Pusat Komunikasi Masyarakat (KOMAS), All Women Action Society (AWAM), Women’s
Aid Organisation (WAO), Sisters In Islam (SIS), Women And Health Association of Kuala Lumpur (WAKE) dan
Pink Triangle Foundation.
Disebabkan kekurangan peguam sukarela, latihan Untuk “para-legal” adalah amat penting untuk mengatasi masalah
ini.
Latihan ini bertujuan untuk memberi motivasi dan melengkapkan kakitangan PBG agar mempunyai daya pemahaman
yang luas dan dapat melakukan kerja mereka dengan lebih baik.
Latihan tersebut termasuklah asas undang-undang jenayah, undang-undang keluarga, undang-undang pekerjaan
dan undang-undang syariah.
Kelebihan
kemahiran undang-undang, pengetahuan dan keyakinan para peserta, untuk menyediakan dan memberi
· Meningkatkan
galakan kepada mereka untuk mengendalikan fail-fail dan melaksanakan tugas-tugas Pusat Bantuan Guaman.
· Melengkapkan dan melicinkan program Pusat Bantuan Guaman Kuala Lumpur yang sedia ada.
Kelemahan
Peruntukan yang terhad dan tidak mencukupi.
·
Cadangan
- Kebanyakan peserta inginkan jangkamasa yang pendek dan program tersebut dilanjutkan selama
· Jangkamasa
beberapa hari berbanding sehari dalam jangkamasa yang panjang.
Kehadiran – Sesi sepatutunya dijalankan dalam kumpulan kecil agar lebih berkesan
· Kapasiti
– Topik-topik hendaklah dibincangkan dengan lebih fokus. Bahan-bahan bacaan hendaklah lebih padat dan teratur.
· Padat
Menjemput
yang berpengalaman sebagai pelatih.
· Merakam sesipeguam-peguam
latihan
untuk
sesi
latihan akan datang dan untuk dijadikan sebagai bahan latihan untuk pelatih
· dalam kamar
Latihan masa hadapan:
Latihan Kakitangan (Bahagian II)
Latihan untuk para pelatih
·
·
(Ahli jawatankuasa telah pun merancang sesi latihan bagi undang-undang pekerjaan dan undang-undang keluarga,
walaubagaimanapun Ahli Jawatankuasa Kewangan Majlis Peguam telah mencadangkan bahawa secara umumnya
latihan sepatutnya di jalankan oleh Jawatankuasa Pendidikan Undang-Undang Berterusan Majlis Peguam).
E AKAUN DIAUDIT 2005
Sila rujuk kepada penterjemahan Inggeris untuk Akaun Audit.
F PEGUAM-PEGUAM SUKARELA AKTIF 2005
Sila rujuk kepada penterjemahan Inggeris untuk senarai peguam-peguam sukarela aktif 2005.
128 Bantuan Guaman
AUDITED ACCOUNTS
KUALA LUMPUR BAR COMMITTEE
Financial Statements
for the year ended 31 December 2005
Audited Accounts
129
1
130 Audited Accounts
2
Audited Accounts
131
3
4
Audited Accounts
133
5
6
Audited Accounts
135
7
8
Audited Accounts
137
9
10
Audited Accounts
139
3-2, Jalan 2/76C, Desa Pandan, 55100 Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03-92834104 Fax: 03-92834046
11

annual report 2005 / 2006

Transcription

Similar documents

Pengurusan Landskap oleh Pihak Berkepentingan

It - Pernec Corporation Berhad

TandaslMalaYSla Jasinraihgangsa

deepavali - PLUSMiles

MTIB Impian Lifestyle With Wood

Volume 5 - Pharmaniaga

Melahirkan pelajar yang cintakan ilmu - i

Buletin Akademik Jun 2012 - Terengganu

KerajaanSelangoFmahuse[llq`fPBTgOnabahan`,bol

Interventions to Ensure Meat Safety