Info bar r2 low

For Members Only Private Circulation

NOVEMBER 2016

INFO

JOHORE B A R

A Bulletin of the Johore Bar

IN THIS ISSUE

STOP THE

AMENDMENT!

•

Board Message -- 2

•

Stop the Amendment! -- 3

•

Reactions from around the world -- 6

•

Housing Development (Control and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 -- 11

•

Know Your Law On Limited Liability Partnership -- 13

•

Obituaries -- 19

•

Congratulations To The Newly Admitted Members of The Bar (Johor) -- 22

•

Johore Bar Activities -- 24

•

Johore Bar Retro Night – Annual Dinner & Dance 2016 -- 29

•

Johore Bar Activities -- 30 Read this edition of the INFO online!

Scan the following code with your phone or tablet or visit www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

2

Board Message

Board Message

www.johorebar.org.my

3

INFO JOHORE BAR

Stop the Amendment! ■ By Fadhil Ihsan

T

he Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”), the cornerstone of the Bar, the State Bar, the Bar Council and the legal profession at large is about to face its biggest attack.

In the next coming months, the Government plans to propose amendments to the LPA introducing changes to its composition, procedure and election. The significant changes include – •

The mandatory appointment of two (2) council members by the Minister in charge of legal affairs for the purpose of representing the government.

•

The quorum for the Bar’s Annual General Meetings (“AGM”) (and any Extraordinary General Meeting) would be increased to 25% of the total number of members. The quorum requirement for general meetings of each State Bar would also be increased to 25% of its membership.

•

o

The remaining four (4) members of the Bar Council would consist of the immediate past President and immediate past Vice-President of the Bar, and the two Members of the Bar appointed by the Minister in charge of legal affairs to represent the Government.

•

The election of Officer Bearers of the Bar would also be abolished.

•

Instead, the Office Bearers would be elected directly by Members of the Bar, at the AGM; • The immediate past President, immediate past Vice-President, and 12 Chairmen of the State Bar Committees are expressly precluded from contesting for any Office Bearer position. • The Office Bearers of the Bar and the members of the Bar Council would serve for a fixed term of two years, instead of the current one-year term.

The number of members of the Council would be increased from the current 38 members to 40 members;

The Minister in charge of legal affairs would be empowered to make rules and regulations with respect to the conduct of the elections to the Bar Council and of the Office Bearers of the Bar.

•

The abolition of postal ballots for the annual election;

•

The Bar Council shall consist of forty (40) members who would be elected every two years comprising of — o

Three (3) members from each State Bar: the Chairman of the State Bar, a member with more than 10 years in practice, and a member with less than 10 years in practice. This is to be done by secret ballot at the general meeting of the State Bar respectively.

Why the amendment? There seems to be no forthcoming reason as to why this proposed amendment has come around. The inclination from the powers that are seemed to incline towards resolving ‘bread and butter’ issues including matters relating to qualifications. The Attorney General seems to imply that the necessary amendment is intended to make the Bar Council ‘more

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

4

transparent’. Proponents of the amendment see this change to the LPA as a way to gain participation in the Council. The allegation being that the Bar Council has not been inclusive to its membership. The proponents also allege that the Bar Council do not address the needs of lawyers – examples cited include the implementation of onerous conditions for entry to the Bar, the implementation of an extensive Continuing & Professional Development Scheme and the unkept welfare of lawyers as a whole. In short, there is a group of disgruntled members whom feel that they are neglected and have fallen on deaf ears.

Following the inclusion of Government appointees into the Council seemingly to point towards the allegation that the Bar Council – by virtue of its press releases and actions - has not remained apolitical. From the view of the general public this may seem true as many (opposition) lawmakers are also lawyers. This may give credence as to why politicians should hang their robes - but that is another article for another day.

What problems are we fixing? The upholding of the Constitution will, more often than not, place the Bar and the Government at odds. If there is a breach of the law by the Government, surely the Bar would take an opposite stance which is axiomatic. The common bystander is left to assume “you’re either with us, or against us” – after all, it is always lawyers whom sue the Government (on behalf of their Clients). It is this that often lead to the insinuations that the Bar Council is the opposition itself. Assuming the above allegations are correct: is the forcing of two (2) Government appointees to the Bar Council would be the best solution? We would argue, no. The fact that the Government appointees are to be installed unelected is insulting to the independence of the Bar – and most of all – insults the democratic election process held by the Bar. Were not the lawmakers proposing this amendment democratically elected to seat? There is no reason to depart from the status quo of utilitarianism: the greatest good for the greatest number. The Government cannot take it upon itself to make these amendments in plight to silence or suppress the Bar. The means does not justify the end. Law makers, elected rep-

resentatives, the Bar, are vested with their own duties. For the Bar, it is concerned with the administration of law and justice. The Bar must function independently without any external influence - a “duty to act without fear or favour”. This check and balance must exist.

Something ado about quorum The Bar Council needs to function and stay afloat. The amendment requiring 25% quorum, equivalent to about 4,000 members, at the Bar AGM is unrealistic and reeks of ill will. A look into history will tell us that the past AGM has had the following attendance – • • • •

2013 – 1,303 members 2014 – 1,219 members 2015 – 1,906 members 2016 – 801 members

Seeing that the best attendance the Bar has received at its AGM is barely 5% of its members will show that the amendment is in bad faith. How many adjournments will the Bar have to make quorum (assuming that it can)? It is apparent that the amendment has the potential to stifle and erode the functions of the Bar. The amendment also mandates 25% attendance of members at the State Bar meetings. The figures for the Johore Bar AGM are not encouraging as well: Year 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Members 1540 1632 1810 1868

Attendance Percentage 204 13% 112 7% 70 4% 169 10%

Various jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom and Canada mandates quorum of 50 to 100 members.

Postal voting is the best solution The introduction of the postal ballot for the Council Election was and is intended to enable as many members as possible to participate. The abolition of postal voting denies access to members of the Bar to vote. Granted, Malaysia is a small country with multi-lane highways and airports – the Government cannot expect its

www.johorebar.org.my

5

members to fly into AGM (for one day) to exercise their rights of voting. Postal voting is practiced around the world to extend the democratic right choice to persons regardless of distance, disability and for some, pure laziness. There is a need to maximize the participation of all stakeholders who wish to take part in the electoral process. The Bar members deserve this liberty.

The young and wise The young lawyers have an active role in the Bar. They are the future seniors and their voice is equally important. Forming 60% of the Bar, they struggle the most from the economic slowdown and form the machinery of the legal profession.

INFO JOHORE BAR

But lest we ask, why has the Government chosen to distinguish members by those with 10 years of practice? Why not 7? Or 15? The fact that there is no cogent reason of why the number 10 has been chosen is reason why it should not be applied. 10 years is an arbitrary number. The late comedian George Carlin had often mocked the relevance of the number 10 “But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin’ around the tent makin’ all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why not nine, or eleven? I’ll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They knew if they tried eleven, people wouldn’t take them seriously. People would say, “What’re you kiddin’ me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the f**k outta here!” We are less united when we draw lines. Years of practice, age, race and political inclination make no difference as to how a member can best serve the Bar (or State Bar)

There was a time where the Bar or State Bar Committee was said to be an ‘old boys club’. Seeing that there are many grey haired Chairmen and committee members, this may have been the case.

If its not broken, don’t fix it. The proposed amendments were never sought or raised by the Bar. As those affected by it, the members ought to have a say. To have this amendment only grants credence to the fact that there are other factors afoot.

It was only ten years ago that parliament passed Act A1269 which repealed the law that disqualified all members of the Bar of less than seven years’ standing from being a member of the Bar Council or the State Bar Committee. This was at the behest of the resolution by the Bar at the 52nd Bar Council AGM in 1998. This amendment led to the participation of many young lawyers to serve in the Bar Council and State Bar committees. Shameless plug, this writer is a young lawyer, serving his 4th year in the Johore State Bar Committee. To legislate on quotas and building divisions insults the principle of meritocracy. The amendment takes us backwards and offends Act A1269 by dividing the Bar by practice years. It has to be noted that not all young lawyers are young of age. Young lawyers should not be insulted this way. We young lawyers should be introduced to the culture of meritocracy.

The Government’s decision to make these amendments sends a wrong signal to members of the Bar, the young practitioners and the general population. For the Bar, its members will think these amendments are punitive, making the Bar fearful of upholding the law without fear of favour. Government meddling into independent statutory bodies like to Bar to not give good perception to the general public. The Bar has held numerous roadshows in various states to send this message out. It is our turn to take the helm and make sure it does not happen. We cannot have this legislation bulldozed and imposed upon us. Our members need to stand together, united as the protectors of the rule of law. It is time to lobby our members of parliament and have them stop the amendment. ■

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

6

Reactions from around the world Statement by Japan Federation Bar Association

The Japan Federation of Bar Associations (“JFBA”) was informed that the Government of Malaysia intends to amend the Legal Profession Act (“LPA”) and that the Malaysian Bar Council strongly opposed the amendments as it would seriously damage its independence and self-governance. The JFBA is aware that the amendment could include provisions that would grant the Minister in charge of legal affairs the powers (1) to appoint two members of the Bar onto the Bar Council to represent the Government and (2) to make rules and regulations with respect to the conduct of the elections to the Bar Council and of the Office Bearers of the Bar. The “Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers” (1990) (the “Basic Principles”), adopted by the Eighth Crime Prevention Congress of the UN, guarantee lawyers’ activities, provide that lawyers shall be entitled to form self-governing professional associations, and that the executive body of such associations shall be elected by its members and

shall exercise its functions without external interference (Principle 24). Also it is common understanding that the independence of lawyers and bar associations is an integral part of the rule of law. Any interference from the government with this independence and self-governance is not acceptable. Therefore, the JFBA is deeply concerned about the scheduled amendments of the LPA in Malaysia and supports the ongoing independence of Malaysia’s lawyers. In line with the Basic Principles, the JFBA respectfully requests that the independence of lawyers’ professional associations be guaranteed without any restriction imposed. September 30, 2016 Kazuhiro Nakamoto President Japan Federation of Bar Associations

Joint letter to the Prime Minister of Malaysia from Sabah Law Association and Advocates’ Association of Sarawak

YAB Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak,

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976 The Sabah Law Association (“the SLA”) and the Advocates Association of Sarawak (“the AAS”) have been made aware of proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act

1976 (“the Act”). The purpose of the Act is to consolidate the law relating to the legal profession in West Malaysia. Although the proposed amendments to the Act have no direct bearing on the legal profession in Sabah and Sarawak - regulated under separate Ordinances - the SLA and AAS are nonetheless alarmed by the same. The Bar like the Judiciary must also be independent in order to execute its

www.johorebar.org.my

7

role properly. In particular, the SLA and AAS are concerned about the proposal that the Minister in charge of legal affairs be empowered to appoint two members of the Malaysian Bar as members of the Bar Council (which manages the affairs of the Malaysian Bar) to represent the government. On this issue, the SLA and AAS can do no better than to draw from the wisdom of the Federal Court in the decision of Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Pequam Malavsia & Anor [2010] 2 MLJ 333 (Richard Malanjum CJSS, Gopal Sri Ram and Zulkefli FCJJ on the panel). Although the issue being decided upon was distinct from the present proposals, the principle stated is equally pertinent, at Page 343: “This is because it is in the public interest that advocates and solicitors who serve on the governing body behave professionally, act honestly and independent of any political influence. An independent Bar Council may act morally in the proper and constitutional sense of that term. The absence of political influence secures an independent Bar Council.” The SLA and AAS are also guided by the sentiment of the late Tan Sri Harun Mahmud Hashim in the decision of Malaysian Bar & Anor v Government of Malaysia [1986] 2 MLJ 225. A provision of the Act restricting membership of the Bar Council had been challenged, and the principle enunciated at Page 227 was as follows: “The object is clearly that the affairs of the Bar be managed by members of the legal profession who are not only professionally independent but appear to the outside world to be so. The emphasis is an independent Bar which is not subject to external influences of a non-professional character.” The appointment of two members of the Malaysian Bar - no matter how upstanding they may be as individuals - by the Minister in charge of legal affairs to sit on the Bar Council would have an obvious and detrimental effect - both real and perceived - on the independence of the same.

INFO JOHORE BAR

are respectfully of the view that the proposed increase in quorum requirement of 4,000 lawyers (or 25% of the membership of the Malaysian Bar) is not a practical proposition given the physical, costs and logistical requirements given the sheer numbers involved. The Malaysian Bar itself should have the final say on this requirement. The SLA and AAS further understand that the above proposed amendments, and other amendments proposed in the same stroke, dealing with inter alia internal processes, were not made upon the request of the Malaysian Bar. This again gives the ‘impression of external influence being exerted on the Malaysian Bar. In view of the above, the SLA and AAS would respectfully urge the government to reconsider the proposed amendments to the Act. An independent Bar (whether in Malaya, Sabah or Sarawak) is essential for the administration of justice in our country. The SLA and AAS are given to understand that the proposed amendments are still the subject of an ongoing dialogue between the Malaysian Bar and the Honourable Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman. We hope that the above views will be given all due consideration. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Brenndon Keith Soh President of the Sabah Law Association Leonard David Shim Advocates’ Association of Sarawak

The SLA and AAS have been given to understand that another proposed amendment seeks to increase the quorum requirements for general meetings of the Malaysian Bar to 25% of the membership or 4,000 members, whichever is less. We are of the view that a quorum requirement ought to consider two competing factors. On the one hand, the requirement should be sufficiently high so as to avoid decisions being made on behalf of an organisation by an inordinately small number of its members. On the other hand, the quorum requirement should not be so high that the decision making process will, or is likely to be, delayed by reason of failure to meet such a requirement. SLA and AAS www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

8

Letter from Union Internationale des Avocats to the Prime Minister of Malaysia

July 6, 2016 Your Excellencies, I write to express the profound concern of the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA ‐ International Association of Lawyers) about the recently‐proposed changes to the Legal Profession Act of 1976 (the “LPA”). The UIA was founded in 1927. It is the oldest worldwide legal association and brings together several thousand lawyers, as well as over 200 bar, federation and association members (which represent around two million lawyers) from more than 110 countries. The main aims of the UIA are to promote the fundamental principles of the legal profession; to contribute to the establishment of an international legal order based on the principle of justice between nations, through law and in the cause of peace; and, to defend lawyers and their clients. We understand that the Government of Malaysia has proposed to amend the LPA in ways that would significantly threaten the independence and democratic functioning of the Bar of Malaysia. Certain of the proposed changes are particularly onerous, including: The proposed appointment by the Malaysian Government of two members of the Bar Council will necessarily inhibit free, open and robust debate at Bar Council Meetings and compromise the ability of the Bar Council to act independently. In light of the Bar Council’s long and courageous record of defense of civil liberties and the rule of law in Malaysia, this amendment gives the appearance of an effort by the Government to inhibit and limit that activity through intimidation and by creating fear that the confidential deliberations of the Council now will be reported to the Government.

tions of the Malaysian Bar will constitute a direct interference with the independence of the Bar Council. The proposed amendments to the processes and procedures governing election of members and Office Bearers of the Bar Council again, will interfere with the independent and democratic functioning of the Bar Council. The UIA notes that the Malaysia Bar Council has existed for over 70 years as an independent bar, representing all private sector lawyers who practice in Peninsula Malaysia. The Malaysian Bar Council has been at the forefront of the defense of the rule of law and fundamental liberties, ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession, promoting legal reform and providing legal aid to indigents in need. The UIA recalls the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which were unanimously adopted by all Participating States, including Malaysia, in Havana, Cuba in 1990 at the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. The Basic Principles provide, inter alia, in Article 24: “Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self‐governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity. The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference. (Emphasis added.)

The change in the quorum at general meetings of the Malaysian Bar and State Bars ‐‐‐ from 500 members to 25% of total membership, or 4000 members ‐‐ will cripple the Bar Council’s ability to hold meetings and take decisions. This would paralyze the functioning of the Bar Council and impede the Bar Council’s duties under the LPA.

The UIA calls upon the Government of Malaysia to uphold the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and refrain from making the proposed changes to the LPA, which would significantly undermine the independence and democratic functioning of the Bar Council. The UIA will continue to monitor developments on behalf of its Bar, Law Society and individual lawyer members throughout the world. We stand ready to come to Malaysia to meet with you or your representatives in order to express in person our grave concerns about this proposed legislation.

The proposed empowerment of the Minister in charge of legal affairs to determine the electoral rules and regula-

Respectfully yours, Jean‐Jacques Uettwiller

www.johorebar.org.my

9

INFO JOHORE BAR

Statement by Taiwan Bar Association

August 31, 2016 The Taiwan Bar Association (“TWBA”) expresses its serious concerns about the proposed amendments to the Malaysian Legal Profession Act 1976. The TWBA echoes the Malaysian Bar’s efforts to protect the independence of the Bar, which is an essential aspect of the rule of law in any community. We attorneys shall contribute to the rule of law. We admire our Malaysian colleagues for taking actions to fulfill such missions. We also understand that the proposed amendments involve significant changes to the Malaysian Bar. It includes, certain members of the Bar Council to be appointed by the Government and to represent the Government, and the Minister of legal affairs to be empowered to determine the electoral regulations of the Malaysian Bar.

It is disturbing that the proposed amendments are not sought by the Malaysian Bar, but launched and driven by the Government. The rule of law and the independence of the legal profession are regarded as the common values. As a member of the International legal community, the TWBA guards those values and urges the Malaysian government to justify carefully and examine cautiously when intervening in the self-regulation of the profession. Kuang-Lu-WU President TAIWAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Lawyers under attack: Message from the IBA President David W Rivkin

Shakespeare is often quoted by those seeking to undermine lawyers: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’, says Dick the Butcher in Henry VI, Part II. But this rebel was in fact recognising that, in order to carry out his rebellion, the lawyers and judges who defend the rule of law and order in society would have to be eliminated. Today, authoritarian regimes are unfortunately following that same game plan. Lawyers are under attack in multiple countries whose leaders wish to impose their own version of law. In Malaysia, the government seeks to adopt amendments to the Legal Pro-

fession Act 1976 that would effectively impose government control over the Bar by, among other things, appointing government representatives to sit on the Bar Council, and empowering the minister in charge of legal affairs to determine the electoral rules and regulations of the Bar. Government members of the Bar Council would be required to report on Bar Council meetings, which would make it impossible for Council members to speak confidentially. It would inevitably limit the Council’s ability to speak out or take action against the Government when necessary. Other proposed amendments would create unmanageable and unnecessary quorum requirements and other measures

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

10

designed to restrain the Bar Council’s ability to protect the rule of law and the independence of lawyers.

to torture. Other lawyers have been intimidated and prevented from undertaking their professional functions.

Principle 16 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) requires governments to ensure that lawyers are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference. Principle 24 also requires that ‘Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their professional integrity. The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.’

The IBA has spoken out against all of these abuses of power and threats to our profession. I sent a letter to the President of Malaysia urging withdrawal of the proposed amendments to the Legal Professions Act. The IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) has made a strong statement condemning the mass removal of judges in Turkey and has sent an open letter to President Xi complaining about the detention of lawyers and demanding their unconditional and immediate release. I made a similar statement to China’s Deputy Minister of Justice when I had the opportunity to meet with him in Beijing in March.

In Turkey, following the unsuccessful coup attempt, President Erdogan quickly removed more than 2,500 judges from their positions, as well as substantial numbers of prosecutors, and many of them have been arrested and detained. While we cannot know all the circumstances surrounding the coup, the fact that President Erdogan had already been making attempts to reshape the judiciary before the coup and the swiftness of his actions following it certainly raise suspicion about the purpose of these actions. The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary require that judges be removed only after a fair hearing that is subject to independent review. It is vital that all those charged in Turkey receive due process and that they be entitled to proper representation by lawyers who are not themselves subject to intimidation and arrest for undertaking that representation. In China, the government has detained for more than a year hundreds of lawyers who have worked for various human rights causes. Some have been reportedly subject

It is incumbent on all of us as lawyers and for the IBA’s member bar associations and law societies to speak out publicly when lawyers are under attack. Such public pressure can have an impact. About two dozen bar associations from around the world have publicly complained to the Malaysian government about its proposed actions; this caused the Attorney General to have to acknowledge these demands publicly. At a meeting last week of the Presidents of Law Associations of Asia (POLA) that I attended, the Presidents issued a statement criticizing the mass removal of judges in Turkey and demanding that they receive fair representation. When any of us is under attack, we are all threatened. Let us continue to speak as the voice of a single legal profession against those who would undermine lawyers in order to eliminate democracy and the rule of law. David W Rivkin President @dwrivkin

www.johorebar.org.my

11

INFO JOHORE BAR

Housing Development (Control and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 Salient amendments to the principal Regulations 1989 The legislation governing housing development, namely, the Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966 [“principal Act”] has been in existence for about 50 years (1966 - 2015) since its inception. It has been amended from time to time. The latest amendment to the principal Act is known as the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) (Amendment) Act 2012 [HDA 2012 ], though gazetted in the year 2012, it did not come into force until 4 years later, i.e. on 1 June 2015. Most probably, the reason for the delay in the implementation of HDA 2012 was, that the relevant authorities were not in a position to prepare and give finishing touches to the new housing developers’ regulations known as Housing Development (Control and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 [“HDR 2015”]. These new regulations can be found in P.U. (A) 106, Gazetted on 1 June 2015. The new Regulations HDR 2015 amended the Housing Developers’ (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 [“principal Regulations”]. The standard sale and purchase agreements (Schedules G, H, I and J) have been amended by the new Regulations HDR 2015, which came into force last year, on 1 July 2015, exactly one month after the commencement of the principal Act. The new Regulations “HDR 2015” are the latest piece of subsidiary legislation introduced to amend the principal Regulations. The principal Regulations were implemented some 26 years ago. They underwent piecemeal amendments from time to time. But this time round, substantial amendments have been

made to the principal Regulations, particularly in respect of the clauses in the ‘standard’ or prescribed sale and purchase agreements [Schedule G and Schedule H, etc.] The Minister responsible for introducing these Regulations is the “Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government”, previously known as the “Minister of Housing and Local Government.” Salient amendments to the principal Regulations Apart from the amendments to the clauses in the standard sale and purchase agreements (for example, Schedules G and H), the other amendments relate to the developer’s licence, advertisements and collection of booking fees, etc. Those amendments that warrant attention are as follows: 1. Time limit to renew developer’s licence shortened [regulation 4 amended] The time limit for the renewal of a developer’s licence has been shortened. After the amendment made by HDR 2015, a developer must renew his licence at least 14 days before the date of expiry of its licence. Whereas under the old law, the licence must be renewed at least 60 days before the date of expiry. Under the principal Regulations, the application for renewal of the licence “may be made not later than sixty (60) days before the date of expiry”. These words have been replaced by the words “shall be made not later than fourteen (14) days before the date of expiry”. In addition, the licence must be renewed and remain valid until CCC [Certificate of Completion and Compliance] for every housing accommodation is granted: Regulation 4(1A).

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

12

2. Restrictions imposed on advertising by housing developers [new regulation 8(1A) added]

projects under new developers’ licences issued on or after 1 July 2015.

Housing developers are fond of making statements in their advertisements to the effect that they offer free legal fees; how much rental income their property can fetch; how scenic the panoramic view is, how short the distance is from the housing project concerned to the nearby supermarkets, etc., and also what other benefits were available in their housing projects.

Schedule G (land and building) is for landed property, for example, residential houses. Schedule H (building or land intended for subdivision into parcels) is for condominiums, apartments or flats, with or without strata titles.

After the recent amendment, restrictions are imposed on the contents of any advertisement put up by the developer. Under a new regulation 8(1A), a housing developer’s advertisement must not contain the following: (a) (b) (c) (d)

offer of free legal fees; projected monetary gains and rental income; claim of panoramic view; travelling time from housing projects to popular destinations; (e) any particulars to which a housing developer cannot genuinely lay proper claim. 3. Stakeholders prohibited from collecting booking fee, etc. [Regulation 11(2) amended] After an amendment made by the HDR 2015, apart from housing developers, stakeholders are also prohibited from collecting from the purchaser any payment by whatever name called (such as “booking fee”, “earnest money”, etc.) before the signing of any sale and purchase agreement. Such amendment is meant for the protection of the purchasers from unscrupulous developers.

Clauses in Schedule I (land and building) and Schedule J (building or land intended for subdivision into parcels) have also been amended. 5. Savings clause: old projects are to use previous SPAs For the existing or old housing projects, the previous standard sale and purchase agreements [e.g. Schedule G and Schedule H] must be used by the developer issued with a licence before 1 July 2015. “… any licensed housing developer who, before the coming into force of these Regulations, was carrying on the business of housing development, may continue to carry on such business for such period … as may be specified in the licence.” (regulation 13) But under the new HDR 2015, a housing developer must use the amended sale and purchase agreements (e.g. Schedule G and Schedule H) for new housing projects if he has been issued with a licence and an advertising permit on or after 1 July 2015. Yang Pei Keng

“No person including … stakeholders shall collect any payment by whatever name called except as prescribed by the contract of sale.” [regulation 11(2)]. Under the previous law, only developers were prohibited from collecting any such payment (‘booking fees’, etc.) before the signing of any sale and purchase agreement. Now the stakeholders are also bound by this regulation. 4. Standard sale and purchase agreements [Schedules G, H, I and J amended] Under HDR 2015, all standard sale and purchase agreements [Schedules G, H, I and J] under the principal Regulations have been amended. Numerous clauses in these standard sale and purchase agreements have been amended. But the amended sale and purchase agreements only apply to those housing www.johorebar.org.my

13

INFO JOHORE BAR

Know Your Law On Limited Liability Partnership (Limited Liability Partnership Act 2012 – Part 1)

Introduction This article (Limited Liability Partnership Act 2012) is a summary of the provisions of the Limited Liabilities Partnership Act 2012 (the LLP Act). To cover most of the issues involved, the article is rather lengthy. For easy reading, it has been split into 3 parts, namely, Know your law on Limited Liability Partnership (Part1); Conversion to Limited Liability Partnership (Part2); and Foreign Limited Liability Partnership (Part 3). The article may be of interest to those who would like to have an idea of what a limited liabilities partnership (LLP) is. They may take advantage of the benefits of running an LLP instead of the ordinary partnership firm of advocates and solicitors. This article, amongst other things, attempts to answer the following questions: What is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)? Who are the persons allowed to register an LLP? What are the differences between an LLP and an ordinary partnership? What are the differences between an LLP and a company? How to convert an ordinary or conventional partnership into an LLP? How to convert a company into an LLP? Salient features of the LLP Foreign limited liability partnership 1. What is a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)? An LLP is a business organisation which has the advantages of both a private company and an ordinary or conventional partnership. Every partner of an LLP has a limited liability, normally enjoyed by the shareholders of a company.

LLPs can be found in many countries, such as the UK, USA, Singapore, Japan and India. An LLP is a body corporate. It is a legal entity having a legal personality separate and distinct from that of its partners: s.3(1) . It has a perpetual succession. The existence of the LLP is not affected by any change in its partners, unlike the ordinary partnership: 3(3). These are the basic differences between an ordinary partnership and an LLP. An LLP has a limited liability. It can sue and be sued. It can own property. It can do anything that a body corporate can do. [s.3(4)]. The provisions of the Partnership Act 1961 governing the ordinary partnership firms do not apply to an LLP. Similarly, the relevant rules of equity and common law applicable to the ordinary partnership do not apply to an LLP: s.4 2. What are the main differences between an LLP and an ordinary partnership? The most important difference between an LLP and an ordinary partnership is that each of the partners of the LLP has limited liability. Partners are not liable for the debts and liabilities of the LLP. The LLP is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its partners. The debt and liabilities of the LLP will be borne by the assets of the LLP. One of the important advantages of an LLP over the ordinary partnership is that, if the LLP is sued and if it is dissolved, creditors cannot go after the personal assets of the partners of the LLP. In the case of an ordinary partnership, the partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the firm. If the partnership firm is insolvent, and the business goes bust, the partners are personally liable for the debts of the firm. Any one of the partners may be held liable for all the debts of an insolvent partnership firm.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

14

An LLP has to submit its own tax return annually. In this respect, it is different from an ordinary partnership. An ordinary partnership itself does not have to submit any annual tax return; the partners have to submit their own tax returns. When any of its partners declares his income, he has to include his share of the income derived from the partnership business in his tax return. 3. What are the differences between an LLP and a Company? Though the partners of an LLP enjoy limited liability, as in the case of shareholders in a company, there are many important differences between an LLP and a company. The main differences are: An LLP does not issue shares. There is no statutory duty to convene any annual general meeting. There is no necessity to file any financial statement to SSM. The LLP need not produce any audited account. Therefore, it is not necessary for the LLP to employ a company secretary, nor an auditor. It is therefore more economical to maintain an LLP than a company. 4. Who may form an LLP? [ S.7] Any two or more persons may form an LLP, so long as they are carrying on any lawful business with a view to profit. “Persons” include individuals as well as bodies corporate: s.6. Professional practice «professional practice» means the practice mentioned in the the First schedule. Only 3 categories of professionals are mentioned in the First Schedule. They are chartered accountants, advocates and solicitors and company secretaries. Natural persons carrying on the same professional practice may form an LLP. But they must have professional indemnity insurance for an amount approved by the Registrar. If the profession has a governing body (like the Bar council/Malaysian Bar) the amount of insurance will be determined by the Registrar after consultation with the governing body of the profession. For example, in the case of the legal profession, the amount of professional indemnity insurance has to be approved by the Registrar after consultation with the the Malaysian Bar. The Malaysian Bar is the governing body of the legal profession [see s.8 of the Act], but everything is done through the Bar council. An LLP may carry on business even with only one remaining partner, but for a period of 6 months only. The Registrar may grant a longer period upon application, But the extended period can be up to one year only.

It is an offence if the business is carried on with one remaining partner beyond the permitted period. Both the LLP and the remaining partner will be liable to a hefty maximum fine of RM200,000. But the partner concerned must be cognisant of the fact that the LLP is carrying on business with one remaining partner only. If the LLP is convicted, the court may order the LLP to be dissolved and its name to be struck off the register: S.7(4) 5. “Limited liability partnership agreement” [s.9] “Limited liability partnership agreement” (LLP Agreement) is a written agreement between the partners of the LLP, or between the LLP and its partners. It determines the mutual rights and duties of the partners, and their rights and duties in relation to the LLP. The rights and duties of the partners, and the rights and duties of the LLP vis-a-vis its partners are governed by the LLP agreement. The LLP agreement should contain particulars like the name of LLP, the nature of business, the amount of capital contributed by each partner: s.9. If there is no agreement, the rights and duties will be determined by the implied provisions as stipulated in the Second Schedule of the LLP Act. They are known as the Default Provisions for LLP. Implied Provisions in the absence of LLP Agreement Second Schedule If there is no LLP agreement entered into between the partners, and between the partners and the LLP, some implied terms can be found in the Second Schedule of the Act. There are known as the default provisions of the LLP. An ordinary or conventional partnership does not have such implied terms. The default provisions govern the mutual rights and duties of the LLP and its partners. They will take effect only if there is no LLP agreement. If an LLP agreement has been signed, then the provisions of the written agreement shall prevail and override the default provisions. There are 12 default provisions for LLP. They are summarized as follows: All the partners are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the LLP. The LLP must indemnify each partner against personal liabilities incurred by the partner in the ordinary conduct of business. The LLP must also indemnify the partners against anything done for preserv-

www.johorebar.org.my

15

ing the business or property of the LLP. Every partner is entitled to take part in the management of the business, but no partner is entitled to any remuneration for acting in the business (or management of the business). No person can be introduced as a partner without the consent of all the partners. No one can assign his interest in the business without the consent of all the partners. Any matter relating to the business has to be decided by resolution passed by a majority of partners. Each partner has one vote only. Every partner must render true accounts and full information affecting the business to any other partner (or his solicitor). If a partner carries on the same business as that of the LLP and compete with the LLP, he must account to the LLP all business profits made by him. But he may carry on the same business with the consent of the LLP. Every partner must account for any benefit he derives from a transaction concerning the LLP; or from any use of the LLP’s property, name and any business connection. But he may do so with the consent of the LLP. The majority of the partners have no power to expel any partner (unless there is express agreement between the partners to the contrary.) 6. How to register an LLP? [S.10] The Registrar of LLP is responsible for the registration of the LLP. He is none other than the CCM (Companies Commission of Malaysia). There are a number of Assistant Registrars. Their acts and omissions are deemed to be as effectual as those of the Registrar: s.5. Any person may apply for registrations of an LLP. The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fees together with the necessary documents. The application has to include a statement signed by all the partners. The statement must contain particulars like the name of the LLP, the general nature of business, the registered office; the name, nationality and the usual place of residence of all partners as well as the compliance officer. The registrar may specify other relevant information: s.10(2). If the applicant is a body corporate, the corporate name, place of incorporation, establishment and origin, registration number and registered office have to be furnished. In the case of a professional practice, the applicant must

INFO JOHORE BAR

produce an approval letter from the governing body. For example, if the applicant is a firm of advocates and solicitors, it must produce an approval letter from the Malaysian Bar [See Third Schedule, 3rd column]. The Registrar may require the approval letter to be verified. The following expenses may be incurred for registering an LLP: Reservation of name: Registration fee: Certificate fee (inclusive of GST) Total

RM 30.00 RM 500.00 RM 47.70 RM 577.70

When the application has complied with all the requirements, the Registrar will register the LLP and allocate a registration number, and issue a notice of registration. The LLP is deemed to be in existence on the date of registration (as shown in the notice of registration). The notice of registration is conclusive evidence that the LLP is duly registered. On payment of the prescribed fee, the Registrar will issue a certificate of registration. But it is to be noted that the registration of the LLP does not imply that the requirements of other written laws have been complied with. [s.10] In other words, requirements by other laws must also be met. The Registrar may refuse registration [s.11] The Registrar may refuse registration on the grounds that it is contrary to the national security or interests; the LLP is likely to be used for a charitable or unlawful purpose, or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order or morality in Malaysia. This seems to be a provision aimed at preventing any NGO [non-government organisation] or CSO [civil society organisation] from registering as an LLP. An aggrieved party may appeal to the Minister within 30 days of the date of decision. The decision of the Minister is final. This would mean that no court action can be taken against the Registrar for refusing to register an LLP under the Act: s.12. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE LLP 1. Name of LLP The name of an LLP must end with the words the Malay words “Perkongsian Liabiliti Terhad” (PLT). This would means that the English words “Limited Liability Partnership” or “LLP” cannot appear at the end of the name of an LLP. Therefore, every LLP will be known as “XXX PLT”.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

16

The Registrar will not register an LLP’s name on the grounds that the name is undesirable or identical to an existing body corporate or business, or identical to a name reserved under the Companies Act 196. The Minister may direct the Registrar not to accept a name, but such direction must be gazetted. But the Minister has the final say, because any LLP’s name can be registered if the Minister gives his consent: s.13. Reservation of names. Any person may apply for reservation of an LLP name, or to change the LLP name. The Registrar will reserve the name for a period of 30 days from the date of lodging the application (not from the date of approval). What if it is a belated approval? The Registrar may extend the period. of reservation: s.14. Offence to use the words “perkongsian liabiliti terhad” if not registered It is an offence for any person to make use of the words “perkongsian liabiliti terhad” or PLT as the final word for his business name, if it is not duly registered under this Act. A heavy penalty will be imposed. Maximum fine: RM250,000; maximum imprisonment: 3 years; or both: s.81. 2. Change of name of LLP An LLP may change its name. A notice of confirmation of the change will be issued. It takes effect from the date of issue of the notice of confirmation. But the change of name does not affect any rights and obligations of the LLP. It will not render ineffective any existing legal proceedings of the LLP. They may be continued by its new name. [s.15] The Registrar may direct an LLP to change its name, if he opines that the name is prohibited from registration. The LLP must comply with such direction within 30 days (or longer period allowed) from the date of the direction. It is an offence not to comply with the direction. Maximum fine: RM10,000; if a continuing offence, maximum fine: RM500 per day. [s.16]

place before it was duly registered. The question of the name being prohibited should not have arisen. There could be a situation where the LLP might have run its business under the registered LLP name for quite some time. The LLP business might have flourished, and might have made a name which becomes popular or well known, and may have acquired some goodwill. There is no reason whatsoever for the LLP to change its name. As mentioned earlier on, the Registrar is the sole authority for approving and registering the LLP name. It is only after obtaining the Registrar’s approval and registration, that the LLP begins its business operation. S.16 says that the Registrar may direct the LLP to change its name because it is prohibited from registration. And the partners concerned must comply with the direction on pain of penalty. [Note: This does not apply to the improper use of the LLP name without registration, which comes under the purview of another provision of the Act.] According to the provision under discussion, after the Registrar has approved and registered the LLP name, if some time later, the Registrar changes his mind and opines that the LLP name is prohibited from registration, he can just give a direction to the LLP to change its name (already approved and registered by him earlier on). To the LLP, this is a rather unjust and unfair provision, and it is certainly against good governance and a departure from the rule of law. The issue is, if the approved and registered name is prohibited, then why did the Registrar approve and register the LLP name concerned in the first place? Assuming that the Registrar discovers subsequently that he has committed an error himself for approving and registering a prohibited name, then he would have to admit that it was an error on his part. If the Registrar decides to direct the LLP to change its approved and registered name, he must as a matter of courtesy, tender apologies to the partners of the LLP.

This provision operates unfairly and unjustly against the interests of any LLP.

In addition, appropriate damages under the existing law ought to be paid to the LLP for the loss and damage it has suffered. This is because such loss and damage in the LLP business are incurred as a result of the Registrar’s direction to change the name in order to rectify his own mistake.

It should be borne in mind that the Registrar is the sole authority for approving and registering any LLP name. The name of the LLP was approved by the Registrar in the first

The LLP or its partners should not be criminalised, penalised or punished for the rectification of an error committed by a public servant.]

[Comment: s. 16 is an unjust and unfair provision.

www.johorebar.org.my

17

If an LLP changes its particulars, it must notify the Registrar within 14 days (or any longer period if allowed). A prescribed fee is payable for registering the change. A retired partner may lodge a notification of cessation with the Registrar if he reasonably believes that the LLP has not done so. The Registrar may require the LLP to rectify any notification lodged. It is an offence not to register any change in registered particulars. Maximum fine: RM10,000; if a continuing offence, maximum fine: RM500 a day. 3. Registered office Just like a company, an LLP must have a registered office, which can be changed. LLP has to file a notice of change. After the change of address of the registered office has been registered, a person may still serve any document at the previous registered address within 30 days of the registration of the change. It is an offence not to register the change of address of the registered office. Maximum fine: RM10,000. If a continuing offence, maximum fine: RM500 a day: s.18. Documents to be kept at the registered office - These documents include: the notice of registration, a register of particulars (names and addresses) of all partners and the compliance officer, a copy of the most recent annual declaration, a copy of any statement lodged with the Registrar, a copy of any certificate issued by the Registrar, a copy of the LLP agreement, a copy of the charge created, and any other documents required by the Registrar. These documents must be made available for inspection and copying by any partner during business hours: s.19 It is an offence not to comply with this provision. Maximum fine: RM10,000. If a continuing offence, maximum fine: RM500 a day. 4. LLP name : to appear outside offices and in documents

INFO JOHORE BAR

It is an offence not to comply with this provision. Maximum fine: RM10,000; if a continuing offence, maximum fine: RM500 a day. 5. Partners have only limited liability A partner of an LLP has only limited liability, just like a shareholder in a company. Any obligation of the LLP whether in contract or in tort, is solely the responsibility of the LLP. A partner is not personally liable for the obligation of the LLP: s.21. Partners are not liable to indemnify or contribute towards performance of the obligation of the LLP. But a partner is personally liable for his own wrongful act or omission in tort. He is not liable for the wrongful act or omission of any other partner. If a partner is liable to any third party as a result of another partner’s wrongful act or omission in the course of business of the LLP, the liability is to be borne by the LLP: s.22. Liability of partners when LLP is insolvent. An LLP is insolvent if it is unable to pay its debts when they become due in the course of business. Just like a company, a winding up petition can be filed against the LLP. If a partner (or former partner) receives a distribution from the LLP within 2 years before the winding up petition commences, he is liable for the amount of the distribution. The pre-condition is that he knew (or ought to have known) that the LLP was insolvent at the time of the distribution, or that the distribution may result in the LPP becoming insolvent: s.22. 6. How does a partner bind the LLP? The general principle is that every partner is the agent of the LLP, and therefore, LLP is liable for what the partner has done in the course of business. But the LLP is not liable if the partner is acting without authority, and the person dealing with him knows that he has no authority.

Every LLP must display its name and registration number outside its registered office and place of business. The Registrar may exempt the LLP from such requirements if it is not practicable to do so.

Similarly, the LLP is not liable if the person dealing with the partner does not know that he is a partner of the LLP. In other words, the person’s intention is to deal with the partner in his own personal capacity; it has nothing to do with the LLP.

They must appear in all documents, including every letterhead, invoice, bill, publication including electronic medium, website. The former name of the LLP must also appear beneath its present name in all these documents, for a period of 12 months from the date of the change: s.20.

If the person dealing with the LLP knows that the former partner has already ceased to be a partner, he cannot regard the former partner as still being a partner of the LLP. The same principle applies if a notice (that the former partner has ceased to be a partner) has been lodged with the Registrar.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

18

No person is deemed to have notice that a partner lacks authority, simply because such fact is made known by the Registrar for inspection: s.23. 7. Cessation of interest in partnership - 30 days’ notice A partner may cease to be a partner of an LLP, or withdraws from an LLP in accordance with the LLP agreement. If there is no such agreement, then the partner may give 30 days’ notice to the other partners of his intention to resign as a partner: s.24. A partner will also cease to be a partner upon his death. In the case of an LLP of a professional practice, a partner ceases to be a partner if he has been disqualified from practice. In the absence of an LLP agreement, if a partner ceases to be a partner, he is entitled to receive an amount equal to his capital contribution to the LLP, and to share in the accumulated profits of the LLP. The amount is to be determined as at the date of his ceasing to be a partner. If he dies, his personal representative is entitled to receive the payments. When a partner ceases to be a partner, he must not get involved in the management of the LLP. The same principle applies to his personal representative or its liquidator. It is an offence not to comply with this provision i.e. s.24(4), but no punishment has been specified. This would mean that the general penalty clause applies. Can a partner assign his interests in LLP? Yes. If there is no LLP agreement, a partner may assign the whole or any part of his interest (i.e. right to distribution) in the LLP. Only the partner’s interest in the distribution is assigned. But he is still a partner, and the assignee is not entitled to interfere in the management of the LLP: s.26. 8. Bankruptcy of a partner If a partner is adjudicated a bankrupt, he does not cease to be a partner of the LLP. The Director General of insolvency (DG) is entitled to receive distribution from the LLP. The DG cannot interfere with the management of the LLP. But the bankrupt partner may take part in the management of the LLP with the leave of the DG, or with the leave of court. A notice of intention to apply for leave must be served on the DG. The DG is entitled to be heard on the application.

If a partner has been adjudicated bankrupt outside Malaysia, he must obtain the leave of court before he can take part in the management of the LLP. It is a serious offence not to comply with the provision [i.e. s.25(3) re: adjudication of bankruptcy outside Malaysia ]. Maximum fine: RM250,000; or maximum imprisonment: 5 years; or both. [s.25] 9. Compliance officer An LLP needs to have a compliance officer. This seems to be a new concept. An ordinary partnership does not have a compliance officer. He is in fact the secretary of the LLP: s.27. An LLP must appoint at least one compliance officer from among its partners to act as secretary. If no compliance officer has been appointed, then all partners are deemed to be the compliance officer. A compliance officer must be a citizen or permanent resident ordinarily residing in Malaysia. Particulars of a compliance officer and his consent to act must be lodged with the Registrar. He seems to be the counterpart of a company secretary, but his obligations are not exactly the same as those of the company secretary. A compliance officer has a lesser burden than a company secretary, whose duties are more complex. A compliance officer is answerable for doing all acts, matters and things required to be done by the LLP. He is personally liable for all penalties imposed on the LLP for contravening this Act. All compliance officers will be held responsible for any offence committed by the LLP. [s.27] If the compliance officer intends to vacate the office, he must give a written notice to the LLP, and he must lodge with the Registrar a notice to vacate the office. The notice will take effect on the expiry of one month from the date of lodging the notice. Who cannot be a compliance officer? [s.28] An undischarged bankrupt or any person disqualified to act as a director or company secretary cannot act as a compliance officer. It is an offence not to comply with this provision. Maximum fine: RM250,000; or maximum imprisonment of 3 years, or both. [s.28] Yang Pei Keng

www.johorebar.org.my

19

INFO JOHORE BAR

OBITUARIES The late Mr S.V.K. Singham, Kluang, Johor (26/03/1934 - 31/7/2016) Mr S Veera Kumara Singham popularly known as S.V.K Singham of the Hon. Society of Lincoln’s Inn a Barrister-at-Law and an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court, Malaysia passed away peacefully in Kluang on the 31st day of July 2016. The last rites according to traditional Hindu rites took place in Kluang on the 1st day of August 2016. The late Mr Singham was a very senior member of the Johor Bar. In fact he was No. 7 on the List of Seniority of the resident members of the Johore Bar totalling 1910 members as at 31st of July 2016. He was however, born in Sungkai, Perak where his father the late Mr V Somasundram was attached to the Postal Department. His early years were in Ipoh. He was an Andersonian and a contemporary of the late leader of the Malaysian Bar, YM Raja Aziz Addruse. On completion of the Higher School Certificate Singham proceeded to the University of Singapore and graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Hons) degree and ventured into the teaching profession Malaysia, for a short span. Clamouring for some action and excitement he left teaching and joined the Royal Malaysian Police Force as a cadet ASP and was in the Traffic Section. He later on resigned from the Force and proceeded to Lincolns Inn, London and read for and was called to the English Bar. He returned read in Chambers and was called to the Malaysian Bar on 15.8.1969. He commenced practise under the name and style of Singham & Company, Kluang. He was so to speak a trendsetter in that he was probably the first to open a firm of Advocates & Solicitors in Kluang with a resident lawyer thereat. An avid and keen sportsman Singham played cricket, squash, tennis, table tennis, hockey, football, golf and badminton. Hashing was his love and was a member of the Kluang Hash House Harriers. He served the community by being a member of the Lion’s Club Kluang of which he was a President. He loved classical music both Western and Tamil Carnatic. He was a member of the Ceylonese Association of Kluang.

His only child Dr Anusuya adoringly reminces that her father was a filial son, loving brother, loving husband, uncle and a doting father. He was positive and optimistic in his outlook and was well loved and respected. And not known to many the study of languages was his forte. He was fluent in English, Tamil, Malay, Mandarin, Hindi, Punjabi and German languages. He was a lover of animals and was kind to all animals and had several pets. Singham was a prim and proper member of the Bar. He did not tread against or transgress the Rules of Etiquette and Practice and practised at the Bar within the ambit of the noble traditions and of the laws in his 47 years at the Bar. As an ardent sportsman he participated in the Johore Bench and Bar games annually and was specially partial towards cricket. He was therefore not a mere journeyman at the Bar but contributed his talents to the Bar and to the Community. In his own demure ways Singham was a man of manifold extensive interests, and talents. His life’s journey has been an eventful and complete one enriched by manifold experiences. Singham leaves behind his wife Madam Maheswari formerly of the Ministry of Education and his only daughter, Dr Anusuya of the Government Hospital, Kluang. The Bar’s heartfelt condolences go to them. The words of Julie Burchill a writer from Bristol England comes to mind when one thinks of Singham’s wholesome life. Singham lived a long successful happy and complete life and so the words of Burchill are apt: “Tears are sometimes an inappropriate response to death When a life has been lived completely honestly, completely successfully, or just completely, the correct response to death’s perfect punctuation mark is a smile.” - Julie Burchill Now that his earthly labours have ceased may Singham find much love joy peace and eternal rest in God’s glorious gardens. (S. Balarajah) Johore Bar 9.9.2016

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

20

najwa izzatty binti abdul razak (31/08/1989 - 2/9/2016)

allahyarhamah najwa izzatty binti abdul razak passed away on the 2nd september 2016. she was born on the 31st august 1989 and was admitted to the malaysian bar 6th march 2014. she was practising with the firm fatimah zahrah & co. at muar, johor. the johore bar committee and the members of the johore bar convey their deepest condolences to the bereaved family.

chua chen cher (19/05/1984 – 17/9/2016)

the late chua chen cher passed away on the 17th september 2016. he was born on the 19th may 1984 and was admitted to the malaysian bar on the 10th june 2010. he was practising as sole proprietor in the name of loh, chua, chai & co. the johore bar committee and the members of the johore bar convey their deepest condolences to the bereaved family.

www.johorebar.org.my

21

in

INFO JOHORE BAR

The late Renganathan a/l Letchumanan (10-03-1946 – 31.08.2016)

He was active as a registered Malaysian football referee and was also a qualified official of the Malaysian Amateur Athletic Federation.

The Johore Bar is once again distressed to record the passing of yet another one of its senior members the late Mr Renganathan a/l Letchumanan (“Renga”) who passed away

At the Bar in Johor Renga was a rather quiet unassuming personality who did not court trouble. Renga could well be described as a plain speaking provincial personality. Rather private in his ways he took on the position of “speak when spoken to”.

Johor Bahru on the 31st day of August 2016. The funeral took place according to Hindu rites on the 1st day of September 2016. Born in Taiping, Perak, Renga grew up in the quaint little town of Kuala Kubu Bahru in the foothills of Frazer Hill. He had his early education in Tamil Schools in Kuala Kubu Baru and in Rawang and later on in the Methodist Boys School, Kuala Lumpur. That Renga was to a large extent a self made successful lawyer is plain from his antecedents. On completing secondary schooling Renga joined the Rubber Research Institute(“RRI”) as a Research Assistant. Whilst working and yearning to uplift and upgrade his status in life, he attended evening classes and passed the Higher School Certificate Examination and then read law as an external student. At the age of 42, he had obtained his Bachelor of Laws (London)(External) and then passed the threshold for the CLP, read in chambers of Matthew Varughese of Varughese & Co, Johor Bahru and was called to the Malaysian Bar on 4.12.1988 He worked as a Legal Assistant in m/s John Ang & Jega, m/s Nijar Kumar Netto & Partners and finally in Vincent Lai & Co before embarking on in a partnership with Loh Song Chuan (who passed away on 4.11.2014). They formed the firm of Loh & Renga which firm has 2 branches with the late Mr Loh’s nephew Low Shu Peng running the same presently. Renga was an ardent sportsman and contributed his talents to the Johor Bench & Bar vs Police games and other Bar games. He was a footballer and an athlete. As a youth he played for the “Under 23 – Burnley Cup” for the State of Selangor. He played for the State of Negeri Sembilan (whilst attached to RRI, Port Dickson) for the Malaysia Cup.

He carried on a quiet practice mainly as a litigator whereas his late partner Loh was a conveyancer. Renga attended most Bar functions connected with sports. And when wear and tear because of sports injury took a toll on his knees he switched onto golf which he leisurely enjoyed. Renga leaves behind his beloved wife Madam S. Thevanayaki a/p A Selladurai a retired Nursing sister of Sultanah Aminah Hospital’s, Paediatric Ward and his only child a son Agilan a/l Renganathan, an Engineer. The Bar expresses its deepest condolences to the loved ones of the football and sports loving lawyer. One is mindful that love remembrance and memories do not end at the tomb but are embedded in our hearts and minds till time shall be no more. These are our treasures. One cannot resist quoting a fitting Rubaiyat from Omar Khayam as Renga, born in Taiping Perak grew up in Kuala Kubu Baru and Rawang worked in Kuala Lumpur and finally established his nest in Johor Bahru to practice law and live out his last days. The Khayam penned: The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes, But Here or There, as strikes the Player, goes; And He that tossed you down into the Field, He knows about it all – He knows – He Knows! OMAR KHAYYAM May God grant Renga the peaceful and everlasting rest he deserves. S. Balarajah Johore Bar (26.10.2016)

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

22

Congratulations To The Newly Admitted Members of The Bar (Johor) (AS AT TIME OF PUBLICATION) No.

Name

Firm

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Farah Yasmin Binti Abd Radzak Junaina Binti Midun Neo Sok Wei Rafika Mona Binti Usman Gumanti Saw Mei Kee Siti Khadijah Binti Mohd Aisom Wong Juen Fang Chia Ze Sien Khairul Anuar Bin Ahmad Khairul Asri Bin Ahmad Lee Cher Ling Noor Atiqah Binti Mohd Thaib Teoh Nur Faateha Binti Musa Rabiatul Adawiyah Binti Abd Hamid Amirul Iman Bin Anuar Bong Wei Lun Chan Kah Yee Chong Lee Mei Chung Jia Yee Eng Joo Kei Wong Zhi Ling Muhamad Asyraf Syairazi Bin Sho’aib Nur Hannan Najihah Binti Md Shukor Anis Syarizad Binti Kuthubul Zaman Adahikmah Binti Abu Bakar Fiona Teh Sook Woon Flavia Tan Ruo Xuan Goh Siae Ping Sakila A/P Damodaran Syamsiah Binti Mohd Ali Teo Poh San Heng Eng Gee Joseph George Nur Aqlily Binti Mohd Mahbob Poon Yuan Yeeh Chiam Xiao Lih Liew Pei Pei Mohamad Arif Aizuddin Bin Masrom Nur Ezzati Binti Nooh Tai Shi Lin Chia Pei Ling Chen Chin Kuok

Mohd Ali & Co Zainul Rijal Talha & Amir Yeo Chambers Zainul Rijal Talha & Amir Chiong & Partners Hussin Othman & Co Lim & Hooi Syed Alwi, Ng & Co No Firm Tam Cheng Yau & Co Tan & Lee Faizah Aishah Rahman & Associates Hazelin & Associates Ahmad Rasyid Ismail & Co Rosli Kamaruddin & Co Freda Sabapahty & Co Arthur Lee & Co Wang & S B Wong Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co S K Song Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners Izauddin, Firdaus & Mahendran Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah Zaman & Associates Norizan Tarmeze & Associates Yeo Chambers Tan & Lee Wang & S B Wong Lawrence Pereira & Partners Kartini & Partners Tia & Noordin Rahim & Lawrnee Peter Chambers Imran Shahareen & Co Ranjit Singh & Yeoh Wang & S B Wong Lf Chong & Co Othman Hashim & Co Raziyan Rahim & Associates Hamzah, Sulaiman & Partners Nora S W Lam & Associates Soo Thien Ming & Nashrah www.johorebar.org.my

Date of Admission 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 06/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 30/09/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 04/10/2015 08/10/2015 08/10/2015 13/10/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 29/11/2015 06/12/2015 21/01/2016 21/01/2016 21/01/2016 31/01/2016 31/01/2016 31/01/2016 31/01/2016 31/01/2016 18/02/2016 18/02/2016

23

No.

Name

Firm

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

Norfarahin Binti Mohd Yazid Nor Farah Athira Binti Mohd Hanis Siti Aqilah Binti Zainal Khairun Nisa’ Binti Abdol Karim Puteri Liyana Mardhiah Binti M.Al-Muz-Zammil Mohamad Hafizul Hafis Bin Abd Rahim Siti Aishah Binti Mohd Rais Amirah Binti Ismail Muhammad Fahmi Bin A Jamil Nureen Farhah Binti Rashidi Emma Nabiha Binti Atan Ummul Syaheera Binti Abu Bakar Goh Chen Chie Muhammad Syafiq Bin Mohd Hashim Kwan Oi Yee Razali Bin Muhamad Noorfazlin Binti Hamdan Safiah Binti Abdul Aziz Lim Wei Jie Mohamad Syafiq Bin Ab Aziz Wong Chun Long Lai Xue Yee Syahira Farhana Binti Shamsaadal Sholeh Tee Xin Ran Koh Pei Ying Mohd Ukashah Bin Mohd Robaie Siti Nur Aqilah Binti Hamidon Goh Sze Huat Lee Sze Lei Muhammad Hanafi B Haron Nur Shahirah Fatikah Binti Amir Sakinah Binti Bahrom Mohammad Zaki Bin Abdul Shukor Muhamad Wafiq Bin Hadie@Haji Nadiah Syazwani Binti Nordin Siti Noor Suhadah Binti Sh Mohamad Farah Hani Binti Zulkurnain Lim Kim Siong Nur Diyana Binti Abdul Rahim Phang Han Ying Siti Hasmah Binti Osman Lim Wai Keong Lim Pei Sy Enda Noratika Binti Nordin Zarith Zahirah Binti Mohd Zakaria Nor Maisarah Binti Hassan Maithily A/P Manoher Farah Farhanah Binti Abdul Razak Ishraf Hakim Bin Mohd Nadzri Koh Kok Tong Fara Hidayatul Aqma Binti Abdul Ghani

K J Lo & Co Gan & Zul Abdul Raman Saad & Associates Abdul Rahman & Partners Abdul Raman Saad & Associates Shahinuddin & Ranjit Jamian & Associates Syed Alwi, Ng & Co Chiong & Partners K K Lim & Associates Zainul Rijal Talha & Amir Mohd Amin, Ng & Associates Yeo Hock Thye & Co K H Tan & Co Gan & Zul Ishak Sharif & Co No Firm No Firm Ong Ban Chai & Co Ikbal Salam & Associates Lee & Tengku Azrina K Sila Dass & Partners Eidah Sulaiman & Co T Y Lim & Co Soh Yok Lam & Co Hong & Fong D J Louis & Co Sheng Lee Law Office Sing, Lim & Low Syed Alwi, Ng & Co Burton Tan, Syazwan & Co Azmi Zuraini & Associates Othman Hashim & Co Daud & Co Zainul Rijal Talha & Amir Othman Hashim & Co Syed Alwi, Ng & Co S K Song Syed Alwi, Ng & Co Arthur Lee & Co Syed Alwi, Ng & Co Freda Sabapahty & Co Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co Tea, Kelvin Kang & Co Norzita & Julia Siti Aishah Ithnin & Co Clarence Edwin Law Offices Mohd Amin, Ng & Associates Teh Poh Teik & Co Jal & Lim Aziz Shukor & Co www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

Date of Admission 24/02/2016 24/02/2016 24/02/2016 24/02/2016 28/02/2016 28/02/2016 28/02/2016 28/02/2016 28/02/2016 17/03/2016 20/03/2016 20/03/2016 14/04/2016 14/04/2016 24/04/2016 24/04/2016 19/05/2016 19/05/2016 19/06/2016 19/06/2016 19/06/2016 23/06/2016 23/06/2016 23/06/2016 14/07/2016 14/07/2016 14/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 24/07/2016 31/07/2016 31/07/2016 31/07/2016 31/07/2016 14/08/2016 14/08/2016 14/08/2016 14/08/2016 14/08/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 06/09/2016 08/09/2016 08/09/2016 25/09/2016 25/09/2016 25/09/2016 25/09/2016 25/09/2016

INFO JOHORE BAR

24

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES The North Johore Affairs Sub-Committee held its Hari Raya Celebrations at Pine Tree Hotel, Batu Pahat, Johor on 7 Aug 2015. The celebration was attended by more than 30 members and pupils-in-chambers. Attendees were greeted with a Hari Raya spread, homemade Raya cookies and cakes and door gifts.

Hari Raya Celebrations on 7 Aug 2015 at Pine Tree, Batu Pahat

SEMINAR FOR LAWYERS ON MANAGING OFFICE AND CLIENTS’ ACCOUNTS ON 13 AUG 2015 On 13 Aug 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar for lawyers on Managing Office and Client’s Accounts presented by Lim Kien Chai @ KC, was held at Hotel Pelangi, Muar, Johor. A total of 27 participants were present.

Taking down notes….

WORKSHOP ON E-PAYMENT ON 14 AUG 2015 On 14 Aug 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar and Bar Council, jointly organised the workshop to promote e-payment to Members of the Bar to create awareness on available e-payment services relating to the legal industry. The workshop was held at the Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium with a total of 50 participants.

So serious..

www.johorebar.org.my

25

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COURSE ON 18 & 19 AUG 2015 On 18 and 19 Aug 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Sub-Committee together with the Social Sub-Committee, jointly organised the Professional Standards Course that was attended by 36 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at Berjaya Waterfront Hotel, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was Shahareen Begum Binti Abdul Subhan who shared her experience with the Bar and Bench.

New batch in town

Group photo with the Judges of the Johor Bahru High Courts

PUBLIC FORUM “PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2015 (REVIVAL OF ISA?); AND

On 24 Aug 2015, this public forum was organised by the Johore Bar Committee at Pine Tree Hotel, Batu Pahat, Johor. The speakers were Ravi Nekoo, Syahredzan Johan and Richard Wee.

Thank you Johore Bar!

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

26

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES 9TH JOHORE BAR FUTSAL TOURNAMENT 2015 ON 22 AUG 2015 The 9th Futsal Tournament of the Johore Bar organised by the Sports Sub-Committee was held on 22 Aug 2015 at Ct Café Arena Sports Centre. The event saw overwhelming participation of nine teams comprising of seven players in each team. The challenge trophy was won by the Court contingent. The event concluded with the prize giving ceremony by JBC Chairman, R Jayabalan, and Sports Chairperson Hardip Singh, followed by a luncheon. Seniors and Juniors on field

Team ganas…

ROADSHOW ON CONVEYANCING, CIVIL LITIGATION AND TECHNOLOGY ON 27 AUG 2015

Very interesting topic…

Secretary of the Malaysian Bar

On 27 Aug 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar and Bar Council, organised the above roadshow. Karen Cheah, Secretary of the Malaysian Bar was the speaker. A total of 71 participants were present. www.johorebar.org.my

27

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES PUBLIC FORUM ON PROMOTING GREATER POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IN MALAYSIA ON 9 SEPT 2016

The panelists at the forum

All in smiling faces after forum ends

On 9 Sept 2015, the Johore Bar Human Rights Sub Committee and the Bar Council Task Force on Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (“IPCMC”) jointly organised a public forum on promoting greater police accountability in Malaysia at Tropical Inn Hotel, Johor Bahru. The Vice President of the Malaysian Bar, George Varughese delivered

the keynote address at the forum. The panel discussion at the forum comprised panellists Leong May Chan, Commissioner of EAIC, Sevan Doraisamy, Executive Director of SUARAM and Dato Yeo Yang Poh, Past President of the Malaysian Bar and was moderated by Firdaus Husni.

TRAINING ON YAYASAN BANTUAN GUAMAN KEBANGSAAN (YBGK) ON 10 OCT 2015 Johore Bar together with the Bar Council YBGK Steering Committee organised the YBGK’s Training Programme for Lawyers on 10 Oct 2015 at the Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium. A total of 35 lawyers participated a one-day training course.

Have to sit for exams?

SEMINAR ON COMMON GST ISSUES FOR LEGAL PRACTITIONERS The Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar that was conducted by Dr Benjamin Poh Chee Seng at two places on two different dates. First seminar was held at the Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium at Johore Bar Building on the 16 Oct 2015 and the other took place at Muar Traders Hotel on 29 Oct 2015.The seminar ended with a token of appreciation to Dr Benjamin.

Thank you Johore Bar!

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

28

JOHORE BAR RETRO NIGHT –

www.johorebar.org.my

29

– ANNUAL DINNER & DANCE 2016

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

INFO JOHORE BAR

30

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES JOHORE BAR vs MAHKAMAH JOHOR – BAR BENCH CLUB GAMES 2015

The panelists at the forum

All in smiling faces after forum ends

The panelists at the forum

The Bar Bench Club (“BBC”) held its inaugural event this year by hosting the Johore Bar vs Mahkamah games held on 23 and 24 Oct 2015. Nine games were played, namely soccer, volleyball, netball, badminton, golf, table tennis, darts, carom and sepak takraw. Johore Bar again this year emerged as win-

ner of the Games and kept the Dato’ Halim Challenge Trophy at the Johore Bar Secretariat. The Games ended with a luncheon at Level 23 of MSC Cyberport, Johor Bahru, attended by Judges and judicial officers of the Johor Bahru High Court.

SEMINAR ON LEGAL DOCUMENTATION FOR ISLAMIC FINANCING: SALE BASED STRUCTURES ON 5 NOV 2015

The panelists at the forum

All in smiling faces after forum ends

On 29 Oct 2015, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised the seminar on common GST issues for legal practitioners at Muar Traders Hotel, Muar, Johor. A total of 37 participants attended the seminar.

www.johorebar.org.my

31

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES SEMINAR ON HIBAH AND ISLAMIC WILLS ON 26 NOV 2015

SEMINAR ON LATEST AMENDMENTS TO LAWS ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND COMMON PROPERTY ON 9 DEC 2015

What’s so funny..

Very interactive…

Mr. Andrew Wong in action

Peace…

Heavy concentration

On 26 Nov 2015, the Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and Shariah Sub Committee, jointly organised a one day seminar on Hibah and Islamic Wills. Amir Bahari was the invited speaker. A total of 33 participants were present.

On 9 Dec 2015, the Conveyancing Sub-Committee organised a seminar on latest amendments to laws on housing development and maintenance and management of buildings and common property at Berjaya Waterfront Hotel, Johor Bahru. Andrew Wong spoke at the seminar which was attended by 173 participants.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

32

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES 44TH BENCH & BAR vs POLICE GAMES 2015 (4TH to 11TH DEC 2015) The 44th Annual Johor Bench and Bar vs Police Games 2015 (“Games”) was held from 4 to 11 Dec 2015. Twelve sports were played at this year’s edition of the Games, namely cricket, shooting, table tennis, netball, volleyball, badminton, futsal, tennis, golf, soccer, sepak takraw, pool and darts, at several sporting venues. The Games were jointly officiated by YA Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak, Sen-

ior High Court Judge in Johor Bahru, and YDH Dato’ Wan Ahmad Najmuddin Bin Mohd, Chief Police Officer of Johor, followed by a game of cricket at Johor Cricket Council, Mutiara Rini, Johor Bahru. The Games ended with a closing ceremony and dinner at New York Hotel, Johor Bahru on 11 Dec 2015. The police team emerged as winners of the Games.

The panelists at the forum

We are ready to smash the PDRM

www.johorebar.org.my

33

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES 44TH BENCH & BAR vs POLICE GAMES 2015 (4TH to 11TH DEC 2015)

The panelists at the forum

The panelists at the forum The panelists at the forum Sportsmen and Sportswomen of the Bar

The panelists at the forum

www.johorebar.org.my

The panelists at the forum

INFO JOHORE BAR

34

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES FAREWELL DINNER FOR YA TUAN MOHD NAZLAN BIN MOHD GHAZALI ON 29 DEC 2015 The Johore Bar Social, Charity and Welfare Sub-Committee hosted a farewell dinner for Judicial Commissioner, YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan Bin Mohd Ghazali on 29 Dec 2015 as His Lordship would be transferred at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in January 2016. The Dinner was held at Grand Paragon Hotel, Johor Bahru and was attended by 50 members of the Johore Bar and Johor Bahru High Court Judges.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COURSE ON 12 JAN 2016

www.johorebar.org.my

On 19 and 20 Jan 2016, the Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Sub-Committee together with the Social Sub-Committee, jointly organised the Professional Standards Course that was attended by 49 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at KSL Hotel, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was S. Gunasegaran who shared his experience with the Bar and Bench.

35

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES JBC AUDIENCE BEFORE HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS SULTAN IBRAHIM, SULTAN OF JOHOR ON 12 JAN 2016 The Johore Bar Committee represented by its Chairman R Jayabalan, S Gunasegaran and Shahareen Begum binti Abdul Subhan attended the audience before HRH Sultan Ibrahim, Sultan of Johor on 12 Jan 2016 at Pejabat Mados, Pasir

Pelangi, Johor Bahru. The Committee also expressed the Johore Bar’s condolences on the demise of YAM Tunku Abdul Jalil. The audience ended with the Committee presenting a Johore Bar souvenir to His Royal Highness.

The panelists at the forum

SEMINAR ON AN INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC FINANCE ON 21 JAN 2016 An Introduction to Islamic Finance seminar was jointly organised by the Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Committee and the Bar Council Islamic Finance Committee, at the Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium on 21 Jan 2016. The seminar was attended by 58 participants. The speakers were Jal Othman, Prof. Dato’ Haji Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Shariff and Megat Hizaini.

Ms. Santhi (CPD Chair) with the speakers

Topic of Islamic Finance drew the crowd

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

36

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES 46TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF THE JOHORE BAR ON 19 FEB 2016 The Johore Bar 46th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) was held on 19 Feb 2016 at JOTIC, Johor Bahru, and attended by 169 members. S. Gunasegaran was elected as the Chairman and R. Jayabalan as the Johore Bar Representative on the Bar Council. The elected members of the Johore Bar Committee for 2016/17 term were Shahareen Begum Binti Abdul Subhan, Hardip Singh, Hjh. Norfaizah Binti Hj. Zainuddin, K. Meneka a/p E. Kanasmoorthy, Mathews George, Santhi a/p Balachandran, Punitha a/p Mariappan, Nik Raihan Binti Datuk Nik Ja’afar, Gun Huei Shin, Fadhil Ihsan. Azmelia Nabila Binti Zainal Abidin was later appointed as the Honorary Secretary and Andrew Wong Fook Hin was co-opted as a Committee member.

Norman Fernandez with his questions…

The new Committee for 2016/17

The three scrutineers…

www.johorebar.org.my

37

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES WELCOMING HIGH-TEA IN HONOUR OF YA TUAN MUHAMMAD JAMIL BIN HUSSIN, JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE MUAR HIGH COURT, JOHOR ON 17 FEB 2016 We had the pleasure of organising a High Tea for His Lordship to welcome his posting as Judicial Commissioner at the Muar High Court, after serving for 2 years as Sessions Court Judge at Subordinate Court in Johor Bahru. The High Tea was held on 17 Feb 2016 at Muar Traders Hotel, Muar, Johor and was attended by 50 members.

WELCOMING HIGH-TEA IN HONOUR OF YA PUAN AL-BAISHAH BINTI ABD MANAN, JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE JOHOR BAHRU HIGH COURT ON 8 MARCH 2016 YA Puan Al-Baishah binti Abd Manan Judicial Commissioner was transferred to the High Court in Johor Bahru on 1-1-2016. Following the long tradition of the Johore Bar in extending a warm welcome to new judges in Johor, a welcoming high tea was held on 8 March 2016 for Her Lordship at Grand BlueWave Hotel Johor Bahru. 50 members attended the high tea.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

38

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES JOHORE BAR ANNUAL DINNER & DANCE 2016 RETRO NIGHT 20 February 2016 ‘Retro Night’ was the theme of this year’s Annual Dinner and Dance held at the KSL Hotel&Resort, Johor Bahru on 20 Feb 2016. It was a grand evening which was attended by almost 240 guests. The Guest of Honour, YA Dato’ Mohd Sofian Bin Tan Sri Abd Razak, Senior High Court Judge, together with all the High Court Judges in Johor and their spouses, Steven Thiru President of the Malaysian Bar and Vice President George Varughese were greeted by multi-talented artiste emcee and comedian - Alfred George Pillay singing retro songs. The Dinner commenced with a welcome speech by the Social, Charity&Welfare Chairperson Gun Huei Shin. The guests were entertained by a belly dancer Angelina Tay shaking, shimmy and undulate to the rhythmic beat of music.

www.johorebar.org.my

39

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES JBC COURTESY CALL ON THE JUDGES OF HIGH COURT AT JOHOR BAHRU ON 16 MARCH 2016

10TH JOHORE BAR FUTSAL TOURNAMENT ON 21 MAY 2016

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

40

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES SYARIAH SUB COMMITTEE HAD COURTESY CALL ON THE JUDGE OF THE SYARIAH COURT AT JOHOR BAHRU ON 11 MAY 2016 The Johore Bar Syariah Sub Committee chaired by Puan Hajah Norfaizah binti Hj Zainuddin along with sub committee members had a Courtesy Call with the Judge of the Syariah Court at Johor Bahru on 11 May 2016

SEMINAR ON INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS ON 13 MAY 2016 The Johore Bar Syariah Sub Committee chaired by Puan Hajah Norfaizah binti Hj Zainuddin along with sub committee members had a Courtesy Call with the Judge of the Syariah Court at Johor Bahru on 11 May 2016

www.johorebar.org.my

41

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES REFERENCE HELD IN JOHOR BAHRU HIGH COURT ON 1ST JUNE 2016 IN MEMORIUM We record with deep regret the death of the following members of the Johore Bar: (1) Dato’ Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad who passed away on 11th March 2015. (2) Ahmad bin Kemin who passed away on 21st August 2015 (3) Parthiban a/l M N Letchumanan who passed away on 18th March 2016 A Reference in their memory was held at the High Court in Johor Bahru on Wednesday 1st June 2016 at 9.00 a.m. The proceedings were presided over by the Honourable Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak and with his Lordship on the Bench were the learned judges of the Johore Bharu High Court namely, the Honourable Justice Tuan Teo Say Eng and Justice Datuk Dr Sabirin bin Ja’afar. There was a large number of members of the Johore Bar and Courts Judicial Officers gathered to pay their respects.

Speech by Mr. S Gunasegaran, Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee May it please you My Lords, I, S. Gunasegaran appear on behalf of the Bar Council of Malaysia and the Johore Bar Committee. My learned friend, Senior Federal Counsel Puan Asliza binti Ali appears on behalf of the Honourable Attorney-General of Malaysia. My learned friends Reginald Vallipuram, Hajah Norfaizah binti Hj. Zainuddin and Mathews George will be speaking about our three departed brothers at law this morning. My Lords, we are gathered here today to remember and to pay our respects to three departed members of the Johore Bar who have left us for a better world, namely: (a) the late Dato’ Saufee Afandi bin Mohamad who passed away on 11th March 2015 ; (b) the late Ahmad bin Kemin who passed away on 21st August 2015; and (c) the late Parthiban a/l M.N. Letchumanan who passed away on 18th March 2016. A Reference Ceremony is a special sitting of the High Court convened for the purpose of honouring the memory of departed members of the Bar. It is one of those rare occasions when the court sits for a purpose other than for hearing cases. It is the time to reflect, recollect and trace a late member’s life at the Bar and his contribution to it. The only other occasion when the family and friends of a lawyer congregate

in a court of law is when he is admitted and enrolled as an Advocate and Solicitor by the Court. That is of course a very happy occasion and is a proud and memorable moment for the new entrant to the profession. But today we are meeting in more solemn circumstances. The Reference is organised by the Bar with the assistance, support and co-operation of the Bench and the Attorney-General’s Chambers. At this juncture it is only right and proper that I place on record our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Your Lordships for graciously consenting to hold this morning’s Reference Ceremony. My Lords, death usually results in grief and pain for the loved ones who are left behind. Difficult though it may be, they must accept and come to terms with their situation and move forward in life. Words of comfort and courage from friends and well wishers may help to console and reduce the intensity of the pain to some extent, but time alone is the great healer. In the meantime we must learn to accept the fact that all life leads to death. Death is the final destination of this mortal life. Everything that lives must one day die. That is the eternal law of life. William Shakespeare, the master of brevity of language said this in the 16th century: “All that live must die, passing through nature to eternity.” In more recent times David Clement-Davies said: “Everything dies. That is the law of life - the bitter unchangeable law”. Death serves to remind us of the transient nature of our worldly existence. Death is also life’s greatest equalizer. The great English poet Thomas Gray has immortalised death in the following words:

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

42

“The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power, And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave, Awaits alike the inevitable hour:The paths of glory lead but to the grave.” (Elegy Written in a Country Church-yard) Although death is certain, life must still go on. So it is important for us to put our grief behind and move forward in life. My Lords, I am privileged to have personally known two of the three departed brethren whom we mourn today. I have known the late Dato’ Sauffee Afandi or “Tuan Sauffee” as he is more popularly known in the legal circle for more than 35 years. I first met him in 1980 when I was a final year law student in the University of Malaya when Sauffee, as he then was, entered the University as a freshie. But he was not a newbie to the University. In fact he had some years earlier obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the same university and served the government in various capacities before returning as a matured student to read law. He was matured not just in age but displayed maturity in his character and conduct and was well liked by his fellow undergraduates. But I really got to know him well when I commenced legal practice in Johor Bahru in 1984 and Sauffee (now with the prefix “Tuan” attached to his name), was a Magistrate. I appeared before him on a regular basis and did many cases, both civil and criminal. One case that I remember very well is a criminal case where I defended a person accused of having carnal knowledge with a female person under the age of sixteen years under the now repealed Women and Girls Protection Act 1973 and the case was heard by Tuan Sauffee. The case went on for several days. The complainant gave very sensational evidence. The press - English and Tamil - gave extensive coverage and reported verbatim the cross-examination of the complainant. Tuan Sauffee sat patiently through the said proceedings despite the length of the trial. Later when Tuan Sauffee became a Sessions Court Judge and served in Johor Bahru and in Batu Pahat, I appeared before him frequently, mostly in personal injury claims. Tuan Sauffee was always humble and simple on the Bench. He had excellent judicial temperament and always treated the counsel who appeared him with due respect and courtesy. We could see that he had a passion for his job. He was always concerned about meting out justice to the poor and ordinary litigants who appeared before him daily and was not overly concerned with legal niceties and complex legal arguments that may detract him from his objective.

He was also a great supporter of the Bar and helped to promote Bar - Bench relationship. Despite his poor health he always made it a point to attend Bar functions. I remember during one dinner a long time ago he was seated next to me and I was shocked to see him swallowing a handful of tablets and capsules and even administering an injection (presumably insulin) and partaking in the meal without fear or favour. We live in the same Taman. Even when his health was failing and when he had slowed down considerably, he used to continue with his walks, using a walking stick. Whenever I used to pass and see him, I would stop my car and speak to him for a few minutes. Alas all that remains now is a memory. But it is a memory that I will always cherish. My Lords, the other person I have known for a long time is the late Parthiban. I first met him in have University of Malaya, when I was in my second year and Parthiban came in as a freshie. He was very sporting during the orientation period, despite some heavy grilling by a few overzealous seniors. As a result he became popular with the seniors and made a lot of friends. Parthiban had practised law for almost 33 years. By all accounts he had a successful law practice. He was known to be a very hard working and competent lawyer, and one who would pursue his client’s cause relentlessly and without fear or favour. He also had a very active social life. He joined and helmed many social-charitable organisations in Johor Bahru. His untimely death is a great loss to his family and friends. I did not have the privilege of knowing the late Ahmad bin Kemin personally. He too is a very senior member of the Bar with about 20 years of experience behind him. I understand that he has worked as a legal assistant as well as a partner in several law firms, and had also practised as a sole proprietor for four years during the said period. He was noted for his humility, simplicity and integrity. His friends and colleagues at the Bar have the utmost respect for him. He too was having a successful law practice until Fate intervened. My Lords, these three gentlemen have adopted the highest professional and ethical standards in the practice of law and have led honourable lives. They have undoubtedly left an indelible mark on the profession and a lasting impression on those of us who were privileged to have known them either professionally or socially. We are proud of their contribution to the profession and will remember them forever. As George Elliot puts it: “Our dead are never dead to us, until we have forgotten them.”

www.johorebar.org.my

43

To the members of the bereaved families, please be assured that your loss is also our loss. I take this opportunity to record the deepest condolences of both the Malaysian Bar and the Johore Bar to the members of the bereaved families and our prayers for eternal peace for the departed souls. In conclusion, My Lords I respectfully move that the record of these proceedings be preserved in the archives of this Honourable Court and that a copy thereof be extended to each of the bereaved families. Much obliged My Lords

S. Gunasegaran Chairman, Johore Bar ........................................................... Mr. Reginald Vallipuram paid his tribute to Dato’ Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad as follows: My Lords, It is indeed a privilege to have been called upon by the Bar Committee to pay this tribute to Dato’ Haji Sauffee in this Reference being held before your Lordships. Dato’ Haji Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad a man of humble origin who hailed from MersDato’ Sauffee Afandi ing has had a successful working life starting first as a trained teacher in 1972 after graduating from GAYA Teachers Training College, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. In 1975 he enrolled as a student at the University of Malaya and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts majoring in International Relations. His first appointment was as an Assistant Superintendent of Royal Customs & Exercise Department, Johor Bahru. He was thereafter appointed as an Assistant District Officer Kuala Langat, Selangor for a period of (3) years from November 1975 – October, 1977. He had a brush with law when he was seconded as a first class Magistrate (Lay Magistrate) in November, 1977 and posted first to Malacca and later to Johor Bahru and it was then that I got to know Dato Hj. Sauffee. His intense patriotism led him to join the Malaysian Territorial Army Regiment and on 7th February, 1980 he was commissioned with the rank of Lieutenant by the DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agong.

INFO JOHORE BAR

Fuelled with ambition and having had a taste of being a lay Magistrate he decided to take a 2nd Degree resulting in him enrolling at the University of Malaya in 1980 and graduating with an LL.B degree in March 1984. Then began his successful career in the Judicial and Legal service where he held several positions his first being that of a Magistrate in Johor Bahru from April 1984 to May 1985. Between the period May, 1985 to August, 1996 he served various positions namely as:Deputy Public Prosecutor, Johor, Federal Counsel (Advisory), Public Services Department Kuala Lumpur, Deputy Public Prosecutor, Pahang Federal Counsel AG Chambers Kuala Lumpur Senior Assistant Registrar, High Court Johor Bahru Sessions Court Judge, Johor Bahru Head of Research and Translation Bureau, Supreme Court, Kuala Lumpur Deputy Registrar (1) High Court, Johor Bahru He was a well respected DPP. Lawyers pitted against him in criminal matters found it hard to get an acquittal as he was always well prepared and thorough in the presentation of his case. He told me personally that he has in Court faced all the top criminal lawyers in the country including the late Karpal Singh. One of the highly publicized case he handled as DPP was the murder case known as “Tragedi Salmah”. The vast experience that he had acquired through the various positions he held was recognized when he was appointed as a Special Officer to Y.A.A. Chief Justice of Malaysia, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur from September, 1996 to June, 1998. Thereafter he served as a Sessions Court Judge Batu Pahat from August, 1998 to June, 2000. The final position he held was as a Senior Sessions Court Judge, Johor Bahru from June 2000 to February, 2003. It was during this period that he was on the 3rd January, 2003 called to the Malaysian Bar as an Advocate & Solicitor. He retired from the Judicial and Legal service on 18th February, 2003 and was with the firm of M/s Reginald Vallipuram & Co. for a short period from June 2003 to September, 2003. He left private practice as he was appointed Chairman of the Industrial Court Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur which appointment he held until 30th September, 2007. Thereafter he rejoined the firm of M/s Reginald Vallipuram & Co. as a partner until 31st October, 2012 when he commenced his own practice under the name of Sauffee Afandi & Co. Dato’ Haji Sauffee was a well liked person. He had friends all over the country and from all walks of life ranging from high ranking government and Judicial officers to those in the lower ranks. He was very popular with the lawyers so much

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

44

so that when he attended Bar functions even after retiring from public service the Committee always accorded him a special seat notwithstanding that he was a junior at the Bar.

of it, the man who chuckled gleefully when he saw the said mole, the man who enjoyed the forbidden the tarik and roti canai without fail.

He was helpful and many people sought his aid when in trouble and after giving them a stern warning he would assist within permitted limits.

May I pray my Lords that a copy of these proceedings be preserved in the archives of this Court and a copy thereof be despatched to Datin Hajah Rohana the beloved wife of the Late Dato’ Haji Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamed. May Dato’ Haji Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamed rest in peace.

As a Sessions Court Judge he successfully mediated a number of cases that came up before him for hearing. He was also a sympathetic person who tried his best particularly in accident cases not to allow the Plaintiff to return empty handed. On the social side he was talented with a great passion for music and often thrilled those present with P. Ramlee Songs. For his distinguished service to the country he received the following awards:i) Darjah Kebesaran Mahkota Pahang Yang Amat Mulia – Peringkat Kedua Darjah Indera Mahkota Pahang (DIMP) (Yang merembawah Gelaran Dato’). ii) Pingat Kesatria Mangku Negara (KMN) dari Seri Paduka Baginda Yang DiPertuan Agong. iii) Pingat Darjah Setia Negeri Sembilan (DNS) dan D.Y.M.N. Yam Tuan Besar Negeri Sembilan. Dato’ Haji Sauffee had heart problems and I understand from his wife Datin Rohana that his first by-pass was when he was in his early thirties. Notwithstanding the health set-back which troubled him thereafter he has worked hard and his tenacity and perseverance has taken him to many heights which I have highlighted. Finally the life of a well liked and well respected person ended on 11th March, 2015 when he passed away peacefully at the Sultanah Aminah Hospital. He leaves behind his wife Datin Hajah Rohana Binti Ahmad, his son Azmeen Afandi, his son Azlan Afandi who is with the Johor Civil Service, his daughter Aizan Suhaira and finally his youngest daughter who is well known to us Puan Azureen Sahira who is currently serving as a Magistrate and whose appointment to the Judical and Legal services made Dato’ Haji Sauffee very happy. He also leaves behind (5) grandchildren, a host of relatives and countless close friends from all walks of life and we all miss him as he has touched our lives in one way or another. I had a long and close relationship with Dato’ Haji Sauffee and have plenty laudable things to say about him but due to constraint of time will end with how his family has chosen to remember him. Despite all the wonderful things that could be said about him, this is how his family choose to remember him – the IT-blind man who accidentally ‘selfied’ using his children’s phones; the man who was not aware that he had a huge mole on his head and asked to take a picture

Much obliged My Lords. Reginald Vallipuram Member of Johore Bar

........................................................... Pn. Hjh Norfaizah binti Hj. Zainuddin paid the tribute to Ahmad bin Kemin as follows: Bismillahir Rahmannir Rahim Dengan izin Yang Arif Pada pagi ini kita semua diberi peluang untuk berkumpul di dalam dewan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini untuk suatu majlis memperingati rakan-rakan peguam yang telah pergi mendahului kita, bertemu dengan Penciptanya.

Ahmad bin Kemin

Pada hari ini saya telah diberi penghormatan untuk membacakan memoir rujukan khas buat Allahyarham Encik Ahmad bin Kemin. Saya juga difahamkan wakil ahli keluarga Allahyarham juga hadir mengikuti memoir rujukan ini. Allahyarham Encik Ahmad bin Kemin telah dilahirkan pada 25hb April 1954 di Batu Pahat, Johor. Allahyarham bernikah dengan Puan Rahilah binti Anuar pada 14hb Disember 1982 dan hasil perkahwinan tersebut mereka dikurniakan 4 orang cahaya mata iaitu : Mohd Fadzli bin Ahmad Nor Faizah binti Ahmad Mohd Faiz bin Ahmad Nor Azlina binti Ahmad

32 tahun 29 tahun 27 tahun 20 tahun

Sebelum terlibat di dalam bidang guaman, Allahyarham adalah seorang kakitangan kerajaan iaitu bekerja sebagai Penguasa Kastam di Jabatan Kastam dan Eksais di Raja Malaysia. Sikap Allahyarham yang sentiasa bermotivasi dalam meningkatkan ilmu menyebabkan Allahyarham telah bu-

www.johorebar.org.my

45

lat tekad untuk menyambung pengajiannya di bidang undang-undang walaupun pada waktu itu umur Allahyarham sudah pun menjangkau ke usia 35 tahun dan sudah mempunyai kedudukan yang stabil di dalam kerjayanya. Untuk itu, Allahyarham telah melanjutkan pengajiannya di bidang Undang-Undang di Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) dari tahun 1989 hingga 1993. Setelah berjaya mendapat ijazah Sarjana Muda Undang-Undang Kelas Kedua Atas, Allahyarham menyambung sebentar tugasnya di Jabatan Kastam dan Eksais Di Raja, Malaysia sehingga Allahyarham memilih untuk bersara awal pada usianya 40 tahun. Dalam usianya sudah menjangkau 40 tahun, Allahyarham masih gigih lagi dan telah menjalani Latihan Dalam Kamar di Tetuan Abdullah & Zainudin Johor Bahru selama 9 bulan. Allahyarham telah diterima masuk sebagai Peguambela dan Peguamcara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya pada 1hb April 1995. Tanpa menoleh ke belakang lagi, Allahyarham kemudiannya terus melangkah dalam bidang guaman ini dengan bekerja sebagai Legal Assisstant di beberapa firma guaman di Johor Bahru antaranya Tetuan Zahari Wahab & Partners dan Tetuan Razif Abdul Aziz & Partners. Selepas itu Allahyarham pernah menjadi rakan kongsi di beberapa firma guaman antaranya Tetuan Aziz & Mazlan, Tetuan Zain Megat Murad & Associates dan Tetuan Razif Abdul Aziz & Partners. Pada tahun 2009, Allahyarham telah menubuhkan firma guamannya sendiri iaitu Tetuan Ahmad bin Kemin & Co sehingga firmanya ditutup pada Ogos 2013 yang mana selepas itu Allahyarham menjadi rakan kongsi di firma guaman Tetuan M N Nidzamudin & Associates, Johor Bahru sehingga Allahyarham dipanggil pergi oleh Penciptanya pada 21hb Ogos 2015. Yang Arif, Allahyarham meninggal pada pagi hening 21hb Ogos 2015 akibat serangan jantung. Pemergian Allahyarham bukan sahaja dirasai oleh isteri, anak-anak dan ahli keluarganya sahaja malah turut dirasai oleh rakan-rakan peguam terutama rakan-rakan yang rapat dengan beliau. Lebih dikenali sebagai Abang Mat di kalangan sahabat-sahabatnya, Allahyarham sewaktu hayatnya adalah seorang yang mempunyai kemurniaan akhlak yang melangit tinggi. Seorang yang sentiasa merendah diri dengan sifat tawadhuknya rendah membumi. Walaupun kelihatan Allahyarham seperti seorang yang pendiam tetapi Allahyarham mudah didekati dan sentiasa disenangi. Sekadar memetik kata-kata dari sahabat peguam yang agak rapat dengannya iaitu Encik Sukhaimi bin Mashud, I quote :

INFO JOHORE BAR

“Biodata Allahyarham mungkin tidak panjang. Tetapi peribadi beliau cukup mantap. Allahyarham tidak pernah bercakap perkara tidak baik tentang orang lain dan begitu juga sebaliknya, payah sekali untuk kita berjumpa orang bercakap perkara yang tidak baik tentang Allahyarham”. Semoga roh Allahyarham sentiasa dicucuri rahmat dengan mendapat keampunan tanpa syarat. Saya percaya Allahyarham akan sentiasa diingati oleh isteri, anak-anak dan ahli keluarganya serta tidak ketinggalan kita semua di kalangan para sahabat dan semua yang mengenali Allahyarham. Bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor, saya merakamkan ucapan takziah kepada keluarga Allahyarham Ahmad bin Kemin. Akhir sekali, saya memohon supaya nota prosiding ini disimpan di dalam arkib Mahkamah Tinggi dan satu salinan diserah kepada waris Allahyarham. Terima kasih. Hjh. Norfaizah binti Hj Zainuddin Member of Johore Bar

........................................................... Mr. Mathews George paid his tribute to Parthiban a/l M N Letchumanan as follows: MY LORDS and MY LADY, We are gathered here this morning to pay a short tribute to our brother in law Mr. Parthiban a/l M N Letchumanan. The late Mr Parthiban was born on 16/12/1956 and was the eldest son of Mr Letchumanan L. Parthiban and Madam Kamachi. He was a very loving and caring son to his parents. He obtained his LLB (Hons) degree from University of Malaya in 1982. He was a bright and gifted student. In fact, he was one of the top students in his university days. Among his prominent university class or course mates were YAB Dato’ Seri Khaled Bin Nordin, the Menteri Besar of Johor, YA the Judicial Commissioner Tuan Gunalan Muniandy, YA the Judicial Commissioner Puan S.M Komathy Suppiah, our own present High Court Judge YA Dato’ Mat Zara’ai Bin Alias and a host of other judicial judges and officers. Mr Parthiban was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 15/6/1983. He chambered and continued his practice in the firm of Messrs Ong Ban Chai & Co. and thereafter, moved to the firm of Messrs Nijar & Nijar, Johor Bahru. Mr Parthiban subsequently set up his own firm and practiced under the

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

46

name and style of L. Parthiban, Zulkiflee & Associates and had 3 branches in Johor Bahru, where he practised until his demise. Mr Parthiban was admired for his advocacy skills by his opponents and colleagues. He was a fierce and vocal litigator, always standing up for the rights of his client. He was a knowledgeable and brilliant lawyer, always composed and polite in court and a master of cross-examiner. In recognition of his strength as a corporate litigation lawyer, his firm was on the panel of many corporate companies and banks. Many of his cases in which he appeared as a counsel has been reported in the law journals. The list of the reported cases is too long to be named here. Some of the principles established in his cases, remain good law as of to-date. Mr Parthiban was an ardent and skillful golfer with a handicap of 14. I am told that he had won some prizes in the Bench and Bar and Police Games and other golf tournaments. His hobbies include among others, flying toy helicopters and collecting toy planes and cars. He also loves watching old movies and listening to old songs. Mr Parthiban was the 3 President of Kiwanis Club of Johor Bahru. He was also the first Chairman for Kiwanis Down Syndrome Foundation, Johor Bahru Centre. He was very instrumental in setting up the Centre in 1991 using his own personal resources and became its Chairman from 1991 to 1993. He was also a Rotary Club member of Johor Bahru Central for many years until 2015, and subsequently elected as Vice President of the newly formed Rotary Club of Iskandar Puteri. rd

Mr Parthiban although appeared to be quiet and reserve, was actually a jovial and friendly person. He was known to never lose his temper and remained cool under all circumstances. His friends loved his companionship as he was knowledgeable in many subjects. He was always willing and ready to share his knowledge and to help those who are in need of assistance. He was a generous man and had donated monies to charities. Mr Parthiban leaves behind his beloved wife of 33 years, Madam K Suneethe a/p K Krishnan, a daughter, Soobrinah Parthiban, a law graduate from the University of Hertfordshire and his other children, his dogs, Twinky, Tyra, Tesha and Brownie. They mourn his loss. The members of the Johore Bar wish to express our deep sense of sorrow at the sudden and tragic passing away of Mr. Parthiban on 18th March 2016 at the young age of 58. His loss is tremendously felt by all who knew him especially his beloved wife and daughter who loved him dearly and are grateful to him for the many wonderful memories. In ending, I would like to offer my deepest condolence to the family members of the late Mr Parthiban. I hope they will find solace in the passage expressed in “Bhagavad-Gita 2 :

20” :For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. I also humbly move that a record of this proceeding be preserved in the archives of this Court, and a copy thereof be sent to his widow and daughter. May his soul rest in peace. Mathews George Member of Johore Bar

...........................................................

Senior Federal Counsel Puan Asliza Ali in her tribute to the departed members said: Pada hari ini, kita sama-sama berkumpul untuk menghormati dan memperingati mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam Malaysia yang telah meninggalkan kita buat selama-lamanya. Sehubungan itu, saya hadir prosiding pagi ini bagi pihak YBhg Tan Sri Peguam Negara Malaysia. Saya diwakilkan untuk menyampaikan rasa dukacita beliau atas ketidakhadiran beliau pada istiadat hari ini atas desakan tugas rasmi. Saya juga hadir bagi pihak kesemua pegawai Perkhidmatan Kehakiman dan Perundangan bagi melahirkan perasaan sedih kami di atas pemergian mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam Malaysia ini serta menyampaikan ucapan salam takziah kami kepada keluarga mereka. Yang Arif, dengan rendah diri saya memohon izin Yang Arif untuk meneruskan ucapan saya dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Yang Arif, Today’s proceedings should not be treated as a solemn and melancholic occasion. Instead it should be an opportunity for us to commemorate and honour the lives and memories of these 3 members. We thank God for their presence in our lives and we ask for God’s blessing for their departed souls and the families they left behind. Yang Arif. On behalf of the Honourable Attorney General and the officers of the Judicial and Legal Service, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the members we honour today. I would also like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments and tributes expressed by my learned friends throughout today’s proceedings. Yang Arif. Akhirkata, saya dengan rendah diri mengusul-

www.johorebar.org.my

47

kan supaya Rekod Prosiding hari ini disimpan di Arkib Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dan sesalinan diserahkan kepada setiap keluarga mendiang ahli yang kita kenang dan ingati hari ini. Terima kasih. Asliza Ali Senior Federal Counsel

........................................................... In reply, the Honourable Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak said:

Refreshments after Reference Proceedings in High Court, Johor Bahru on 1st June 2016

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

INFO JOHORE BAR

48

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES TALK BY DR SIVAKUMAR THURAIRAJASINGAM ON MENTAL ILLNESS – THE EFFECT OF STRESS AND STRESS MANAGEMENT The Building, House, Library and Member’s Welfare Committee chaired by Meneka Kanasmoorthy had organised a talk on stress management and the effect of stress on mental health presented by Dr Sivakumar Thurairajasingam along with Befrienders Johor, for members of the Johore Bar on 24 June 2016.

WORKSHOP ON BASIC CONVEYANCING PRACTICE AND BRIEFING ON THE CPD SCHEME ON 30 JUNE 2016 On 30 June 2016, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee together with the Conveyancing Sub-Committee of the Johore Bar jointly organised a workshop on basic conveyancing practice conducted by Andrew Wong. Members were briefed by Richard Wee on the implementation on a staggered basis of the new Continuing Professional Development Scheme for members and pupils with effect from 1 July 2016, before the commencing of the workshop.

www.johorebar.org.my

49

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES SEMINAR ON INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE UNDER THE NATIONAL LAND CODE IN MALAYSIA

CPD CAMPS 2016 AT JOHOR BAHRU (3 AUG 2016) AND MUAR (10 AUG 2016)

On 21 July 2016, the Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Sub Committee organised a seminar on indefeasibility of title under the national land code in Malaysia presented by Sudharsanan Thillainathan, was held at the Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium. A total of 96 participants were present.

The Bar Council CPD oganised nationwide on the CPD Camps 2016 at Johor Bahru and Muar. On 3 Aug 2016 at Johor Bahru had Ravi Nekoo speak on Introduction to Civil Litigation and Basics of Family Law presented by Pushpa Ratnam. On 10 Aug 2016 at Muar Traders Hotels, we had Karen Cheah Yee Lynn speak on Basic Conveyancing Practice and Basic Principles of Islamic Family Law presented by Hj Mokhtar b Abdullah.

The speaker is good

The participants in deep concentration

Thank you Johore Bar

Thank you Mr and Mrs Ravi

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

50

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES AIDIL FITRI HIGH TEA HELD AT MUAR ON 28 JULY 2016 The North Johor Affairs held its Hari Raya celebrations this year at Muar Tanjung Emas on 28 July 2016. The celebration was attended by more than 30 members and pupils-in-chambers.

HARI RAYA CELEBRATIONS HELD AT JOHOR BAHRU ON 1 AUG 2016

On 1 Aug 216, the Young Lawyers and Chambering Pupils Sub Committee organised the Hari Raya Celebrations at the Abdullah A Rahman Auditorium. Had 4 sessions court judges and 53 members attended the Hi-tea.

www.johorebar.org.my

51

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES VISIT BY THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF MALAYSIAN BAR AT JBC MONTHLY MEETING HELD ON 9 JUNE 2016 AT THE JOHORE BAR BUILDING Steven Thiru, President of Malaysian Bar together with Karen Cheah, Secretary visited the Johore Bar Committee during its monthly meeting held on 9 June 2016 mainly to brief the Committee members on the government’s proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976.

JOHORE BAR FORUM ON THE GOVERNMENT’ S PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LPA 1976 ON 4 AUG 2016

On 4 Aug 2016, a forum for members of the Johore Bar was held at the Abdullah A Rahman Auditorium to brief members of the Bar on the government’s proposal to amend the LPA 1976. The speaker at the forum was George Varughese, Vice President of the Malaysian Bar.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

52

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COURSE ON 23 & 24 AUG 2016 On 23 and 24 Aug 2016, the Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) Sub-Committee together with the Social Sub-Committee, jointly organised the Professional Standards Course that was attended by 53 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at Thistle Hotel, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was K Mohan who shared his experience with the Bar and Bench.

Group photo after dinner

www.johorebar.org.my

53

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES PUBLIC FORUM ON THE PROPOSED LPA AMENDMENTS: SERIOUS THREAT TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR ON 29 AUG 2016 Following the success of the Forum for Members held on 4th August 2016, the Johore Bar Committee jointly with the Bar Council organised a public forum on THE GOVERNMENT’ S PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE LPA 1976 at Tropical Inn Hotel, Johor Bahru. The forum featured three eminent speakers: Steven Thiru (President of the Malaysian Bar), Datuk Khutubul Zaman (Member of Johore Bar and Past President of the Malaysian Bar) and S. Gunasegaran (Chairman of the Johore Bar). The forum was moderated by S Balarajah (Past Chairman of the Johore Bar). The forum was attended by members of public, reporters and members of the Bar.

The speakers at the forum

The President of the Malaysian Bar speaks

Chairman of the Johore Bar speaks

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

INFO JOHORE BAR

54

PRESS RELEASE Johore Bar Committee Objects to the Proposed Amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976

The Johore Bar Committee considers the proposed amendments to the LPA to be a serious threat to the independence of the Malaysian Bar. It is an attempt to control and silence the Bar. It is totally unacceptable that the Government intends to appoint two Members of the Bar to sit in the Bar Council to “represent the Government”. It is seriously objectionable that the Minister in charge of legal affairs is to be empowered to regulate our internal workings by determining the electoral rules and regulations of the Malaysian Bar. The amendments will seriously compromise the ability of the Malaysian Bar to act without “fear or favour” in upholding “the cause of justice”. The present electoral system that has been in place for the last 40 years has served the Malaysian Bar well and has ensured a fair and equitable representation in the Bar Council. The existing system strikes a proper balance between proportional representation and protecting the interests of the States. The existing system is far more democratic and fair as compared to the state centric system that is being proposed by the Government. The proposed amendments do not provide for a fairer or better electoral system for elections to the Bar Council and of the Office Bearers. The proposed amendments were not sought by Bar Council or Members of the Johore Bar Committee. There were no meetings held where resolutions proposing such drastic amendments have been tabled and approved by the membership. The proposed amendments are being imposed on us by the Government. It is not at all apparent to us why there is a need for the proposals to be made at this time. The timing of these proposals raises the question of whether it is a reaction on the part of the Government against the unwavering position adopted by the Malaysian Bar in respect of important rule of law issues including the serious issues of accountability, transparency and corruption that engulfs our country at this time. We reject the proposed amendments and call on the Government to withdraw them immediately.

S. Gunasegaran Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor

www.johorebar.org.my

55

INFO JOHORE BAR

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES GST HANDHOLDING PROGRAMME FOR SECTOR III (REAL PROPERTY, CONSTRUCTION AND PROFESSIONAL) HELD AT BERJAYA WATERFRONT HOTEL, JOHOR BAHRU ON 30 AUG 2016 On 30 Aug 2016, the Conveyancing Sub Committee had invited Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia, Johor (“Kastam”) to conduct a briefing to members of the Johore Bar on the implementation of GST on the disposal and acquisition of real property. The purpose of the programme is for Kastam to explain and for participants to know the issues and problems faced by the GST registered persons and prospective GST registered persons. A total of 239 participants were present.

SEMINAR ON COMPANIES BILL 2015 VIS-A-VIS MALAYSIAN COMPANIES LAW ON 9 SEPT 2016 On 9 Sept 2016, the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar on Companies Bill 2015 vis-à-vis Malaysian Companies Law presented by Wong Tat Chung, was held at Berjaya Waterfront Hotel, Johor Bahru. A total of 146 were present.

www.johorebar.org.my

INFO JOHORE BAR

56

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES FRIENDLY GAMES BETWEEN JOHORE BAR AND PAHANG BAR ON 17 SEPT 2016

The Johore Bar was invited by the Pahang Bar for a friendly game at Pahang State on 17 Sept 2016. The Games is intended to foster greater ties with Pahang Bar and its members and to promote goodwill and camaraderie between the 2 State Bar. We had 30 sportsmen and sportswomen of Johore Bar participated for the games.

Johore Bar Hiking Trip on 24 Sept 2016 The Young Lawyers and Chambering Pupils Sub Committee organised a half day trip hiking to the Gunung Pulai on 24 Sept 2016. Had 26 members participated the hike.

www.johorebar.org.my