A Publication of the Kuala Lumpur Bar

RELEVAN

"Concepts such as truth, justice and compassion cannot

be dismissed as trite when these are often the only bulwarks
which stand against ruthless power."
~Aung San Suu Kyi~

Issue No. 2/08 PP8492/09/2009(021976) December 2008

 We Are Missing
A publication of the Kuala Lumpur Bar

Issue No. 2/08

Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee 2008/09

The Big Picture...
After a long hiatus, lawyers now have two e-groups to discuss various
Chairman legal related issues again. The Rostrum and Lawyer’s Talk are google e-mail
Ravindra Kumar a/l G Rengasamy groups set up specifically to provide those in Malaysian legal circles with an
Members
avenue to exchange views and network with each other.
Brendan Navin Siva (Hon. Secretary)
Anand Ponnudurai Two discussion threads in those groups provide a suitable backdrop to the
Datuk N. Sivananthan thrust of our editorial in this issue.
Lee Shih
Dipendra Harshad Rai
Dahlia Lee Wooi Mien In the Rostrum, Fahri Azzat’s “Meditation about Moving by an Occasional
Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah Mover1” prompted an outpouring of nostalgic reminiscences on the “good
Lai Chee Hoe
Richard Wee Thiam Seng
old days”, when the call to the Bar was a unique event celebrated by pupil
Abdul Rashid Ismail and the entire legal fraternity and an occasion full of grace, camaraderie
Ravindran Nekoo and good humour.
Reggie Wong Mew Sum

Representative to the Bar Council There was little discussion, however, on how inadequately we train new
Steven Thiru lawyers compared to other jurisdictions, nor the extent to which provisions
dealing with pupillage in the Legal Profession Act 1976 are out of touch
Editorial Board 2008/09 with the reality of modern legal practice.

Editor Over at Lawyer’s Talk, Roger Tan’s request for views on whether the “No
Lee Shih
Discount Rule” for conveyancing transactions ought to be retained
Members prompted a robust discussion. In the main, most people were talking about
Richard Wee (Deputy Editor) the need to establish a reasonable fee structure and lamenting on the
Brendan Navin Siva
Cheng Poh Heng
1 The article, for the curious, can also be viewed here: http://www.loyarburok.com/?p=335
Nicole Fiona Wee Sue-Ren
Yudistra Darma Dorai
Shanmuga Kanesalingam
Sudharsanan Thillainathan
Contents
Sukhjit Kaur Gill State Authority’s Consent for Conveyance of
Audrey Quay Sook Lyn
Property to a Non-Malaysian
Saravana Kumar
By Ally Chong Wai Kuan 4-5
Mansoor Saat
Chan Su-Li Are We There Yet?
Dipendra Harshad Rai By Brendan Navin Siva 6-8
Petrina Tan Tjin Yi
KL Bar Environmental Law Committee’s Visit to
Coastal Protection Sites in Port Dickson
Relevan welcomes and invites articles, letters and By Maria Mohd Harris 9 - 11
other contributions from readers. However, the
Editorial Board reserves the right to edit or not
to publish any such article, letter or contribution.
Body Search
All articles, letters or other contributions should be By Richard Wee Thiam Seng 12 - 13
forwarded (preferably via email or CD) to:
Charity Nite - RM100,000 and Counting
The Editor By H R Dipendra 14 - 15
RELEVAN
Kuala Lumpur Bar Commitee The Common Bar Course
Tingkat 8, Wisma Kraftangan, By Steven Thiruneelakandan 16 - 18
No. 9, Jalan Tun Perak,
50050 Kuala Lumpur Undertaking Comprehensive Judicial Reform
All views, unless expressly stated to be that of By Brendan Navin Siva 20 - 22
the Commitee or the Editorial Board, are the
individual writer’s personal Views. Legal Updates
By Sukhjit Gill 23
Relevan is the newsletter of the Kuala Book Review: Criminal Litigation Process
Lumpur Bar and is published by the By Jagjit Singh 24 - 25
Kuala Lumpur Bar Commitee
Tingkat 8, Wisma Kraftangan,
No. 9, Jalan Tun Perak, ON THE COVER Quote taken from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s essay entitled ‘Freedom from Fear’. The
50050 Kuala Lumpur. full essay can be found at: http://www.dassk.com/contents.php?id=416

Printed by: PRINCOMAS SDN. BHD. (498036-P)

No. 291 & 292, Jalan KIP 3, Taman Perindustrian KIP,
52200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 03-6277 1120 2 • editorial
“greed” of lawyers, bankers, developers and the public
respectively. Many vehemently denounced lawyers
who gave discounts, portraying them as
unprofessional, greedy and treacherous.
In this discussion, the larger issue looms on whether or
not the practice of law remains a profession in every
aspect of its practice.
Man y w o u l d c o n s i d e r t h a t n o w a d a ys, the
conveyancing lawyer is in fact a special sort of
businessman selling a commodity (the
documentation) with the accompanying services in
order for his customer (only sometimes considered a
“client”) to obtain an efficient transfer of ownership
in property.
Lawyers need to realise that in the not-too-distant
future, much conveyancing work will undoubtedly
be done without lawyers at all. A portent of things
to come is the already prevalent practice of bank
retail loan documentation arriving at the solicitors
attending to the transaction pre-printed with all
variable information already filled up automatically
through a computerised mechanism. The solicitor’s
role becomes virtually mechanical in the vast majority
of cases. How long will it be before the banks decide
that it is more cost efficient for them to themselves
buy insurance rather than relying on the lawyer’s
insurance and bypass the solicitor totally?
Professor Richard Susskind has painted a bleak
picture on the future of the legal industry in his book
“The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal
Services.2” In essence, he argues that in the very near
future, lawyers can no longer expect to have a
monopoly on many of the jobs considered their
exclusive domain. The lawyer will have to become
more multi-disciplinary and more skilled in order to
provide the legal services of the future.
The noted New York Times columnist, Thomas
Friedman, in his seminal book “The World is Flat”
gives various examples of the realignment of
industries in an increasingly globalised world.
Although nuanced, his most fundamental theory
is that most basic services will be outsourced to
jurisdictions with low costs leaving only high end niche
work to be done in most developed or near developed
countries. An example is given of an Indian company
which provides outsourced services to magic circle
legal firms from New York and London.
2 Extracts from his book can be found at the Times Online website: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/The_End_of_Lawyers/
3 See further, “Invasion? Imminent!” by K Shanmuga in Relevan, January 2005
Contrast these vast forces of globalisation reshaping
the world economy with the current, much outdated,
mindset and regulatory framework in which
Malaysian lawyers find themselves.
Lawyers in Malaysia cannot practice through limited
companies or any of the other innovations in the way
businesses are run (such as limited liability
partnerships or law corporations) found in other
jurisdictions. Lawyers are unable to fully advertise their
professional services and are constrained by strict rules
on the information they are able to publish in any
professional publicity. The electronic provision of legal
services is banned.
Yet, lawyers in certain instances (e.g. will writing,
trade mark registration, company secretarial services)
compete directly against non-lawyers who are able to
arrange themselves into limited liability companies,
advertise without restriction and adopt innovative
methods of business (such as using online methods to
provide their services).
Lawyers in Sabah and Sarawak refuse to open
their borders to competition from even lawyers
from the Peninsular, but the Malaysian Bar and the
Government have been talking about opening borders
to foreign lawyers. In considering the manner in which
foreign law firms can practice, traditional methods
already used (and failed) in other jurisdictions (notably
the Joint Law Venture which proved to be of limited
success in Singapore) appear to be the only mode of
foreign lawyer entry to Malaysia. Apparently, no
consideration is given to the knock-on effects to other
law firms to have a set of super law firms, enriched
with the resources of their foreign partners, but still
competing with normal law firms for run-of-the-mill
legal work3.
All of this paints a picture of a Bar that is so consumed
with the present problems of their practice that they
are unable to grasp the sea of change that we will
be facing in the years to come. Instead of catching
up with other countries, it is time for us to take a
paradigm shift in reconsidering our roles in society and
the manner in which we practice our profession.
Instead of being ravaged by the fo rc e s o f
globalisation, let us embrace them and make change
work for us rather than against us.
3 • editorial
State Authority’s Consent for Conveyance
of Property to a Non-Malaysian
Ally Chong Wai Kuan examines the extent non-Malaysian citizens can assign their rights
and title in a property to a financial institution pending State Authority consent.

Introduction
The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act
1965 is the main statute that regulates all the rights and
obligations relating to the conveyance of a property from a
housing developer to a purchaser.
A Schedule H Agreement is the standard sale and purchase
agreement for all sales ofproperties referred to as a
“highrise property”, whereas a Schedule G Agreement is
for landed properties. The recently introduced Schedule I
and J Agreements are meant for transactions of a
completed property, with the purchase price to be paid to
the Developer within the stipulated time thereto.
Currently, the law allows for a non-Malaysian citizen
purchaser (“Non-citizen Purchaser”) to enter into a sale
and purchase agreement for property and to concurrently
seek the approval of the State Authority (“State
Authority Consent”) in respect of the transaction.
In most instances the Developer will progressively bill
the said Non-citizen Purchaser after the State Authority
Consent is obtained.
chose in action, from the date of the notice, and all
legal and other remedies for the same, and the power
to give a good discharge for the same, without the
concurrence of the assignor.”
To establish an assignment, three elements must first be
fulfilled:-
1. Firstly, the assignment is in respect of a debt or a
chose in action;
2. Secondly, the assignment must be in writing under
the hand of the assignor, followed by an express
notice of assignment; and
3. Finally, the assignment must be absolute and must
not purport to be by way of a charge.
The Federal Court in the case of Nouvau Mont Dor (M) Sdn
Bhd v Faber Development Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 268 had
the occasion to interpret section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act
1956. The Federal Court held that if an assignment was
absolute and did not purport to be by way of a charge
within the ambit of section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956,
then only the assignee was

At the same time, the Non-

“...what point in time does a entitled to sue.

citizen Purchaser may seek a non-citizen assignor obtain Likewise, the Court of Appeal

all the rights, title to and

loan from a financial institution in Pancaran Nilam (M) Sdn Bhd
to complete the said sale and v Malayan Banking Bhd [2000]

interest in the property?”

purchase transaction.
This article intends to examine
the extent that a Non-citizen Purchaser is able to assign
their rights and title and any other interests whatsoever
in the property to a financial institution pending the
approval of the State Authority.
The Assignment
Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 states:-
“Any absolute assignment, by writing, under the hand
of the assignor, not purporting to be by way of charge
only, of any debt or other legal chose in action, of
which express notice in writing has been given to the
debtor, trustee or other person from whom the as
signor would have been entitled to receive or claim
the debt or chose in action, shall be, and be deemed
to have been, effectual in law, subject to all equities
which would have been entitled to priority over the
right of the assignee under the law as it existed in the
State before the date of the coming into force of this
Act, to pass and transfer the legal right to the debt or
4 CLJ 793 held that where an
assignment was absolute, the
assignee should have all of the
assignor’s rights, title to and interests in the property which
is the subject of the sale and purchase agreement.
A question then arises, at what point in time does a
Non-citizen Purchaser obtain all the rights, title to and
interest in the property which is the subject of the sale
and purchase agreement? At the point of signing the sale
and purchase agreement or at the point when the State
Authority Consent is granted?
The Crucial Section: Section 433B of the National
Land Code 1965
Section 433B of the National Land Code 1965 (“the Code”)
provides as follows:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in
any other written law-
(a) a non-citizen or a foreign company may acquire
land...by way of a disposal under Division II;

4 • article
 (b) a dealing under Division IV with respect to
alienated land or an interest in alienated land may
be effected in favour of a non-citizen or a foreign
company;
(c) alienated land, or any share or interest in such
land, may be transferred or transmitted to, or
vested in, or created in favour of any person or
body as “trustee”, or of two or more persons or
bodies as “trustees”, where the trustee or one of
the trustees, or where the beneficiary or one of
the beneficiaries, is a non-citizen or a foreign com
pany;
(d) the Registrar may in respect of any land register
any person or body as “representative” or make a
memorial in favour of any person or body as “rep
resentative” if such person or body is a non-citizen
or a foreign company;
(e) the Registrar may endorse any memorial of
transmission on the register document of title to
any land in favour of a non-citizen or foreign
company,
but only after the prior approval of the State
Authority has been obtained upon an application
in writing to the State Authority by such non-citizen
or foreign company.... (Emphasis added)”
“...a Non-citizen Purchaser
is not allowed to acquire land
unless he / she has received
the State Authority consent.”
At the time of executing the sale and purchase agreement,
the Non-citizen Purchaser may possess a right to the
agreement, a right to purchase the property, a right to the
agreement to purchase however these are not absolute
rights as he/she only has a conditional right to purchase
the property prior to the receipt of the written approval of
the State Authority.
Section 433E(1) of the Code further provides that “subject
to any written law, a person or body desiring to convey
or dispose of, in a manner other than those specified in
subsection (1) of section 433B, any alienated land or any
interest therein to a non-citizen or a foreign company may
be allowed to do so, but only after the prior approval of
the State Authority has been obtained....”
Section 433C of the Code provides that any disposal of
land by the State Authority, or any dealing or other act
with regard to alienated land or any interest therein in
contravention of section 433B of the Code shall be null
and void.
The intention of section 433B of the Code is crystal clear
- it restricts the ownership of land by a non-citizen or a
foreign company. In Jalaludeen a/l Abdul Aziz v
Thrumalingam a/l S Rajadurai & Anor [2002] 1 MLJ 237,
the transaction was held to be in contravention of section
433B(1)(b) of the Code as the prior approval of the State
Authority had not been obtained by the plaintiff who was
a Non-citizen Purchaser. As such, the transaction was null
and void by reason of section 433C of the Code.
Therefore, no one should be allowed or be able to
circumvent section 433B of the Code. The Code makes
it clear that a Non-citizen Purchaser is not allowed to
acquire land unless he/she has received the State Authority
Consent.
In conclusion, any attempt by a Non-citizen Purchaser to
assign absolutely the rights, title to and interest in a prop-
erty which is the subject of a standard sale and purchase
agreement in favour of a bank-assignee prematurely (i.e.
before the State Authority Consent has been obtained) is
to pre-empt section 433B of the Code and thus such an
assignment will be null and void.
Ally Chong
NOTICE
17TH ANNUAL
GENERAL MEETING
KUALA LUMPUR BAR
NOTICE is hereby given that the
17TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of
the KUALA LUMPUR BAR will be held
on THURSDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 at
2:00 P.M. at the GRAND BALLROOM,
THE LEGEND HOTEL, 9th Floor, Putra
Place (The Mall), Kuala Lumpur.
The Committee urges all members of
the Kuala Lumpur Bar to attend this
meeting.
5 • article
ARE WE THERE YET ?
Brendan Navin Siva highlights some interesting legal trends from other jurisdictions and
how legal practice in Malaysia can benefit from some of these trends.
Malaysian law firms have generally lagged behind their
counterparts overseas in terms of efficiency, productivity,
organisation, innovativeness and sheer competitiveness
in terms of salaries and remuneration packages, not to
mention resources. Those who have spent some time
working in law firms in the United States, United Kingdom
or Australia say that we may well be 5 to 10 years behind.
“But it is in content that I
believe overseas law firms
differ greatly from ours.”
I believe that it is therefore worth highlighting some of the
trends developing overseas to see what the future holds
for us and to act as food for thought as to whether we
are moving in the right direction. This is of course not an
exhaustive guide to what is out there - it is merely the
ramblings of someone who spent a few hours surfing the
Net during one particularly severe bout of procrastinitis.
Website Content
In terms of website presentation, there doesn’t seem to
be a significant difference between most websites of law
firms overseas and in Malaysia. Although most law firms
overseas appear to allocate substantial funds for the
creation and development of their respective websites,
it would appear that the conservative and traditional
approach is still the most common prevailing approach to
online presentation.
Malaysian law firms that have embraced websites as an
additional means of communicating with their clients and
to promote the services they offer do not appear to lag
behind significantly in terms of presentation. This is, of
course, after having factored in differences in publicity
restrictions which regulate how and what a Malaysian law
firm can do and say in promoting and publicising their
services.
But it is in content that I believe overseas law firm websites
differ greatly from ours. There are many examples to
illustrate the point. I will highlight only one.
The website of Mayer Brown <www.mayerbrown.com>
makes the claim that it is a leading global law firm with
offices in key business centers across the Americas, Asia
and Europe, with approximately 1,000 lawyers in the
6 • article
Americas, 300 in Asia and 500 in Europe. Its website is
comprehensive in the availability of information
about its services, its offices and its staff, along with a
comprehensive archiving of all its publications and news
reports.
But what struck me as most interesting was that the (US)
Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Division of Mayer
Brown maintains its own website Appellate.net <www.
appellate.net>. Apart from the normal description of their
services and the profile of their appellate attorneys, the
website contains links to all the official websites of the
various appellate courts as well as the judgments delivered
by the said courts. It also makes readily available a treasure
trove of articles written by their leading attorneys. Some of
the articles on appellate advocacy are extremely insightful.
This is not what impressed me the most. Appellate.net also
contains a list of all Mayer Brown’s Supreme Court cases,
together with a link to the transcripts of the arguments
and briefs in those cases. Where possible, audio feeds of
the oral arguments are also made available.
What does this mean to Malaysian lawyers? It means that
if you wanted to learn the art of appellate advocacy, you
are not merely restricted to reading material about it.
Neither are you restricted to driving 45 minutes to
Putrajaya to hear submissions of counsel in the Palace of
Justice. With the right dose of imagination and interest,
you could easily find yourself spending a day or two in the
US Supreme Court in Washington D.C., listening to oral
arguments by some of the highest paid “attorneys” in the
world, complete with the banter and interjection of the
Supreme Court Justices. All this without even having to
leave your doorstep.
How far down the road is the day when a lawyer in Ipoh
or Kota Bharu can switch on a computer in the office and
hear the latest arguments in the Federal Court on a point
that interests him or her? The technology required is not
high end. It can be made available and it is not expensive.
Do we need to wait 5 or 10 years?
Incidentally, Mayer Brown is one of the primary sponsors
of the Oyez Project <www.oyez.org> - a project started
and operated by Professor Jerry Goldman of Northwestern
University. Its main objectives are to make the work of the
US Supreme Court accessible to everyone through text,
images, audio and video. The Oyez Project is a multimedia
archive which includes an initiative to create a complete
and authoritative audio recording database of all cases
since the introduction of an audio recording system in
October 1955. For those of us who have participated
in one way or another in the recent trial period for the
proposed transcription services in our courts, it is sobering
to discover that we are doing now what American lawyers
started doing more than 50 years ago.
For those who lack the required imagination to get into
the mood for the audio recordings and need to be visually
aroused, the Oyez Project also offers a virtual reality tour of
certain sections of the Supreme Court Building and, if you
fancy a peek, the chambers of some of the Judges.
Public Disclosure of Information
There are no laws that require public disclosure of the
financial information of law firms in Malaysia. So too in the
United Kingdom. Seeking to stand out from the crowd,
Clifford Chance has released an Annual Review for the
period 1 May 2007 to 30 April 2008 (see
w w w. c l i ff o rd c h a n c e . c o m / p d f / c c _ a n n u a l re v i e w.
pdf?LangID=UK&).
The Annual Review is set out in a framework not
substantially different from that of the Annual Reports
of public listed companies. It contains a summary of
its more notable achievements and work done. It also
contains a summary of the structure of the law firm and
its overall governance. And, most strikingly, it contains a
summary of the audited statutory consolidated financial
statements of the law firm for the year ended 30 April
2008. Revenue of £1,329,000,000-00. Profit before tax of
£478,000,000-00. Average profit per equity partner of
£1,156,000-00.
What is the reasoning for this bold move? The official
reasoning appears in the opening pages of the Annual
Review -
“In recent years our clients have been responding to
growing demand for open and transparent disclosure
of the way their businesses operate, how they are
managed and how well they are performing. This
demand has come not only from regulators and
investors but from a broad spectrum of stakeholders
including employees, customers, suppliers, NGOs, the
media and neighbouring communities.
Although we are not required to produce an annual
report at present, we are aware that there is growing
interest in what we are doing and the thinking behind
it. In today’s climate of greater business openness, it
seems appropriate for us to begin reporting regularly
to interested stakeholders and also to publish a
corporate responsibility report.
As we succeed in our strategy of building a truly
global law firm, these reports provide an opportunity
to show the big picture of how we operate as a single
firm worldwide and how this benefits our clients and
our people.”
Is this the way of the future? Food for thought?
“Nearly all the common law
jurisdictions have in the last 10
to 15 years undertaken a
wholesale review of their system
of administration of justice...”
Law Reform
Nearly all the common law jurisdictions have in the last
10 to 15 years undertaken a wholesale review of their
system of administration of justice and implemented
concrete measures to improve the efficiency, integrity and
productivity of their respective legal systems.
The latest is the work of the Victoria Law Reform
Commission - the “Civil Justice Review Report” (see http://
www.lawreform.vic.gov.au). Released on 28 May 2008,
the Report is the product of 18 months work and contains
a comprehensive review of the Victorian civil justice system.
It contains proposals designed to “reduce the time taken
to resolve disputes, reduce costs and simplify the process
of civil litigation”.
The Report is 758 pages long. To say that the Report is
comprehensive would be an understatement.
Some of the more relevant recommendations made by
the Commission include the introduction of pre-action
requirements for communication and exchange of
information between potential litigants; the introduction
of new statutory standards to govern conduct of litigants
so as to accelerate disclosure of information, encourage
greater co-operation and limiting of the issues in dispute;
the increase of alternative dispute resolution; to establish
more proactive judicial management of litigation; to
implement early and cost-effective modes of disclosure
(including pre-trial oral examinations, etc); and to enhance
judicial control over expert witnesses and expert evidence
(including enabling a single expert to be appointed or
to direct expert witnesses to confer and attempt a joint
report).
The fact that it is time for Malaysia to undertake a similarly
comprehensive review of both the civil and criminal
justice systems is painfully apparent without the need to
look overseas. But with there being so much evidence of
committed and focussed law reform efforts overseas, it
begs the question why we have not even started?
7 • article
“Are We There Yet”
[continued from page 7]
eConvenyancing
Another fellow procrastinator (who does not wish to be
named) also alerted me to this interesting development.
The Law Society of Ireland has come up with a proposal
to place the entire conveyancing process on an electronic
platform. On 22 July 2008, the eConveyancing proposal
was launched – “Back to Basic Principles. Vision of an
Electronic System of Covenyancing” (see www.lawsociety.
ie/UserFiles/File/Publication%20of%20eVision.pdf)
It is the product of 3 years of
research and consultation. Its primary
“...larger law firms in
recommendation is a call for Australia have recently
introduced...structured
legislative, procedural and
administrative reform to bring
the conveyancing process back to
its basics. Having examined the
formal bonus schemes for
conveyancing process in other the younger lawyers ...”
jurisdictions, the Law Society of
Ireland contends that these other jurisdictions appear to
have made what it regards to be a fundamental mistake
- merely electronifying their existing paper systems, instead
of re-engineering the whole process to suit the electronic
and on-line environment.
The Law Society of Ireland predicts that if the
eConveyancing proposal can be successfully implemented,
the total transaction time could be 5 working days.
The proposal is said to be intended to provide a framework
for discussion and to stimulate other stakeholders to
examine the processes of the present conveyancing
system and to initiate changes required to facilitate
eConveyancing. Should this not also create or stimulate
discussions in Malaysia? It goes without saying that such a
proposal - if feasible in our local environment - would be a
huge step forward.
Retaining Legal Talent
In an article in the Australian Financial Review entitled
“Young Lawyers’ Loyalty Comes at a Price” dated 15
August 2008, it was highlighted that the larger law firms
in Australia have recently introduced, in varying degrees,
structured formal bonus schemes for the younger lawyers
in an effort to retain legal talent.
These schemes set clear and tangible performance targets
across a range of measures and provided clarity and
certainty for the lawyers to work towards, in contrast to the
traditional model of making bonus payments on a purely
discretionary basis. The law firms appear to be constrained
to match the formalised structures of the multinational
corporations and financial institutions to avoid losing their
best people to these entities.
It would also appear that some of the law firms modified
their bonus schemes in response to a growing demand
from their young lawyers to have a clearer link between
8 • article
performance and reward, so that they knew upfront
exactly what they needed to achieve in order to secure
such financial reward.
This would seem to be logical. A purely discretionary
bonus scheme for lawyers has always been the prevailing
way in Malaysia. But it is arguable that it has created an
atmosphere of uncertainty amongst employees who have
no real indication of the manner in which their bonus
payments were arrived at, even
though they may have been provided
in advance clear and exact
performance targets to meet, either
financial or non-financial. It would
appear that there is never an exact
formula that then links those
performance targets to the quantum
of monetary reward a lawyer would
receive in return. It also sometimes
breeds resentment, especially when the system is ad-hoc
and bias towards certain favoured employees. In this
regard, a formalised reward scheme may be the way
forward.
Time to stop rambling on. If anyone is aware of any other
developments or trends overseas that Malaysian lawyers
ought to consider or think about, please let us know by
emailing us at klbc@klbar.org.my
Brendan Navin Siva
Do you receive Emails
from the KL Bar?
The KL Bar Committee issues emails
to members as and when there are
issues that arise or information is
received that would be beneficial
to members including activities of
the KL Bar. If you do not presently
receive emails from the KL Bar
Committee, please send an email
to rajan@klbar.org.my or fax
(03-2691 1090) providing your name,
place of practice and email address.
This will be duly processed so that
you will be updated by email on all the
matters set out above.
KL Bar Environmental Law Committee’s Visit
to Coastal Protection Sites in Port Dickson
Maria Mohd Haris presents a report on the technical visit to coastal protection sites in
Port Dickson organised on 18 October 2008.

Report on Technical Visit to Coastal Protection Sites
in Port Dickson on 18.10.2008 jointly organized by
Kuala Lumpur Bar’s Environmental Law Committee
and the Water Resources Technical Division,
Institution of Engineers (“IEM”), Malaysia.
The technical visit was conducted by En. Nor Hisham Mohd
Ghazali, former Head of Design Unit, Coastal Protection
Division, Jabatan Parit dan Saliran Malaysia and was well
attended by 7 members of Kuala Lumpur Bar and 2
registered non-members, together with 8 members of
IEM. We departed by coach from IEM building in Petaling
Jaya at 8.30 a.m. and completed the visit by 4 p.m.
by erosion as a result of wave attacks which caused the
movement of material seawards and lowered the beach
beginning from a dive shop and the food court to the
chalets just before Avillion Hotel & Resort. Temporary
measures were employed and these included the
building of seawalls and gabions1, yet these had failed
due to a combination of poor construction of seawalls,
scouring2 and undermining3.
Beach Renourishment
Beach renourishment, spanning the areas from Bagan
Pinang to Pantai Saujana, was then introduced by
importing sand from the offshore beach thereby raising the
shorefront and resulting in the creation of a “new beach”.

Backshore Drainage
Drainage outfall4 from the dive shop and food court, which
used to be discharged onto the beach, was re-channeled
into the underground drains and thereafter discharged at
a single main outfall. This kept the beach free from surface
flows which would have created runnels5 and reduced the
beauty of the beach. As a result of both the beach
renourishment and underground drainage system, the
structures mentioned above as well as Avillion Hotel &
Resort benefited from the scheme and the beach is now
wide and clean.

Landscaping
The landscaping was a recent introduction to the beach
A. Bagan Pinang Beach nourishment project and has twofold objectives - by
We had an introduction and briefing session by En. Nor planting selected trees and grass turfing at the backshore
Hisham upon arrival at Bagan Pinang beach at 10.00 a.m. of nourished area this will help in preserving the sand and
Our first stop was at the beach in front of the Straits View limiting its transport by wind and extreme wave seawards.
Hotel at Batu 2.This was the starting point of the Port
Dickson Beach Nourishment Project completed in 2006.
The beach nourishment project introduced 60 metres of
additional beach berm to the existing beach. The project
also included a drainage improvement component in that
at Batu 2, the Sg. Saguni outlet was reconstructed to
improve flushing.

We then walked along the beach southwards towards

Bagan Pinang food court for the second stop of the tour.
South of Bagan Pinang, the food court, a dive shop, Balai
Rakyat and some apartments were at one point threatened

1 Gabions are cylindrical wicker or metal basket for filing with earth or stones.
2 Scouring - clearing out by flushing through with a pipe, channel, etc.
3 Undermining - wearing away the base or foundation (of river, etc)
4 Outfall is the mouth of the drain, where it empties into the sea.
5 Runnels - Gutter

9 • article
“KL Bar Environmental Law Committee’s Visit to Coastal Protection Sites in Port Dickson”
[continued from page 9]

The landscape also provides shade for local beachgoers
preferring shady areas to lay their mats, unlike the western
counterparts who prefer to “bathe” in the sun.
An assortment of coastal species such as Jambu Laut plants
and palm trees were planted, less for aesthetic value but
more for making the area seem natural and blend in with
the surrounding.
C. Saujana Beach, Fourth mile
At 11.00 a.m., we arrived at Saujana Beach.
This is the straightest shoreline and was filled with
casuarinas trees. It was first renourished in 1994 and again
in 2004 by adding 60 metres of berm length.

B. The Mini-Marina
At 10.30 a.m., we arrived at the mini-marina. This is an
area behind Pulau Burong, which is a small mangrove
islet6 and it is built by JPS to enable fishermen to berth their
boats.

Underground drainage was built to contain the effluent

This mini-marina is circular in shape and possibly the first of
its kind in the country. The shape allows for greater space
to the 30 or so local fishermen for the purpose of berthing
and also for security reasons. Furthermore, the location
of the mini-marina, behind Pulau Burong provides an
additional shelter to the fishermen from strong waves.
By containing the boats within the mini-marina, problems
of haphazard berthing along the channel by the fishermen,
as well as the competing usages of the nourished beach
with beachgoers, were solved all at once.
Breakwaters7 were also built to protect against storm
waves.
and sullage8 discharges from nearby shoplots by directing
them to Sungai Sri Rusa while the surface run-off was
collected in gravel drains underneath the backshore and
discharged sideways at the end point of the beach.
D. Sri Cahaya Beach (Pulau Sri Rusa)
At 11.20 a.m., we arrived at Sri Cahaya Beach.
An artificial headland was built in 1991 (by creating an
“arch”) and has the effect of slowing the impact of strong
waves thereby creating a calm area opposite the small islet
(Pulau Sri Rusa).
The headland connects to a small islet which forms a “Y”
shape. The islet is a small mangrove area, popular with
anglers. A low revetment9 was also built using granite
stones to keep the nourished sand from completely
inundating the islet.

6 Islet is a small island.

7 Breakwaters are barriers built into the sea to break the force of waves.
8 Sullage is filth, refuse, sewage.
9 Revetment is a retaining wall or facing of masonry etc.

10 • article
E. Selesa Hotel Beach/Beach Management System
At noon, we arrived at Selesa Hotel beach.
This is the site for the first successful Beach Management
System (“BMS”) on the west coast. BMS works on the
principle that an unsaturated / drained beach is less
susceptible to erosion, and it is being described as “a
drainage system underneath the beach”.
Underneath the beach lies some porous10 pipes wrapped
in geotextile11. Geotextile acts as a filter / separator
keeping the sand from entering the drainage pipes and
choking the drainage system.
The effect of BMS is that it keeps the water level of the
beach low and increases the compactness of the beach
sand.
As a result of BMS, Selesa Hotel had benefited from the
clean beach.
This Report dated 16h December 2008 was prepared by
Maria Mohd Haris and amended by En. Nor Hisham Mohd
Ghazali for Kuala Lumpur Bar’s Environmental Law
Committee. The visit was made possible with the
assistance of IEM and the writer wishes to extend her
gratitude to IEM & KL Bar.

Any error or omission by the writer is entirely her own.

Maria Mohd Harris

Beach water is drained by gravity to a sump12.

When the water level reaches a certain pre-set point,

automatic pumps are activated by sensors and the water is
drained out through an outlet at one end of the beach.

Two pumps are installed and designed to function

alternately to prevent overworking the system.

10 Porous - letting through water.

11 Geotextile - Woven clothes/mesh used for strengthening the porous pipe.
12 Sump - pit, hole, well.

11 • article
Body Search
Richard Wee Thiam Seng looks at the new provisions in the criminal procedure code
dealing with the right of the police to conduct a body search.

Continuing on from my earlier article (in Relevan Issue
No. 1/08) on section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code
(“CPC”) which dealt with the right of a person to contact
a lawyer when detained by the police, I wish to now focus
on the provisions governing the right of the police to
conduct a body search pursuant to section 20A of the
CPC. Similar to section 28A of the CPC, this new section
20A was added into the CPC by the Criminal Code
(Amendment) Act 2006.
latest version of the CPC.
A body search is not compulsory1 as per the Fourth
Schedule, but can only be carried out if it complies with the
following objectives:-
1. To obtain incriminating evidence related to the
offence of which the accused person was arrested
for.

Section 20A of the CPC states:
“ (1) Any search of a person shall comply with the
procedure on body search as specified in the
Fourth Schedule of this Code.
(2) Notwithstanding any written law, the provisions of
the Fourth Schedule shall apply to any search of
a person conducted by any officer of any
2. To seize contraband, the proceeds of the crime or
other things criminally possessed or used in
conjunction with the offence the accused person
was arrested for.
3. To discover evidence related to the reason of the
arrest or to preserve the said evidence or prevent
disposal of the same.

“... a body search

enforcement agency conferred with the power of
arrest or search of a person under any law.

can only take place

(3) The Minister charged with the responsibility for
internal security and public order may amend the
Fourth Schedule by order published in the

after arrest.”
Gazette.”

History behind the addition of Section 20A

We must recall the events that led to the addition of
section 20A of the CPC. In 2005, a video recording was
made from a mobile phone of a woman forced to strip in
a police station, and who was instructed to repeatedly
squat. This video caused so much outrage that the
Government established a Royal Commission to
investigate, inter alia the video recording and the
allegations of police abuse of arrested persons at police
stations. The findings of the Royal Commission led to
the numerous amendments in the CPC as per the 2007
Amendments Act to the CPC
How does Section 20A operate?
The new section 20A of the CPC refers to the Fourth
Schedule of the CPC (“the Fourth Schedule”) which
elaborates on the extent of the powers of the police
to conduct a body search. To quote the entire Fourth
Schedule of the CPC would take up too much space in
Relevan, and so I would urge you to refer the same in the
Interestingly, while section 20A of the CPC is silent on this
point, section 1 of the Fourth Schedule makes it clear that
a body search can only take place after arrest. Therefore,
the police cannot conduct a body search on a person who
has not been arrested. If one is merely being questioned,
no body search can be carried out.
Types of Body Search
There are 4 types of body searches, as set out and defined
in sections 2, 4, 7, 10, and 13 of the Fourth Schedule :-
1. Pat down search - outer clothing search which is
carried out by quickly running down the hands
over the outer garments.
2. Strip search - this search involves removal of a
person’s clothing in part or in full.

1 Section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule states:-

“1. (1) A body search may be conducted on a person arrested only if it complies with any of the following objectives”

12 • article
 3. Intimate search – includes the physical
examination of a person’s bodily orifices other
than the mouth, nose and ears.
4. Intrusive search - as the name suggests, this is an
intrusive search to check if the person has hid
anything inside that person’s body.
Thus far, I have not come across any reported cases on
section 20A of the CPC2. I however foresee challenges
by Defence Counsel over body searches as the Fourth
Schedule has been drafted in rather general terms. One
possible challenge is in a situation where an accused
person has been arrested for Crime A, but after a body
search, the evidence thereafter leads to the prosecution of
Crime B. Can the charge for Crime B hold water?
“... a search of a person is a serious
interference with his liberty, and all
proper safeguards must be followed.”
In the Privy Council decision of Kuruma v Reginam (1955)
1 All ER 236, Lord Goddard did state that; “the test to
be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible
is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is
admissible and the court is not concerned with how the
evidence was obtained.”
In R v Kelt [1994] 2 All ER 780, the English Court of
Appeal faced a situation where the blood sample of an
accused person was extracted for a murder inquiry but the
said sample then matched blood found at a robbery scene,
unrelated to the murder inquiry. Can that blood sample
be adduced as evidence in the robbery case? The Court
of Appeal did stress the need for the police to act in good
faith when dealing with evidence extracted for one alleged
crime but used in another criminal charge. The Court held
that the blood sample in that case could be used in the
robbery trial, notwithstanding the fact that it was meant
for another case.
2 As of 16 December 2008, no reported cases were found in the Malayan Law Journal and the Current Law Journal. However, please feel free to
inform the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee of any cases reported for that said provision, for our onward amendment to this article.
Another interesting case is the English High Court
decision of Mustapha Osman v Southwark Crown Court
[1999] EWHC Admin 622, decided on 1 July 1999, where it
was held that a body search conducted by 2 police officers
who failed to properly identify themselves to the persons
searched as per the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984
(“PACE”), was in breach of section 2(3) of the same Act.
The High Court overturned the Crown Court’s decision
and released the accused person on that ground alone.
Justice Collins in discussing the body search provisions
under PACE and the protection it gives to the people in
relation to body searches by the police said this:-
“This is, no doubt, because Parliament has recognised
that a search of a person is a serious interference with
his liberty, and all proper safeguards must be followed.
The facts found show that there was no reason why
the officers could not have given the necessary
information. It is not for the court to disapply the
duties set out in the Act, but only to decide whether,
in a given set of circumstances, the officers have taken
all reasonable steps to do what Parliament has
required them to do. I emphasise that we are not
concerned with the admissibility of evidence found as
a result of a search, but whether the search itself was
lawful, so that the officers were acting in the
execution of their duty when carrying it out.”
It is hoped that with the new Fourth Schedule, which lays
down extensive grounds and rules of conducting a body
search, the Courts will continue to safeguard the rights to
the people. The quote above by Justice Collins would be
a good guide, not only to the Courts, but to the police as
well.
Richard Wee Thiam Seng
* The author would like to express his appreciation to law student Yip
Xiao Heng who assisted with some of the research for this article.
13 • article
CHARITY NITE -
H R Dipendra looks back at the success of the Charity Nite over the years and how it should remain
a tradition of the Bar.
When the Kuala Lumpur Bar Young Lawyers Committee
handed its cheque of RM29,430 to the Pusat Penjagaan
Kanak-kanak Cacat Klang last month, it got me thinking.
Just how much have we lawyers raised for the various
charitable homes in the past 4 years? We have had 4
editions of the Charity Nite organised by the KL Bar YLC
since 2005 and in 2007 and 2008, the Perak, Penang,
Johor, Selangor, Melaka and Kelantan State Bars
respectively all got into the Charity Nite action.
The concept of holding a Charity Nite in the Bar calendar
began in 2005 when a group of enterprising lawyers
organised the first ever Charity Nite at the Souled Out
Café in swanky Hartamas on 30 June 2005. Buoyed by its
success (and of course the amount of fun lawyers had
singing to their hearts content), this immediately became
an annual event earmarked for every June as a mid-year
relief for lawyers from the rigors of work. 2007 saw a
record of sorts when not only a sum of RM35,000 was
raised for 2 charities, it also saw the inaugural ‘West Coast
Charity Nite’ whereby the State Bars of Kuala Lumpur,
Perak, Melaka and Johor all simultaneously held their
Charities Nite together. Coupled with the fact that almost
14 • event
1000 lawyers attended the various Charity Nites, never
before, indeed, have so many lawyers come together with
one love and one heart for charity. The amounts do vary
from state to state, but no doubt, as a rough estimate from
all monies donated, a sum in excess of RM100,000 was
surely disbursed to the various adopted charities.
The modus of the Charit y Nite is simple and
straightforward indeed. Often, as is with many charity
events, one needs a catalyst to get the atmosphere
pumping. The hallmark of the Charity Nite has always
been the showcasing of our very own extra- legal talent. In
Kuala Lumpur for example, we have had 2 years of the KL
Bar Idol and in 2008, the 1st ever ‘Battle of the Bands’ was
organised where the winner is crowned on their ability to
reign in the highest amount of pledge. Whilst some of us
may not agree with the choice of the ultimate winner, we
surely must agree that it is the charity that matters. And of
course, we all had a lot of fun.
Organising a Charity Nite event is also not an easy feat.
A lot of care goes into the choice of the Charity (and to
ensure that the Charity is bona fide and thoroughly
- RM100,000 AND COUNTING
deserves the donation). Choice of venue is also important
as the Bar has many sensibilities that require utmost care to
be taken so as to ensure no unpleasantness arises. Equally
important was to keep the ticket price as low as possible
with the maximum amount food and beverage so as to
ensure that every lawyer could afford to attend. A lot of
volunteers across the Peninsular, in no small way, made
the respective Charity Nites a success. Help also came in
many ways from assisting with the initial groundwork, to
performing in a band on the night, producing excellent
video promos and “harassing” lawyers to pledge during
the live performances. These volunteers deserve the Bar’s
vote of thanks.
The success of the Charity Nite would not have been
possible but for the donations made. Many contributing
firms and individuals pledged various amounts or money for
the event. And the firms and individuals did so with much
hope in their hearts that the adopted charities would never
have to walk alone. It is fortifying to note that no matter
how much we lawyers may disagree over various issues,
at the very least, all of us agree that the success of the
respective Charity Nites over the years has been of
paramount importance and with that came all the financial
support. To all the volunteer lawyers and sponsors, I salute
you!
Looking back, the Charity Nite was created as a social
outing with a noble purpose for lawyers. I dare say it
complements the other social events in the Bar Calendar
like the Annual Dinner and Bar & Bench get-togethers and
projected an image of a compassionate Bar. If the truth be
told, the Charity Nite has resulted in goodwill for the Bar
as a whole over the past 4 years. There are many lawyers
with fond memories of this event and can surely attest to
this. The goodwill generated from being a responsible and
caring Bar will surely sweeten the hearts and soothe the
minds of even the most ferocious detractors of the Bar. It
is with this belief, and in moving forward, I feel that every
possible effort must be made to ensure that the Charity
Nite continues as a tradition of the Bar.
H R Dipendra
Chair
KL Bar Young Lawyers Committee
15 • event
The Common Bar Course
Steven Thiruneelakandan, Chairman of the Professional Standards and Development
Committee of the Bar Council, elaborates on the proposed framework for the Common
Bar Course.
There has been much discourse lately on whether there
should be a common examination for all law graduates
before they enter the legal profession. The President of the
Malaysian Bar, Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevesan, was quoted
by the New Sunday Times (April 6, 2006) as saying that
there was a need for “...... a common examination for all
law graduates entering the legal profession, irrespective of
where they had pursued their undergraduate degrees.”
The former Minister of Law in the Prime Minister’s
Department is reported to have said (in the New Straits
Times, May 15, 2006) that “...... the government was
looking into introducing a Bar Vocational Course and
whether such a model, practiced in the United Kingdom,
could be implemented locally.” Relevan speaks to Steven
Thiru, Chairman of the Professional Standards and
Development Committee of the Bar Council and a member
of the Bar Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Common
Bar Course, for his views on these developments:-
Q: Do we need a Common Bar Course (“CBC”) as
a single entry point into the legal profession in
Malaysia?
A: Yes. It would be an important step in our efforts
to improve quality at the Bar. It would enable us to
deal with the source of the problem, viz, the general
deterioration in legal education. A uniform training
scheme, in the form of the CBC, would certainly
contribute towards enhancing standards.
Q: Is the Bar Council in favour of the CBC,
particularly as a replacement of the Certificate
of Legal Practice (CLP) and if so, what steps have
the Bar Council taken?
A: The Bar Council has advocated for the CBC since the
mid 1980’s. We have consistently taken the stand
that the CBC should be the ultimate filter for entry
into the legal profession. In May this year the Bar
Council set up the Ad-Hoc Committee on the CBC.
The Committee consist of experienced practitioners1,
a senior academician (and formerly a senior
practitioner)2 and the senior manager (standards) of
the Malaysian Qualifications Agency3.
Q: Can you tell us about the work of the Bar
Council’s Ad-Hoc Committee on the CBC?
1 Hendon Mohamed, Prasad Abraham, Sheila De Costa, G.K. Ganesan, Ken St. James, Mariette Peters, Murad Ali, Roger Tan, Dato’ Muhammad
Shafee Abdullah, Nahendran Navaratnam and S.S. Muker
2 Adjunct Professor R. Rajeswaran of UiTM
3 Dr. Rozlini Mary Fernandez Chung
16 •q&a
A: The Committee’s primary task was to craft the
syllabus and course content for the proposed CBC.
In this regard, we were required to also consider
and implement, where possible, the position taken
by the Bar Council in the various working papers
on the CBC. These were prepared between 1989
to 2003 and include the Morrison Report (1989),
Seeking Quality: Bar Council’s Memorandum on Legal
Education Reform And Qualifications For Entry Into
The Legal Profession (1993), Report on the Review
of the CLP (2002) and Bar Council Memorandum On
Legal Education Reform (2003).
Q: Has the Committee completed its work?
A: Yes, we have. We have prepared a draft CBC
framework which takes into account the Bar Council’s
views over the past two decades. We have also made
a number fresh proposals which we believe will
revolutionise legal training and put us on par with
other modern schemes the world-over. The draft CBC
proposal is, however, still work-in-progress as it is
pending approval by the Bar Council. It is to be tabled
for debate at our next Council meeting on October
11, 2008.
Q: Can you tell us the approach adopted by the
Committee?
A: As a starting point, the Committee considered
the prevailing post-graduate professional training
programmes (ie. for advocates and solicitors /
barristers and solicitors) in other commonwealth
jurisdictions, namely the United Kingdom, Australia,
New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada.
The experiences of these other jurisdictions were
useful as a guideline. However, the Committee
did not lose sight of the fact that the profession in
Malaysia is fused. Thus, the draft CBC proposal is not
a wholesale reproduction of any one of these other
jurisdictions (eg. the Bar Vocational Programme in the
United Kingdom). The Committee has nevertheless
adopted certain critical aspects of these programmes
and inculcated them into the draft CBC proposal.
Q: But, will the CBC be just another CLP with a new
label?
A: It would not be. We were conscious of the
 weaknesses in the CLP. We found it to be outdated
and it certainly does not, in our view, serve the
requirements of the modern legal profession. Also, a
survey of the developments in the other jurisdictions
show that there has been a demonstrable shift in
focus to practical training based on experiential
learning and practical / vocational training. The CLP
is, regrettably, still largely mired in the old school
academic / black-letter law approach sans practical
training.
Q: What is the underlying principle for the
proposed CBC?
A: The main principle is that it will serve as a single entry
point into the legal profession in Malaysia regardless
of where the undergraduate qualification is obtained
(locally or from foreign universities/colleges of law).
There may of course be a list of recognized
universities/colleges of law (local and international)
which would be determined by the Legal Qualifying
Board. This is consistent with the Bar Council’s stand
that “......the check on quality will not be at
theundergraduate level ie. entry into law schools
but at the professional entry level ie. professional
qualifications for entry into the Bar. Thus the final
check would be at the entry level into the legal
profession.” (see the Bar Council’s Memorandum On
Legal Education Reform of 3.1.2003)
Q: Has the Committee also drawn up the objectives
of the proposed CBC?
A: Yes. There are broadly six primary objectives and they
are as follows:-
(1) The focus of the CBC should be on skills /
practical training (as opposed to testing on legal
knowledge) to equip the “student-at-law” for
legal practice in Malaysia.
(2) The vocational nature of the training will be
complimented with academic (substantive law)
elements, only where necessary. Thus, the CBC
will not deal with substantive law, which should
remain the domain of the universities / law
colleges.
(3) The CBC must combine the modern experience
of other commonwealth jurisdictions and our
peculiar requirements (in a fused profession, with
the inherent weaknesses).
(4) The CBC should prepare the “student-at-law” for
the first two years of practice.
(5) The CBC should also enable the “student-at-law”
to choose (if they so desire) to become either an
advocate (litigation) or a solicitor (non-litigation).
This is achieved by giving the student-at-law the
option to fashion their training to cater for their
choice.
(6) The CBC must deal with some of the
shortcomings in pupillage and enhance the
training during pupillage.
Q: What would be the course structure for the
CBC?
A: We have proposed that the CBC be conducted in five
semesters over a period of twenty months (inclusive
of pupillage). In this regard, the first three semesters
will entail full time study whilst the remaining two
semesters will be conducted part-time together with
pupillage. Further, Semester 1, 2 and 3 will consists of
compulsory subjects. In semesters 4 and 5 (where the
“students-at-law” would be undergoing pupillage),
there would be a mixture of compulsory subjects and
electives. As noted earlier, by their choice of the
electives, the “student-at-law” (now pupil) can start
tailoring their training to suit their preferred choice of
practice (litigation or non litigation).
Q: Will the CBC be the death knell for pupillage?
A: The Committee is of the view that pupillage should
be retained albeit with a reduction in its duration. In
this regard, the Committee has proposed that CBC
should run partly parallel with pupillage. As stated
above, the student-at-law will undertake the CBC
on a full-time basis in the first three semesters. They
will then begin their pupillage and continue with
semesters four and five of the CBC on a part-time
basis. The incorporation of pupillage into the CBC
will hopefully deal with some of the shortcomings in
the training of our pupils. It will allow pupils to easily
compare the level of training that they are receiving
from their masters with their peers. Moreover, if there
are weaknesses, the dual effect of “peer-learning” and
participation in the part-time CBC programme would
provide a safety net.
Q: How would the CBC deal with the crescendo
of complaints that we hear about the legal
profession today?
A: It is a matter that we considered carefully. Thus, the
first three semesters essentially deal with aptitude,
ethical values, basic legal skills and core areas of
practice. These are the bedrock of legal practice
in Malaysia and are intended to ensure that those
coming into the Bar have the requisite qualities. In this
regard, it is envisaged that there should be a stringent
assessment system that would sieve out those who
do not possess these fundamental requirements. In
other words, it is not a given that all “students-at-law”
would make the grade and complete the CBC.
Q: What are subjects that the CBC will cover?
A: We have put together an array of subjects that we feel
17 •q&a
“The Common Bar Course”
[continued from page 17]

will meet the objectives that I spoke of earlier. In
this regard, some of the main subjects that we have
proposed are: Practical Aspects of Malaysian Law,
Legal Interpretation Skills (Constitution, Statutes
and Case Law) and Practice Management Skills (in
Semester 1), Legal Language (English and Bahasa
Malaysia for law) and Communication Skills (including
IT skills), Lawyering Skills (eg. Techniques of analysis)
and Practical Legal Research, Legal Ethics and
Professionalism, Business and Solicitors Accounts,
Interviewing and Client Counselling Skills, Opinion
Writing (in Semester 2) and core subjects such as
Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Drafting Skills,
Evidence, Real Property Practice, Commercial and
Corporate Practice, Introduction to Advocacy,
Negotiation Skills, Alternative Dispute Resolution-
Mediation and Arbitration (in Semesters 3 and 4)4.
Finally, in Semester 5 we have proposed Remedies and
Enforcement / Execution Proceedings as well as a host
of other electives5.
Q: How do you expect the CBC to be delivered?
A: The Committee has also considered the mode of
delivery and the assessment system. We have
discovered that most jurisdictions have moved away
from the traditional lecture-seminar/tutorial as the
mode/s of delivery of the CBC. Thus, the modern
approach (as part of experiential learning) is to have a
mixture of lecture-seminar/tutorials, on-line learning,
DVD’s, practical and industrial training. This should
result in cost savings and it would also impact on the
logistical requirements for the CBC.
Q: What about the teaching staff and infrastructure
to support the CBC?
A: It is envisaged that the teaching staff will consist of
qualified members of the Bar, judges (sitting and
retired) and qualified academics from the various
law faculties / private colleges. There should also be
provision for foreign teaching staff, whether on an
ad-hoc or permanent basis. Further, in connection
with finances, the Bar Council has decided that the
CBC should be run on a non-profit basis. Thus, public
funding from the government would be required to
set up the necessary infrastructure and to cover
administration costs.
Q: When do you expect the CBC come into place?
A: We anticipate it will take between 4 to 6 years
for the CBC to be implemented. This is because,
inter-alia, there is a requirement for dedicated course
materials, which are presently unavailable. We must
also develop a training programme for those who are
to be engaged to teach the CBC. As for logistics,
in the interim we would need to use the available
facilities in the law faculties in our public universities
in the Klang Valley. However, we must look at a
purpose built college (eg. the College of Law, Sydney)
to cater for the CBC in the future.

4 Some of the other proposed electives in Semester 4 are Advanced Evidence, Advanced Civil Procedure, Advanced Criminal Procedure, Advanced
Real Property Practice, Advanced Corporate and Commercial Practice, Wills and Probate Practice, Insolvency Practice and Family Law Practice.
5 Some of the proposed electives in Semester 5 are Administrative Law Practice, Advocacy in Criminal Law, Industrial Law Practice, Intellectual
Property Law Practice, Human Rights Litigation and Introduction to Islamic Banking and Finance.

LEGAL AID
GALA CHARITY DINNER & DANCE
In conjunction with the 63rd Annual Dinner & Dance of the Malaysian Bar

Saturday, 14th March 2009, 8pm

Grand Ballroom, Renaissance Hotel, KL

A 3-course Western-style Dinner garnished with Jazz, Cocktails, C7W, Rock Music
and Comedy featuring Ocean of Fire, The Rozells and Legal AIDers ensemble

For inquiries and bookings please call:

Ms Adilah Ariffin at 03 2034 2071 / 03 2031 3003 ext 160
or email adilah@malaysianbar.org.my

18 •q&a
Undertaking Comprehensive Judicial Reform
Brendan Navin Siva analyses the way forward in reforming the civil justice system in
Malaysia. This article was first published on Project Malaysia (www.projectmalaysia.
org) under the issue of The Administration of Justice.
Introduction
Any efforts aimed at reforming the Judiciary and improving
the administration of justice in Malaysia must first
understand that the problem in Malaysia is a multi-layered
and multi-dimensional one. In this article, I wish to deal
only with reform of the civil justice system in Malaysia.
Any attempt at judicial reform of the civil justice system
must first comprehensively identify the problems faced in
the administration of justice and their root causes, before
even considering what measures ought to be taken to
address them. I say this because amongst the various
stakeholders - the members of the Malaysian Bar, the
Judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the
Government - there is no consensus as to what the
problems actually are and who or what is the cause of
such problems. More importantly, it would appear that
members of the public do not have a real understanding
of the complexity of the process. The public believe that
the courts should be able to decide cases quickly. There
is clearly an expectation gap between what the public
believe they are entitled to and what the system can
actually deliver, even if operating at efficient levels.
The Malaysian Legal System
The Malaysian legal system is built on the foundations of
the common law tradition and is an adversarial system.
In a traditional adversarial system, the judicial proceeding
involves the competing parties submitting their case and
presenting their arguments in the manner that they see
fit. The judge does not play an inquisitive or investigative
role and, to a large extent, cannot enter the fray but must
decide the case based on the evidence and submissions
presented by both sides. Even though an individual believes
that he or she has a strong case, the Court cannot make
that determination without first going through the
careful and deliberate process of considering all the
evidence and competing submissions on the law and the
facts by the opposing parties. This, by its very nature, is
a process that takes time. The amount of time required
to make a determination would, of course, also depend
largely on the complexity and number of issues that arise in
each case. And cases today are clearly more complex than
they were in the past.
The adversarial system also provides no real incentives for
opposing parties to strive for a quick resolution of a case, if
this is not in the best interests of both parties. This is most
pronounced in civil and commercial cases. In most cases,
one party would normally benefit from the case dragging
20 • article
on in the courts. Steps will be taken to avail themselves
of all available procedural and substantive avenues to
avoid a quick resolution of the dispute. A Judge cannot
cut through these efforts without hearing them on their
merits. This again takes time. Further, depending on the
nature of the facts and the applicable law in any particular
case, it will always be in the interests of one party or the
other to present their case as being complex and
complicated whereas the other side would be adamantly
arguing that the case is clear and one that can be decided
quickly. But again the Courts must hear and consider all
the arguments put forward by both sides. In other words,
unless the issues are clear-cut, there is no quick fix. Even
if we discount the huge backlog of cases and the ever
increasing new filings every year, there will still be a fair
amount of time required to hear and decide any particular
case. The public should not therefore expect or demand
swift results from the courts. But certainly the time taken
should not be unduly lengthy.
Comprehensive Review of Administration of Justice
Needed
How should judicial reforms be approached in Malaysia?
There is only one way. It requires a comprehensive review
of the entire system.
All the common law jurisdictions have in the last 10 to 15
years undertaken a wholesale review of their system of
administration of justice and implemented concrete
measures to improve the efficiency, integrity and
productivity of their respective legal systems and courts.
Lord Woolf spent close to 2 years reviewing the civil justice
system in the United Kingdom. His report in July 1996
entitled ‘Access to Justice’ comprehensively outlined
the problems afflicting the system and made 303
recommendations to improve the system. New measures
were implemented. They have been in place since 1999.
In February 2000, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Hong Kong appointed a working party to review
the civil rules and procedures of the High Court and to
recommend changes thereto with a view to ensuring and
improving access to justice at reasonable cost and speed.
The working party completed their report in March 2004.
It made a total of 150 recommendations for improvement.
In Canada, the Systems of Civil Justice Task Force was
formed in 1995. The Task Force Report was released in August
1996. It contained 53 recommendations for reform.
In Australia, the Australian Law Reform Commission review
of the federal civil justice system commenced in November
1995. It released its report in August 1999. Most of the
Australian states have conducted their own extensive
review of their respective state civil justice system. The
latest is the work of the Victoria Law Reform Commission
- the “Civil Justice Review Report” (see http://www.
lawreform.vic.gov.au). Released on 28 May 2008, the
Report is the product of 18 months work and contains a
comprehensive review of the Victorian civil justice system.
It contains proposals designed to “reduce the time taken to
resolve disputes, reduce costs and simplify the process of
civil litigation”. The Report is 758 pages long.
It is time that Malaysia did the same. A commitment to
the improvement of the administration of the civil justice
system in this country would dictate that the Government of
Malaysia must do so immediately. The Malaysian
Government must undertake a comprehensive and
wide-ranging review of the entire civil justice system.
Bits and pieces of reform here and there will not be
good enough. It will not remedy the many problems that
presently befall the system.
“The Malaysian Government must
And Malaysia is actually
in a comparatively better
position to undertake such undertake a comprehensive and
wide-ranging review of the entire
a review, given the immense
amount of material and data
available from the reviews
undertaken in all the other
civil justice system.”
common law jurisdictions and the measures adopted
by them to improve the ef fec tiveness of the
administration of justice. The evidence of the level of
success of such reforms is also available. We can easily
identify and learn from what has been done in these other
countries.
Wide and Extensive Consultation Must be Obtained
A common and important feature of all reform initiatives in
the jurisdictions mentioned above is a commitment to wide
and extensive consultation with all the various stakeholders
so as to obtain the views of the broadest possible
spectrum of society. This includes the views of judicial
officers at every level of the court structure, the Bar, the
academic community, the consumer bodies and so forth.
The consultation process is crucial to developing a package
of judicial reforms that are workable.
The Malaysian Government must therefore consult all
the actual stakeholders involved. Sadly, an extensive
consultation process has never been a common feature
of the Malaysian Government. But it is time for change.
1 In a written reply to Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng in Parliament on 8 May 2008, de facto Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim stated that the backlog
of cases in the High Court was 91,702 cases, with 125,944 in the Sessions Court and 777,703 in the Magistrate’s courts (The Sunday Star, 11
May 2008).
2 ‘Injudicious Numbers’, New Straits Times, 1 September 2006.
3 ‘Judges and Development’ by Raphael De Cornick, Global Law Working Paper 10/05, New York University School of Law.
If the Malaysian Government is really serious about its
promise to effect wide ranging judicial reforms, it must first
comprehensively ascertain and consider the views of all
the parties involved and then work together with them to
come up with a package of reforms that can practically
lead to clear and tangible improvements in the civil justice
system.
Increase the Number of Judges
One of the fundamental areas that warrant serious
consideration is the level of judicial resources in Malaysia.
There are simply not enough judges and judicial officers to
handle the backlog of cases yet to be disposed off1 and the
increasing number of cases being filed every day. It was
reported in the New Straits Times on 1 September 2006
that Malaysia has 2.4 judges per million people, compared
with the United Kingdom’s 50.09 and the USA’s 107. India
was reported as having 4 times the number of judges per
capita2.
Although there are serious concerns about the
productivity of Judges in Malaysia and their ability to deliver
reasoned decisions efficiently and timeously, even Judges
who are disciplined and hard working and who want to
deliver detailed and
considered judgments would
find it difficult to do so
b e c aus e of the heav y
workload. We cannot have a
situation where Judges want
to carefully consider matters
before them but are forced to cut corners because of the
heavy scheduling and the pressure to dispose off pending
cases.
The Malaysian Government must recognise that the failure
to address this fundamental problem of shortage of judges
could potentially render any other attempts or measures at
judicial reform meaningless. The Government of Malaysia
must allocate the funds necessary to increase the number
of judges and judicial officers in this country. If it is required,
there is also empirical evidence to suggest that there is
actually a positive correlation between the number of
judges per capita and economic growth, i.e. that an
increase in the number of judges actually has a positive
impact upon economic growth3.
Improvement to Courtroom Infrastructure
Another area requiring reform relates to courtroom
infrastructure. Members of the public, fed on a weekly
dose of courtroom drama on TV, normally receive
somewhat of a shock when they appear for the first time
in Malaysian courts and find Judges at all levels physically
21 • article
“Undertaking Comprehensive Judicial Reform”
[continued from page 21]
recording by hand the evidence of witnesses and
submissions of counsel in every case. The process of taking
evidence is painstaking and time consuming as judges and
judicial officers themselves have to write down what the
witnesses say during trials and what lawyers submit during
hearings. Court recording and transcription services could
instantly expedite the hearing of cases. It would also allow
judges the time to evaluate the demeanor of witnesses and
also to more carefully consider the legal arguments of the
lawyers before them.
To its credit, the Judiciary did undertake a 3-month trial
period this year whereby 3 different court recording and
transcription services were tested in selected courtrooms
in Kuala Lumpur. However, there has to date been no word
as to the selection and implementation of any particular
system of court recording and transcription services and
most of the selected courts have now reverted back to the
traditional mode of taking evidence.
“Given the glaring disparity in
remuneration, the Judiciary would find it
increasingly difficult to retain its present
workforce...”
Judicial Training and Development
It is also clear that significant resources need to be
channeled into judicial training and development, not just
for fresh judicial officers, but also to ensure existing judges
and judicial officers are kept abreast of developments in
the law and in the real world. Just as lawyers require
continuing education and development, Judges also
need to be in tune not only with the changing norms and
attitudes of the public and also the many different legal
and commercial concepts and issues that have developed
and are being developed.
Judges are tasked to bridge the gap between legal
principles and their application to modern day situations.
Judges are required to adapt and apply the law to cater
for and regulate modern day activities, thereby making
the law relevant and efficient in handling current disputes.
In certain circumstances, it may be that the law and legal
principles must change to adapt to the present day
environment and it is the Judges who must make this
determination. Failure to understand modern, developing
concepts and realities would mean that a Judge cannot
competently apply the relevant legal principles to the facts
at hand.
Remuneration of Judges
The remuneration of judges and judicial officers must also
be looked into. In his speech on 17 April 2008, the Prime
Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,
4 Judges’ Remuneration (Amendment of First and Fifth Schedules) Regulations 2008. Information obtained from an article entitled ‘Are We Paying
Our Judges Enough ?’ by Roger Tan appearing in the New Sunday Times on 18 May 2008.
5 Address by DYMM Raja Nazrin Shah at the Conference of Malaysian Judges on 9 April 2008.
22 • article
promised a review of the Judiciary’s terms of service and
remuneration. He acknowledged that there was a pressing
need to set salaries and compensation to the right levels to
ensure that the Bench can attract and retain the very best
of the nation’s talent.
The point is simple. Judges and Judicial Officers do not get
paid salaries that are competitive or comparable with that
earned in private legal practice. A Magistrates’ basic salary
would be RM1,989-00 a month. A High Court Judge takes
home a basic monthly salary of RM13,054-97. A Judge of
the Cour t of Appeal draws a basic salar y of
RM13,581-50 while a Federal Court Judge’s basic salary
would be RM14,108-024.
A first year lawyer in private practice could be on a
basic monthly salary somewhere between RM2,200-00 to
RM3,000-00. This figure normally increases annually and a
5th year lawyer could potentially earn somewhere between
RM4,500-00 to RM7,500-00 a month (excluding bonuses
and other fringe benefits). A lawyer in a large or medium
sized law firm could become a partner as early as in his or
her 5th or 6th year in practice. A junior partner could be
earning any where bet ween RM7,0 0 0 - 0 0 to
RM25,000-00 a month (excluding drawings and profit
sharing, which could be a substantial amount). A senior
partner could potentially earn significantly much more.
And they usually do.
Gi ven the glaring disparit y in remuneratio n, the
Judiciary would find it increasingly difficult to retain its
present workforce, let alone attract and retain fresh legal
talent of high quality. The promised review of their
remuneration packages has yet to materialise.
Conclusion
I am certain many other lawyers and judges have other
points similarly valid drawn from their own experiences
and which they believe with conviction could assist in
improving the state of the Judiciary and the administration
of justice in Malaysia.
I would hope this article has illustrated my point that
the administration of justice in Malaysia is not a one
dimensional problem that can be easily resolved. I hope
that this article clearly makes the point that all the
stakeholders and participants in the system must be
consulted so that a wide-ranging, bold, innovative and
comprehensive package of judicial reforms - fair and
equitable to all Malaysians - can be put together to ensure
that we can proudly say that we managed to turn the tide
and started, what the Regent of Perak His Royal Highness
Raja Nazrin Shah so aptly called, a Judicial Renaissance5.
Brendan Navin Siva
LEGAL UPDATES
LEGAL UPDATES is meant to alert members of recent developments in the law in other
jurisdictions. It is not meant to be legal advice. Members are advised to read the cases
reported and form views or conclusions of their own.
In the recent High Court decision of Alexander John Shek
Kwok Bun v Rich Avenue Sdn Bhd & Anor [2008] 2
MLJ 481, the Plaintiff entered into a Sale and Purchase
agreement with the Defendant in respect of a property in
Seremban whereby it was stipulated in Clause 21.1 of the
agreement that the definition of “vacant possession” did
not include the connection of water and electricity supply
to the property. The High Court held that the said clause did
not make business sense, and that delivery of the property
with all the usual amenities and a Certificate for Fitness of
Occupation (CFO) after full payment of the purchase price
was a fundamental term of the agreement.
The Court went on to state that it had a constitutional duty,
on the basis of public policy, to ensure that the dominant
person in a contract does not abuse his position against
a weaker party notwithstanding the absence of a Fair
Trading Act as in the United Kingdom or a Trade Practices
Act as in Australia. The Court then rewrote the onerous
terms of the contract and in so doing departed from the
usual conservative approach to construction of
documents. However, this decision seems to be in line with
the 2007 amendments to the Housing and Development
(Control and Licensing) Act 1966 which were introduced
to protect the interests of house buyers’ and enhance their
rights. This decision is currently pending appeal and its
application may be confined, on its facts, to standard
consumer contracts only.
Justice Ramly Ali J was faced with a peculiar situation in
the High Court decision of Putrajaya Holdings Sdn Bhd
v Digital Green Sdn Bhd [2008] 1 LNS 92 where the
intention of Parliament in relation to section 51(2) of the
Arbitration Act 2005 was lost in translation. The Learned
Judge had to consider whether to grant an order for a stay
of the Court proceedings pending arbitration where the
arbitration agreement had been entered into prior to the
coming into force of the 2005 Act. The question arose as to
whether the 1952 Act or the 2005 Act should apply when
determining the stay application. Under the English version
of section 51(2) of the 2005 Act, it seemed clear that the
1952 Act would apply only where arbitration proceedings
had commenced before the coming into force of the 2005
Act. However, one of the grounds that led the High Court
to apply the 1952 Act was the inconsistent Bahasa
Malaysia version of section 51(2) of the 2005 Act which
excluded the applicablity of the 2005 Act from applying
where the arbitration agreement is made or the
arbitration proceedings were commenced before the
coming into operation of this Act. Justice Ramly Ali J found
that the Bahasa Malaysia version expressed the true
intention of Parliament. This factor was one of the grounds
upon which the Learned Judge based his finding that the
1952 Act applied in this case.
This decision stands in contrast to an earlier High Court
decision in Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam
Melayu Pahang v Far East Holdings Bhd & Anor [2007]
10 CLJ 318 where an identical issue arose. Despite the
fact that the agreement containing the arbitration clause
was signed 1992, the Learned Judge applied the English
version of section 51(2) of the 2005 Act and held that the
2005 Act and its stay provisions applied as the arbitration
proceedings were commenced after the coming into force
of the 2005 Act.
The foundations of company winding up procedure and
recovery practices were recently shaken by the recent
Federal Court decision in Savant-Asia Sdn Bhd v
Sunway PMI-Pile Construction Sdn Bhd (26 September
2008, unreported) where it was held that once a petition
for winding up is presented, the advertising of the petition
is a mandatory requirement even if the debt of the
petitioning creditor has been settled by the respondent
company. The Federal Court took the view that “the fact
that no winding-up order was ultimately made is of no
consequence, as s. 219 of the Act is not concerned whether
a winding-up order is eventually made or not, but seeks to
provides protection to unsecured creditors upon the date
of presentation of the petition.”
As winding up proceedings are a “class right” as opposed
to a writ action, all unsecured creditors have an equal right
to execute their claims against a company in debt. On this
basis, the Court held that there is therefore the need for
it to be advertised to give notice to other creditors of the
petition.
The Court went on to state that the law will ensure that
the assets or effects of the company will not be dissipated
to enrich one or more unsecured creditors at the expense
of the other unsecured creditors during the interim period
between the date of the presentation of the petition for
winding up to the date when the order for winding up is
made.
Sukhjit Gill
23 • legal updates
BOOK REVIEW:
CRIMINAL LITIGATION PROCESS
Jagjit Singh reviews Bajlit Singh Sidhu’s new book ‘Criminal Litigation Process’.
Criminal Litigation Process is an excellent book by Baljit
Singh Sidhu who, despite his extremely busy criminal
practice, found time to contribute local legal literature on
the aspect of Adjectival Law for Criminal Law
Practitioners.
As a practice manual, the coverage is considerably wide
and it is written with clarity to make it easily
understandable for young lawyers venturing into the
practice of criminal law.
T here are all in all 16 chapter s
co nt aining ap prox imate l y 70 0
pages. The book takes a criminal
law yer through the his to ric al
background and classification of
criminal offences, and features
chapters such as the hierarchy
of Courts, the law pertaining to
arrest, search, police investigations,
the powers of the Public Prosecutor,
Charges, and appeals and revisions.
An extremely commendable feature
of the book is a chapter on Courts
for children.
Criminal Litigation Process therefore
is an excellent reference manual for
criminal law practitioners who desire
to learn the do’s and don’ts of the
criminal litigation process.
Another good feature is that the book incorporates the
recent amendments to Criminal Procedure Code through
the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act 2006 and
Criminal Procedure Code Amendment [Amendment] Act
2007, especially relating to the following areas:-
i) Rights to Arrested Persons, under Section 28 and
Section 28A, and the changes to the remand
provisions set out in Section 117 of the Criminal
Procedure Code;
ii) Police Investigation powers, under Section 112 and
Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
iii) The lodging of the Police Report pursuant to
Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
iv) Failure to report certain offences under Section 13
of the Criminal Procedure Code;
24 • book review
v) Procedure on the search of a person, set out in
new Section 20A of the Criminal Procedure Code
and insertion of a new schedule;
vi) Report on status of investigation, set out in the
new Section 107A and Section 120 of the Criminal
Procedure Code ;
vii) Pre-trial discovery, set out in the new Section 51A
of the Criminal Procedure Code;
viii) Meaning of prima facie in relation
to Section 173 and Section 180
of the Criminal Procedure Code;
ix) The rights of the Accused after
the end of the Prosecution’s case
and before the defence is called,
under Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code;
x) Whipping for male Offender of
the age of 50 and above, and the
list of new exceptions in Section
289 (c) of the Criminal Procedure
Code;
xi) Community Service under
Section 293 of the Criminal
Procedure Code; and
xii) Rehabilitation and Counselling, new Section 295A.
The discussion on these amendments are a boon for
criminal law practitioners wanting to know the scope,
extent and effects of these amendments. In this regard,
the author’s lucid and simple style is reader-friendly and
must be appreciated.
Throughout the book, there are nuggets of practical advice
and the author did not hesitate to enter into an academic
discussion where necessary.
One of the great merits of the book is that it encompasses,
within a reasonable span, virtually all questions that are
likely to crop up in the practice of criminal law.
Baljit Singh Sidhu, an honest and dedicated lawyer, would
not pretend to anyone that his book, Criminal Litigation
Process, provides answers to all issues in criminal law,
including the conflicting decisions of the Courts.
However, there is great merit in the book, in that it has improvements. If the author had adopted a more critical
kept pace with the recent changes in criminal procedure as approach, a greater insight into the operation of the
set out above. criminal justice system could have been gained.

I am confident Baljit Singh Sidhu will come out with
subsequent updates and publications to make the book a
leading handbook for all criminal law practitioners.
The ease of reading and the manageable length of the
text will no doubt make the book attractive to all legal
practitioners, judicial officers, officers in the legal services,
law students as well as to others who seek a general
overview of criminal law.
Having thoroughly enjoyed reading Criminal Litigation
Process, I have no hesitation to recommend this book as
mandatory reading for anyone concerned with the law on
the criminal litigation process.
Baljit Singh Sidhu’s book, Criminal Litigation Process, is in
my view an excellent and painstaking effort which must
be a welcome addition to the legal literature in the area of
criminal law.

Like any other book, there is always room for Jagjit Singh
P.S
It is my simple privilege to add that for his dedicated and painstaking work Baljit Singh Sidhu was recently bestowed the Award of Dato by His
Excellency, the Government of Malacca.

CONGRATULATIONS.

BHARWANI ENTERPRISE
VISHU R BHARWANI
Former Director of KAJ CHOTIRMALL & Co KL

No. 2, Jalan Kasipillay, Suite 2-16-8 Menara KLH,

51200 Kuala Lumpur.

Tel : 03-74900167
HP : 019-2159184
Email : vishurb1@gmail.com

Specialises in Lawyers Robes, Syariah Robes,

Wing Collar Shirts, Round Collar Shirts, Bibs,
Studs for Wing Collars, Wing Collars

25 • book review
 Called to the Bar in Kuala Lumpur
We congratulate and welcome the following members to the Bar:
Mazhar Bin Abdul Malek
Nor Fadilah Binti Muhamad Amin
Vimala a/p Suppiah
Erma Wani Binti Ahmad Keflee
Lee Kuang Chaow
Nurul Ezwaney Binti Husin
Zil’Aida Binti Zulkifli
Gan Suk Peng
Jamilathul Rahimah Binti Namas Khan
Zuraida Binti Ali
Khairunnisa Binti Ibrahim
Aadela Melati Binti Ahmad Termizi
Wan Muna Amirah Binti Wan Abu Bakar
Nor Zuraini Binti Harun
Wan Mohd Farhan Bin Zainal Abidin
Murni Suranti Binti Mohd Latip
Chan Yuit Fong
Soo Siew Mei
Siti Kharolina Binti Baharuddin
Liew Cheow Har
Siti Radziah Binti Kamarudin
Mohd Hezri Bin Shaharil
Khaizan Sharizad Binti Ab Razak
Ho Sing Hock
Norasliza Binti Adnan
Hoe Mei Lai
Bibi Waheeda Binti Arman Khan
Chen Tek Lee
Ng Ruixian
Nyomek Anak Nyeap
Siti Noryani Binti Samsuddin
Mohd Radziq Bin Jalaludin
Petrina Tan Tjin Yi
Lee Tin Harn
Mohd Hadi Ar Rais Bin Muhamad
Norhafiza Binti Ismail
Law Hieng Lee
Edynoor Hiefnee Bin Razali
Khairun Nisa Binti Ahmad
Fadzilla Binti Ismail
Nuramarina Binti Zolkapli
Ganesan a/l Nethiganantrajah
Noor Jumaatun Binti Saaban
Siti Balkis Binti Dalalil
Mohamed Fadzil Bin Abdul Manan
Devi a/p Munusamy
Azura Hanim Binti Ahmad Suhaime
Mohd Izlan Bin Zolhaidi
Hafiza Binti Johari
Wan Anwar Bin Wan Ibrahim
Tanya Marie Lopez
Joyce Lai Siaw Sueng
Siti Norliza Binti Mohamed Sanny
Mahfuzah Binti Jamil
Farida Binti Mohammad
Intan Farida Binti Adnan
Wan Teh Fatimah Binti Wan Ismail
Karnan a/l Rajanthiran
Mawaddah Binti Halim
Reen Rawaida Binti Zuhdi
Asrinawati Binti Ahmad Radzi
Idris Bin Seydalavi
Mohd Aliffadhli Bin Zakaria
Prithviraj Singh Sachdev
Vun Shu Tong @ Christopher
Loh Wen Ni
Irene Wong Sook Lin
Justin Leong Chee C’Jun
Yow Kian Hooi
Dinesh A Sadhwani a/l Ashok
Mar Wai Fong
Lee Weng Shinh
Sharulbariah Bt Aziz @ Nurshamila Bt Aziz
Kee Pei Kim
Tay Hock Ang
Bu Chun Pok
Tan Sheau Juan
Tan Ean Ean
Ter Peh Lam
Shah Rizal Bin Abdul Manan
Chong Tze Ying
Yusob Bin Md Tasir
Rubachandran a/l Govindasamy
Lim Chi Chau
Yogeswaran a/l Bala Krishnan
Jesrina Kaur Grewal
Sharon Vincent
Lim Tze-Mei
Jananee Priya a/p Gopal
Lee Li Hoong
Lee Kher Huan
26 • admission
Ahmad Saufi Bin Abdul Rahman
Hidayati Binti Shafie
Normaizan Binti Rahim
Norfazlina Binti Rani @ Ramli
Falacia Irene Pasang
Mohd Syukree Bin Ngaiman
Adrian Wong Tung-Fa
Siti Masitah Binti Md Kassim
Ivy Kon Siaw Wei
Lee Poh Ling
Mohd Zubir Bin Embong
Noris Farida Siala Binti Permin
Raja Salahuddin Bin Raja Sulong
Lisa Khoo Gaik Ling
Dharmesh Singh Penesar
Lim Wai Tuck
Oon Wei Li
Cheng Mee Ching
Ngooi Wen Hui
Justin Wee Kim Fang
Elianoor Munning
Mohd Fahme Bin Hasnor
Intan Syahida Binti Abu Samah
Chun Ming Li
Hew Sheau Ying
Wong Siow Lee
Chan Xiao Huey
Janice Sim Kar Chan
Tan Pak Theen
Tee Yee Wan
Tan Li Jie
Fhansyurna Shalha Binti Othman
Nagaletchimy a/p V Maniam Azliza Binti Abdul Majid @ Abdul Nazil
A Thanushia
Sharin Kaur a/p Kaher Atma Singh
Victoria Loi Tien Fen
Sara Keshini Anthony
Joseph Hoh Weng Seng
Teh Hooi Woon
Cynthia Junavence Wilson
Yeong Zihao
Sumarni Binti A Rahman
Ibrahim Bin Hashim
Mohd Syahril Bin Daud
Jeffrey Wong Poah Tcheng
Seow Siew Ting
Foo Siew June
Patricia Ng Ee Laine
Veronica a/p Steeven
Chin Quant Lynn
Maisarah Binti Juhari
Umi Fadhilah Binti Hamzah
Roger Bin Stimin
Mahirah Binti A Manap
Abigail Lai Chai Ye
Chan Cher Yeen
Tan Tzai Mun Mohd Shamril Afzan Bin Mohamed Hasim
Lam Jia Chuen
Avinash Vinayak Pradhan
Lim Chu Ai
Samuel Loh Khian Seah
Razif Bin Toha
Mohd Firdaus Bin Mohd Arif Dazz @ Devadas a/l R K Narayanan
Sutina Binti Labu
Lai Jin Shawn
Wong Wan Theng
Emilia Van Buerle
Yap Vern Chieh Gary Ngim Chun Han @ Ngim Chin Han
Caryn Wong Wai Sin
Kong Tze Bing
Alex Anton Netto Deva Kunjari a/p Ramasamy Menon
Juvita Bin Jumpil
Lola Marissa Binti Maijon Noraswani Binti Mohamed Hashim
Tang Kam Fei Norshakinah Binti Ahmad Kamarudin
Tan Chee Kian
Fong Yii Mee
Emiliana Lau Siew Yien
Yong Ker Ting
Emelyn a/p Alexander
Gunalan a/l Paranjothi
Ahmad Hazrin Bin Abdul Rahman
Tiong Hou Tseng
Ng See Koon
Lionel Koe Whey Han
Denise Tan Kae Ji
Soo Yin Jia
Lee Shin Jie
Wong Zhu Joyce
Wong Jia Yih
Hor Shirley
Muhammad Bukhori Bin Alias
July - December 2008
Yong Siew Fong
Foo Juk-Lin
Siah Hui Shan
Wong Poh Lim
Chong Tze Lin
Siti Fatimah Binti Mohd Shahrom
Mohd Asri Bin Abdul Ghaffar
Ravneet Kaur Gill
Vernon Jude Samuel
Choo Yuen Cheng
Chia Leng Seen
Ong Kay Jin
Bernard Tee Shyong Jiunn
Archana a/p Patrick Selvaraj
Sia Chong Han
Sherliza Samantha Binti Asli
Saritha Devi a/p Kirupalani
Khairun Nadia Binti Sumali
Woon Huei Chin
Lim Bee Yi
Khoo Leet Chien
Thien Shy Wei
Devina Jas Dulku
Mohamad Hanafi Bin Jantan
Nur Haliza Binti Mohd Ali
Sujaihah Binti Abd Ghafar
Lew Chah Yee
Nor Aiza Binti Abu Hassan
Jade Yap Wei-Li
Toh Chern Yen
Chee Shuk Tzu
Chan Chung Suen Stephanie
Munirah Binti Aminuddin
Afendi Bin Dahlan Steven Nyu Chin Eu @ Steven Yeo Chin Eu
Lim Hern Gene
Sek Huai Theng Cindy
Nor Harliza Binti Baharom
Hong Ling Shan
Tan Siao Hui
Chuah Seong Eng
Kok Wen Ying
Shirley Seet
Wong Mei Ying
Siew Ee Mei
Lee Tong Chai
Ng Kwan Siang
Chong Ian Shin
Nurul Akmal Binti Suhaili
Anita Kaur Gerewal
Moo Eng Thing
Ting Tze Fui
Irene Wong Ling Chiong
Sardjini Devi a/p R Kaniappen
Noor Fazlina Binti Abdul Rauf
Wong Tsin Yue
Kho Hui Khiang
Valerie Tang Yi-Mun
Malini Madiyazhagan
Lim Siaw Wan
Gayathri Das a/p Saraschandran
Raja Mohd Hafiz Bin Raja Nasharuddin
Farah Shuhadah Binti Razali
Lee Michelle
Joanna Felicia Read
Wiwin Bt Abdul Kahar
Ng Chiat Yang
Siau Chui Bing
You Choon Siong
Raymond Charles a/l David
Nadia Aimi Binti Ab Wahab
Lee Kok Phong
Leong Chun Lim
Jenny Low Sue Ling
Rijalul Fauzi Bin Mustapa
Norsalihah Binti Sulaiman
Nurulhuda Binti Mansor
Allister Brendan Tan Yu Kuan
Raja Nadia Sabrina
Nadia Marni Binti Mat Zin
Muizz Bin Azli
Mansoor Bin Saat
Razman Bin Abdul Rahim
Tio Shio Pin
Lester Chin Foh Syn
Sae Juan Ling
Kamalanathan a/l Vellaipoovan
Sheela Devi a/p Palanisamy
Mat Isa Bin Che Dir
Mastura Binti Ruman
Lim Sin Yee
Siti Zurairah Binti Mudzrin
Teoh Zhuo-Wei
Liaw Yean Peng
Azlan Bin Zainal Abidin
Albert Raja Xavier
Chong Foong Yee
Suzalena Binti Salleh
Ngan Yuet Ching
Ngan Yuet Kim
Shobitha a/p Ramadasan
Iylia Ihsan Bin Harith Gordon
Ahmad Fairuz Bin Zainol Abidin
Siti Hajar Binti Mohd Zaki
Mohamed Firdaus Bin M Farouk
Azaratulhasna Binti Arifin
Syed Zulfhadlie Bin Syed Zin
Chung Sim Yee
Wan Fazrina Binti Wan Jaffar
Boo Yang Huay
Tisya Binti Yunus
Imran Bin Halip
Chin Siew Mee
Toi Tee Toen
Lee Tat Yew
Nur Hasnifarina Ahmad Fauzi
Norasidi Bin Nadziruddin
Abdullah Khubayb Awaluddin
Nur Hanisah Binti Musa
Sufiah Binti Mansurdin
Mohd Zamil Ashraf Bin Abdul Manan
Natalia Binti Kamarudin
Yap Ling-Ern
Nur Hidayah Binti Abd Mutalib
Nuzul Iswani Binti Mawardy
Christina Sharmila Chelliah a/p Jason
Musfirah Binti Mohamad Tahir
Mohd Jamizal Bin Zainol
Sharon Wong Say Lian
Nurbaini Binti Alfian
Mohd Izan Helmi Bin Mohamed Aslar
Alexavier Lee Heng Seng
Cheng Ee Lynn
Chen Siong Piau
Melody Khor Seek Win
Sharifah Dalilah Albar Binti Syed Zaid
Aza Fyreen Binti Abdul Aziz
Gayathri Priya a/p Visayaragawan
Zaza Zarith Binti Mukhtar
Azmahanim Binti Azman Shah
Sophia Binti Amir Hamzah
Nor Kamilah Binti Shahidan
Shehan Binti Ismail
Teoh Choon Hui
Adriene Tan Hong Kwun
John Stanley Isaacs
Muhamad Mustaqim Bin Mustaffa
Darmain a/l Vijaya Segaran
Choong Fui-Yu
Enna Nadra Binti Yacob
Nor Emelia Binti Mohd Iszeham
Chen Boon Hong
Law Chia Hui
Nor Rifhan Raimi Binti Rozi
Yohan Thomas Zachariah Arrangatt
Allen Choong Kean Hin
Amira Binti Mohamed Razali
Shila Mookerji
Nor Afrah Binti Mohd Alib
Lim See Chew
Janet Phan Pui Li
Nur Rohaila Binti Alias
Mohamad Fauzi Bin Abdul Samad
Rosdiliyana Binti Roslan
Mohd Azlan Shah Bin Mohd Mokhtar
Mohd Isa Bin Md Nor
Nur Aqilah Binti Mohd Isa
Sachpal Singh a/l Sigwind Singh
Nor Azilah Binti Mat
Nur Zakiyah Binti Shamsudin
Lam Wai Kwan
Lian Chen Huei
Ling Chi Hoong
Azrina Binti Abd Rahman
 Activities of KL Bar
KL Bar Annual Dinner & Dance 29.11.2008

PDC Seminar

Pupils Seminar on 30.07.2008 Pupils Seminar on 30.07.2008 Pupils Seminar 23.9.2008 PDC Pupils Seminar on Wills, Probate &
Bankruptcy Proceedings and Bankruptcy Proceedings and Seminar on Human Rights Law & The Administration of Estates on
Introduction to S.218 Winding Up Introduction to S.218 Winding Up Advocacy on 23.09.2008 19.11.2008
Petition. Petition.

PDC Seminar on Industrial Law PDC Seminar on Asset Backed Seminar on Tribunal for House Seminar on Joint venture
- Collective Agreement on Security on 19.08.2008 Buyer Claims - What you need to know as a
24.07.2008 - Jurisdiction Procedure and Award Practitioner on 24.10.2008
Enforcement on 25.11.2008

ITC Forum

Seminar on Medical Law Consent & Seminar on Issues Pertaining to Seminar on Which Arbitration ITC Forum on Identity Theft on
Confidentiality on 10.09.2008 Divorce in Syariah courts in Institute & Place of Arbitration on 20.11.2008
Malaysia on 11092008 31.10.2008

27 • activities