Selective Prosecution using the Sedition Act 1948?
The ruling party in Malaysia, the Barisan National coalition is now back in the public’s scrutiny especially with the recent report that the Prime Minister of Malaysia himself having directed the BackBenchers to lodge police reports against a member of Parliament from the opposition party, Karpal Singh for allegedly uttering seditious remarks. Not only was one police report lodged but a few and they appear to come in an apparent well coordinated wave.
The New Straits Times reported “The Bukit Gelugor MP had said in Parliament on Monday that state governments had the right to move civil servants without consulting heads of state. He had also said that state governments should not feel intimidated by the rulers as they were not answerable in matters concerning civil administration“. So, Karpal says that state government matters (administrative matters such as transferring or termination of service) are under the purview of the state government and not the Rulers.
That, is a legal opinion which may be disputed, depending on how you interpret the state constitution and administrative laws. It may not be different from the statement made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia on 24th March, 2008 that it is unconstitutional to appoint anyone but Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh as Terengganu Mentri Besar (as nominated by him) following the General Elections in reference to Kijal assemblyman Datuk Ahmad Said receiving his letter of appointment as the new Mentri Besar from Regency Advisory Council (MPPR) chief Tengku Sri Panglima Raja Tengku Baderulzaman. In Terengganu, the Regency Advisory Council rejected the PM’s nomination of Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh in favour of Datuk Ahmad Said. Following from that, the Prime Minister was of the opinion that the appointment is unconstitutional.
So, what is the difference between an opinion made by Karpal Singh on the ruler’s power and the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Regency Advisory Council’s powers? I, for one, don’t see the difference. Both questioned the powers of the rulers. In both instances, police reports were lodged against the parties who had questioned the powers of the rulers. In both instances, there were peaceful protests by those who were unhappy with the opinions made which seemed to question the ruler’s powers. In as far as the Terengganu episode is concerned, no further action has been taken by the police todate notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s opinion which was carried out on the front page of national newspapers. Read more
Lee Nian Ning’s Case. Some thoughts…
Firstly, my condolences to the families of Lee Nian Ning, Mohd Zailani Mustafa and Pang Poon Eng who perished in a recent bus crash which shocked the nation. In the horrific bus crash on 25.01.2008, 24 other passengers were also reported to have sustained injuries arising out of the crash. Many bloggers have written to convey their condolences and outrage over the bus crash - what more when they discovered through news reports that the bus driver, who escaped with injuries, had 13 outstanding police summonses issued against him. There is an ongoing effort to collect evidence and gather witnesses and victims together to file a claim against the bus company involved for the unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Based on whatever little information on Nian Ning that is available on the net and through the mainstream newspapers, I gathered that she was 21 years old at the time of the accident and was an medical undergraduate in the University of New South Wales under the Public Services Department scholarship. I presume she is still single and was not gainfully employed at the material time of the accident.
I believe that it would not be difficult for the family of Lee Nian Ning to establish legal liability in a civil suit against the driver of the ill-fated bus for negligence in controlling the bus. The bus company, as the employer and owner of the bus would be vicariously liable for the actions of the bus driver. As a passenger in the said bus, it could hardly be said that she had contributed to the accident. Therefore, the establishing of legal liability on the part of the driver and bus company should be the least of the family’s concern. Read more
Why You Should Be Represented By A Lawyer In A Property Transaction
I have come across many enquiries from potential clients asking if they could do away with a lawyer in a property transaction. More often than not, the reason for not wanting to engage a lawyer to represent them is due to the myth that you only need one lawyer to prepare the Sale & Purchase Agreement for both parties to sign. Indeed, it is a myth and has serious implications to the parties. In most cases, if not all, the parties are unaware that they should be represented by a lawyer in a property transaction. These are good reasons why you should be represented by a lawyer in a property transaction.
A Lawyer Cannot Act For Both Parties
Section 7(1) of the Solicitors Remuneration Order 2006 states that a solicitor may not act for more than one party in a particular transaction subject to some exceptions. It is commonly held that the party which the lawyer bills would be the party to whom the lawyer is representing. Though the other party may, by mutual agreement, contribute towards the paying of the bill, ultimately the lawyer is answerable only to the party whom he issues the bill to. Acting for a party is to be distinguished from the mere act of preparing miscellaneous documents, filing and / or witnessing the signature of the other party where there are no conflict of interests involved.
Protection Against Unfair Terms
Quite apart from the fact that under the law a lawyer cannot act for both parties in a property transaction, having a lawyer protects the client against unfair terms being drafted into the agreement. The lawyer is expected to explain all the terms drafted and the consequences of the terms so that the client would be fully informed of what he is getting himself into when he ultimately signs the agreement. Most agreements are drafted with legal jargons and it can be bewildering to the man on the street what these terms mean. For instance, it is common place to use the word “Consideration” in a property transaction which actually means “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other” (Currie v Misa [1875] LR 10 Ex 153). In a sale and purchase transaction of a house, one party is willing to give away his house in return for monies being paid by the other. The “consideration” is the money for the house. Read more