www.malaysianbar.org.my INFOLINE PP 5575/1/2006THE OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE MALAYSIAN B AR MARCH / APRIL 2005 Editorial Quorum at AGMs: (2)(b) or NOT (2)(b)? he AGM of the Malaysian Bar was held at the Sulaiman Abdullah confessed, that, he too had Hotel Nikko on 19th March 2005. At the subscribed to that view before, but now having looked Tappointed time for the meeting, some 688 into the various provisions of the LPA, saw the wisdom members of the Bar were present and the Chairman of the other point of view, and declared that he was Tuan Hj Khutubul Zaman Bukhari called the meeting wrong in having taken that position before, and was to order. The customary minute’s silence was observed moved to support the present stand taken by the Bar for the members of the Bar who had departed the Council, that a quorum was not required for the AGM. previous year. Thereafter, the meeting took an The Chair after allowing a lengthy discourse made a unexpected turn. The customary announcement by the ruling that the AGM of the Bar shall proceed. Many Chair that the quorum had been met was not there, were surprised by the move and not all of them were which led to some members questioning whether happy about it. quorum had been reached for the meeting to proceed. When the general body of the Bar (such as was The Chairman informed the meeting that the Bar present that day) decided to carry on with the Council in its May 2004 meeting had unanimously proceedings despite the protestation of some, Datuk decided that the quorum requirement under s 67 of Param and (to quote The Star) ‘several other prominent the LPA applied only to EGMs and did not apply to members’ stuck to their guns and walked out. ‘I felt it AGMs. The first order of the proceedings then was a was not proper, so I left the meeting,’ said Datuk Param debate on a question of interpretation. Views from both to The Star. However, it must be noted that a large sides of the divide were aired, in the usual eloquent majority of members stayed on to partake in the style befitting the occasion. deliberations of the meeting. The former Bar President Datuk Param The papers, of course had a field day. ‘Bar AGM Cumaraswamy, pointed out that the Bar Council had, marred by controversy over quorum’ the Star cried in for some 27 years, interpreted the s 67 of the LPA to their Sunday 20 March issue. ‘Validity of Bar AGM mean that a quorum was required before an AGM could unresolved’ chorused the NST the next day. be conducted. While another former Bar President Haji continued on page 3 8 Your Secretariat 12 News 24 Admit it, Legal Practice is a Business 20 Secretariat 28 Are Bureaucrats above the Law?? 24 Your Opinion 33 Scrapping Legal Aid? Centrefold ... 28 Comment 37 Reforming the Corporate Insolvency Regime 36 Articles 41 A Quick Peep Into the Child Act 1 An Open Letter to SUHAKAM 56 Notices 2001 (Act 611) 58 Press Statements 44 The God-Provision 60 D B Order Human Writes 47 Hukuman Ke Atas Pesalah Bagi (An Infoline Pull-Out) 62 Diary Perlakuan Jenayah Terhadap Wanita Issue 14 March / April 2005 64 Lawyers Update Masih Terlalu Ringan 67ContentsLibraryContents Update MARCH / APRIL_2005 INFOLINE 1 Office Bearers for 2005/6 BAR COUNCIL OF MALAYSIA BAR COUNCIL Nos 13, 15 & 17 Leboh Pasar Besar 50050 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Telephone (03) 2031 3003 Fax (03) 2026 1313, 2034 2825, 2072 5818 e-mail: [email protected] Website: www.malaysianbar.org.my Chairman BAR COUNCIL OFFICE BEARERS Yeo Yang Poh AND COUNCIL MEMBERS 2005/2006 Vice Chairman OFFICE BEARERS Ambiga Sreenevasan Chairman Yeo Yang Poh Vice Chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan Secretary Ragunath Kesavan Treasurer Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera COUNCIL MEMBERS Hendon Mohamed Low Beng Choo Hj Sulaiman Abdullah Cecil Rajendra Dato’ Mohd Sofian Abd Razak Secretary Yasmeen Hj Muhamad Shariff Ragunath Kesavan Mah Weng Kwai Hj Hamid Sultan Abu Backer Christopher Leong Treasurer Charles Hector Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera Lim Chee Wee (Kuala Lumpur) Oommen Koshy (Kuala Lumpur) George Varughese (Selangor) S Ravichandran (Selangor) Krishna Dallumah (Negeri Sembilan) Tony Woon Yeow Thong (Negeri Sembilan) Aloysius Ng (Melaka) Call for Contributors R R Chelvarajah (Melaka) Dato' Abdul Rahman Abdullah (Johor) IN ORDER THAT Infoline may better serve you, we would like to Roger Tan Kor Mee (Johor) Salamon Ali Rizal b Abdul Rahman(Pahang) publish what you consider to be relevant to us as lawyers. These Ong Siew Wan (Pahang) could be in the form of letters to the editor, your views and Hj Asmadi Awang (Terengganu) Lee Leng Guan (Terengganu) comments on issues affecting the legal profession, news items Aziz Haniff (Kelantan) relating to the legal profession, articles of suitable length, poems Indran Rajalingam (Kelantan) G Balakrishnan (Kedah/Perlis) or jokes that may be of interest to the legal profession and legal Fredrick Indran Nicholas (Perak) updates including a summary of cases of interest. Ngan Siong Hing (Perak) V Sithambaram (Penang) Petra Oon (Penang) We also welcome news and articles relating to Human Rights for the ‘Human Writes’ pull out, so that we may be able to update Infoline is the official newsletter of the Malaysian the legal profession in this area of law. Bar, published monthly by the Bar Council of Malaysia. We would prefer these to be submitted by email to the Editor, The Bar Council welcomes letters, articles, views Infoline, [email protected]. and news (including photographs) for possible inclusion in the newsletter. However, the Bar Council reserves the right not to publish them or to Alternatively, they can be sent to the edit those published as regards content, clarity, style and space considerations. Editor, Infoline, Nos 13, 15 & 17, Leboh Pasar Besar Articles from individuals that are published contain the personal views of 50050 Kuala Lumpur the writers concerned and are not Fax: 03-2026 1313. necessarily the views of the Bar Council. Contributions may be declined or edited for reasons of space and clarity. INFOLINE 2 MARCH / APRIL_2005 Editorial (Cont'd) Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (a member of the Bar Council lines among ten other decisions. Moreover that when the decision was taken) in a letter to the ‘Malaysian statement was addressed to Chairs of State Bar Lawyers’ newsgroup sought to explain the Bar Council’s Committees. Not to members of the Bar. decision thus: .... At last year’s AGM, Mr Suppiah inquired as Did the Chair and the then office bearers to whether there was any need to have quorum including yourself, the Secretary and the Treasurer at all. He advanced a view that suggested that who flanked the Chair at the AGM check the quorum was not required. While his whether the State Bar Committees did notify suggestion was not taken up for the purposes of their respective members of this decision? I that AGM, [the bar] council felt that the understand that the KL Bar Committee did underlying argument was sufficiently grounded transmit the entire Statement to its members and to merit further and more detailed consideration. that too by email to whoever had such addresses. …. The decision was indeed a major decision with Opinion was therefore taken and views were serious implications, inter alia, departing from given to the effect that on the plain language of an interpretation followed by the Malaysian Bar the provisions that the quorum requirement was for nearly 27 years. Yet the Council appears to only applicable to EGM’s. …. Senior members have down played it without expressly drawing will recall that at the time, EGMs were being the members’ attention to seek their views. Since called with regularity to criticise governmental May last year there were no less than two issues action. The amendment appears to have been each of Infoline and INSAF yet not a word about aimed to curb the Bar’s freedom to call for the this decision appeared in any of them. The notice EGM. convening the AGM too made no mention of this decision. …. in all there were 5 opinions. 3 were in favour of the interpretation that the quorum was not …. Downplaying the dissemination of the May required. 2 were against. The council accordingly decision for ten months was bad enough. What took the decision. This decision was is startling is that the 36 member Council did communicated to members in May 2004 by way not seem to have directed its mind to seek a of the General Statement of Decisions. No views declaration from the Court on the Council’s new were received by the council from members prior interpretation which was the most prudent and to the AGM last Saturday. responsible course of action to take in the circumstances. It could have done so in those ten Datuk Param took umbrage to the suggestion that the months. It is not certain whether the five senior decision had been communicated to the members. He lawyers whose advice was sought advised such a wrote to the incoming Bar Council Chairman and [in course of action. a letter subsequently displayed in the same newsgroup] declared: At the AGM when discussing the quorum issue the Chair said that the decision taken unanimously by the Bar Council on May 8 2004 that no quorum was required in AGMs was ‘circulated to all members of the Bar but none responded’ or something to that effect. The impression given was that all members of the Bar were notified of the decision by circular. It now appears what was circulated was the Monthly Statement Relating to Decisions taken by the Council that month in which the decision on the quorum appeared in three MARCH / APRIL_2005 INFOLINE 3 Editorial (Cont'd) If an application is made to the Court now and read wrongly.