INFO BAR - FINAL - OCT 2015

For Members Only 

Private Circulation 

INFO JOHORE 

B A R 

A B u l l e t i n o f t h e J o h o r e B a r 

OCTOBER 

2015 

IN THIS ISSUE 

 

PROFILE OF A DOYEN: 

THE LIFE OF ABDULLAH 

BIN ABDUL RAHMAN 

HOW DOES THE 2015 

BUDGET AFFECT THE 

RPGT? 

 

FREE TOOLS FOR YOUR 

OFFICE 

AG’S TERMINATION: 

CONSTITUTIONAL? 

LEAD ARTICLE 

A step forward 

or two steps back? 

 

CASE REVIEW: 

DAMAI MOTOR KREDIT 

SDN BHD V 

KEMENTERIAN KERJA 

RAYA MALAYSIA 

Read this edition of the INFO online! 

Scan the following code with your phone or 

tablet or visit info.johorebar.org.my 

A commentary into the newly enacted Prevention of 

Terrorism Act 2015 and recent amendments into the 

Sedition Act

INFO 

JOHORE 

BAR 

2 

MESSAGE FROM 

THE CHAIRMAN 

Dear Members, 

You would have 

noticed the new look 

and format of this 

latest issue of INFO. 

I would like to thank 

the editorial 

committee led by Mr 

Fadhil Ihsan for 

carrying out this task. I also would like to thank 

many senior members who had contributed to 

the survival of INFO all this years, for being 

supportive of the idea to refresh the INFO. 

The INFO is now almost 40 years old. From a 

humble publication started by several 

enthusiastic then young members, amongst 

them, Mr. S. Balarajah, Mr. Chandra Sekran and 

Mr. N. Jegatheesan; it has now become a full 

fledged publication of the Johore Bar. These 

senior members are still very passionate about 

the survival and standard of the INFO. I thank 

them for their concern. 

In recent years, the younger generation at the 

Johore Bar are somewhat lukewarm towards 

the INFO be it in contribution of materials, 

participation in publication or some say even in 

reading the INFO. The Bar belongs to the 

younger generation. Without them, the Bar 

cannot survive. I would think the same would 

also apply to INFO. For INFO to survive as a 

collective and continuing publication of the 

Johore Bar, the younger generation’s idea and 

contribution must be welcomed and embraced. 

However the role of the senior members is still 

important. They are like the anchor to the ship; 

the mainstay of the profession. The inevitability 

of moving with time should not be at the 

expense of our traditional and historical values. 

The seniors are there to ensure this. They have 

nurtured INFO. Their contribution is now 

equally important in ensuring INFO’s survival 

and standing. 

I thank the editorial committee for this 

successful publication. I also note that this 

publication will be made available in e-format 

and can be accessed through electronic devices. 

This is another great idea to make the INFO 

appealing to the younger generation. I hope all 

members of the Johore Bar would welcome this 

issue. 

R Jayabalan 

MESSAGE FROM 

THE EDITOR 

The INFO Johore Bar 

(“INFO”) is a prized 

tradition and custom 

of the Johore Bar. It 

has been a pleasure to 

take helm of the 

editorial subcommittee 

for this 

term. 

As you may have already noticed, this year’s 

INFO features a new design and layout. It is our 

aim this year is to give the INFO a more 

contemporary appeal, maximizing space usage 

and reducing print costs. 

Starting this year (and hopefully for years to 

come) the INFO will be published online. 

Starting from this edition, you may read the 

INFO on your computer, smartphone or tablet 

at info.johorebar.org.my. 

Whilst it has been a challenge obtaining 

contributors for the INFO, I must convey my 

thanks to all whom have contributed to this 

edition. I would like to extend my appreciation 

to Mr S Balarajah, Mr R Jayabalan, Mr Yang Pei 

Keng and many others whom have contributed 

to this edition of the INFO. I wish to encourage 

more contributions from the members of the 

Johore Bar to ensure a continued success of our 

prized publication. 

Authors, reviewers and guest editors are always 

welcome. We also welcome your comments 

and suggestions. 

Yours Truly, 

Fadhil Ihsan (Dale) 

JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE 

2015/2016 

Chairman 

R. Jayabalan 

Committee Members 

Andrew Wong Fook Hin 

Puan Shahareen Begum Abdul 

Subhan 

Hardip Singh 

Mathews George 

Ms. Santhi a/p Balachandran 

Ms. Punitha a/p Mariappan 

Ms. Gun Huei Shin 

Fadhil Ihsan Bin Mohamad Hassan 

Ng Kai Choy 

Representative to the 

Bar Council 

S. Gunasegaran 

Hon. Secretary 

Puan Nik Raihan Binti Nik Ja'afar 

INFO JOHORE BAR 

Fadhil Ihsan 

Chandra Sekran 

S Balarajah 

Yang Pei Keng 

Norman Fernandez 

Khairulazwad Sariman 

Ainna Sherina 

INFO JOHORE BAR welcomes articles be they legal non 

legal or extra-legal. The views of the writers of articles etc 

are not reflective of the views of the Bar Committee 

neither does the Bar endorse or adopt their views. 

Editorial Committee 

Info Johore Bar 2015/2016 

JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE 

No. 5, Jalan Tun Abdul Razak 

Susur 1/1, 80000 Johor Bahru 

Johor Darul Takzim 

Tel: 07- 276 3888 

Fax: 07- 276 1188 

Email: secretariat@johorebar.org.my 

www.johorebar.org.my 

2


JOHORE 


Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 and 

Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 : 

A step forward or two steps back? 

For the advocates of constitutional 

liberties, April 2015 may well be the 

month that took the nation back into 

the dark ages of liberty. On 7th April, 

whilst the citizens were in their sleep, 

the Dewan Rakyat, at 2.25 am passed 

the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015 

after only 15 hours of debates with 

79 votes for and 60 votes against. 

Before the dust from that trampling 

of liberties had settled down, the 

Dewan sprang into action again. 

Three days later, on 10th April, again 

in the early hours when citizens were 

deep asleep, the Dewan Rakyat 

approved the amendments to the 

Sedition Act 1948. 

By doing this, not only did the 

Government thrust the nation back 

into the regressive days of 

fundamental liberties, the 

Government also openly broke its 

promise in 2012 that the Sedition 

Act has outlived its purpose and that 

the time was ripe for the Act to be 

brought to an unceremonious end. 

Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper 

"A Theory of Human Motivation" 

popularized the ‘Maslow’s Heirarchy 

of Needs’. Maslow’s hierarchy, 

mostly addressing psychological 

needs, places the human need for 

‘safety’ (or ‘security’) as humans 

second most basic need. Maslow 

theorized that safety needs 

determine behaviour. Safety in this 

context would relate to safety from 

crime, natural disasters or even 

economic security. 

R. Jayabalan / Fadhil Ihsan 

It is in that same breath and under 

that very guise of national security (or 

rather, national safety) that 

governments around the world make 

laws to address concern over their 

citizen’s lack of “safety”. The United 

States, United Kingdom, Australia and 

France brought before their citizen 

the human need for safety and 

security as justification for limiting 

and in some cases, eroding, their 

citizens’ liberty. The Malaysian 

Government treaded faithfully in 

those steps and peddled before us 

the IS or ISIL bogey as the justification 

to limit, erode and wash-away all 

that is left as our fundamental 

liberties under the 

constitution. 

THE DRACONIAN FEATURES 

OF POTA : A RESURRECTION 

OF THE ISA? 

Looking into the Prevention of 

Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) gets the 

impression that POTA was actively 

trying to outdo its predecessor, the 

Internal Security Act (“ISA”) when it 

comes to trampling of fundamental 

liberties. 

Some of the disturbing features of 

POTA : 

Ousting of judicial discretion : 

when the Prosecutor applies for 

remand order, which can be for 

maximum 60 days, the 

Magistrate has no 

discretion to refuse the 

 

 

 

 

application. The question of 

whether there is sufficient 

ground for remand to be ordered 

is no longer relevant. 

Invasion of privacy : when a 

person is to be released the 

Public Prosecutor may apply to 

the Sessions Court Judge for 

attachment of electronic 

monitoring device on that 

person. The Judge has no 

discretion to refuse the 

application. The Courts appear to 

have been reduced to rubber 

stamping requests from the 

authorities. 

Right to legal representation and 

right to be informed of grounds 

of arrest under the Constitution 

has been excluded. 

The Inquiry Officer, being in 

charge of the case, is vested with 

enormous powers but with 

limited control and supervision 

over him. 

The POTA Board has no express 

powers to inquire into the 

reports submitted by the Inquiry 

Officer. ...CONTINUED 

3 


3


JOHORE 


 

 

4 

The POTA Board has powers to 

order detention without trial up 

to 2 years or restricted residence 

up to 5 years and yet the 

accused has no right for legal 

representation. 

The POTA Board determines its 

own procedures, usual rules of 

evidence and procedure do not 

apply. 

Judicial scrutiny is absolutely 

ousted save for scrutiny over 

procedural compliance but this is 

illusory as POTA determines its 

own procedures. 

Proponents of POTA will want us 

to believe that out there, outside and 

within the borders of Malaysia exists 

the real threat of terrorism. With 

extremists from Islamic State of Iraq 

and the Levant (“ISIS”) gaining 

momentum and growing, the threat 

of terrorism is sold as real. 

Malaysia has its share of acts of 

terrorism : the Memali incident in the 

1980s, the extremist Mujahideen 

incident in 2001 and the recent 

Lahad Datu incident are events which 

show a propensity that terrorism, if 

left uncurbed, could bring about 

grave consequences to peace and 

security of the country. 

However, POTA has its share of 

criticisms. Its deractors would say 

that POTA is a revival of detention 

without trial laws such as the ISA. 

It is also argued that POTA may 

be too wide; extremely powerful and 

with almost zero accountability. The 

Act, in not defining its key operative 

terms (which sets the POTA powers in 

motion) such as “engaged”, 

“commission” and “support”, opens 

the Act to uncertainty, ambiguity and 

ultimately misuse. The carte blance 

guise of ‘public order’ or ‘national 

security’ can be used effectively to 

silent dissent; arrest political 

opponents; and protect the parties in 

power. 

The Malaysian Bar has taken the 

position that POTA is unconsitutional, 

vide its Press Release dated 5th April 

2015 which stipulates - 

“One of the most offensive 

aspects of POTA is its absolute ouster 

of judicial scrutiny. No judicial review 

of the detention order or the 

restriction order is possible. This 

violates our constitutional scheme, 

which invests judicial power in the 

Judiciary, and is further contrary to 

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, 

which guarantees equality and equal 

protection before the law. The small 

concession that courts can review 

procedural compliance is illusory in 

practice since POTB determines its 

own procedures.” 

One man’s terrorist is another 

man’s freedom fighter. It is said that 

national security must be protected 

– even at the cost of personal 

liberties. Whether the right of an 

accused to due process can be 

curtailed by reasons of his acts or 

affiliations – is a question of fact. 

How great is the threat of terrorism 

that such laws of detention without 

trial is required? Who checks on the 

accused and scrutinises the Board? 

This lack of transparency may need to 

be ironed out in future amendments 

to the Act. 

POTA could have been more 

convincing in justifying its rational if 

the Government had provided for 

built-in or layers of protective 

mechanisms within the Act so as to 

protect the constitutional liberties; 

much like the preventive laws in 

Australia, United Kingdom and United 

States. These countries have built-in 

provisions for legal representation, 

judicial oversight, automatic sunset 

clauses and prohibitions against 

unlimited renewals for detention 

without trial. Sadly, there was none 

such meaningful built-in protections 

in POTA and the inescapable 

impression is that the omissions 

could not have been accidental. 

There is also the question of whether 

POTA, in the form it is, is the only 

solution against the perceived threat. 

There is strong argument that there is 

already enough laws to deal with 

terrorism without need for a brand 

new law; much less in the form of 

POTA. Current laws such as the Penal 

Code, Prevention of Crime Act 1959 

and Security Offences (Special 

Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) already 

exists and could be deployed 

effectively in the fight against 

terrorism and if at all they are found 

to be inadequate, they can always be 

improved by way of amendments. So, 

why then the need for POTA? To 

what end does POTA achieve? Is it 

not a resurrection of the ISA? 

AMENDMENTS TO THE 

SEDITION ACT: THE END TO 

FREE SPEECH? 

As a means to curb 

opposition to colonial rule, the British 

introduced the Sedition Act to the 

then Malaya in 1948. Sedition, under 


4

English law carries the meaning “a 

seditious intention is an intention to 

bring into hatred or contempt, or to 

exite disaffection against the person 

of His Majesty...”. 

The Malaysian definition has 

of course been modified to suit local 

circumstance and includes acts or 

things done "to question any matter, 

right, status, position, privilege, 

sovereignty or prerogative 

established or protected by the 

provisions of Part III of the Federal 

Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 

of the Federal Constitution." 

Controversial at its very core, 

the Sedition Act has been responsible 

for many arrests due to liberal 

interpretation of ‘seditious tendency’ 

for certain acts. This liberal 

interpretation by our executive body 

has seen the arrests of prominent 

lawyers, activists and academicians 

on the premise of seditous acts. The 

recent amendments vide Sedition 

(Amendment) Bill 2015 has upped the 

ante. The amendments have included 

making it an offence to “cause to be 

published” (as opposed to just 

“publish”) seditious material. This is 

likely to address content in social 

media which can be ‘liked’, ‘shared’ 

or re-Tweeted whereby the person 

sharing the information did not 

publish the same. 

This is fortified by the Act 

making it an offence to “propagate” 

seditious publication – a term 

undefined in the Act. This again 

would effect persons whom share (on 

social media) and forward (by means 

of SMS or similar) content which is 

seemingly seditious. It must be noted 

that the crime of sedition need not 

require any seditious intent. 

The amendments to the Act 

also found increased penalties for 

acts of sedition. Offenders now face a 

mandatory sentence of three (3) 

years – with no judicial discretion for 

first time offenders or other 

mitigating factors. 

Persons charged under the 

newly amended Sedition Act can be 

revoked their passport or restricted 

from leaving the country. This is, 

again, not at the descretion of the 

Court. 

In summary, the 

amendments to the Act include – 

denial of bail for suspects 

charged with sedition offences 

that cause bodily injury or 

property damage; 

 

Punishments of 3 to 7 years jail 

for “causing” materials to be 

published or Propagating 

publications 

Person who author/distribute 

digital version barred from 

accessing digital devices 

Aggravated sedition causing 

bodily harm / property damage, 3 

to 20 years jail. 

 

No judicial dispensation for youth 

or first-time offenders. 

Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in The 

Friends of Voltaire: “I disapprove of 

what you say, but I will defend to the 

death your right to say it”. The right 

to free speech is a fundamental right. 

Any law (or amendment to the same) 

seen to restrict that right are laws 

passed for the purpose of limiting 


JOHORE 


speech will also limit thought and 

ideas. 

THE MALAYSIAN BAR’S 

RESPONSE. 

The joint statement issued by the 

Malaysian Bar, the Advocates’ 

Association of Sarawak and the Sabah 

Law Association on 17.4.2015 

perhaps summed it up best : 

“The Sedition Act 1948 is inherently 

flawed, and the amendments serve to 

expose and exarcebate its 

weaknesses. It is a law that 

undermines genuine unity and 

harmony, and is counterproductive to 

lasting peace, strong bonds of unity 

and real mutual respect in Malaysia. 

The Sedition Act 1948 has no place in 

our nation, which aspires to be a 

modern, moderate and progressive 

democratic society.” 

POTA and the amendments to the 

Sedition Act, whilst on the face of it 

remains untested, are Acts of 

Parliament that are slowly taking 

away individual liberties and powers 

of the Judiciary. The removal of 

judicial discretion, imposition of 

mandatory minimum sentences, non 

transparent due process for the 

accused (under POTA) are all actions 

towards undermining democracy and 

the separation of powers. The 

argument can be made of how well 

these laws protect us, but “the road 

to hell is paved with good intentions”. 

The Malaysian Bar has staken a firm 

and strong stand against these two 

laws. The statements issued by the 

Bar including joint statements with 

our counterparts at Sabah and 

Sarawak have made the Bar’s 

position very clear that the laws are 

reprehensive; goes against the 

freedom guaranteed by the 

Constitution; runs counter to the 

5 


5


JOHORE 


6 

Steven Thiru, Past President of the 

Malaysian Bar Dato’ Yeo Yang Poh 

and members of the Bar Council 

namely En. Syahredzan Johan, Mr 

Ravi Nekoo and Mr Richard Wee. 

universal values of human rights and freedom; and remains 

open to abuse or to meet the political ends of the 

government. 

The Malaysian Bar also recognised the fact that the 

ordinary public may not have fully understood the grave 

implications arising from POTA and the new Sedition Act. 

The public may not be fully aware that despite the 

apparent purpose of the laws – to combat terrorism and 

protect national security – they have also put the 

constitutional freedom of ordinary citizens at risk and 

open to misuse. 

The good response from the public is 

a source of encouragement for the 

Malaysian Bar that we are not alone 

in our struggle against these two 

draconian laws. Whilst we may be, at 

the moment, someway from 

suceeding in persuading the 

Government to take a second look at 

the two laws, we are nevertheless on 

the right track in educating the public so that the public 

could form an informed opinion on the laws and the 

Government would realise one day that when it comes to 

governance and rule of law, they cannot afford to ignore 

public opinion. 

R. Jayabalan 

Fadhil Ihsan 

23.8.2015 

There is a need for the public to be educated on the 

workings of the two laws, the grave implications and the 

potential for misuse by the authorities. The public would 

then be able to make an informed decision over the two 

laws. Without the support of the informed public the Bar 

would not be able to succeed in its objective to have these 

two laws to be repealed or atleast for built-in protective 

mechanism to be added. 

For this purpose, the Bar Council has decided to embark on 

a national program in the form of roadshows and public 

forums at every state to educate the public on the two 

laws. So far such public forums were held at Kuala Lumpur, 

Kota Bahru, Seremban, Melaka, Johore, Penang, Selangor 

and Temerloh. The Bar’s effort has received good and 

encouraging response from the public, non-government 

organizations and the civil society. The forums had been an 

eye opener to the public in gauging the two laws. 

The Johore Bar, with the Bar Council, also organised a 

similar forum at Johore Bahru on 15.6.2015 and a second 

forum at Batu Pahat on 24.8.2015. The speakers at the 

forum included the President of the Malaysian Bar Mr 


6

PROFILE OF A DOYEN: 

ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI 

ABDUL RAHMAN 


JOHORE 


7 

CHAIRMAN JOHORE BAR COMMITTEE 1970-1981 

PRESIDENT MALAYSIAN BAR 1978-1981 

ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI 

ABDUL RAHMAN 

ABDULLAH BIN DATO HAJI ABDUL 

RAHMAN (11.10.1919—16.04.1987) 

was affectionately known to all and 

sundry as “Che Lah”. He was a 

Barrister-at-Law of the Hon. Society 

of the Lincoln’s Inn, London and was 

called to the Bar States of Malaya on 

the 21st of October 1963. He 

practiced at the Bar from the date of 

his call till illness prevented him in 

1987. 

Che Lah was not an enigma. He was 

open and transparent as much as he 

was opulent sophisticated and 

anglicized. The family of Che Lah is a 

most distinguished Johore family with 

Buginese ancestory. His father Dato 

Haji Abdul Rahman Bin Yasin was a 

direct Buginese descendant and was 

in his time the 1st President of the 

Senate and the 1st Chairman of 

Malayan Banking Berhad. Dato Haji 

Abdul Rahman had married (after Che 

Lah’s mother Zahara passed on), 

Kamariah, a sister of Dato Onn Jaafar 

of UMNO fame who was then 

Menteri Besar Johor. Dato Haji Abdul 

Rahman was groomed to be Menteri 

Besar but as he would not be a privy 

to political and palace intrigues he 

stepped aside. He then was Johor 

State Treasurer. 

Che Lah’s brother Dato Sulaiman was 

an economist and a member of the 

first Malayan cabinet (1955) and later 

a High Commissioner. Another 

brother, Tun Dr Ismail went on to 

become Deputy Prime Minister 

Malaysia. Tun Ismail was from the 

King Edward VII College of Medicine 

and was the first Malay eventually to 

obtain the MBBS from Melbourne. 

Another brother Dato Mohd Yassin 

did Political Science in Melbourne 

and went on to become the 1st 

Secretary General of UMNO and later 

on a Johor State Exco Member.Che 

Lah and his brother Yassin married 2 

sisters, Che Lah, Tengku Esah and 

Yassin, Tengku Azizah. The noble 

ladies were from the Johor Royal 

lineage. 

After being called to the Bar in 1963 

Che Lah set up practice in Johor 

Bahru and practiced under the name 

and style of Abdullah A Rahman & Co. 

The most popular and affable Puan 

Hendon Bte Mohamed (date of Call 

to the Malaysian Bar 18-4-1963 at the 

Family Album 

Johor Bahru High Court before Azmi J. 

later Tun and Lord President) who 

was the 1st lady President of the 

Malaysian Bar was close to a decade, 

a confidante of Che Lah and practiced 

with him in his Johor Bahru office. 

The Chairmanship of the Johore Bar 

was held by Che Lah from 1970 to 

1981. He then went on to become 

President of the Malaysian Bar and 

Chairman of the Bar Council Malaysia 

from 1978-1981. Johorean to achieve 

this. It is important to note that 

during Che Lah’s tenure a chair of the 

Malaysian Bar that the most 

important rule relating to practice at 

the Bar were formulated and 

gazetted on 2.10.1978 – Legal 

Profession (Practice and Etiquette) 

Rule 1978. These Rules are akin to 

the Magna Carta of the Malaysian 

Bar. He was a Senator in the 

Malaysian Dewan Negara from 1968- 

1974. Che Lah was a Director, inter 

Family album: The young Ismail (back row, extreme right) in a family portrait taken around 

1936. To his right, Yassin (later Umno secretary-general), esah, Abdullah (Later Bar Council 

chairman and senator), Khatijah and Suleiman (later Cabinet minister and ambassador). Front 

row from right: Fatimah, Zahara Abdul Bakar, Abdul Rahman Yassin, Zubaidah and Rafeah 


7

Ali Hassan Trophy 


JOHORE 


8 

alia, of the Cold Storage Group of Companies and was also 

the 1st Chairman of Johore Tenggara. He was a part time 

Judicial Commissioner of the High Courts, Malaya, in the 

1970s. 

Che Lah, Justice Dato Ali Hassan, ACP X.A. Nicholas (father 

of YA Indran Nicholas of Ipoh) who was then the Johor 

Police CID Chief and the then DPP Johor, Kadir Kassim 

(presently of Kadir, Andri & Partners KL) started the Johor 

Bench and Bar vs Johor Police games in 1967 which games 

are played till today for the coveted Ali Hassan Trophy for 

cricket. They were cricket lovers and relics of the colonial 

past, one might say. 

Che Lah was a strict disciplinarian. He was unassuming and 

unrivalled for his humility but he had the temerity to 

correct the most pugnacious of judges in his own 

inimitable style. There was a Bar Dinner 1975 or 1976 

when he gave such a bold speech protecting the members 

of the Bar and took the local Judge 

and Bench to task so much so that 

the Judge (Justice Dato Syed 

Othman Ali) was so embarrassed 

that he walked out of the dinner. 

The docile Bar Committee 

subsequently pondered if the 

Committee should have a preview 

and vet and veto all the 

Chairman’s future speeches! But 

Che Lah will have none of it. He 

was bold and upright. And honest. He even felt that 

members subscriptions could not be used to defray the 

coffee and kuih muih served at the monthly meetings as it 

was trust monies and so we the Committee members took 

turns to pay for the refreshments at the monthly Bar 

Committee meetings! He was not parsimonious but was 

cautious of the trust imposed on him by members. He was 

fearless sturdy and independent. He never kow towed to 

the rich famous and powerful. It was during his time that 

the Legal Profession (Practice of Etiquette) Rules 1978 

were formulated and gazette and he was a strict adherent 

of the Rules. 

In the 1960s and 1970s the Johore Bar was inundated with 

weekend lawyers from Singapore. Che Lah almost singlehandedly 

caused legislation to be passed by way of 

amendment to the then Advocates & Solicitors Ordinance 

1947 to encapsule citizenship, special qualification and 

residency status for lawyers to practice in Malaysia and this 

put an end to the week-enders preying our catch and 

ploughing our fields. Che Lah was a quiet unassuming 

person but never compromised on principles and always 

upheld the high standing and image of the Bar. He was a 

true British Barrister. He brought fame and name to the 

Johore Bar and always had the best interest of its members 

in his breast. 

Che Lah was my mentor at the local Bar. I was Johore Bar 

Secretary from 1973-1975 when he was Chairman and I 

was member of the Bar Committee for a number of years 

after that under his Chairmanship. It was during this period 

that we brought out the Johore Bar “Law List”, a legal 

directory of members and a cyclostyled newsletter which 

has now been transformed to the Info Johore Bar. The 

From left: R Jayabalan Chairman Johore Bar, Tengku Esah (widow of Abdullah A 

Rahman), Dato’ Muthanna, Tengku Putri Marina Tengku Ibrahim, Cik Ferizadah 

and Mr S Balarajah 

Annual dinners in his time were formal dinners (with fine 

French vintage wines and cheese boards and when his 

Havana is lit the evening is deemed brilliant!) and he was 

of the view that professionals should dress and behave as 

professionals to maintain and uphold the high standing of 

the Bar and its image. He would not compromise on this 

stand. It was to him non-negotiable. He expected lawyers 

to dress appropriately in jackets even when attending the 

AGMs and the Annual Dinners. Che Lah’s Hari Raya 

gatherings were wonderful and Tengku Esah’s Johor Laksa 

was out of this world! 

In 1965 the Yang Di Pertuan Agong bestowed upon Che Lah 

the title of Johan Mangku Negara (JMN). He also had the 

Johor State honour of SMJ. Che Lah had an indulgent eye 

and a forgiving mind but he never sought fame and name 

which with his pedigree and connections he could have 

achieved in a whisper. He carried on life very much like an 

English squire. He was bold upright and fearless and had 

priceless integrity and sturdy independence. A rare breed 

indeed. One could say that he was the pride of the Johor 

Bar. 

Che Lah’s only child Dato Muthanna Bin Abdullah of the 

Hon. Society of The Middle Temple a Barrister-at-Law was 

until recently the Managing Partner of Lee Hishammudin & 

Allen Gledhill Kuala Lumpur. He now practices in the firm 

of Abdullah Chan & Co. in Kuala Lumpur. 

One could assert with unabashed pride that Abdullah Bin 

Dato Haji Abdul Rahman is to the Johore Bar what YM Raja 

Aziz Addruse is to the Malaysian Bar. It is only just and 

proper to adhere to and comply with the wishes of the 

members of the Johore Bar to name the main hall at the 

Johore Bar Secretariat as the “Abdullah A. Rahman Hall”. 

Generations after generations of lawyers will remember 

this good man and lawyer who always had the best interest 

of the lawyers in general and Johore Bar in particular 

embedded in his breasts. Abdullah A. Rahman lived 

respected and died regretted. 

S. Balarajah 

21-01-2015 

Johor Bahru 


8


JOHORE 


9 

AG’s termination: Constitutional? 

By Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar 

IT CAME as a surprise to everyone. In a curt statement 

issued by the government's chief secretary, the attorneygeneral 

(AG) was removed from office. Summarily and 

immediately – barely 66 days from his retirement date on 

Oct 6. 

He was terminated for "health reasons". Strangely his 

health was no impediment to the requirement that he 

continue as a "judicial and legal officer". 

Predictably, there is speculation over his termination. After 

all, AG Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was largely perceived to be 

the government's arch loyal servant. Under his watch, for 

example, he opposed vigorously any challenge to a 

minister's exercise of power under judicial review. 

The public seems also intrigued by the speed with which he 

was terminated; and the timing – simultaneously alongside 

the deputy prime minister and three other ministers – all 

vocal critics of the PM vis-à-vis the 1MDB controversy. 

They had, said the PM, acted "contrary to the concept of 

collective responsibility". 

Let us examine the legal 

provisions. 

The AG is a public (or civil) 

servant. All such officers do 

not have security of tenure. 

They hold their office at "the 

pleasure of the Yang di- 

Pertuan Agong": Article 145 

(5). Court decisions confirm 

this: "in Malaysia there is no 

such thing as permanent 

service ... because every 

member of the public service 

(other than judges and the 

auditor-general) holds office 

during the pleasure of the 

State": Haji Ariffin v 

Government of Malaysia 

(1969). 

Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar 

Also the removal was in the midst of the investigations into 

1MDB – where the AG was one of the four key members of 

the official task force. 

In fact – and perhaps this provides a clue – the AG has the 

complete discretion to bring criminal charges against 

anyone for an offence: Federal Constitution Article 145(3). 

Some courts have ruled that he has the sole power to do 

so: Repco Holdings v PP (1997). 

Many have questioned the legality of the sacking. Some say 

that he can only be removed after a tribunal hearing – and 

harken to the tribunals set up under the premiership of 

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for the sacking of the judges. 

Others opine that he must be given a prior right to be 

heard. Yet others say that he can be removed because he 

holds office at "the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan 

Agong". 

In this the King must act on the advice of the Cabinet (or 

minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet): 

Article 40(1). 

Some commentators say that the AG can only be removed 

from office on the "like grounds and in the like manner as a 

judge of the Federal Court". Their view is based on Article 

145(6) which says that "The person holding the office of the 

AG immediately prior to the coming into operation of this 

Article shall continue to hold office on terms and conditions 

not less favourable than those applicable to him 

immediately before such coming into operation and shall 

not be removed from office except on the like grounds and 

the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court". 

A straight reading suggests that the protection is only for 

the then incumbent AG – "holding office prior to the 

coming into operation of the Article". This article was 

amended by Act 26/93 on May 26, 1960 – but only came 

into force on Sept 16, 1963 (Malaysia Day). 


9


JOHORE 


10 

The earlier article read as follows: "The 

AG … shall not be removed from office 

except on like grounds and like manner 

as a judge of the Federal Court". 

So the protection afforded to the AG was 

removed by this amendment. 

The present article seems to provide for 

a one-off situation and to one person. Admittedly, this is 

unusual in a constitution, leading some to argue that the 

second part of the clause should be read disjunctively 

(separately) from the first part; with the result that any 

removal of the AG must be like the removal of a federal 

judge as provided for in Article 125 – for the same grounds 

(misconduct, ill-health, etc) and in like manner (tribunal, 

etc). 

It has also been suggested that the AG's rank has been 

reduced. He was not given the right to be heard. This is 

illegal because no public servant can be dismissed or 

reduced in rank without being first given the right to be 

heard: Article 135(2). This provision applies, as well, to a 

member of the judicial and legal service. However the AG is 

specifically excluded from the benefit of this provision by 

Article 132(4)(b). 

The government announced it had terminated the AG's 

services. Termination under a contract differs from a 

dismissal which involves a penalty or punishment. 

tenure. 

guardian of the public interest – a right which is 

vested in him under the common law. That is 

why the AG lends his name by way of a relator 

action to any party seeking to protect the 

public interest. 

This episode suggests a need to revisit the 

provisions relating to the AG, in particular to 

secure his independence and security of 

Interestingly the rationale provided by the government in 

1957 for the original article that the AG be not removed 

from office except on the like grounds and in the like 

manner as a judge of the Supreme Court was "to safeguard 

the AG's position" because "it is essential that, in 

discharging his duties, the AG should act in an impartial 

and quasi-judicial spirit". 

Of course this is predicated on the appointment of an AG 

with integrity in whom the public can repose their 

confidence of carrying out his constitutional duty. For the 

people have the right to expect such a high officer to "act 

honestly, without fear of powerful national and local 

figures or of the consequences to him personally or 

politically, and without favouring his relatives and friends 

and supporters": Federal Court in Johnson Tan Han Seng v 

PP (1977). 

Gurdial is Professor at the Law Faculty, University 

of Malaya. 

If the termination is in accord with the AG's contract, fine. 

If not can the termination be wrongful for breach of 

contract? The Federal Court decided in 1969 that a 

contractual right could not override the cases which 

decided that a servant of the crown held office at pleasure: 

Haji Ariffin v Government of Malaysia. 

The general upshot is that constitutionally the PM has the 

final say for the removal of the AG. After all he is the 

government's legal adviser; and the "client" has the right to 

"change" his lawyer at any time. 

But aside from the role as a public prosecutor assigned to 

him by the Constitution, the AG continues to be the 


10


JOHORE 


11 

Judicial Ethics 

Restoring old-fashioned values to the bench—Tommy Thomas 

The term “ethics” as usually I understood refers to a 

collection of rules or standards of conduct expected of a 

particular professional group. Any member of a 

professional group be he doctor, engineer, lawyer or any 

other who departs from these ethical standards to a 

sufficiently marked degree, runs the risk of being excluded 

from his profession. Judges qualify as a professional group 

with very definite duties to the community. All the 

characteristics of an ethical system as such are present in 

relation to the judiciary. Indeed, the ethical standards 

required from judges call for perhaps the highest and most 

rigorous standards, sacrifices and disciplines of any 

profession in the community. Therefore, there is no doubt 

that judicial ethics exist and all judges are bound by them. 

The Malaysian judiciary does not have a written code of 

ethics like the Legal Profession (Practise and Etiquette) 

Rules of 1978. One cannot find a document which sets out 

ethics for Malaysian judges. Accordingly, in my opinion, a 

starting point for purposes of discussion is the oath of 

office which all judges must subscribe to upon their 

appointment. 

Judges of the High Court and Supreme Court in Malaysia 

are required under Article 124 of the Federal Constitution 

before exercising any functions of their office to take and 

subscribe the oath of allegiance set out in the Sixth 

Schedule to the Federal Constitution. 

Preservation, protection and defence of the Federal 

Constitution includes institutions referred to in the 

Constitution, like the judiciary. I would like to spend some 

time considering the ethics of protecting the Federal 

Constitution with special reference to recent events. 

These words appearing in the Oath of Office presuppose 

attack or assault upon or challenge to the Federal 

Constitution and the institutions of Government, like the 

judiciary. The traditional sources of such attack are: 

I. External to the country e.g. Indonesian Confrontation; 

II. Executive; 

III. Legislature; 

IV. Conference of Rulers (this is special to Malaysia). 

What is striking about the episodes of the six judges is that 

attacks upon the Constitution came from a very 

unexpected source that is, judges themselves. Self-inflicted 

wounds hurt the judiciary far more than external assault. 

The Tun Salleh affair, the affair of the five Supreme Court 

judges and the conduct of the two tribunals comprising 

some eleven judges were the results of intrigue, 

manoeuvring and scheming within the judiciary without 

parallel or precedent in Malaysia or any other common law 

jurisdiction. In other words, if the judiciary had stood 

completely united, none of the judges would have been 

dismissed.Judicial disunity and in-fighting of such 

magnitude offers the following fivelessons: 

First: Judges can plainly and easily disregard basic notions 

of law, equity, justice and ethics which are studied in the 

first year of any law course, and which are ingrained in 

every lawyer in the land. Thus, the Chief Justice of Malaya 

had no qualms about taking the following actions which 

anyone with an elementary knowledge of the law would 

find repugnant: 

 

Acting as chairman of a Tribunal in circumstances 

where he could secure the vacant Lord President’s post 

if the incumbent is removed. 


11


JOHORE 


12 

 

 

 

Acting as chairman of a Tribunal when he attended a 

meeting of judges, and did not dissent from the 

decision taken thereat to write a letter to the King, 

which was the very subject matter of the charge before 

the Tribunal. 

Exercising constitutional and statutory discretions 

vested in the office of the Lord President when he was 

the lst Defendant in a civil action relating to that 

action. This included convening a special sitting of the 

Supreme Court consisting of two Supreme Court judges 

and three High 

Court judges to hear an application to set aside the 

interim stay order granted by the five Supreme Court 

judges on 2 July 1988. 

Making representations to the King under Article 125 

for the appointment of the Tribunal, which 

representations contained material non-disclosures 

and errors of fact. 

 

Giving directions to the Chief Registrar relating to thecivil 

action to which he was 1st Defendant,including 

directions that the Court. staff should not cooperate 

with the Judges, the Court room should be locked, and 

the seal hidden. 

Second: Rules of natural justice can be easily ignored with 

out regard to established principles of law. Thus, two 

Supreme Court judges refused to disqualify themselves 

from sitting in the Supreme Court, although they had 

expressed a view on the sitting on 2 July 1988, which was 

the subject matter of the application before them. One of 

them, it may be recalled, described it as a revolution. 

According to these two judges, it was enough for them to 

declare in Open Court that they were not biased. 

Third: Six judges, two of them were from foreign lands, 

could draft a report in the first, tribunal without referrihg 

even once to the evidence filed by Tun Salleh in the 

prohibition proceedings, which were served upon them as 

Defendants therein at the outset of their deliberations. 

Fourth: Five judges, two of Whom were foreigners, could 

write their report in the second tribunal withoutreferring 

at all or sufficiently to two crucial facts. Firstly, that, as a 

litigant, the Acting Lord President was precluded from 

exercising his discretion in making representations for the 

appointment of the Tribunal under Article 125, and 

secondly, that because he was a litigant the Acting Lord 

President was precluded from exercising any powers 

relating to that action, and therefore Justice Wan Sulaiman 

was the most senior judge solely for all matters relating to 

that action pursuant to Section 9 of the Courts of 

Judicature Act 1964. 

Fifth: A Judge sitting in the High Court could drag exparte 

prohibition proceedings which normally last five minutes to 

three hearing days so as to deliberately render any 

decision he would make academic. The upshot was that 

three of our most senior judges, including the head of the 

judiciary, could not get justice from their own courts. 

What should be done in the wake of these lessons? in my 

opinion, one possible cure is the restoration of oldfashioned 

values. I say “restoration” because I would like 

to think that the Malaysian judiciary did at one time adhere 

to most of these values. It is a sort of Do’s and Don’ts for 

those sitting on the Bench. 

Eight values have been identified: 

1. Diligently discharging hisjudicial duties, including being 

punctual on the bench, sitting daily from 10 am to 4 

pm and the like. Administering justice is a service 

industry. Judges are paid salaries from the public 

purse. They have a duty to the community to "deliver 

the goods.” It is compounded by the fact that judges 

must sit in public. Thus the glare of publicity is ever 

present. 

2. Judges must possess judicial temperament. Having 

regard to their awesome powers, it is essential for 

judges to be polite to witnesses and parties. Other 

qualities include patience, tolerance and humility. 

Must recognise and acknowledge the important role of 

Counsel. 

3. The ability to make decisions quickly. Parties have a 

right to expect judges to be decisive. After all, that is 

what they are paid for.If judgments are to be reserved 

and this is inevitable - they must be delivered as 

speedily as possible, say no longer than two months. 

4. Must give written reasons for their decision. 

Otherwise, it would be “Mariner’s compass,” in Justice 

Krishna Ayer’s words, or palm tree justice. it has often 

been said that the most important person in the 

judicial process is the loser. He must know why he lost. 


12


JOHORE 


13 

Hence the marked significance of 

judicial work is not the importance 

of making a decision, but giving 

reasons for a decision. 

5. A judge must lead a sober life. He 

must not be a social animal.There 

must be no involvement whatsoever 

in business or commerce. There 

should be no Mafia economics, in 

Justice Krishna Ayer’s colourful 

phrase. A hermit’s life is 

recommended. 

6. Integrity, both in public and private 

life. This includes ‘ the element of 

honesty, both intellectual and 

general. 

7. Courage of convictions. A judge must 

act without fear or favour. The law 

must be applied even if the heavens 

fall. Obviously, it will be easier for 

him to take such courageous 

decisions if he leads a sober private 

life. This links up with the 

observations made in respect of the 

fifth 

value. 

8. A judge should avoid impropriety 

and the appearance of impropriety 

in all his activities. Recent 

developments clearly demonstrate 

that judges must not suffer undue 

ambition or crave promotion. Paper 

given at Bar Council Seminar on 

Independence of the Judiciary, Kuala 

Lumpur, 4-5 Nov, 1988. 

Paper given at Bar Council Seminar on 

Independance of the Judiciary, Kuala 

Lumpur, 4-5 Nov, 1988. 

Rehashed with kind consent of Tommy 

Thomas 2015 

69. 

THE LATE SETHU ARUMUGAM OF 

SEGAMAT, JOHOR 

(15-11-1946 - 24-02-2015) 

Sethu Arumugam who 

was popularly known as 

A. Sethu an Advocate 

and Solicitor practising 

under the name and 

style of Syarikat A. Sethu 

of Segamat Johor passed 

away peacefully on the 

24th of Feb 2015, aged 

Sethu a Segamat lad who received his 

secondary education in the High School 

Segamat graduated initially from the University 

of Malaya with a Bachelor of Arts 

(Hons) degree in 1978 and embarked on 

a career with the Ministry of Education of 

Malaysia as a teacher. 

Whilst in the teaching profession Sethu 

pursued a Bachelor of Laws programme 

and graduated with the LLB (Hons) (Ext) 

from the University of London in 1985. 

He then obtained the Certificate in Legal 

Practice. He was admitted and enrolled 

to the Malaysian Bar on 28.5.1988 at the 

age of 42. He practised in soleproprietorship 

in his home town Segamat 

ever since and was essentially a litigator. 

The late lawyer who was a member of 

the Rotary Club of Segamat leaves behind 

his beloved wife K. Sarojah Sethu a retired 

teacher and 3 children, Ir. Raj Sekar, 

Dr Vasanthi Sethu their spouses and several 

grandchildren to mourn his loss and 

the youngest son Shankar. The funeral 

took place in Segamat. 

The Johore Bar’s condolences are accorded 

and conveyed to the bereaved family 

of A Sethu with a quote from the 1st Non 

-European to win the Nobel Prize for Literature 

(1913) and who renounced the 

English knighthood bestowed upon him 

by King George V in protest against 

British aggression in India in 1919, 

Rabindranath Tagore, who wrote: 

“Say not in grief that he is no more 

but say in thankfulness that he was 

A death is not the extinguishing of a light 

but the putting out of the lamp 

because the dawn has come”. 

- Tagore 

Now that his labours have ceased may 

the late Sethu Arumugam rest in everlasting 

peace in his God’s bosom and 

embrace. 

S. Balarajah 

Johor Bar 


THE LATE G SANTHARAN 


Mr. G. Santharan (usually known among 

friends as Sanjay 59, a Senior Member of 

the Johore Bar passed away on 4.8.2015 

and his remains were cremated at Kluang 

on the same date. 

G. Santharan was from Guthrie Estate, 

Ladang Ulu Remis, Layang-Layang, Johore 

and was educated at Diamond Jubliee 

Primary School at Rengam and later at 

Sek Men. Dato. Hj. Hassan Yunus, 

Rengam. After completing SPM he was 

Medical Assistant at the Government 

Hospital and pursed his Bachelor of Laws, 

degree by distance learning with University 

of Wolverhampton. He obtained a 

Bachelor of Laws Degree and CLP. He was 

admitted to Malaysia Bar on 3.11.1997. 

He was a partner of Messrs Manian K. 

Marappan & Company. 

He handled Civil and Criminal, litigation, 

running down matters and medical negligence 

claims. He was very dedicated in 

his work. 

He leaves behind his beloved parents, 

wife and two daughters who are qualified 

Doctors. 

The love and devoted care that his wife 

and mother bestowed upon him during 

his last ailing years were a source of great 

solace. 

Manian K Marappan 

Johor Bar 



13


JOHORE 


14 

CASE REVIEW 

Damai Motor Kredit Sdn Bhd v Kementerian Kerja Raya Malaysia 

*2015+ 1 AMR 205; *2015+ 1 CLJ 44 (Court of Appeal) *and subsequent appeal to the Federal Court in 

Appeal No. 08-822-11/2012+ 

In this appeal (at the Court of Appeal), 

the 1st and 2nd Appellant were both 

owners and interested party to an 

acquisition by the Works Ministry 

(through the Government of Malaysia), 

the Respondent. At the hearing of the 

aquisition before the Land Administrator, 

the Respondent did not object to the 

compensation awarded to the tune of 

RM6,951,150-00 and RM4,450,000-00 

respecively. 

Unbeknownst to the Appellants, the 

Respondent had applied and obtained an 

order of Court on which purportedly 

granted the Appellant permission to 

bring objection to the Award to Court 

(“Extension Order”). 

The Extension Order was relied upon by 

the Appellant to file their objection to the 

Awards to the Land Administrator vide 

Form N which culminated into the Land 

Reference before the High Court. 

THE HIGH COURT 

By reason that the Appellants have not 

been named in the Land Reference, the 

Appellants filed an application to 

intervene in the Land Reference 

proceedings and sought to declare the 

Extension Order and the Land Reference 

as void. 

The High Court did not agree with this 

contention and dismissed the application. 

The Land Reference proceeded at the 

High Court in the absence of the 

Appellants as parties. 

THE COURT OF APPEAL 

On 8.10.2012, after hearing parties, the 

Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the 

appeal with the Government of Malaysia 

agreeing by consent for the Appellants’ 

right to intervention. The Court of 

Appeal also set aside the whole Land 

Reference for want of illegality and 

invalid extension order. The Court went 

as far as to declare the Form N as null 

and void. 

THE FEDERAL COURT 

The Government of Malaysia then 

applied for and obtained leave to appeal 

to the Federal Court with the sole 

question of law - 

“Whether in an application for 

extension of time to file an 

objection against the Land 

Administrator’s award under 

Section 38(4) of the Land 

Acquisition Act 1960, failure to 

include the owner of the land as a 

party in the said application would 

render the application and 

subsequent order thereto null and 

void” 

At the full hearing on the above 

question, the Federal Court took the 

unanimously view that the leave question 

need not be decided upon and dismissed 

the appeal by the Government of 

Malaysia. With this decision of the 

Federal Court, the principles laid down by 

the Court of Appeal stands. 

Fundamental issues which can be derived 

from this decision are – 

 

 

 

A ‘person interested’ as defined under 

Section 2 of the Land Acquisition 

Act may apply to intervene in Land 

Reference proceedings. The Court of 

appeal was guided by the Supreme 

Court decision of Tohtonku Sdn Bhd v 

Superace Sdn Bhd. 

An application for extension of time, 

should for the purpose of justice be 

clear upon its terms and served upon 

the interested persons to the 

aquisition. This provision is absent 

inside the Land Acquisition Act, but 

the court opined that by the mere 

reason that the appellant would be 

affected by the extension order are 

enough grounds where service (of 

the application) is necessitated. 

Further, such extension order may 

require to set forth a time frame and 

to express in clear terms of such extension. 

The court accepts that when 

no time is set, it falls under the principle 

of ‘convenient speed’ as stated 

in Section 54 of the Interpretation 

Act 1948 and 1967. 

COMMENTS 

Whilst the decision of the Court of 

Appeal did canvas the lacuna in the Land 

Acquisition Act (with regard to 

requirement of service of an application 

for extension of time), the existing test 

for intervention suffices the right to 

intervene in such a proceedings. 

In this matter, the extension application 

was made by the Government of 

Malaysia (as paymaster) with Land 

Administor as Respondent. With the Land 

Administrator bieng under the purview of 

the State Legal Advisor’s office, it is 

incumbent on the Land Administrator to 

notify the interested or affected parties 

of such an application as to warrant a fair 

hearing of such application. This would 

fulfill its role as guardian of land titles. 

The above matter was conducted by 

Johore Bar members Leslie LM Looi, 

Fadhil Ihsan and Khairulazwad Sariman. 

Nadhirah Zulkharnain 

Fadhil Ihsan 


14

Naming of the Johore Bar Auditorium as 

the ‘Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium’ 


JOHORE 


The Johore Bar held a naming ceremony of the auditorium on 15 June 2015 at the Johore Bar Building to name the Johore 

Bar Auditorium after the late Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium. The late Abdullah A. Rahman was the longest serving Chairman 

of the Johore Bar and the 1st Chairman of the Johore Bar was elected as President of the Malaysian Bar. 

The Ceremony was graced by the family of the late Abdullah A. Rahman and past Chairmen of the Johore Bar. The naming 

ceremony was officiated by Steven Thiru, President of the Malaysian Bar. S. Balarajah gave a citation on the late Abdullah 

A. Rahman. 

15 

SPEECH BY THE CHAIRMAN 

MR R JAYABALAN 

Ladies and gentlemen, Good afternoon, welcome to our 

Johore Bar Building. 

We are gathered today to mark the ceremony to name the 

Johore Bar Auditorium – where we are in now – as the 

“Abdullah A. Rahman Auditorium”. 

Please allow me to refresh your memory a little about this 

building. The Johore Bar Building was officially opened on 9th 

October 2013 by the then President of the Malaysian Bar Mr 

Christopher Leong. 

This building was a fruition of the Johore Bar’s dream over 

several long years. It started as a wishful thinking before 

gaining momentum as a serious project and finally brought to 

realization in 2013. At the risk of repetition, I would like to 

express the Johore Bar’s appreciation to the then Chairman 

Mr. S. Gunasegaran and his Committee members for 

delivering this building. A special note of appreciation 

is also due to Mr Andrew Wong who was responsible for 

getting the building renovated the way it is today. 

Purchasing the building would not have been possible without 

the Bar Council’s aid. The purchase price was magnanimously 

borne by the Bar Council but that does not mean the Johore 

Bar had it easy. The costs for renovation and refurbishment 

was borne by the members of the Johore Bar. A one time 

subscription of RM 250.00 was imposed and the then 1,500 

odd members made their contribution. 

This building now houses the Johore Bar Secretariat, library, 

this auditorium and several meeting rooms. This auditorium is 

used to conduct our seminars, forums, meetings and training 

programs for members, chambering students and sometimes 

the public. At full seating capacity, the auditorium can 

accommodate 100 participants. It is sound proof and feasible 

for multimedia presentation as well. 

The late Abdullah A. Rahman was the Chairman of the Johore 

Bar from 1970 – 1981. He was our longest serving Chairman 

and also the first Johor Bar Chairman to be elected as the 

President of the Malaysian Bar - for the years 1978 – 1980. 

A gathering of local eagles with Abdullah A Rahman family at the naming ceremony on 15.6.2015 


15


JOHORE 


16 

His contribution to the Malaysian Bar and especially to the 

Johore Bar is widely acknowledged and appreciated. His 

contribution was long overdue for recognition and at the last 

AGM of the Johor Bar members had agreed to a suggestion 

that his contribution is to be recognized by dedicating this 

auditorium in his good name. A resolution to that effect was 

passed and the Committee was entrusted to put the 

resolution into effect. 

We thought it is only proper that the leader of the current 

generation at the Bar should lead the marking of respect to a 

past leader. It would be an acknowledgement and respect 

from one generation of the Bar to another. On this, I thank 

our current President of the Malaysian Bar Mr Steven Thiru 

for agreeing to officiate this ceremony. 

I have restrained myself from saying much about the late 

Abdullah A. Rahman. That task has fallen upon Mr. S. 

Balarajah – a senior member of the Johore Bar and also our 

Past Chairman. Thank you for agreeing to deliver the citation 

and I am sure it is task that you have taken close to your 

heart. 

I am also happy to acknowledge the presence of 3 of our Past 

Presidents of the Malaysian Bar Puan Hendon Mohamed, 

Dato’ Khutubul Zaman and Dato Yeo Yang Poh today. Your 

presence reflects the respect that you have for the late 

Abdullah A. Rahman. 

Thank you too to the family of the late Abdullah A Rahman for 

accepting the invitation to be here today. We have with us his 

wife Tengku Esah Abu Bakar, his son Datuk Muthanna bin 

Abdullah with spouse Tengku Putri Marina Tengku Ibrahim 

and daughter Cik Ferizadah binti Dato’ Muthanna. I hope 

today’s event will give you another opportunity to recall and 

cherish the memories of your late husband and father. 

Thank you also to the previous Chairmen of the Johore Bar for 

accepting our invitation and being here today. To the 

members of the Johore Bar, your presence is important to 

add meaning to this event. 

On a final note, thank you to the organizing committee led by 

Mathews George and Ms Thilaga for organizing this event. -R. 

Jayabalan 

CITATION 

The Late YBhg Abdullah Bin Dato Abdul Rahman (1919 – 

1987) 

Five and Forty years ago after reading in the chambers of Paul 

Miller QC at the Goldsmith Building Middle Temple Lane 

London I found myself in the chambers of renowned Johor 

Lawyer Chelliah Paramjothy of the firm of Wong & 

Paramjothy. The firm Wong & Paramjothy was in the 70’s a 

leading firm of solicitors. Wong Peng Tuck @ P T Wong was a 

grandson of Wong Ah Fook a great Johore builder after whom 

a major road in the city is named and Param was the son of a 

Dr Chelliah of 

Segamat after 

whom you will find 

a Jalan Dr Chelliah 

in Segamat. Che Lah 

was Johore Bar 

Chairman. Param 

was in 1970 Johor 

Bar’s representative 

to the Bar Council 

and I was instructed 

by Param to pay a 

courtesy call on the 

Chairman of the 

Johor Bar Abdullah S Balarajah presented the Citation 

bin Dato Abdul 

Rahman 

(affectionately 

referred to by all as “Che Lah”). 

As I stepped into his offices I found a rather pensive looking 

gentleman. At once I found him to be prim and polite much 

like an English country squire. He appeared rather pensive 

and gave the impression of a very private person. He spoke in 

a slow measured manner. It was at my very first encounter 

that I found that Che Lah had the interest of Johor lawyers 

deeply entrenched in his breast. He lamented that lawyers 

from Singapore were ploughing our fields and reaping the 

harvest and this was detrimental to Johoreans and as such 

that he had proposed an amendment to Section 5 of the 

Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1947 to read that only 

“citizens of Malaysia or permanent residents of Malaysia” 

may apply to practise in Malaysia. This amendment was 

passed by Parliament (PU(A)123/70) and the Johore lawyers 

had their manna,. 

Che Lah who was born into a very prominent Johore family on 

the 11th Oct 1919. He passed on the 16th of April 1987 at a 

relatively young age of 68. Incidently, Paramjothy passed 

away on the 7th of August 1987. 

Che Lah was not an enigma. But he was open and transparent 

as much as he was opulent sophisticated and anglicized. The 

family of Che Lah is a most distinguished Johore family with 

Buginese ancestory. His father Dato Haji Abdul Rahman Bin 

Yasin was a direct Buginese descendant and was in his time 

the 1st President of the Senate and the 1st Chairman of 

Malayan Banking Berhad. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman had 

married (after Che Lah’s mother Zahara passed on), Kamariah, 


16


JOHORE 


17 

a sister of Dato Onn Jaafar of UMNO fame who was then 

Menteri Besar Johor. Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was groomed 

to be Menteri Besar but as he would not be a privy to 

political and palace intrigues he stepped aside. He then was 

Johor State Treasurer. 

Che Lah’s brother Dato Sulaiman was an economist and a 

member of the first Malayan cabinet (1955) and later a High 

Commissioner. Another brother, Tun Dr Ismail went on to 

become Deputy Prime Minister Malaysia. Tun Ismail was 

from the King Edward VII College of Medicine and was the 

first Malay eventually to obtain the MBBS from Melbourne. 

Another brother Dato Mohd Yassin did Political Science in 

Melbourne and went on to become Inspector of Banks and 

the 1st Secretary General of UMNO and later on a Johor 

State Exco Member The sons of Dato Haji Abdul Rahman was 

the envy of the Muar groups of Malay leaders because the 

Johor Royally looked up to the Rahmanites – the sons of 

Dato Haji Abdul Rahman. Che Lah 

and his brother Yassin married 2 

sisters, Che Lah, Tengku Esah and 

Yassin, Tengku Azizah. The noble 

ladies are from the Johor Royal 

lineage. 

After being called to the Bar in 1963 

Che Lah set up practice in Johor 

Bahru and practiced under the 

name and style of Abdullah A 

Rahman & Co. The most popular 

and affable Puan Hendon Bte 

Mohamed (date of Call to the Malaysian Bar 18-4-1963 at 

the Johor Bahru High Court before Azmi J. later Tun and Lord 

President) is the 1st lady President of the Malaysian Bar was 

close to Che Lah, She was a confidante of Che Lah and 

practiced with him in his Johor Bahru office. 

Che Lah was truly an English Barrister and held steadfast all 

principles and rules governing the Bar. He did not grant or 

give favours or appear lenient when rules principles or laws 

appeared to be broken or breached. He was blind to 

prejudices. 

In 1972 Che Lah invited me to be the Hon Secretary of the 

Johor Bar which office I held under him for 3 years. It was 

during this period that I became more acquainted with the 

man and his principles. He went by the rules and the law. A 

pupil of a Bar Committee Member and Senior Member of 

Dato Dr Wong Kim Fatt applied for shortening of the period 

of pupillage as he was a retired Police officer but Che Lah 

asked me to object to it which I did along with the Bar 

Council but the Judge over ruled us. You will find it reported 

Ong Chee Seng vs Attorney General and ors 1976(2) MLJ 

Bar President Steven Thiru, Dato Muthanna and S Balarajah 

227. A daughter of a close friend of Che Lah, Shamsiah binti 

Dato Ibrahim Majid drew a salary from a Johor Corp whilst 

reading in Chambers and again the Johor Bar objected 

though the Judge over-ruled us. You will find it at Shamsiah 

bte Ibrahim vs Attorney General 1981(1) MLJ 164. It was 

during Che Lah’s time as Chair that we took up the case of 

Keith Sellah vs Lee Kwang 1980 (2) MLJ 191 which was 

decided by 5 of Malaysia’s greatest Judges namely Suffian 

L.P, Raja Azlan Shah C.J (Malaya), Wan Suleiman F.J, Abdul 

Hamid Omar F.J and Hashim Yeop A. Sani J. This case set the 

benchmark on the standard of proof in disciplinary cases 

against lawyers. 

Then there is the case of the Will of Ali Hasan where the 

Johore Bar prosecuted a lawyer for witnessing the will of a 

dying man in 3rd degree coma. The lawyer’s office was in 

the same building as Che Lah’s so he abstained but the Johor 

Bar Committee followed the law. You will find it in 

Amanullah Bin Haji Ali Hasan vs 

Hajjah Jamilah Binti Sheik Madar 

1975 (1) MLJ 30. 

Friend or foe Che Lah went by the 

law. The Advocates & Solicitors 

Ordinance 1947 provided vast 

powers to the local Bar. The Legal 

Profession Act 1976 diluted the 

powers. The Ordinance gave 

powers of investigation into 

conduct of members. The Bar 

Committee under the LPA 1976 has 

become, with respects, social animal. 

Che Lah believed that it is the sacred duty of the Bar to resist 

any attempts by the political powers to strip us of our 

traditional legal safeguards and the self-disciplinary 

procedures. He felt that the independence of the Bar would 

be adversely affected if its power of self-discipline contained 

in itself from time immemorial is removed. 

The Chairmanship of the Johor Bar was held by Che Lah from 

1970 to 1981. He went on to become President of the 

Malaysian Bar and Chairman of the Bar Council Malaysia 

from 1978-1981. He was the 1st Johorean to achieve this. It 

is important to note that during Che Lah’s tenure as 

chairman of the Malaysian Bar that the most important rules 

relating to practice at the Bar were formulated and gazetted 

on 2.10.1978 – it is the Legal Profession (Practice and 

Etiquette) Rule 1978. These Rules are akin to the Magna 

Carta of the Malaysian Bar. Che Lah was a Senator in the 

Malaysian Dewan Negara from 1968-1974. He was a 

Director, inter alia, of the Cold Storage Group of Companies 

and was also the 1st Chairman of Johore Tenggara. He was a 


17


JOHORE 


18 

part time Judicial Commissioner of the High Courts, Malaya, in 

the 1970s. 

Che Lah, Justice Dato Ali Hassan, ACP X.A. Nicholas (father of YA 

Indran Nicholas of Ipoh) who was then the Johor Police CID 

Chief and the then DPP Johor, Kadir Kassim (presently of Kadir, 

Andri & Partners KL) started the Johor Bench and Bar vs Johor 

Police cricket tournament in 1967 which games are played till 

today for the coveted Ali Hassan Trophy. The 3 gentlemen were 

cricket lovers and relics of the colonial past, one might say. 

Che Lah was a strict disciplinarian. He was unassuming and 

unrivalled for his humility but he had the temerity to correct 

the most pugnacious of puisne judges no matter how senior in 

his own inimitable style. There was a Bar Dinner 1975 when he 

gave such a bold speech protecting the members of the Bar and 

took the local Judge and Bench to task so much so that the 

Judge (Justice Dato Syed Othman Ali) was so embarrassed that 

he walked out of the dinner. The docile Bar Committee 

subsequently pondered if the Committee should have a preview 

and vet and veto all the Chairman’s future speeches! But Che 

Lah will have none of it. He was bold and upright. And honest. 

He even felt that members subscriptions could not be used to 

defray the coffee and kuih muih served at the monthly 

meetings of the Bar Committee as it was trust monies and so 

we the Committee members took turns to pay for the 

refreshments at the monthly Bar Committee meetings! He was 

not parsimonious but was cautious of the trust imposed on him 

by members. He was fearless sturdy and independent. He never 

kow-towed to the rich famous and powerful. He insisted 

lawyers follow the Legal Profession (Practice of Etiquette) Rules 

1978 and he was a strict adherent of the Rules. 

In 1965 the Yang Di Pertuan Agong bestowed upon Che Lah the 

title of Johan Mangku Negara (JMN). He also had the Johor 

State honours of Setia Mahkota Johor(SMJ). Che Lah had an 

indulgent eye and a forgiving mind but he never sought fame 

and name which with his pedigree and connections he could 

have achieved in a whisper. He carried on life very much like an 

English squire and Barrister. He was bold upright and fearless 

and had priceless integrity and sturdy independence. A rare 

breed indeed. One could say that he was the pride of the Johor 

Bar. I have always proclaimed him as my mentor. 

Che Lah’s only child Dato Muthanna Bin Abdullah of the Hon. 

Society of The Middle Temple a Barrister-at-Law was until 

recently the Managing Partner of Lee Hishammudin & Allen 

Gledhill Kuala Lumpur. He now practices in the firm of Abdullah 

Chan & Co. in Kuala Lumpur. 

One could assert with unabashed pride that YBhg Abdullah Bin 

Dato Haji Abdul Rahman is to the Johore Bar what YM Raja Aziz 

Addruse is to the Malaysian Bar. It is only just reasonable and 

proper to adhere to and comply with the wishes of the 

members of the Johore Bar to name the main hall at the Johore 

Bar Secretariat as the “Abdullah A. Rahman Hall”. Generations 

after generations of lawyers will remember this good man and 

lawyer who always had the best interest of the lawyers in 

general and the Johore Bar in particular embedded in his 

breasts. Abdullah A. Rahman lived respected and died 

regretted. 

Che Lah always wanted a building for the Johore Bar and told us 

that lawyers will be proud to see a Johore Bar Building on a 

main thoroughfare. He planted the seeds but did not see it 

grow. He believed as a per a Greek philosopher that “A society 

grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know 

they shall never sit in”. 

Che Lah passed away on the 16th April 1987. In 2017 2 years 

time, it will be 30 years since his passing. Though it is 3 decades, 

the Johore Bar is be commended for the honor of remembering 

the man and what he stood for, so that, future generation of 

lawyers will remember the stalwart of the legal profession of 

Johore. Abraham Lincoln said: “All that I am, or hope to be, I 

owe to my angel mother.” For me all that I have been or even 

hoped to be at the Bar I owe it to my mentor Che Lah. This is 

my tribute of admiration and affection for Che Lah who urged 

me to follow the wise and profound words of Francis Bacon 

(1561-1626) who said: “I hold every man a debtor to his 

profession; from the which as men of course do seek to receive 

countenance and profit, so ought they of duty to endeavour 

themselves by way of amends to be a help and ornament 

thereunto.” 

Thank you. 

S. Balarajah 

Chairman Johore Bar 

(1989-1991, 2004-2005 and 2010-2011) 

15th June 2015 


18


JOHORE 


19 

Hyde Park Corner 

A Miscellany At Law and A Potpourri 

compiled by S. Balarajah 

CRITISING JUDGES 

By Gurdial Singh Nijar 

JUDGES live in cloistered silos. They can only 

be really judged by their behaviour in court. 

The decisions they make are in the public 

domain and subject to public scrutiny. 

Quite naturally, these decisions are 

evaluated and commented upon. This is in 

the nature of an open society, where judicial 

pronouncements are made in full view of 

the public; and reproduced in law reports 

and the media. Criticisms or accolades are to 

be expected. Some expressed in temperate 

and nuanced language; others a little more 

stridently. Some cross the line and are rude 

and crude. 

(The Sun, 16-2-2015) 

SRI LANKA ARRESTS TOP JUDGE OVER SEX 

ASSAULT 

COLOMBO: Sri Lankan police Tuesday made 

the first ever arrest of a Supreme Court 

judge who was detained in connection with 

an alleged sexual assault, an official said. 

Sarath de Abrew was arrested following investigations 

into a complaint that he tried to 

force a 39-year-old woman to have sex with 

him on the outskirts of Colombo and beat 

her up when she refused, a police official 

said. 

The judge, who is in his 60s, was taken before 

a magistrate who ordered his release 

on personal bail of half a million rupees 

(RM14,500), police said. 

"The magistrate also ordered the judge to 

cooperate with the Criminal Investigations 

Department (of the police) and make a 

statement," a police official said. 

"He had previously refused to make a statement 

to the police." 

Victor Ivan, an author who has written extensively 

on the country's judiciary, said it 

was the first time in Sri Lanka's history that a 

judge from the apex court has been arrested. 

Supreme court judges can only be removed 

through a complicated impeachment process 

in parliament. 

Sri Lanka's parliament was dissolved last 

month ahead of elections next month. – AFP 

‘FINGER RAPE MAN MUST PAY’ 


KUCHING: The mother of the “finger rape” 

victim wants the acquitted rapist to pay 

compensation and maintenance to her 

daughter. 

The 51-year-old mother, Rosmiati Abdullah, 

has sought legal help to pursue the 

RM40,000 compensation awarded by the 

Sessions Court when convicting Bunya 

Jalong in 2013. 

He was then convicted of four counts of raping 

the underaged girl at a hotel in Sibu in 

2011. 

The girl became pregnant and gave birth on 

Feb 5, 2012. 

A DNA test confirmed Bunya as the baby’s 

father. 

Last year, the High Court dismissed Bunya’s 

appeal against the conviction, varied the 

imprisonment sentences and ordered him to 

pay the compensation. 

However, he was acquitted on May 7 by the 

Court of Appeal, which ruled that the man 

could not be convicted based on the present 

legal definition of rape, which covers only 

penile penetration. 

(The Star, 11-6-2015) 

Justice Mah retires 

PUTRAJAYA: 

Court of Appeal 

judge Justice Datuk 

Mah Weng 

Kwai (pic), who 

defanged the 

Peaceful Assembly Act and gave 

the Teoh Beng Hock case a second 

chance, will be retiring. 

Justice Mah turns 66 on Feb 4. He 

has reached the mandatory retiring 

age or as he joked “the age of statutory 

senility”. 

Human rights worsened 

PETALING JAYA: The use of the 

Sedition Act to crack down on dissent 

has led to the suppression of 

freedom of expression, according 

to Amnesty International’s Report 

2014/15 which surveyed 160 

countries and territories 

“In Malaysia, human rights have 

worsened over the years. During 

the Chinese New Year celebration 

this year, we saw a crackdown on 

human rights defenders, opposition 

and student activists. They 

were arrested under the Sedition 

Act and the Penal Code was used in 

suppressing their voices. 

Jealous lover eats rival’s heart 

“Everyone 

should have the 

opportunity to 

voice their opinions. 

We don’t 

have to agree 

with these opinions, but it can be 

debated,” said Amnesty International 

Malaysia executive director 

Shamini Darshni. 



19


JOHORE 20 


Father of the pill dies at 91 

SAN FRANCISCO: Carl 

Djerassi (pic), the chemist 

widely considered the father 

of the birth control 

pill, has died. 

Djerrasi died of complications 

of cancer in his San Francisco home, 

Stanford University spokesman Dan Stober 

said. He was 91. 

Djerassi, a professor emeritus of chemistry 

at Stanford, was most famous for leading a 

research team in Mexico City that in 1951 

developed norethindrone, a synthetic molecule 

that became a key component of the 

first birth control pill. 

“The pill”, as it came to be known, radically 

transformed sexual practices and women’s 

lives. 


Online shopping scams 

KUALA LUMPUR: Online scams are on the 

rise, with six cases reported last year to 

MCA Public Services and Complaints Department. 

Among the victims of this scam was a man 

who bought a penis enlarger but received a 

magnifying glass instead! 

Department head Datuk Michael Chong said 

the customer, who wished to be known only 

as Ong from Seri Kembangan, paid RM450 

for the penis enlarger. Chong said this was 

among the cases of people falling victim to 

online scams. 


‘Adultery not a crime’ 

SEOUL: South Korea’s Constitutional Court 

yesterday struck down a controversial adultery 

law which for more than 60 years had 

criminalized extra-marital sex and jailed 

violators for up to two years. 

The nine-member bench ruled by seven to 

two that the 1953 statute aimed at protecting 

traditional family values was unconstitutional. 

“Even if adultery should be condemned 

as immoral, state power should 

not intervene in individuals’ private lives,” 

said presiding justice Park Han-Chul. 


Nagging wives and sex-crazed 

husbands 

NAGGING wives and sexcrazed 

husbands are 

among the top five 

reasons cited by Muslim 

couples who filed for 

divorce in Selangor last 

year, reported Harian 

Metro. 

According to the Jais marriage and divorce 

department head registrar Aluwi Parman, the 

other three reasons are religious ignorance, 

financial instability and interference from third 

parties. 

“Muslim divorce rates in Selangor shot up to 

6,912 cases last year, compared to 6,162 cases in 

2013. Of these, 3,156 cases last year involved 

couples aged between 31 and 35 years,” he said. 

Aluwi also believed divorce cases in Selangor 

were constantly increasing due to population 

density and married couples from other states 

moving here for work. 

The whistleblower 

By Gurdial Singh Nijar 

SOMETHING is clearly rotten in the state 

of our enforcement. The latest bizarre 

episode involves the declared intention 

by the inspector-general of police (IGP) 

to investigate the person who leaked the 

documents relating to the land deal by 

1MDB to Tabung Haji. In other words the 

IGP wants to go for the person who blew 

the whistle. 


Muslim girl won Bhagavad Gita 

contest 

A 12-year-old Muslim 

girl won a 

contest on the 

Hindu holy book 

Bhagavad Gita and 

then donated the prize money to improve 

childhood education, Tamil Nesan 

reported. 

Maryam Sidduqi from Mumbai, Maharashtra, 

won the yearly contest on Gita 

knowledge organised by the International 

Society for Krishna Consciousness 

(ISCKON). Students study the Gita and answer 

questions in an exam format. Maryam 

won the contest, beating more than 3,000 

participants. 

On receiving the 1.1 million Indian rupees 

(RM611,000) prize money, she handed it 

back to the Uttar Pradesh state chief minister. 

Maryam said she was inspired by Pakistani 

Nobel Prize winner Malala Yousafzai who 

campaigned for education rights for girls. 


BRIDE WALKS OUT AFTER MAN FAILS TO SOLVE MATHS PROB- 

LEM 

NEW DELHI: An Indian bride has walked out of her wedding ceremony 

after her groom-to-be failed to solve a simple math problem, police 

said. The bride tested the groom on his math skills and when he got the 

sum wrong, she walked out. The question she asked: How much is 15 

plus six? 

His reply: 17 


WORLD’S FIRST ‘FEELING’ ARTIFICIAL LEG 

VIENNA: The world’s fist artificial leg capable of simulating the feelings 

of a real limb and fighting phantom pain will be unveiled by researchers 

here today. 

The innovation is the result of a two-fold process, developed by Professor 

Hubert Egger at the University of Linz in northern Austria. 

Surgeons first rewired remaining foot nerve endings from a patient’s 

stump to healthy tissue in the thigh, placing them close to the skin surface. 

Six sensors were then fitted to the foot sole of a lightweight prosthesis, 

and linked to so-called stimulators inside the shaft where the stump 

sits. 



20

HOW DOES 2015 BUDGET AFFECT THE 

REAL PROPERTY GAINS TAX ? 

By Yang Pei Keng - 5 May 2015 

The Prime Minister cum Finance 

Minister Najib Razak delivered his 

2015 Budget Speech on 10 October 

2014. The 2015 Budget made some 

amendments to the Real Property 

Gains Tax 1976 *RPGT Act+. It affects 

the RPGT on any transfer of property, 

as well as the stamp duty payable 

on the transfers and loan documents. 

Pursuant to the 2015 Budget Speech, Parliament passed the 

Finance (No.2) Act 2014. The relevant provisions of the Finance 

Act relating to RPGT and stamp duty only came into effect on 1 

January 2015. 


JOHORE 


price. There is an increase of 50% of the original retention sum. 

2. What is the date of acquisition for a deceased’s asset 

acquired BEFORE 1-1-1970? *date of acquisition = 1-1-1970+ 

These are rare cases of disposal of any asset acquired many years 

ago, some 45 years ago (i.e. before 1-1-1970) by a person now 

deceased. For purposes of computing RPGT payable, under the 

latest amendment, the deceased is deemed to have acquired his 

asset on 1-1-1970, and that is deemed to be the date of 

acquisition of the deceased. The actual date of purchase *say 

much earlier, in the year 1960+ is not to be taken into 

account. *See para 4, Schedule 2+. By way of a ‘legal fiction”, it is 

deemed to be bought on 1-1-1970. 

21 

How does the 2015 Budget affect the RPGT? 

The amendments to the RPGT Act introduced by the 2014 

Finance Act *passed pursuant to the 2015 Budget+ largely touch 

on the following issues: 

1. The increase in the retention sum to be remitted to the 

Board 

2. The date of acquisition of any deceased’s asset acquired 

before 1-1-1970? 

3. The recipient’s acquisition price of transfer for love and 

affection (a gift) from a foreign donor. 

4. It is to be noted that there is no change in the rates of RPGT 

payable. The rates of RPGT remain the same as those in the 

year 2014. 

The retention sum is increased from 2% to 3% *s.21B amended+ 

Before the amendments, in the sale or disposal of any property, 

the buyer *or acquirer+ was to retain or withhold 2% of the 

purchase price *or the value of the consideration+. 

But with effect from 1 January 2015, the buyer is to withhold or 

retain 3% (instead of 2%) of the purchase price, and remit it to 

the IRB within 60 days of the sale, and remit it to the Inland 

Revenue Board *IRB+ or LHDN *Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri+ 

within 60 days from the date of the sale *or disposal+ of the 

property. If the buyer fails to do so, he has to pay a penalty 

amounting to 10% of the retention sum. 

The real reason for the increase in the retention sum, does not 

seem to have been made known to the public. The IRB probably 

felt that the 2% retention sum is insufficient to cover the actual 

amount of RPGT payable in most of the cases. It has therefore 

increased the retention sum from 2% to 3% of the purchase 

Before the amendment, the words “the value of the asset for 

estate duty purposes” appeared in Schedule 2 of the RPGT Act. 

*See para 4(3)(d)+. But the estate duty has long been abolished in 

Malaysia since the year 1982. That was about 33 years ago. 

Such provision is therefore no longer applicable for purposes of 

computing RPGT. 

The recent amendment is to replace those words by the 

expression “the market value of the asset as at the date of death 

of the deceased person…”. 

Illustration 1: 

A person D bought a shophouse in the year 2000. He died in 

2014. After winding up his estate, D’s executor sold it on 

5/5/2015. The date of death of the deceased person *2014+ is 

deemed to be the date of acquisition by D. The actual date of 

purchase (year 2000) by D is not to be taken into account. The 

simple formula is : 

Date of death of the deceased = the date of acquisition by the 

deceased 

Facts given in the illustration : 

1) Year 2000 - D bought a shophouse. 

2) 1/1/2014 – D died . 

3) 5/5/2015 - D’s executor sold the shophouse. 

Note: 

a. The actual date of the purchase *year 2000+ is not D’s date of 

acquisition 

b. D’s date of death *1/1/2014+ is deemed to be the D’s date of 

acquisition. 

c. The executor sold the shophouse on 5/5/2015. It is a 

disposal more than 1 year *i.e. 1/1/2014 -- 5-5-2015+ after D 

is deemed to have acquired the property. 


21


JOHORE 


22 

d. It is a disposal in the 2 nd year after acquisition. 30% RPGT is 

therefore payable. 

This provision affects the disposal by an executor *or 

administrator+ of any asset of the deceased after Grant of 

Probate *or the Letters of Administration+, has been granted. 

If the assets of the deceased had been transferred to the 

beneficiaries, the date of acquisition of the beneficiaries is 

different. The date of acquisition of the beneficiary is the date of 

transfer by the executior/ administrator to the 

beneficiary. The simple formula is: 

Date of transfer to beneficiary by executor/administrator = date 

of acquisition by the beneficiary 


1. On 1/1/ 2012, an executor “as representative”, transferred 

a semi-detached house in Johor Bahru *an asset of the estate 

of the deceased+ to the beneficiary B *Malaysian citizen+ 

2. On 28/2/2015, B sold the property to a third party at the 

price of RM950,000. 

Note: 

a. 1/1/2012 *date of transfer to the beneficiary+ is the date of 

acquisition of B the beneficiary. 

b. B sold it within the 4th year *1/1/2012 to 28/2/2015+. 

c. B, as a citizen, has to pay 20% RPGT. 

3. Acquisition price of a gift = acquisition price paid by donor *+ 

permitted expenses+ 

In the case of any gift between close relatives *husband and 

wife, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild+ the 

acquisition price paid by the donor (plus permitted expenses) is 

deemed to be the acquisition price of the recipient of the gift 

*See Para 12 Schedule 2,+. In brief: 

Recipient’s acquisition price = donor’s acquisition price (plus 

permitted expenses). 


1. In the year 2000, a father F bought a double-storey terraced 

house in Taman Tasek, Johor Bahru at the price of 

RM200,000. 

2. In 2015, F for love and affection, transferred it to his son S. 

Note: 

a. RM200,000 *F’s acquisition price (plus permitted expenses)+ 

is deemed to be S’s acquisition price. 

b. 2015 *date of transfer+ is S’s date of acquisition. 

4. Gifts by foreigners: foreigner’s acquisition price = recipient’s 

acquisition price 

A foreigner’s acquisition price (plus permitted expenses) is 

deemed to be the recipient’s acquisition price, if the gift is made 

within 5 years after the donor acquired it. *See Schedule 2, para 

12(2)(b)+ 

After the amendment pursuant to the 2015 Budget, a sub-para of 

Schedule 2 of the RPGT Act was replaced. It relates to the gift 

made by a foreign donor. If the donor is a foreigner *non-citizen 

and non-permanent resident+ the same principle mentioned in 

paragraph 3 above applies. 

In other words, if a foreigner *non-permanent resident+ donates 

a gift to a close relative *e.g. his wife or his son+, within 5 years of 

his acquisition of the property, the recipient (close relative) is 

deemed to have acquired the gift at the same price paid by the 

foreigner *plus permitted expenses+ within the 5 years of his 

acquisition. No gains tax is payable. 

llustration 4: 

1. In 2013, a Singaporean bought a semi-detached house in 

Horizon Hills, Johor Bahru at RM900,000. 

2. RM900,000 was his acquisition price. His date of acquisition 

was 2013. 

3. In 2015, for love and affection, he gave the house to his wife, 

a Malaysian. 

4. He therefore gave the house to his wife within 2 years *2013 

- 2015+ 

5. His wife’s acquisition price is RM900,000 (plus permitted 

expenses) 

Note: 

a) Foreign husband’s acquisition price = wife’s acquisition price 

*disposal within 5 years+ 

b) There is no gain and no loss in this case. No RPGT is payable 

This would mean that the Singaporean in this case does not have 

to pay any RPGT, normally payable by a foreigner *or nonpermanent 

resident+ when he gave his house to his wife. 

Usually, a foreigner has to pay 30% RPGT for the first 5 years of 

his acquiring the property. But the recent 2015 amendment is to 

the effect that even a foreigner *or non-permanent resident+ is 

entitled to the same treatment as a citizen or permanent 

resident in cases involving gifts between close relatives. 

Yang Pei Keng 


22

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

(As at time of publication) 



JOHORE 


No Name Firm Date of Admission 

1. Farhana binti Tupani A Rahim & Co 25/01/2015 

2. Mohamad Zamzam bin Ramli Zaid Ibrahim & Co 25/01/2015 

3. Muhammad Firdaus bin Adnan Muhammad Abd Kadir & Co 25/01/2015 

4. Nur Syahirah binti Apisah Othman Hashim & Co 08/03/2015 

5. Sharmaine Fairuz binti Mohd Zulkifli Syed Alwi, Ng & Co 08/03/2015 

6. Sharmini a/p Jiwan Syed Alwi, Ng & Co 08/03/2015 

7. Baharudin bin Baharim Yeo Hock Thye & Co 15/03/2015 

8. Nur Adilah binti Bakeri Kik Fenny & Co 15/03/2015 

9. Nur Azizi binti Wagini M N Halim Syaffie & Associates 15/03/2015 

10. Nur’ain binti Zaharudin Hong & Fong 15/03/2015 

11. Siti Amizah binti Amdan Keah & Choo 15/03/2015 

12. Muhammad Rafiq Akmal bin Mohd Daud Syed Alwi, Ng & Co 19/04/2015 

13. Ragupathy Naidu a/l TVR Chinniah Naidu Zulkafli, Rani & Co 19/04/2015 

14. Izzah Zahin binti Aliman Syed Alwi, Ng & Co 07/06/2015 

15. Liew Ee Ling Skrine 07/06/2015 

16. Yap Che Kai KS Pang & Co 07/06/2015 

17. Deborah Joanne Samuel Veizay & Company 15/06/2015 

18. Choong Pei Ying Tan Chuah Shuaib & Co 17/06/2015 

19. Iskandar Shah bin Ibrahim No Firm 17/06/2015 

20. Syafiqah Amirah binti Razali Mohd Amin, Ng & Associates 17/06/2015 

21. Salma Sakeena binti Mohamad Hassan Azwad Ihsan & Co 07/07/2015 

22. Ezzati binti Ahmad Salam V P Nathan & Partners 12/07/2015 

23. Mohd Fazaly Ali bin Mohd Ghazaly No Firm 12/07/2015 

24. Ainna Sherina binti Saipolamin Zaid Ibrahim & Co 26/07/2015 

25. Eunice Teo Su Yin Zaid Ibrahim & Co 26/07/2015 

26. Rabiatul Adawiyah binti Md Nordin Zaid Ibrahim & Co 26/07/2015 

27. Amy Ling Leh Sang Lee & Tengku Azrina 02/08/2015 

28. Ezyan Nadia binti Elias Kamal Hisham & Associates 02/08/2015 

29. Kartiyaini a/p Jeyapalan Iqbal Hakim Sia & Voo 02/08/2015 

30. Lennon Seow Y K Chin 02/08/2015 

31. Mohamad Alias bin Rasman Ikbal Salam & Associates 02/08/2015 

32. Nurhamizah binti Abdul Rahman A Rahim & Co 02/08/2015 

33. Jackie Mary Fernandis S E Wong & Co 09/08/2015 

34. Mohd Sharwan bin Abu Bakar Albar & Partners 09/08/2015 

35. Muhammad Amir bin Arsad Abdul Rahman & Partners 09/08/2015 

36. Nurul Aimi binti Osman A K Yeong & Co 09/08/2015 

23 

23


JOHORE 


24 

BLAST FROM THE PAST 

Tun Abdul Razak’s Call To The Bar 

Contributed by Mr S Balarajah 

The Honourable Tun Abdul Razak bin Dato Hussein then 

addressed the court: 

“May it please Your Lordship, I crave the indulgence of this 

court to say a few words. 

My Lord, I should like to thank Your Lordship for 

giving me the privilege of saying a few words today on my 

being admitted to the Malaysian Bar. I am grateful to the 

Attorney Mr. V.C. George Chairman of the Bar Council 

States of Malaya and to Mr. Ronald Khoo Chairman of the 

Bar Committee Selangor, for their kind and generous words 

of welcome to me. I am happy and honoured by the 

kindness and support shown not only by Members of the 

Bar but also by so many learned friends either present in 

this Honourable Court or outside. 

My Lord, when the news of my intention to be 

admitted to the Malaysian Bar was known, a number of my 

colleagues, friends and political supporters came to me 

asking me why I should decide to be admitted to the Bar at 

this time when I have an important and most responsible 

job as Prime Minister of this country. I explained to them 

that as one whose youth was spent in the studies of the 

law, my natural ambition of course was to carry out a legal 

practice and eventually, if luck would have it, to end my 

career on the Bench. However, due to a twist of fate, as 

soon as I completed my studies and was called to the Bar at 

the Lincoln’s Inn, I decided to go into politics and contribute 

my part in the struggle for independence of our country. 

Having now served in the political field for more 

than 25 years and reached the pinnacle of my career, I have 

therefore achieved my ambition in that field. I am now left 

with one other ambition, that is to be admitted to the Bar 

of my own country. My Lord, I do not think it is possible nor 

proper for me to aspire to sit on the Bench having spent the 

best years of my life in politics, nor will it be my intention to 

carry out legal practice as I intend to continue to serve the 

country in the political field for as long as the people want 

me to do so. However, I regard it as an honour and a 

personal satisfaction to be admitted to the Bar of this 

country and to join my other learned friends and 

contemporaries in the legal fraternity. 

When my distinguished predecessor the Tunku was 

admitted to the Malaysian Bar last year at the late age of 71 

years, he predicted that I would possibly be the only one 

who might be able to break his record of being called to the 

Bar at an even later age. However, unlike the Tunku, I 

decided to apply for admission now and not leave it to later 

years as I believe that whatever honour and privilege that 

one has, one should enjoy them while one has the strength 

and capacity to do so. After the age of 71 years whatever 

apparent strength that one may show, there is no doubt 

that one only has the capacity to enjoy such honour and 

privilege and indeed all the good things of life, only in mind. 

The Tunku also talked about the many surprises he had in 

the course of his life. There is no doubt that amid the 

changes and chances of political life, one meets with many 

surprises. In my own case, as life unfolds, I found that I 

received many more university degrees than the 

examinations I have ever passed. I was also elected 

Honorary Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn without having to 

distinguish myself in the legal profession. 

As I said, I regard it as an honour and real privilege 

to be admitted to the Bar at this stage of my life. I would 

like to thank all my friends and Members of the Bar for the 

support and the genuine friendship they have shown. It is 

also a privilege for me to be admitted today together with 

my old friend and colleague, Tan Sri Nik Ahmad Kamil. 

Whatever changes and chances the future may bring, today 

will remain a proud and happy moment of my life the 

memories of which I shall always treasure for as long as I 

live.” 


24

JOHORE BAR ACTIVITIES 


JOHORE 


25 

Professional Standards Course on 27 & 28 Jan 2015 

Talk by Mr R Jayabalan 

Mr K Mohan, imparting his wisdom 

Professional Standards Course on 27 & 28 Jan 2015 And 

Dinner at KSL Resorts Johor Bahru 

Pupils awaiting the Guests of Honour at the Ethics Course Dinner 

On 27 - 28 Jan 2015, the Continuing Professional 

Development Committee together with the Social 

Committee organised the Professional Standards Course 

that was attended by 50 pupils. Senior Members of the Bar 

exposed these pupils to various aspects of practice such as 

maintenance of client accounts, conduct with clients, 

courts and fellow lawyers, and the good values of practice 

at the Bar. The following day was the exam, and the 

course ended with a memorable formal dinner with the 

High Court Judges and Judicial Commissioners at KSL 

Resort, Johor Bahru. The guest speaker at the dinner was 

Andrew Wong Fook Hin who shared his experience with 

the Bar and Bench. 


25


JOHORE 


26 


Seminar on the Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and 

Commercial Trials on 9 Feb 2015 

participants attended, concluded with a small token of 

appreciation to the speaker. 

The Johore Bar Gala Dinner & Dance 2015 was held on 14 

Feb 2015 at Renaissance Hotel Johor Bahru. The event was 

graced by the presence of the two Judges of the Johor 

Bahru High Court, YA Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd 

Razak and his spouse Datin Norhuda binti Hussin and YA 

Tuan Teo Say Eng. 

Some senior ones and some juniors! 

The seminar was presented by Brendan Navin Siva on the 

Basics of Cross-Examination in Civil and Commercial Trials. 

The seminar was attended by 74 participants. 

Seminar on Handling Drugs Trials and Appeals on 7 Feb 

2015. 

The dinner commenced with a welcome speech by the 

Johore Bar Social Committee Chairperson Fadhil Ihsan 

(Dale). This was followed by a sumptuous fusion course 

menu dinner, accompanied by a live band performance by 

The Jazz Clique and a stand-up comedy performance by 

Harith Iskander, while the Master of Ceremony for the 

night was Suriakala Sivalingam from Fly FM. 

Leading Advocate Hisham Teh Poh Teik 

Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 14 February 2015 at 

JOTIC Auditorium 

The Johore Bar Continuing Professional Development (CPD) 

Committee invited Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to deliver a talk on 

Handling Drugs Trials and Appeals. The talk which have 50 

The JBC facing the firing squad at AGM 

On 14 Feb 2015, the Johore Bar’s Annual General Meeting 

(AGM) was held in JOTIC Auditorium with 70 members in 

attendance. 


26


JOHORE 


27 

Futsal boys ready for the game. 

North vs South Johore Bar Games 2015 

The Johore Bar Sports and North Johore Affairs 

Committees jointly organised the North-vs-South Johore 

Bar Games 2015 on 6 June 2015 at Batu Pahat, after 

going into hibernation since 2007. Five games were 

played namely, golf, netball, futsal, table-tennis and 

badminton. The games were drew ended with prizegiving 

ceremony followed by high tea at PineTree Hotel, 

Batu Pahat, Johor. 

We are ready! 

The evergreen Dato’ Wong Kim Fatt with the boys 


27

[Johor Bar Gala—Dinner and Dance 2015] 


JOHORE 


28 


28

[Johor Bar Gala—Dinner and Dance 2015] 


JOHORE 


29 


29


JOHORE 


30 


Seminar on Family Law held on 9 Apr 2015 

On 9 Apr 2015, the Continuing Professional Development 

(CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar along with the Bar 

Council Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) 

Department, jointly organised a seminar on Family Law as 

part of the CPD Regional Training Series. 

JBC Courtesy Call on the Judges and Judicial ommissioners 

of the High Court in Johor Bahru on 15 Apr 2015 

As a tradition, the re-elected Committee paid a courtesy 

call on the Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the High 

Court in Johor Bahru on 15 Apr 2015 Criminal High Court in 

Johor Bahru. 

Johore Bar Informal High Tea on 7 May 2015 

The North Johor Affairs Committee organized a high tea to 

get together with Committee members and north Johor 

members at Muar Traders Hotel, Muar Johor. 

Pushpa Ratnam was the invited speaker and she gave a 

lively and engaging talk to members of the Johore Bar. A 

total of 33 participants were present. 


30


JOHORE 


31 

Professional Standards Course Dinner on 28 January 2015 

Seminar for Lawyers on Managing Office and Clients’ 

Accounts on 8 May 2015 

Talk on Procedures in Industrial Court on 12 May 2015 

On 8 May 2015, Lim Kien Chai @ KC, a member of the KL 

Bar, presented the seminar for lawyers on Managing 

Office and Client’s Accounts, held at the Johore Bar 

Auditorium with a total of 90 participants were present. 

The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) 

Committee has invited Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor, 

Chairman of the Industrial Court Johor Bahru to gave a 

talk on Procedures in Industrial Court to members of the 

Johore Bar. There were 30 participants. 

Advocacy Training Course 

On 12 and 13 June 2015, the Advocacy Training Course 

(ATC) was conducted at the Johor Bahru Court Complex 

jointly organised with the Bar Council Continuing 

Professional Development (“CPD”) Department. Had 11 

members took part in the ATC. The trainers involved 

were Shahareen Begum, Ooi Huey Miin, Jaspal Singh and 

T. Sudhar. 


31


JOHORE 


32 


Public Forum Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) and the amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 

On 15 June 2015 the Johore Bar Human Rights Committee jointly organised with the Bar Council a public forum on 

the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“POTA”) and the Amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 at Tropical Inn Hotel, 

Johor Bahru. The forum featured three eminent speakers: Steven Thiru (President of the Malaysian Bar), Dato’ Yeo 

Yang Poh (Past President of the Malaysian Bar) and Syahredzan Johan (Co-Chairperson National Young Lawyers 

Committee). The forum was moderated by R. Jayabalan, Chairman of Johore Bar. The forum kicked off at 5.30 pm 

with a welcoming speech by Mathews George and followed by speeches from the three speakers. The forum was 

attended by members of public, reporters and members of the Bar. 

Gleeful members at the forum 


32


JOHORE 


33 

Seminar on Technology for Law Firms: Revised To Cover GST Accounting 

The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar that was 

conducted by Ng Sheau Feng at two places on two different dates. The first seminar was held at Hotel Pelangi Muar, 

Johor on 27 May 2015 and the other took place at Johore Bar Auditorium on 28 May 2015. The total number of 

participants in Muar was 70, and at Johor Bahru had 90 participants. 

Seminar on Milestone Cases in Malaysian Land Law 

The Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Committee of the Johore Bar organised a seminar that was 

conducted by Sudharsanan Thillainathan on 11 June 2015 at the Johore Bar Auditorium. A total of 90 participants 

were present. 


33


JOHORE 


34 

Reference held at Johor Bahru High Court on 4 February 

2015 

We record with deep regret the death of the following 

members of the Johore Bar: 

(1) ZAINUDDIN BIN EMBONG who passed away on 5 

March 2014; 

(2) LAU KOH KONG who passed away on 11 August 2014; 

(3) LOH SONG CHUAN who passed away on 4 November 

2014; 

(4) RAVINDRAN A/L G.S PARAMASIVAN who passed away 

on 7 December 2014; and 

(5) NORISAH BINTI ABU AMAN who passed away on 18 

December 2014. 

A Reference in their memory was held at the High Court 

in Johor Bahru on Wednesday 4 February 2015 at 9.00 

a.m. 

The proceedings were presided over by the Honourable 

Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak and with 

his Lordship on the Bench were the learned judges of the 

Johor Bahru High Court namely, the Honourable Justice 

Tuan Teo Say Eng and Honourable Judicial Commissioner 

Dr. Sabirin bin Ja’afar. 

Introductory speech by R Jayabalan 

Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee 

Dengan izin Yang Arif-Yang Arif, saya R. Jayabalan hadir 

bagi pihak Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor. Saya 

memohon kebenaran untuk meneruskan dalam Bahasa 

Inggeris, 

My Lords, we are gathered today to recall the memory of 

our professional colleagues – five of them – who are 

dearly departed and to pay our respect. They are En 

Zainuddin Bin Embong, Mr Lau Koh Kong, Mr Loh Song 

Chuan, Mr GSP Ravindran and Mdm Norisah binti Abu 

Aman. 

My learned friend Mr S. Gunasegaran is appearing for the 

Bar Council and Senior Federal Counsel Mr Lee Chee Thim 

is appearing for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. 

My learned friends En Ismail bin Mohd Tahir, Mr John 

Fernandez, Mr C Y Chok, Mr Mathews George and Puan 

Rodziah binti Idris are appearing to recall the life and 

memory of the respective departed members of the Bar. 

I also wish to acknowledge the presence of many 

members of the Bar today with the relatives and friends 

of our departed members to witness this solemn 

proceedings. 

Before I proceed further, on behalf of the Johore Bar I 

would like to express our appreciation to Your Lordships 

for graciously granting our request for this proceedings 

and also for presiding the same. 

My Lords, 

Reference proceedings for a deceased lawyer or judge is 

an ancient tradition of the Bar. It is also quite unique. 

Whereas we welcome a new member by calling him to 

the Bar with the ceremonial long Call, when he is called 

upon to meet his Maker, we bid him farewell by holding 

reference. 

The reference takes place when the High Court convenes 

a special sitting in open court in the presence of the 

departed member’s colleagues at the Bar, and witnessed 

by his loved ones, to recall his life at the Bar and honour 

his memory. It is also the Bar’s way of sharing the 

family’s loss, grief and bereavement. 

There is also another dimension to reference 

proceedings. For this, I can do no better than to quote the 

words of the eminent counsel Mr Cyrus Das, as he was 

then, at the reference held for another eminent counsel 


34


JOHORE 


35 

the late Dato’ Ronald Khoo before the Federal Court 

Judge Tan Sri Dato’ Edgar Joseph Jr on 24.4.1998. 

This is what he said “The practice of references for 

deceased judges and lawyers served to remind us that we 

belong to one body with one objective, namely, the 

pursuit of justice through the legal process. In that 

collective effort, governed by the unwritten rules of 

etiquette and tradition which are just as important as the 

written ones, the death of one of us diminishes the whole, 

and so we gather to mourn the loss, to pay tribute and 

remind ourselves that the journey must be made and the 

faith must be kept.” 

We are here today for that very purpose. Thank you My 

Lords. 

R Jayabalan 

Chairman of Johore Bar Committee 

Speech by S Gunasegaran 

Johore Bar Representative, 

Representing the President and Members of the 

Malaysian Bar 

May it please You My Lords, 

S. Gunasegaran appearing for the President and members 

of the Malaysian Bar at this Reference Ceremony. 

I recognise my learned friends R. Jayabalan appearing for 

the Johore Bar Committee, Senior Federal Counsel Lee 

Chee Thim appearing for the Honourable Attorney 

General of Malaysia and my colleagues at the Johore Bar 

En. Ismail bin Mohd Tahir, Mr. John Fernandez, Mr. Chok 

Chin You, Mr. Mathews George and Puan Rodziah binti 

Idris who shall be addressing Your Lordships this morning. 

I also wish to recognise the presence of the distinguished 

members of the Bar and the families of our departed 

members, including Retired Judge of the Court of Appeal, 

Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, the elder brother of the late 

Lau Koh Kong. 

My Lords, first and foremost on behalf of both the Bar 

Council and the Malaysian Bar, I wish to express our 

sincere gratitude to Your Lordships for graciously 

consenting to and presiding over this morning's 

Reference Ceremony, which is a long-established 

tradition of the Bar and which is unique to the legal 

profession. 

My Lords, we are gathered here today to remember and 

to pay our respects to our dear departed members of the 

Bar who have left us for a better world. 

On behalf of the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar, I 

associate myself fully with the sentiments expressed by 

the Chairman of the Johore Bar Committee and also the 

sentiments that will be expressed by the learned Senior 

Federal Counsel and my colleagues at the Johore Bar after 

this. Suffice it to say that the demise of the departed 

members is a tremendous loss to the profession and that 

we are deeply saddened by it. 

I must confess that I have had the privilege of knowing 

personally only the late Loh Seng Chuan and the late GSP 

Ravindran, while the other three members were known 

to me only in a professional capacity, which I consider to 

be my loss. But whether known to us or not, as members 

of the Bar we are tied by a very special bond and the 

passing away of any one of us is always a matter of grief 

and pain to the rest of us. 

The Malaysian Bar is truly proud of our departed 


35


JOHORE 


36 

colleagues and will always remember their contribution 

to the Bar and to the cause of justice that this profession 

proudly stands for. We shall be missing them forever. 

We pray that their Souls rest in eternal peace. 

My Lords, the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar take this 

opportunity to record and to convey our deepest 

sympathies and condolences to the families of: 

1. the late Zainuddin bin Embong 

2. the late Lau Koh Kong 

3. the late Loh Seng Chuan 

4. the late Ravindran a/l G.S. Paramasivan 

5. the late Norisah binti Abu Aman over the passing of 

their loved ones. 

Rest assured that you are not alone in your pain and 

suffering. Your loss and sorrow is as much a loss and 

sorrow for us. Shed tears if it is necessary but do not 

grieve too much. Just be reminded that Death is the 

inevitable consequence of birth. Death is a natural part of 

life. It is as natural and common as life. All life leads to 

death. And that the journey begins at birth. 

William Shakespeare described death as follows: 

"Thou know'st 'tis common; all that lives must die, 

Passing through nature to eternity. 

(Hamlet, Act I, scene 2, line 72) 

And Euripides said : "Death is a debt we all must pay." 

I am painfully aware that whilst words may provide some 

comfort in our hour of need, they will not 

remove the grief and pain completely, 

especially when we have lost someone close 

to us, and that Time alone is the ultimate 

Healer. In the meantime may you have the 

strength and fortitude to face your present 

calamity calmly and serenely and to 

overcome it swiftly. 

Finally My Lords, we take solace in the thought that 

though dead and gone, our departed colleagues will 

always remain in our memory. As George Eliot said : "Our 

dead are never dead to us, until we have forgotten 

them." 

In conclusion, My Lords I respectfully move that the 

record of these proceedings be preserved in the archives 

of this Honourable Court and that a copy thereof be 

extended to each of the bereaved families. 

Much obliged. 

S. Gunasegaran 

Johore Bar Representative 

En. Ismail Mohd Tahir paid his tribute to the late 

Zainuddin bin Embong 

Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin Bin Embong was born in 

Johor Bahru on the 25th day of November 1958. At the 

time of his demise he was 56 years of age. He obtained 

his LLB(Hons) from the University of Malaya in 1983 and 

was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on the 28th day of 

November 1987. Before starting his career at the Bar he 

was an Assistant Parliamentary Draftsman cum Federal 

Counsel for almost a year at the Attorney General's 

Chambers. He was also an academician when he joined 

the Law Faculty of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia as 

a tutor for a period of two years from 1982 to 1984. He 

had a complete and wide range of experience as a 

Parliamentary Draftman and also as an academician 

before embarking into the world of legal practice as a 

member of the distinguished Malaysia Bar. His wide range 

exposure has widen his horizon of experience and his 

ability of viewing legal matters from a totally different 

perspective that might escape the attention of others. 

Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin started his legal career at the 

Bar as a Legal Assistant at Messrs Ariff & Co and 

thereafter at Messrs Khaled Mutang Chan & Lim. Before 

his demise he was the Managing Partner of 

Messrs Khaled & Zainuddin which specializing 

in Corporate & Conveyancing and various 

other Commercial transaction. Being the 

Senior Partner of the firm he was equally 

impressive in Litigation arena especially with 

regards to Banking and Land matters. 

He had special attachment to the Johor Bar specifically 

and the Malaysian Bar generally. He was regarded as a 

great reference by the Junior members of the Johor. Bar 

and was very keen to lend a helping hand whenever any 

assistance was needed of him. To the senior and learned 

members of the Johor Bar and the Malaysian Bar as a 

whole he was well respected for his humble and kind 


36


JOHORE 


37 

gesture and was never hesitant in sharing his vast 

experience at the Bar for 27 years. 

His demise was deeply felt by his wife Zaleha Muslan, two 

sons Mohamad Aiman and Mohamad Azim and two 

daughters Nur Suraya Hani and Nur Aliah Najiah and also 

his immediate family members. He also left behind his 84 

year old mother whom he loved so much. His mother 

Datin Hajjah Zainun Hj Ab Rahman the widow of the late 

Dato' Hj. Embong Bin Yahya our former Deputy 

Information Minister while still bereaving the lost of her 

beloved son is very grateful to Allah The Almighty that her 

beloved son was . taken to rest in peace in the best soil 

ever of the Holy City of Makkah and at, the best time ever 

during his final Umrah trip. 

His wife and children together with the members of his 

immediate family would like to take this very opportunity 

to thank all members of the Johor Bar especially and the 

Malaysian Bar generally and those who had known 

Allahyarham Haji Zainuddin Bin Embong for being his 

wonderful counterpart and assistance during his lifetime. 

Al-fatihah 

Ismail Mohd Tahir 

Member of Johore Bar 

Mr. John Fernandez paid tribute to the late Lau Koh Kong 

My Lords, this morning we are gathered here to 

remember Mr Lau Koh Kong an esteemed member of the 

Johor Bar, who had passed on 11th August 2014. 

My Lords, Mr Lau was a very ordinary person, someone 

who was unassuming who did ordinary things with 

ordinary habits. He was a honest and trustworthy lawyer 

to the core. 

My Lords in a call to the Bar we state the virtues of the 

petitioner but in a reference we speak of the antecedents 

and virtues of our deceased brethren as a lawyer. 

My Lords, the late Mr Lau was a teacher, teaching in a 

primary school in Kulai for several years and at the age of 

30 embarked for a law degree at the University of 

London. After finishing his law degree in London, he then 

enrolled at the Honourable Society of the Lincoln’s lnn, 

London where he was admitted as Barrister-at-Law. 

My Lords, Mr Lau upon his return set up his practice in 

Kulai where he primarily had a conveyancing practise. He 

always was a sole proprietor until his son Mr Lau Kei Jin 

joined him in 2013 and now continues his practice in the 

name and style of Messrs Lau Koh Kong & Associates. The 

legacy of the late Mr Lau continues. 

The late Mr Lau leaves behind his widow and 4 children to 

mourn their loss. Members of the Johore Bar offer their 

heartfelt and sincere condolences to the family, friends 

and colleagues of the late Mr Lau Koh Kong. 

May I pray my lords that a copy of these proceedings be 

preserved in the archives of this Court and a copy thereof 

be dispatched to the family of the late Mr Lau Koh Kong. 

May his soul rest in peace. 

Much obliged My Lords. 

Mr. Chok Chin You paid tribute to the late Loh Song 

Chuan 

Loh Song Chuan @ Law Song Chuan was born on 

26.12.1951. He hailed from Panchor, Muar. He was the 

second son of the late Mr Loh Swee and Mdm Chew Kwi 

Lian. Song Chuan has 3 brothers and 2 sisters. 

Song Chuan married Elsie Tan Lee Chu in 1987. They have 

2 sons, namely Winston Loh Wen Sheng and Wilfred Loh 

Woon Hsien. They are now 26 years old and 22 years old 

respectively. 

Before he became a lawyer, Song Chuan (or more 

commonly referred to as “Loh” by his friends) was in the 

Singapore Police Force. He joined that police force as rank 

and file, and rose to assume the post of an inspector. It 

was when he was at the police force that he took up law. 

He later on obtained his LLB and CLP. He was admitted as 

a member of the Malaysian Bar on 28.8.1985. 

After having worked as a legal assistant in Johor Bahru for 

a few years, Loh then formed a partnership with Mr 

Renganathan, and both of them practiced under the 

name and style of Loh and Renga, with effect from 1991. 

Loh & Renga has offices in Johor Bahru, Pontian and Batu 

Pahat. 

One would need to work very hard to take care of 3 law 

offices in 3 different parts of the State of Johor. As Loh 

was no stranger to hard work and perseverance, he was 

able to successfully manage that 3 law offices, and at all 


37


JOHORE 


38 

times with the assistance of his partners Mr Renganathan 

and Mr Derek Low. 

In the beginning of his career as a lawyer (which was in 

the eighties), one could often see Loh regularly in Court. 

As time passes, he spent more and more time in 

conveyancing matters and less time in litigation. In the 

last few years, his appearance as a counsel in court was 

few and far between. 

Apart from being his friend, I have also worked together 

with Loh on some legal matters in the past. 

On 1.11.2014, Loh was taken away from us. He was 63 

years old. He succumbed to skin cancer. 

Loh was a private and reserved person. 

A private person and reserved person is also usually a 

stoic person. I have been told by his partners and his work 

colleagues that in the last stage of his life, Loh endured 

skin cancer with stoicism, and without making any 

complaint about that medical condition that was afflicting 

him. He did not tell all his friends that he was fighting that 

medical condition. I also did not know that he was 

suffering from that medical condition at all, until he has 

passed away. 

In looking back at our friendship of about 30 years, I now 

realised that all these years, I have not seen Loh lose his 

temper at all or speak ill of anyone. He took things in his 

stride, and would not allow himself to be flustered by the 

rough and tumble of legal practice or by the vicissitudes 

that life tossed his way. He would take each day as it 

comes, and was always calm. 

It has been my privilege to have been his friend and to 

have learnt from him that during the turbulent times in 

our life, we could always respond with fortitude and 

calmness, and that we need not resort to despair or 

bitterness. 

In ending, I would like to offer my deepest condolence to 

the family members of Loh. I also humbly move that a 

record of this proceeding be preserved in the archives of 

this Court, and a copy thereof be sent to his widow and 

children. 

Chok Chin You 


Mr. Mathews George paid tribute to the late GSP 

Ravindran 

May it please my Lords, 

We are gathered here this morning to pay a short tribute 

to the memory of our late colleague, Ravindran a/l G.S. 

Paramsivan who passéd away on 7.12.2014 aged 57. 

The late Ravindran was better known in the legal 

fraternity as GSP Ravi, was a trained teacher before he 

read law in England. To GSP Ravi, law was his ambition. 

GSP Ravi was a Barrister-at-law of the Hon-Society of 

Lincoln’s Inn and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 

23.4.2006. He started practice as a Legal Assistant to the 

late Mr Robin Ravindran Mahendran of the firm of M/s 

R.R Mahendran & Co. After R.R Mahendran’s demise, GSP 

Ravi took over the practice and carried on as a soleproprietor 

under the name and style G.S.P Ravindran & 

Co. His practice was mainly in the Criminal Courts but he 

also had a fair share of civil litigation. GSP Ravi was in his 

own way an ardent member of the Johor Bar and served 

in the Human Rights Sub-Committee for many years. 

GSP Ravi was a close friend of mine. I have known GSP 

Ravi since 2006 and there was not a day that went by 

without us speaking about football which was a common 

passion in our life. GSP Ravi had immense knowledge in 

football and was a die hard supporter of Liverpool FC. We 

got along well despite I being a die hard fan of 

Manchester United FC. Perhaps, it was a case of opposite 

attracts. 

I recollect with great sadness the night he passed away. I 


38


JOHORE 


39 

was in Jakarta and GSP Ravi and I were busy exchanging 

texts about the Liverpool vs Sunderland match. The last 

text I received from GSP Ravi was at 1.19 am on 

7.12.2014 regarding an on going Italian football game. 

Little did I know that it would be the last time I 

communicated with a person i fondly referred to as a 

mate. 

GSP Ravi was a good lawyer who fought hard and did his 

best for his clients. He was an uncompromising lawyer in 

some ways who conducted his cases without fear or 

favour. 

GSP Ravi leaves behind his beloved 

spouse Susan, siblings, nephews and 

nieces to mourn his passing. 

We offer our deepest condolences to 

the family of the late GSP Ravi. To his 

family I say, that my mate was a good 

lawyer and a greater human being. 

I will end my speech with an extract 

from Liverpool’s signature tune You’ll 

Never Walk Alone as it types how GSP 

lived his life. It goes like this :- 

When you walk through a storm, hold your head high and 

don’t be afraid of the dark. At the end of the storm, 

there’s a golden sky. And the sweet, silver song of a lark. 

My Lords, thank you for your patience and I pray for the 

usual Order on such a solemn occasion. 

Mathews George 


Pn. Rodziah Idris paid tribute to the late Norisah binti Abu 

Aman 

Dengan izin Yang Arif; 

Pertama sekali saya ingin memanjatkan kesyukuran 

kerana saya telah diberi penghormatan untuk membuat 

rujukan bagi memperingati seorang sahabat yang saya 

kenali lebih daripada dua puluh tahun, dan juga rakan 

peguam Pn Norisah binti Abu Aman atau lebih dikenali 

sebagai Kak Nor bagi kebanyakan rakan-rakan peguam 

terutama mereka yang lebih muda. 

Saya mula mengenali Kak Nor semasa beliau masih 

menjadi penghantar dokumen bagi firma CF Wong & Co 

What we have done for ourselves 

alone dies with us; 

what we have done for others 

and the world 

remains and is 

immortal. 

Albert Pike 

Kulai, yang mana beliau akan pergi membuat kerja-kerja 

pendaftaran di semua pejabat tanah di daerah-daerah di 

seluruh Johor. Ini adalah di awal tahun 1990an, pada 

masa itu saya baru menjadi peguam, dan kerja-kerja 

pendaftaran di luar pejabat dibuat oleh staff lelaki. Apa 

yang saya ingat, beliau sangat bersemangat di dalam 

melakukan kerja beliau dan telah menasihatkan saya 

untuk tinggalkan “ego” dalam poket, dan tebalkan muka 

apabila membuat urusan di jabatan-jabatan, yang penting 

urusan pelanggan dapat diselesaikan. Satu pesanan yang 

saya dapati amat berguna dan saya masih amalkan 

sehingga ke hari ini. Saya percaya ramai antara rakan 

peguam juga telah mengenali Kak Nor 

sebelum beliau diterima sebagai 

peguam pada 22 Februari 2013. 

Atas galakan daripada mentor dan 

rakan sekerja beliau Pn Rani 

Shanmugam untuk melanjutkan 

pelajaran di bidang Undang-Undang, 

Kak Nor telah mengikut jejak Pn Rani 

untuk menyambung pelajaran secara 

jarak jauh. Berkat kegigihan beliau, 

Kak Nor telah berjaya menjadi 

graduan di dalam bidang Jurisprudens 

dari Universiti Malaya pada tahun 2003, dan lulus CLP 

pada tahun 2012. Ini bukan suatu tugas yang mudah 

untuk belajar semula selepas bekerja dan berkeluarga. 

Saya percaya banyak masa dan wang telah dikorbankan 

untuk mencapai cita-cita beliau untuk menjadi peguam. 

Selepas menjalani latihan di firma mentornya Pn Rani di 

firma Zulkafli, Rani & Co di Kulai, Kak Nor akhirnya 

diterima sebagai peguam pada Februari 2013. Ini adalah 

satu pencapaian yang amat bermakna bukan sahaja 

kepada Kak Nor dan keluarga tetapi kepada rakan-rakan 

peguam. Pada masa tersebut beliau telah menjangkau 

usia 57 tahun (melebihi usia bersara kakitangan awam 

pada masa itu) dan telah menjadi nenek kepada 2 orang 

cucu. Beliau telah membuktikan bahawa jika kita 

berusaha dan sanggup berkorban, kita boleh mencapai 

apa juga impian kita. 

Sebelum menjadi peguam, Kak Nor telah bekerja di 

beberapa firma guaman di sekitar Kulai, Johor dan banyak 

menguruskan kes-kes tanah. Akan tetapi selepas menjadi 

peguam, Kak Nor juga telah menunjukkan minat yang 

mendalam di dalam kes-kes jenayah dan menjadi peguam 

tetap yang mengendalikan kes-kes Yayasan Bantuan 

Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK) terutama di Mahkamah 


39


JOHORE 


40 

Majistret Kulai dan Pontian. 

Malah saya dimaklumkan bahawa pada pagi kejadian 

kemalangan yang dihadapi oleh Kak Nor, beliau berada di 

dalam perjalanan untuk pulang ke Kulai daripada Mahkamah 

Majistret Kota Tinggi setelah menyelesaikan kes-kes YBGK di 

sana. Ini bukanlah suatu yang biasa bagi kebanyakan kita 

kerana pada masa tersebut beliau telah berumur 59 tahun, 

dan bagi kebanyakan peguam wanita pada peringkat 

tersebut, kebanyakan kita memilih untuk membuat kes-kes 

tempatan sahaja supaya tidak perlu berkejar ke Mahkamah 

di luar daerah. Tetapi itulah Kak Nor yang suka dengan 

cabaran dan selalu ingin mencuba sesuatu yang baru. 

Walaupun Kak Nor hanya sempat menjadi rakan guaman 

kepada kita untuk tempoh yang agak singkat iaitu tidak 

sampai 2 tahun, beliau telah memberi inspirasi terutama 

kepada peguam-peguam muda untuk terus berusaha 

membaiki diri, dan bagi rakan-rakan sebaya untuk terus 

menjadi peguam yang aktif kerana sebagai peguam kita 

dapat banyak membantu orang lain. 

Saya berpeluang bertanya dengan anak perempuan beliau 

mengapa Kak Nor begitu bersemangat ingin menjadi 

peguam dan saya diberitahu bahawa ia merupakan hajat 

bapa beliau yang ingin Kak Nor menjadi peguam tetapi 

disebabkan kekangan hidup selepas tamat persekolahan, cita 

-cita tersebut terpaksa ditangguhkan. Ini juga adalah sebab 

beliau hanya bekerja di pejabat peguam di sepanjang alam 

pekerjaan beliau dan beliau telah meminta anak beliau Cik 

Nurul Afiah untuk memilih bidang Undang-Undang walaupun 

ingin menjadi seorang guru. Sekarang Cik Nurul telah 

menjadi peguam dan mengambilalih firma ibunya. 

Bagi mereka yang rapat dengan Allahyarhamah Kak Nor 

terutama mereka yang berurusan di Mahkamah Majistret 

Kulai, pastinya kita akan berasa kehilangan kerana beliau 

sering ceria dan tidak lokek untuk berkongsi pengalaman 

bersama rakan-rakan. Senyuman dan keceriaan beliau akan 

menjadi kenangan dan semangat kepada kami rakan-rakan 

beliau. 

Beliau juga adalah seorang isteri dan ibu yang sangat prihatin 

kepada kebajikan keluarga beliau. Saya diberitahu beliau 

telah membuka firma beliau di rumah iaitu Tetuan Norisah & 

Co kerana beliau dapat membahagikan masa untuk menjaga 

dan menemankan suami beliau yang telah bersara semasa 

beliau berada di “pejabat”. Beliau ada memberitahu kami 

rakan-rakannya bahawa beliau ingin menjalankan amalan 

dengan anak perempuan kesayangan beliau yang juga 

seorang peguam setelah kedudukan firma beliau lebih stabil. 

Tetapi di dalam kehidupan ini manusia hanya merancang, 

Allah jua yang menentukan 

Kepada Kak Nor, kami doakan semoga rohnya dicucuri 

rahmat Perkenalan dan kenangan bersama kami jadikan 

azimat. 

Kak Nor pastinya akan sentiasa diingati oleh ahli keluarga 

tersayang iaitu suami En Ismail bin Osman, dua anak lelaki 

iaitu Khairul Faizal dan En Shahrul dan Cik Nurul Afiah yang 

mengambilalih perniagaan ibu beliau serta dua orang cucu 

beliau. Di sebalik itu, mereka adalah sangat beruntung 

kerana dianugerahkan seorang isteri, ibu dan nenek yang 

sentiasa aktif dan ceria di dalam hidup mereka. 

Akhir sekali, saya memohon supaya prosiding ini disimpan di 

dalam arkib Mahkamah Tinggi dan satu salinan diserahkan 

kepada waris Allahyarhamah. 

Terima kasih. 

Rodziah Idris 


Senior Federal Counsel Mr. Lee Chee Thim in his tribute to 

the departed members 

Dengan Izin, 

Yang Arif —Yang Arif, En. R.Jayabalan, Pengerusi 

Jawatankuasa Peguam Negeri Johor S.Gunasegaran, wakil 

Majlis Peguam Malaysia, wakil yang memperingati mendiang 

masing-masing, Datuk--Datuk, Datuk Wira Low Hop Bing, 

Tuan-Tuan /Puan-Puan yang dihormati sekalian. 

Pada hari ini, kita sama-sama berkumpul untuk menghormati 

dan memperingati mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis Peguam 

Malaysia yang telah meninggalkan kita buat selama-lamanya. 

Sehubungan itu, saya hadir prosiding pagi ini bagi pihak YBhg 

Tan. Sri Peguam Negara Malaysia. Saya diwakilkan untuk 

menyampaikan rasa dukacita beliau atas ketidakhadiran 

beliau pada istiadat hari ini atas desakan tugas rasmi. Saya 

juga hadir bagi pihak kesemua pegawai Perkhidmatan 

Kehakiman dan Perundangan bagi melahirkan perasaan 

sedih kami di atas pemergian mendiang ahli-ahli Majlis 

Peguam Malaysia ini serta menyampaikan ucapan salam 

takziah kami kepada keluarga mereka. 


40


JOHORE 


41 

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, dengan rendah diri saya memohon 

izin Yang Arif untuk meneruskan ucapan saya dalam 

Bahasa Inggeris. 

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, Today's proceedings should not be 

treated as a solemn and melancholic occasion. Instead it 

should be an opportunity for us to commemorate and 

honour the lives and memories of these 5 members. 

We thank God for their presence in our lives and we ask 

for God's blessing for their departed souls and the 

families they left behind. 

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, On behalf of the Honourable Attorney 

General and the officers of the Judicial and Legal Service, I 

extend our heartfelt condolences to the families and 

friends of the members we honour today. I would also 

like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the 

sentiments and tributes expressed by my learned friends 

throughout today's proceedings. 

Yang Arif-Yang Arif, Akhirkata, saya dengan rendah diri 

setuju dengan usul supaya Rekod Prosiding hari ini 

disimpan di Arkib Mahkamah yang Mulia ini dan sesalinan 

diserahkan kepada setiap keluarga mendiang ahli yang 

kita kenang dan ingati hari ini. 

Terima kasih. 

Lee Chee Thim 

Senior Federal Counsel 

Closing Speech by R Jayabalan 


May it please you My Lords, On behalf of the Johore Bar, I 

associate myself fully with the feelings and sentiments 

expressed by my learned friends. I just wish to add a few 

words on behalf of the Johore Bar. 

These five members will live long in our memory. Their 

comradeship and contribution to the Bar will be cherished 

and will be surely missed. 

The late Zainuddin, Lau Koh Kong and Loh Song Chuan 

were all very senior members, the wealth of their 

experience and knowledge at the Bar will be 

irreplaceable. 

The late GSP Ravindran, who was a good friend of mine - 

we share the same passion for our club Liverpool - was a 

regular player for the Bar at our Bar-Bench Games. His 

enthusiasm and sportsmanship will be sorely missed by 

the Johore Bar. We are a man short now. 

As for the late Norisah, she spent most of her time at her 

fledgling law practice handling Legal Aid or YBGK cases. 

She almost always obliged whenever she was called upon 

to appear for a Legal Aid client at the smaller towns 

outside the city – distance was never a problem for her, 

even at her age. In that sense it is tragic that her time also 

came when she was rushing from one court to another. 

Her loss will be felt at the Bar and the National Legal Aid 

Foundation particularly will be hard pressed to find an 

equal replacement. 

The Johore Bar is indeed proud to acknowledge these five 

members as one of our own. We extend our deepest 

condolences to their family for their loss. May their souls 

rest in peace. 

The Johore Bar supports the motion that the record of 

this proceeding to be kept and preserved in the archives 

of this honourable court, and that a copy thereof be 

extended to the bereaved families. 

Much obliged, My Lords. 

R Jayabalan 


Closing Speech by Honourable Justice Dato’ Mohd Sofian 

bin Tan Sri Abd Razak 

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim; 

Assalamu’alaikum Warahmatullah Wabarokatuh dan 

Salam Sejahtera 

The Honourable Justice Teo Say Eng, Judge of the High of 

Malaya, Johor Bahru and Justice Dr. Sabirin bin Ja’afar, 

Judicial Commissioner of High of Malaya, Johor Baharu. 

The Honourable Mr. Lee Chee Chuan, Senior Federal 

Counsel representing the Hon Attorney General, En. 

Ismail bin Tahir on behalf of Allahyarham En. Zainuddin 

bin Embong, Mr. John Fernandez on behalf of the late Mr. 

Lau Koh Kong, Mr. Chok Chin You on behalf of the late 

Mr.Loh SongChuan, Mr. Mathews George on behalf of the 

late Mr. Ravindran a/l G.S Paramasivam and Puan 


41


JOHORE 


42 

Rodziah binti Idris on behalf of Allahyarhamah Puan 

Norisah binti Abu Aman, deceased members of the Bar 

and Mr.S. Gunasegaran on behalf of the Bar Council, Mr. 

R. Jayabalan on behalf of members of the Johor Bar, 

Members of the Judicial and Legal Services, Members of 

the Bar, distinguished Guests Ladies and Gentlemen. 

This is yet another occasion where we have gathered here 

this morningon this sad occasion to pay tribute to the 

memory and last respect to Allahyarham En. Zainuddin bin 

Embong, the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong, the late Loh Song 

Chuan, the late Mr. Ravindran a/l G.S Paramasivam and 

Allahyarhamah Puan Norisah binti Abu Aman, deceased 

members of the Bar and their respective eulogies read. 

Death is a sorrowful occasion and our memories of the 

dead ones are always so mingled with sadness as to make 

us regard the occasion with the utmost solemnity. Death 

awaits for no one, it struck at the preordained time and 

place. 

To the deceased members, it became very clear that one 

distinctive feature which is present in all of them that they 

were distinguished and dedicated members of the Bar 

steeped in the finest traditions of the professions 

discharging their noble duties as an advocate and solicitor 

in the true spirit of the Bar ‘without fear or favour’ 

Although it was not my privilege to have known them 

personally during my tenure as an office bearer of the Bar 

Council from 1997 to 2003 and later as a Judge of the High 

Court, Malaya, I wish to associate myself with the very 

eloquent and all the sincere tributes that have been made 

to them and as practicing members of the Bar all of them 

enjoy the respect and affection with which they were 

regarded by all those who had the privilege of coming in 

contact with them. 

Before we adjourned, permit me to say a few words about 

the departed members of the Bar although I personally 

have not had the privilege of knowing all the departed 

members of the Bar. 

Allahyarham En. Zainuddin bin Embong untimely demised 

on the 5th March 2014 and the age of 57 years in the Holy 

Land of Mecca is a loss to the family, the Bench and the 

Bar. However as a Muslim, to be called upon to meet your 

maker in the Holy Land is what most Muslim hope to be. 

To his wife, children and family I urge upon them to be 

patient at all times since ‘Every Soul Shall Have a Taste of 

Death and Allah has also commanded ‘ To God We Belong, 

and to Him Is Our Return.’ Inna –LillahiwainnaIlaihirajiun 

and to the Muslim let’s recite the Surah Al-Fatihah for 

Allahyarham. It is without doubt that Allahyarham En 

Zainuddin was always humble, cheerful, ambitious and 

industrious. These attributes had indeed helped him to 

make him a lawyer. He was a man of high responsibility as 

a senior member of the Bar ready to render any assistance 

whenever it was required. He was well respected for his 

humble and kind gesture and was never hesitant in 

sharing his vast experience at the Bar for 27 years. Great 

men are judged by their little deeds, so the saying goes. 

His sudden demised is sadly missed by his wife, children, 

mother and members of Bar and the Bench. May his soul 

be placed amongst the ‘ambia and suhadah’. 

The late Mr. Lau Koh Kong untimely demised on 11th 

August 2014 is also a loss to his family, the Bench and the 

Bar. The deceased was a senior member of the Bar, a 

Barrister at- law of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn 

and was admitted and enrolled as Advocate and Solicitor 

of the High Court of Malaya on 8th June 1984. He 

practiced under the name and style of Messrs Lau Koh 

Kong & Associate in Kulai. It has been brought to my 

attention that the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong comes from an 

illustrious family of lawyers It is an honour and privilege to 

know that retired Court of Appeal Judge, Datuk Wira Lau 

Hop Beng, who is present this morning is a brother of the 

deceased. I am also informed two of the children of the 

deceased are also lawyers and practice in the deceased’s 

firm. I myself did not have the pleasure of knowing the 

deceased personally, but the voice of good report has 

travelled through these Courts about him and I appreciate 

that very many of you here this morning feel that you 

have lost a personal friend and it is difficult to avoid a 

feeling of personal loss as we have rarely experienced 

before. Our hearts go out to the family in their great 

bereavement and if it help them to sustain their sorrow 

with greater fortitude I would like them to know that they 

do not grieve alone. His name will be gratefully 

remembered by lawyers and those connected with the 

legal profession. He has passed on. To his family he now 

belongs to history. May the late Mr. Lau Koh Kong rest in 

peace. 

The late Mr. Loh Song Chuan @ Law Song Chuan a senior 

member of the Johor Bar died peacefully on 1st November 

2014. Joined the Singapore Police Force and resigned from 

the Force with the rank of an Inspector to pursue his life- 


42


JOHORE 


43 

long ambition to become a lawyer and had to struggle 

hard. Upon graduating with a Bachelor’s Law Degree and 

CLP, the late Mr. Loh Song Chuan practice the name and 

style of Messrs Loh & Rengga and had offices in Johor 

Bahru, Pontain and Batu Pahat. The deceased was a 

humble but a quiet and unassuming person socially and 

professionally. His untimely death is a great loss to his 

family, the Bench and the Bar. On behalf of the judiciary, 

my colleagues and I would extend our most heartfelt 

condolences to the family of the late Mr. Loh Song 

Chuan. May his soul rest in peace. 

The late Mr. Ravindran a/l Paramasivam better known as 

‘GSP Ravi’ passed away peacefully on 7th December 2014 

at the age of 57 years. Like the late Mr. Loh Song Chuan, 

the late Mr. GSP Ravin also quit the teaching profession 

to pursue his life –long ambition to be a lawyer and read 

law at Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and was 

admitted to the Malaysian Bar on 23rd April 2006 where 

he joined the firm of Messrs R.R Mahendran & Co and 

took over the practice of the firm after the demised of 

the late Mr. R.R Mahendran and practiced as a soleproprietor 

under the name and style of Messrs G.S.P 

Ravindran & Co. His practice was mainly in the criminal 

courts. The deceased was also an ardent member of the 

Bar and will render any assistance in any Bar’s activity. 

He was a popular figure among the members of the 

Johor Bar. It would be no exaggeration to say that all who 

came in contact with him have occasion to remember 

him either for some favour done or some word of 

kindness and encouragement. His sudden demised is a 

great loss to the family, Bench and Bar. May I and my 

colleagues on behalf of the judiciary extend our heartfelt 

sympathies and condolences to the family members and 

may his soul rest in peace. 

Allahyarhamah Norisah binti Abu Aman untimely death 

on 18th December 2014 is a great loss to her family, the 

Bench and the Bar. The deceased was fondly known 

among her colleagues as ‘Kak Nor’ as shining example of 

a person who will never give up until she had achieved 

her life long ambition to become a lawyer. Though busy 

with her other work commitment, Allahyarhamah 

struggled hard to achieve her ambition by enrolling 

herself in long distance learning at the University of 

Malaya and through her dedication, hard working and 

perseverance, she graduated in LLB (Jurisprudence) in 

2003 and passed her CLP in 2012. It took her about 

almost 8 years to achieve her life- long ambition to 

become a lawyer. I would like to commend her gallant 

effort in striving hard to achieve what she treasured most 

in life, the pursuit of her deep devotion to the study of 

law and wanting to do her part in the administration of 

justice. Unfortunately her untimely demised has 

prevented her to materialize her dream. I am glad to 

know the her daughter will soldier on to relive the fond 

memories of her mother and dedicated her practice to 

her late mother. We have to accept this untimely 

demised with humility and full faith in God more so when 

He has commanded ‘Nor Can a Soul Die Except by God’s 

leave, the Term Being Fixed as By Writing.’ May I and my 

colleagues on behalf of the judiciary extend our heartfelt 

condolences to the family of Allahyarhamah Pn. Norisah 

binti Abu Aman recite the surah Al-Fatihah for her. Inna- 

LillahiwainnaIllahirajiun. 

May I in conclusion say that although we have lost them 

but their memories will always be cherished by us. 

In conclusion, I once again wish to extend my heartfelt 

condolences and deepest sympathies on behalf of the 

judiciary, to the families and friends of the deceased in 

their sorrow. I would therefore make an order that a 

copy of the proceedings be kept in the archives of this 

Court and a copy thereof be forwarded to all the families 

to whom we all have extended our heartfelt 

condolences. 

Thank you for your presence and Court is adjourned. 

Wabillahi Taufiq Walhidayah Wassalammualaikum 

Warahmatullahi Wabarokatuh. 

Dato’ Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak 

Judge 

High Court of Malaya, Johor Bahru 


43


JOHORE 


44 

High-Tea to Welcome 

YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali 

As Judicial Commissioner of the High Court in Johor Bahru 

The Social Committee of the Johore Bar organised a High Tea at Grand BlueWave Hotel, Johor Bahru on 16 June 2015, to 

welcome YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, who has been posted as Judicial Commissioner in Johor Bahru on 20 

Apr 2015. The event was attended by 50 members of the Johore Bar and four Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the 

High Court in Johor Bahru, Director of Johor Courts and Chairman of the Industrial Court, Johor Bahru. 

SPEECH BY MR R JAYABALAN 

It is the tradition of the Johore Bar to officially receive the 

new judge with a welcoming hi-tea. The purpose is to 

introduce the judge to our members and to give an 

opportunity for the judge to get to know us in a less formal 

environment. 

Let me now give a brief introduction of our new JC : 

His formal education commenced at Sekolah Sultan Sulaiman 

1, Kuala Terengganu in 1974 and then Sekolah Sri Petaling, 

Selangor before moving on to St. Michael's Institution, Ipoh 

and Malay College, Kuala Kangsar in 1984. 

Fellow members of the Bar, good evening. We are gathered 

today to welcome our guest of honour, the new Judicial 

Commissioner YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali who 

had recently assumed office at the High Court at Johor 

Bahru. Yang Arif is present here with his charming spouse 

Puan Norhaidawati binti Mohamad Tahir. 

I would also like to extend a warm welcome to our High 

Court Judges Hakim Utama Yang Arif Dato' Mohd Sofian bin 

Tan Sri Abd Razak, Yang Arif Tuan Teo Say Eng and Judicial 

Commissioners Yang Arif Dato' Mat Zara'ai Bin Alias and YA 

Dr Sabirin Ja'afar. Thank you for joining us in welcoming your 

brother judge. 

Greetings as well to Puan Rohani Binti Ismail, Sessions Judge 

and Pengarah Mahkamah Johor and Tuan Roslan bin Mat 

Nor, the Chairman of the Industrial Court Johor Bahru. 

Yang Arif Tuan Mohd Nazlan was appointed as Judicial 

Commissioner on 10.4.2015 and commenced duty at Johor 

Bahru on 20.4.2015. The Johore Bar Committee paid a 

courtesy call on Yang Arif on 13.5.2015 and introduced 

ourself. 

YA then did his A-levels at the Warwick School, England 

before enrolling into the prestigious Oxford University to 

pursue Bachelor of Arts in Jurisprudence between 1987-- 

1990. 

Upon completion, he joined the Lincoln's Inn to obtain his 

Barrister at Law in 1991. YA commenced chambering in 1991 

at Messrs Shook Lin & Bok and was briefly in practice - 

before leaving to do his Master of Arts at Oxford again in 

1995. 

Upon his return and between 1994 — 1997 YA was attached 

to the Securities Commission under the Takeovers & 

Mergers Unit in various positions; starting from Executive 

Officer then rising to Senior Executive Officer and Assistant 

Manager. 

Between 1997 —1998 YA was appointed as the Manager & 

Special Assistant to Executive Chairman & Secretary to the 

Commission of the Securities Commission. 

Then between 1998 — 2000 YA took up the position of 

General Manager & Head, Enforcement Division, Securities 

Commission. 

In the year 2000 YA came back to practice with Zaid Ibrahim 

& Co. in Kuala Lumpur. He was made a partner there and 


44


JOHORE 


45 

took the position Head of Equity Capital Markets. 

YA left practice in 2005 and joined Malayan Banking 

Berhad as its Company Secretary & Head of Corporate 

Services. In 2006 he became the Group General Counsel & 

Company Secretary and also Group Head, Corporate & 

Legal Services for Malayan Banking Berhad. YA served 

Malayan Banking in that capacity until 2015 when he was 

appointed as Judicial Commissioner by the YDPA on 


One can understand that being appointed as a judge 

cannot be easy. It comes with heavy burden of 

expectation, trust and responsibility. It requires a thirst for 

knowledge and diligence, not only in hearing litigants and 

deciding cases, but also in the area of case management. 

Exercising judicial powers, judicial temperament and 

ensuring justice to litigants before the Courts is a great 

responsibility. Your decision reaches out of the confines of 

your courtroom and resonates within the society. The 

society places a lot of trust on the courts and looks up to 

the courts to resolve their misery and grievances. Take 

away the courts, and the society has no place left to seek 

justice. 

Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad lqbal, the Chief Justice from 

Lahore High Court in his article "The Role of Lawyers and 

Judges' published in (1977) 1 MU viii wrote : 

" A sine qua non for law and order in a society is that the 

public should have a complete confidence in the Law Courts 

of the country because when that is shaken, it becomes 

doubtful that law and order could be maintained. The 

failure of the system of law and order jeopardizes the entire 

democratic system. The common man looks to the Law 

Courts for the vindication of his basic rights and when he 

loses faith in them, he is likely to resort to the law of the 

jungle. By instilling into people distrust in the machinery of 

justice, society returns to a state of affairs where private 

feuds and vendettas are the law of the land, the outcome 

of which is disorder and anarchy. Take away the faith in the 

Courts and the last bastion is down. If our independences 

has to be maintained, justice has to prevail in the land. If 

the country is to be saved from despair, its confidence in 

the Judges should be strengthened. Failure there, is bound 

to result in chaos." 

This was written in 1977 and I think it remains very 

relevant today especially in the wake of legislations that 

are chipping away fundamental liberties, judicial powers 

and restricting judicial discretion; the latest of which is the 

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (POTA) and the 

amendments to the Sedition Act 1948. 

It must have been a big change for Yang Arif — coming 

from corporate settings and stepping into the judicial 

settings — and having to deal with lawyers on a daily basis 

now. 

This change must be a challenge as well for Yang Arif and 

your family. More so when upon appointment Yang Arif 

was sent straight down to Johor Bahru from your familiar 

settings of Kuala Lumpur. 

I hope now that Yang Arif has been here for the last 1 

month or so, we have made a good first impression and 

Yang Arif will grow to like Johor Bahru and Johore lawyers 

in the process. 

Let me say a few words about the Johore Bar. 

The Johore Bar Committee is a creature of statute. It comes 

into existence under s 68-70 of the Legal Profession Act 

1976. Generally the Committee manages the affairs of the 

State Bar and its members. The Johore Bar, with 1,828 

lawyers is now the 3rd largest state Bar in the country. 

We strongly believe in fostering a close rapport with the 

Bench that is based upon mutual understanding and 

respect. This is necessary to establish a good working 

relationship between the Bar and the Bench so that both 

sides are able to carry out their respective role 

meaningfully in the administration of justice. And hence 

the various traditions that we have here at the Johore Bar 

when it comes to Bar-Bench relationship — some of which 

Yang Arif might have heard already. 

It is unavoidable that from time to time there can be issue 

in the workings of the courts and administration of justice. 

The good relationship has helped us to resolve our 

problems in an amicable manner and without the necessity 

of taking it further up in the hierarchy. Of course 

sometimes some problems cannot be resolved the way 

that we want but the relationship has helped us to at least 

pleasantly discuss the unpleasant. 

For this, I must record my appreciation to all the judges 

and judicial commissioners for being receptive to the Bar's 

concerns. I must particularly thank the Senior Judge Yang 

Arif Dato' Sofian for being pro-active and readiness to 


45


JOHORE 


46 

listen to our concerns. 

On behalf of the Johore Bar, I would like to congratulate 

you on your appointment as the Judicial Commissioner 

and welcome you to Johor Bahru. We look forward to 

establish the same cordial working relationship with you. I 

pledge the Johore Bar's full support and co-operation to 

Yang Arif in carrying out your judicial responsibility. 

We wish for Yang Arif to enjoy a long and distinguished 

career on the Bench. We also hope for your family and you 

to have a pleasant stay in Johor Bahru. 

I along with the rest of us look forward to hearing from 

you shortly. Finally thank you Ms Gunn for organizing this 

wonderful hi-tea. 

R. JAYABALAN 

Speech by YA Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali, 

Judicial Commissioner of the Johor Bahru High Court 

Hakim Utama YA Dato Mohd Sofian bin Tan Sri Abd Razak, 

YA Tuan Teo Say Eng, YA Dato Mat Zara’ai Alias and YA Dr 

Sabirin Jaafar, Mr. R Jayabalan, the Honourable Chairman 

of the Johore Bar, Committee members distinguished 

guests and members of the Johore Bar. 

Assalamualaikum and good evening. 

First and foremost I would like to say how very grateful I 

am to the Johore Bar Committee for according me this 

privilege of having a special welcoming high tea event 

organized in my honor. 

I wish to also thank the Chairman of the Johore Bar 

Committee and members of the Committee for meeting 

me last month. That meeting provided me with an 

excellent introduction to the Johore Bar, which I surmise 

must be one of the more active State Bars in the country. 

Reading the previous publications of the Bulletin of 

the Johore Bar, I am sure that the many activities 

organized by the Committee, both relating to legal practice 

as well as educational, social and recreational have been 

found most beneficial in not only strengthening the 

Bar but also in promoting an effective relationship with the 

Bench. Indeed, I see not an insignificant part of the 

December 2014 Bulletin being dedicated to articles not 

only welcoming new judges or judicial commissioners, but 

also on their promotions, elevations, and transfers. 

The year 2014 must therefore have been a very busy year 

for the Johore Bar Committee in its extra-judicial 

engagement with the Judges of the High Courts in JB. 

As the third largest State Bar in the country, the Johor 

Bar's steadfast adherence to its long tradition of honoring 

the judiciary on such occasions in my view is an important 

example that reflects the common belief held by those 

who care for the betterment of the nation of the need for 

a relationship of mutual trust, understanding and respect 

between Bar and Bench. 

As we all know, although it is clear that the roles of judges 

and lawyers are far from identical, we certainly have 

many common features, and one overriding single 

common function in the administration of justice. The 

performance of the duties involved in each role is made 

easier the more satisfactorily the duties of the other role 

are performed. To that ideal each side of the bar table 

should always aspire . The late Tun Suffian Hashim had 

made it very clear that the independence of the Bench and 

the independence of the Bar are the twin pillars of the 

Rule of Law. I am sure many would agree that it is indeed 

tough to envisage a society which could be 

characterized as being governed by The Rule of Law unless 

it has an independent judiciary. It is probably almost 

equally difficult to find one which could be so 

characterized unless it has an independent legal 

profession. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

I am sure many, if not all of you were 

previously wondering about my background 

or were asking an even more basic question as to who I 

was or if anyone had even heard of my name before, when 

it appeared in the letter on the transfer order issued by 

YAA Chief Judge of Malaya. I hope the kind introduction 


46


JOHORE 


47 

made by the Chairman of the Johor Bar a short while 

ago, has addressed some of the questions you may have. 

Indeed I was probably even less familiar to the Bench that I 

should probably be to the Bar since I used to be a member 

of the Bar during different periods earlier in my working 

career. In fact, a standard question posed to me by a 

number of judges at the Annual Judges Conference April 

this year was whether I was from the Bar, or from the 

Bench's subordinate courts. Each time I replied neither Bar 

nor Bench, and stating instead I am from the Bank, of 

course in reference to Maybank being the largest bank in 

the country. 

My career background is probably non conventional when 

compared to that of most in the judiciary but I have found 

and relished the endless challenge in the complexities of 

the law in my experience as a legal practitioner, securities 

regulator and general counsel of a corporation, all of 

which involved the practice and administration of the law. I 

certainly now consider it a profound privilege and both an 

onerous as well as an enormous responsibility for me to 

play a role in applying the law to the questions and disputes 

we witness today. 

In the process, I strive not to fail to appreciate the real 

world consequences of judicial decisions on individuals, 

businesses and government. Indeed at my judicial oath 

taking ceremony with four other new 

Judicial Commissioners in April, we were reminded by YAA 

the RH CJ of Malaysia that judges must always remember 

the oath we declared on our appointment which of course 

includes to defend the Constitution. In fact judges were 

advised to place a copy of the oath on our office tables so 

that we are constantly reminded of the same. 


In my close to 2 months here in JB, in hearing cases at Civil 

Court No 3, I have had the privilege of witnessing and 

experiencing nothing but a display of fine 

advocacy, professionalism and courtesy by lawyers who 

have appeared before me so far which I’m sure is not 

entirely due to CRT. The operative words are "so far", and I 

am not sure if this suggests that some JB lawyers are still 

somehow on long vacation or that the KL lawyers have not 

yet this year deemed the fees worthy of their appearance in 

JB. In any event I am truly hopeful that my brother judges 

and I in JB continue to enjoy an effective support from, and 

a cordial relationship with, the Bar in the common pursuit 

of the administration of justice. 

Although my posting to JB represents the first time that 

I have to work outside of Kuala Lumpur since I started 

working in 1991, my family and I look forward to enjoying 

our stay in this beautiful and vibrant city of JB. Never once 

did it cross our minds that we should drive along the 

causeway to visit neighboring Singapore. Of course it does 

not quite help that we have no idea how long my tenure in 

JB will be but we certainly aspire that whilst we are here we 

should find time to explore JB and its surroundings, which 

are famed for its many attractions and places of interest. 

Since "finding time" are the operative words, so far we have 

focused our visits primarily on JB City Square. Before my 

appointment we had much earlier managed to find time to 

visit JPO a few times. 

As this is my first time outside KL, I initially accepted the 

news of my posting with a certain sense of anxiety. 

However I must say that within days I was able to 

make myself quite comfortably at home here in JB and this 

smooth transition was made possible by the support given 

to my family and I by brother judges, the Bar and court 

staff. 


Before I end this short thank you speech, I wish again to 

thank the Johore Bar Committee for having this event, and 

its members for taking the trouble to attend this event, and 

brother judges who turned up in full force, for your 

presence. I look forward to working with all of you towards 

strengthening the relationship between Bar and Bench and 

enhancing further the quality of the administration of 

justices in this State and in the country. As the Holy month 

of Ramadan is fast approaching, I wish to take this 

opportunity to wish every Muslim in 

attendance, "Selamat Berpuasa", and at the same time 

gently remind everyone that during Ramadhan, the Courts 

will start hearing cases at 8.30 a.m. 

Thank you. 

Tuan Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali 

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman 

Mahkamah Tinggi 

Johor Bahru 


47


JOHORE 


48 

Current Issues relating to RPGT and Stamp Duty 

[Answers given by the LDHN on 20-8-2014] 

On 20 August 2014, the Johore Bar Committee had a fruitful 

discussion with the Inland Revenue Board *LHDN – Lembaga 

Hasil Dalam Negeri+. A circular was issued to that effect. Various 

issues relating to the Real Property Gains Tax *RPGT+ and the 

Stamp Duty were discussed. Some doubts have been cleared. 

Conveyancing practitioners would do well to take note of this. 

The RPGT officer has given written answers in response to the 

various queries raised by the JBC. 

This article highlights the salient points discussed at the 

meeting. But since the meeting was held last year *2014+, it has 

been updated in this article in the light of amendments made 

pursuant to the 2015 Budget Speech. The relevant 

amendments to the RPGT Act by the 2015 Budget Speech, are 

incorporated in the Finance Act (No.2) 2014, which takes effect 

from 1 January 2015. 

THE SALIENT POINTS RELATING TO RPGT 

(Incorporating amendments made pursuant to the Budget 

Speech 2015) 

1.Retention sum - 3% is to be withheld from 1-1-2015 

The buyer *acquirer+ has to withhold 3% *not 2%+ of the 

purchase price, and remit it to the Inland Revenue Board 

*LHDN+. *Note: With effect from 1-1-2015, the retention sum 

has been increased from 2% to 3%: see s.21B RPGT Act 1976.+ 

2. Disposal with no gain 

There is no need to remit the retention sum to the Board if the 

seller *disposer+ makes no gain. But Form CKHT 3 must be 

submitted. For example, where the selling price is less than the 

seller’s acquisition price, the seller need not remit any retention 

sum to the Board. 

Illustration1: If Seller bought a house for RM900,000, and sold it 

for RM800,000, no retention sum is required, because he sold 

the property at a loss. 

3. Rates of RPGT for disposal by a company in 2014 

If a company sold its real property within 5 years after acquiring 

the property, the RPGT rates payable in the year 2014, *as 

shown in the minutes of the meeting+, were as follows *see 

Schedule 5, part II+: 

30% of the gain in year 1 

30% in year 2 30% in year 3 

20% in year 4 15% in year 5 

5% in year 6 and thereafter 

By Yang Pei Keng – 7 May 2015 

Note: The rates of RPGT payable by a company *whether 

foreign or local+ in the year 2015 remain the same as those 

payable in the year 2014. 

4. Evidence to be produced (if there is no record of 

acquisition) 

If the seller *disposer+ has no record of acquisition of the 

property, he may produce the following evidence to prove the 

details of acquisition: 

1. Sale and purchase agreement 

2. Transfer form 

If the disposal took place within 5 years of his purchase, the 

seller may produce copy of the document of title *e.g. Grant+ as 

proof of his date of acquisition. 

For any property bought *acquired+ before 1.1.1970, the value 

of the property as at 1.1.1970 will be taken into account: 

Schedule 2, para 4, also Finance (No.2) Act 2014. 

If any CKHT form is submitted without evidence of acquisition, 

the form will be returned. 

5. No RPGT is payable by administrator/executor 

a.The date of acquisition of an administrator/executor = the 

date of death of the deceased *See Schedule 2, para 15B+. (The 

earlier date of purchase by the deceased is not to be taken into 

account) 

b.The market value as at the date of death of the deceased = 

acquisition price of the administrator/executor (not the price 

paid by the deceased at a much earlier date). 

c.Transmission to the executor/administrator: No gain, no loss. 

Therefore No RPGT is payable. The date of disposal is deemed 

to be the same as the date of acquisition. 

d.Transfer by executor/administrator to a beneficiary: No gain, 

no loss. No RPGT is payable. 

e.Transfer by an executor to any third party *say pursuant to a 

Court Order+ or a buyer: RPGT is payable if there is a gain. 

f.Transfer by an administrator to the beneficiary pursuant to 

the Distribution Act: No RPGT is payable. 

g.Transfer by an administrator to any third party (other than 

the beneficiary) pursuant to a Court Order *other than the 

beneficiary+ or a buyer:The administrator has to pay RPGT if 

there is a gain. 


48


JOHORE 


49 

*NB: Under the National Land code, the administrator/executor 

must be described as “as representative” (sebagai Wakil) (and 

not as administrator or executor) in the transfer form for the 

transfer to the beneficiary or any third party.+ 

6.Disposal of assets of a deceased citizen 

If a non-permanent resident administrator (say a 

Singaporean) of the estate of a deceased Malaysian disposes of 

the assets of the estate: 

RPGT is payable (for the RPGT rates payable, see Schedule 5, 

Part 1, since it is the sale of the estate of a Malaysian 

deceased). 

7. Conditional Agreement (not involving approval by the 

Authorities) – must remit 3% 

The retention sum has to be remitted even for conditional 

agreements. 

Retention sum of 2% *now 3%+ must be remitted for disposal 

under any type of sale and purchase agreement, except those 

cases exempt from RPGT as stated in Form CKHT 3 (e.g. gifts 

etc.) 

8. Conditional agreement - remittance to be made within 60 

days of date of SPA 

The retention sum under a conditional agreement *not 

involving the approval from an authority+ must be remitted 

within 60 days of the signing of the conditional agreement (not 

after the condition has been fulfilled.) even though the 

condition is yet to be fulfilled. 

Exception: A conditional agreement requiring the approval of 

the EPU *Economic Planning Unit+, the seller may remit the 

retention sum after obtaining the approval. *See Schedule 2, 

para 16+ 

*16(a) Where … the acquisition or disposal requires the approval 

by the Government, etc. the date of disposal shall be the date of 

such approval.+ 

Johor Corporation: But if the conditional agreement requires 

the approval of Johor Corporation, the retention sum must be 

remitted to the Board within 60 days of the signing of the 

agreement. Johor Corporation is not an “authority or 

committee” appointed by the government. 

9. Documents/ receipts for incidental costs 

The original documents or receipts for incidental costs *e.g. 

legal fees, stamp duty, broker’s commission, etc.+ must be 

produced. 

If the original documents or receipts are required for other 

purposes, a copy of such documents or receipts may be 

produced, but the original has to be produced for inspection by 

the RPGT officer. 

10. Legal fees for bank loans – not allowed as “incidental 

costs”? 

Legal fees paid for obtaining loans and for Discharge of Charge 

are not allowed as incidental costs. The reason given is that 

such expenditure does not come within the definition of 

“incidental costs” under Schedule 2, para 6. 

Comment: 

This is an extremely restrictive interpretation of the meaning 

of “cost of transfer” under para 6 relating to “incidental costs”. 

In order to acquire or buy a property, you need to pay all legal 

fees for the transfer and the charge documents for completing 

the transfer of the property to the acquirer. Completion of the 

transfer of the property, entails payment of all costs incidental 

to the transfer *such as legal fees and stamp duty on the 

Transfer and the Charge, as well as the Discharge of Charge. 

“Costs of transfer” should therefore be given liberal 

interpretation to mean “the costs of completing the transfer, 

and not merely the costs for attending to the memorandum of 

transfer only”. 

11. Penalties for late filing 

In law, a penalty equivalent to 3 times the amount of the RPGT 

payable will be imposed for late filing for the year concerned. 

*See s.29(3) of the RPGT Act+, but such provision has not been 

strictly adhered to. 

As at today, the penalties imposed by the Board are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10% for delay up to 12 months 

15% 24 months 

20% 36 months 

25% more than 36 months 

RM100 minimum penalty for an individual. 

RM200 minimum penalty for non-individual. 

12. Reasons for rejecting RPGT forms 

Form incomplete: Where RPGT forms submitted are 

incomplete, they may be returned and the date chop on the 

forms will be cancelled. A covering letter from the Board 

returning the forms will be issued. 

No tax ref. No.: Any RPGT form *CKHT 1A, 1B and 2A+ submitted 

without showing the tax reference number will not be rejected. 

*Note: The answer is silent on CKHT3 without tax reference 

number+. 


49


JOHORE 


50 

13. Paying income tax (instead of RPGT ) – no retention sum 

required 

If a disposer *not a developer+ intends to pay corporate tax, 

instead of RPGT, he does not have to withhold or remit the 3% 

retention sum. Any person doing the business of selling and 

buying real property is subject to income tax, but not RPGT. 

14. Transfer of houses by any developer *for settling debts+ 

Where a developer transfers houses as consideration for 

settling the debt due and owing to his supplier, he has to pay 

income tax on such transfers. No RPGT is payable. No retention 

sum is required. 

ISSUES RELATING TO STAMP DUTY 

15. Stamping principal and subsidiary Documents 

Subsidiary documents *e.g. any letter of guarantee and power 

of attorney+ can be stamped together with the principal 

documents *e.g. any facility agreement and charge document+. 

But the principal agreement must be stamped first before 

stamping the subsidiary document. 

16. Rejection of documents because of Errors 

Inspection of documents will be made by the Board before 

rejecting them. Usually, common mistakes are typo errors, such 

as NRIC number, address of the property, dates, names of the 

parties, etc. Solicitors are advised to check the type-written 

particulars before submitting the documents. 

17. Payment of stamp duty by way of bank draft or client 

account cheque 

Payment of stamp duty by way of bank draft or client account 

cheque will only be accepted by the Board within 3 days from 

the date of issue of the bankdraft or client account cheque. 

(Why 3 days only when a cheque is valid for 6 months?) Such 

ruling has caused unnecessary inconvenience or hardship to law 

firms. 

The Johore Bar Committee made a request for a longer period 

of time for such purpose. But no direct answer was given. 

Instead, to solve the problem, the Board has introduced the e- 

Payment system to facilitate payment by solicitors. Such e- 

Payment will help expedite the process and reduce the cost of 

operation of the law firms concerned. 

18. Stamping documents for loans granted in foreign 

currencies 

Stamping a document for a loan given in any foreign currency, 

will be done through the STAMPS system. Example given: 

Type of document: Loan Agreement *in foreign currency+ 

Amount of loan: SGD10,000 x RM2.50 = RM25,000 

19. Ad valorem stamp duty on “factoring” agreements 

A “factoring” agreement usually attracts RM10 stamp duty 

only: item 32(c) First Schedule, Stamp Act. But the explanation 

given is that a factoring agreement is a loan, and therefore, ad 

valorem stamp duty is payable: item 22 or item 27, Stamp Act. 

But “assigning book debt” which is a loan agreement, 

attracts RM10 stamp duty only under item 32(c). 

“The absolute sale of any account receivables or book debts to 

a bank” should attract stamp duty under item 32(a). But if it 

refers to a factoring agreement, it attracts RM10 stamp duty 

under item 32(c). 

20. 0.1% stamping duty on any “clean loan” Any loan not 

secured by a bank charge *e.g. by a loan agreement, loan 

document or personal guarantee+ is known as a “clean loan” in 

the banking industry. If such “clean loan’ is repayable on 

demand or by lump sum payment, stamp duty payable is only 

0.1% *item 22(1)(b), see PU(A) 258+. 

On the other hand, if the loan is secured by a charge, stamp 

duty is payable under item 27(a)(iii) of Schedule 1. 

21. Cancellation of stamp duty in the System. 

Cancellation of stamp duty can be effected in the System. An 

application must first be made, and the stamp duty paid will be 

refunded if the conditions under s.57 or s.58 of the Stamp Act 

1949 have been complied with. 

22. SME in the Stamp Act vis-à-vis SME Corporation 

The 2 definitions are not the same. The Stamp Duty Division 

takes note of the amendment of the definition of SME, which 

took effect from 1.1.2014. 

In the light of the joint discussion of Bahagian Analisa Cukai, 

Ministry of Finance, the existing interpretation remains and 

applies, until the Stamp Act has been amended. It is subject to 

the policy laid down by the Ministry of Finance. 


50

PAGES OF POETRY- A Meandering 

Mind 

S. Balarajah 

Four and fifty years ago on the 30 th of October 1961 

proceedings were held in the Supreme Court, Kuala 

Lumpur to welcome Mr Justice Mohamed Suffian to the 

bench of the High Court, Malaya. Those present in Court 

for the ceremony were the then Attorney-General C.M. 

Sheridan, Registrar of the Supreme Court S.S Gill and the 

Chairman of the Bar Council, Malaya, R. Ramani. The Bar 

Chair, Ramani in his felicitatory address 

inter alia said: 

“These days it is unfashionable to 

refer to the traditions of British 

colonialism in any terms of praise. But 

I am unashamed to confess before 

you today that we, the Bench and Bar 

of this country are the heirs to three 

noble traditions deriving from that colonialism: first of 

all, the English Language, secondly the British system of 

justice: and lastly and by no means least important the 

British spirit of democracy.” 

People proclaim that history is written by the victors. 

Those who were colonialized by the 

colonialists be they the British , the 

French, the Spanish the Dutch or the 

Portugese say that their history is 

written by the colonialists. They claim 

that the Colonialists seem to inform 

them and educate all as to where we 

come from where we are and where 

we are heading to. They seem all 

knowing and all powerful. 

It appears that amongst the colonialists the British were 

perhaps the most benevolent. The system of 

Government (of course some freedom fighters and 

successors in the newfound regimes have adulterated 

and screwed up democratic notions and teachings and 

taken on more powers than what an English style 

democracy allows) and the doctrine of separation of 

powers are all left to us by the benevolent colonialists. 

These are in fact remnants of our colonial past, are they 

not? But we have polluted and adulterated them beyond 

recognition to near autocratic and dictatorial 


JOHORE 


governments. All organs of the government transformed 

to organs of people in power. The white Tuans were, on 

careful reflection, not too evil. They had embedded in 

the breasts a degree and fairness and their hands were 

guided by justice and their hearts full of benevolence an 

not greed and avariciousness. But the brown tuans and 

the black ones in some jurisdictions have brought their 

countries to doom dereliction and gloom. Like the whore 

in Jalan Meldrum and the cab driver in Jalan Ah Fook 

they say “jemput naik” only to bring their citizenry to 

doom and gloom. The Malaysian Penal Code and CPC 

were brought into the then Malaya from India by the 

English. The Indian Penal Code Evidence Act and 

Contracts Act were all brought by the English from India. 

First brought to the Straits Settlement and then to the 

rest of the Malay States. That is why we use Pollock and 

Mulla, Sarkar on Evidence and Ratanlal on Crimes etc. 

In the Highway Code you will find under Rule 25 this wee 

4 liner: 

“Here Lies the body of Jonathan Gray, 

Who died maintaining his right of way, 

He was quite in the right as he sped along, 

But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.” 

An English Testator in his last Will and Testament 

penned: 

“As to all my worldly goods now, or to be, in store, 

I give to my beloved wife and hers for evermore. 

I give all freely, I no limit fix: 

This is my will, and she’s executrix.” 

A wise one once said that the English language is “the 

key to the world’s brains.” Narrow minded and parochial 

nationalists have deprived few generations of Malaysians 

from speaking the BBC or the Queen’s English as we once 

used to! Some politicians who have by default and 

effluxion of time have become leaders in public statutory 

and Governmental outlets of the nation can hardly hold a 

proper or fair conversation in the English Language. It is 

most embarrassing to see them on the International 

stage. An international embarrassment indeed but does 

anybody really care?. 

Don’t we owe to the English minds and civilization a 

whole world of gratitude for enriching our lives. The 

education and edification we received from wordsmiths 

like Byron Shakespeare Shelly Terryson GB Shaw 

51 


51


JOHORE 


52 

Maugham etc cannot be measured. They all penned in 

English and their contribution to literature cannot be 

measured. India is a land of multitude of peoples, religions, 

languages tribes etc etc but somehow they preserved and 

promoted the English language. Some of the current 

popular writers of the English Language are from India 

China Indonesia and Japan are currently promoting the 

study of the English language. 

Some English have a wicked sense of humour. Be a little 

flippant and read of what Robert Burns (was he not a Scot?) 

wrote on rings and marriages: 

Robert Burns and The 3 rings. 

We have all heard it repeated ad nauseam in many a 

wedding banquet – “engagement ring, wedding ring and 

suffer-ring”! 

But Robert Burns (“Auld Lang Syne”) also wrote that there 

are 3 rings in a marriage. The engagement ring, the 

wedding ring and the suffering. He further wrote: 

Ibohal Kshetrimayum – An Indian Poet 

“She asked why wedding rings are 

made of gold: 

I ventured this to instruct her: 

Why madam love and lightning 

are the same, 

On earth they glance from heaven 

they came. 

Love is the soul’s electric flame 

And gold its best conductor.” 

- Robert Burns 

K. Ravikant Singh 61 years of age from India, is a Civil 

Engineer. Works as a Project Engineer in Shillong, India. 

(The place where former India President Abdul Kalem 

collapsed and passed away recently). His nom-de-plume is 

Ibohal Kshetrimayum. His famously accepted poem – “Who 

caused the Ripples?” was published in the last issue of 

INFO. A critic K. Satchidandan in a review after an interview 

with Ibohal says that the poet is an all time poet who never 

forces poetry to come out of him. He would wait and 

pontificate and then it comes to him in the form of scenes 

and images. Sometimes in his dreams and it explains the 

quantity of poems which are dreamy and dusky. 

Ibohal crafted the rather quaint poem and titled it “BLACK”. 

It is like a rustic village tale. But it is said to be partially true. 

It is about his childhood acquaintance of his whose name 

was Musuk (“Black”). The protagonist Black, Ibohal’s old 

friend passed on in 1974. The poet penned that Black was 

born into a noble family of Brahmins but soon became an 

outcaste and a thief who was hated by all the villagers. As if 

in a Tamil/Hindi cinema fashion the poet and Black fall for 

the same lassie. To befriend the girl, Black stole the poet’s 

new shirt and walked past the poet with the girl in his arms 

wearing the poet’s shirt!. This shattered the poet. Black not 

only stole the poet’s shirt but also the girl of his dreams! 

What a twin shalter! Much later one cold January day Black 

was found hanging on a tree. Dead. The poet loved him and 

took back the shirt and kept it clean and safe. He has a 

forgiving heart and forgave Black for stealing his shirt and 

his heart! Strange, one is minded to say. But men’s ways 

are always strange, are they not. 

No magic or acute philosophy in “Black” but it shows the 

feelings of the poet and the love he had for a friend who 

was despised by the rest of the community. The words “he 

surprised me with his other colours” says much. Nicely 

coined. There is goodness even in a thief. Is this not a 

universally accepted truth? 

The sad and mundane poem goes like this: 

BLACK 

Black was a thief, 

who stole anything 

between pots and clothes. 

Son of a pundit, 

he became a thief, and 

humiliated the Brahmins. 

I did not want to be a thief 

but we were friends, 

Black and I. 

All hated him, 

but he surprised me 

with his other colors. 

We fell in love 

with the same woman, 

who loved him over me. 

I spat venom, 


52

when Black walked past me 

with her in his arms 

wearing my new shirt 

I couldn’t find the other day 

sometime between noon and dusk. 

Sad and defeated, 

with vengeance nibbling my heart, 

I returned home late. 

I found my shirt on the bed, 

with a note from Black: 

“Sorry!! I’d to look clean for her.” 

On a frozen January morning 

they found his body, 

hanging from a tree. 

Now he has paid for her, said those 

who hated him; but I heard 

her tears saying - They killed him! 

I forgave him for the shirt and 

his love for her, 

and I still keep the shirt clean. 

Nnamdi Osu (Nigeria) 

The poet Nnamdi Osu is from Nigeria 

and writes: “I’m just an average person 

trying to lighten the stress in this world 

by offering inspiration poems, articles 

and advices through what I love best” 

I'll still be living in a poverty that 

assaults my country. 

It's an irony that a land filled with milk 

and honey, 

Still cries "no money", 

With it's leaders becoming millionaires 

every second, 

And the people, poorer every minute, 

Thus making the leaders billionaires 

every hour, 

And the people paupers every day. 

A nation that sighs and cries for debt 

relief, 

Deceiving the world to believe in it's 

grief, 

But in reality, the leaders are living in 

luxury, 

Embezzling without thinking of me -, 

A poor, poor child with no hopes of 

being who I want to be. 

It's so hard living in a third world 

country 

That even if I somehow happened to win 

a lottery, 

I'll still be living in a poverty that 

assaults my country 

And now a short poem of fellows who 

claim to be leaders and who bless us 

with nightmares by an Indian poet Vijay 

Vishal. 

Vijay Vishal is from India and of the 

Poet, Bijay Kant Dubey wrote: 


JOHORE 


Portrait Of A Politician - Vijay Vishal 

A canker 

Who cankers the very wood 

Wherein he stays. 

A climber 

Who sucks 

The marrow of those 

Who nursed and nourished him 

With pills and potions of power. 

A snake 

Who stings and bites 

Those 

Who managed milk for him. 

Makes promises 

Which 

Never means to fulfill 

Wears smiles 

Which 

Emerge not from the heart 

Preaches precepts 

Which 

Flouts with impunity 

Propounds principles 

Which 

Violates with a vengeance. 

Swears by poverty 

But shuns the poor 

Castigates riches 

But sheathes the rich 

Declares war on corruption 

But shields the corrupt 

Loudly advises frugality 

But rolls in regality. 

53 

Reflections Of A Third World Child 

It's so hard living in a third world 

country 

That even if I somehow happened to win 

a lottery, 

“Vijay Vishal as an Indian English poet 

Is an author of two collections 

Published from Writers Workshop, 

Calcutta, Namely, Speechless Messages 

and Parting Wish 

Born in 1949 at his maternal village, 

Mirzazaan Distt. Gurdaspur, Punjab 

Vishal is a native of Amrtitsar Who did 

his M.A in English From Khalsa college, 

Amritsar in 1971” 

A living and licentious example 

Not 

Of service-above-self 

But 

Service-unto-self. 

Nowadays watching CNN BBC or CNA is 

altogether depressing. Malaysian News, 

Syrian news, ISIS news – all news 

reports are most depressing. Perhaps 

the Hindus are right – it is “Kali – 

Yugam” – end days. As Frank Sinatra 

sang perhaps it may be true that the 

end is near! As students in London in 

the 1970’s we spotted a geyzer (a 

sandwich man) in the Hyde Park 


53


JOHORE 


54 

carrying a poster “The End is Nigh.” Believe he is still 

around! 

Everything these days seem to collapse and people are so 

disappointing and so some of us are minded to say “Stop 

the world, I want to get down!” 

“Stop the world I want to get off”, is a musical with a book 

music and lyrics by Lesle Bricusse and Anthony Newley. The 

title was derived from a graffito. There was a Warner 

Brothers fils release in 1966. We may be able to get off but 

can we get back? Only ONE had a second coming thus far? 

So, it will be a one-way ticket! 

Stop The World I Want To Get Off! 

Stop the world I want to get off, 

I feel my time here is complete. 

I,ve no more the wanting nor the will, 

to stay another sunrise. 

My time of being calm, humane, 

has just excelled it's sell by date. 

So I wish to leave and hold no memories. 

Stop the world, please let me get off, 

for I know now I’m in hell. 

I see no light at the end of my tunnel, 

where's the heaven on which they speak? 

I need to find my own escape, 

perhaps another planet as yet unknown, 

just launch me there I shant turn around. 

“When Roman General, Julius Caesar’s 

wife Pompeia was criticised for an 

alleged opprobrious behaviour with a 

young patrician, Clodius, Caesar 

divorced his wife despite no crime 

being proven against both of them., 

the wife Pompeia and the young 

Clodius. Caesar said : “My wife ought not even to be under 

suspicion” 

Now the desert (No: II) : Palladuz an ancient Greek 

philosopher said: 

“There are 2 happy days in a man’s life. 

They day he takes his bride to bed and 

The day he lays her in her grave.” 

And lastly please pass the vintage tawny port. 

“I can retain neither respect nor affection for a government 

which has been moving from wrong to wrong in order to 

defend its immorality.” 

Mahatma Gandhi 

S. Balarajah 

Johore Bar 


Stop the world, I beg to get off, 

I’m finding dreams a better reality. 

Within my dreams there are no wars, 

within a war dreams die too. 

This earth as got me down to much, 

I wish to pass on as an entity. 

To be released from these chains that bind me, 

so I can sail free to the wind. 

I beg your acceptance to my request, 

please stop the world and let me get off. 

Stop this damn world and let me off. 

To wind up the meandering thoughts here are some further 

and better (?) thoughts! 

Food For Thought (No: I): Pause ponder and pontificate. 


54


JOHORE 


55 

Just for Laughs 

Credits:: Used with permission from Debbie Ridpath Ohi at Inkygirl.com | Content courtesy of bigfootjustice.com 

| Content courtesy of Web Donuts under Creative Commons courtesy of www.webdonuts.com | Content 

courtesy of mooselakecartoons.com | Content courtesy of xkcd.com | Content courtesy of www.lukesurl.com 


55


JOHORE 


56 

Towns 

JOHORE BAR STATISTICS AS AT 30TH SEPTEMBER 2015 

LAW FIRMS 

LAWYERS 

30.9.2015 Increase/Decrease 30.9.2015 Increase/Decrease 

(1) Johor Bahru 411 3 1312 31 

(2) Batu Pahat 71 1 137 3 

(3) Muar 68 5 127 4 

(4) Kluang 47 -5 80 5 

(5) Segamat 20 0 43 1 

(6) Kulai 18 0 37 2 

(7) Pontian 14 0 19 0 

(8) Kota Tinggi 14 1 23 1 

(9) Masai 12 -1 19 3 

(10) Yong Peng 6 0 7 0 

(11) Tangkak 6 1 9 2 

(12) Pasir Gudang 4 0 9 2 

(13) Mersing 3 0 5 -3 

(14) Gelang Patah 3 0 5 -1 

(15) Ulu Tiram 2 -1 2 -1 

(16) Simpang Renggam 1 -1 2 -1 

(17) Pekan Nanas 1 0 1 0 

(18) Labis 1 0 1 0 

In the State of Johor 703 4 1838 43 

Total Membership 

As at 30th September 2015, the total membership of the Johore Bar is 1838. There has been an increase of 43 members 

since the last statistics (on 31st December 2014). The total membership of the Johore Bar constitutes 11% approx. of that 

of the Malaysian Bar. 

1. Lawyers in Johor Bahru 

There are 1312 members practising in the city of Johor Bahru. They account for 71% of the total membership in 

the State of Johor (i.e. 1312/1838 members). 

2. Law Firms in the State of Johor 

The total number of law firms in the State of Johor is 703. There has been an increase of 4 law firms since December 2014. 

The number of law firms in Johor Bahru has increased (from 408 to 411). They constitute 58% approx. (i.e. 411/703) of the 

law firms in the State of Johor. 


56

INFO BAR - FINAL - OCT 2015

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?