Saturday, 13 September 2014


A corner office unit in Metropolitan Sq, Bandar Damansara Perdana, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia, is up for sale.

The size of the unit is 616 square feet.

Selling price starts from RM1,500,000.00 (Ringgit Malaysia One Million Five Hundred Only).

Interested buyers, please submit your bids to

Thank you.











Malaysia-Training for Lawyers on Judicial Decisions Relating to Sedition Act 1948 (18 Sept 2014)

Training for Lawyers on Judicial Decisions Relating to Sedition Act 1948 (18 Sept 2014)

Circular No 207/2014
Dated 13 Sept 2014
Training for Lawyers on Judicial Decisions Relating to Sedition Act 1948 (18 Sept 2014)
The Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee ("NYLC") launched its #MansuhAktaHasutan nationwide campaign on 4 Sept 2014 to urge the Government to repeal the Sedition Act 1948 ("Act").  As part of its efforts to strengthen advocacy on the issue, and in view of the rising number of arrests made under the Act, NYLC will conduct training for lawyers to handle cases relating to the Act.

The following is the programme outline:
(1) Overview of the Sedition Act 1948 and key provisions of the law, by Joshua Tay H'ng Foong, BON Advocates
(2) Sedition Act 1948: Cases and Jurisprudence, by New Sin Yew, BON Advocates
(3) Handling sedition cases, by Edmund Bon Tai Soon, BON Advocates; and
(4) Question-and-Answer Session.
The training is open to all Members of the Bar and pupils in chambers.  The details of the training are as follows:
Date:                           18 Sept 2014 (Thursday)
Time:                           6:30 pm – 7:30 pm (Registration begins at 6:00 pm)
Venue:                         Meeting Room 1, 3rd Floor, Bar Council, 15 Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur
Registration fee:         Admission is free but advance registration is required
CPD Code:                  T3/18092014/BC/BC141190/1 (One point)
Please complete and submit the attached registration form to Parvinder Kaur Harbindar Singh, Officer, by email at, or by fax at 03-2031 6640.
Should you have any enquiries, please contact Parvinder Kaur Harbindar Singh by email at, or by telephone at 03-2050 2091.
Thank you.

Syahredzan Johan
National Young Lawyers Committee
This circular and the attachment may also be accessed here.


Malaysia-Agenda and Motions for the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (19 Sept 2014)

Agenda and Motions for the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (19 Sept 2014)


Circular No 208/2014
Dated 13 Sept 2014
To Members of the Malaysian Bar and pupils in chambers
Agenda and Motions for the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (19 Sept 2014)
We refer to Circular No 200/2014 dated 8 Sept 2014, giving notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") of the Malaysian Bar to be held as follows:
Date:             19 Sept 2014 (Friday)
Time:              3:00 pm
Venue:            Dewan San Choon, Level 2, Wisma MCA, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur

The agenda for the EGM is as follows:
(1) To consider the following motions proposed in accordance with section 65(5) of the Legal Profession Act 1976:
(a) "Motion proposed by Christopher Leong, as Chairman of the Bar Council and on behalf of the Bar Council, at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar to be held on 19 September 2014", dated 12 Sept 2014 (pages 2 to 15 of the attached bundle of motions); and
(b) "Motion to organise a peaceful protest, "Walk for Justice 2", against the use of the Sedition Act 1948 and to call for its repeal", proposed by New Sin Yew and seconded by 121 others, dated 11 Sept 2014 (pages 16 to 19 of the attached bundle of motions); and
(2) Any other matters.
Attached is a document containing the two abovementioned motions that have been proposed for consideration at the EGM.  If you are a registered user of the Malaysian Bar website, you may also click here to view the motions.
In accordance with sections 65(4A) and 65(4B) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, the quorum for the EGM shall be 500 Members of the Malaysian Bar, and the EGM shall be dissolved if a quorum is not present by 4:00 pm.

Please note that you will be required to produce your National Registration Identity Card ("NRIC") or driver's licence in order to register your attendance for the EGM.

We would like to draw your attention to sections 44 and 46(5) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, which read as follows (emphases added):
Section 44 All members who are not in arrears with their subscription under section 46 shall be eligible—
(a) to attend and vote at any general meeting;
(b) subject to section 46A, to be elected to the Bar Council; and
(c) to vote on the election of members to the Bar Council.
Section 46(5) Liability to pay any annual subscription to the Malaysian Bar shall arise when the subscription has been fixed by the Bar Council. All annual subscriptions to the Malaysian Bar shall be paid by the 30th day of June of each year.
Members are urged to make every effort to attend the EGM so that the issues on the agenda may be effectively discussed by as many Members as possible.
We look forward to your presence and participation at the EGM.

Richard Wee Thiam Seng
Malaysian Bar         
(1) Members are kindly requested to make every effort to attend the meeting punctually to ensure a quorum of 500.
(2) Registration counters will open from 1:30 pm.  Light refreshments will be served.
(3) All Members and pupils in chambers shall, upon registering their names, wear the designated wristbands for the purpose of admission.
(4) Pupils in chambers may attend but shall not vote, and shall be seated only at the area(s) designated for them.
(5) Under the Continuing Professional Development ("CPD") Scheme, Members and pupils in chambers will earn one CPD point for attending the EGM.
(6) For information on preferential hotel corporate rates secured by Bar Council, please refer to the current list, which can be downloaded from the scroll box located on the top right-hand section of the Malaysian Bar website, at
If you are a registered user of the Malaysian Bar website, you may click here to access this circular and the attachment.



In Malaysian International Trading Corp (Japan) Sdn Bhd v Bentini SPA & Ors [2014] 11 MLJ 255, it was held that:-

"...[180] First of all, the transactions entered are not money lending transactions at all as the elements spelt out in s 2 of Act 400 are absent. Under s 2, the following three definitions must be given due regard:

'moneylender' means any person who lends a sum of money to a borrower in consideration of a larger sum being repaid to him;
'moneylending' means the lending of money at interest, with or without security, by a moneylender to a borrower;
'moneylending agreement' means an agreement made in writing between a moneylender and a borrower for the repayment, in lump sum or instalments, of money borrowed by the borrower from the moneylender....

[183] Before a transaction may be considered a moneylending transaction under Act 400, the first defendant will have to show:

  • (a) 
    that there is borrowing from one party and lending to the other party; 
  • (b) 
    the borrowing must be in the form of money; and  
  • (c) 
    the consideration for the act of borrowing is for a larger sum being repaid to the lender. 
[184] In that decision, I had also cited the Court of Appeal's decision in Pan Global Equities Sdn Bhd & Anor v Taisho Co Sdn Bhd [2006] 1 MLJ 158. The Court of Appeal had expressed concerns over how perfectly legitimate or genuine advance arrangements were being displaced as unenforceable moneylending transactions, recognising that it is actually quite 'commonplace in corporate environment' for such arrangements (not unlike those presented here) to be made:

This is therefore not a case of the respondent carrying on the business of money lending on the facts. It is commonplace in the corporate environment for shareholders or directors of a company to advance it funds at interest to tide it over difficult periods of financial hardship. Such transactions are necessary for keeping companies on a position to meet their debts as and when they fall due. If the courts proceed to treat these transactions as pure money lending within the Moneylenders Act 1951 ('the 1951 Act'), then no shareholder or director will ever be able to recover genuine advances albeit bearing interest made to his or her company during a time of want. Business in the corporate sector as we know it will come to a literal standstill and companies instead of looking to survival will face extinction....

[187] The Court of Appeal in Pan Global Equities Sdn Bhd & Anor v Taisho Co Sdn Bhd, at p 162 had also opined:

In my judgment, the 1951 Act, by its spirit and intendment is designed to protect individuals who because of their impoverishment are caught in the jaws of unlicensed lenders. It is certainly not designed to apply to fit patterns such as those that exist in the present instance.

[188] Similarly, I do not find the fact pattern in this case designed or unwittingly of the nature and character as suggested by the first defendant. Even the Federal Court had cautioned in Ngui Mui Khin v Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd [1980] 2 MLJ 9, at p 12 that it is not every money lending transaction that is illegal and unenforceable:

At the outset we wish to observe that the Moneylenders Ordinance 1950 does not apply to moneylending but only to moneylenders. It does not make every moneylending transaction illegal and unenforceable. It is only a moneylending transaction of a moneylender which is the subject matter of the Ordinance and must comply with the provisions on pain of being declared illegal and unenforceable by the court. He is a moneylender if within the meaning of s 2 of the Ordinance he can be said to be a person 'whose business is that of moneylending'. To prove business requires some sort of continuity or system or repetition of similar transactions ..."

Malaysia-Function of finding of fact is reserved exclusively for the trial courts

In Gemilang Mirza Sdn Bhd & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2014] 11 MLJ 300, it was held that:-

"...I do not find the learned sessions judge to be wrong in his findings of facts to justify any intervention; see Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] MLJU 504; [2006] 1 CLJ 457 (FC) where it was expressed that the finding of fact is a function exclusively reserved by the law to the trial court. Unless the findings of fact is one which is manifestly wrong, it is not the function of an appellate court to intervene in such finding...."

Proview eBook Bi-Weekly Offer - Get your copy at 20% off!

Proview eBook Bi-Weekly Offer - Get your copy at 20% off! ...