Foul!

As published in Malay Mail today By Jahaberdeen Mohamedd Yunoos IN the midst of seeming confusion surrounding the business of 1MDB, there appears to be a major confusion among some sectors of the public on what a “whistleblower” is in law. A whistleblower, in law, is not someone who whistles any tune or music loudly in public with the purported motive of disclosing a wrongdoing by some government department. If that was the legal position, then any number of government agencies can be vilified and undermined in public on the pretext of whistleblowing. Likewise, writing a blog article for example, based on so-called inside information, to disclose a purported wrong by say, a minister or a ministry, also does not qualify as whistleblowing in law. The blog writer, contrary to his expectations, could end up committing various crimes and may even face potential civil liability if his accusations of wrongdoings are levelled at individuals. For this reason and reasons ...

As published in Malay Mail today Being Frank By Frankie D’Cruz WHEN young offenders are caned in court in front of the public gallery, including newsmen, the people’s capacity for outrage better be inexhaustible. The nastiness of courtroom whipping reflects one of several indecorous challenges to the legal system that have brought dismay about questionable sentencing. While disciplinary action deserves praise, caning young men in court is a cosmetic step towards rehabilitation — one that would probably harden a publicly-shamed teenager. Law aside, we are not meant to hurt our children in this manner. The courts did. This week, two young men aged 19 and 20 received seven and eight strokes of the rotan respectively for gang robbery at a Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur. Last week, an 18-year-old was whipped six times at a magistrate’s court in Ipoh for a break-in offence. The bench appears to have pushed rather hastily into the book, showing no sign of bein...

As published in Malay Mail (print) today. Sultan Azlan Shah (pic) was a patient judge and the post suited him, said Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria. Arifin said during his tenure as Judge and Chief Justice, Sultan Azlan wrote many landmark rulings especially on constitutional and administrative law. “We (judges) still read and referred to his many judgments and still look at his decisions,” said Arifin, adding he was saddened by the death. Arifin, who had vast experience working with Sultan Azlan since he was a registrar at the High Court in 1976, described Sultan Azlan as a patient judge. “When Tuanku was appointed Sultan of Perak, I was also Perak state legal advisor and I served about five years and when Tuanku became The Yang diPertuan Agong, I got my appointment letter from him as a High Court Judge. “All judges and lawyers will agree he was a patient judge and suited for the post (judge). I am proud to have worked with him,” said Arifin, adding he also appeared before Sultan A...

Twenty candidates have filed nomination papers for election to the Bar Council for the 2014/2015 term, pursuant to section 49 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.  They are: 1.    Andrew Khoo Chin Hock (Khoo Chin Hock Andrew) (Selangor) 2.    Brendan Navin Siva (Kuala Lumpur) 3.   Buzze Azam (Mohd Khairul Azam Bin Abdul Aziz)   (Kuala Lumpur) 4.   Colin Andrew Pereira (Kuala Lumpur) 5.    George Varughese (George Varughese A/L K O Varughese) (Selangor) 6.    Hendon Mohamed (Kuala Lumpur and Selangor) 7.   Honey Tan Lay Ean (Tan Lay Ean) (Kuala Lumpur) 8.    Dato’ Jahaberdeen @ Jabar (Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos) (Selangor) 9.  Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (Datuk Haji Kuthubul Zaman B Bukhari) (Johore) 10. Low Beng Choo (Dato’ Low Beng Choo) (Kuala Lumpur) 11. Mohamad Ezri Bin Abdul Wahab (Mohamad Ezri B Abdul Wahab) (Penang) 12.  P. Suppiah (Suppiah S/O Pakr...

Haresh Says as published in The Malay Mail today. Does the act of signing a consent form prior to surgery automatically absolves the liability of a doctor or medical institution? More importantly, is the consent of a spouse also required in such circumstances? Two recent cases in the High Court — Gurmit Kaur Jaswant Singh v Tung Shin Hospital & Anor, and Abdul Razak Datuk Abu Samah v Raja Badrul Hisham Raja Zezeman Shah & Ors — come to mind. While the facts in both cases differ, the learned judges looked into the duty of care owed to the patients, and if there was a need to explain the nature of the risks to the next of kin. It also looked at the dependence of the patients — despite being of right sounding mind — on their spouses. In the case of Gurmit Kaur, the plaintiff was admitted for the removal of a fibroid. She signed a consent form, but claimed her husband was not called in for the signing. In the follow-up appointment, the plaintiff was shocked to le...