KEDUDUKAN KERUSI DEWAN UNDANGAN NEGERI N.3 KOTA SIPUTEH, KEDAH

Kenyataan penuh Pengerusi SPR mengenai kedudukan kerusi DUN Kota Siputeh

Kenyataan akhbar penuh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) mengenai kedudukan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri Kota Siputeh.

KEDUDUKAN KERUSI DEWAN UNDANGAN NEGERI N.3 KOTA SIPUTEH, KEDAH

1. Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) Malaysia telah menerima pemakluman daripada Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah pada 17 Ogos 2009 yang menyatakan terdapat kekosongan luar jangka di bawah Perkara 51 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah apabila Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Kota Siputeh, YB Dato’ Hasan bin Sarif dikatakan telah gagal hadir dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri dengan tiada kebenaran Speaker di dalam dua kali mesyuarat berturut-turut.

2. Sehubungan dengan itu, SPR pada hari ini, 01 September 2009 telah mengadakan Mesyuarat Khas bagi membincangkan perkara tersebut. Perkara 51 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah menyatakan jika mana-mana ahli bagi Dewan Negeri tiada hadir di dalam Dewan dengan tiada kebenaran Speaker di dalam dua kali mesyuarat berturut-turut maka tempatnya itu hendaklah menjadi kosong.

3. Fasal (5) Perkara 53 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah, memberi SPR kuasa untuk memastikan jika ada berlakunya kekosongan luar jangka dan tarikh berlakunya kekosongan luar jangka itu.

4. Dalam menjalankan kuasanya di bawah Fasal (5) Perkara 53 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah, SPR perlu menentukan bahawa ADUN Kota Siputeh itu tidak hadir di dalam dua kali mesyuarat berturut-turut dan ADUN itu diberi peluang untuk menjelaskan keadaan yang menyebabkan beliau tidak dapat hadir dalam mesyuarat tersebut.

5. Berdasarkan kepada fakta yang dikemukakan, ADUN Kota Siputeh telah tidak hadir tanpa kebenaran Speaker pada Mesyuarat Kelima Penggal Persidangan Pertama Dewan Negeri pada 19 April 2009 dan Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Persidangan Kedua Dewan Negeri pada 9 Ogos 2009.

6. Berdasarkan ketidakhadiran tersebut Speaker telah memaklumkan Pejabat Pilihan Raya Negeri Kedah melalui surat bertarikh 17 Ogos 2009 bahawa kerusi ADUN N.3 Kota Siputeh menjadi kosong menurut Perkara 51 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah.

7. Dalam memutuskan isu ketidakhadiran di dalam dua kali mesyuarat berturut-turut, takrif perkataan “mesyuarat” (meeting), “penggal persidangan” (session) dan “persidangan” (sitting) telah diberi perhatian dan pentafsirannya menurut Perkara 2 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah dan Peraturan 96 Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman. Bagi memperlengkap tafsiran kepada perkataan yang tersebut di atas, Fasal (1) Perkara 53 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah dan Peraturan 11 Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman juga telah dirujuk.

8. Menurut Warta Kerajaan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman (K.P.U.5/2009) DYMM Sultan Kedah telah mengisytiharkan bahawa 19 April 2009 pukul 9.00 pagi sebagai tarikh dan waktu bagi Mesyuarat Kelima Penggal Persidangan Pertama Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah. Di bawah Warta Kerajaan (K.P.U. 10/2009) pula, DYMM Sultan Kedah telah mengisytiharkan bahawa 9 Ogos 2009 pada pukul 9.00 pagi sebagai tarikh dan waktu bagi Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Persidangan Kedua Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah.

9. P. Ramanatha Aiyar di dalam buku beliau, The Law Lexicon – The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary with Legal Maxims, Latin Terms, Words & Phrases, Edisi Kedua, Cetakan Semula 2007 (Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, Law PUblisher) di muka surat 386, telah menakrifkan perkataan consecutive meetings ertinya Meetings, one immediately following the other.

10. Berdasarkan kepada perenggan 8 di atas dan takrif perkataan “consecutive meetings”, Mesyuarat Kelima Penggal Persidangan Pertama Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah dan Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Persidangan Kedua Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah bukanlah “consecutive meetings” dalam erti kata Perkara 51.

11. Sehubungan dengan itu, adalah tidak tepat jika dikatakan bahawa ADUN tersebut tidak hadir dalam dua mesyuarat berturut-turut. Ini adalah kerana mesyuarat yang tidak dihadiri oleh ADUN berkenaan bukanlah dua mesyuarat berturut-turut di dalam satu penggal persidangan. Sebaliknya ia adalah dua mesyuarat berturut-turut bagi dua penggal yang berbeza. (Tempoh masa antara penggal persidangan pertama dan penggal persidangan kedua ialah selama 3 bulan 20 hari).

12. Bagi isu sama ada ADUN Kota Siputeh diberi peluang untuk menjelaskan keadaan yang menyebabkan beliau tidak dapat hadir dalam mesyuarat pada 9 Ogos 2009, SPR telah meneliti surat daripada ADUN Kota Siputeh kepada Speaker bertarikh 10 Ogos 2009 yang memohon maaf kerana tiada dapat hadir dalam sidang Dewan pada 9 Ogos 2009. Bersama-sama surat tersebut turut dilampirkan Surat Cuti Sakit daripada doktor yang mendapati beliau tidak sihat untuk menjalankan tugas selama dua hari iaitu dari 9 Ogos 2009 hingga 10 Ogos 2009 dan kenyataan bahawa beliau telah menghantar sms kepada Ketua Pembangkang memaklumkan ketidakhadiran beliau pada sidang Dewan hari tersebut kerana sakit dada.

13. Berdasarkan dokumen yang ada dan setelah meneliti fakta ketidakhadiran ADUN Kota Siputeh pada 9 Ogos 2009, SPR mendapati bahawa ketidakhadirannya itu adalah disebabkan beliau sakit berdasarkan kepada Surat Cuti Sakit yang dilampirkan pada surat kepada Speaker yang bertarikh 10 Ogos 2009. Walau bagaimanapun, tiada apa-apa maklumat yang diterima oleh SPR sama ada penjelasan tersebut telah diberi pertimbangan atau sebaliknya. 14. Di samping itu tiada maklumat yang diterima oleh SPR berhubung dengan rujukan oleh Speaker mahu pun ADUN Kota Siputeh kepada Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Dewan di bawah Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman.

15. Ini adalah kerana Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan mempunyai kuasa yang diperuntukkan di bawah Peraturan 78 Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah Darul Aman untuk menimbangkan kuasa-kuasa, hak dan kebebasan Dewan. Kuasa Speaker untuk memberikan kebenaran kepada ADUN tidak hadir dalam mesyuarat Dewan kerana sakit merupakan satu dari perkara yang terangkum dalam kuasa, hak dan kebebasan Dewan. Erskine Mya’s Treatise On The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, di muka surat 75 menjelaskan erti What Constitutes Privelege sebagai other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

16. Oleh sebab tidak terdapat mana-mana peruntukan dalam undang-undang dan Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan, maka isu berhubung dengan ketidakhadiran ADUN kerana cuti sakit wajar dirujuk kepada Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Dewan bagi menjelaskan sama ada alasan sakit yang diberi setelah Dewan bersidang boleh diterima oleh Speaker. Maka SPR berpendapat bahawa Peraturan 78 Peraturan-Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Kedah telah tidak dirujuk langsung bagi membantu SPR dalam memutuskan dan menghilangkan apa-apa keraguan di pihak SPR berhubung dengan isu yang dinyatakan dalam perenggan 12.

17. Setelah meneliti dokumen dan mengkaji fakta yang dikemukakan kepada SPR serta kedudukan undang-undang yang berkaitan, pada menjalankan kuasa di bawah Fasal (5) Perkara 53 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah, SPR memutuskan bahawa Mesyuarat yang tidak dihadiri oleh ADUN Kota Siputeh bukanlah dua mesyuarat berturut-turut di dalam satu penggal persidangan dalam erti kata Perkara 51 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah Darul Aman. Sebaliknya ia adalah dua mesyuarat berturut-turut untuk dua penggal yang berbeza (Tempoh masa antara penggal persidangan pertama dan penggal persidangan kedua ialah selama 3 bulan 20 hari). Surat Cuti Sakit yang dikemukakan oleh ADUN Kota Siputeh diterima oleh SPR sebagai penjelasan mengenai ketidakhadiran beliau dalam mesyuarat Dewan pada 9 Ogos 2009. SPR juga mendapati bahawa kegagalan ADUN Kota Siputeh itu menghantar Surat Cuti Sakit kepada Speaker lebih awal (selewat-lewatnya pada 9 Ogos 2009) tidak menjadikan Surat Cuti Sakit itu terbatal. SPR berpendapat bahawa sebelum Perkara 51 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Kedah Darul Aman digunakan, ia hendaklah terlebih dahulu dirujuk kepada Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Dewan. SPR memutuskan bahawa tiada berlaku apa-apa kekosongan pada kerusi ADUN N.3 Kota Siputeh.”.

18. SPR juga memutuskan bahawa kerusi ADUN N.3 Kota Siputeh masih disandang oleh YB. Dato’ Abu Hassan b. Sarif yang beliau menangi dalam Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-12 yang lepas.

Sekian, terima kasih.

(TAN SRI ABDUL AZIZ MOHD YUSOF)

Pengerusi

Read more...

Federal Court's cart without a horse

Federal Court's cart without a horse
NH Chan | Jun 23, 09 11:51am
MCPXcomment On April 10, 2009, the Federal Court declared that the three Perak assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the state legislature.

It ruled that the Election Commission (EC) is the rightful authority to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature.

The five-member bench comprised Federal Court judge Alauddin Mohd Sherif, Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, S Augustine Paul and James Foong.

Following this, I wrote an article entitled ‘When justice is not administered according to law’. This is what I said: Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable to the question which is the constitution of Perak.

I then pointed out that the law which is applicable is Article 31(5) of the Perak constitution which reads: A person who resigns his membership of the legislative assembly of this state or any other state shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the legislative assembly of this state.

I pointed out that an assemblyperson who resigns his membership of the legislative assembly is disqualified from being a member of the assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.

I also showed that Article 33(1) says: If any question arises whether a member of the legislative assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the assembly shall be taken and shall be final.

What this means is that, when a question arises as to whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly, the decision (or ‘the vote’) of the assembly is final.

Incidentally, Article 35 stipulates that an assemblyperson can resign by simply writing to the speaker. This is what it says: A member of the legislative assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker.

I concluded my article with this observation: The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that the EC is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature.

Don’t you all feel superior to the Federal Court judges because you know the correct answer while the highest court has given a wrong decision? So you see, when you know how to judge the judges, you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff among them. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.

Regurgitation in judgment

The dictionary meaning of ‘regurgitate’ is ‘repeat information without understanding it’. Almost everyone knows that it is the assembly who decides the question of the disqualification of a member of the legislature and not the EC. It is only when a member has been disqualified that there is a vacancy in the assembly.

Nik Hashim FCJ handed down a written judgment dated June 8, 2009 as the judgment of the court. The judgment appears to be oblivious of the fact that the general public is now aware of the law applicable. Since the people has been apprised of the law it would be foolish for any judge to give a judgment which is nothing but hogwash - it was crassly insensitive of the judges to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the knowing public.

But to our surprise, this is exactly what Nik Hashim FCJ did. As usual the Federal Court has missed the point again. Recently, we discovered it was Augustine Paul FCJ who has this propensity. Now it is Nik Hashim.

He said: The issue relating to question No.1 is whether it is the EC or the speaker who has the right to establish if there is a casual vacancy of the state legislative seats. To answer the question, we have to consider the provisions of Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution and section 12(3) of the Elections Act 1958, and the meaning of the words ‘casual vacancy’ and the word ‘establish’.

Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution states: A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy”

Section 12(3) of the Elections Act reads: In relation to a vacancy which is to be filled at a by-election, a writ shall be issued not earlier than four days and not later than 10 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy.”

A ‘casual vacancy’ is defined in Article 160(2) of the federal constitution to mean ‘a vacancy arising in the House of Representatives or a legislative assembly otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament or of the assembly’.

The word ‘establish’ is defined in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (6th edition) to mean: ‘to discover or prove the facts of the situation; ascertain’.

And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ‘establish’ to mean ‘to place beyond dispute; to prove’.

Nik Hashim continued: In considering the Perak constitution, the provisions of the other state constitutions and the federal constitution need to be considered.

By comparison, the constitutions of Kelantan [Article 46(5)], Malacca [Article 19(5)], Pahang [Article 26(5)], Penang [Article 19(5)], Perlis [Article 55(5)], Sarawak [Article 2 1(5)] and Kedah [Article 53(5)] contain provisions similar to Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution which states that ‘A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy’; whereas the constitutions of Johor [Article 23(5)], Negri Sembilan [Article 56(5)], Selangor [Article 70(5)] and Terengganu [Article 44(5)] provide that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it occurs.

And blah blah blah, the verbiage continues from page 11-18 of his 20-page judgment where he concluded: Hence we unanimously ruled that the decision of the respondent speaker declaring the three state seats of Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang vacant was unlawful and therefore null and void as the decision was contrary to Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution. Accordingly, our answer to question No 1 is in the affirmative. Having answered the question we found that there is no necessity to answer question No 2.

Missing the point

Now that you know the law which is applicable, you are in a position to judge the five judges

What do you think of the quality of these judges of the highest court in the country? You must think that, after all the rigmarole and after all the effort in writing this 20-page judgment, they could have done better. But no, they still missed the point altogether. All of us ordinary folk knew the answer. But not these five judges.

Of course, the point is Article 33(1) of the Perak constitution which says that, when a question arises as to whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly, the decision (meaning ‘the vote’) of the assembly is final. It is neither the speaker nor the EC who determines if a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly.

If a person resigns his membership of the legislative assembly, he shall be disqualified from being a member of the assembly for five years from the date of his resignation; see Article 31(5).

Article 35 only says that a member can resign simply by writing to the speaker.

So, if any question arises as to the resignation of the three turncoat assemblymen - a person who resigns his membership of the assembly is disqualified for five years from being a member of the legislative assembly - the decision of the assembly by a vote being taken on their disqualification shall be final.

It is only after a member of the assembly has been disqualified for membership of the legislative assembly that a vacancy of the member’s seat in the assembly arises. It is only then that a casual vacancy arises. And by Article 36(5): A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy.

In my article which I wrote shortly after the oral decision of the Federal Court in early April, I had even pointed out the misreading of Article 36(5) by the highest court in the land.

This is what I said: A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblymen have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the assembly which decision shall be final: see Article 33(1).

It is only upon receiving the decision of the legislative assembly that the EC will be able to establish that there is a vacancy. As it turns out the Federal Court has put the cart before the horse - in this case, just the cart without the horse.

It has held that it is for the EC to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the assembly by resignation.

Not administering justice according to law is this Federal Court’s besetting sin. The judges of this court have, therefore, breached section 3(l)(d) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 for bringing the judiciary into disrepute or bringing discredit to it.

This is a ground for their removal from office by virtue of section 2(2) of the Code of Ethics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.

Read more...

Kilang Besi Labur RM9 Billion di Perak

KYM HOLDINGS BERHAD (“KYM” or “the Company”)
- PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF SIXTEEN (16) PARCELS OF LAND MEASURING
APPROXIMATELY 409 ACRES (OR 1,655,992 SQUARE METRES (“SQ. M”)) BY HARTA
MAKMUR SDN BHD, A 54% OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF KYM TO VALE
INTERNATIONAL S.A. FOR AN AGGREGATE CASH CONSIDERATION OF RM101,874,578.41
(“ PROPOSED DISPOSAL”)
- PROPOSED GRANT OF OPTION TO VALE INTERNATIONAL S.A. TO PURCHASE FROM
HARTA MAKMUR SDN BHD AN ADDITIONAL THIRTEEN (13) PARCELS OF LAND
MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 756 ACRES (OR 3,061,372 SQ. M) FOR AN AGGREGATE
CASH CONSIDERATION OF RM93,759,024.15 (“ PROPOSED OPTION”)
(COLLECTIVELY TO BE REFERRED AS “THE PROPOSALS”)
1. INTRODUCTION
MIMB Investment Bank Berhad on behalf of the Board of Directors of KYM (“Board”) wishes to
announce that KYM and Harta Makmur Sdn Bhd (“HMSB” or “the Vendor”), a 54%-owned subsidiary
company of KYM, had on 11 June 2009 entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”)
with Vale International S.A. (“Vale” or “the Purchaser”) for:-
(a) the proposed disposal by HMSB of sixteen (16) parcels of leasehold land measuring
approximately 409 acres (or 1,655,992 sq. m) located at Mukim of Lumut, District of Manjung,
Perak Darul Ridzuan (“Disposal Properties”) to Vale for an aggregate cash consideration of
RM101,874,578.41.
(b) the proposed grant of an option to Vale giving Vale the right (but not the obligation) to purchase
an additional thirteen (13) parcels of leasehold land located at Mukim of Lumut and Mukim of
Setiawan, District of Manjung, Perak Darul Ridzuan measuring approximately 756 acres (or
3,061,372 sq. m) (“Option Properties”) from HMSB for an aggregate cash consideration of
RM93,759,024.15.
2. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSALS
2.1 Background
The Disposal Properties and Option Properties (collectively, the “Properties”) comprises 29 contiguous
parcels of leasehold development land (with an unexpired lease period of 81 years) approved for resort
development which includes an 18-hole golf club known as Teluk Rubiah Country Club, a 54 room chalet
development known as Teluk Rubiah Resort and 142 units of bungalow lots.
Teluk Rubiah is located about 5 km south of Bandar Sri Majung, 9 km south west of Sitiawan town centre,
about 11 km south east of Lumut Town, 83 km due south west of Ipoh City Centre and about 288 km from
Kuala Lumpur City Centre. Teluk Rubiah is accessible from Manjung town via Jalan Semarak Api. The
entrance to Teluk Rubiah Country Club is about 5 km from Manjung town.
The Properties forms part of the KYM group of companies’ (“KYM Group”) master development area at
Teluk Rubiah measuring 4,889,129 sq. m (“Master Development Area”). Upon completion of the
Proposals and assuming Vale acquires the Option Properties, the KYM Group will retain 171,765 sq. m of
the Master Development Area.
HMSB is the registered and beneficial owner of the Master Development Area (including the Properties)
save for:-
(a) 128 units of bungalow lots where HMSB has entered into sale and purchase agreements with
various purchasers for the sale and construction of the bungalow units.
(b) 1 parcel of land (which forms part of the Master Development Area but not the Properties)
measuring in aggregate 39,463 sq. m disposed by HMSB to Ascotsun Sdn Bhd (“ASB”) via a
conditional sale and purchase agreement dated 16 December 2005.
(c) 2 portions of the parcel of land (which forms part of the Master Development Area but not the
Properties) measuring in aggregate 22,851 sq. m disposed by HMSB to Desa Kilat Sdn Bhd
(“DKSB”) via a conditional sale and purchase agreement dated 28 July 1999.
The Properties measures 4,717,364 sq. m comprises an undeveloped portion of 3,893,546 sq. m and
developed portion of 823,818 sq. m which is made up of the following:-
Average age
of buildings
(years)
Land area
(sq. m)
Built-up area
(sq. m)
(a) Teluk Rubiah Country Club 16 657,614 161
(b) Teluk Rubiah Resort 13 26,709 788
(c) 142 units of bungalow lots - 139,495 -*
823,818 949
* The construction of buildings for the bungalow lots have not commenced.
The net book value of the Properties based on the audited consolidated financial statements of KYM for the
financial year ended 31 January 2009 stood at RM185,250,890. Further details of the Properties are as
follows:-
Title details Area
(sq. m)
Disposal Properties
1 PN 210049, Lot No. 6918, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 27,977
2 PN 210051, Lot No. 6920, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 45,307
3 PN 210060, Lot No. 6926, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 12,342
4 PN 210063, Lot No. 6931, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 58,884
5 PN 210064, Lot No. 6932, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 97,198
6 PN 210065, Lot No. 6928, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 75,084
7 PN 210066, Lot No. 6933, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 11,760
8 PN 210068, Lot No. 6934, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 22,272
9 PN 210069, Lot No. 6935, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 40,595
10 PN 210073, Lot No. 6937, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 165,211
11 PN 210074, Lot No. 6938, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 887,750
12 PN 210075, Lot No. 6940, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 8,185
13 PN 210076, Lot No. 6941, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 16,404
14 PN 210077, Lot No. 6942, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 4,364
15 PN 210078, Lot No. 6939, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 13,347
16 PN 210079, Lot No. 6943, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 169,312
Sub-total 1,655,992
Option Properties
17 PN 210050, Lot No. 6919, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 1,228,297
18 PN 210052, Lot No. 6922, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 19,703
19 PN 210053, Lot No. 6923, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 44,077
20 PN 210054, Lot No. 6924, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 8,571
21 PN 210055, Lot No. 6925, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 35,785
22 PN 210056, Lot No. 32704, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 163,686
23 PN 210057, Lot No. 32705, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 169,547
24 PN 210058, Lot No. 32706, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 11,171
25 PN 210059, Lot No. 32707, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 6,777
26 PN 210062, Lot No. 6930, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 711,357
27 PN 210070, Lot No. 6936, Mukim Lumut, District of Manjung, Perak 254,355
28 PN 210071, Lot No. 32708, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 116,265
29 PN 210072, Lot No. 32850, Mukim Sitiawan, District of Manjung, Perak 291,781
Sub-total 3,061,372
Total 4,717,364
The Master Development Area were originally intended to be developed into an integrated resort
development comprising of a golf course, chalets, bungalows, service suites, corporate villas, hotel,
homesteads and resort commercial center with an estimated gross development value and cost of RM410.8
million and RM220.2 million respectively and expected to contribute total development profits of RM173.9
million to the KYM Group. The said development was approved by Perancang Bandar Dan Desa Perak
Darul Ridzuan on 4 February 1999. However, the implementation of the said development was delayed due
mainly to the onset of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 and consequential delay in implementing various
road infrastructure such as the Jelapang-Lumut Highway and the West Coast Highway which were
important to the successful implementation of the said development.
The Proposals entail:-
(a) the proposed disposal by HMSB of the Disposal Properties to Vale for an aggregate cash
consideration of RM101,874,578.41.
(b) the proposed grant of an option to Vale giving Vale the right (but not the obligation) to purchase
the Option Properties from HMSB for an aggregate cash consideration of RM93,759,024.15.
Vale intends to develop an industrial project which encompasses a private jetty on the Properties
(“Proposed Project”). In connection to this, Vale intends to enter into a conditional sale and purchase
agreement with Kemuning Wira Sdn Bhd to purchase a parcel of land measuring 151,673 sq. m adjacent to
the Properties (“SPA I”).
The Properties are currently charged to financial institutions (“Chargees”) for credit facilities granted to
KYM (“Charges”). Pursuant to the SPA, the Properties shall be disposed free from all charges and
encumbrances.
Out of the total 142 bungalow lots located on the Disposal Properties, HMSB has already entered into 128
sale and purchase agreements with various purchasers (“Bungalow Purchasers”) for the construction and
sale of the bungalow lots (“Bungalow Lots”) (“Bungalow SPAs”). The Bungalow SPAs were not able to
be completed due to frustration as certain approvals could not be obtained. Under the terms of the
Proposed Disposal, HMSB shall as soon as practicable take all actions, including furnishing and executing
such documents as may be necessary to reach settlement with the Bungalow Purchasers for the purpose of
enabling the Vendor and all the Bungalow Purchasers to execute settlement agreements where each of the
Bungalow Purchasers confirm and agree that they no longer have any rights, interests, title or benefit in,
under and to the Bungalow Lots or any part of the Disposal Properties.
In addition, HMSB had on 16 December 2005 entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement with
ASB for the disposal of a parcel of land (which forms part of the Master Development Area but not the
Properties) measuring 39,463 sq. m (“ASB Land”) for a cash consideration of RM3,574,182. The said
transaction was completed on 26 May 2009.
2.2 Basis of arriving at the disposal consideration/option price
The total consideration for the Properties of RM195.6 million under the Proposals was arrived at on a
willing-buyer willing-seller basis after taking into account the market value of the Properties of RM170.4
million as assessed by TD Aziz Sdn Bhd using the comparison and cost methods of valuation vide its letter
dated 1 June 2009 (“Valuation Letter”).
2.3 Liabilities to be assumed pursuant to the Proposals
Vale/KYM Group will not assume any other liabilities pursuant to the Proposals.
2.4 Background information on the Purchaser
Vale is a member of the Vale S.A group of companies. Vale S.A is a global company headquartered in
Brazil, with a workforce of over 100,000 employees, including outsourced workers. Vale S.A is the second
largest diversified metals and mining company in the world and the largest publicly traded company in
Latin America by market capitalisation (approximately 100 billion United States Dollar).
The Vale S.A group of companies is the world’s largest producer of iron ore and pellets, key raw materials
for the steel industry, and one of the largest producers of nickel, which is used to produce stainless steel,
batteries, special alloys, chemicals and other products. Vale S.A is listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
Sao Paulo Stock Exchange, Madrid Stock Exchange and Euronext Paris.
(Source : www.vale.com)
2.5 Utilisation of proceeds
The gross proceeds arising from the Proposals of RM195.6 million will be utilised for repayment of bank
borrowings, settlement with the Bungalow Purchasers, settlement of outstanding charges in respect of the
Properties, working capital and to defray expenses for the Proposals. KYM presently has bank borrowings
of RM209.7 million as at 31 January 2009 out of which RM141.3 million was utilised for purposes relating
to the Properties.
2.6 Original cost and dates of investment
KYM acquired 90% equity interest of Tegas Consolidated Sdn Bhd (“Tegas”), the holding company of
HMSB which owns 60% equity interest in HMSB for RM12.7 million on 19 June 1996. As part of the said
acquisition, KYM has also repaid on behalf of HMSB an amount of RM60.0 million owing by HMSB to
the vendors of Tegas. The original cost and date of investment by HMSB in the Properties are not readily
available.
2.7 Risk factors
The completion of the SPA is subject to inter-alia, the fulfillment of various conditions precedent which
includes the approvals from various regulatory authorities. The non-fulfillment of any conditions precedent
may result in the SPA being terminated.
3. RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSALS
The Proposals would enable the Company to achieve the following:-
(i) Reduction in bank borrowings and interest costs. Based on the unaudited consolidated financial
statement of KYM for the financial year ended 31 January 2009, the total bank borrowings of the
KYM Group stood at approximately RM209.7 million with an annual interest cost of RM15.9
million. The Proposals if fully implemented is expected to significantly reduce the KYM Group’s
bank borrowings and interest cost.
(ii) Unlock the value of its investment in the Properties and to streamline and rationalise the KYM
Group’s property asset base. The Proposals are expected to monetise and unlock the value of the
Properties for KYM.
4. SALIENT TERMS OF THE SPA
The salient terms of the SPA includes the following:-
(i) The Disposal Properties shall be purchased by the Purchaser free from any encumbrance, with
vacant possession, subject to the category of land use affecting the Disposal Properties as provided
for in the respective separate issue documents of title having been converted to “industrial”,
subject to the present state of the Disposal Properties and subject to all restrictions in interest and
conditions of title, whether express or implied, affecting the Disposal Properties;
(ii) The disposal consideration of RM101,874,578.41 under the Proposed Disposal (“Disposal
Consideration”) shall be payable by the Purchaser to a stakeholder as follows:-
(a) RM10,187,457.85, being 10% of the Disposal Consideration shall be payable within
fourteen (14) days from the date of the SPA; and
(b) the balance RM91,687,120.56 shall be payable within one (1) month after all conditions
precedent contained in the SPA have been satisfied (“Payment Date”);
(iii) The SPA is conditional upon the following conditions precedent being obtained or fulfilled by the
date falling four (4) months from the date of the SPA or such other date as may be mutually
agreed between the parties (“Cut-Off Date”):-
(a) The approval of the shareholders of the Vendor at an extraordinary general meeting
(“EGM”) for the disposal of the Disposal Properties;
(b) The approval of the shareholders of KYM at an EGM for the disposal of the Disposal
Properties;
(c) The approval of the Securities Commission (“SC”) and Equity Compliance Unit of the
SC in respect to the disposal of the Disposal Properties;
(d) The Vendor obtaining a letter from all the Chargees their redemption statement
confirming their approval or consent for the Vendor to enter into the sale and purchase of
the Disposal Properties and the redemption mechanism in respect of the Disposal
Properties as contemplated by the SPA and the escrow agreement to be entered into
between the Purchaser, the stakeholder, the Vendor and the Chargees (as the case may
be) and containing the undertakings by the Chargees to take all actions and execute such
documents as may be reasonably required by the Purchaser from time to time and until
such time that all the Charges are discharged, so as to procure and ensure that the
Charges are discharged as soon as practicable following presentation of the duplicate
copy of the Charge, discharge of charge in Form 16N of the National Land Code and the
withdrawal of lien-holders caveat lodged by the Chargees over the Disposal Properties by
the Chargees with the Land Office;
(e) The Vendor having obtained and furnishing to the Purchaser copies of the settlement
agreements in respect of the Bungalow Lots and the Purchaser being satisfied (in its
absolute discretion) with the termination of the arrangements in respect of the Bungalow
Lots and the Vendor having full rights to sell and dispose of the Disposal Properties to
the Purchaser in accordance with the provisions of the SPA;
(f) A letter of no objection or the written approval of the Foreign Investment Committee
(“FIC”) to the acquisition of the Disposal Properties by the Purchaser or its nominee (if
applicable);
(g) The written approval of the State Authority for the disposal by the Vendor of the
Disposal Properties to the Purchaser or its nominee (“State Authority Approval”). To this
effect, the application fee and all costs and disbursements for the State Authority
Approval shall be borne by the Purchaser who shall make payment subject to receipt of
supporting documents from the Land Office requiring payment of the same;
(h) Completion of financial, legal and technical due diligence on the Disposal Properties and
the Vendor and KYM to the satisfaction of the Purchaser. The Purchaser acknowledges
that the due diligence shall be for the purpose of confirming that the area and the
boundaries for the Properties shall be not materially different from as they are currently
in the existing separate issue documents of title and that the Vendor has good title in,
under and to the Properties and that there are no other persons having a right to all or part
of the Properties (whether pursuant to any agreements or by way of any powers granted)
and there are no existing impediments (including existing applicable approvals) towards
enabling the proposed amalgamation and sub-division of the Disposal Properties and for
its anticipated use in respect of the Proposed Project;
(i) The execution of the SPA I by all the parties thereto on terms which are acceptable to the
Purchaser (save where a breach has occurred under the SPA I, with the Purchaser having
duly performed its obligations under the SPA I, up until the SPA I becomes
unconditional) and the SPA I becoming unconditional;
(j) The approval from the relevant regulatory authority to convert the category of land use of
the Properties to “industrial” having been obtained and the issuance of the respective
separate issue documents of title with the category of land being “industrial” and with
such conditions and/or restrictions which are not materially different from the conditions
and/or restrictions imposed on the issue documents of title to the Properties as at the date
of the SPA (materiality being determined by the Purchaser in its sole discretion) and
where there are any conditions or restrictions on title, that such conditions and/or
restrictions do not in any way prevent the Purchaser from implementing or carrying out
the Proposed Project. The parties agree that the Purchaser shall be responsible to pay for
reasonable and duly evidenced costs and for the conversion premium and shall make such
payment following the Land Office having issued its approval and stating the amount of
premium payable in writing for the conversion;
(k) The payment and settlement by the Vendor of all outstanding quit rents, rates, premiums,
other outgoings or charges (if any) due and payable for and in respect of the Disposal
Properties up until the Cut-Off Date;
(l) Where applicable, the approval of any other authorities which may be required for the
completion of the transaction contemplated in the SPA;
(m) Delivery by the Vendor and the Government of Perak of an acknowledgement stating that
the Proposed Project and/or the execution, delivery, and performance by the Vendor of
the SPA is not in conflict with, and will not result in a breach or violation of, or constitute
a default under, any material agreement to which the Vendor or the Government of Perak
is a party and any previous authorization or right granted by the Vendor or the
Government of Perak and the Vendor providing written confirmation from Lumut
Maritime Terminal Sdn. Bhd. (“LMT”) and/or any other applicable entity that they have
no objections to the construction and operation of the jetty in connection with the
Proposed Project in a form acceptable to the Purchaser (in its absolute discretion), and the
execution of a Service Agreement, the terms and conditions of which have been agreed
between the Purchaser and LMT, to cover basically eventual interfaces with existing
terminals and maintenance and environment control of marine facilities, if required by
any applicable law or regulation or by the terms of LMT’s concession agreement with the
Perak State Government and/or any other applicable entity; and
(n) The Vendor having taken such actions including executing such documents and making
such applications (where necessary), as may be required by the Purchaser in its absolute
discretion, to resolve the transaction referred to in the agreement dated 28 July 1999 in
respect of the sale by the Vendor to DKSB of a portion, measuring approximately 22,851
sq. m, of the piece of land held under Title Number PN 210057 Lot 32705, Mukim of
Sitiawan, District of Manjung, State of Perak (“Desa Kilat Land”) to the satisfaction of
the Purchaser and the Vendor having delivered to the Purchaser such documentation
evidencing the relevant actions (including the withdrawal of all private caveats or
encumbrances, if any, entered on the Desa Kilat Land or the Properties or Option
Properties as the case may be),
(iv) The completion of the SPA and SPA I shall be inter-conditional unless waived in writing by the
Purchaser.
(v) On 11 June 2009, the Purchaser, HMSB and ASB have entered into an agreement to facilitate the
disposal of the ASB Land by ASB, the beneficial owner of the ASB Land to Vale and transfer of
the title of the ASB Land which is still registered to HMSB directly to Vale (“ASB Agreement”).
HMSB undertakes that it will not terminate the ASB Agreement and it shall further use its best
endeavours to procure that ASB will not terminate the ASB Agreement.
In the event, the SPA I and/or the ASB Agreement are terminated or no longer in full force and
effect (or a party to such agreements has issued a notice to terminate in accordance with the terms
contained therein), then the Purchaser shall have the right to terminate the SPA (if the Vendor fails
to remedy such breach within 14 days from the date of notice by the Purchaser).
(vi) The Proposed Option shall be exercisable for a period of twelve (12) months or such other period
as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties, commencing from the Payment Date (“Option
Period”). In consideration for the grant of the Proposed Option, the Purchaser shall on the
Payment Date pay to a stakeholder the amount of RM9,375,902.42 only being an amount
equivalent to 10% of the purchase price for the Option Properties (“Option Fee”).
In the event the Purchaser exercises the Proposed Option at any time during the Option Period by
giving the Vendor written notice of its exercise, the Vendor shall:-
(a) within fourteen (14) days from such notice, execute a sale and purchase agreement(s)
having substantially on the same terms and conditions as set out in SPA in relation to the
acquisition of the Option Properties (“Option Properties SPA”); and
(b) the Option Fee together with any interest accrued thereon shall be deemed to form part of
the purchase price for the Option Properties and dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of the Option Properties SPA.
In the event the Purchaser fails to exercise the Proposed Option during the Option Period, the
Proposed Option shall lapse at the expiry of the Option Period and the Option Fee shall be
released to the Vendor and any interest accrued thereon to the Purchaser within five (5) days
following the expiry of the Option Period.
5. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSALS
5.1 Share Capital and Substantial Shareholders’ Shareholding
The Proposals will not have any effect on the share capital and substantial shareholders’ shareholdings in
KYM as the Proposals will be fully satisfied by cash and will not involve any issuance of securities in
KYM.
5.2 Earnings and Earnings Per Share
The KYM Group is expected to register a gain of RM49.6 million resulting from the Proposals (after taking
into consideration expected interest waivers of RM59.9 million by the Chargees for the redemption of the
Properties) during 2009 and/or 2010.
Nevertheless, the Proposals are expected to improve the earnings and earnings per share of the KYM Group
in the future financial years in view of the interest savings as detailed in Section 2.5 above.
5.3 Net Assets (“NA”), NA Per Share and Gearing
The proforma effect of the Proposals on the NA, NA per share and gearing based on the audited
consolidated financial statements of KYM for the financial year ended 31 January 2009 are as set below:-
Audited as at 31
January 2009
(I)
After the
Proposed
Disposal
(II)
After (I) and
the exercise of
the Proposed
Option
RM’000 RM’000 RM’000
Share capital 81,135 81,135 81,135
Share premium 35,803 35,803 35,803
Asset revaluation reserve 31,063 26,209 7,963
Accumulated losses (124,551) (92,802)* (52,611)^
Shareholders’ equity /NA 23,450 50,345 72,290
No of ordinary shares 81,134,500 81,134,500 81,134,500
NA per share (RM) 0.29 0.62 0.89
Bank borrowings 209,729 107,157# 29,803#
Gearing ratio (times) 8.94 2.13 0.41
Notes:-
* After taking into account estimated expenses in relation to the Proposals of RM0.8 million
advisory fees and net gain on disposal of RM27.7 million under the Proposed Disposal.
^ After taking into account the net gain on disposal following the disposal of the Option Properties
under the Proposed Option of RM21.9 million.
# For illustrative purposes, assuming RM120.0 million of the proceeds from the Proposals will be
utilised to repay bank borrowings (including those not related to the Properties) and expected
interest waivers of RM59.9 million by the Chargees for the redemption of the Properties.
5.4 Dividends
Any potential effect of the Proposals on the dividends to be declared for the future financial years will be
dependent on the dividend rate to be determined after taking into consideration the future financial
performance of the KYM Group.
6. APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSALS
The Proposals are conditional upon the approvals being obtained from:-
(a) the SC pursuant to the SC’s Guidelines on Offering of Equity and Equity-Linked Securities (“SC
Guidelines”), if required
(b) the SC (Equity Compliance Unit)/FIC pursuant to the Guidelines on the Acquisition of Interests,
Mergers and Take-overs by Local and Foreign Interests issued by the FIC;
(c) the State Authority;
(d) the shareholders of KYM and HMSB at separate EGMs to be convened; and
(e) any other approvals by the relevant authorities/parties, if any.
The Proposed Disposal and Proposed Option are inter-conditional upon each other. The Proposals are not
conditional upon any other corporate exercises being undertaken by KYM (if any).
7. DIRECTORS’ AND MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS’ INTERESTS
None of the directors and/or major shareholders of KYM or persons connected to them have any interest,
direct or indirect, in the Proposals.
8. DIRECTORS’ RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSALS
Having considered all aspects of the Proposals, the Directors of KYM are of the opinion that the Proposals
are in the best interest of the KYM Group.
9. ESTIMATED TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION
Barring any unforeseen circumstances and subject to receipt of all relevant approvals, the Proposed
Proposals are expected to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2009. The submission of the application to
the relevant authorities for the Proposals is targeted to be made within three (3) months from the date of
this announcement.
10. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SC GUIDELINES
The terms of the Proposals does not depart from the SC Guidelines.
11. ADVISER
MIMB has been appointed as adviser for the Proposals.
12. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION
The SPA and Valuation Letter will be available for inspection at the Registered Office of KYM at No.12,
Lorong Medan Tuanku Satu, 50300 Kuala Lumpur during normal business hours on Mondays to Fridays
(except public holidays) for a period of three (3) months from the date of this announcement.
This announcement is dated 11 June 2009.

Read more...

Speaker vs Speaker: Ganesan states his case

In a proceeding that would have put wrestling bouts to shame, MIC's R Ganesan was elected as the new speaker for the Perak state legislative assembly.
MCPX
At a press conference in Ipoh today, the 57-year-old former state assemblyperson explained why he is the legitimate speaker and sheds a little light on the dark episode of May 7, when the state assembly convened for the first time since Barisan Nasional seized control of the state.

According to him, Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V Sivakumar, who was literally dragged out of the House, could not chair the motion to sack him (Sivakumar) because he was an interested party.

"We brought a motion to remove him. When we do that, he cannot table the motion because he is an interested party. It is against the rules of natural justice," he said.

Ganesan said deputy speaker Hee Yit Fong then took over the proceedings from Sivakumar and allowed the motion moved by BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir to be passed, based on Article 36A of the state constitution.

"Naturally, the deputy speaker has to take the place of the speaker. This has been done correctly," he said, adding that the motion was seconded by Hamidah Osman (Sungai Rapat) and supported by 29 state assemblypersons.

This was followed by the taking of oath and donning of the speaker's regalia, said the two-term (1999-2008) Sungkai assemblyperson.

"So, 31 (state assemblypersons) elected me. How can you say I'm not the legitimate speaker? It was legally done. I have no doubts about it," said the lawyer by training.

'Sivakumar ignored my warnings'

On Sivakumar's unceremonious ejection, Ganesan said he sought the help of the police to remove the Pakatan speaker after he refused to budge from the coveted seat.

He said that he had given Sivakumar ample warning before asking the sargent-at-arms to take action.

But when the sargent-at-arms was unable to break the Pakatan state reps' human shield around Sivakumar, the police were called after Ganesan invoked his "residual powers" under Standing Order 90.

"Strangers can be allowed in the house. The Standing Orders (even) allow me let them speak during debates," he said.

Read more...

Nizar's stay application fixed for Monday

Nizar's stay application fixed for Monday
Hafiz Yatim | May 13, 09 2:58pm
The Court of Appeal has fixed Monday, May 18, to hear Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's application to set aside the stay order given by the appellate court yesterday.

This comes after Nizar filed a notice of motion, along with a certificate of urgency and his affidavit in support of the application which was filed at the Court of Appeal registry at 2.20pm today.

Unlike Zambry's application yesterday which was given the special treatment with the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail's presence and counsel Cecil Abraham along with Umno lawyers Mohd Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, managing to have the application heard immediately, the rival menteri besar's application to get an early hearing date was only known close to 5pm

Nizar's application was filed by the law firm of Leong and Tan, from Perak.

Among others, the Pakatan leader is seeking to set aside the Court of Appeal's stay order which Zambry had obtained yesterday following Monday's Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar.

Alternatively, Nizar is seeking the Court of Appeal to impose varied conditions on the stay order which Justice Ramly Ali did not allowed yesterday.

He is also seeking costs and other relief deemed necessary by the Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, Ramly, the solitary Court of Appeal judge to hear Zambry's application allowed an order for a stay of the declaratory orders which Mohammad Nizar has obtained.

Ramly also did not allow counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, for Nizar, to apply to the appellate court to impose conditions on the stay order.

Nizar: KL High Court says I am MB

In Nizar's affidavit in support of the application, he said after four days of hearing, the Kuala Lumpur High Court in its judgment allowed the following declarations namely:

(1) He (Nizar) is the rightful menteri besar of Perak at all material times;

(2) There was no dissolution of the Perak legislative assembly;

(3) There was no motion of no-confidence made against him at the Perak legislative assembly; and

(4) He did not resign the post as menteri besar.

Nizar noted that after the judgment delivered by Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim, the judge did not grant an oral application by Zambry's lawyers and he immediately assume the post as menteri besar.

The Pakatan leader also stated the grounds for his application to set aside the stay order namely there were no merits for the application, as there was no motion of no-confidence tabled against him at the assembly, and that the menteri besar cannot be expelled based on Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution.

He also stated that there is a possibilty that Ramly had wrongly read or may have erred in reading the High Court judgment, as the case before the Court of Appeal was made hurriedly.

Declaratory order cannot be stayed

Nizar also stated that the declaratory order cannot be stayed in its application, and the appellate court had given a wrong order in allowing for a stay. Following this, he said this application is made to correct the situation.

He also claimed that special circumstances were in his favour as Zambry could be considered as an usurper menteri besar following the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment and the move by the appellate court had violated his rights and the High Court's decision.

It had also hindered the administration of the Perak state based on the state constitution, and that the rakyat and its civil servants are confused as to who is the rightful menteri besar following the appellate court's decision.

He also claimed the decision yesterday, had resulted in an unstable political situation in Perak.

Nizar said his application would not prejudice Zambry's stay application as it is an “office of trust” and that his application to seek a dissolution would have to be decided by the sultan.

Futhermore, the Pakatan leader claimed the High Court had decided that Zambry at all material times was not the rightful menteri besar.

Read more...

It’s contempt of court, says Ngeh

It’s contempt of court, says Ngeh

By CLARA CHOOI


IPOH: Pakatan Rakyat has accused Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir of acting in contempt of court by resuming the duties of the Perak Mentri Besar.

State DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said that until the Court of Appeal made its decision, neither Dr Zambry nor Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin could legally carry out any mentri besar duty.

The former senior executive council member added that by resuming his duties Tuesday, Dr Zambry had caused the nation to think that he had already won his appeal against Monday’s High Court ruling.

The Court of Appeal had on Tuesday granted Dr Zambry a stay of execution pending his appeal on the High Court’s ruling that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar “at all material times.”

Since then, Dr Zambry and his team of exco members had entered their offices at the State Secretariat, met for an exco meeting and held a press conference.

“This cannot be done because the stay of execution granted to Dr Zambry does not reverse the High Court ruling.

“The stay only asks Nizar not to exercise his right in order to give Dr Zambry a chance to let his case be heard at a higher court.

“Hence as it stands now, Nizar is the legal mentri besar and Dr Zambry is the illegal one but neither can exercise their mentri besar duties,” said Ngeh told The Star in a phone interview.

Ngeh also wondered at the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant the stay, saying that Section 54 of the Special Relief Act disallowed any injunction to be granted when it interfered with the public duties of a government.

Section 54(d) states: “An injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia, or with the sovereign acts of a foreign Government.”

“The stay is tantamount to a form of injunction,” argued Ngeh.

Ngeh said that since Dr Zambry could not carry out mentri besar duties, he did not have the right to lift the suspension of State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim and State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

He also refuted Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan’s statement that the state government could not suspend the duo.

“The State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser are Federal Officers appointed by the Public Service Commission and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission respectively.

“However, when they are seconded to and employed by the state government, the state government has the authority over them as their employer.

“Therefore, they can be suspended from their duties pending formal complaints lodged against them with both the commissions,” he said.

Read more...

Aku Mandela dan Gandhi Adalah Sama - (Sama Hitam Manis)

Saya memohon maaf kepada pembaca setia blog saya kerana terlewat untuk mengemaskinikan tulisan saya. Selepas keputusan mahkamah semalam, saya bertemu dengan pemimpin-pemimpin, para peguam serta rakan-rakan untuk membincangkan tindakan kami seterusnya.

Seperti yang saya nyatakan dalam kenyataan ringkas akhbar, saya menerima keputusan mahkamah dengan hati dan fikiran yang terbuka, tanpa mempersoalkan keputusan itu.

Keputusan itu membuktikan mahkamah adil dalam melaksanakan tanggungjawab perundangan, dan sekali gus menolak persepsi yang diada-adakan oleh Pakatan Pembangkang.

Bagaimanapun saya dan rakan-rakan akan meneruskan perjuangan kami menegakkan keadilan dan membela rakyat. Ini adalah tradisi dan intipati perjuangan Barisan Nasional.

Menegakkan kebenaran bukanlah satu tanggungjawab yang mudah. Ia memerlukan pengorbanan dan kegigihan.

Nelson Mandela misalnya mengorbankan kebebasannya selama 27 tahun demi membebaskan rakyat Afrika Selatan dari cengkaman “apartheid”.

Mahatma Ghandi pula mengorbankan nyawanya untuk memastikan kemerdekaan India serta rakyatnya dapat hidup aman tanpa sempadan kasta dan agama.

Perjuangan menegakkan keberanian ini memerlukan “keberanian”. Mandela pernah berkata : “Saya mempelajari bahawa keberanian bukanlah bermakna tidak punya perasaan takut, tetapi Berjaya mengatasinya. Mereka yang berani bukanlah mereka yang tidak punya perasaan takut tetapi mereka yang mampu menakluki rasa takut itu. (I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear. )

Jika dibandingkan dengan dua tokoh yang disebutkan tadi, perjuangan dan pengorbanan yang saya serta rakan-rakan lalui tidaklah seteruk mereka. Sekurang-kurangnya saya tidak hilang kebebasan atau disakiti untuk menegakkan kebenaran.

Saya hanya menempuhi persepsi umum yang negatif seperti yang dilemparkan oleh pakatan pembangkang termasuk Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Nizar Jamaluddin serta orang-orang kanannya.

Tuduhan terbaru ialah penggunaan bomoh yang saya rasakan amat serius kerana ia melibatkan perbuatan syirik. Ini adalah antara taktik politik kebencian (politics of hatred) yang digunakan oleh mereka supaya rakyat membenci Barisan Nasional.

Tetapi taktik seperti ini bukanlah budaya Barisan Nasional.

Memetik kata Martin Luther King Jr, kegelapan tidak akan mengatasi kegelapan. Kebencian tidak akan menghapuskan kebencian, hanya kasih sayang mampu mengubahnya. (Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.)

Pada saya kehilangan jawatan Menteri Besar tidak akan mengurangkan semangat juang saya untuk menegakkan kebenaran. Jika Nizar dan rakan-rakannya yang kini mula bermaharaja-lela dan rakus kuasa (termasuk memasuki pejabat Menteri Besar seawal 7.15 pagi pada 12 Mei), menyangka keputusan mahkamah itu akan mengurangkan semangat juang saya maka mereka sudah tersilap baca.

Perjuangan menegakkan kebenaran tidak perlu pada jawatan.

Bagaimanapun saya akui adalah sukar untuk menukarkan persepsi penyokong mereka tentang saya dan Barisan Nasional. Ceramah-ceramah, laman-laman portal, serta akhbar milik pembangkang berjaya memberikan imej negatif terhadap kami.

Tidak hairanlah ada golongan yang percaya dengan tuduhan mereka kononnya adun-adun Barisan Nasional memulakan kekecohan dalam dewan undangan negeri pada 7 Mei lepas.

Bekas speaker V. SIvakumar pula seperti “buta undang-undang” mendakwa keputusan mahkamah tinggi semalam, mengatasi keputusan mahkamah Persekutuan yang mengistiharkan penggantungan saya serta enam exco sebagai tidak sah.

Padahal, Mahkamah Persekutuan mengatasi keputusan mahkamah Tinggi. Ini adalah antara contoh manipulasi yang dibuat oleh pakatan pembangkang.

Mereka hanya menerima keputusan undang-undang yang menyebelahi mereka dan menolak keputusan yang tidak bersama mereka. Inilah "selective justice" yang diamalkan oleh pembangkang.

Saya tidak akan mencerca dan menjaja keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi seperti yang dilakukan oleh Nizar dan Ngeh dalam ceramah-ceramah mereka apabila keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak menyebelahi mereka.

Saya tidak dapat membayangkan betapa rakusnya mereka apabila Nizar disahkan semula sebagai Menteri Besar. Kerakusan mereka di dalam dewan tempohari mencerminkan kerakusan yang akan dilakukan sebaik sahaja Nizar menduduki kerusi Menteri Besar.

Salam Perjuangan.

Read more...

Suhakam:Credibility of the courts at stake

KUALA LUMPUR: The credibility of the courts is at stake in the Nizar-Zambry saga, said Suhakam chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman.

“This is a matter of great public importance,” he added.

Abu Talib said Suhakam commissioners had discussed the incident in Perak on May 7 at their monthly meeting on Monday.

“It appears to us that during the incident that occurred at the Perak State Legislative Assembly on May 7, the police and civil service had acted in concert with the government that had assumed power in controversial circumstances, showing complete disregard for human rights.

“Governments may change but those who serve in the police and administration must remain loyal to the wider interest and respect human rights rather than the narrow interest of individuals who form the government of the day.”

He said the May 7 sitting proceeded even though the court was scheduled to sit four days later to determine who was the legitimate Mentri Besar.

He said the pre-emptive proceedings, the motion to sack the legitimate Speaker and his removal from the House and the action of the police caused concern to the people.

Read more...

Pakatan MB, excos vacate office

Pakatan MB, excos vacate office
May 12, 09 2:47pm
Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his executive councillors vacated their office this afternoon.
MCPX
Saying they respect the Court of Appeal's decision, the MB and his excos left the state secretariat building in Ipoh at about 2.30pm, some seven hours after taking over the reins of administration again.

Earlier, Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir urged Nizar to accept the Court of Appeal's stay order and to move out of the state secretariat building immediately.

"They should accept the decision and not protest whenever the courts do not favour them," he told a hastily arranged press conference at the state Umno headquarters in Ipoh.

Zambry, who wants to resume his duties as MB, was however coy as to when he would go to the office, saying he wants to avoid "unnecessary tension" with political rivals.

Tightlipped on emergency sitting

He also refused to reveal if BN would push for an emergency sitting of the state legislative assembly to initiate a no-confidence vote against Nizar.

"It is premature to say at this moment," he said.

Asked what would happen if Nizar refuses to vacate the menteri besar's office, Zambry replied: "It is not a question. They have to realise that this is a court ruling."

Citing himself as an example, Zambry said he respected the court ruling yesterday and did not report for duty or attend the state investiture attended by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.

Zambry later lifted the suspension on the state legal adviser and state secretary issued by Nizar.

He also stressed that all earlier decisions by the BN state government stands.

Nizar had led his eight exco members to the state secretariat building to report for duty at 7.30am today.

Policy decisions were then immediately made and announced at an 11am press conference.

Read more...

Back to square one.

The Court of Appeal grants Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir his application for a stay of execution on the KL High Court ruling yesterday that declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin the righful mentri besar of Perak. Essentially, it might mean Dr Zambry is mentri besar until his appeal is heard.

This latest development has put the on-going tussle for the state government back to square one.

The Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution on yesterday's High Court decision which recognised Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

This will put on hold the decision of the High Court pending an appeal by Perak BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir.

This means that rival MB, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, cannot seek the sultan's consent to dissolve the state assembly until the appeal has been heard.

Today's decision put an end to Nizar's bid to return as the lawful MB. He has been in office for less than 24 hours since the High Court decision.

Zambry filed his appeal this morning and the issue will be heard on a date to be set by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal decision has once again plunged Perak in limbo with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat fighting one another to claim power.

Court of Appeal judge Ramly Mohd Ali had today heard the stay application on his own, departing from the usual practice of a three-member panel.

Such a departure is acceptable and has been done previously for various grounds.

Zambry's lawyers argued that the stay is important to stop Nizar from trying to seek the approval of the Perak sultan to dissolve the state assembly.

His lead counsel, Cecil Abraham, added that if the dissolution were granted, Zambry's appeal would be academic.

Meanwhile, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, who was also in court today, supported the motion.

He argued that the suspension of state secretary and state legal adviser by Nizar late last night was illegal as these are federal appointments.

Decision made at 1pm

Nizar's lawyer, Sulaiman Abdullah, urged the court to fix an early date for the appeal hearing.

Counsel Cecil and Sunil Abraham represented Zambry, while Nizar was represented by Sulaiman, Ranjit Singh and Edmund Bon.

In addition to Gani, AG’s Chambers prosecution division chief Abdul Majid Hamzah was in court.

BN and Umno lawyers, Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, held a watching brief.

Also in court were two PKR assemblypersons turned BN-friendly Independents - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang). Their defections had made it possible for BN to take over the Perak government.

After the decision, which was delivered at about 1pm, Hafarizam urged Nizar to vacate his office to allow Zambry to move in.

Sulaiman meanwhile said he had to take instructions from Nizar on what to do next.

Read more...

Zambry compares himself to Mandela, Gandhi

IPOH: Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, whose nearly three-month tenure as mentri besar was ruled illegitimate by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday, has likened himself to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

Warning Pakatan Rakyat not to under-estimate him, he said the High Court’s “shocking decision” did not mean he would give up the fight.

“To me, losing the mentri besar post will not reduce my fighting spirit in upholding the truth.

If reinstated Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his “friends ... assume that the High Court’s decision will dampen my spirit, then they have read me wrong,” he said in a blog entry early Tuesday morning.

He said a person did not need to hold a post in his struggle to uphold the truth, and likened the recent struggles faced by him and his “comrades from the Barisan Nasional” to those endured by politicians like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.

“Nelson Mandela sacrificed his freedom for 27 years in order to free South Africans from the grip of ‘apartheid.’

“Gandhi also sacrificed his life for the sake of India’s independence and so his people would be able to live without caste or religious boundaries,” he said.

Dr Zambry said however that it was lucky for him that his struggles had not caused him physical harm or loss of freedom.

“I only had to withstand the negative perceptions that Nizar and his people have created of me and the Barisan’s image.

“I know it will be hard to change such perceptions for their accusations are all over the Internet,” he said.

He also accused Pakatan Rakyat of being “greedy,” expressing disbelief at Pakatan’s “swift way of moving back into power,” especially the way they had reported to work at the state secretariat at 7:15am Tuesday, saying this was part of their “tyranny.”

Dr Zambry also reiterated that he accepted the High Court’s decision with an open heart and vowed that he would not question it.

“I will not be like the Pakatan which practises ‘selective justice’ by only accepting the decisions that favour themselves and rejecting those that do not,” he said.

Dr Zambry also maintained that the Federal Court’s decision that Speaker V. Sivakumar had no right to suspend him and his six executive councillors still held, although the High Court ruled that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar.

Read more...

Court of Appeal hears Zambry's appeal

Zambry Abd Kadir has filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision not to recognise him as the legitimate Perak menteri besar.
MCPX
His lawyers have also lodged an application for a stay of yesterday’s decision, pending the appeal.

The application is being heard by an one-man panel of justice Ramly Mohd Ali.

Ramly began hearing the application at 11.45am at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya.

Counsel Cecil Abraham and Sunil Abraham are representing Zambry. Also present are attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and head of the AG’s Chambers’ prosecution division, Abdul Majid Hamzah.

BN and Umno lawyers, Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, are holding a watching brief.

Nizar's lawyers Sulaiman Abdullah, Ranjit Singh and Edmund Bon arrived in court at 11am.

Also present in court are two PKR assemblypersons turned BN-friendly Independents - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang). Their defections had made it possible for BN to take over the Perak government.

Read more...

STRUKTUR BADAN KEHAKIMAN MALAYSIA

STRUKTUR BADAN KEHAKIMAN MALAYSIA




“Kenaikan pangkat hakim-hakim, jika sistem sedemikian wujud, hendaklah diasaskan kepada
faktor-faktor objektif, khususnya, kebolehan, integriti dan pengalaman.”
—Terjemahan dari Klausa 13 Prinsip-Prinsip Asas Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Kebebasan Kehakiman yang dalam bahasa asalnya berbunyi—

“Kesaksamaan adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan jawatan kehakiman secara sempurna. Ianya terpakai bukan hanya bagi keputusan itu sendiri tetapi juga kepada proses-proses bagaimana keputusan itu dibuat.” “Seseorang hakim hendaklah melaksanakan kewajipan-kewajipan kehakimannya tanpa memihak, berat sebelah atau prejudis.”

“Integriti adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan jawatan kehakiman secara sempurna.”

“Ketatasusilaan, dan penzahiran ketatasusilaan, adalah perlu bagi perlaksanaan kesemua aktiviti-aktiviti seseorang hakim.”
–Terjemahan dari Prinsip-Prinsip Bangalore Mengenai Tatalaku Kehakiman yang dalam bahasa asalnya berbunyi–

MAHKAMAH ATASAN

Mahkamah Persekutuan

Mahkamah Tertinggi

Mahkamah Persekutuan merupakan otoriti kehakiman yang tertinggi sekali di Malaysia. Ianya ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 121(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Keputusannya mengikat semua mahkamah.

Sebelum 1hb. Januari 1985, sistem mahkamah atasan di Malaysia adalah sistem tiga peringkat iaitu–

Majlis Privy

Mahkamah Agung

Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya dan Mahkamah Tinggi Borneo

Majlis Privy merupakan mahkamah rayuan tertinggi bagi Malaysia sehingga 31hb. Disember 1984. Pada 1hb. Januari 1985, semua rayuan dari Malaysia ke Majlis Privy telah dimansuhkan. Bagi menggantikannya, Mahkamah Agung Malaysia ditubuhkan menjadikannya mahkamah rayuan terakhir di negara ini. Pemansuhan rayuan ke Majlis Privy telah mengakibatkan perubahan sistem tiga peringkat mahkamah atasan kepada sistem dua peringkat iaitu Mahkamah Agung dan dua (2) Mahkamah Tinggi.

Pada 1994, perubahan yang ketara berlaku kepada Badan Kehakiman apabila Parlimen meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Melalui pindaan tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditubuhkan. Mahkamah Agung dinamakan semula sebagai Mahkamah Persekutuan. Oleh yang demikian sistem tiga peringkat mahkamah atasan dihidupkan semula.

Mahkamah Persekutuan diketuai oleh Ketua Hakim Negara. Sebelum pindaan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, jawatan tersebut dikenali dalam Bahasa Inggerisnya sebagai “Lord President”.

Ahli-Ahli

Mengikut Perkara 122(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah terdiri daripada Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, kedua-dua Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan tujuh hakim lain.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Perkara 122B Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Ketua Hakim Negara, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, Hakim-Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan lain-lain hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri setelah berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum mengemukakan nasihatnya, Perdana Menteri hendaklah, kecuali bagi pelantikan Ketua Hakim Negara berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim Tambahan

Perkara 122(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan membolehkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, atas nasihat Ketua Hakim Negara, melantik mana-mana orang yang telah memegang jawatan
kehakiman yang tinggi di Malaysia untuk menjadi hakim tambahan bagi Mahkamah Persekutuan. Pelantikan ini boleh dibuat bagi apa-apa maksud atau bagi apa-apa tempoh
masa yang ditentukan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Komposisi

Setiap prosiding Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah, mengikut seksyen 74 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 didengar dan dilupuskan oleh tiga hakim atau lebih yang bilangannya hendaklah ganjil dan sebagaimana yang ditentukan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara. Semasa ketiadaan Ketua Hakim Negara, ahli mahkamah yang kanan sekali hendaklah mempengerusikan persidangan itu. Perkara 122(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Ketua Hakim Negara boleh menamakan seorang hakim Mahkamah Rayuan selain daripada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan untuk bersidang sebagai hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan sekiranya beliau berpendapat, demi kepentingan keadilan, ianya perlu.

Persidangan

Mahkamah ini bersidang pada masa dan tempat yang ditentukan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara dari masa ke semasa. Pada kebiasaannya Mahkamah Persekutuan bersidang di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya. Bagaimanapun, Mahkamah Persekutuan juga bersidang secara litar di bandar-bandar utama seperti di Pulau Pinang, Ipoh, Kota Bharu, Johor Bahru, Alor Setar, Kuantan, Melaka, Kuching dan Kota Kinabalu (seksyen 75 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman, 1964).

Bidangkuasa

Mengikut Perkara 121(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidangkuasa–

(a) untuk memutuskan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan, Mahkamah Tinggi atau seseorang hakimnya;

(b) asal atau runding sebagaimana yang ditentukan mengikut Perkara 128 dan 130 ; dan

(c) lain-lain seperti yang diberikan oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan.

Rayuan Jenayah

Mahkamah Persekutuan boleh, menurut seksyen 87 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, mendengar dan menentukan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes-kes
jenayah yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam bidangkuasa asalnya.

Rayuan Sivil

Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 memperuntukkan bahawa rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan boleh dibuat ke Mahkamah Persekutuan dengan kebenaran Mahkamah Persekutuan. Kebenaran itu boleh diberi jika–

(a) keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu adalah mengenai apa-apa kausa atau perkara sivil yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di dalam menjalankan bidangkuasa asalnya dan ianya melibatkan persoalan prinsip umum yang diputuskan bagi kali pertama atau sesuatu persoalan penting yang memerlukan penghujahan lanjut dan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di atasnya akan memberi manafaat awam; atau

(b) keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu adalah mengenai kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan termasuklah kesahihan mana-mana undang-undang bertulis berhubung peruntukan Perlembagaan itu.

(seksyen 96 (a) dan (b) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Asal

Hanya Mahkamah Persekutuan sahaja mempunyai bidangkuasa eksklusif untuk memutuskan–

(a) apa-apa persoalan samada sesuatu undang-undang yang dibuat oleh Parlimen atau Dewan Negeri itu adalah tidak sah atas alasan bahawa badan itu membuat peruntukan berhubung sesuatu perkara yang mana Parlimen ataupun Dewan Negeri mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan tidak ada kuasa untuk membuat undangundang; dan

(b) pertikaian atas apa-apa persoalan lain antara Negeri dengan Negeri atau antara Persekutuan dengan manamana Negeri.

(Perkara 128(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Rujukan

Perkara 128(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan–

“Tanpa menjejaskan apa-apa bidangkuasa rayuan Mahkamah Persekutuan, jika dalam mana-mana prosiding di hadapan suatu mahkamah lain suatu soal berbangkit tentang kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini, Mahkamah Persekutuan mempunyai bidangkuasa (tertakluk kepada mana-mana kaedah mahkamah yang mengawalselia penjalanan bidang kuasa itu) untuk memutuskan soal itu dan menghantar balik kes itu kepada mahkamah yang satu lagi untuk dibereskan mengikut keputusan itu”.

Nasihat

Perkara 130 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan–

“Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh merujukkan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk pendapatnya apa-apa soal tentang kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini yang telah berbangkit atau yang tampak padanya mungkin berbangkit, dan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah mengumumkan pendapatnya tentang apa-apa soal yang dirujukkan sedemikian kepadanya itu di dalam mahkamah terbuka”.

MAHKAMAH KHAS

Perlembagaan

Mahkamah Khas ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 182 Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi membicarakan apa-apa tindakan sivil atau jenayah yang dimulakan oleh atau terhadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja mana-mana negeri. Bagaimanapun, Perkara 183 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa tiada apa-apa tindakan sivil atau jenayah boleh dimulakan terhadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja sesebuah negeri berhubung apa-apa perlakuan atau tinggalan yang dilakukan olehnya di dalam kapasiti dirinya melainkan dengan izin Peguam Negara sendiri.

Ahli-Ahli

Perkara 182(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Mahkamah Khas hendaklah terdiri daripada Ketua Hakim Negara yang akan mempengerusikannya, Hakim-Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi dan dua orang lain yang memegang atau yang pernah memegang jawatan hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan atau Mahkamah Tinggi yang dilantik oleh Majlis Raja-Raja.

Bidangkuasa

Perkara 182(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Mahkamah Khas mempunyai bidangkuasa eksklusif bagi membicarakan semua kesalahan yang dilakukan dalam Persekutuan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau Raja sesebuah negeri tanpa mengambil kira di mana kausa tindakan itu berlaku.

Sebagai tambahan kepada bidangkuasa tersebut, Mahkamah Khas hendaklah juga mempunyai bidangkuasa dan kausa yang sama sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau mana-mana undang-undang persekutuan kepada mana-mana mahkamah rendah, Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Prosiding

Prosidur (termasuk prosiding pendengaran tertutup) di dalam kes-kes sivil dan jenayah dan undang-undang berhubung keterangan dan bukti dalam prosiding sivil dan jenayah, amalan dan prosidur yang terpakai dalam apa-apa prosiding di mana-mana mahkamah rendah, Mahkamah Tinggi dan di Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah terpakai dalam mana-mana prosiding di Mahkamah Khas.

Prosiding Mahkamah Khas hendaklah diputuskan menurut pendapat majoriti ahli-ahli.

Keputusannya Muktamad

Keputusan Mahkamah Khas adalah muktamad dan konklusif dan tidak boleh dicabar atau dipersoalkan di mana-mana mahkamah atas apa-apa alasan.

Persidangan

Mahkamah Khas bersidang di Mahkamah Persekutuan yang terletak di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan pada tarikh-tarikh dan masa yang ditetapkan oleh Ketua Hakim Negara.

MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA

Mahkamah Rayuan telah ditubuhkan pada tahun 1994. Ianya mempunyai bidangkuasa–

(a) untuk memutuskan rayuan-rayuan terhadap keputusan-keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi atau seseorang hakimnya; dan

(b) yang lain yang diberikan oleh atau di bawah undang-undang persekutuan.

(Perkara 121(1B) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Mulai 1 Januari 2002, bilangan hakim Mahkamah ini telah ditambah kepada 15 orang melalui perintah Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Perkara 122A(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Ahli-Ahli

Mengikut Perkara 122A(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah terdiri daripada Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan lima belas hakim Mahkamah Rayuan.

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Perkara 122B(2) dan (4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan dan hakim-hakim Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri, setelah berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum Perdana Menteri mengemukakan nasihatnya beliau hendaklah berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara dan Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan.

Komposisi

Prosiding di Mahkamah Rayuan adalah didengar dan dilupuskan oleh panel tiga hakim atau lebih yang bilangannya hendaklah ganjil dan sebagaimana yang ditentukan oleh Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan (seksyen 38 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Di bawah Perkara 122A(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi juga boleh bersidang sebagai hakim Mahkamah Rayuan jika Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat bahawa kepentingan keadilan menghendaki yang sedemikian. Hakim itu hendaklah dinamakan bagi maksud itu oleh Presiden selepas berunding dengan Hakim Besar Mahkamah Tinggi berkenaan.

Persidangan

Mahkamah Rayuan pada kebiasaannya bersidang di Palace of Justice Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. Walaubagaimanapun, Presiden boleh mengarahkan supaya rayuan didengar pada bila-bila masa dan dimana-mana tempat di Malaysia (seksyen 39 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Mahkamah Muktamad

Mahkamah Rayuan adalah mahkamah muktamad bagi perkara-perkara yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di bawah bidangkuasa rayuannya atau penyemakannya (seksyen 87 dan seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Rayuan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan sebarang rayuan jenayah terhadap manamana keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi–

(a) semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa asalnya; dan

(b) semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa rayuan atau penyemakannya mengenai apa-apa perkara jenayah yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Sesyen.

Walaubagaimanapun, sekiranya rayuan itu adalah terhadap mana-mana keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi semasa melaksanakan bidangkuasa rayuan atau penyemakannya mengenai apa-apa perkara jenayah yang berasal dari Mahkamah Majistret, kebenaran Mahkamah Rayuan hendaklah diperolehi dan rayuan itu hendaklah dihadkan kepada persoalan undang-undang yang telah timbul dalam rayuan atau semakan itu dan penentuan Mahkamah Tinggi atas persoalan itu telah mencorakkan keputusan rayuan atau penyemakan itu (seksyen 50(1) dan (2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Sivil

Mahkamah Rayuan mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan rayuan-rayuan daripada mana-mana penghakiman atau perintah mana-mana Mahkamah Tinggi dalam mana-mana kausa atau perkara sivil, samada dibuat dalam menjalankan bidangkuasa asal atau rayuannya, tertakluk kepada mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang mengawalselia terma-terma dan syarat-syarat bagaimana rayuan-rayuan sedemikian hendaklah dibawa (seksyen 67 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Sungguhpun demikian rayuan tidak boleh dibuat dalam mana-mana hal berikut–

(a) jumlah atau nilai hal perkara dalam tuntutan itu kurang daripada RM250,000 kecuali dengan kebenaran Mahkamah;

(b) penghakiman atau perintah itu dibuat dengan persetujuan pihak-pihak;

(c) penghakiman atau perintah itu berhubung dengan kos sahaja; dan

(d) di mana penghakiman atau perintah Mahkamah Tinggi itu adalah muktamad mengikut mana-mana undangundang bertulis.

Rayuan tidak boleh dibuat terhadap sesuatu keputusan yang dibuat secara terus oleh seseorang Hakim dalam Kamar atas sesuatu saman interplider, jika fakta-fakta tidak dipertikaikan, kecuali dengan kebenaran Mahkamah (seksyen 68 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Pengkhususan Panel

Memandangkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan semakin meningkat setiap tahun, jumlah persidangan Mahkamah Rayuan juga telah ditambah. Bagi mempercepatkan pelupusan rayuan-rayuan tersebut, panel-panel khusus telah ditubuhkan. Panel-panel itu adalah seperti berikut–

• Panel Jenayah
• Panel Dagang
• Panel Sivil
• Panel Interlokutori
• Panel Kebenaran Merayu
• Panel Writ-writ prerogatif.

Pejabat Pendaftaran

Pejabat pendaftaran Mahkamah Rayuan terletak di Palace of Justice, Putrajaya, Wilayah Persekutuan. Pejabat itu diketuai oleh Pendaftar dan dibantu oleh beberapa Timbalan Pendaftar serta Penolong Kanan Pendaftar. Semua rayuan daripada Mahkamah Tinggi difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi yang berkenaan tetapi rayuan tersebut didaftarkan di Pejabat
Pendaftaran di Palace of Justice Putrajaya.

MAHKAMAH-MAHKAMAH TINGGI

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi ditubuhkan di bawah Perkara 121 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Di Malaysia terdapat dua Mahkamah Tinggi yang mempunyai bidangkuasa dan taraf yang setara, iaitu Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaya dan Mahkamah Tinggi di Sabah dan Sarawak. Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya terdiri daripada seorang Hakim Besar dan empat puluh tujuh orang hakim manakala Mahkamah Tinggi Sabah dan Sarawak terdiri daripada seorang Hakim Besar dan sepuluh orang hakim (Perkara 121(1) dan 122AA(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan).

Pelantikan Hakim-Hakim

Hakim-hakim dilantik di bawah Perkara 122B(2) dan (4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang bertindak atas nasihat Perdana Menteri selepas berunding dengan Majlis Raja-Raja. Sebelum Perdana Menteri memberikan nasihatnya kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Perdana Menteri hendaklah berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara dan Hakim Besar yang berkenaan.

Seseorang adalah layak dilantik sebagai hakim mana-mana Mahkamah Tinggi jika dia seorang warganegara dan bagi tempoh sepuluh tahun sebelum pelantikannya dia telah menjadi peguam bela bagi mahkamah itu atau menjadi anggota perkhidmatan kehakiman dan perundangan Persekutuan atau perkhidmatan perundangan sesuatu Negeri.

Pelantikan pesuruhjaya kehakiman diperuntukkan di bawah Perkara 122AB Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Seseorang pesuruhjaya kehakiman yang dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas nasihat Perdana Menteri selepas berunding dengan Ketua Hakim Negara hendaklah mempunyai kuasa yang sama dan menikmati kekebalan yang sama seolah-olah dia adalah seorang hakim Mahkamah Tinggi.

Persidangan

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi bersidang pada masa dan tempat sepertimana yang ditentukan oleh Hakim-Hakim Besar (seksyen 19 dan 21 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).
Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan semua kesalahan yang dilakukan–

(a) dalam bidangkuasa tempatannya;

(b) di laut lepas di atas mana-mana kapal atau di atas manamana pesawat udara yang didaftarkan di Malaysia;

(c) oleh seseorang warganegara atau seseorang pemastautin tetap di laut lepas di atas mana-mana kapal atau di atas mana-mana pesawat udara;

(d) oleh seseorang di laut lepas jika kesalahan itu adalah kesalahan pelanunan mengikut undang-undang antarabangsa; dan

(e) kesalahan di bawah Bab 6 Kanun Keseksaan dan kesalahan berbentuk luar wilayah.

(Seksyen 22 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964)

Mahkamah Tinggi boleh menjatuhkan apa-apa hukuman yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang (seksyen 22(2) Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964). Kes-kes yang melibatkan hukuman mati dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi. Walau bagaimanapun di dalam hal keadaan yang khas, kes-kes yang tidak melibatkan hukuman mati boleh dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi atas permohonan oleh Pendakwa Raya (seksyen 418A Kanun Acara Jenayah).

Sivil

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk membicarakan semua prosiding di mana–

(a) kausa tindakannya berbangkit;

(b) defendan atau salah seorang daripada beberapa orang defendan bermastautin atau ada tempat urusannya;

(c) fakta-fakta atas mana prosiding itu diasaskan wujud atau dikatakan telah berlaku; atau

(d) sesuatu tanah yang keempunyaannya dipertikaikan terletak;

dalam bidangkuasa tempatan Mahkamah itu dan, walau apa-apa juapun yang terkandung dalam seksyen 23 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, dalam mana-mana kes di mana semua pihak bersetuju secara bertulis, dalam bidangkuasa tempatan Mahkamah Tinggi yang lain.

Mahkamah-Mahkamah Tinggi juga mempunyai bidangkuasa spesifik termasuk–

(a) bidangkuasa di bawah mana-mana undang-undang bertulis yang berhubungan dengan perceraian, kausa hal-ehwal suami isteri, kebankrapan atau syarikat;

(b) bidangkuasa dan kuasa yang sama berhubungan dengan perkara-perkara admiralti seperti yang ada pada Mahkamah Keadilan Tinggi di England di bawah Akta Mahkamah Agung 1981 bagi United Kingdom;

(c) bidangkuasa untuk melantik dan mengawal penjaga budak-budak dan pada amnya atas diri dan harta budakbudak;

(d) bidangkuasa untuk melantik dan mengawal penjaga dan pengawas diri dan estet orang terencat akal, orang sakit otak dan tak sempurna akal; dan

(e) bidangkuasa untuk memberi probet bagi wasiat dan testamen dan surat kuasa mentadbir bagi harta pusaka si mati yang meninggalkan harta di dalam bidangkuasa wilayah Mahkamah itu dan untuk menukar atau membatalkan pemberian tersebut

(Seksyen 24 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Rayuan

Mahkamah Tinggi mempunyai kuasa untuk mendengar rayuan daripada mahkamah-mahkamah rendah. Walau bagaimanapun tidak semua keputusan mahkamah rendah boleh dirayu ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Tiada rayuan boleh dibuat ke Mahkamah Tinggi daripada keputusan mahkamah rendah dalam apa-apa kausa atau perkara sivil jika amaun yang dipertikaikan atau nilai hal perkaranya adalah sepuluh ribu ringgit atau kurang, kecuali atas soal undang-undang (seksyen-seksyen 26-29 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Kuasa Penyemakan

Mahkamah Tinggi boleh menjalankan kuasa-kuasa penyemakan berkenaan dengan prosiding dan perkara-perkara jenayah di mahkamah rendah mengikut mana-mana undang-undang yang sedang berkuatkuasa berhubungan dengan prosedur jenayah. Mahkamah Tinggi boleh meminta dan memeriksa rekod sesuatu prosiding sivil yang diadakan di hadapan mana-mana mahkamah rendah bagi maksud memuaskan hatinya bahawa sesuatu keputusan yang telah direkodkan atau diluluskan adalah betul, sah di sisi undang-undang atau patut dan bahawa sesuatu prosiding mahkamah rendah itu adalah menurut peraturan (seksyen-seksyen 31 dan 32 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964).

Pengkhususan

Mahkamah-mahkamah di Malaysia sedang menuju ke arah pengkhususan. Langkah ini tercetus daripada hasrat untuk memberikan perkhidmatan yang terbaik kepada orang awam
dalam memberi keadilan secara saksama, cepat dan berkesan. Di bandar-bandar utama di mana terdapat dua atau lebih hakim-hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, pengkhususan telah pun dilaksanakan. Pengkhususan bererti hakim-hakim mendengar kes-kes spesifik sama ada membicarakan kes-kes sivil atau kes-kes jenayah sahaja.

Pengkhususan di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur

Di Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur, pengkhususan dilakukan dengan membahagikan Mahkamah Tinggi di Kuala Lumpur kepada Bahagian Jenayah, Sivil, Dagang, Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas dan Mahkamah Keluarga.

(i) Bahagian Jenayah

Bahagian Jenayah mendengar kes-kes di dalam bidangkuasa asalnya dan rayuan-rayuan jenayah daripada mahkamah rendah.

(ii) Bahagian Sivil

Bahagian Sivil mendengar antara lainnya, halang tebus, tort dan kes-kes kontrak bagi perkhidmatan.

(iii) Bahagian Dagang

Bahagian Dagang mendengar antara lainnya, admiralti, insurans, penggulungan syarikat, agensi, urusan bank, harta intelektual dan kes-kes di bawah Akta Relif Spesifik. Terdapat pengkhususan lanjut di Bahagian Dagang, di mana semua kes Perbankan Islam (Muamalat) didengar oleh hakim di Bahagian ini yang juga mendengar kes-kes perdagangan.

(iv) Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas

Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas mendengar rayuanrayuan daripada mahkamah-mahkamah rendah, kes-kes di bawah Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976 dan kajian semula kehakiman bagi tindakan pentadbiran dan di bawah Akta-Akta yang spesifik.

(v) Bahagian Keluarga

Dahulunya Mahkamah Keluarga adalah sebahagian daripada Bahagian Sivil. Kini ianya adalah suatu Bahagian tersendiri dan mendengar kes-kes di bawah Akta Pembaharuan Undang-Undang

(Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976.

Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi dibantu oleh Timbalan-Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong-Penolong Kanan Pendaftar yang dilantik di bawah seksyen 10 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong di atas syor Ketua Hakim Negara. Timbalan Pendaftar dan Penolong Kanan Pendaftar mendengar perkara71 perkara interlokutori di dalam Kamar. Selain daripada mendengar kes, mereka juga membuat penyelidikan untuk hakim. Mereka juga melaksanakan tugas-tugas pentadbiran seperti menyelia Pejabat Pendaftaran mahkamah masing-masing.

MAHKAMAH-MAHKAMAH RENDAH

Mahkamah Sesyen

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa untuk mendengar kedua-dua kes sivil dan jenayah. Pada masa ini, terdapat lapan puluh tujuh hakim Mahkamah Sesyen di seluruh Malaysia.

Pelantikan

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas syor Hakim Besar yang berkenaan (seksyen 59 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Rendah terdiri daripada Mahkamah Sesyen, Mahkamah Majistret dan Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak. Kes-kes di Mahkamah Sesyen dibicarakan oleh hakim Mahkamah Sesyen, manakala kes-kes Mahkamah Majistret dan Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak dibicarakan oleh majistret.

Persidangan

Mahkamah bersidang setiap hari kecuali hari cuti am.

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan semua kesalahan melainkan kesalahan yang melibatkan hukuman mati dan boleh menjatuhkan sebarang hukuman termasuk hukuman penjara seumur hidup kecuali hukuman mati (seksyen-seksyen 63 dan 64 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Sivil

Mahkamah Sesyen mempunyai–

(a) bidangkuasa tidak terhad untuk membicarakan semua tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil terhadap kes-kes kemalangan kenderaan bermotor, tuan tanah dan penyewa dan distres; dan

(b) bidangkuasa membicarakan lain-lain tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil di mana perkara dipertikai tidak melebihi RM 250,000.00.

(Seksyen 65 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Majistret

Mahkamah Majistret mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan kedua-dua kes sivil dan jenayah. Kes-kes di Mahkamah Majistret dibicarakan oleh seorang majistret. Pada masa ini terdapat sejumlah seratus lima puluh satu majistret di seluruh negara. Pelantikan Di dalam dan untuk Wilayah Persekutuan, majistret adalah dilantik oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong atas syor Hakim Besar. Di negeri-negeri lain majistret adalah dilantik oleh Pihak Berkuasa
Negeri atas syor Hakim Besar berkenaan

(seksyen 78 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Persidangan

Mahkamah bersidang setiap hari kecuali hari cuti am.

Bidangkuasa

Jenayah

Majistret Kelas Satu mempunyai bidangkuasa membicarakan semua kesalahan yang mana hukuman maksimanya tidak melebihi 10 tahun penjara atau dengan denda sahaja (seksyen
85 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Sivil
Majistret Kelas Satu mempunyai bidangkuasa mendengar semua tindakan dan tuntutan berbentuk sivil di mana perkara yang dipertikaikan atau nilai perkaranya adalah tidak melebihi RM 25,000.00 (seksyen 90 Akta Mahkamah Rendah 1948).

Mahkamah Untuk Kanak-Kanak

Mahkamah untuk Kanak-Kanak ditubuhkan di bawah Akta Kanak- Kanak 2001. Seksyen 2 Akta berkenaan mendefinisikan “Kanak-Kanak” sebagai orang yang di bawah umur 18 tahun, dan berhubung dengan prosiding jenayah, bererti seseorang yang telah mencapai umur sepuluh tahun.

Komposisi

Mahkamah ini terdiri daripada seorang majistret dan, jika keadaan kes memerlukan, dibantu oleh dua orang penasihat (seksyen 11(2) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Persidangan

Tiada sesiapa pun boleh hadir dalam mana-mana prosiding di mahkamah ini kecuali ahli-ahli dan pegawai-pegawai mahkamah dan kanak-kanak yang terlibat dalam pendengaran termasuk ibubapa atau penjaga mereka (seksyen 12 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Hukuman atau Perintah

Jika seseorang kanak-kanak itu didapati bersalah terhadap sesuatu kesalahan, kanak-kanak itu hendaklah tidak dipenjarakan, tetapi antara lain, boleh samada dihantar ke sekolah-sekolah diluluskan atau dilepaskan atas jaminan. Bagi kesalahan yang membawa hukuman mati kanak-kanak berkenaan hendaklah ditahan di penjara di atas keperkenanan
Raja (seksyen-seksyen 91-97 Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001).

Read more...