Default-Sabah Law

PLEASE NOTE: LEGISLATION AND ORDS PROVIDED ABOVE ARE "AS IS" AND ARE FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES ONLY. YOU MAY WISH TO CONSULT THE SABAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WEBSITE FOR THE LATEST LAWS.

judge

Sabah Law Page Sponsored by Ecorpnu Pty Ltd (Australia) as a Community Project with AUD 2.5 K. Our Blogs are listed latest first.

For those who are following Ian Chin J''s election case in Sibu have a look at his latest notes of proceedings

http://www.kkhighcourt.com/WongHuaSeh/Notes.pdf

becareful there is another file named notes.PDF (caps) which was the earlier ver

6/24/2008 8:17:33 PM

I found this short article about Art 153

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/Columns/2273744/

6/22/2008 7:24:59 PM

Alright, I will move my ranting on Malaysia politics to efeedback.com

6/15/2008 11:48:13 PM

I was reading this notes of proceeding of Wong Hua Seh vs Abang Mohd Porkan Bin Haji Abang Budiman & Ding Kuong Hiing, the link is here http://www.kkhighcourt.com/WongHuaSeh/Notes.docx

What is the interesting is the first few pages where the learned presiding judge ranted about his own treatment under the previous PM in matters connecting to Election Petition (as part of his disclosure). He even provided a photo the day the former PM came to talk to the judges. http://www.kkhighcourt.com/JudgesnMahathir.htm

6/10/2008 1:19:47 AM

On 5.6.2008, Malaysians woke up to a new fuel pricing regime. Yes, fuel prices jump from RM 1.9 to RM 2.7 per litre. The government said it could not maintain the current SUBSIDY of the fuel price any further but promise to give a rebate of RM 625 and maintain a minimum discount of 30 % from market price. So what is wrong here ? Firstly, Malaysia is a net exporter of oil/gas, so to say the government is subsidising the people is not actually correct as this is really an opportunity cost (the real money that could be made by selling to another is lost to the government as it had to sell at lower price to satisfy local demand). Subsidy means the government is buying fuel from other countries and selling it at a cheaper price to the public which is not the case here (buy high sell low). In Malaysia, the government has its own Petronas (Oil Company) and secure its contracts with prices locked in for duration of project (say refinery) say 10-20 years. It is very unlikely, the Malaysia government is buying from the market as it is the market maker cum seller.

Secondly, the cost of removing oil from the ground has not grown which means profits has been maintain for the government (via its Petronas holding) even if oil had been sold at previous prices. Thirdly, with this market pricing policy, Malaysians will see inflation rising as high as 5 % by year end and demand for higher wages & cost of living rising in tandem.

6/5/2008 7:00:05 PM

The recent news of the untimely death of a well known native car dealer in the USA was used to advance NEP is really uncalled for. It is clear that this native had through NEP amassed a large amount of APs (STAR – page 22 on 3.5.2008) which evidently deprived other natives from the same which is another way of saying the NEP can only produce a few successful natives but only at the expense of other natives and non-natives. This is the reality which must be checked. Granted this native is a great salesman, he loved cars and he loves NEP but the result is unbecoming of NEP’s goal. And that is the flaw in the system which unfortunately the leaders of this country can’t see or wish not to see or encourage. The larger issue is why should the rest of the population pay overpriced cars in the first place in order to support an industry that is well known to be technologically challenged and intensely competitive which Malaysia really has no edge at all (other than being low cost assembler) ? It is a fact that even distinguished British Marquees have folded in the face of this global competition. And after more than 20 years this industry still could not survive on its own is telling. Ultimately, it is the poor natives and non-natives (strategically deprived of a functional public transport system) who are penalized by paying through their nose for fourth rated vehicles which are no more than death traps waiting in accidents; which explains why Ministers preferred imported vehicles. It is clearly a double standard here and government officials should be driving around in Kancils or Waja and not Ninja or Mercs.

From the law’s point of view, it is perfectly enshrined in our Constitution for Natives to get the APs.

153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

etc

It is the last sentence "permits and licences" required by federal law. Check out the same in State constitutions as well.

5/4/2008 9:35:29 AM

Talking about ACA reforms. For the novice, the current act is Anti-Corruption Act and not the Prevention of Corruption Act (repeal). Secondly, the prosecution is fond of using Avaraj case (privy) but they forget to tell you this case is based on the now repeal Act, ha ha. Further, my experience shows ACA loves entrapment but they forget to tell you about R v Looseley (HOL). My only complaint is that not much is known about procedure and process of investigation of the ACA and will be difficult to show this in court. Hopefully, with the New Commission more light will be shed here to ensure transparency. Cheers.

4/23/2008 7:46:55 PM

Its been almost 1.5 months, and those unappreciative are still blaming each other bickering over whose fault. In the mean time, their oppositions have already gain momentum by exposing past misdeeds (errors) and helping the rakyat by donating land to schools, helping with issuance of titles and nominal quit rent for NGOs and schools. Opps, forgot they also waive some fines. Recently, the defacto leader of opposition has come to offer Sabahan 20 % of their revenue instead of the current 5 %. Instead, our elected unappreciative representator reminded us that this is not sincere. How ? It is easy to be emotional about this but it should not. It was before our time, the Sabah Government (perhaps naively) had agreed to this 95-5 split with the Federal Government but the unspoken truth if told is that this has not worked well in Sabah’s favor at all. Therefore, it does not matter whether it is BN or opposition, making the proposal because it should be Sabah dictating the terms of its own resources. It is plain that this ratio has to be changed but is 20 % the right portion ? Why not 60-40 (60 in Sabah’s favour of course to redress the unfairness for the last 30 years or 70-30. Therefore, in my opinion this subject is not taboo and should be raised now to recognize that the silent majority for too long been very dissatisfied. So this brings the next question which is why is it Sabahans are so tolerate ? Why in the face of dissatisfaction we still voted for more of the same. Maybe, we are not aware of the wind of change from the West ? In fact, other than one former minister, no one even brought up the 20 points as a prelude. It is important to recognize much of the points have been made redundant except for immigration which has often been the last sore point with the West. I believe, it is the right time to link all the grievance at once after all these are collectively agreed terms, non-negotiable including leaving the federation. Furthermore, Sabah was not a mere state that join Malaya, it joined Malaya to form Malaysia but sadly, this was never reflected. In fact, SI in Malaysia actually represents Singapore which should be taken out now and instead, it is only proper to call MASAS (stands for malaya and sabah and sarawak). When Singapore left Malaysia, its MP seats were not redistributed and instead taken out making West Malaysia’s seats will always be more than Sabah & Sarawak combined, which means MPs from both states will never be able to form majority even if they wanted to. This should be addressed as well. To be fair, at the time of this writing, the Government has just announced compensation to the sacked justices in 1988 as a first step towards cleaning up the judiciary, this is a positive step. As it is not an apology at all, it is still lacking. Another step is to set up a more transparent judiciary select committee but any decision must still be confirmed by the PM. Its role is confined to nomination only. Also much work ahead for the ACA ?

4/23/2008 7:42:24 PM

As you all know, on the 8 Mach 2008 Malaysia had its 12th election since independence. This time, BN lost its 2/3 majority. Two things to note here. Despite all the advances in technology with mykad (smartcard identification), this was not used at all during the election ? WHY since it has been around last 5 years. A simple decoder is needed to read the data to ensure the card is genuine and holder is who he says he is. Secondly, with more than 200,000 Malaysians overseas, the EC had denied them voting rights at Malaysia High Commission which allowed only voting for their own government staff and students. The better view is that these are absent voters (see below). You be the judge.

Article 119 of the Federal Constitution reads:

119. Qualifications of electors.

(1) Every citizen who -

(a) has attained the age of twenty-one years on the qualifying date;

(b) is resident in a constituency on such qualifying date or, if not so resident, is an absent voter; and

(c) is, under the provisions of any law relating to elections, registered in the electoral roll as an elector in the constituency in which he resides on the qualifying date,

[Ins. Act A1130]

is entitled to vote in that constituency in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly unless he is disqualified under Clause (3) or under any law relating to offences committed in connection with elections; but no person shall in the same election vote in more than one constituency.

(2) If a person is in a constituency by reason only of being a patient in an establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness or of being detained in custody he shall for the purposes of Clause (1) be deemed not to be resident in that constituency.

(3) A person is disqualified for being an elector in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly if -

(a) on the qualifying date he is detained as a person of unsound mind or is serving a sentence of imprisonment; or

(b) having before the qualifying date been convicted in any part of the Commonwealth of an offence and sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months, he remains liable on the qualifying date to suffer any punishment for that offence.

(4) In this Article -

(a) "absent voter" means, in relation to any constituency, any citizen who is registered as an absent voter in respect of that constituency;

(b) "qualifying date" means the date on which a person applies for registration as an elector in a constituency, or the date on which he applies for the change of his registration as an elector in a different constituency,

in accordance with the provisions of any law relating to elections.

[Subs. Act A1130]

[Prior text read - "(4) In this Article "qualifying date" means the date by reference to which the electoral rolls are prepared or revised, and "absent voter" means in relation to any constituency any citizen who is registered as an absent voter in respect of that constituency under the provisions of any law relating to elections."

ELECTIONS (POSTAL VOTING) REGULATIONS 2003

3. Persons entitled to vote as postal voters.

(1) Any person who has registered as a Parliamentary or State elector under the Elections (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002, and is—

(a) an absent voter;

(b) a person certified by the Election Commission to be an election officer and liable for duties on polling day;

(c) a member of any police force established by any written law in force in Malaysia, other than a member of the Police Volunteer Reserve Force;

(d) a member of any of the public services who on polling day is employed full-time in a post outside Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah or Sarawak;

(e) a member of the Election Commission appointed under Article 114 of the Federal Constitution; or

(f) a member of any category of persons designated as postal voters by the Election Commission from time to time by notification in the Gazette,

shall, on receipt of a postal ballot paper, be entitled to vote as a postal voter at an election in accordance with these Regulations.

(2) A person referred to in paragraphs (1)(b),(d),(e) and (f) desiring to vote by post shall apply to do so by using Form 1 in the Schedule.

(3) The application shall be made direct to the returning officer of the constituency in which he is registered through any State Elections Officer of a State as soon as it is known that an election is contested in that constituency.

(4) If an application is approved, the returning officer shall issue a postal ballot paper to the applicant and if it is not approved, the returning officer shall so inform the applicant and shall state his grounds for not approving the application in the letter prescribed in Form 1.

3/9/2008 5:53:18 AM

There is this unreported case by Ian Chin J dated 22 Nov 2007 concerning limitation period for interest claim under a judgment is governed by item 98 of the Schudule of the Limitation Ordinance. The limitation is 12 years in Sabah as compared to 6 years in west malaysia. The case is Re Johan HJ Abd Hamid, ex-parte Hong Leong Bank. The same case also refers to an earlier case, Re Yong Tet Yin, ex-parte United Overseas Bank Limited, Kota Kinabalu High Court, 24 May 2006. Note that this Limitation Ordinance although a Sabah Law but its declared a Federal Law which means only the Federal Govt can modify it.

3/6/2008 6:54:32 PM

[Next]