Kehakiman





Khidmat guaman percuma bagi gaji kurang RM2,000
Oleh Johari Ibrahim dan Magendran Rajagopal
bhnews@bharian.com.my
2011/02/26

 NAJIB   menyampaikan watikah   kepada  Azman   pada majlis penyerahan watikah pelantikan Panel Penilaian Operasi dan Panel Perundingan dan Pencegahan Rasuah Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) di Putrajaya, semalam sambil disaksikan   Wong   (kiri),  Dr Lim Kok Wing (tengah) dan   Johan.
NAJIB menyampaikan watikah kepada Azman pada majlis penyerahan watikah pelantikan Panel Penilaian Operasi dan Panel Perundingan dan Pencegahan Rasuah Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) di Putrajaya, semalam sambil disaksikan Wong (kiri), Dr Lim Kok Wing (tengah) dan Johan.
Hasrat kerajaan memastikan keadilan dinikmati sama rata 

PUTRAJAYA: Warga negara berpendapatan kurang RM2,000 sebulan yang menghadapi perbicaraan mahkamah kini boleh mendapatkan khidmat bantuan guaman percuma apabila Yayasan Bantuan Guaman Kebangsaan (YBGK), dilancarkan semalam.
Bantuan guaman itu termasuk pesalah kanak-kanak, tertuduh Akta Penagih Dadah (Rawatan dan Pemulihan) 1983 dan tertuduh bagi jenayah syariah yang sebelum ini disediakan Majlis Peguam menerusi Pusat Bantuan Guaman.

Bagaimanapun, khidmat percuma itu tidak meliputi kesalahan yang membawa hukuman mati. 

Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, berkata yayasan usaha sama kerajaan dan Majlis Peguam berbentuk badan kebajikan itu sekali gus dapat memenuhi hasrat kerajaan untuk memastikan keadilan dinikmati sama rata oleh semua rakyat Malaysia, seperti diperuntukkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. 

“Menerusi YBGK, khidmat bantuan guaman dan khidmat nasihat boleh diberi kepada semua warga negara sama ada berkemampuan atau tidak bagi semua jenis kesalahan jenayah, pada peringkat tangkapan, reman dan permohonan ikat jamin. 

"(Bagaimanapun) ujian kemampuan (membayar khidmat) hanya akan dijalankan untuk menentukan kelayakan penerima bantuan guaman pada peringkat perbicaraan mahkamah saja. 
"Ini akan membantu golongan kurang mampu mendapatkan pembelaan kerana kesamarataan keadilan adalah prasyarat kepada negara serta rakyat yang maju dan berjaya," katanya ketika berucap pada majlis pelancaran YBGK di Pusat Konvensyen Antarabangsa Putrajaya (PICC), di sini semalam. 

Perdana Menteri juga tersentuh apabila dimaklumkan kira-kira 80 peratus orang kena tuduh (OKT) dalam kes jenayah tidak mempunyai peguam untuk membela kerana tidak mampu membayar yuran guaman tinggi. 

YBGK mempunyai 12 anggota lembaga pengarah yang dipengerusikan Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. 

Perdana Menteri berkata kerajaan memberi geran pelancaran RM5 juta kepada yayasan sebagai tanda sokongan untuk membiayai operasinya. 

Sementara itu, BERNAMA melaporkan, sembilan anggota Panel Penilaian Operasi (PPO) dan 12 anggota Panel Perunding dan Pencegahan Rasuah (PPPR) Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Malaysia (SPRM) menerima watikah pelantikan mereka daripada Najib di sini semalam. 

Mereka termasuk bekas Pengurus Besar Pertubuhan Berita Nasional Malaysia (BERNAMA), Datuk Seri Azman Ujang yang dilantik semula dan muka baru, penulis blog ''Outsyed The Box'' Syed Akbar Ali. Bagi PPPR, ada empat lagi muka baru iaitu Pengerusi Media Prima Bhd, Datuk Johan Jaaffar; Presiden Universiti Limkokwing Tan Sri Dr Lim Kok Wing dan Presiden Gabungan Persatuan Pengguna Malaysia, Datuk N Marimuthu, manakala dilantik semula ialah Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan Star Publications (M) Bhd, Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai. 



Kejahilan fahami jenayah syariah gugat perpaduan
Oleh Shamrahayu A Aziz

2011/02/08  Berita harian online

Semua kaum patut hormati kepercayaan, amalan agama lain 

JENAYAH syariah boleh dianggap isu malar hijau. Ia berterusan mendapat tempat dalam perdebatan dan perbincangan umum. Ia sentiasa menjadi topik yang ‘disukai’ ramai.


Saya berasa terpanggil untuk mengulas perkara ini, walaupun ia bukan isu hangat dalam seminggu dua ini. Saya tidak faham dengan pemahaman segelintir masyarakat mengenai kedudukan jenayah syariah di negara ini.
Saya sudah banyak kali melihat ulasan dan komen sinis mengenai kedudukan dan penguatkuasaan undang-undang jenayah syariah yang membingitkan telinga. 

Selepas membaca kolum media online, Malaysiakini yang disiarkan pada 25 Januari 2011 bertajuk Islamic Criminal Law, kebingitan itu menjadi-jadi. Kolum itu ditulis bagi membuat ulasan mengenai garis panduan arak di Selangor baru-baru ini. 

Antara persoalan yang dikemukakan dalam tulisan itu ialah, sejak bilakah Malaysia mengamalkan undang-undang jenayah syariah? Pada anggapan kolumnis itu, undang-undang Islam di Malaysia hanyalah terbatas kepada perkara berkaitan undang-undang personal dan kekeluargaan. 

Saya fikir ada dua kemungkinan kepada persoalan yang dikemukakan kolumnis ini. Pertamanya, kurangnya pengetahuan sesetengah ahli masyarakat mengenai kedudukan undang-undang jenayah syariah di negara ini. Ini diakui dalam tulisan itu. 
Kedua, sikap sesetengah ahli masyarakat terhadap undang-undang jenayah syariah. Mereka melihat undang-undang Islam menggunakan kaca mata hak asasi. 

Seluruh warga Malaysia, baik Islam ataupun bukan Islam, harus mengetahui dan mengenali kedudukan undang-undang jenayah Islam dalam sistem perundangan negara. 

Untuk mengenalinya, kita harus mencari pengetahuan menerusi saluran yang betul. Pengetahuan dalam konteks ini bukan saja dengan pandangan mata zahir, tetapi juga dengan mata hati. 

Ia bukan sekadar mendengar cakap-cakap orang atau dengan membuat andaian atau agakan saja tanpa merujuk kepada mereka yang sebenarnya ahli dalam bidang itu. Adalah lebih baik sekiranya kita menuntut bidang berkenaan di institusi tertentu supaya pengetahuan atau informasi yang diperoleh tepat dan tidak berat sebelah. Bak kata orang, belajar biarlah berguru. Dan guru pula hendak mereka yang arif. 

Saya tidak maksudkan masyarakat mesti memahami satu persatu mengenai undang-undang Islam. Cukuplah sekadar mengetahui di mana letaknya undang-undang itu dalam landskap sistem perundangan. 

Secara ringkas, Perlembagaan, sebagai undang-undang tertinggi negara dengan jelas mengiktiraf kedudukan undang-undang jenayah syariah menerusi peruntukan tertentu (Sila lihat Butiran 1, Senarai 2 Jadual Kesembilan Perlembagaan dan proviso kepada Per. 5(4)). 

Walaupun negara ini sebuah negara demokrasi, demokrasi di sini adalah menurut acuan negara ini. Maksud saya, kita mempunyai dua sistem perundangan yang diiktiraf oleh Perlembagaan negara – iaitu undang sivil dan undang-undang syariah. Sistem perundangan mengenai keadilan jenayah syariah (di mahkamah syariah) juga disebut secara jelas dalam Perlembagaan. 

Kewujudan undang-undang jenayah syariah ini bukan sesuatu yang baru. Ia dilaksanakan sejak sebelum penjajahan, ketika penjajahan dan seterusnya selepas merdeka. Walaupun kita mengamalkan demokrasi, itu tidak bermakna undang-undang jenayah syariah dimansuhkan sepenuhnya. Sistem demokrasi jugalah yang membenarkan jenayah syariah dilaksanakan di negara ini. 

Dalam aspek pemakaian dan pelaksanaannya, undang-undang jenayah syariah di negara ini hanya terpakai dan terlaksana ke atas orang Islam saja. Rakan bukan beragama Islam tidak harus bimbang mengenai ini. 

Mungkin ada rakan bukan Islam yang bimbangkan rakan Islam mereka akan teraniaya dengan penguatkuasaan undang-undang jenayah Islam dan hak asasi mereka tergadai. 

Saya tidak fikir kebimbangan itu berasas. Islam tidak akan sama sekali menyeksa penganutnya. Islam menjaga hak asasi lebih daripada sistem lain. 

Kebimbangan itu juga tidak harus melahirkan sifat prejudis terhadap Islam sehingga menyebabkan ramai orang Islam berasa tidak selesa dengan komen atau ulasan yang dibuat terhadap jenayah syariah. 

Adakalanya perkara menjadi payah apabila corak pemahaman atau penglihatan ke atas sesuatu itu dibuat dengan kaca mata berbeza. Contohnya, keimanan dan sistem kehidupan Islam (termasuk juga undang-undang jenayah syariah) dilihat dalam corak penglihatan kepercayaan lain, umpamanya prinsip hak asasi. 

Untuk memahami Islam, ia harus dilihat dengan menggunakan kaca mata Islam, bukan kaca mata lain. Secara logik, sekiranya kita membincangkan mengenai agama lain, sudah pasti sifir yang digunakan bukan agama Islam. 

Islam tidak pernah memaksa orang bukan Islam menurut atau beriman kepada agama itu kerana al-Quran menyebut, tiada paksaan dalam agama. Tetapi, disebabkan kita hidup dalam masyarakat berbilang agama, kita harus sentiasa menghormati antara agama. 

Persoalan sama ada ajaran dan keimanan Islam boleh diterima oleh penganut agama lain atau tidak, ia tidak harus dibincangkan dengan niat untuk menyeragamkan kepercayaan atau keimanan. 

Di dalam sebuah negara yang mempunyai pelbagai agama, kita harus bersetuju kepada perbezaan antara agama tanpa rasa prejudis antara satu sama lain. Orang Islam menganggap Islam adalah agama sempurna. Mungkin penganut agama lain juga menganggap agama mereka yang sempurna. 

Seperti mana tiada paksaan ke atas agama lain untuk mempercayai Islam, begitu juga dengan Islam. Islam jangan dipaksa untuk menerima sifir atau formula hak asasi (acuan Barat) atau agama lain. Biarkan perbezaan itu tanpa perlu digusarkan. Selama mana ada toleransi ini, kita akan kekal aman sejahtera. 

Penulisan ialah Penolong Profesor Kulliyyah Undang-Undang Ahmad Ibrahim, Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM) 





Thursday February 3, 2011

16-year-old charged with triple murder

ALOR GAJAH: A 16-year-old boy was charged at the magistrate’s court here yesterday with the triple murder of three youths at Jalan Paya Mengkuang, Masjid Tanah here at 10.45pm on Jan 21.
He was charged with the murders of Lan Ee Shen, 20, Chong Sang Keong, 17, and Tai Chi Yong, 18, under Section 302 of the Penal Code which carries a death penalty. No plea was recorded. Magistrate Mohd Hadi Hakimi Harun fixed March 2 for mention pending the results of the post-mortem and the DNA reports.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Salwa Mhd Asrar prosecuted. — Bernama

Soalan:

1. Mengapa tertuduh didakwa di Mahkamah Majistret?
2. Jelaskan bidangkuasa Mahkamah Majistret.


Sunday February 6, 2011

2. High time for a new Bar

COMMENT BY ROGER TAN

A common evaluation system is needed urgently to check the declining quality and standard of new lawyers in the country.
IT is a matter of grave concern that with about 1000 law graduates entering the legal profession every year, there is no common evaluation system to ascertain and ensure their levels of competence.
The Bar Council has been advocating a Common Bar Course and Examination (CBE) since the 1980s as a single entry point to the legal profession for both local and foreign law graduates.
It is understood that the delay in implementing the CBE is partly due to objections from local universities.
But it cannot be gainsaid that the quality and standard of lawyers have also declined significantly since the 1980s. There is a common feeling among senior legal practitioners that there is an “abject absence of rudimentary legal skills” among the new entrants.
In 2008, a senior judge lamented on the poor quality of locally trained lawyers, describing their standard as ranging from the “good to the grotesque”. (However, some senior lawyers had also opined that the learned judge’s assessment applied equally to the quality of judges since the 1980s.)
For example, one senior lawyer related this incident to me involving a senior assistant registrar (SAR) and lawyers for both the plaintiff and defendant. The SAR was tasked to read the judge’s order relating to costs. Both lawyers recorded the amount of costs with interest at the rate of 80%!
When the senior lawyer asked his assistant, who was the counsel for the plaintiff, about it, the latter said he did not understand why the SAR had mentioned the interest at 80%. He added that when he checked with the counsel for the defendant; the latter said it was common for the court to grant interest at 80%, which is, of course, erroneous!
Hence, the point is, how could one have walked out of the court without even understanding the court’s order? If the parties were not able to understand the order, then they would also not be able to draft the order later. If what the plaintiff’s counsel had said about the SAR and the other counsel was true, then indeed all the three legally trained officers – SAR and the two lawyers - were indeed half-past-six professionals!
Besides the decline in lawyering quality, there is an abysmal language skill especially the command of the English language among the new entrants for practice at the Bar. I have personally received a letter from a young lawyer asking me to “ensure that (our) clients would be executed the documents!”
It follows that it is not unjustified to require the new entrants to also pass an English Language Qualifying Examination. Whilst we can blame this decline on our education system, we cannot ignore the fact that we are living in an increasingly competitive global environment where international business is transacted primarily in English.
It is also in the national interest for us to build up a pool of competent practitioners in international law so that we can put across our nation’s case in international forums and courts, which is made all the more necessary after the Pulau Batu Puteh case before the International Court of Justice.
In fact, there were 13,350 practising lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia as of Dec 31 last year, with more than half having obtained their basic law degree overseas.
The Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA) governs the admission of new entrants from various streams to the legal profession as an advocate and solicitor.
To be admitted to the Malaysian Bar, one has to be a “qualified person” as defined in the LPA; attain the age of 18; be of good character and not been adjudicated bankrupt or convicted of any offence; be a citizen or permanent resident of Malaysia; have served nine months of pupillage under a lawyer of at least seven years’ experience; and have passed, or be exempted from, the Bahasa Malaysia Qualifying Examination.
Three tables containing the relevant information of the legal practitioners and their qualifications have been provided, and let me expound on it a little.
Table 1 deals with the academic qualifications of a ‘qualified person’, and the following should be noted:
> The qualifications, except for graduates of Universiti Malaya, National University of Singapore and barristers of England, are determined from time to time by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (Qualifying Board) which is chaired by the Attorney-General. Any change to the status of the three aforesaid qualifications can only be made by way of a statutory amendment to the LPA.
> The law degree of the new Singapore Management University has still not been recognised by the Qualifying Board. (Singapore only recognises the law degree of University of Malaya for admission to the Singapore Bar.)
> The two-year exemption from Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination given to law graduates of Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) and Multimedia University (MMU) in 2009 will expire on April 15, unless extended indefinitely or for a further period by the Qualifying Board.
Table 2 particularises the qualifications of the 13,350 lawyers as at Dec 31 last year. It is interesting to note that the International Islamic University is the single university which has produced the largest number of lawyers in Malaysia.
Also, as of Jan 28, 2011:
> There were 13,346 lawyers; of whom 6,992 and 6,354 are respectively men and women.
> In terms of ethnicity, there were 5,190 Malays; 5,025 Chinese; 2,517 Indians; 485 Punjabis and 129 Eurasians and others.
> In terms of number of years of practice, there were 1972 lawyers with one to three years of practice; 2,037 (three to seven years); 2,983 (seven to 12 years); 4,244 (12 to 20 years) and 2,110 lawyers have 20 years of practice or more.
> In terms of age, 2,384 lawyers were under 30; 4847 (31-40); 3,537 (41-50); 1,648 (51-60) and 930 lawyers were aged 60 and above.
As regards Table 3 which shows the number of lawyers admitted in 2009 and 2010, it is obvious that women have been busy becoming lawyers in the last two years!
It follows that as Malaysian lawyers are coming from so many diverse educational streams, there is an urgent need for uniformity by undertaking a critical review of the entire legal education especially when we are producing a surfeit of lawyers annually.
Need to be professional
It is for this reason that there have been constant calls for many decades now for the CBE to be implemented as the ultimate sieve in the admission of new practitioners in order to ensure lawyering quality and competency.
Further, the CLP course has to be replaced by the CBE because it is too examination oriented, and not practical skills oriented. This is understandable as the CLP was originally designed in 1984 only as a temporary stop-gap measure to assist those Malaysians who were not able to sit for the English Bar Finals Examinations because they failed to obtain at least a Second Class (Lower Division) Honours in their British university law degree.
To my mind, law schools should just concentrate on the academic aspect of legal education, and leave the professional training in the form of CBE to the Qualifying Board, Bar Council and the Judicial and Legal Services. Passing the CBE should not just be the pre-requisite for new entrants to the legal profession, but also for new recruits for the Judicial and Legal Services.
Pending the implementation of the CBE, the Qualifying Board should also periodically review the teaching and training of law graduates from our local universities. If the standard is not maintained, then the exemption from the CLP examination currently granted to their law graduates should be removed.
As regards foreign law graduates, the Qualifying Board has already reduced the number of approved British universities from 66 to just 30, and Australian and New Zealand law graduates are now required to sit and pass the CLP examination even if they have been admitted as barristers or solicitors in New Zealand or any state of Australia.
In this regard, the Qualifying Board should be commended for setting up in 2008 an evaluation team headed by the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court which comprised judges, officers from the Attorney General’s Chambers and senior members of the Malaysian Bar to determine if UUM and MMU law graduates should be exempted from the CLP examination. As a result, law graduates from the two universities are now required to undergo a training course on practical skills before they can become “qualified persons” under the LPA even though they are exempted from the CLP exam. This exemption will expire on April 15, and the team would return soon to the universities to undertake a review.
In fact, so much has already been said and written in the last 20 years about the urgent need of reforming our decrepit legal education, and we are already sorely lagging behind many Commonwealth countries in this respect. But regrettably, there appears to be a total lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the various stakeholders to come to grips with this unsatisfactory state of affairs which is certainly not in the public interest.


1.Tempoh reman tujuh suspek bunuh tiga remaja dilanjut

MELAKA 29 Jan. - Mahkamah Majistret di sini hari ini membenarkan permohonan polis untuk melanjutkan selama tujuh hari lagi tempoh reman ke atas tujuh suspek kes pembunuhan tiga sahabat pada 21 Januari lalu.
Majistret Muzila Mohamed Arsad membenarkan tempoh tersebut dilanjutkan bermula hari ini sehingga 5 Februari ini.
Ia merupakan permohonan kedua pihak polis bagi membolehkan siasatan lanjut dilakukan terhadap kesemua tujuh suspek berusia 14 hingga 37 tahun itu.
Mereka dipercayai terlibat dalam pembunuhan Chong Sang Keong, 17, Tai Chi Yong, 18, dan Lan Ee Shen, 20, di Kampung Solok Binjai, Pengkalan Balak, Jalan Paya Mengkuang di sini pada pukul 10.45 malam 21 Januari lalu.
Ketujuh-tujuh lelaki itu dibawa ke Mahkamah Majistret Ayer Keroh di sini pada pukul 10 pagi sebelum perintah reman dikeluarkan dua jam kemudian.
Dalam kejadian tersebut, tiga sahabat yang berasal dari Taman Paya Mengkuang ditemui mati dibunuh di tepi jalan berkenaan, dipercayai akibat diserang oleh sekumpulan lelaki.
Dua daripada mangsa ditemui terbaring di tepi jalan dengan beberapa kesan tikaman di badan manakala seorang lagi mati dalam perjalanan ke Hospital Terendak ketika dibawa oleh bapanya.

Sumber: Berita harian 30/1/2011