Skip to content

Semangat Kemerdekaan Ke-59

29/08/2016

PhotoGrid_1472442437926

Screenshot_20160829-103827

Screenshot_20160829-084751

Amend Article 121 (1A) as well…

26/08/2016

img-20160117-wa0022

mmexport1472213715853

 

I applaud the Prime Minister’s recent decision to amend the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA”).

Being a practising lawyer and involved in several related cases I believe it is also high time for the federal government to reconsider into other significant changes such as amendment to Article 121 (1) of the Federal Constitution.

Previously in 1988 the material part of clause (1) of Article 121 provided that: “… the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in” the High Court. After 1988, Article 121(1) said that the High Court “shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

That is to say, before 1988 the courts derived their powers from the Constitution but now from the Parliament.

“In addition to the amendment of the LRA, I think it is also necessary to amend Article 121(1A) as one may still argue that the supreme law takes precedent over the LRA.  Otherwise it may lead to another controversial legal dispute after the proposed LRA amendment” Andy emphasised.

The 121(1A) amendement also occurred in 1998 where the powers and jurisdiction of the Syariah courts have been expanded beyond the limits permitted by the Constitution.

Since then Syariah courts gave orders against non-Muslims such as dissolving the civil  marriages registered under civil law when only one spouse converted to Islam, and converted infant children to Islam without the knowledge of the non-Muslim parent such as Subashini and Indira Ghandi’s cases.

With the above amendments, it will reflect a truly separation of powers that the Parliament, the executive and the courts each have their distinct and largely exclusive domain. Parliament has a legally unchallengeable right to make whatever laws it thinks right. The executive carries on the administration of the country in accordance with the powers conferred on it by law.

The courts with a clear jurisdiction can then interpret the laws and see that they are obeyed such as only civil court to decide matters relating to civil marriages.

Talk on Federal Constitution, Hudud & Hadi’s Private Member Bill

21/08/2016

IMG-20160821-WA0016

 

IMG-20160820-WA0017

Thou shall not condemn the country…

04/08/2016

andy-wong-maria-chin

 

A person need not resort to doing something extreme in order to exhibit his or her love for the nation, said Gerakan Youth deputy chief Andy Yong.

More so, he said, Malaysians should refrain from casting a negative impression or criticise their country in foreign lands.

‘It is proven that the Japanese or mainland Chinese would rarely or never talk bad about their governments outside their countries even if they disliked them,” he added.

Yong was responding to Bersih chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah who urged all Malaysians do their part with regard to an upcoming rally organised by the electoral watchdog.

Apart from urging GlobalBersih to act as well, she described the rally as a clarion call for all those who love Malaysia.

However, Yong said several political parties and NGO groups had often routed the anger and frustrations of the common people by promoting radical expressions of nationalistic ideas to shift the focus of the masses for their long term personal gains.

“As we are celebrating national day this month, demonstrations and rallies that will result in violence cannot represent the love for one’s nation.

“I think truly loving our nation means being patriotic by accomplishing our duties as Malaysians and bringing people together for the common good.

“We must be considerate of the privacy of others and obey the laws of the land,” he added.

For this to happen, Yong said political instability should end.

“I think federal or state governments and political parties should be both ready and eager to solve problems with devotion and focus,” he added.

Sometimes in politics honesty is still the best policy…

30/07/2016

20160725_114233

民青团支持阿扎丽娜警告外国团体勿干涉国内法律事务 杨锦成:政府和法律公会应针对修订1976年法律专业法令建议举行对话

21/07/2016

针对澳洲律师协会、英国、威尔士和德国相关的专业机构共同谴责修订1976年马来西亚法律专业法令,首相署部长阿扎丽娜警告外国团体勿干预国内法律事务一事,民青团署理团长杨锦成表示支持。

杨锦成律师呼应阿扎丽娜的言论,外国团体应避免干涉马来西亚的法律事务,因为这侵犯我国的主权和不尊重我国。

“政府当务之急是听取民众对于修订1976年法律专业法令建议的关注,政府的修订建议被视为没有必要地干预我国法律事务,因为将影响该法定机构的独立性。政府应重新考虑修订1976年法律专业法令的建议,同时政府或阿扎丽娜必须与律师公会针对修订1976年法律专业法令建议举行对话,以厘清当中的事项,”杨锦成律师说。

同时也是执业律师和律师公会成员的杨锦成律师强调,律师公会保持独立很重要,但更为重要的是民众视律师公会为独立机构。在更大的透明度和真正民主精神下,他支持只是修订有关律师公会常年大会和州律师公会直选委员的建议。他捍卫所有律师公会成员都是专业、成熟和见识广博的,因此有关没有经验的争论是没有根据的。

Andy Yong: Government and Bar Council should hold dialogue on proposed amendments to LPA 1976

Gerakan Andy Yong has voiced his support for Minister in the Prime Minister Department, Azalina Othman who warned against foreign parties not to intervene in local affairs after the Australian Bar Association (ABA) and the relevant professional bodies originating in England, Wales as well as Germany denounced the proposed amendments to Malaysia’s Legal Profession Act (LPA) 1976.

Andy Yong echoed Azalina’s statement that foreign parties should refrain from interfering in Malaysia’s legal affairs as it is an intrusion of sovereignty and lack of respect towards Malaysia as a country. 

“However, it is imperative that the government takes heed of increasing public concern over the proposed amendments to the LPA 1976, which is seen as unnecessary governmental interference to Malaysian Bar’s affairs affecting the independence of the statutory body. Government should reconsider the proposed amendments to LPA 1976, a serious dialogue session must take place between the Bar Council and the government or Azalina regarding the proposed amendments to LPA 1976 in order to clear the air,” said Andy Yong. 

Andy Yong who is a practicing lawyer and member of the Bar Council stressed that it is important that the Bar Council remains independent and more importantly being seen as independent by the people. He was supportive of the only amendment proposed in the Bill in relation to direct election of office bearers at the AGM of the Bar Council and at the State Bar in the spirit of greater transparency and true democracy. He also defended that members of the Bar Council are professional, mature, well-informed which makes the argument of no experience does not carry weight.

Hudud? Paramount concern should be the whole nation

30/05/2016

andy-gerakan3

Recently many Muslims especially politicians, have expressed intrigue over the brouhaha among non-Muslims arising from the Private Member’s Bill, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) 2016 tabled by PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang at the Dewan Rakyat on Thursday.

These politicians have claimed that the Private Member’s Bill has nothing to do with non-Muslims and so everyone should not making a big fuss over it.

The key concerns here are not about race or religion but about the legal and constitutional aspects of Syariah law.

If PAS’s Private Member’s Bill, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) 2016 is allowed to be implemented, it will have serious implications on all Malaysians including non-Muslims. It will give rise to the inequality of laws and this is clearly disallowed by the Federal Constitution.

More importantly, the supreme law does not allow other legislation to encroach into the offences provided in the federal law i.e. Penal Code. Offences and punishment for rape, theft etc are already provided for in the Penal Code.

So the Bill that seeks to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court i.e. Act 355 is actually a legislation to allow Hudud to be implemented through the back door.

A classic example – if the victim in a rape case is a non-Muslim and the rapist is a Muslim, which law applies? Vice-versa if the rapist is a Chinese and the victim Muslim, will there be justice?

The same goes for theft or robbery. Do we expect non-Muslim victims to lodge reports at the Islamic Affairs authorities and subsequently be subjected to the Syariah Court if the suspect is a Muslim? The non-Muslim victims cannot lodge reports at the police station as the latter would have no jurisdiction.

Another example is insurance laws that do not recognise hudud. This means that in personal injury claims in a road accident, the non-Muslim insured will not be covered if the other party is a Muslim and sues under the enactment.

Religious conversion, custody issues etc have already caused so much problems in the country

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.