Newsletter | Issue 16

Subject: Park the bus? No. Park the tank.




Apa khabar? The nation will get to celebrate Merdeka Day together at Dataran Merdeka after a two-year hiatus, except maybe Najib.
To add to that, the men’s doubles pair just bagged our first badminton World Championships, just in time for a very patriotic Merdeka Day!
Happy Independence Day, folks!
Niresh Kaur, Shambavi Shankar

What’s the tea in Malaysia?

sipping tea
Najib’s sentencing explained​​
The second week of Najib’s SRC trial did not last long despite Shafee’s dramatic entrance.
Source: Tenor
Calling this a straightforward case of criminal breach of trust (CBT), Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat upheld the decisions of the lower Courts. 

The Chief Justice further mentioned that the defence was ‘completely inconsistent and diametrically opposed to one another.’ 

The following were Najib’s sentences:
1. One count of abuse of power – 12 years imprisonment + RM210 million fine
2. Three counts of CBT – 10 years imprisonment 
3. Three counts of money laundering – 10 years imprisonment

All the sentences will run concurrently. Therefore, he faces 12 years imprisonment and a fine of RM210 million. (You are doing the maths, so we will explain the law).
Source: Tenor
What is concurrent sentencing? Why not 12+10+10 years (what you mean here is consecutive sentencing)?  The Court in PP v. Yap Huat Heng [1986] explains this perfectly – The High Court stated that “… Where two or more distinct offences had been committed, sentences of imprisonment should not be made to run concurrently. It should only be made concurrent when an offender had been convicted of a principal and a subsidiary offence. In all other cases, sentences should be made to run consecutively.”

In English: If similar offences were committed, the sentencing shall run concurrently, however, if unrelated, then the sentencing shall run consecutively. 
The Courts also consider how ‘just’ the sentencing would be – the sentencing must always be proportionate to the crimes committed. 

Here’s our question – Not long ago, a mother of two who was caught stealing Milo was sentenced to 1 year in prison. Here, the conviction is for millions of Ringgit – 12 years. Why?
Source: Tenor
Najib still has four more pending court cases. 
Please revisit s377
The Singapore Prime Minister stated that repealing Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code which criminalises sex between men is the ‘right thing to do’.

But Malaysia doesn’t have such a sexist law. Or so we think.
Section 377 of the Malaysia Penal Code has been used in the past against the LGBT community. For as long as we have such a law, we keep the room for exploitation open. 

About time Malaysia too revisits this draconian rule. 
PSA: Employment Act amendments to take place 1 Jan
Previously, the amendments to the Employment Act 1955 were to take effect on 1 September 2022. However, upon discussion with relevant stakeholders, the Ministry has decided to put a brake on this, but promises that it will be implemented on 1 January 2022, ‘by hook or crook’.
Update: Ebit lew to face trial for 11 counts of sexual harassment charges
He was charged under Section 509 of the Penal Code (a criminal offence to ‘insult the modesty of any person’), if found guilty, he can be sentenced up to 5 years in prison, or a fine, or both. 

Since it would be a bit lewd to make puns on this matter,  let’s just wait for the verdict.
digi and celcom merger meme
Image Source: Meme Generator

Legal Lingo of the Week – Ratio Decidendi  

Ratio Decidendi is a Latin maxim that means reason for deciding.
Source: Tenor 
In legal context, this would be the focal point and reasoning derived from a judgment. So, it is basically the binding precedent that can be used for other similar cases.

Question of the Week

Fahmi Reza was charged earlier this year for insulting health minister Datuk Seri Dr Adham Baba in a form of a caricature. He was however given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on this charge. 

Image below purely for context:
Source: Image by Fahmi Reza via
What is a DNAA?
Last Week’s Question: 
“Either party maintains the right to terminate the employment agreement by giving each other one month written notice or salary in lieu of such notice”      
-sample of the termination clause in an employment contract

Can an employer terminate an employee by giving a notice of termination without any reason solely based on the contract of employment (as shown above)?

Answer: No, although that’s what it seems like on paper (your employment contract), the employer cannot simply terminate by notice or salary in lieu of notice. As per Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, the termination should be with “just cause or excuse”.
Source: Tenor
If you have been unfairly dismissed, reach out to the Department of Industrial Relations. (Jabatan Perhubungan Perusahaan)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.