Thursday, August 30, 2012

Janji Di Third Party

It is our 55 years. A long journey that consists of our great grandparents, grandparents, parents, us and even our children. Together we remember every steps being made by our ancestors, from fighting for the country's independence and gave birth to us.

I have to admit that it is an unhealthy administration for a ruling coalition that has ruled for 55 years. The development is an undeniable result paper throughout the period. We treasured the parties' political leaders' efforts. A lot of Janji has been given and for sure not all promises can be fulfilled and achieved.

In view of our current political atmosphere, especially certain politicians fooling the people around with sensitive issues and unsound government policies pairing with some enactment of threatening legislation, it is always a dream for all Malaysian to shape a well legislated country.

The Prime Minister's effort to repeal certain legislation such as ISA should be credited. However, the amendment of S114A Evidence Act 1950 and other community issues such as cyanide in Bukit Koman, etc has yet to be resolved. Janji ditepati becomes janji di third party, never can be fulfilled.

Despite the aforementioned worrying issues, the proposed nuclear reactor is the most important issue to be tackled with as far as I concerns. I am not objecting the development of nuclear as it carries weight in generating new source of energy to the country but against the controlling, monitoring and maintaining system.  I have said before that although there ain't any natural disaster in this fortune country but we can't deny such disaster may exist some day. The question is are we really prepare for this?

More promises made to be exchanged with votes and hopes from the people.

The government hates assembly (regardless of permitted or illegal), but the people learnt and grew from the democracy process. The youngsters are the pillars of the country. They would have to understand the true democracy spirit and the development of the country. Yes they know what car is Datuk Lee Chong Wei using, and yes they know how many members in Girls Generation and what is Gangnam style. For the sake of the country, the democracy not only about casting vote into ballot box and shout for the election candidates that you favour for. Democracy is far beyond than that.

Empowerment of youths should steps into the main stream of the country's political agenda.

All the best to those who will attend tonight's Janji Demokrasi assembly. Know your rights if you being detained by the authority unfortunately.

Together in this meaningful 55 birthday's night, let's pray for a better Malaysia. Regardless of the ruling coalition, we demand Janji Di Third Party to be replaced with Janji Really Boleh Ditepati.

Happy Merdeka!

p/s: my 2010 Merdeka wishes :

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Know Your Rights As A Strata Building Purchaser

Condominiums / Serviced Apartments is not a fresh property in our country anymore. Getting a landed property in Klang Valley is almost a tough task for most of the fresh graduates. Thus, purchasing a condominium is an alternative and affordable way to build a very own's nest. It is crucial to know your rights as a purchaser for strata title's property.

I am not going to discuss on the purchasing process but rather to focus on the formation of Joint Management Body after the Developer has delivered the vacant possession to the purchasers (means after you "received the key") in view I came across this interesting issue recently.

First and foremost I thank god for granting me some fortunes on purchasing the property that located nearby Klang Valley (because the project was under 10% discount). Following that you would need to know who will manage the property and what is their responsibility.

Section 4 & 5 Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (Act 663) and Order stating:-

S4(1)(b): "Where a building or land intended for subdivision into parcels has been completed,  on or after the commencement of this Act, a Joint Management Body shall be established consisting of the developer and the purchasers upon the convening of the first meeting not later than twelve months from the date of delivery vacant possession of the parcels to the purchasers".

Thus, S4(1)(b) means the JMB need to be formed within 1 year after the purchasers received the key from developer.

S5(5): "Any developer who fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both".

Thus, S5(5) means if developer fails to call for the first meeting within the said 1 year, it is a criminal offence if they found guilty. (Don't play play)

After several provisions being quoted, the main Question is why I need to know this and why I must request the developer to call for the 1st JMB meeting?

The answer is same with your personal tax being "surrendered" to the Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri (yeah I know the tax is never being given willingly). In short, the purchasers form the JMB, the JMB will take over the developer's duty to maintain the common property and the maintenance fee + sinking fund account. You manage back your own money!

If any developer tries to provide numerous reasons to defer the meeting, stay calm, gather other purchasers and hand in a letter by quoting the aforementioned provisions politely. (tell them don't play play need to go to jail)

It is common scenario that the maintenance fee and sinking fund account being misused or fraud could be happened (well in this case I am not saying my developer). Thus it is vital to take back the authority from the developer and monitor your property's account with commitment promised and transparency provided. It is a collective duty for all the purchasers to maintain the property.

As far as I concerns, my developer is trying to defer the 1st JMB meeting by seeking our consent. You may confuse until this stage. Let me clarify further.

My condominium is divided into three phases (obviously is Phase 1, 2 & 3). The developer delivered the vacant possession to Phase 1 purchasers last year, and to Phase 2 purchasers this year. According to the Act, they need to call for the meeting this year. However, the developer requested to wait for the Phase 2 purchasers to join in.

Chaos occurred. Should you agree to the deferment? The best option would be seeking the opinions from other purchasers and reach to a decision collectively. Remember by lodging a complaint to the Commissioner of Building (COB) may lead unwanted problematic scenarios to the developer. They are responsible and being questionable by the COB. We must take note that there are no provisions in the Act for the COB to allow the requisition of developer to defer the meeting. Further, the discretion of the COB to do so is not stated clearly.

To conclude, if you discover there is some potential fraud or misusing of management fee account by the developer (normally they will appoint a managing agent), do not hesitate to gather the voices and powers from other purchasers and defend your rights (as well as your money)!

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The True Problem of S114A

814 Internet Blackout Day was another Bersih rally in the cyber world. The blackout action was being welcomed greatly by NGOs and internet users. The Centre of Independent Journalism (CIJ) again stressed that they are not urging the internet users to go offline but to spread more news to their friends and families.

We can foresee that the internet technology might be abused and caused unwanted chaos and even cyber criminals to the others. The Government desperately passed the enactment of S114A Evidence Act without consulting stakeholders and related bodies. At this juncture, it is vital to understand the true problem of S114A besides knowing the Government trying to govern and control the freedom of expression in cyber world further.

S114A stated, it presumes the internet users guilty until proven innocent. In other word, this section holds the internet users accountable for publishing content online which deals with allegedly illicit, harmful, seditious or defamatory content. Firstly, it is undeniable that publishing such harmful contents definitely guilty in terms of law. We have to admit that such person would need to be liable and judged before the justice.

However, the authority might hold average internet users liable and they bear the burden of proof to prove that they are not guilty. This bill had opposed to the golden thread of prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such case, all internet users are guilty until proven innocent which is clearly against the spirit of law.

In most of the criminals the prosecution always bear the heavier burden to prove the accused is guilty and to be liable for their wrongful actions. Criminals involving heavy punishment such as fine, imprisonment or even capital punishment. Due to the authority is accessible to rich resources and thus it is fair and just for them to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and send the accused for proportionate punishment.

Yes, all parties agreed that S114A threatens the right to freedom of expression further while those who providing web hosting service, own online forums and online discussion site, bloggers and even mobile computer and smartphone users are classified as accountable users under this section.

To a certain extent, I agree if the Government would like to control internet freedom to prevent defamatory and harmful materials being published deliberately and intentionally but not by enacting such Act that creates presumption on any internet users are guilty unless contrary is proven.

Both Barisan and Pakatan's MPs not agreeable to this statutory intervention and Prime Minister has instructed the Cabinet members to discuss on this matter (via twitter?). However it is upset that our Cabinet refused to review and claimed it is a matter of interpretation.

Further, what I concern is the quality and critical thinking of our MPs in passing or objecting an enactment of law in Dewan Rakyat. Due to our party whip system our MPs would only "yes" to any proposed bill and this would cause problematic scenario for sure.

As such, the agenda of reviewing our MPs' performance and portfolio is more important and crucial. This is the true problem behind the legislation of S114A.

Monday, August 13, 2012

814黑屏抗议日 - 814 Internet Blackout Day

814黑屏抗议日(814 Internet Blackout Day)对你来说或许是一个陌生词,但是活在21世纪的你我都必须懂得使用网络的权力自由。814黑屏抗议日的由来,发自于独立新闻中心(Centre for Independent Journalism)并获得网民广大的回应与支持,其中马来西亚律师公会更在自家网页上设置抗议界面,抗议政府落实《2012年证据法令修正案》内新增的第144(A)条文。


在《2012年证据法令修正案)第144(A)条文(S114(A) Evidence (Amendment) Act 2012)底下,一旦网络使用者被追究责任,有关人士必须力证本身的清白,因此无论在民事或刑事检控案中,举证的责任不在于检控官底下。该用词不当的条文扼杀了被控者的法律保护罩,而且该条文并没有进一步说明假使网络使用者或服务供应者被骇客入侵,或遭他人恶意留言等时,该如何进行诠释。因此,S114(A)条文的广泛含义,随时将网络使用者暴露于24小时不间断的法律威胁。

在刑事检控中这节骨眼里,举证的责任皆在于检控官的责任,被控者没有法律责任拿出证据排出一切合理的怀疑方能力证无辜与清白。(法律上的解说是:It is a golden thread that prosecution always bear the burden of proof to prove beyond reasonable doubt.)再说,在刑事检控中,被检控者只需拿出一些证据/资料辩驳,检控官必须对这些证据一一提出检验,反驳和证明以及排除一切合理的怀疑。(法律上的解说是:The Defendant would only need to point to some issues or evidences, make it a live issue and it is for the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.)







Loyar Burok: Know Your Rights of Freedom of Expression


大马律师公会 The Malaysian Bar: Internet Blackout Day

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Yet To Be A Perception

Violent crime rates are reaching a worrying level. It is not a perception but facts. Indeed, everyone is struggling on how to prevent crimes. Valuables second, own safety comes first is currently the ultimate aim for the people.

It is undeniable that reducing criminal rates is one of the target for our present Government. The Office of the Prime Minister and PEMANDU nevertheless carrying several efforts to reduce the crime rates. From a series of chaos happened recently in some well known shopping malls, it is detectable that the climbing up criminal rates is no more a perception.

On the other hand, our police force still persuading the public not to engage with the statistics and information from social medias. Our Inspector General of Police told the public must not base their comments on the data via unreliable sources. In other words, the people's perception is inaccurate with the statistics built by the police force.

Despite the printed media keep rolling on publishing the crimes, our Cabinet's Ministers firmly denied the worrying statistics and blamed the public's perception should not took place. Published news definitely will creates worries and negative perception, however it should be well noted that the series of reports were facts. It might be commented that such innovative crime cases which took place recently were only "special occasions" as told by some ministers, but the government should be able to listen to the public's concerns, feelings and thoughts in view of the present crime cases.

In other words, the effort of reducing the crimes should be able to develop progressively and simultaneously with comforting the public's worries and perception. Importantly, the media should not be blamed for blowing out the news as it prospectively alert the public on preventing crimes. A credit should be granted to a TV broadcasting company for producing a show on how to against street crimes effectively.

Not to forget that the criminals will come out with innovative and creative ideas in committing crimes. The police force should be able to foresee or keep updating with any latest criminals patterns and behaviors from time to time.

Prevention is always better than cure, and it is always a stupid move to announce the crime rates have dropped by ignoring the public's perception.

IGP: Perception of crime rates should not be based on social media reports

Monday, August 6, 2012