Aug 24, 2013

Tribunal for Solid Waste Management Services



Tribunal for Solid Waste Management Services
THE TRIBUNAL
The establishment of the Tribunal for Solid Waste Management Services is under the Solid Waste And Public Cleansing Management Act 2007. Membership of the Tribunal comprises of a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman from amongst members of the Judicial and Legal Service and not less than 5 other members to be appointed from amongst persons who are members of or have held post in the Judicial and Legal Service or advocates and solicitors and who have not less than 7 years’ standing. Any member of the Tribunal may resign by giving written notice to the Minister. The Act also provides for the payment remuneration or allowances to members of the Tribunal, and the remuneration shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to be exercised by the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman or any member of the Tribunal as determined by the Chairman, sitting alone. It also provides that where the presiding person dies or is unable to complete the proceedings, a claim shall be heard afresh unless the parties agree that the proceeding be continued by another member of the Tribunal.
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AND JURISDICTION
The commencement of the proceedings by any interested person (i.e. “interested person” under the Act which means the Corporation, any licensee, owner, occupier, local authority and solid waste generator in respect of solid waste management services provided under this Act) for a claim under this Act is by lodging the claim in the prescribed form together with the prescribed fee, for any matter concerning his interests or any loss suffered or damages incurred which includes the recovery of charges, fees or levy under this Act. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine a claim lodged under the Act where the total amount in respect of which an award of the Tribunal is sought does not exceed fifty thousand ringgit. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of any claim for the recovery of land, or any estate or interest in land and which there is a dispute concerning the entitlement of any person under a will or settlement, or on intestacy, goodwill, chose-in-action or any trade secret or other intellectual property right. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be limited to a claim that is based on a cause of action arising from any claim for the recovery of charges, fees or levy of solid waste management services by the licensee or the Corporation or disputes arising from any charges, fees or levy imposed for solid waste management services between the licensee or the Corporation and the owner, occupier, local authority or solid waste generator. The extension of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine claims exceeding fifty thousand ringgit in amount or value if the parties have entered into an agreement in writing that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such claim. For the abandonment of a claim as exceeds fifty thousand ringgit in order to bring the claim within jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Where a claim is lodged with the Tribunal and the claim is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the issues in dispute in that claim, whether as shown in the initial claim or as emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties in any court unless the proceedings before the court were commenced before the claim was lodged with the Tribunal; or the claim before the Tribunal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out.
THE PROCEEDINGS
The Secretary to the Tribunal shall give notice of the day, time and place of hearing in the prescribed form to the claimant and the respondent upon a claim being lodged. The Tribunal may assess whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to assist parties to negotiate an agreed settlement in relation to the claim. The Tribunal is required to approve and record the settlement where the parties have reached an agreed settlement and the settlement shall then take effect as if it was an award of the Tribunal. At the hearing of a claim every party shall be entitled to attend and be heard. No party shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor at a hearing unless in the opinion of the Tribunal the matter in question involves complex issues of law and one party will suffer severe financial hardship if he is not represented by an advocate and solicitor, but if one party is subsequently allowed to be represented by an advocate and solicitor then the other party shall also be entitled. All proceedings before the Tribunal shall be open to the public. The Tribunal may hear and determine the claim before it notwithstanding the absence of any party to the proceedings if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that a notice of the hearing has been duly served on the absent party.
THE AWARDS
The Tribunal to make its awards without delay and where practicable, within sixty days from the first day the hearing before the Tribunal commences. An award of the Tribunal may require one or more of the following:
(a) that a party to the proceedings pay money to any other party;
(b) that money be awarded to compensate for any loss or damage suffered by the claimant;
(c) that costs to or against any party be paid;
(d) that interest be paid on any sum or monetary award at a rate not exceeding eight per centum per annum, unless it has been otherwise agreed between the parties;
(e) that the claim is dismissed.
Before the Tribunal makes an award under the Act, it may, in its discretion, refer to a Judge of the High Court a question of law relating to any of the following matters (a) which arose in the course of the proceedings; (b) which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is of sufficient importance to merit such reference; and (c) the determination of which by the Tribunal raises, in the opinion of the Tribunal, sufficient doubt to merit such reference. The Tribunal is required to give its reasons for its award in a proceeding. Orders and settlement of the Tribunal shall  be recorded in writing. Every agreed settlement and every award made by the Tribunal shall be final and binding on all parties to proceedings and  shall be deemed to be an order of a Sessions Court or Magistrate’s Court and be enforced accordingly by any party to the proceedings. It is a criminal penalty to any person who fails to comply with an award made by the Tribunal within the period specified by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, the members of the Tribunal or any person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Tribunal exercising any power under the Act are protected from actions, suit or prosecution if the acts were done in good faith.

Aug 14, 2013

Sebatang Pensil: Suatu Pengajaran

Pernah melihat pensil?
Tentulah jawabnya: PERNAH...

Ini satu kisah (dan pengajaran) daripada "pensil"...
Semasa saya di Sekolah Menengah Teknik, Kuantan dahulu (tahun 1972-1973), diantara barang yang amat diperlukan adalah pensil jenis HD, terutama untuk digunakan dalam matapelajaran Lukisan Kejuruteraan, dan juga Ukur.
Kerap saya kehilangan pensil. Walaupun dah berkali-kali saya membeli ganti, namun ia kerap hilang, terutama setelah peralatan lukisan (termasuk pensil) ditinggalkan di dalam laci (berkunci) atau di dalam laci tak berkunci di bilik darjah. Pada suatu masa, saya menjadi amat hangat hati apabila kehilangan semua pensil saya, dan hari itu terpaksalah saya meminjam pensil kawan. Nak dijadikan cerita, pada malam itu, selepas habis kelas malam, saya telah melakukan "operasi haram" iaitu mencuri banyak pensil HD kepunyaan pelajar lain yang saya jumpa di dalam kelas saya dan kelas-kelas lain. Walaupun saya tidak mengopak laci-laci bagi mencuri pensil, namun, "banyak juga" pensil yang saya dapat kumpulkan, iaitu 2 berkas (sekitar 2 dozen!!!). Maka untuk beberapa hari berikutnya saya kaya dengan pensil...
TETAPI, "kekayaan" saya itu tidak bertahan lama... Sekitar seminggu kemudian saya kehilangan semua pensil tersebut. Pada hujung minggu berikutnya, saya terpaksa membeli sekotak pensil (10 batang), tetapi saya perasan, kesemuanya lagi cepat hilang daripada sebelumnya, dan saya beli lagi sekotak, dan malangnya semuanya juga hilang. lalu saya terfikir: INILAH BALASAN TUHAN KEPADA AKU KERANA MENCURI.
Semenjak saat itu, saya tekad tak akan dan tidak mahu lagi mencuri pensil... Cuma saya terkilan sehingga sekarang, sebab sehingga saat saya meninggalkan sekolah itu, saya tidak memohon maaf dan memohon dihalalkan kepada rakan-rakan sekolah saya atas perbuatan saya itu, sebabnya, pertama, malu, kedua, takut, dan ketiga, saya tak tahu tuanpunya sebenar kebanyakan pensil-pensil itu.

Aug 11, 2013

Akhirnya... Bertemu Sahabat Lama...

Sekitar jam 10 malam tadi, 10 Ogoss 2013, saya medapat panggilan telefon seorang sahabat lama. Kami pun"dating" di sebuah warung sambil menonton perlawanan bola Barcelona v. Harimau Malaya. Setelah 41 tahun tak bersua, maka malam tadi saya dapat bersua semula dengan sahabat lama saya, sdra Ismail Daud, yang dah menetap di Selangor... Maka bermacam cerita suka duka sahabat-sahabat yang lain yang sempat dibualkan..., selain bercerita hal diri masig-masing semenjak 41 tahun "menghilang"...
Ini gambar saya bersama saudara Ismail Daud dan menantunya...



Aug 5, 2013

Teka...Apa "orang Ini" Sedang Lakukan?

Bolehkah anda meneka, apakah yang "orang ini" (saya la tuuuu...) sedang lakukan...
1. Bersenam? atau...
2. Sedang membuka pintu cermin? atau...
3. Tergelincir? atau..
4. Mengajuk sesuatu? atau...
5. Membuat suatu "persembahan"? atau...
6. Aksi semasa berceramah/mengajar? atau...
7. Saja-saja....? atau... ?????


Aug 1, 2013

Contempt of court



The Law Commission (UK), a statutory independent body created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 (UK), in their consultation paper on contempt of court, published in November 2012, states as follows:  
“Contempt of court” covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of justice, and the procedures which are designed to deal with them. The law governing contempt of court is vast. 
According to TheFreeDictionary http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contempt+of+Court (1 August 2013):
An act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body. Individuals may be cited for contempt when they disobey an order, fail to comply with a request, tamper with documents, withhold evidence, interrupt proceedings through their actions or words, or otherwise defy a public authority or hold it up to ridicule and disrespect. Contempt of court is behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Contempt charges may be brought against parties to proceedings; lawyers or other court officers or personnel; jurors; witnesses; or people who insert themselves in a case, such as protesters outside a courtroom. Courts have great leeway in making contempt charges, and thus confusion sometimes exists about the distinctions between types of contempt. Generally, however, contempt proceedings are categorized as civil or criminal, and direct or indirect.

Giggling teen flips judge the bird, judge not amused
By Mike Krumboltz
Never mess with people who have the power to make your life miserable. That includes DMV employees, waiters and baggage handlers. And judges. Especially them.
A Miami woman facing drug charges made her situation much worse when she laughed at and then flipped off the man with the gavel. File this case under: Ill advised.
According to NBC Miami, 18-year-old Penelope Soto was in court for charges relating to possession of Xanax, a prescription drug. Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat was in the process of setting her bond. He asked Soto about the value of her jewelry. Soto laughed. That was strike one.
"It's not a joke, you know, we're not in a club now," Rodriguez-Chomat said. "We are not in a club. Be serious about it."
Soto replied: "I'm serious about it, you just made me laugh. You just made me laugh, I apologize. It's worth a lot of money."
The judge said, "Like what?" Soto compared the jewelry to a wealthy rapper. She replied that the jewelry is "like Rick Ross. It's worth money."
The perplexed judge asked if Soto had taken drugs within the past 24 hours, to which she answer, "Actually, no." The judge then set Soto's bond at $5,000 and said, "Bye-bye." Soto chuckled and said, "Adios." Strike two. The judge summoned her back and raised the bond to $10,000, eliciting gasps from those in the courtroom.
Soto asked if the judge was serious. Judges are not known for their humor, and Rodriguez-Chomat is no exception. "I am serious," he said. "Adios."
But Soto wasn't done. Instead of leaving the courtroom she flipped Rodriguez-Chomat the bird and said "F*** you." And that was strike three. Soto was again called back and then sentenced to thirty days in the big house for contempt of court.

Jurors jailed for contempt of court over internet use
Attorney General Dominic Grieve: "Ignoring the judge's instructions is unacceptable behaviour"
Two jurors have each been jailed for two months for contempt of court after one posted a comment on Facebook and the other researched a case online.
Kasim Davey, 21, of London, wrote a strongly-worded Facebook message during the trial of a man for sex offences.
The High Court ruled he and Joseph Beard, 29, who was a juror on a separate fraud trial, "interfered with the administration of justice".
There have been two previous similar prosecutions of jurors.
After the attorney general was given permission to bring the cases earlier this year, Davey and Beard were summoned to the High Court where two judges heard the evidence against them before deciding whether they were guilty.
Strong language
Davey, from Palmers Green, north London, said he had sent the Facebook message last December as a result of "spontaneous surprise at the kind of case I was on".
His posting - containing strong language and an offensive word - suggested he was going to find the defendant guilty, said BBC News home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.
Davey's Facebook post: read: "Woooow I wasn't expecting to be in a jury Deciding a paedophile's fate, I've always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I'm within the law!"
The judge at Wood Green Crown Court was alerted and Davey was discharged. The defendant, Adam Kephalas, was eventually found guilty of sexual activity with a child.
Davey told the High Court he was unaware he had been in breach of a formal order made by the crown court judge. He accepted he was not meant to discuss the case but believed he was only prohibited from using the internet to carry out research.
In their ruling, High Court judges Sir John Thomas and Mr Justice Sweeney said they rejected as "untruthful" Davey's contention that his message was not meant seriously.
They said it made clear to his Facebook friends "he would use his prejudices in deciding the case" and his choice of words "underlined his disregard of the duties he had undertaken as a juror".
In Beard's case, the High Court heard claims that he had wanted to find out how long the proceedings at Kingston Crown Court would take as he was worried they would drag on.
He was said to have researched the case via the Google search engine and told fellow jurors extra information about the number of victims of the alleged fraud.
The case was abandoned in November last year after more than five weeks when his activity came to light. The two defendants in the fraud case were later found guilty at a retrial.
'Undermining justice'
At the High Court, Sir John - who is shortly to take over as the Lord Chief Justice, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales - said "immediate custodial sentences are almost inevitable in cases of this kind".
In his ruling, he said that "every attempt is made to try and warn jurors not to use the internet or social sites for any purpose in relation to the case".
He added: "They have done this so that no juror can subsequently claim that he or she did not understand what they should not do and what the consequences might be."
But Sir John said he would invite courts to consider whether a practice adopted by some judges of also handing out a printed notice should be "universally followed".
Speaking after the case, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said jurors who use the internet to research a case "undermine justice".
Mr Grieve added: "It creates a risk that the defendant will be convicted or acquitted, not on the evidence, but on unchallenged and untested material discovered by the juror.
"Equally, the case of Kasim Davey shows that jurors must follow the directions given to them by the trial judge not to discuss the case outside the jury room, including discussions and posts on the internet."

In Malaysia, Order 52 Rule 1 of Rules of Court 2012, states:
Order 52. Committal
Definition
1. In this Order—
“Court” means the High Court, Sessions Court and Magistrates’ Court;
“Judge” means a High Court Judge, Sessions Court Judge or Magistrate.
Committal for contempt of Court
2. The Court may, on the application of any party to any cause or matter or on its own motion, make an order of committal in Form 107.
Contempt committed in the face of the Court
2A. (1) If a contempt is committed in the face of the Court, it shall not be necessary to serve a formal notice to show cause, but the Court shall ensure that the person alleged to be in contempt understands the nature of the offence alleged against him and has the opportunity to be heard in his own defence, and the Court shall make a proper record of the proceedings.
(2) Where a Judge is satisfied that a contempt has been committed in the face of the Court, the Judge may order the contemnor to appear before him on the same day at the time fixed by the Court for the purpose of purging his contempt.
(3) Where such person has purged his contempt by tendering his unreserved apology to the Court and the Judge considers the contempt to be not of a serious nature, the Judge may excuse such person and no further action shall be taken against him.
(4) Where such person declines or refuses to purge his contempt, then the Judge shall sentence him.
Other cases of contempt
2A. In all other cases of contempt of Court, a formal notice to show cause why he should not be committed to the prison or fined shall be served personally.