Recently, there has been a lot of discussion regarding pupillage allowances. Most legal practitioners recognise that pupils should receive an allowance. The issue, rather, is how much the said allowance should be.
It cannot be denied that there are various factors which come into play when determining how much allowance a pupil should be given.
In order to contribute to the all-important discussion in a more constructive and concrete manner, I would like to propose the following formula as a guide in determining a pupillage allowance sum:
Pupillage Allowance = Pupil’s Key Expenses (A) + Top Up (B)
Formula for (A): Monthly Rental (if any) + Food* + Transportation + Loans (if any)
The purpose of (A) is to ensure the Pupil’s core needs and expenses are met.
*at a reasonable sum based on the average cost per meal in the locality
Formula for (B): Approximate total number of hours the Pupil works in a month x a chosen multiplier**
The purpose of (B) is to, inter alia:
i. compensate the Pupil for his/her qualification;
ii. compensate the Pupil for time spent working for the firm;
iii. compensate the Pupil for experience gained; and
iv. provide some room for savings by the Pupil
**the multiplier should at least be 5.77 for major towns and 5.29 for everywhere else.
As at the time of writing, the Movement Control Order (“MCO”) is expected to be in place until 14th April 2020. The Health Director General, however, has not ruled out the possibility of a further extension of the MCO. It is all dependent on whether Malaysia succeeds in flattening the curve and preventing any exponential spikes, thus breaking the chain of infections.
It cannot be denied that COVID-19 is highly contagious. The virus has an estimated R naught of somewhere between 2.0 and 2.6, with the average being 2.2. This means that for every 1 infected person, COVID-19 could spread to 2.0 to 2.6 other people.
Early figures have shown that the MCO is successful in flattening the curve. However, the World Health Organisation has also stated that it expects the number of COVID-19 cases in Malaysia to peak in mid-April.
Apart from the expected peak in cases, a persuasive reason for extension in and of itself, the following are some reasons why a further extension of the MCO is inevitable.
There are untested infected individuals
With regard to the tabligh cluster, the Health Director General stated on 27th March 2020 that 13,762 individuals were screened with 9,327 samples taken to be tested. 1,117 of the samples tested positive, 5,646 tested negative, while 2,564 were still pending results.
As at 28th March 2020, 5,084 individuals connected to the tabligh cluster (including attendees, their family members, and other close contacts) had yet to be tested.
1,117 out of the 6,763 individuals whose results are available were found to be infected with COVID-19 (16.50%). Assuming 16.50% of the remaining 7,648 individuals (2,564 awaiting results and 5,084 untested) from the tabligh cluster are infected with the virus, this would mean an addition of approximately 1,262 COVID-19 cases.
Not forgetting individuals who may have contracted COVID-19 from inter alia having travelled overseas.
Some of these untested infected individuals may be asymptomatic. Others may only have mild symptoms and are able to manage their illnesses at home. However, during that time, these untested infected individuals will certainly be in contact with their family members who may then be out and about during the MCO period thereby further spreading the virus.
Seorang hadirin forum Malaysia dan Statut Rom yang diadakan di Auditorium Tun Mohamed Sufian, Fakulti Undang-Undang Universiti Malaya  [forum ini] menggunakan peluangnya semasa sesi soal jawab untuk berhujah bahawa forum ini tidak sepatutnya terjadi memandangkan Kerajaan Persekutuan telahpun memutuskan untuk menarik diri daripada meratifikasikan Statut Rom.
Artikel ini bertujuan untuk memberikan beberapa sebab mengapa perlunya forum sedemikian, daripada perspektif parti ketiga yang tidak berkepentingan.
Pertamanya, kita perlu jelas bahawa sebarang keputusan Kerajaan Persekutuan bukanlah muktamad. Pada 4.3.2019, Kerajaan Persekutuan melalui Menteri Luar Negeri, Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, mengumumkan bahawa ia berniat untuk meratifikasikan Statut Rom. Keputusan ini selaras dengan janji Kerajaan Persekutuan dalam Janji 26 Manifesto Pakatan Harapan .
Namun, Kerajaan Persekutuan telahpun membuat pusingan mengenai isu ini pada 5.4.2019. Ini jelas membuktikan bahawa keputusan Kerajaan Persekutuan tertakluk kepada perubahan.
Sekiranya keputusan Kerajaan Persekutuan boleh diubah, rakyat marhaen wajar mengadakan perbicangan secara ilmiah untuk mempertimbangkan merit sesuatu keputusan yang dibuat. Ketidakpuasan hati rakyat, berdasarkan fakta dan hujahan yang bernas, boleh disalurkan kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan agar ia mempertimbangkan keputusannya.
Selain itu, tiada sebarang forum/dialog terbuka dengan pihak berkepentingan dilakukan sebelum Kerajaan Persekutuan membuat keputusan pengratifikasian dan selepas itu, untuk menarik diri daripada mengratifikasikan Statut Rom.
Sekurang-kurangnya, forum ini membenarkan orang awam memahami pendirian, antara lain, Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia berkenaan dengan isu yang dibincangkan. Dalam konteks forum ini, pendapat Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia mengenai Statut Rom dan implikasinya terutamanya kepada Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong, jelas dinyatakan dan dihuraikan.
Forum ini juga memberikan para hadirin konteks mengenai keputusan Kerajaan Persekutuan terdahulu untuk meratifikasikan Statut Rom. Ini didedahkan oleh Dato’ Noor Farida, seorang ahli panelis forum ini, dalam pembentangannya. Rupa-rupanya pengratifikasian Statut Rom bukanlah perkara yang baharu tetapi merupakan kesinambungan komitmen kerajaan terdahulu.
Selanjutnya, forum seperti ini diperlukan demi pemeliharaan integriti akademik dan kejujuran intelektual.
Rumusan eksekutif kertas kerja yang dibentangkan Datuk Dr Rahmat Mohamad, Dr Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz, Dr Fareed Mohd Hassan, dan Hisham Hanapi [keempat-empat ahli akademik tersebut] kepada Majlis Raja-Raja pada 2.4.2019 dibongkarkan oleh ahli panelis Asheeq Ali dan rakan-rakannya baru-baru ini . Setelah itu berlaku, beberapa individu yang terpelajar telah membalas hujahan yang dibangkitkan keempat-empat ahli akademik tersebut.
Antara mereka yang membalas hujahan keempat-empat ahli akademik tersebut adalah ahli panelis forum ini, iaitu Lim Wei Jiet .
Dalam keadaan ini, keempat-empat ahli akademik tersebut perlu tampil untuk menjawab pengkritik mereka secara ilmiah. Forum ini menyediakan platfom sedemikian.
Malangnya keempat-empat ahli akademik tersebut tidak menghadiri forum ini walaupun dipelawa. Dua daripada empat ahli akademik tersebut menolak jemputan tersebut manakala dua lagi ahli akademik yang terlibat tidak langsung memberi respon kepada pelawaan penganjur forum ini.
Akhirul kalam, saya menyaran agar lebih banyak lagi forum seperti ini diadakan atas sebab-sebab yang telah dinyatakan. Kepada mereka yang berminat dengan isu Statut Rom dan analisa perundangannya, janganlah melepaskan peluang untuk menghadiri forum yang akan dianjurkan oleh Jawatankuasa Hak Asasi Manusia Majlis Peguam Malaysia pada Sabtu, 4 Mei 2019 .
This article also appeared on The Malaysian Times
(Source: Free Malaysia Today)
I believe Kiki Kamaruddin needs no further introduction. She is famous (or infamous) enough because of her actions four months ago
Khoo, however, is the new “Kiki Kamaruddin” if you will. He damaged another driver’s wiper and side mirror, as well as spat on her windscreen because she honked at him for changing lanes recklessly.
How he felt he is in the right is beyond my comprehension. On top of that absurdity, he is 58 years old, and one would reasonably expect him to have been more skilled when it comes to driving.
Anyway, the reason I am writing this is because there are netizens accusing a certain group of Malaysians of practicing double standards. They say that mainly because that group of people were more vocal in Kiki’s case
Prima facie, both situations have a material difference. Kiki was being a racist road bully towards Uncle Sim. Just a recap of some of the things she said:
“you think you are Chinese that you are bigger and better than us!”
“tak, dia cina, saya tahu dia punya intention” (no, he’s Chinese, I know his intention)
Khoo is obviously a road bully too, but he did not racially abuse Alisa. Perhaps if he uttered derogatory/racist words to Alisa, the backlash would have likely been bigger
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that what Khoo did was justified and should not be objurgated because he did not racially abuse the other party. I believe both Khoo and Kiki were legally wrong, and as such, should be punished heavily as a deterrent for themselves and others
All I’m saying is that we should not turn everything into a racial issue. Regardless of the race of the road bully or the victim, the perpetrator must face the legal consequences of his/her actions.
As Malaysians, let us unite to condemn road bullying. Let this be a future lesson to all existing road-bullies and road-bullies-to-be that their behaviour is not tolerable and WHEN they are caught, they WILL face the full brunt of the law
*Check it out at The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Chronicle, and Free Malaysia Today
To view this protected post, enter the password below:
Am I the only one who realises that DAP is often in a catch-22? When they field a Malay candidate for a by-election, they get accused of using a Malay to bait for Malay votes. However, if DAP were to field a Chinese politician for a seat with a Chinese-majority, they get accused of being a racist party.
Katie Couric once said, “You can’t please everyone, and you can’t make everyone like you.” Quite rightly so, DAP being the epitome
The statement that, “DAP is a party dominated by one race” is a verisimilitude. Prima facie, DAP is dominated by the Chinese. But upon further inspection, one would realise that it’s Central Executive Committee (CEC) consists of Malaysians of all races. DAP’s doors are open to Malaysians regardless of race and religion, unlike their fastidious political rivals
The high positions of power in DAP are not just limited to the Chinese. Further proof being that the previous Chairman of the DAP is the late Karpal Singh. Last I checked, a Singh is not a Chinese. The Tiger of Jelutong was not a puppet of the Chinese in DAP. He got to where he was because of his capabilities as well as his determination. Unfortunately, those from the other side of the political divide have successfully made Malaysians envisage DAP as a racist party
My tirade ends here. I simply want to commend DAP for their propriety. Even if Dyana fails to win the Teluk Intan by-elections, it is a step forward for DAP as it shows merit trumps racial heritage