sabahlaw

Title: Airlines say fares will go up under ETS (at The West Australian 26.12.2009 at page 13)

(sorry I could not find the online version, so have only included parts of the article)

Domestic passengers face higher fares to cover the estimated $100 million cost of airlines’ greenhouse gas emissions if the emissions trading scheme is passed by Parliament next year, airlines warn…

Qantas and its low-cost sibling Jetstar says by 2012 they could be looking at an extra $50-$60 million in emissions costs to comply with the scheme and new emissions schemes in NZ and EU…….

The emissions scheme would cost Virgin Blue $50 million to $70 million, according to the arilines’ chief executive , Brett Godfrey……

Comments – I am thinking why can’t airlines be more proactive ? For example designing a plan/promotion to encourage its customers to reduce their carbon footprint and channel accumulate those fly credits to setoff in carbon credits ? The airlines could negotiate some arrangement with the government to modify JI to share credits with their customers. In this way, the airlines could use this situation to guide behavior changes of their clients and to earn somePR by involving its clients and environment in the same breath.

Alternatively, they could get into the market now and buy some CERs on the cheap. They could also do some CDM with non-Annex I countries and pick some CERs also on the cheap. Airlines could do a lot but whining is not one of them.

I also check Qantas’s Annual Report for 2008 and this 50 million is a drop in the ocean as compared to its 14 Billion in expenses (30 June 2009) or 0.4 %. ( http://annualreport.qantas.com.au/assets/pdfs/QantasFinancialReport200902IncomeStatements.pdf )

By footing this $50 million by buying CERs on the open market, the airlines could even write this off as expense or alternatively create new solutions to reduce their own carbon footprint (the costs here could also be write-off as R&D, investments in new equipment etc), researching in green fuels, optimising flight plans, buy fuel efficient planes, reduce the weight on board, etc.

Even if there is a complete failure to reduce their own carbon footprint, by simply transferring the cost to its passengers (Qantas has 25 million clients in June 2008), the max cost to each client is merely 2 dollars only (or the costs of a cup of coffee at the airport lounge). The ETS can never be used as a reason to hike price for profits.

CK

http://www.i4ilp.com/papers.php

here is a link for documents/files of i4i against M$ in a patent infringement case. Not only do you need the funding but also the time and energy.

The agreement

Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.

Point 2: Language

a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation.

b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day.

c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.

Point 3: Constitution

Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation

The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation.

Point 5: Name of Federation

“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”.

Point 6: Immigration

Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government. The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Point 7: Right of Secession

There should be no right to secede from the Federation.

Point 8: Borneanisation

Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers

Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo.

Point 10: Citizenship

The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:

a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence.

b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”.

c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance

North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races

In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays’ formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo.

Point 13: State Government

a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council.

b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo.

Point 14: Transitional period

This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government.

Point 15: Education

The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control.

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards

No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo.

The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state. (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient).

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament

This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its seize and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore.

Point 18: Name of Head of State

Yang di-Pertua Negara.

Point 19: Name of State

Sabah.

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.

The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

Dear Editor,

I refer to your article at http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/119078

Amendments to land law fail to go far enough

Joe Fernandez
Dec 5, 09 3:26pm

The article says “Generally, the modus operandi of non-native PA holders is to finance a native to buy up separately-owned parcels of native land to build up a sizeable contiguous area.”

But this is misconstrued as Section 64(2) of the Land Ordinance says

“Notwithstanding the provisions of any written law, any power of attorney whereof the donee or any donee is a non-native, if it relates to any land held under this Part, shall be null and void.”

(This means PA is useless to non-native for native lands)

The article says “The PA is generally prepared by a lawyer who cannot, under the existing Advocates Ordinance, be hauled up for disciplinary action. The SLA is an association where membership is not compulsory unlike the Bar Council in Peninsular Malaysia. The SLA wants the Advocates Ordinance to be streamlined in line with the Legal Practice Act 1976 which is applicable in Peninsular Malaysia.”

(SLA here refers to Sabah Law Association)
This is also misconstrued as Advocates Ordinance has section 12 and 12A which read:

12. Any advocate may have his name struck off the roll of advocates, be suspended from practising in Sabah, be fined not exceeding five thousand ringgit, be censured or be awarded costs to or against him, and any person entitled to appear and plead before the Federal Court by virtue of subsection (2) of section 8 and any person referred to in paragraph (b) of section 10 may be suspended from practising in Sabah or his right to practise in Sabah withdrawn by order of a judge for any of the following causes—

(a) if he takes instructions in any case except from the party on whose behalf he is retained, or some person who is the recognised agent of such party, or some servant, relation, or friend authorised by the party to give such instructions;

(b) if he is guilty of fraudulent or improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty or knowingly misleads or allows the Court to the misled;

(c) if he tenders, gives, or, out of any fee paid or payable to him for his services, consents to the retention of, any gratification for procuring or having procured the employment in any legal business of himself or any other advocate;

(d) if he directly or indirectly procures, or attempts to procure the employment of himself as advocate, through or by the intervention of any person to whom any remuneration for obtaining such employment has been given by him;

(e) if he has been convicted of a criminal offence implying a defect of character which unfits him for his profession;

(f) if he has ceased to be a person entitled to be admitted to be an advocate as a result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him in the country in which he qualified, or in any country in which he has practised as a legal practitioner by whatever name called;

(g) if he does any act which if done in England would render him liable to be disbarred or struck off the roll of the court or suspended from practice if a barrister or solicitor in England;

(h) if he has procured his admission as an advocate by any mis-statement, fraud or misrepresentation;

(i) if, being an advocate, he has practised in Sabah without being in possession of a valid certificate to practise;

(j) if he practises in Sabah when not entitled to under subsection (1) if section 14;

(k) if he has been guilty of a breach of any rules made under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 17:

Provided that no such order shall be made until the advocate or person has had an opportunity of showing cause against such order.

12A. Striking off and suspension of advocate if he is struck off or suspended in other places in Malaysia.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 13, the High Court may, at its discretion, upon an application, supported by satisfactory evidence in writing, made to it by the Inquiry Committee established pursuant to section 17, strike the name of an advocate off the roll of advocates or suspend an advocate from practising in Sabah if it is satisfied on the evidence given that the advocate who is also an advocate and solicitor in West Malaysia or an advocate in Sarawak has been struck off the roll or suspended for improper conduct or practice in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor or an advocate in any of those places and has not been restored to the roll.

In fact, Sabah has the most enlighten practises as anything that was prosecuted/barred in England or West Malaysia or Sarawak (under their own laws) is applicable in Sabah. This clearly means, Sabah lawyers have to careful of all the type of misconducts in West Malaysia, England, Sarawak.

The procedures to strike out an advocate is apposite in Section 13 of Advocates Ordinance by

“….shall be commenced by an application to a Judge in Chambers for a rule to issue to the advocate to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll of advocates, suspended, fined, censured or awarded costs, as the case may be.”

And this application can be made by
“…the Inquiry Committee established pursuant to section 17 or by any person aggrieved by any action of the advocate or person complained against.” (Section 13(3)).

There is no better way than to use a Court system to disbar an Advocate. In developed country like Australia, they have an independent body (funded by state government) that receives complaints and investigates them before sending to the Courts (for serious).

Otherwise there will be mediation, suspension etc all done with transparency. I failed to see a system where lawyers regulate themselves will be superior particularly where as in the case of Sabah, the small number of lawyers forming ‘clubs’. The unstated problem is not with PA (or wayward lawyers) but with fees (which is keeping some lawyers in Sabah awake at night as competition sets in which is inevitable as seen in NSW Australia where we have licensed conveyancers working for less than $400 as compare to a lawyer $1600.  Competition means services could be made more affordable which is good for the public. And the mechanism to file an application to bring an action against any lawyer in Sabah is simply an application to a Judge in Chambers (ie by affidavit). This means facts are not really in dispute and get a Comm of Oath to witness it for filing. All one need to do is to find out what type of misconduct in England and draw a parallel with the actions taken by your lawyer. I can tell you there are numerous as the standard in England is higher.

If there is going to be any amendments to the Advocate Ordinance, (which in my opinion is overdue) , it must be open and transparent (for all and not those from SLA into specific issues). I am sure there are a lot of lawyers in sabah who are not members of SLA. At the time of 2007 when I was in Sabah, there are more than 900 lawyers on the roll. I am unsure how many are practising full time.