Valuation of Immovable Property

by K. Siladass

         

          When a person wants to buy a house there are few things he will have to consider, and the most important facts would be whether the house is sold free from encumbrances, whether the price asked for is reasonable compared to other properties in that locality. When it is a house which is for sale the question is whether it is vacant or it is occupied. The price of a house would much depend on various factors, especially, whether the sale is with vacant possession or without it. If there is a tenant occupying the house, the value will depend on the desire of the buyer: whether, he wants it for his own occupation or he is just buying it as an investment. If the buyer is thinking to occupy the house upon completion of the sale the price would be higher. On the other hand if the house has been tied down with a tenancy for a long period the chances are that the buyer who wants immediate occupation would not venture to buy. If it is an investment the buyer will consider the duration of the tenancy, if it is too long then, his investment will not be too lucrative considering the fluctuating temperament of the property market. The value may appreciate but that is a long term plan. For the immediate purchase the price of the house would not fetch a higher value because of the sitting tenant.

          It is possible that the willing seller is tied down with a long tenancy may sell the house to the sitting tenant at price less than the market value because the owner need not go into the cumbersome process of getting the tenant out.

          If the price is agreed and the parties conclude the sale and purchase, say for three million ringgit, documents would show that amount; but, when it is submitted for valuation, the valuation office would have their own value. They do not consider the tenancy of the house and its value. Therefore, if the valuation is more than the sale price, it does not mean that the purchaser has bought it at a lower price. If that is the case at least fifty percent of property transactions in the country would be subjected to adjustment of the sale and purchase price after valuation by the valuation department. Are we going to say that the sale price to be adjusted according to the valuation? Ludicrous.

         

Assuming that the government valuer values the property less than the sale and purchase price could the buyer turn to the seller and say that he has paid more than the actual value, therefore, there should be an adjustment on the price? Unheard of. Only those with warped thoughts would venture into this type of unrewarding exercise with the hope of political gains. It is just lying on one’s back and spitting. You know where the spittle will land.           

Parliamentary Privilege

by K. Siladass

         

          Although a member represents one parliamentary constituency needless to remind that his or her duty, obligation and responsibility are towards the country. He has to protect the integrity of the august house. Furthermore, it must be remembered that members of Parliament represent the people who had empowered them to enact laws for the good and safety of the country, and of its people. It is, therefore, incumbent of every member of Parliament to speak the truth, and when he or she says something capable of evoking sensation, or cast aspersion on any person whether that person is a member of Parliament or otherwise, the member who levels accusation carries the additional burden to prove what he or she said in Parliament is actually true, or that there was reasonable cause which made it essential to bring it to the notice of Parliament, and be brave to face the consequences.

          A legislator must be brave to express the views he feels – genuinely feels – which calls for an explanation and must stand by what was expressed, and most importantly when impugned, must be ready and willing to substantiate what has been said in Parliament, rather that shielding behind parliamentary privilege.

          When a member of Parliament says something which is scandalous, the immediate reaction would be for the person affected, whether a member of Parliament or not, to challenge the member who uttered the defamatory statement to repeat them outside parliament relinquishing parliamentary privilege. And if the member who uttered the defamatory statement accepts the challenge, then, the same statement could be repeated at a place out of Parliament. But, not all members who enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege would be ready to accept the challenge because their motive may not be to elicit the truth, but to sow the seed of suspicion in the fertile ground of malicious falsehood thus confuse the people, therefore, they will not repeat the scandalous, libellous statement outside parliament fearing the loss of privilege and immunity. Such a member who seeks the umbrage of Parliamentary privilege after having made scandalous remarks cannot be any better than a coward.

          The affected person is not without any remedy. Parliament has the procedure to deal with any unfounded allegation that may be made by any member in Parliament, thus, it would be worthwhile to look at the parliamentary standing orders.

          A case on point is Abdul Rahman Talib v. Seenivasagam & Anor [1965] 2 MLJ 142; and [1966] 2 MLJ 66*, there Seenivasagam, a prominent opposition leader and parliamentarian made a statement in parliament of corrupt practices by Abdul Rahman Talib, a Minister. Rahman Talib challenged Seenivasagam to repeat the statement outside parliament and which challenge was accepted. Seenivasagam repeated what he had already said in Parliament in a public place. In his speech at Chinese Assembly Hall, Kuala Lumpur on 11 September 1963, Seenivasagam stated:

“You allege that I besmirched your character in the House (Parliament). You are wrong, because you could have asked the House to punish me under standing orders with a maximum penalty of $1000 or two weeks jail.”

          Rahman Talib did sue Seenivasagam but lost.

          The House itself in appropriate circumstances take action on its own to preserve its dignity when a member speaks or acts which tantamount to scandalous abuse of parliamentary privilege.

* MLJ (Malayan Law Journal)

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CITIZENS' DECLARATION

The country is in turmoil. There are too many demeaning incidents that do not inspire confidence in the present leadership, particularly Dato Seri Najib Razak. Foreign governments are not too comfortable to deal with the present Prime Minister, because his explanations about the money found in his personal bank account varied from one another which is nothing but a clear case of vaccillating. His handpicked Attorney-General believes that he is the law and whatever he says must be accepted. In this regard he treats the whole legal system as being incapable of differentiating between chalk and cheese. An Attorney-General who condones criminal acts is unfit to be one. And in handling Najib's case he has clearly abused the discretionary power he has.

UMNO Baru is split, hence within the country Dato Seri Najib Razak's prestige as Prime Minister is in shambles. His integrity as a leader is questioned. The most important question that looms at large is who needs to be saved? Najib or Malaysia? Who needs to be protected UMNO Baru led by Najib or Malaysia? The answers to both question would be if you love Malaysia, then, it need to be saved. If you love Malaysia, then, it needs protection. Thus, Malaysia needs to be saved from greedy, unscrupulous, and corrupt leaders like Najib. Malaysia needs to be protected from Najib and those who support him. Therefore, the Citizens' Declaration first of its kind in the country's history can only be seen as a genuine effort to save Malaysia from leaders whose motive is self-aggrandisement and unjust enrichment and at the same time the declaration seeks to protect the country and the people from unjust laws perpetuated by Najib and his supporters.

What is remarkable is the fact that the current UMNO Baru is Mahathir's brain child, and its transformation into a political Frankenstein is there for all to see. This Frankenstein under the control of Najib actually caused more damage than one could imagine. It is time the creator of this Frankenstein come out to destroy what he had created. Besides, Najib the Frankenstein is also Mahathir's creation, hence it is only befitting that he leads to ensure that his creation does not cause more irreparable damage.

The signatories to the Citizens' Declaration by mostly of political parties with diverse objectives and non-government organisations can only be seen as  awakening to meet the challenge the unjust course pursued by Najib and his supporters. The significance of the Citizens' Declaration could only mean that its motive is to see a clean, efficient, transparent and fair Malaysian government whose aim must be for a just society. SAVE MALAYSIA.

K. Siladass

      Amendments to Family Laws

It is up to an individual who has attained the age of eighteen to decide the religion he wishes to follow; however, it cannot be denied that the former familial duties and responsibilities of the person changing the religion persist until suitable arrangements are made by the spouses themselves, or finally settled by the civil court in respect of future maintenance of the children of the non-Muslim marriage, their education and their religious upbringing.

Although the law has made it clear that the High courts shall have jurisdiction in matrimonial matters when one spouse has elected to leave the religion at the time when the non-Muslim marriage was solemnised, and it is also clearly spelt out in all the State Enactments that the Shariah courts shall have no jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, where the parties are not Muslims, yet the claim that there prevailed jurisdictional conflict is indeed baffling. In fact there is no jurisdictional conflict at all.

Another point that needs to be made plain is the fact that every State Enactments has enacted that for the Shariah court to exercise its jurisdiction the parties before it must be Muslims. If one of the parties is a not Muslim, Shariah cannot exercise its jurisdiction. This has been very clearly emphasised by the late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim in his essay: “The Amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution: Its Effect of Administration of Islamic Law [1989] 2 MLJ xvii”.

However, for two decades and more, inconsistent interpretation of the statutory provisions had been the source for the infinite agony for parents whose children had been snatched away. The latest cases of Indira Gandhi and Deepa had indeed awakened the conscience of the Malaysians transcending beyond racial and religious differences and sentiments.

While so much of discussion has centred on the jurisdictional question one important fact that seems to have been over looked is the status of the children when one parent converts to Islam. The courts have not so far explained what would be the legal status of a child under the age of eighteen years when one of the parents having converted to Islam, a dispute arises as to the custody of that child (or children) of a non-Muslim marriage? Can one of the parents exert authority on the children to the exclusion of the other, or has the child by reason of the dispute between the biological parents in consequence of the conversion of one parent has become a ward of court; thus, only the High Court has the jurisdiction and power to order custody and other ancillary reliefs in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 and the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976.

            Further, has the Shariah court any jurisdiction on a non-Muslim child born of non-Muslim parents when one of the parents had subsequently converted to Islam and the non-Muslim marriage has not been dissolved, in the light of section 42 (2) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1989 (Enactment No. 2 of 1989) which says that the Shariah court shall have jurisdiction if all the parties are Muslims. Thus, when a child is not a Muslim can the Shariah court exercise jurisdiction over it? These are the points which call for mature deliberation.

The Government, it appears, is considering amendments to the laws to put an end to the kind of sufferings Indira Gandhi and Deepa have had been subjected besides many others.

While this move is laudable it would be wise to publish the proposed amendments so that the public will have an opportunity to make representations. The Government should not take the view that it knows best, therefore, it is best equipped to deal with the matters complained of. This is not true as can be seen from the inconsistent interpretations that had surfaced. Besides, it should not seek protection under the cover of sensitiveness and be a source to greater conflicts.

K.Siladass 

The Attorney-General's statement that prime minister Dato Seri Najib Razak has not committed an offence of bribery thus no further investigation is needed and informing the anti-corruption office to close the file does not come as a surprise. What must irk the Malaysian public is the AG's disclosure that the money came from the Saudi royal house by way of a gift. If that is a gift then why must it be returned? AG is behaving like a cat which thinks that the whole world is dark just because it closed its eyes. The AG may be satisfied but the Malaysians are not. What AG should have done is to bring the matter to court and let it clear Najib. Whatever the AG says in respect of the corrupt acts of Najib it will be assumed that the handpicked AG to replace the former chief prosecutor will be loyal to Najib. The pertinent questions which the AG had to answer are:

؞    A gift is a gift, so why was it necessary to return?

؞   To whom it was returned?

؞   Is the Bank Negara aware of this refund?

؞   Since it was alleged that the donation was for 13^th GE, how did Najib raise the 

     amount to refund?

By K.Siladass

Dated this 28^th January 2016