Sultan Ibrahim appoints three judges to top courts at Istana Negara
The ceremony, held at the palace's Singgahsana Kecil (Small Throne Room), began with the presentation of the letter of appointment to Federal Court Judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng.
His Majesty also presented letters of appointment to two Court of Appeal Judges, namely Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz and Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng.
Among those present to witness the ceremony were Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Chief Judge of Malaya Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli.
Also in attendance were Attorney General Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, Keeper of the Rulers' Seal Tan Sri Syed Danial Syed Ahmad, Chief Registrar of the Federal Court Datuk Zamri Haji Bakar and Judicial Appointments Commission secretary Salinah Ismail.
Lee was previously a Court of Appeal Judge, while Hayatul Akmal and Lim were High Court Judges before their appointments to the Court of Appeal.
Following the presentation of the appointment letters, Sultan Ibrahim posed for a group photograph with the newly appointed judges. — Bernama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
28 minutes ago
- The Star
Words ‘offensive' and ‘annoy' crossed out from online law
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has struck down a part of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that consisted of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy'. A three-judge panel, chaired by Federal Court judge Justice Lee Swee Seng, held that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 were unconstitutional. 'We find the impugned words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in Section 233 constituting an offence to be inconsistent with Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution read with Article 8, and hence unconstitutional and void. 'It is not a permissible restriction to freedom of expression under our Federal Constitution. 'The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside,' Justice Lee said. The court did not make any order as to costs. 'Being a constitutional matter, we make no order as to costs as no one is the winner but the Malaysian public where freedom of expression is concerned. 'We declare this decision to have prospective effect so as not to resurrect the past which is better left interned,' Justice Lee said. Other judges on the Bench were Court of Appeal judges Justices Hashim Hamzah and Azman Abdullah. The Court of Appeal's judgment arose from an appeal by activist Heidy Quah, who filed an originating summons to declare the words in the law provision as null and void as it is inconsistent with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution read with Article 8. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. However, under an amendment effective February this year, the word 'offensive' was replaced with 'grossly offensive'. In this respect, the appellate court found that the amendment did not affect Quah's legal challenge. On July 27, 2021, Quah, who is the founder of Refuge for the Refugees, claimed trial at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court to a charge of sharing offensive content over a Facebook post that alleged mistreatment of refugees at an Immigration detention centre. She was accused of making the post through her Facebook page under the name 'Heidy Quah' with intent to insult others at about 5.30am on June 5, 2020. On April 25, 2022, she was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal after the Sessions Court allowed her preliminary objection. At the same time when her case at the Sessions Court began, Quah filed an originating summons at the Shah Alam High Court on Aug 30, 2021, to challenge the provision of Section 233 that was used against her. On Sept 12, 2023, the High Court dismissed her application without order as to costs. Quah then appealed the matter at the Court of Appeal, which resulted in yesterday's judgment.
Free Malaysia Today
14 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Education ministry to heed Agong, implement anti-bullying campaign
The education ministry said it is currently developing a 2027 school curriculum that will prioritise character education and focus on nurturing values. PETALING JAYA : The education ministry says it will heed the royal decree by Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim to implement a comprehensive anti-bullying campaign in all educational institutions under its purview. The ministry said the campaign, starting at the primary school level, will focus on fostering awareness and cultivating mutual respect among students. 'Core values such as respect, discipline and compassion will be instilled in every student. The campaign will be implemented in collaboration with other ministries to ensure greater impact and effectiveness,' Bernama reported it as saying. The ministry emphasised that addressing bullying requires collective effort. 'Everyone must work together to combat bullying. It is our shared responsibility to shape a future generation that embodies strong values and noble character,' it said. It also said it is currently developing a 2027 school curriculum that will prioritise character education and focus on nurturing values to produce people who are well-mannered, ethical and possess integrity. 'The ministry humbly expresses its gratitude for the royal decree from His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim regarding the urgent need to address bullying in all educational institutions under the ministry's care. 'His Majesty's words serve as a reminder to the ministry's fraternity of the wide-reaching negative impact of bullying on society and the nation,' it said. Earlier today, Sultan Ibrahim said failing to curb bullying from a young age risked creating a generation that lacks respect and compassion for others. 'Children must be educated about this issue from an early age… and will learn the importance of mutual respect and discipline through such campaigns,' he said in a Facebook post. He said bullying not only damages the mental and emotional well-being of victims but can also lead to serious tragedies. Sultan Ibrahim also said recent amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to address bullying had demonstrated the government's commitment to tackling the issue and that a cross-ministerial approach was needed to ensure bullying is addressed comprehensively. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim also called today for an immediate end to bullying in schools and the workplace, including at hospitals. He was commenting on several cases, including the recent death of Form 1 student Zara Qairina Mahathir and that of tahfiz student Wan Ahmad Faris Wan Abdul Rahman, who died 12 years ago.
Free Malaysia Today
15 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Unconstitutional to criminalise offensive speech made online, rules court
The Court of Appeal ruled that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the CMA violates the Federal Constitution. PUTRAJAYA : The Court of Appeal has unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the previous iteration of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), which criminalises the online transmission of offensive comments. Justice Lee Swee Seng said the words violated Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, read together with Article 8. He also said that a charge of offending and annoying a third party could not be construed as going against public order. 'We find that the impugned words of 'offensive' and 'annoy' are not a permissible restriction to the freedom of expression under our Federal Constitution. 'We therefore strike down that particular provision as constituting an offence (against the constitution),' he said in partly allowing the appeal by activist Heidy Quah to nullify the previous version of Section 233. Also on the panel hearing the appeal were Justices Hashim Hamzah and Azman Abdullah. The bench made no order as to costs as the issue at hand was a constitutional matter. Lee, who is now a Federal Court judge, said today's decision would have a prospective effect, meaning that parties in ongoing criminal proceedings under the old law could leave it to the trial judge to decide. The government passed an amendment to the CMA last year, adding the words 'grossly offensive' in constituting an offence. The amendment came into effect this February. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin appeared for the government, while lawyers Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, A Surendra and New Sin Yew represented Quah. Counsel Lim Wei Jiet held a watching brief for the Clooney Foundation for Justice and Suaram. The bench also directed Liew to file a formal application to stay the decision pending the government's filing of an appeal to the Federal Court. Lee said that in a society like Malaysia's, citizens are supposed to 'give space to one another' by appreciating and accommodating their views, thoughts and ideas on a range of topics. The judge said some might use loud and lambastic language to express their views, while others might take a more scholarly and subdued tone in agreeing to disagree. 'The virtual community has a way of restoring equilibrium and even equanimity when the line has been crossed. 'To create more offences in the virtual space would be a retrogressive step bordering on needless censorship just because some people's ideas may not be so palatable,' he said. He also said that Section 233 of the CMA provided no standards as to what amounted to offensive or what would amount to an intent to annoy. 'When all types of speech could potentially be offensive if a single person finds it so, then freedom of speech has become illusory and enforcement becomes arbitrary.' Lee added that free speech would be deterred as the offence under Section 233 carried a fine of up to RM50,000, a maximum one-year jail term, or both, upon conviction. He said that would be disproportionate to the legislative aim of the CMA. 'To silence speech that is true just because some may find it offensive and annoying would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.' Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA had made it an offence for a person to make, create, solicit or initiate the transmission of any online comment which was 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with the 'intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person'. The civil action by Quah, the founder of Refuge for Refugees, challenged the validity of the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision. In July 2021, Quah was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court with posting offensive online comments on Facebook highlighting the alleged mistreatment of refugees at immigration detention centres. In April 2022, the sessions court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal from a charge of improper use of network facilities. This was after the trial judge accepted a preliminary objection that the charge was defective as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 233 of the CMA. She then filed a civil action for a declaration that the words 'offensive' and 'annoy' in the provision were invalid and contravened two fundamental human rights safeguarded by the constitution. Her suit was, however, dismissed by the High Court.
