No legal action for traders as LPG cylinder rules await October amendment to 2021 Control of Supplies Regulations, says Armizan
KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali has clarified that the the use of subsidised liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders involves the Control of Supplies Regulations (Amendment) 2021 and not the Control of Supplies (Amendment) Act 2022 (Act A1652).
He pointed out that he was referring to the 2021 amendment, which was enacted and gazetted in 2021 and came into effect on Oct 15, 2021 during a press conference on Thursday, and expressed hope that there would be no public confusion over the issue.
'In the press conference on June 5, I clearly mentioned the Control of Supplies Regulations (Amendment) 2021. In the same conference, a media statement was also distributed... I urge (all parties) not to confuse the public with references to laws that I did not mention,' he posted on Facebook today to refute claims by certain parties that all eateries would be required to use the commercial 14-kilogramme (kg) purple LPG cylinders, priced at RM70 each, instead of the green cylinders for domestic use priced at RM26.
At Thursday's press conferences, Armizan announced that micro and small traders in the food and beverage sector were allowed to continue using subsidised LPG cylinders without needing a special permit until the new amendment to the 2021 amendment is finalised this October.
No legal action will be taken against traders during the transition period, he added. — Bernama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
16 minutes ago
- The Star
FBM KLCI edges up at midday amid cautious market sentiment
KUALA LUMPUR: Bursa Malaysia ended the morning session on a firmer note, with the FBM KLCI edging higher amid cautious market sentiment and lingering external headwinds. At the lunch break, the benchmark FBM KLCI rose 3.37 points, or 0.22%, to 1,520.16, after touching an intraday high of 1,521.64. There were 437 gainers, 370 losers and 425 counters traded unchanged on the Bursa Malaysia. Turnover stood at 1.68 billion shares valued at RM888.4mil. TA Securities said immediate resistance for the FBM KLCI remained at 1,564, with stronger hurdles at the recent high of 1,586 and then 1,610. Immediate support is at 1,490, with firmer support at 1,465 and 1,444. 'As for stock picks this week, key gaming, banking, construction, and technology heavyweights and lower liners such as Genting, Genting Malaysia, Maybank, Public Bank, MRCB, WCT Holdings, Globetronics, and Inari should again attract bargain hunters looking for potential recovery at current oversold levels,' it added. Meanwhile, Hong Leong Investment Bank Research said the FBM KLCI may continue to trend sideways with a slight upward bias, supported by last week's constructive call between Trump and Xi and the commencement of the second round of US-China trade talks in London today. That said, it noted that broader market sentiment remained cautious amid ongoing foreign outflows, uncertainty over the US-Malaysia tariff deal, and June's historically weak seasonality. 'Concerns are further amplified by a weakening global trade environment, ongoing macroeconomic headwinds, the Trump administration's unpredictable trade stance, and the potential for domestic subsidy rationalisation in 2H25 — all of which may cloud Malaysia's growth and earnings outlook,' it said. On Bursa Malaysia, Malaysian Pacific Industries led the gainers, climbing 70 sen to RM20.90. Ayer rose 36 sen to RM7.60, Chin Tek added 30 sen to RM9.10 and F&N climbed 26 sen to RM27.64. Meanwhile, the top decliner was Nestle, which lost RM2.48 to RM74.64. PETRONAS Dagangan fell 36 sen to RM20.64, LPI Capital eased 26 sen to RM14.64 and United Plantations gave up 22 sen to RM21.42. Hartanah Kenyalang saw active trading on its ACE Market debut, with 16.67 million shares changing hands as the stock eased 0.5 sen to 15.5 sen.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
High Court dismisses committal bid by former KL Tower operator against govt, individuals, orders RM25,000 payment
KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — The High Court here today dismissed the former operator of Kuala Lumpur Tower's leave application to commence committal proceedings against seven individuals and the government. The former operator, Menara Kuala Lumpur Sdn Bhd, and its parent, Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd, are seeking contempt of court action against the eight for allegedly disrupting the administration of justice amid ongoing legal proceedings. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain, who rejected the application, ordered the two companies to pay RM25,000 to the respondents, including Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil. — Bernama MORE TO COME
Malaysian Reserve
an hour ago
- Malaysian Reserve
Nobody is above the law, says High Court
Anwar filed his application on May 23, asking whether a sitting PM has limited immunity from civil lawsuits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution by FARAH SOLHI THE Kuala Lumpur (KL) High Court's dismissal of Prime Minister (PM) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's application to refer a constitutional question to the Federal Court — specifically on procedural immunity from civil liabilities — strongly affirms that no one is above the law. Judge Roz Mawar Rozain ruled that Anwar's claim of being deprived of personal liberty, based on the assertion that the suit filed against him was vexatious and politically motivated, is untenable. In delivering her brief judgement on June 4, the judge held that none of the Federal Constitution articles cited in Anwar's application gave rise to any real, substantial or justiciable constitutional questions. Roz Mawar said Anwar had not demonstrated that he is being denied legal protection afforded to others, or that any legal provisions operate unequally against him. 'The questions posed are speculative (and) not necessary for the disposal of this case, nor do they concern the interpretation or validity of any constitutional provision. 'From a judicial perspective, the proposed questions do not appear to meet the threshold of genuine constitutional controversy,' she said, while also awarded former research assistant Mohammed Yusoff Rawther RM20,000 in costs. Anwar also questions whether courts are constitutionally required to protect public officials from lawsuits when no crime is proven (pic: Media Mulia) Roz Mawar further ruled that constitutional supremacy demands all persons, including public office holders, be equally subject to the rule of law, and that not every question touching or quoting the Federal Constitution warrants referral, as the Federal Court is not a forum for speculative advisory opinions. She added that Anwar's affirmed readiness to proceed with the trial, as submitted by his counsels during the application hear- ing on June 3, indicated no evidence that the suit impairs his ability to perform his constitutional duties. The trial will proceed as scheduled on June 16, as the court found no special circumstances warranting a postponement. Constitutional Questions Raised in Anwar's Application Anwar filed his application on May 23, questioning whether a sitting PM has qualified immunity from civil suits under Articles 39, 40 and 43 of the Federal Constitution. This pertains to alleged private acts committed prior to his appointment, where the continuation of such litigation, he argued, would impair the effective discharge of his executive functions and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. Anwar also questioned whether the High Court's decision to allow the civil suit, based on private allegations but pursued in a political context, would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 8(1) which relates to the fundamental rights to equal treatment. Anwar also questioned, under Article 5(1), whether a sitting PM should be protected from lawsuits that are politically motivated or poorly timed, particularly if they relate to actions taken before assuming office, lack clear legal merit, but could damage reputation and hinder the ability to govern. He further raised the issue of whether courts are constitutionally required to shield public officials from such lawsuits when no crime has been proven. In response, Roz Mawar said Article 5(1) does not extend to mere inconvenience, reputational risks or constitutional burden arising from civil proceedings, noting that Anwar's rights were not violated as he remains at liberty, with no restrictions on his movement or legal capacity. 'The act requiring a defendant to respond to a claim, however politically sensitive, does not implicate Article 5(1), and no precedent has extended its ambit to encompass exposure to civil litigation,' she said. She also found Anwar's questions regarding Article 8(1) to be without merit, saying that the provision serves as a shield, not a sword for immunity, it guarantees equal legal treatment, not exemption from the law, as established in precedent cases. 'The defendant has not shown any discriminatory conduct by the courts or the law. The plaintiff's (Yusoff Rawther's) suit was filed under the same procedural and substantive law applicable to all Malaysians and foreigners alike in this country,' she added. Roz Mawar said while Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers and does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers. It does not suggest, either expressly or implicitly, that executive authority includes protection against personal civil liability. She also said Anwar's arguments contending Article 43 were flawed, as no immunity is implied under the said article. This provision, she added, pertains solely to appointments and tenure, and does not prescribe or imply immunity from judicial proceedings. 'No clause in Article 43 shields a sitting PM from accountability for private acts committed prior to assuming office,' she said, adding that constitutional silence does not equate to immunity. The judge also said that the mind map produced by Anwar's legal team, intended to illustrate their theory of constructive harm to the office, has no textual or jurisprudential basis, nor does any provision in the Constitution imply immunity for the PM from civil litigation. 'The defendant's legal team could not clearly anchor this proposed doctrine to any particular article or legal test. The argument, at best, may be rooted in policy concerns rather than constitutional law,' she said. While Article 39, which pertains to executive authority, is a structural allocation of powers, it does not confer any personal immunity on the PM or Cabinet ministers Is Seeking Immunity a Violation of Constitutional Rights? Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam said every individual, including the sitting PM, who feels aggrieved is entitled to approach the courts for determination of a subject matter. However, there are certain limitations to matters raised, as courts are bound by precedent decisions and administration of justice is subject to specific rules and procedures. 'It is for the courts to determine whether such an action (of raising legal questions) has merit or otherwise. 'Article 8 of the Constitution states that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. In other words, no one is above or exempt from the legal framework,' he told The Malaysian Reserve (TMR). However, the Constitution does not afford immunity from court proceedings to any individual, except under Article 183, which provides that no action can be initiated against the Yang diPertuan Agong or a State Ruler without the consent of the Attorney General (AG). Therefore, it can be said that even Article 183 does not provide absolute immunity, as the discretion lies with the AG. Meanwhile, senior lawyer Datuk Seri Dr Jahabardeen Mohamed Yunoos, affirming Rajan's view, said there are various legal mechanisms in place to weed out frivolous suits and those that attempt to abuse the judicial process. He noted that the law does accord certain forms of immunity, but these are limited — primarily to judges or individuals acting in a judicial capacity, as stipulated under Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. This provision states that judges and others performing judicial functions cannot be sued for actions taken in the course of their duties, even if those actions exceeded their authority, provided they genuinely believed they had such authority at the time. Yusoff Rawther (centre) is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis What's Next? Anwar's counsel, Datuk Seri K Rajasegaran told TMR on June 5 that they have filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Court immediately following the High Court's decision. However, he confirmed that his team is still awaiting a date or case management notice from the Appellate Court. He added that they will file a notice of urgency together with an application to stay (postpone) the High Court's proceedings. Pending any decision by the higher courts, the High Court will proceed with the matter, following Roz Mawar's dismissal of Rajasegaran's oral application for postponement on June 4. Yusoff Rawther filed a suit against Anwar in July 2021, claiming he was sexually assaulted by the latter on Oct 2, 2018, at Anwar's residence. He made a statutory declaration and lodged a police report regarding the incident in 2019. However, he was later accused of attempting to damage the PM's political career and reputation through the police report. The plaintiff, who was Anwar's research assistant, stated in his affidavits that the allegations had affected his mental health. He is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages, along with interest, costs and other relief the court deems appropriate. Yusoff Rawther is currently under police detention after being charged under Section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 for allegedly trafficking 305g of cannabis found in his vehicle near the mosque at the police contingent headquarters on Sept 6, 2024. He was also charged under Section 36(1) of the Firearms Act 1960 for possession of two imitation firearms. The High Court is scheduled to deliver its decision at the end of the prosecution case on his charges on June 12. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition
