#klrca

Pengarah Ex-AIAC Sundra Rajoo menafikan dakwaan dalam afidavit hakim | Malaysia

Datuk Sundra Rajoo bercakap semasa Persidangan Timbang Tara Pelaburan Antarabangsa KLRCA di Kuala Lumpur 10 Mac 2016. – Gambar oleh Muzakkir Sazali

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 Feb – Bekas pengarah Pusat Penimbangtaraan Antarabangsa Asia (AIAC), Datuk Sundra Rajoo hari ini menafikan dakwaan yang dibuat dalam afidavit Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Hamid Sultan Abu Backer yang mendakwa campur tangan kehakiman…

New Post has been published on http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/11/04/govt-prepared-right-environment-arbitration-grow-says-pm/

Govt has prepared right environment for arbitration to grow, says PM

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 4, 2014:

Malaysia, through the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA) is well-positioned to become a premier centre for arbitration in this region.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said arbitration had today emerged as a strong alternative dispute resolution for commercial and corporate entities in South East Asia, and the government, in recognising its growing importance in this region, was willing to invest in its future.

He said the government had also prepared the right environment for arbitration to grow, including amending the Legal Profession Act 1976, a few months ago.

“The amendment will allow foreign arbitrators and lawyers to enter Malaysia to participate in proceedings here, while foreign practitioners are also exempted from applying for work permit to enter Malaysia to conduct arbitration proceedings,” he added when launching the new KLRCA’s premises at the historic Bangunan Sulaiman here today.

Najib said Malaysia was well-positioned to thrive in this environment, and “our courts support the arbitration process and the finality of arbitration awards, so matters can be settled in months, not decades”.

He said this was also in line with the government’s commitment to openness and growth for Malaysia’s services sector, and “we want more competition and more opportunities to come to Malaysia”.

Citing the latest case of the Malaysia-Singapore joint venture firm M+S Pte Ltd involving in paying development charges for several parcels of lands in Singapore which was resolved through arbitration, Najib said the case could be a model for other countries to pursue in resolving their disputes.

“Instead of allowing disputes to fester and tensions to wrap up, countries can use arbitration as a method to solve disputes and we (Malaysia and Singapore) have shown the way,” he added.

On KLRCA, Najib said the centre, which was formed in 1978, had now become an integral part of the international arbitration scene and it “must make full use of Malaysia’s competitive advantages to continue to thrive and succeed in the international arena”.

“We are convinced that KLRCA, the first institution of its kind to be established in Southeast Asia, possessed all the right qualities to become the region’s arbitration centre of choice,” he added.

Apart from KLRCA, Bangunan Sulaiman is expected to house an office of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Sport Arbitration, the Chartered Institute of Arbitration Malaysia and the Malaysian Institute of Adjudicators.

It will also host I-Cells, the think-tank and research arm of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the National Legal Aid Foundation.

KLRCA director Prof Datuk Sundra Rajoo said the centre had handled 253 cases last year as compared to only 22 in 2010.

So LAWASIA ended for us yesterday. My second time in the competition, although with different roles. Last year as a Student Volunteer and this year I've elevated my position to a Moot Participant. 

Prior the competition, I kept asking myself why did I join it. Because it is so stressful. I had to juggle between my 3-month work/internship which ends at 1800 daily and the research which I do at night. And by the time I get back home, I want nothing to do with the laptop and just sleep. But I couldn't. 

But I am grateful I joined it. I wouldn't have been able to know where I stand if I haven't subject myself to such an evaluation like this. Evaluation by sitting judges and practising lawyers. 

Our session started at 1310 with Stephanie and Carmen as the first and second speaker respectively for the Claimants. I was the silent speaker then.

We were up against INTI. Stephanie and Carmen both spoke well. It was a tough fight between the two teams. We lost by 5 points though. The first speaker, Qin Ying, looked a little familiar to me. But I couldn't ascertain her identity because I did not know her full name. When the judges were deliberating, I approached her when we were outside.

"You look familiar. Have we met before?" "I don't think so. But you look familiar too." 

The moment she said that, it confirmed my suspicion and I know she was from Mewah already. She looked surprised when I asked that. But I explained myself. So yeap. Small world indeed.

After that round until our next session, MY next session at 1830, I couldn't really eat anything. I was nervous, and hungry. So I ate only a plate of noodles. But nothing more. I foresee if I fill my stomach, the anxiety will make me feel like puking. 

We then went into the room and I assumed my position as the Second Respondent against USIM. We had nice and friendly opponents, and all this while my heart was beating loudly. 

And so it began.

The claimants relied on "enabil tort". Throughout the competition I could not figure that out, because of their pronunciations and also I am not familiar with that tort. But... upon googling it, nothing. Um okay... 

I was the last speaker, but I could feel my hands trembling. So I held on to my pen while I was talking, which it helped. I was surprised I could talk for 20 minutes long. (But if you asked me what I spoke for the entire 20 minutes, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you anything.) Partly I kept telling myself to talk reaaally sloooowly. I felt like I stuttered a lot. But Stephanie said I didn't, and that I did great, better than my internal moot.

Haha. I had to agree to that. 

At one point when one of the judges asked me about the opponent counsel's cases and how will that bind us, I couldn't remember what the cases were all about. So I casually asked for the Panel's permission to have the counsel repeat the principles of the cases again. When the judges were commenting us later on, they noted that such an action was inappropriate, and that I should already know what authorities they would be citing. I think it's understandable because we did not exchange any Bundle of Authorities or any documents at all. I think that the judges also did not know we exchanged nothing. 

Having mooted in the court setting does have some setbacks in an arbitration mooting. I referred to the Arbitral Panel as the "Court" once, and I referred to the second claimant speaker as the Junior Counsel. They didn't understand where I was coming from. But upon my explanation, they got it. But still, I got told off because of these. 

I admire Carmen for her quick thinking. Many a times when the judges asked something, or in her rebuttals, she manage to think of quick comebacks on the spot. Arguments which I wouldn't have thought of. 

By the time we ended, it was almost 2030. We had to wait for quite some time for the results to be announced. We won the match by 64 points! 

When it was announced, none of our teams made it to the finals. My team missed it by 7 marks. So close! But one happy thing about it was that, as I was reading the judge's commentaries, I found out that the Chairperson Arbitrator had said that I am the Best Speaker for my round! 

I was pleasantly surprised by that, and for once, I truly am proud of myself. Other words like "Confidence level good." and "Has good potential." made my day too. This part of the competition has truly made my experience felt worthwhile. Together with my teammates, whom I believe because of them, my team is also one of the strongest. 

By the time I got home, it was already 2200. So. Exhausting. Mentally and physically.

If you are doing business with a Malaysian entity but want to have any disputes that arise decided overseas, choosing to resolve these disputes by arbitration is highly advisable. This is because Malaysia will only directly enforce court judgments from the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, India or Brunei under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1958. 

This means that even if you win in court in, say, Belgium, you cannot enforce that judgment in Malaysia until you have a judgment from the High Court of Malaysia. If your contract states that a judgment will be conclusive of liability and quantum you will probably be able to get summary judgment, but this is not guaranteed, meaning it is possible that you will have to endure another trial.