Selamat Datang ke Blog Rasmi AGC

Blog Rasmi Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC) diwujudkan selaras dengan arahan Kerajaan dalam memperbanyakkan sumber komunikasi di antara Kementerian/Jabatan dengan rakyat.


Number of View: 289

On 28th and 29th October 2014, the Research Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers had successfully organized a course on ‘Restorative Justice’  which was held at Galleria, Precinct 4, Putrajaya, as a platform to create awareness of an alternative approach to strengthen the criminal justice system and to combat juvenile delinquency in Malaysia.

The concept of ‘restorative justice’ was first brought into attention by Yang Berhormat Dato’ Sri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil on 8th September 2011 during the launch of the ‘State of the World’s Children Report 2011’[1]. Restorative justice is a response to the ineffectiveness of the retributive practice in the criminal justice system and it fulfils the gap of the retributive system by addressing the needs of the victims, the offender and the community. Restorative justice promotes participation of all stakeholders as the core concept of restorative justice is that crime affects the individual and the community as well, as opposed to the retributive system which focuses on the wrongness of the criminal act that justifies the imposition of punishment on the offender. In consequence, the retributive system has failed to satisfy the needs of other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, thus, restorative justice serves as a solution to illuminate the flaws of the current criminal justice system.

The UN Working Party on Restorative Justice of the Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice adopted the definition of ‘restorative justice’ which had been submitted by Tony F. Marshall of the British Home Office. According to Marshall, restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.


Number of View: 246

“The country’s population is moving towards an aged nation by 2030, where it is estimated that 15% of our population will be aged 60 years and above. Currently, this age group comprises 8.4% of our population.”

Director General of Health Malaysia, the Star, 2 August 2014

The ageing of population has become a common phenomenon worldwide as a result of increasing longevity and declining fertility. Malaysians too are living longer today but the increased life expectancy comes with challenges of its own. According to the Department of Statistics Malaysia the average Malaysian life expectancy is 72.6 (male) and 77.2 (female).

With the increase in the number of elderly citizens, institutional arrangements for providing formal healthcare for the elderly population become increasingly important and open up a whole new market for elderly health-care and lifestyle services and facilities such as retirement homes, villages and mobile homecare, especially for those who are independent of their family members.

In Malaysia, two main legislations i.e. the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998 [Act 586] and the Care Centre Act 1993 [Act 506] regulate aged healthcare facilities and services in the private sector.

Act 586 which regulates all private healthcare facilities and services was passed in 1998 and enforced in May 2006 as a comprehensive healthcare legislation regulating all private healthcare facilities and services. Under the said Act, “private healthcare facility” means any premises, other than a Government healthcare facility, used or intended to be used for the provision of healthcare services or health-related services whereas “private healthcare services” means any services provided by the private healthcare facility. Act 506 was enacted with the aim to provide for the registration, regulation and inspection of care centres and came into operation on 1 June 1994 for Peninsular Malaysia and 26 March 2012 in Sabah. It is noted that the said Act provides for mandatory registration of every care centre in Malaysia and this includes “residential care centre” and “day care centre”.

At present, Act 586 regulates “private nursing homes” while Act 506 regulates “care centres”. Neither “nursing care” under Act 586 nor “care” under Act 506 is age specific. Therefore, patients receiving nursing care at a private nursing home and residents receiving care at a care centre can be persons of any age. Moreover, both Acts are under the purview of different Ministries. Act 586 is under the purview of the Ministry of Health whereas Act 506 is under the purview of Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development. Thus, the non-exclusiveness of current private nursing homes and care centres and the separate regulation of private nursing homes and care centres have not been able to ensure that the elderly population are receiving the special care they need due to their old age.


Number of View: 262

1. Pengenalan

Sebelum tahun 1965, tiada undang-undang khusus yang diperbuat bagi maksud semakan atau cetakan semula undang-undang sehinggalah Reprint of Federal Laws Act 1965 (Act 26/1965) digubal pada tahun 1965. Seksyen 2 Akta ini mentakrifkan Reprint Commissioner sebagai “the Attorney General for the Federation and includes any other person authorized by him by notification in the Gazette to be a Reprint Commissioner for the purposes of this Act”. Berdasarkan takrifan tersebut, Peguam Negara bagi Persekutuan pada masa itu merupakan orang yang bertanggungjawab terhadap semakan dan cetakan semula undang-undang. Seksyen 4 Akta ini pula memperuntukkan kuasa-kuasa Reprint Commissioner dan jika dilihat kepada kuasa-kuasa yang diperuntukkan, ia adalah hampir sama dengan kuasa cetakan semula yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 6 Akta Penyemakan Undang-Undang 1968 [Akta 1] yang diguna pakai sekarang ini.

Seterusnya, Akta Penyemakan Undang-Undang 1968 [Akta 1] digubal pada tahun 1968 dan Akta ini memansuhkan Reprint of Federal Laws Act 1965 apabila ia mula berkuat kuasa pada 1 Januari 1969. Akta 1 telah memperkenalkan suatu perubahan yang radikal yang memperuntukkan secara terperinci kuasa untuk menyemak dan mencetak semula undang-undang sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan di bawah seksyen 6.

Seksyen 3 Akta 1 memperuntukkan kuasa untuk menyemak dan mencetak semula undang-undang kepada Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang (PPUU) yang dibantu oleh Timbalan Pesuruhjaya Penyemak Undang-Undang (TPPUU). Pelantikan PPUU dan TPPUU dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan pelantikan itu hendaklah disiarkan dalam Warta.

Sebelum Akta 1 digubal, penyemakan undang-undang tidak dijalankan secara aktif dan tetap. Penyemakan undang-undang yang terakhir dibuat pada tahun 1935 dan tiada apa-apa semakan atau cetakan semula undang-undang dibuat selepas itu. Walau bagaimanapun, dengan wujudnya Akta 1 pada tahun 1968, kerja-kerja semakan dan cetakan semula undang-undang lebih kerap dan aktif dijalankan memandangkan PPUU dan TPPUU yang dilantik di bawah seksyen 3 Akta 1 bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya dalam memastikan kelancaran pelaksanaan projek-projek semakan dan cetakan semula undang-undang. Punca kuasa yang jelas yang diperuntukkan oleh seksyen 6 Akta 1 juga membolehkan PPUU mudah mengenal pasti kuasa-kuasa yang boleh digunakan dalam menjalankan proses semakan dan cetakan semula undang-undang.

Powered by WordPress and WordPress Themes, thanks to Live Jasmin

Videos, Slideshows and Podcasts by Cincopa Wordpress Plugin