This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Access to Blue Board comments is restricted for non-members. Click the outsourcer name to view the Blue Board record and see options for gaining access to this information.
English to Malay: Sample English to Malay Legal Court Judgement General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law (general)
Source text - English The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court on two charges of drug trafficking under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. The first charge, committed at a double-storey shop-house (‘the shop-house’), was that they had, with common intention, done an act (ie, carried on the manufacture) for the purpose of trafficking in 20,000.21g of Nimetazepam (commonly known as ‘Erimin 5 pills’). The second charge was that they had, with common intention, trafficked in 26,543g of the same drug at a double-storey terrace house (‘the house’). The first appellant (‘A1’) had rented both the shop-house and the house from their respective owners. Acting on a tip-off, a police party had raided the shop-house first wherein they arrested the appellants and found on the ground floor of the premises thousands of Erimin 5 pills and various machinery and materials used in the making of the pills. Altogether, 20,200.21g of Nimetazepam were recovered from the premises. Later the same day, another police party raided the house a short distance away and recovered 26,543g of the same drug from various parts of the house. The items seized from the house included a passport and a bank account book belonging to the second appellant (‘A2’). When they were called upon by the trial court to make their defence to the charges, both the appellants gave almost identical unsworn written statements from the dock. The appellants claimed that they had only occupied the first floor of the shop-house to carry on an alarm and CCTV service business and had nothing to do with the ground floor of the premises which A1 had rented out to his friend to carry on a medicinal supplement manufacturing business. The appellants claimed they were arrested by the raiding police party on the first floor of the shop-house and were then taken down to the ground floor after the police broke open a door to gain entry to the ground floor. With regard to the house, the appellants contended that they only occupied the master bedroom while two other rooms were occupied by men who were running the medicinal supplement business on the ground floor of the shop-house. The appellants denied any knowledge of the drugs found in the house. In their instant appeal against conviction and sentence, the appellants contended, inter alia, that the trial judge’s ruling that the prosecution did not have to prove possession with regard to the first charge was fatal and entitled them to an acquittal as their contention that they had no custody or control of the things found on the ground floor of the shop-house was never rebutted. The appellants also argued that the trial judge overlooked the prosecution’s failure to discharge its onus of proving that the shop-house was not accessible to persons other than the appellants. A2, in particular, submitted that his conviction on the second charge was wrong as it was premised merely on the fact that his passport and bank account book were found in the house.
Held, unanimously dismissing A1’s appeal and affirming his conviction and sentence on both charges; dismissing A2’s appeal in respect of the first charge but allowing his appeal against conviction and sentence on the second charge and acquitting and discharging him of the same:
(1) The Court agreed with A2’s submission that his conviction on the second charge was unsustainable because it was based merely upon the finding of his passport and bank account book in the house. Accordingly, his appeal against conviction and sentence on the second charge was allowed and he was acquitted and discharged of that charge- (see paragraphs 87 and 88).
(2) The issue of whether the appellants were arrested on the first floor or the ground floor of the shop-house was a matter exclusively within the domain of the trial judge who had the audio-visual advantage of seeing and hearing the relevant witnesses in order to make a definitive finding. The trial judge found as a fact that the appellants were arrested on the ground floor. This Court was in no position to disagree with the trial judge unless it could be shown that her finding was perverse or against the weight of the evidence. The trial judge’s finding was amply supported by the evidence and she did not err. She had accepted the evidence of the relevant prosecution witnesses whom she found credible. In any case, it was immaterial on which floor the appellants were arrested because A1 had entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of the whole shop-house. Hence, he had the care and management of the entire shop-house and was in occupation of the same and thereby had custody or control of the articles, appurtenances and apparatus located therein. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was also sufficiently adequate to fasten both the appellants with occupation of the shop-house on account of the fact that both of them had care or management of it (see paragraphs 52-55 and 93).
(3) Possession was not an essential ingredient in a case involving manufacturing of drugs and thus did not need to be proved before the trafficking definition under s 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (‘DDA’) was invoked. The trial judge did not err in finding that the prosecution had proven that the appellants were engaged in the manufacturing of the impugned drugs and that ‘manufacturing’ was itself an act of trafficking under s 2 of the DDA which did not require possession to be proven. The quantity of drugs manufactured was immaterial as the act of trafficking was not dependent on the quantity of drugs that was manufactured. Hence, even if only one gram of dangerous drug was manufactured, it was still trafficking and could attract s 39B of the DDA into motion (see paragraphs 75, 63, 59 and 74).
(4) Although there was no eye-witness testimony to establish that the appellants manufactured the impugned drugs, the seizure of the incriminating exhibits, the DNA and finger-print evidence, the seizure of a bunch of keys and scan card from A1which opened all doors to the ground floor of the shop-house, and the general scheme of events showed that there was more than sufficient evidence to create the reasonable inference that the appellants had indeed manufactured the said drugs within the definition of s 2 of the DDA. The prosecution had established the nexus between the appellants and the incriminating exhibits and had discharged the onus of proving that the shop-house was not accessible to others (see paragraphs 83 and 84).
(5) The trial judge did not err in finding that A1 had mens rea possession of the drugs found in the house as he was the one who had rented the house and the keys to the house were found on him at the time of his arrest and he was the occupier of the house when the drugs were found by the police (see paragraph 100).
Translation - Malay Pihak perayu telah disabit dan dihukum mati oleh Mahkamah Tinggi atas dua pertuduhan pengedaran dadah di bawah Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. Pertuduhan pertama, yang dilakukan di sebuah rumah kedai dua tingkat (‘rumah kedai itu’), adalah bahawa mereka dengan niat bersama telah melakukan suatu perbuatan (iaitu menjalankan pengilangan) bagi tujuan pengedaran 20,000.21g Nimetazepam (biasanya dikenali sebagai ‘pil Erimin 5’). Pertuduhan kedua adalah bahawa mereka dengan niat bersama telah mengedar 26,543g dadah yang sama di sebuah rumah teres dua tingkat (‘rumah itu’). Perayu pertama (‘A1’) telah menyewa kedua-dua rumah kedai dan rumah itu daripada pemilik masing-masing. Bertindak berdasarkan pendapatan maklumat, satu pasukan polis telah terdahulunya menyerbu rumah kedai itu di mana mereka menangkap pihak perayu dan terjumpa di tingkat bawah premis ribuan pil Erimin 5 dan pelbagai mesin dan bahan yang digunakan dalam pembuatan pil tersebut. Sejumlah 20,200.21g Nimetazepam telah didapati dari premis itu. Kemudiannya pada hari yang sama, pasukan polis lain menyerbu rumah yang berdekatan dan mendapati 26,543g dadah yang sama dari pelbagai bahagian rumah itu. Barangan yang dirampas dari rumah itu termasuk satu pasport dan buku akaun bank kepunyaan perayu kedua (‘A2’). Apabila mereka dipanggil oleh mahkamah perbicaraan untuk membuat pembelaan terhadap pertuduhan, kedua-dua perayu memberi pernyataan bertulis tidak bersumpah yang hampir-hampir serupa dari kandang pesalah. Perayu mendakwa bahawa mereka hanya menduduki tingkat pertama rumah kedai itu bagi menjalankan perniagaan perkhidmatan penggera dan CCTV dan tiada kena-mengena dengan tingkat bawah premis yang disewakan oleh A1 kepada rakannya bagi menjalankan perniagaan pembuatan tambahan ubatan. Perayu mendakwa bahawa mereka ditangkap oleh pasukan serbuan polis di tingkat pertama rumah kedai itu dan kemudiannya dibawa turun ke tingkat bawah selepas polis memecah pintu supaya dapat memasuki tingkat bawah. Berkenaan dengan rumah itu, perayu menyatakan bahawa mereka hanya menduduki bilik tidur utama manakala dua bilik lain diduduki oleh orang-orang lelaki yang menjalankan perniagaan tambahan ubatan di tingkat bawah rumah kedai itu. Pihak perayu menafikan sebarang pengetahuan tentang dadah yang terjumpa di rumah itu. Dalam rayuan mereka di sini terhadap sabitan dan hukuman, perayu berhujah, antara lain, bahawa keputusan hakim bicara bahawa pihak pendakwaan tidak perlu membuktikan milikan berkenaan dengan pertuduhan pertama amat memudaratkan dan memberi mereka hak untuk dibebaskan kerana kenyataan mereka bahawa mereka tidak mempunyai jagaan mahupun kawalan barangan yang terjumpa di tingkat bawah rumah kedai itu tidak pernah disangkal. Perayu juga berhujah bahawa hakim bicara terlepas perhatian tentang kegagalan pihak pendakwaraya untuk menyempurnakan beban membuktikan rumah kedai itu tidak boleh dimasuki orang selain perayu. A2, secara khususnya, menghujah bahawa sabitannya atas pertuduhan kedua adalah salah kerana hanya berdasarkan fakta pasport dan buku akaun banknya terjumpa di dalam rumah itu.
Diputuskan, dengan sebulat suara menolak rayuan A1 dan mengesahkan sabitan dan hukumannya atas kedua-dua pertuduhan; menolak rayuan A2 berkenaan dengan pertuduhan pertama tetapi membenarkan rayuannya terhadap sabitan dan hukuman atas pertuduhan kedua dan membebaskan dan melepaskannya daripada pertuduhan kedua itu:
(1) Mahkamah bersetuju dengan penghujahan A2 bahawa sabitannya atas pertuduhan kedua tidak dapat dikekalkan kerana pertuduhan itu hanya berdasarkan penemuan pasport dan buku akaun banknya di dalam rumah itu. Selaras dengan itu, rayuannya terhadap sabitan dan hukuman atas pertuduhan kedua dibenarkan dan dia dibebaskan dan dilepaskan daripada pertuduhan itu- (lihat perenggan 87 dan 88).
(2) Isu sama ada pihak perayu ditangkap di tingkat pertama atau tingkat bawah rumah kedai itu adalah hal dalam domain eksklusif hakim bicara yang mempunyai kelebihan audio visual untuk melihat dan mendengar saksi relevan agar dapat membuat dapatan muktamad. Hakim bicara membuat penemuan fakta bahawa pihak perayu ditangkap di tingkat bawah. Mahkamah ini tidak mempunyai kedudukan untuk tidak bersetuju dengan hakim bicara melainkan dapat ditunjukkan bahawa dapatan beliau adalah bertentangan atau bercanggah dengan nilai keterangan. Dapatan hakim bicara lebih daripada cukup disokong oleh keterangan dan beliau tidak terkhilaf. Beliau telah menerima keterangan saksi relevan pihak pendakwaraya yang beliau dapati boleh dipercayai. Walau bagaimanapun, tingkat di mana perayu ditangkap adalah tidak penting kerana A1 telah mengikat perjanjian penyewaan berkenaan dengan seluruh rumah kedai itu. Maka dia mempunyai penjagaan dan pengurusan seluruh rumah kedai itu serta mendudukinya, dan oleh itu dia mempunyai jagaan atau kawalan ke atas barangan, perlengkapan dan peralatan yang terletak di dalam rumah kedai itu. Keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan juga cukup memadai bagi mengikat kedua-dua perayu dengan pendudukan rumah kedai itu disebabkan fakta kedua-duanya mempunyai penjagaan atau pengurusan rumah kedai itu (lihat perenggan 52-55 dan 93).
(3) Milikan bukanlah suatu unsur yang mustahak dalam kes yang melibatkan pengilangan dadah dan oleh itu tidak perlu dibuktikan sebelum takrif pengedaran di bawah s 2 Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 (‘ADB’) digunakan. Hakim bicara tidak terkhilaf dalam dapatan bahawa pihak pendakwaraya telah membuktikan pihak perayu terlibat dalam pengilangan dadah yang dipersoalkan dan ‘pengilangan’ itu sendiri merupakan suatu perbuatan pengedaran di bawah s 2 ADB yang tidak memerlukan milikan untuk dibukti. Jumlah dadah yang dikilang tidak penting kerana perbuatan pengedaran tidak bergantung kepada jumlah dadah yang dikilang. Justeru itu, sekiranya pun hanya satu gram dadah berbahaya dikilang, ini masih pengedaran dan boleh menarik pemakaian s 39B ADB (lihat perenggan 75, 63, 59 dan 74).
(4) Walaupun tiada keterangan saksi mata untuk membuktikan bahawa pihak perayu mengilang dadah yang dipersoalkan, rampasan barang kes yang menunjukkan kesalahan, bukti DNA dan cap jari, rampasan segugus kunci dan kad imbas daripada A1 yang membuka semua pintu ke tingkat bawah rumah kedai itu, dan susunan peristiwa secara keseluruhannya menunjukkan bukti yang lebih daripada memadai untuk mewujudkan kesimpulan yang munasabah bahawa pihak perayu memang telah mengilang dadah tersebut dalam lingkungan takrif s 2 ADB. Pihak pendakwaraya telah membuktikan perhubungan di antara pihak perayu dan barang kes yang menunjukkan kesalahan dan telah menyempurnakan beban membuktikan rumah kedai itu tidak boleh dimasuki orang lain (lihat perenggan 83 dan 84).
(5) Hakim bicara tidak terkhilaf dalam dapatan bahawa A1 mempunyai mens rea milikan dadah yang terjumpa di dalam rumah itu kerana dialah yang telah menyewa rumah itu dan kunci rumah itu terjumpa padanya pada masa penangkapannya dan dia merupakan penghuni rumah itu bila dadah tersebut terjumpa oleh polis (lihat perenggan para 100).
Malay to English: Sample Malay to English Legal Court Judgement General field: Law/Patents Detailed field: Law (general)
Source text - Malay Plaintif telah membawa dua tindakan berbeza iaitu melalui writ saman di bawah Guaman Sivil No *** tahun 2016 (‘Guaman 2016’) dan melalui permohonan di bawah Saman Pemula No *** tahun 2017 (‘Saman Pemula 2017’). Dalam Guaman 2016, plaintif menuntut suatu perintah deklarasi bagi mengisytiharkan bahawa *** (‘***’) tidak berhak memasuki tanah plaintif dan membina tiang atau menara elektrik di atasnya, suatu perintah deklarasi bagi mengisytiharkan bahawa *** gagal mematuhi s 11 Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 (‘ABE’) iaitu untuk memasukkan suatu endorsmen atau nota (‘nota’) pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik tanah plaintif yang menyebabkan semua prosiding yang diambil *** di bawah s 11 tidak sah, ganti rugi yang ditaksirkan mahkamah, faedah 5% setahun ke atas jumlah ganti rugi dan kos. Dalam Saman Pemula 2017, plaintif memohon perintah supaya Pendaftar Hak Milik, Perak Darul Ridzuan (‘PHM’) membatalkan satu nota ‘Hak Laluan Talian Elektrik’ yang dimasukkan dan didaftarkan di atas tanah plaintif dengan No Perserahan *** tahun 2016 bertarikh 14 Oktober 2016. Atas permohonan pihak-pihak, mahkamah telah memerintahkan Saman Pemula 2017 disatukan dengan Guaman 2016. Plaintif adalah tuan punya tanah yang dikenali sebagai Geran ***, Lot ***, Mukim Hulu Bernam Timur, Daerah Muallim, Perak (‘tanah tersebut’). Pada 6 Februari 1996, *** telah mengeluarkan satu notis di bawah s 11(1) ABE untuk memasuki tanah tersebut bagi membina tiang atau menara elektrik dan memasang sistem pengagihan elektrik kepada *** Sdn Bhd, tuan tanah terdahulu. Pendengaran perbicaraan di bawah s 16 ABE untuk menentukan jumlah pampasan bagi tanah tersebut telah diadakan di hadapan Pentadbir Tanah Daerah (‘PTD’) pada 12 November 1996 di mana tanah tersebut telah pun dipindah milik kepada plaintif. Terkilan dengan jumlah pampasan yang diputuskan oleh PTD, plaintif merayu pada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri dan jumlah pampasan telah ditambah lagi dan dibayar kepada plaintif. Sekitar tahun 2000, *** memasuki tanah tersebut untuk membina tiang serta memasang sistem pengagihan elektrik. Plaintif memaklumkan bahawa *** telah secara salah memasuki tanah tersebut kerana tiadanya sebarang kemasukan nota tentang perintah PTD di atas dokumen pendaftaran hak milik yang memberi kuasa kepada *** untuk terus menduduki tanah tersebut. Plaintif mendakwa bahawa nota yang dimasukkan PTD pada 14 Oktober 2016 tersebut menyalahi undang-undang kerana dibuat lebih daripada 16 tahun selepas *** mengambil langkah-langkah di bawah s 11 ABE untuk masuk, membina tiang serta memasang sistem pengagihan elektrik di atas tanah tersebut. Isu-isu yang perlu diputuskan mahkamah adalah: (a) sama ada kegagalan memasukkan nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik tanah tersebut menurut s 11(10) ABE memudaratkan dan akibatnya, kesemua langkah yang diambil *** selepas itu adalah tidak sah; dan (b) sama ada *** telah menceroboh tanah tersebut yang mewajarkan plaintif mendapat ganti rugi.
Diputuskan, menolak tuntutan dan permohonan plaintif dengan kos RM20,000 kepada defendan:
(1) Peruntukan perenggan s 11(10)(a) ABE meletakkan tanggungjawab untuk memasukkan suatu nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik di bahu pendaftar. Tidak ada mana-mana peruntukan yang menghendaki pemegang lesen, iaitu *** untuk berbuat demikian (lihat perenggan 26).
(2) Kegagalan pendaftar memasukkan suatu nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik tanah tersebut setelah menerima suatu notis daripada *** atau perintah PTD, tidak memudaratkan hak *** untuk memasuki, memasang sistem pengagihan elektrik dan seterusnya menjalankan operasi pengagihan elektrik di atas tanah tersebut. Plaintif adalah dihalang di bawah doktrin estopel dari membangkitkan isu kesahan *** memasuki, memasang dan seterusnya menjalankan operasi pengagihan elektrik di atas tanah tersebut. Plaintif pada sepanjang masa terlibat dengan proses kemasukan *** ke atas tanah tersebut dan telah pun menerima pampasan yang sewajarnya (lihat perenggan 28-30).
(3) Tujuan utama kewujudan ABE adalah bagi pengawalseliaan industri pembekalan elektrik. Peruntukan yang berkait dengan hak dan tanggungjawab pemegang lesen diberikan penekanan. Dengan itu, keperluan pendaftar untuk memasukkan nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik hanyalah perkara sampingan sahaja. Keperluan tersebut adalah lebih kepada bentuk keperluan pentadbiran sahaja dan tidaklah boleh ditafsirkan sebagai suatu keperluan yang substantif atau pun mandatori. Sekiranya pendaftar gagal untuk memasukkan nota tersebut sekali pun, ianya tidak menimbulkan apa-apa prejudis kepada plaintif. Plaintif masih menjadi pemilik yang sah tanah tersebut dan apa-apa gangguan yang dialami akibat kehadiran sistem pengagihan elektrik tersebut telah pun diberikan pampasan yang sewajarnya (lihat perenggan 32 & 33).
(4) Tidak ada mana-mana peruntukan sama ada di bawah ABE ataupun mana-mana undang-undang lain yang menyatakan bahawa kegagalan pendaftar bertindak di bawah s 11(10) ABE akan memberi kesan memudaratkan kepada hak dan tanggungjawab pemegang lesen. Juga tidak ada had masa yang ditetapkan kepada pendaftar untuk mengambil tindakan memasukkan nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik (lihat perenggan 35).
(5) Tuntutan plaintif di bawah Guaman 2016 adalah tidak berasas. Kegagalan pendaftar memasukkan nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik tidak memudaratkan hak *** untuk terus berada di atas tanah tersebut. Oleh itu, *** tidak melakukan sebarang tindakan menceroboh tanah tersebut. Berdasarkan dapatan tersebut juga, permohonan plaintif di bawah Saman Pemula 2017 juga tidak berasas. Tindakan pendaftar memasukkan nota pada dokumen pendaftaran hak milik tanah tersebut setelah 16 tahun berlalu hanyalah suatu tindakan pentadbiran sahaja dan tidak menyalahi mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang. (lihat perenggan 36 & 37).
Translation - English The plaintiff had brought two different actions, namely, through a writ of summons under Civil Suit No *** of 2016 (‘2016 Suit’) and through an application under Originating Summons No *** of 2017 (‘2017 Originating Summons’). In the 2016 Suit, the plaintiff sought a declaratory order to declare that *** (‘***’) had no right to enter the plaintiff’s land and construct electric poles or towers on it, a declaratory order to declare that *** failed to comply with s 11 Electricity Supply Act 1990 (‘ESA’), that is, to enter an endorsement or note (‘note’) on the register document of title of the plaintiff’s land, which caused all proceedings taken by *** under s 11 to be unlawful, damages as assessed by the court, interest at 5% per annum on the amount of damages and costs. In the 2017 Originating Summons, the plaintiff applied for an order for the Registrar of Titles, Perak Darul Ridzuan (‘ROT’) to nullify an ‘Electricity Line Right of Way’ (‘Hak Laluan Talian Elektrik’) note that was entered and registered on the plaintiff’s land under Presentation No *** of 2016 dated 14 October 2016. Upon the application of the parties, the court ordered that the 2017 Originating Summons be consolidated with the 2016 Suit. The plaintiff was the owner of land known as Grant ***, Lot ***, Mukim of Hulu Bernam Timur, District of Muallim, Perak (‘the said land’). On 6 February 1996, *** issued a notice under s 11(1) ESA to enter the said land to construct electric poles or towers and install an electricity distribution system to *** Sdn Bhd, the previous owner. The hearing under s 16 ESA to assess the amount of compensation for the said land was conducted before the District Land Administrator (‘DLA’) on 12 November 1996 when the said land had already been transferred to the plaintiff. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation determined by DLA, the plaintiff appealed to the State Authority and the amount of compensation was increased and paid to the plaintiff. Around the year 2000, *** entered the said land to construct poles and install an electricity distribution system. The plaintiff stated that *** had wrongfully entered the said land due to the absence of any note entry regarding DLA’s order on the register document of title authorising *** to continue occupying the said land. The plaintiff alleged that the note entered by DLA on 14 October 2016 was unlawful as it was made more than 16 years after *** took steps under s 11 ESA to enter, construct poles and install an electricity distribution system on the said land. The issues to be decided by the court were: (a) whether the failure to enter the note on the register document of title of the said land according to s 11(10) ESA was prejudicial and consequently, all the steps taken by *** thereafter were unlawful; and (b) whether *** had trespassed the said land which warranted the plaintiff to receive damages.
Held, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and application with costs of RM20,000 to the defendant:
(1) The provisions of paragraph s 11(10)(a) ESA placed the responsibility of entering a note on the register document of title on the shoulders of the registrar. There was no provision that required the licensee, namely ***, to do so (see paragraph 26).
(2) The failure of the registrar to enter a note on the register document of title of the said land after receiving a notice from *** or DLA’s order, did not prejudice ***’s rights to enter, install the electricity distribution system and thereafter carry out electricity distribution operations on the said land. The plaintiff was prevented under the doctrine of estoppel from raising the issue of the legality of *** entering, installing and then carrying out electricity distribution operations on the said land. The plaintiff was at all times involved in the process of ***’s entry upon the said land and had already received due compensation (see paragraphs 28-30).
(3) The main purpose of the establishment of the ESA was for the regulation of the electricity supply industry. Provisions relating to the rights and responsibilities of licensees were given emphasis. With that, the requirement for the registrar to enter a note on the register document of title was only an incidental matter. The said requirement was more akin to a mere form of administrative requirement and could not be construed as a substantive or mandatory requirement. Even if the registrar failed to enter the note, it did not give rise to any prejudice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was still the lawful owner of the said land and any disturbance encountered due to the presence of the electricity distribution system had already been duly compensated for (see paragraphs 32 & 33).
(4) There was no provision, whether under the ESA or any other law, that stated that the failure of the registrar to act under s 11(10) ESA would have a prejudicial effect on the rights and responsibilities of a licensee. Nor was there any stipulated time limit for the registrar to take action to enter the note on the register document of title (see paragraph 35).
(5) The plaintiff’s claim under the 2016 Suit was without basis. The registrar’s failure to enter the note on the register document of title did not prejudice ***’s right to remain on the said land. As such, *** had not committed any act of trespassing the said land. Also based on such finding, the plaintiff’s application under the 2017 Originating Summons was without basis as well. The registrar’s action of entering the note on the register document of title of the said land after the passing of 16 years was only a mere administrative action and did not breach any legal provision. (see paragraphs 36 & 37).
English to Malay: Sample English to Malay Educational Promo General field: Marketing Detailed field: Education / Pedagogy
Source text - English Start Small, Grow Big. It’s All Here
In terms of business, innovation is the generation of fresh ideas, the ongoing development of products, services and processes, as well as their commercial applications. Creativity is critical; it initiates the process by generating new ideas while the process of innovation involves making those ideas a reality. Creativity is wasted if there is no process in place to take ideas and turn them into products or services with market potential.
Innovation is strongly associated with growth. New business is created by new ideas, by the process of creating competitive advantage in what the industry can offer. Economists generally agree that innovation accounts for a sizeable proportion of economic growth. The innovative mindset enables students to create new ways to exploit their ideas within industry, and leads them into an entrepreneurial culture. Future economic and social prosperity depends highly upon a healthy innovation-based economy. The entrepreneur is commonly seen as a business leader and innovator of new ideas and business processes, who has the capacity and willingness to develop, organise and commercialise all these while weighing the risks in order to make a profit.
By engaging entrepreneurs and subject matter experts, and having them share their knowledge and experience with its students, the University aims to inculcate an entrepreneurial mindset in them. The University believes in the inherent human potential for entrepreneurship, which can be elicited or catalysed with the right exposure to the right people.
Translation - Malay Mula Kecil, Tambah Besar. Semuanya Di Sini
Dari segi perniagaan, inovasi adalah penjanaan idea baharu, pembangunan berterusan produk, perkhidmatan dan proses, dan juga aplikasi komersialnya. Kreativiti adalah penting; ia memulakan proses melalui penjanaan idea baharu manakala proses inovasi melibatkan penjadian idea itu suatu kenyataan. Kreativiti tersia-sia jika tiada proses teratur untuk mengambil idea dan menjadikannya produk atau perkhidmatan yang berpotensi pasaran.
Inovasi mempunyai kaitan yang rapat dengan pertumbuhan. Perniagaan baharu diwujudkan oleh idea baharu, melalui proses pewujudan kelebihan bersaingan dalam apa yang dapat ditawarkan oleh industri. Ahli ekonomi bersetuju secara umum bahawa inovasi merupakan sebahagian besar daripada pertumbuhan ekonomi. Set minda yang inovatif membolehkan pelajar untuk mencipta cara baharu untuk mengeksploitasi idea mereka dalam industri, dan mendorongnya kepada budaya keusahawanan. Kemajuan ekonomi dan sosial masa depan amat bergantung kepada suatu ekonomi teguh yang berasaskan inovasi. Usahawan biasanya terlihat sebagai pemimpin perniagaan dan inovator idea dan proses perniagaan baharu, yang mempunyai kemampuan dan kesanggupan untuk memajukan, mengurus dan memperdagangkan kesemua ini sambil mempertimbangkan risiko agar mendapat keuntungan.
Dengan melibatkan para usahawan dan pakar bidang, dan mengadakan perkongsian pengetahuan dan pengalaman mereka dengan para pelajar, pihak Universiti bertujuan untuk menanam set minda keusahawanan di kalangan pelajar. Pihak Universiti percaya akan potensi keusahawanan yang sedia ada dalam manusia, yang dapat dicungkil atau dimangkin dengan pendedahan yang betul kepada orang yang sesuai.
More
Less
Translation education
Other - Malaysian Institute of Translation & Books / Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia (wholly owned by the Ministry of Finance, Malaysia)
Experience
Years of experience: 28. Registered at ProZ.com: Sep 2018.
Malay to English (Malaysian Institute of Translation & Books, verified) Malay to English (Malaysian Translators Association, verified) English to Malay (Malaysian Institute of Translation & Books, verified) English to Malay (Malaysian Translators Association, verified)
Memberships
N/A
Software
Adobe Acrobat, memoQ, MemSource Cloud, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Office Pro, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Power Point, SDL MultiTerm, Smartcat, Trados Studio
Being born to 2 English language teachers and growing up in the rural heartlands of Malaysia offered me the unique opportunity of learning both Malay and English from birth. I subsequently won a government scholarship to read law in England. I was a partner in Malaysia’s largest law firm prior to my retirement. 20 years of legal experience gave me significant knowledge of the terminology used in the legal, governmental, economic, business and technology sectors, in both Malay and English languages. My CV is available upon request.
Expertise 