Will the AG–PP split stop political interference in prosecutions?

For decades, one person in Putrajaya has worn two hats. He advises the government on how to stay in power. He decides who will be prosecuted and who will quietly walk away. Does the new “AG–PP split” Bill truly cut that cord, or simply dresses old political control in the language of 'reform'? Do you know what I think?

Read More

When politicians mark their own exam papers and control entry standards into the Bar. Why the LPQB amendments should terrify ordinary Malaysians. And why you should say “No!” to this amendment.

The Anwar government is changing who controls the gate into the legal profession. A Minister will choose - and can remove - most of the people who decide who becomes a lawyer. When politicians control that gate, future lawyers may think twice before taking cases against the government. And when that happens, ordinary Malaysians may struggle to find truly independent help in court.

Read More

Royal Pardons for Anwar and Najib: is every Royal Pardon really the same?

A royal pardon is not always what it seems. Nor are all pardons born equal. This essay sets Anwar’s legal clean slate against Najib’s trimmed sentence, and asks what that reveals about power, process, and the Malaysian Constitution. Along the way, it shows how two decisions of the Pardons Board produced strikingly different outcomes in law, politics, and public meaning – a tale of delays, denials, and enduring debates.

Read More

Why did India’s greatest legal mind refuse the Chief Justiceship?

For seven years, he was briefless. Politicians feared his moral courage. He refused the post of CJ. That post would have been his for five and a half years. Yet when Seervai spoke, the Constitution itself seemed to roar. This is the untold story of how one man's unwavering integrity shaped constitutional law across the Commonwealth—and why his final act on Republic Day 1996 was the perfect ending to ...

Read More

Is Anwar’s position as prime minister dissolved by Article 48(3) of the Constitution?

When the King’s ‘unconditional’ pardon does not explicitly use the magic words that, “We remove this person’s disqualification to stand in elections,” what happens? Can a ‘free’ pardon ‘automatically restore’ a politician’s rights to compete in an election? The answer lies hidden in the delicate rules of constitutional interpretation.

Read More

What is the difference between ‘Questions of Law’, ‘Questions of Fact’ and ‘Mixed’ questions?

Every courtroom dispute hinges on a deceptively simple question: "What exactly are we arguing about?" Yet this fundamental inquiry—whether we are debating what the law says, what actually happened, or how proven facts fit legal standards—can determine the fate of both victims and defendants. The distinction isn't merely academic; it shapes everything from appeal strategies to awards for compensation.

Read More

Can a court change the language of a written constitution?

No: only Parliament wields the power to amend the Constitution:(Article 159). Yet deeper currents flow beneath: MA63 protects East Malaysian rights. Any constitutional amendment requires their consent. And it is an international Treaty lodged with the UN. And timeless wisdom echoes: "Why fix what isn't broken?"

Read More