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

CJ’s Malta speech defines Democracy: a Government’s legitimacy depends on an Independent Judiciary

Can a judge speak truth about justice without facing negative consequences? Chief Justice Tengku Maimun’s Malta Speech exposed the deepest fractures. It revealed a constitutional cross-road by asking this question: "Will Malaysians choose constitutional rule, or arbitrary power?" What is your answer? It matters.

Read More

The Greatest Judges of All Time: the Titans who defied history

When history called, eleven judges answered: “Here I stand.” From Atkin’s neighbour principle to Dixon’s legalism, from Solomon’s wisdom to Bao Zheng’s integrity, from Abu Hanifa’s reasoning to Ginsburg’s equality crusade—these titans of justice dared to choose courage over comfort, principle over precedent. Their legacy lives in every courtroom where fairness still matters—proof that law can be humanity’s greatest tool for justice.

Read More

Did the Malaysian Federal Court in AmGeneral v Sa’Amran revolutionise motor insurance law? [Saamran: 1/11]

There are more private cars on Malaysia’s roads than there are Malaysians to drive them. In one consolidated judgment of eight appeals, the Federal Court in Sa’Amran rebuilt the law that governs what happens when one of them causes harm — and decided, point after point, that the victim comes first. This is the gateway to a ten-part series.

Read More

Nine judges, two years, one crisis: Malaysia’s path between Judicial collapse and Constitutional Renewal

Malaysia's judiciary teeters on the brink. An institutional crisis looms—potentially as devastating as 1988's judicial catastrophe—threatening constitutional governance and the rule of law itself. Nine Federal Court judges departing within two years represents far more than administrative upheaval: it's a catastrophic haemorrhaging of judicial wisdom, precisely when institutional memory matters most. We should never have come to this pass. Left unchecked, this depletion spells disaster for the nation. Which path will Malaysia ...

Read More