Is Malaysia still a land where everyone stands equal before the law? Or have powerful hands quietly reshaped our justice system to favour the few?
Read More
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
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
The Ambalat dispute exposes Malaysia's constitutional fault lines: can the federal government negotiate away Sabah's territory without state consent or parliamentary approval?
Read More
Private cars on the road outnumber the entire population. Malaysia's Federal Court made a landmark decision in AmGeneral v Sa'Amran. That decision changed motor insurance law completely. The court ruled that protecting accident victims matters more than business interests. Millions of road users now have better protection. This is a manifestation that Malaysia's Federal Court has returned to the highest Commonwealth legal standards.
Read More
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
Within marble chambers where the scales of justice have trembled through tempest and calm, where in silent corridors, darkness once consumed light, where the sacred spirit of law endured its darkest winter— here lives a story of its struggle and its resurrection. The robe, once rent by a political blade, was rewoven with threads of courage; how the flame, once dimmed to dying ember, burns bright once more: luminous, defiant, and eternal.
Read More
Whilst preserving the dignity of the Royal Houses, the amendments established the unequivocal supremacy of constitutional law over traditional royal prerogatives:
Read More
Do you remember an essay I wrote in 2018? The one that argued that a former PM enjoyed no immunity from criminal prosecution? Stand that principle on its head. Is a prime minister immune from a civil suit, [e.g. a suit for breach of contract to buy a property]? What if she did enjoy such an immunity? What would happen?
Read More
The answer is, No. Why? Since the Najib saga began, the Addendum has been, in Churchill’s words, “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. In my opinion, the key reasons are: [1]: Pardons cannot be granted ‘in instalments’. [2]: Accepted rules of constitutional interpretation do not at all point to any 'House Arrest' orders (a new Act of parliament is required for that!); and no precedent exists. [3]: ...
Read More