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
The PM, the CJ, and other constitutional appointees are all guardians of the Constitution. If one falters, what happens? When a Prime Minister faces a suit in court, yet it is he who must pick the senior judges who will head the judiciary— he is immediately placed in an irreconcilable position of conflict. Three constitutional paths emerge from Malaysia’s deepest democratic paradox. What are they? There is no point in ...
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
Should innocent accident victims be forced into costly legal battles twice—once against the driver and again, [by what has come to be known as a ‘Recovery Action’] against the insurer? How did Malaysia’s Federal Court in the 2022 Saamran decision demolish 70 years of established insurance practice? How did it revolutionise third-party victim compensation?
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
The Court of Appeal's 'commonality principle' in Iskandar Nuli represents judicial legislation without statutory foundation. It contradicts RTA's legislative intent and established doctrines of estoppel. It erects artificial barriers favouring insurers over motor accident victims that Parliament itself did not do. Is it not time to jettison it?
Read More