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

Are pension fund managers legally accountable for investment losses?

Billions lost, explanations offered, but contributors still left in the dark. While the EPF assures transparency and blames 'global market volatility', the legal world tells a deeper story. Around the world, pension fund trustees have been sued, sometimes successfully. Discover how courts in the UK, US, and Commonwealth nations deliver justice when public and pension funds go astray — and what it means for every Malaysian who contributes.

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

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

Has the RTA made the ‘insurable interest defence’ and the ‘recovery action,’ redundant?

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 ‘Recover Action’] against the insurer? How did Malaysia’s Federal Court in the 2022 Sa' Amran decision demolish 70 years of established insurance practice? How did it revolutionise third-party victim compensation?

Read More

Did the Malaysian Federal Court in AmGeneral v Sa’Amran revolutionise motor insurance law?

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

What Happened During the Malaysian Judicial Crisis in 1988?

In 1988, a tremor rent Malaysia’s halls of justice: an institutional earthquake that cleaved its very bedrock. Constitutional pillars crumbled; and the Beacon that once burned bright for Justice flickered, and then, died. Sacred robes, woven with centuries of honour, lay torn in the rubble. The Unthinkable carved its wound into the very beating heart of the Constitution. Here sleep the lasting memories of those who fell, shields raised against the ...

Read More