What if the people you trust with your property quietly sell it—and then insist the contract lets them? In a Singapore case about 14 vintage cars, the court reached for a centuries‑old “ghost” of English law called bailment. Can that ghost still decide modern disputes? If you ever leave anything in someone else’s hands, you should read this essay
Read More
Your car is clamped. RM100 is demanded for its release. You pay, in anger. Can they do it? Can you sue the car-park owner? How?
Read More
It’s no longer if—but when—your next court ruling will be shaped by AI. Judges worldwide already lean on algorithms to sift through files, assess risks, and even draft early versions of judgments. This piece explores how deeply AI has entered courtrooms, where it can do the heavy lifting for overloaded court systems—but also why human judgment must stay at the heart of justice.
Read More
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
When sporting ambition sidesteps integrity, the entire nation pays the ultimate price— loss of international reputation and respect; the dreams of future sportsmen and women dashed; and the disappointment of millions of fans. What is the law behind all this?
Read More
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
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
Step into the Court of Appeal on a busy day. Fifteen or more leave applications, each one dragging on—an hour gone with every hearing. Judges listen, counsel argue, yet somehow the essentials get lost in the shuffle. Is there a better way?
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