Will limiting the PM’s tenure stop political ‘musical chairs’ or ‘shadow PMs’?
Will a ten‑year cap on Malaysia’s prime minister really prevent political ‘musical chairs’ or shadow rulers?
Read MoreWill a ten‑year cap on Malaysia’s prime minister really prevent political ‘musical chairs’ or shadow rulers?
Read MoreIt’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 MoreA 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 MoreCan a King’s mercy bypass constitutional procedure? In a landmark ruling, Justice Alice Loke says, “No”. She affirms that even royal prerogatives must give way to Constitutional 'due process'.
Read MoreWhen a professional is found guilty of multiple misconducts, should a disciplinary body impose separate punishments for each offence, and then add them up, or just impose a single punishment for all? What if the offences occurred during the same incident, or at different times? How should the appropriate punishment be decided?
Read MoreFor 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 MoreCan 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 MoreWhen 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 MoreShould 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 MoreThe 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