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

Nine judges, two years, one crisis: Malaysia’s path between Judicial collapse and Constitutional Renewal

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

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

Is a prime minister immune from civil suits?

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 Promise and the Perils of Artificial Intelligence in Court Work

Artificial Intelligence flows through the hallowed halls of justice as the morning mist—pervasive, transformative, and unstoppable. Courts and lawyers alike should embrace AI — with wisdom, not fear. Frost reminds us, “The best way out is always through.” No machine can ever match the human soul's eternal quest for justice. That fire burns beyond all programming.

Read More

The Jurisprudential Revolution: How the Ten Principles in Mohamed Fayadh transformed sec.96(2)(a) RTA 1987

For the first time in 90 years, we are asking the right questions in the right order, especially in personal injury cases. Under s.96(2)(a) RTA 1987, must accident victims themselves notify insurers before commencing proceedings, or does this duty lie elsewhere? This article asks 10 more such questions.

Read More

Do Malaysian non-Muslims have the fundamental right to worship?

The answer is, Yes. The Malaysian Federal Constitution, specifically Article 11(1), read with Art 3(1) and (5), guarantees every individual’s right to ‘profess’, ‘practice’, and, subject to certain laws prohibiting proselytisation to Muslims, to ‘propagate’ their religion. The Constitution therefore guarantees that non-Muslims have the same fundamental right of worship as do our Muslim counterparts. I will all tell you an interesting story at the end.

Read More

Is the test for a stay of execution in personal injury cases, different?

The test for a stay of execution in personal injury cases involving the Road Transport Act 1987 (RTA) differs significantly from other civil cases. This essay examines the nuances of this test and addresses several key questions. It concludes that the test is far higher because of the operation of sec. 96(2)(b), read with ss.96(1) and 91(3) of the RTA. The other question is whether the insurer's 'right to intervene' ...

Read More