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 MoreWill 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 MoreHow will Artificial Intelligence impact judicial decision‑making?
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 MoreRoyal Pardons for Anwar and Najib: is every Royal Pardon really the same?
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 MoreCan an insurer cancel or void a policy in the face of MIB – and by when?
In Malaysia, if a car is validly insured when an accident happens, the insurer must pay the victim. Compulsory-insurance legislation, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau Agreements, and consumer-protection reforms now make post‑accident cancellations and technical excuses very difficult. The whole scheme is designed to protect injured people, not insurers’ balance sheets.
Read MoreHow should Professional Bodies punish multiple disciplinary offences? The principle of ‘Totality’
When 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 MoreShould doctors face liability for every error of judgement?
A doctor's split-second decision saves one life; but costs another. When does error of judgement become medical negligence? The answer will reshape healthcare itself. And the courts are struggling with it.
Read MoreWhat 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 MoreCJ’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 MoreHas 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