HOME

ABSTRACT

This paper will explore Public-Private Partnership ('PPP') projects by focusing on two main aspects: the underlying theory of PPP and the factors that encourage and drive their implementation. In the first section, we will provide a thorough explanation of the theory behind Public-Private Partnerships, including a scrutiny of the legal framework that governs these initiatives and the essential requirements for their establishment. Following this, the paper will examine key factors influencing PPP, featuring a comparative valuation of how these partnerships are managed in three distinct countries: the United Kingdom ('UK'), China, and the Sultanate of Oman.

This comparative analysis will highlight both the similarities and variances in the governance of PPP across these nations. The third section will delve into the practical application of Public-Private Partnerships in the Sultanate of Oman. A real-world case study will be presented to illustrate how PPPs are executed within this context.

By integrating both theoretical insights and practical examples, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the operation and functionality of Public-Private Partnerships. It will address critical elements of the PPP model and its application across various legal and economic systems. Ultimately, the paper will offer valuable insights into the mechanics of Public-Private Partnerships, emphasising legal frameworks, motivating factors, and specific case studies from the United Kingdom, China, and the Sultanate of Oman.

ABSTRACT

Malaysia's cybercrime legislative landscape, anchored in the Computer Crimes Act 1997 ('CCA 1997'),^[1] the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 ('CMA 1998'),^[2] and the Penal Code (Act 574),^[3] has not kept pace with the speed, scale, and complexity of modern digital threats. Once progressive in targeting criminal intrusion, digital communications, and penal enforcement, these statutes now suffer from conceptual obsolescence, doctrinal misalignment, and systemic fragmentation.^[4] This article critically examines the framework, highlighting the CCA 1997's outdated and hardware-centric definitions, the CMA 1998's overbroad and constitutionally vulnerable speech restrictions, and the Penal Code's inability to address intangible, transnational, and technologically mediated harms. Drawing on statutory analysis, Malaysian case law, and comparative models from the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, and beyond,^[5] it advances a reform blueprint centred on a unified, technologically neutral, and rights-based Cybercrime and Digital Harms Act ('CDHA'). The proposed CDHA integrates robust digital security measures, constitutional safeguards, graded platform liability, and a specialised tribunal into a coherent, future-proof legislative architecture capable of protecting both cybersecurity and civil liberties in a digitised society.

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.