HOME

Conflict of interest remains one of the most persistent and complex challenges in contemporary corporate governance, directly undermining shareholder confidence, corporate integrity, and long-term business sustainability. In the Malaysian context, the statutory and regulatory framework governing director conflicts of interest is primarily rooted in the Companies Act 2016 and further complemented by the Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG). These instruments codify directors' fiduciary obligations, particularly the duties of loyalty, good faith, and full disclosure. However, recent landmark decisions, including Acumen Scientific Sdn Bhd v. Yeow Liang Ming, Tracy Chang & Anor v. Sunildeep Singh Dhaliwal & Ors and Sea Tackle Sdn Bhd v. Wong Poh Wah & Ors, expose an enduring disagreement between legal prescription and practical enforcement.

This article offers a critical examination of Malaysia's legal framework on director conflicts of interest, engaging both statutory doctrine and judicial reasoning. It interrogates the structural deficiencies such as inadequate board oversight, inconsistent regulatory enforcement, and significant information asymmetry that continue to obstruct effective conflict management in corporate practice. Through a detailed analysis of case law and comparative governance models, this article identifies key vulnerabilities in the Malaysian approach and argues for a recalibrated system of governance that strengthens disclosure obligations, empowers independent directors, and fortifies regulatory mechanisms.

In Malaysia, the debate on extending copyright duration has gained traction in mainstream discussions, with strong advocacy for extending the copyright term from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author. Proponents argue that such an extension would be in line with international standards in jurisdictions such as the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), offering longer financial security for creators and their heirs. This move is also seen to foster greater incentives for creativity and ensure sustainable revenue streams for industries reliant on intellectual property. However, this advocacy has sparked concerns about the potential adverse effects on society. Extending the copyright term could significantly delay the transition of creative works into the public domain, thereby restricting access to cultural resources and hindering innovation that depends solely on fair dealings or statutory exceptions and limitations under section 13(2) of the Copyright Act 1987. Critics highlight the tension between protecting economic rights and fostering an environment where knowledge and culture are accessible to all. Therefore, this paper's goal is to examine Malaysia's place in the global context of copyright duration, to analyse the justifications for and against the proposed extension, and to identify the potential impact on creators and consumers. Using a qualitative approach, this study employs critical analysis and content analysis to evaluate the implications of extending copyright protection. The findings highlight the importance of a well-balanced copyright policy that carefully considers the implications of extending copyright duration. While an extension may provide prolonged financial benefits to creators and their heirs, it must also ensure that consumers retain equitable access to intellectual property as a whole and not just for specific groups of people apart from creators and consumers.

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.

To generations who have passed their lives in the law his is truly clarum et venerabile nomen. Lord Denning was a colossus who strode the judicial landscape in the second half of the last century shedding lambent light on ticklish legal corners and illuminating the legal and judicial landscape with his effulgence. He was unique. His tenure as a judge expanded the universe of judicial discourse. This year 2024 marks his 125th birth anniversary (January 23) and today, March 5 is his 25th death anniversary. It is appropriate that we remember him, draw inspiration from his life and work and salute his memory.