|
Issue #15/2021
15 April 2021
|
To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.
Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.
|
New This Week
|
LIM GUAN ENG v. RUSLAN KASSIM & ANOTHER APPEAL [2021] 4 CLJ 155
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
[CIVIL APPEALS NO: 02(f)-61-07-2019(W) & 02(f)-62-07-2019(W)]
26 FEBRUARY 2021
A public officer, when suing as an individual, regardless of whether in his official capacity or personal capacity, is not prohibited from bringing an action for damages for defamation.
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Action commenced by Government official - Newspapers published articles based on press statement - Statements questioned Government official's disloyalty to country - Government official commenced action against parties involved in press statement and publication - Whether action commenced in capacity as private citizen or Government official - Whether individual who is Government official disentitled from bringing action for defamation in official capacity - Whether Government official could bring action in defamation in personal capacity - Defamation Act 1957 - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 24(3)
JILL IRELAND LAWRENCE BILL v.
MENTERI BAGI KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & ANOR [2021] 4 CLJ 231
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
NOR BEE ARIFFIN J
[JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: R4(2)-25-256-2008]
17 MARCH 2021
The Ministry of Home Affairs, through a Directive issued in 1986, banned the use of the word, among others, 'Allah', in Christian publications, citing a threat to public order. However, upon analysis and scrutiny 35 years later, the Directive was discovered to be unreflective of and inconsistent with the Cabinet's policy decision. The Directive stood on its own without any statutory backing, rendering it illegal, unlawful and a nullity for want of jurisdiction. The Directive was devoid of any legal effect whatsoever from inception. It followed that the prohibition on the use of the word, among others, 'Allah', imposed by the Directive, could not be legally sustained. The Ministry of Home Affairs had exceeded its powers and such a prohibition was against art. 11 of the Federal Constitution.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Directive - Validity and constitutionality - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Whether Directive mirrored and consistent with Cabinet's policy decision - Whether Directive had statutory backing - Whether Minister acted legally - Whether actions within limits of power prescribed by law - Whether Directive legal, valid and lawful - Whether had legal effects - Whether there was adequate, reliable and authoritative evidentiary basis for Directive - Whether there was disruption to public order and tranquility warranting Directive - Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984, ss. 7(1), 9(1), 26(2)(d)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs ('CDs') carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Constitutional right to import CDs in exercise of right to practice religion and right to education - Whether there was deprivation of freedom of religion - Whether Directive offended art. 11 of Federal Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Equality - Equality of all persons before law and protection from discrimination against citizen - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Whether there was inequality before law - Whether Directive offended art. 8 of Federal Constitution
-
Mohd Dan Abdul Hamid v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 808 (CA) affirming the High Court case of PP v. Mohd Dan Abdul Hamid [Criminal Trial No: 45A-44-05/2014]
-
Petrus Cornelius Volschenk lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 810 (CA) mengesahkan kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Petrus Cornelius Volschenk [Bicara Jenayah Selangor No: 45A-38-04/2014]
Legal Network Series
|
DATO' NG KAI CHOON v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI Income received by a sole proprietorship from a subcontract entered with a third party to carry out certain works is contract income and not merely a return of investment from the project undertaken. All income received under sole proprietorship is to be taxed onto a sole proprietor alone. REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Case stated, by way of - Appeal against decision of Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') - SCIT dismissed appeal against notice of assessment - Sole proprietor failed to declare income received by sole proprietorship under subcontract works - Subcontract entered by sole proprietorship with third party to carry out electrical works - Whether SCIT was correct in its finding that income from subcontract received was contract income and not a return of investment from project undertaken - Whether SCIT was correct in its finding that appellant's business was a sole proprietor business and not a partnership - Whether all income received by appellant's business was to be taxed onto appellant alone as a sole proprietor
|
|
|
CEMPAKA INDAH SDN BHD lwn. RAJA GOPAL MUNI SAMY & SATU LAGI Hakim bicara mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat perbandingan sendiri tandatangan sekiranya laporan pakar tulisan tangan yang dikemukakan tidak membuktikan secara konklusif tandatangan dalam sesuatu dokumen telah dipalsukan. Apabila satu pihak mendakwa dokumen telah dipalsukan tandatangan maka kedua-dua pihak perlu bersama-sama merujuk dokumen yang dipertikaikan tersebut untuk analisa pakar tulisan tangan bagi mengelakkan kemusykilan dan keraguan terhadap analisa dan dapatan saksi pakar tulisan tangan tersebut kelak. KETERANGAN: Hakim - Kuasa untuk membandingkan tandatangan - Dakwaan pemalsuan tandatangan dan cop syarikat - Laporan pakar tulisan tangan tidak konklusif - Sama ada hakim mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat perbandingan tandatangan dan cop syarikat - Sama ada wujud kemusykilan dan keraguan terhadap analisa dan dapatan yang dibuat oleh saksi pakar - Sama ada hakim boleh menolak laporan pakar yang tidak konklusif serta yang diragui - Sama ada hakim boleh membuat perbandingan sendiri tandatangan dan cop syarikat pada dokumen yang dipertikaikan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 73(1) KONTRAK: Kontrak pembinaan - Pembayaran - Bayaran kepada sub-kontraktor - Kontraktor utama mendakwa bayaran kepada sub-kontraktor adalah berasaskan 'back to back' - Sub-kontraktor menafikan kaedah bayaran 'back to back' - Kerja-kerja subkontraktor telah diselesaikan - Kontraktor utama telah menerima lebihan bayaran daripada majikan berbanding nilai sub-kontrak - Sama ada sub-kontraktor wajar mengeluarkan notis untuk menuntut baki yang terhutang oleh kontraktor utama - Sama ada isu bayaran 'back to back' adalah satu rekaan
|
|
|
MIRY ENTERPRISE & SATU LAGI lwn. MAZROL ABU @ YUSOF & SATU LAGI Dalam menentukan awad yang munasabah bagi kos prosthetic, hakim bicara perlu membuat penolakan kontigensi sebanyak 1/3 daripada jumlah kos prosthetic yang dicadangkan oleh plaintif. GANTI RUGI: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap kuantum - Kos prosthetic - Hakim bicara memberikan kos prosthetic sepenuhnya yang dicadangkan oleh plaintif tanpa sebarang penolakan kontigensi - Sama ada wujud kecacatan dalam penghakiman hakim bicara - Sama ada penolakan kontigensi sebanyak 1/3 daripada kos prosthetic yang dicadangkan oleh plaintif adalah wajar dan munasabah
|
|
|
MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD v. WELLCOM COMMUNICATIONS (M) SDN BHD 1. A bank has absolute discretion to grant ibra' on any outstanding loan sum upon a formula determined by the Bank and such calculation of ibra' is final and binding. 2. A bank is entitled to pursue remedies concurrently against both borrower and guarantor when the guarantor had agreed to undertake liability for the repayment of the loan and interest as principal debtor. In such event, it is immaterial for the bank to prove the debt against the borrower first before commencing action against the guarantor to recover the said debt. CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Banking - Guarantee - Issues to be tried - Islamic financing - Allegation that ibra' not deducted from final sum - Whether bank has absolute discretion to grant ibra' - Whether calculation of ibra' by bank is final and binding - Whether allegation raised was an afterthought to avoid liabilities under guarantee - Whether defendant estopped from challenging issue of ibra' CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary judgment - Banking - Guarantee - Issues to be tried - Default of corporate guarantee - Premature action - Separate and independent guarantee - Whether debt must be proven against borrower first before proceeding with action against guarantor - Whether guarantor stands as a mere surety or as principal debtor - Whether bank is entitled to pursue remedies concurrently against guarantor and borrower - Whether action commenced against guarantor was premature
|
|
|
NATHAN VELAYATHAN v. PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS The discretion to decide whether the applicant should be detained or otherwise is placed in the hands of the Prevention of Crime Board ('Board'). In making its decision, the Board has complete discretion and it is not for a court of law to question the sufficiency or relevancy of allegations of fact and conduct of investigations. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Applicant alleged investigating officer failed to answer or rebut issues raised by applicant - Whether issue of non-rebuttal of applicant's contention falls within ambit of non-compliance with any procedural requirement - Whether sufficiency or relevancy of allegations of fact and conduct of investigations could be questioned by a court of law PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Detention under s. 19A(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('Act 1959') - Applicant alleged investigating officer failed to submit complete report to inquiry officer and advisory board - Whether requirement under s. 4A of Act 1959 had been complied with - Whether there was any delay in submission of report
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 4 (Part 2)
A public officer, when suing as an individual, regardless of whether in his official capacity or personal capacity, is not prohibited from bringing an action for damages for defamation.
Lim Guan Eng v. Ruslan Kassim & Another Appeal [2021] 4 CLJ 155 [FC]
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Action commenced by Government official - Newspapers published articles based on press statement - Statements questioned Government official's disloyalty to country - Government official commenced action against parties involved in press statement and publication - Whether action commenced in capacity as private citizen or Government official - Whether individual who is Government official disentitled from bringing action for defamation in official capacity - Whether Government official could bring action in defamation in personal capacity - Defamation Act 1957 - Government Proceedings Act 1956, s. 24(3)
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
- For the appellant - Americk Sidhu; M/s Americk Sidhu
- For the respondents - Adnan Seman; M/s Adnan Sharida & Assocs
An instrument creating power of attorney must be in strict compliance with conditions provided under s. 3(1)(a) of the Power of Attorney Act 1949. Hence, where item (vi) of s. 3(1)(a) is applicable, the operative words that '... the instrument is executed before, ...' connotes that the donor has to execute the instrument before an advocate and solicitor. Non-compliance with the requirement rendered the power of attorney invalid, thus, the transfer of property pursuant to the invalid power of attorney was also invalid; and thus, the interest obtained by a third party was defeasible under s. 340(2)(b) of the National Land Code.
Amir Muhammad Ilia Syahid Indra Zain Putra & Anor v. Putera Hang Jebat Mohamed Jin & Ors [2021] 4 CLJ 215 [HC]
LAND LAW: Power of attorney - Validity of - Disposal of property to third party pursuant to power of attorney - Whether power of attorney obtained through means of fraud - Whether instrument creating power of attorney complied with conditions laid down under s. 3(1)(a)(vi) of Powers of Attorney Act 1949 - Whether instrument executed before an advocate and solicitor - Whether solicitor bore eye-witness of writing of signature - Whether merely informing solicitor that signature executed by executant sufficient - Whether negated requirement of 'personal knowledge' - Whether rendered power of attorney invalid - Whether interest obtained by third party defeasible - National Land Code, s. 340(2)(b) & (3)
LAND LAW: Indefeasibility of title and interests - Fraud - Transfer form executed by power of attorney - Whether power of attorney obtained through means of fraud - Non-compliance with conditions laid down under s. 3(1)(a)(vi) of Powers of Attorney Act 1949 - Whether rendered power of attorney invalid - Whether interest obtained by third party defeasible - Whether third party holder of immediate registered title - Whether proviso to s. 340(3) of National Land Code applicable
CHOO KAH SING J
- For the 1st defendant - Nur Aini Atiqah; M/s Bahari & Bahari
- For the 2nd defendant - Nurul Hadi; M/s Adnan Sharida & Assocs
- For the 3rd defendant - Abdul Razak; M/s Abdul Razak & Partners
The Ministry of Home Affairs, through a Directive issued in 1986, banned the use of the word, among others, 'Allah', in Christian publications, citing a threat to public order. However, upon analysis and scrutiny 35 years later, the Directive was discovered to be unreflective of and inconsistent with the Cabinet's policy decision. The Directive stood on its own without any statutory backing, rendering it illegal, unlawful and a nullity for want of jurisdiction. The Directive was devoid of any legal effect whatsoever from inception. It followed that the prohibition on the use of the word, among others, 'Allah', imposed by the Directive, could not be legally sustained. The Ministry of Home Affairs had exceeded its powers and such a prohibition was against art. 11 of the Federal Constitution.
Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill v. Menteri Bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 231 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Directive - Validity and constitutionality - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Whether Directive mirrored and consistent with Cabinet's policy decision - Whether Directive had statutory backing - Whether Minister acted legally - Whether actions within limits of power prescribed by law - Whether Directive legal, valid and lawful - Whether had legal effects - Whether there was adequate, reliable and authoritative evidentiary basis for Directive - Whether there was disruption to public order and tranquility warranting Directive - Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984, ss. 7(1), 9(1), 26(2)(d)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Freedom of religion - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs ('CDs') carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Constitutional right to import CDs in exercise of right to practice religion and right to education - Whether there was deprivation of freedom of religion - Whether Directive offended art. 11 of Federal Constitution
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Equality - Equality of all persons before law and protection from discrimination against citizen - Christian publications in form of educational audio compact discs carrying word 'Allah' seized and confiscated following Directive issued by Ministry of Home Affairs - Directive prohibited, inter alia, use of word 'Allah' in Christian publications - Whether there was inequality before law - Whether Directive offended art. 8 of Federal Constitution
NOR BEE ARIFFIN J
- For the applicant - Lim Heng Seng, Annou Xavier & Tan Hooi Ping; M/s Azri, Lee Swee Seng & Co
- For the respondents - Shamsul Bolhassan; SFC
- For MAIS & MIWP - Haniff Khatri; M/s Haniff Khatri
- For MAIS - Zirwatul Hanan Abdul Rahman; M/s Azaine & Fakhrul
- For MCA - SC Lim & Chew Sin Chi
- For SIB Semenanjung - Rodney Koh
- For Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia (Christian Federation of Malaysia) - Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
- For Majlis Peguam Malaysia - Cyrus Tiu Foo Woei
- For Catholic Lawyers' Society Kuala Lumpur - Stanislars Cross
Bawah s. 166 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah ('KTJ'), seorang tertuduh boleh didakwa atas kesemua atau mana-mana kesalahan, jika satu-satu perbuatan atau siri perbuatan jelas sebegitu meragukan, yang mana satu antara beberapa kesalahan yang boleh dibuktikan telah dilakukan. Pertuduhan hanya boleh dibuat atas kesalahan yang sama daripada salah satu kumpulan perbuatan tersebut dan bukannya alternatif untuk tiga kumpulan perbuatan berkenaan. Pertuduhan alternatif yang dirangka yang mana bukan daripada siri perbuatan beberapa kesalahan adalah bertentangan dengan s. 166 KTJ.
Lee Eng & Satu Lagi lwn. PP & Rayuan Yang Lain [2021] 4 CLJ 287 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011 - Seksyen 8(2)(b) - Membekal atau menawarkan untuk membekal barang-barang yang baginya perihal dagangan palsu digunakan - Sama ada rantai keterangan terputus - Sama ada elemen-elemen kesalahan berjaya dibuktikan
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan - Pertuduhan alternatif - Tertuduh dituduh membekal atau menawarkan untuk membekal barang-barang yang baginya perihal dagangan palsu digunakan - Tertuduh dituduh dengan pertuduhan mendedahkan untuk pembekalan atau mempunyai milikan, jagaan atau kawalan untuk pembekal barang-barang perihal dagangan palsu - Sama ada pertuduhan alternatif bertentangan dengan s. 166 Kanun Tatacara Jenayah - Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011, ss. 8(2)(b) & (c)
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Saksi material - Kegagalan memanggil saksi material - Pertuduhan membekalkan atau menawarkan untuk membekal barang-barang yang baginya perihal dagangan palsu digunakan - Kesalahan bawah s. 8(2)(b) Akta Perihal Dagangan 2011 - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi material menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada membangkitkan anggapan bertentangan - Akta Keterangan 1950, s. 114(g)
AB KARIM AB RAHMAN H
- Bagi pihak perayu - Siew Kuan Onn; T/n ST Lee & Partners
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Ahmad Nazneen; TPR
The High Court has an absolute and unfettered discretion by virtue of ss. 43 and 73 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read together with O. 45 r. 11 of the Rules of Court 2012 to grant an interim stay of proceeding against an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award pursuant to s. 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005.
Salconmas Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Anor [2021] 4 CLJ 305 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of proceeding - Application for - Parties entered into agreement and resorted to arbitration proceeding following dispute - Arbitrator issued final award - Aggrieved party applied to set aside arbitration award - Application dismissed and aggrieved party appealed to Court of Appeal - Other party applied to register arbitration award while judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal - Whether High Court has absolute and unfettered discretion to grant interim stay of proceeding against application for recognition and enforcement of arbitration award - Whether there existed special circumstances warranting application for stay of proceeding - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 43 and 73 - Rules of Court 2012, O. 45 r. 11 - Arbitration Act 2005, s. 38
ARIK SANUSI YEOP JOHARI JC
- For the appellant - Zamri Ibrahim; M/s Zamri Ibrahim & Co
- For the respondent - Natra Idris & Khong Hui Li; SFCs
LNS Article(s)
THE PROHIBITION OF ABORTION AS A VIOLATION OF WOMEN'S RIGHT: A LEGAL ANALYSIS [Read excerpt]
by Pavitra Subramaniam* Assoc. Prof Dr Shahrul Mizan bin Ismail** [2021] 1 LNS(A) xlviiiCHALLENGES IN LEGISLATING AND PROSECUTION OF MARITAL RAPE IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Shizreen Farina* [2021] 1 LNS(A) xlixCONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AND EMERGENCY POWERS IN MALAYSIA AND INDIA
Analysis of the 2021 Emergency in Malaysia [Read excerpt]
by Matthew Sebastian* [2021] 1 LNS(A) l
Principal Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Repealing |
| ACT 831 | Finance Act 2020 | The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 31, the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 39, the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 51, the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 55, the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 63 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 65 | - |
| ACT 830 | Temporary Measures For Government Financing (Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)) Act 2020 | 27 February 2020 until 31 December 2022 except s 3; 26 October 2020 until 31 December 2022 - s 3 | - |
| ACT 829 | Temporary Measures For Reducing The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Act 2020 | Part I - 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years); Part II, Part III (Limitation Act 1953), Part IV (Sabah Limitation Ordinance), Part V (Sarawak Limitation Ordinance), Part VI (Public Authorities Protection Act 1948), Part IX (Consumer Protection Act 1999), Part X (Distress Act 1951) - 18 March 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part VII (Insolvency Act 1967) - 23 October 2020 until 31 August 2021; Part VIII (Hire-Purchase Act 1967) - 1 April 2020 until 31 December 2020; Part XI (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966), Part XII (Industrial Relations Act 1967), Part XIII (Private Employment Agencies Act 1981), Part XIX - 18 March 2020; Part XIV (Land Public Transport Act 2010), Part XV (Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board Act 1987) - 1 August 2020 until 31 December 2021; Part XVI (Courts of Judicature Act 1964), Part XVII (Subordinate Courts Act 1948), Part XVIII (Subordinate Courts Rules Act 1955) - 18 March 2020 until 23 October 2020 (shall continue for a period of two years) | - |
| ACT 828 | National Land Code (Revised 2020) | 15 October 2020 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 October 2020; First enacted in 1965 as Act of Parliament No 56 of 1965 | - |
| ACT 827 | Currency Act 2020 | 1 October 2020 [PU(B) 476/2020] | - |
Amending Acts
| Number | Title | In force from | Principal/Amending Act No |
| ACT A1634 | Co-Operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2021 | 1 April 2021 [PU(B) 174/2021] | ACT 502 |
| ACT A1633 | Tourism Tax (Amendment) Act 2021 | Not Yet In Force | ACT 791 |
| ACT A1632 | Service Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 716/2020] | ACT 807 |
| ACT A1631 | Sales Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 715/2020] | ACT 806 |
| ACT A1630 | Free Zones (Amendment) Act 2020 | 1 January 2021 [PU(B) 719/2020] | ACT 438 |
PU(A)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(A) 166/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 4) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 | 12 April 2021 | 13 April 2021 | PU(A) 97/2021 |
| PU(A) 165/2021 | Customs (Anti-Dumping Duties) (No. 3) 2020 (Amendment) Order 2021 | 12 April 2021 | 12 December 2020 to 11 December 2025 | PU(A) 348/2020 |
| PU(A) 164/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 3) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021 | 11 April 2021 | 11 April 2021 | PU(A) 98/2021 |
| PU(A) 163/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Movement Control) (No. 4) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 | 11 April 2021 | 11 April 2021 | PU(A) 96/2021 |
| PU(A) 162/2021 | Fisheries (Control of Endangered Species of Fish) Regulations 1999 - Corrigendum | 6 April 2021 | PU(A) 409/1999 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 205/2021 | Notice of Proposed Revocation of Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 455 Town Putrajaya | 15 April 2021 | 16 April 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 204/2021 | Appointment of Chairman and Members of The Personal Data Protection Appeal Tribunal | 14 April 2021 | 15 April 2021 | ACT 709 |
| PU(B) 203/2021 | Appointment of Chairman and Members of The Communications and Multimedia Appeal Tribunal | 14 April 2021 | 15 April 2021 | ACT 588 |
| PU(B) 202/2021 | Appointment Under Subsection 134(2) - Corrigendum | 13 April 2021 | PU(B) 472/2020 | |
| PU(B) 201/2021 | Appointment of Commissioner of Buildings and Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and Revocation of Appointment of Commissioner of Buildings For The Federal Territory of Putrajaya | 13 April 2021 | Specified in column (3) of Schedule | ACT 757 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(B) 472/2020 | Pelantikan Di Bawah Subseksyen 134(2) | PU(B) 202/2021 | Jadual | |
| PU(B) 472/2020 | Appointment Under Subsection 134(2) | PU(B) 202/2021 | Schedule | |
| PU(B) 136/2019 | Pelantikan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Dan Timbalan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya | PU(B) 201/2021 | Tarikh yang dinyatakan dalam ruang (3) Jadual | Jadual |
| PU(B) 136/2019 | Appointment of Commissioner of Buildings and Deputy Commissioner of Buildings For the Federal Territory of Putrajaya | PU(B) 201/2021 | Specified in column (3) of Schedule | Schedule |
| PU(B) 136/2019 | Pelantikan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Dan Timbalan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan Bagi Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya | PU(B) 200/2021 | 13 April 2021 | Jadual |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 208/2018 | Declaration of Road At Federal Territory of Labuan As Designated Federal Territory Road | PU(B) 194/2021 | 8 April 2021 |
| PU(A) 66/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Pemulihan) (No. 2) 2021 | PU(A) 98/2021 | 5 Mac 2021 |
| PU(A) 66/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Recovery Movement Control) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 98/2021 | 5 March 2021 |
| PU(A) 65/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) (Kawalan Pergerakan Bersyarat) (No. 3) 2021 | PU(A) 97/2021 | 5 Mac 2021 |
| PU(A) 65/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) (Conditional Movement Control) (No. 3) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 97/2021 | 5 March 2021 |