|
Issue #23/2021
10 June 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
|
ZAIDI KANAPIAH v. ASP KHAIRUL FAIROZ RODZUAN & ORS AND OTHER APPEALS [2021] 5 CLJ 581
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS: 05(HC)-153-11-2020(W), 05(HC)-155-11-2020(W) & 05(HC)-156-11-2020(W)]
27 APRIL 2021
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (POCA) and its s. 4 was legitimately birthed and is not unconstitutional as it is within the province of the Legislature in accordance with the powers granted under art. 149 of the Federal Constitution (FC) to enact the Act and the section to address the mischief of national security. This said, any challenge to the constitutionality of s. 4 , and any challenge to the legality of a remand order issued under s. 4(1)(a) thereof by the Magistrate on the grounds that s. 4 is inconsistent with art. 121 of the FC must be based on the existing art. 121, and not on its pre-amendment (Act A704) provision. To interpret a law based on a provision that no longer reflects the position of the existing law is misconceived and defies the canons of construction and legal logic. Similarly, the argument that s. 4 is unconstitutional because it draws away the Magistrate's discretion and compels him to act upon the dictate of the Executive, and therefore violates the concept of separation of power which forms the basic structure of the Constitution, is also misconceived. The basic structure doctrine has no place in Malaysia, and in any case, in view of art. 149 of the FC, the constitutionality of s. 4 must be tested against the provisions of the FC itself and no other.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Writ of habeas corpus against legality of detention - Applicants detained pursuant to s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether detention violated rights of applicants - Whether made in bad faith - Whether procedurally improper - Whether in breach of applicants' constitutional right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Whether detention illegal and/or irrational - Whether Magistrate exercised discretion judicially - Whether legal procedural and constitutional safeguards under s. 4 of POCA strictly complied with before remand order issued - Federal Constitution, art. 5(5)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Preventive detention - Detention under s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA constitutional - Whether detention violated constitutional rights of applicants - Whether requirements of s. 4(1) of POCA complied with - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA violates doctrine of separation of powers by requiring Judiciary to act upon dictate of Executive - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 , 121 & 149
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitutional rights - Breach - Applicants detained pursuant to s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether in breach of applicants' constitutional right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA complied with - Whether jurisdiction and powers of courts under POCA violated amended art. 121 of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 4 of POCA valid and constitutional - Whether appeal academic - Federal Constitution, arts. 5 , 121 & 149
-
M. Yusuf v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 901 (CA) overruling the High Court case of PP lwn. M Yusuf & Yang Lain [2017] 1 LNS 2026
-
Tan Hoo Eng v. PP [2019] 1 LNS 893 (CA) striking out appeal against High Court case of Tan Hoo Eng v. PP [2019] 7 CLJ 264
Legal Network Series
|
TENGKU ISHAK TENGKU LOKMAN lwn. NIK MOHAMAD FARAHAN NIK KAR Motorsikal plaintif yang datang dari arah belakang perlu lebih berhati-hati dan memberikan perhatian kepada kenderaan yang berada di hadapannya sebelum memotong. Kerosakan teruk pada kedua-dua kenderaan dan kecederaan yang serius yang dialami oleh plaintif jelas menunjukkan bahawa plaintif telah membawa motorsikal dengan kelajuan yang terlalu tinggi sehingga tidak dapat dikawal walaupun keadaan jalan raya adalah sesak. Saman yang dikeluarkan terhadap plaintif atas kegagalan mematuhi peraturan jalan raya menunjukkan kecuaian plaintif. LALULINTAS JALAN: Kecuaian - Kemalangan jalan raya - Perlanggaran antara motorsikal dan motokar - Keadaan jalan raya yang sesak - Motorsikal plaintif datang dari arah belakang telah melanggar bahagian sisi kanan motokar defendan ketika defendan hendak membelok ke kanan jalan - Defendan membelok tanpa memberikan isyarat - Kemalangan berlaku ketika plaintif hendak memotong defendan - Plaintif telah disaman kerana kesalahan memotong dengan kelajuan yang tinggi - Kedua-dua kenderaan mengalami kerosakan yang teruk dan kecederaan yang serius dialami oleh plaintif - Sama ada plaintif yang mengekori defendan perlu lebih berhati-hati bagi mengelakkan kemalangan - Sama ada plaintif harus memberi perhatian kepada kenderaan yang berada di hadapannya sebelum memotong - Sama ada motorsikal plaintif telah dibawa dengan kelajuan yang terlalu tinggi
|
|
|
KANNAN SUBRAMANIAM lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & YANG LAIN 1. Tidak ada keperluan prosedur di bawah s. 19A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 yang memerlukan pengerusi atau mana-mana ahli LPJ untuk menandatangani alasan serta pengataan fakta yang atasnya perintah tahanan diasaskan. Alasan dan pengataan fakta yang ditandatangani oleh Penolong Setiausaha Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah atas arahan dan pengawasan penuh Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah adalah sah. 2. Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 tidak menetapkan tempoh masa suatu dapatan dan laporan lengkap siasatan perlu disediakan oleh pegawai inkuiri dan dikemukakan kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah secara serta-merta. Justeru, tempoh masa 26 hari yang telah diambil oleh pegawai inkuiri dalam menyediakan laporan lengkap siasatan tidak terjumlah kepada kelewatan. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Alasan dan pengataan fakta yang atasnya perintah tahanan diasaskan ditandatangani oleh Penolong Setiausaha Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('PSU LPJ') - Sama ada dokumen seharusnya ditandatangani oleh Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') - Sama ada alasan dan pengataan fakta yang disediakan oleh PSU LPJ adalah atas arahan LPJ atau bertindak secara bersendirian - Sama ada terdapat keperluan prosedur di bawah s. 19A Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 yang memerlukan pengerusi atau mana-mana ahli LPJ untuk menandatangani salinan alasan serta pengataan fakta - Sama ada perintah tahanan adalah sah PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Permohonan untuk habeas corpus - Pegawai inkuiri telah mengambil masa 26 hari untuk mengemukakan laporan lengkap bertulis yang mengandungi alasan-alasan berserta dapatan kepada Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah ('LPJ') - Sama ada terdapat sebarang tempoh masa yang telah ditetapkan di bawah Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 untuk pegawai inkuiri menyediakan laporan dan dapatan kepada LPJ secara serta merta - Sama ada berlaku sebarang kelewatan yang tidak munasabah oleh pegawai inkuiri dalam menjalankan siasatan dan mengemukakan laporan lengkap kepada LPJ
|
|
|
TAN KIM TIAN & ANOR v. TAN KIM CHUAN & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL A liquidator has wide powers to dispose of properties of a wound-up company for the benefit of the contributories and creditors. The court will not interfere with the conduct of the liquidator unless such conduct was so unreasonable and absurd that no reasonable person would so act. Where the liquidator had agreed to dispose of the properties applying a particular method, the court should not order the disposal of the properties using a method other than what has been proposed by the liquidator based merely on objections by contributories. COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Disposition of property - Joint liquidators agreed to dispose of properties by way of right of first refusal to a director of company - Right of first refusal was offered and accepted based on valuation report - Liquidator obtained a proposal for properties priced at correct market value - Contributory not agreeable to offer made - Whether proposal of liquidator was fair and reasonable - Whether court was entitled to order properties to be disposed of using a new method for disposal other than what was proposed by liquidators - Whether right of first refusal was made based on valuation - Whether right of first refusal offered and accepted based on a fair value - Whether an objection by a contributory could halt decision of liquidator
|
|
|
ABDUL AZIZ HUSAIN v. ARKITEK SENIFORMASI SDN BHD & ORS The plaintiffs having been duly appointed as consultants when there were no contemporaneous documents tendered to dispute their appointment and their attendance during all meetings were undisputed, a claim for consultancy fees based on unchallenged invoices issued should be allowed. CONTRACT: Claim for work done - Claim for professional consultant fee - Dispute as to appointment of plaintiffs - Allegation that work commenced without approval of defendant - Undisputed invoices - Whether plaintiffs were duly appointed by defendant as a team to provide consultancy services - Whether verbal instructions to commence work were given and agreed upon by parties during meeting - Whether consultancy services were subject to any budget constraint - Whether defendant's witnesses could challenge fees charged by plaintiffs
|
|
|
CO-OPBANK PERTAMA MALAYSIA BERHAD v. FADZLINA SHAARI A charge being registered is evidence that any unfitness for which the charge instrument was suspended had been rectified and that any stamp duty payable has been paid. A charge having been duly registered cannot be impeached at the stage where an order for sale is sought on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped at the time of registration. LAND LAW: Charge - Order for sale - Cause to the contrary - Chargor alleged no valid charge created as charge instrument was suspended due to non-payment of stamp duty - Whether there was a registered charge upon which chargee could commence foreclosure proceedings and obtain an order for sale - Whether suspended charge instrument was rectified within stipulated time - Whether charge has been duly registered - Whether issue on insufficiency of payment of stamp duty was a factual matter that requires averments and proof by affidavit evidence - Whether charge duly registered could be impeached during application for order for sale
|
CLJ 2021 Volume 5 (Part 5)
The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (POCA) and its s. 4 was legitimately birthed and is not unconstitutional as it is within the province of the Legislature in accordance with the powers granted under art. 149 of the Federal Constitution (FC) to enact the Act and the section to address the mischief of national security. This said, any challenge to the constitutionality of s. 4 , and any challenge to the legality of a remand order issued under s. 4(1)(a) thereof by the Magistrate on the grounds that s. 4 is inconsistent with art. 121 of the FC must be based on the existing art. 121, and not on its pre-amendment (Act A704) provision. To interpret a law based on a provision that no longer reflects the position of the existing law is misconceived and defies the canons of construction and legal logic. Similarly, the argument that s. 4 is unconstitutional because it draws away the Magistrate's discretion and compels him to act upon the dictate of the Executive, and therefore violates the concept of separation of power which forms the basic structure of the Constitution, is also misconceived. The basic structure doctrine has no place in Malaysia, and in any case, in view of art. 149 of the FC, the constitutionality of s. 4 must be tested against the provisions of the FC itself and no other.
Zaidi Kanapiah v. ASP Khairul Fairoz Rodzuan & Ors And Other Appeals [2021] 5 CLJ 581 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Application for - Writ of habeas corpus against legality of detention - Applicants detained pursuant to s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether detention violated rights of applicants - Whether made in bad faith - Whether procedurally improper - Whether in breach of applicants' constitutional right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Whether detention illegal and/or irrational - Whether Magistrate exercised discretion judicially - Whether legal procedural and constitutional safeguards under s. 4 of POCA strictly complied with before remand order issued - Federal Constitution, art. 5(5)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Preventive detention - Detention under s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA constitutional - Whether detention violated constitutional rights of applicants - Whether requirements of s. 4(1) of POCA complied with - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA violates doctrine of separation of powers by requiring Judiciary to act upon dictate of Executive - Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 121 & 149
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Constitutional rights - Breach - Applicants detained pursuant to s. 4(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether in breach of applicants' constitutional right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Whether s. 4(1) of POCA complied with - Whether jurisdiction and powers of courts under POCA violated amended art. 121 of Federal Constitution - Whether s. 4 of POCA valid and constitutional - Whether appeal academic - Federal Constitution, arts. 5, 121 & 149
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
- For the appellants - Gopal Sri Ram, Gobind Singh Deo, Jacky Loi Yap Loong, Nur Aminathul Mardiah Md Nor, Sara Ann Chay, Yasmeen Soh-Sha Nisse, Meneesha Kaur, Tiffani Chin, Manvir Singh, Marcus Lee & How Li; M/s TY Teh & Partners
- For the respondent - Muhammad Sinti, Zulkipli Abdullah, Nur Jihan Mohd Azman, Shahidah Nafisah Leman; SFCs, Muhamad Safuan Azhar; FC
1. In deciding the right of guardianship and custody of a child, although the wishes of the parents are to be considered, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. However, the grant of custody order should be subject to the right of access to the child by the parent who was deprived of custody as a young infant needs consistency in the persons he is with, in his schedule and in his surroundings and environment. Notwithstanding, it would not be in the child's best interest for the parent who was deprived of custody to have free unscheduled unsupervised access to the child.
2. While each parent has a statutory duty to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of a child, the husband/father, may have to pay maintenance to his wife and child during the course of matrimonial proceedings. In determining the amount of maintenance payable by the husband/father, the court will take into account, inter alia, (i) the father's means and the child's needs; (ii) the lifestyle and station of life of parties during the marriage; (iii) whether the wife/mother is working and had her own income; and (iv) the duration of the marriage.
CCKY v. CCT [2021] 5 CLJ 693 [HC]
FAMILY LAW: Children - Guardianship - Application by mother for sole guardianship - Primary considerations in deciding guardianship of child - Whether in welfare and best interest of child for mother to be sole guardian of child
FAMILY LAW: Children - Custody - Application by mother for sole custody of child - Primary considerations in custody of child - Amount of access ought to be granted to father - Whether free access - Whether in best interest of child for father to have free unscheduled and unsupervised access to child - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 96
FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Maintenance for child - Factors considered in deciding maintenance payable for child - Parents' statutory obligation to maintain child - Father's means and needs of child - Lifestyle and station of life of parties during marriage - Whether father solely responsible for child's maintenance - Whether mother working - Sum of maintenance and arrears payable - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, ss. 77, 78, 92 & 93
FAMILY LAW: Maintenance - Spousal maintenance - Claim by wife - Factors considered in deciding maintenance for wife - Husband's statutory obligation to pay maintenance to wife - Whether wife working and had own income - Duration of marriage - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976
FAMILY LAW: Family violence - Restraining order - Application for - Allegations of domestic violence - Wife verbally and physically abused by husband - Application for restraining order against husband from assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening and/or otherwise forcing his society upon or interfering with wife, wife's family and/or child - Whether allegations of domestic violence proven - Whether restraining order and/or injunction ought to be granted
FAIZAH JAMALUDIN J
- For the plaintiff - YN Foo & Kiran Dhaliwal; M/s YN Foo & Partners
- For the defendant - Albert Koo & YM Poh; M/s Chin & Rakan-Rakan
(i) A beneficiary to the estate of a deceased, although not the registered proprietor, has the locus to lodge an appeal to a State Authority against the decision of the District Land Administrator under s. 16 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA'). The beneficiary falls under the category of 'person aggrieved' under s. 16(2) of the ESA as he has an interest in such estate and has to act fast in order to preserve the deceased's estate, as the time limit granted to lodge the appeal is only 21 days.
(ii) The State Authority is functus officio and has no power to revise its previous decision in an appeal for compensation in a wayleave procedure under s. 11(2) of the ESA. The issuance of a second decision would tantamount to the State Authority acting against the ESA, the principle of res judicata and in excess of its own jurisdiction; consequently, such revision of its earlier decision would be considered null and void and liable to be set aside despite having been made pursuant to a consent order.
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & Ors [2021] 5 CLJ 722 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application to quash decision - Compensation by District Land Administrator under s. 16(1) of Electricity Supply Act 1990 ('ESA') - Amount revised by State Authority - Compensation amount revised again by way of consent order - Whether decision of State Authority could be challenged - Whether land owner aggrieved person - Whether State Authority entitled to review its previous decision - Whether consent order was attempt to review decision by State Authority - Whether decision of State Authority final - Whether consent order could be sustained
WAN AHMAD FARID WAN SALLEH J
- For the applicant - Hadi Mukhlis Khairulmaini; M/s Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership
- For the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th respondents - Nik Habri Muhamad; State Legal Advisor, Kelantan
- For the 5th respondent - Siti Amira Mohd Arifin; M/s Azhar & Fazuny
LNS Article(s)
MAQASID AL-SHARIAH EMPHASISES THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE* [Read excerpt]
by Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxiiiCAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN MALAYSIA AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS: FINDING AN EQUILIBRIUM [Read excerpt]
by Noor Hasliza binti Mohd Yusoff* Zuhair bin Rosli** [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxivLEGAL ANALYSIS OF ONLINE HARASSMENT VIA SOCIAL MEDIA IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Faeq bin Fuad[i] Insyirah binti Ishkandar[ii] Kavitharini A/P T Ramesh[iii] Khor Mei Hui[iv] [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxv
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) 263/2021 | Self-Employment Social Security (Supply) Regulations 2021 | 8 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 789 |
| PU(A) 262/2021 | Employment Insurance System (Supply) Regulations 2021 | 8 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 800 |
| PU(A) 261/2021 | Federal Roads (West Malaysia) (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 2021 | 8 June 2021 | 15 June 2021 | PU(A) 401/1989 |
| PU(A) 260/2021 | Armed Forces (Cyber and Electromagnetic Defence Division) Order 2021 | 8 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 77 |
| PU(A) 259/2021 | Employees' Social Security (Supply) Regulations 2021 | 8 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 4 |
PU(B)
| Number | Title | Date of Publication | In force from | Principal/ Amending Act No |
| PU(B) 331/2021 | Declaration Under Section 3 | 9 June 2021 | 10 June 2021 | ACT 537 |
| PU(B) 330/2021 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and District Superintendent | 9 June 2021 | 10 June 2021 | ACT 16 |
| PU(B) 329/2021 | Reservation of Land For Public Purpose Lot 81602 Mukim Batu | 8 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 828 |
| PU(B) 328/2021 | Appointment of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar of The Industrial Court | 8 June 2021 | Specified in column (3) of the Schedule | ACT 177 |
| PU(B) 327/2021 | Declaration of Road At Federal Territory of Labuan As Designated Federal Territory Road | 4 June 2021 | 9 June 2021 | ACT 333 |
Legislation Alert
Updated
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Amended by | In force from | Section amended |
| PU(A) 479/1998 | Perintah Fi (Pas Penggajian, Pas Lawatan (Kerja Sementara) Dan Pas Kerja) 1998 | PU(A) 258/2021 | 8 Jun 2021 | Jadual IB |
| PU(A) 479/1998 | Fees (Employment Pass, Visit Pass (Temporary Employment) and Work Pass) Order 1998 | PU(A) 258/2021 | 8 June 2021 | Schedule IB |
| PU(B) 185/2019 | Pelantikan Anggota Dan Anggota Silih Ganti Lembaga | PU(B) 321/2021 | 3 Jun 2021 | Jadual |
| PU(B) 185/2019 | Appointment of Members and Alternate Members of the Board | PU(B) 321/2021 | 3 June 2021 | Schedule |
| AKTA 452 | Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991 | PU(A) 253/2021 | 8 Jun 2021 | Seksyen 54 |
Revoked
| Act/Principal No. | Title | Revoked by | In force from |
| PU(B) 402/2016 | Appointment of Registrar | PU(B) 314/2021 | 12 April 2021 |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Peraturan-Peraturan Pencegahan Dan Pengawalan Penyakit Berjangkit (Langkah-Langkah Di Dalam Kawasan Tempatan Jangkitan) 2021 | PU(A) 243/2021 | 1 Jun 2021 hingga 14 Jun 2021 |
| PU(A) 225/2021 | Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures Within Infected Local Areas) Regulations 2021 | PU(A) 243/2021 | 1 June 2021 to 14 June 2021 |
| PU(B) 463/2016 | Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Registrar of Credit Reporting Agencies | PU(B) 297/2021 | 16 March 2021 |
| PU(A) 260/2013 | Income Tax (Deduction For Training Costs Under Skim Latihan 1Malaysia For Unemployed Graduates) Rules 2013 | PU(A) 228/2021 | 11 September 2019 |