Back to Top

Print this page

Issue #26/2021 01 July 2021

New This Week Case(s) of the Week DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD v. EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD [2021] 6 CLJ 286 BALAMURUGAN VEERASAMY v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & SATU LAGI [2021] 6 CLJ 267 JUDICIAL QUOTES  Latest Cases Legal Network Series CLJ 2021 Volume 6 (Part 2) Articles LNS Article(s) Legislation Highlights Principal Acts Amending Acts PU(A) PU(B) Legislation Alert

DRAGGER ENGINEERING (M) SDN BHD v.
EXORA TRADING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD [2021] 6 CLJ 286
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: WA-12BNCVC-48-06-2020]
20 APRIL 2021

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Trial - Appeal - Appellate intervention - Application to discharge extracted by counsel on date fixed for trial - Judge fixed another date to hear discharge of counsel but proceeded with trial - Party unrepresented - Whether judge erred in proceeding with trial - Whether party given adequate opportunity to take appropriate steps to defend itself at trial - Whether caused miscarriage of justice justifying appellate intervention

---

BALAMURUGAN VEERASAMY v. MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & SATU LAGI [2021] 6 CLJ 267
MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MARIANA YAHYA H
[SEMAKAN KEHAKIMAN NO: WA-25-41-01-2020]
10 MARCH 2021

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan - Permohonan semakan terhadap perintah Menteri Dalam Negeri - Pemohon dituduh atas kesalahan berkaitan keganasan berikutan perintah - Sama ada pemohon pihak yang terkilan dengan perintah - Sama ada keputusan atas perintah boleh disemak melalui semakan kehakiman - Sama ada pemohon telah mengguna remedi domestik terlebih dahulu - Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001, s. 66B

HAD MASA: Tindakan - Pemfailan - Permohonan semakan terhadap perintah Menteri Dalam Negeri - Pemohon dituduh atas kesalahan berkaitan keganasan berikutan perintah - Sama ada terdapat kelewatan memfailkan semakan kehakiman - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 53 k. 3(6)

---

“What appears to be axiomatic from the diaspora of decisions on the issue regarding defamation suits being brought by Government bodies or Government officials can be summarised as follows. Firstly, although there needs to be a balance in the protection of free speech on the one hand and the protection of individual reputations on the other, freedom of speech and expression remains sacrosanct and should be protected at all costs. Secondly, it is an anathema to a modern constitutional democracy to permit elected Government authority to commence actions for damages for defamation against its citizens for the simple reason that it is those citizens who decide on that Government or authority being placed in power. Thirdly, if, however, the impugned defamatory publications actually identify individuals in Government in their attacks rather than being blanket critiques of Government policy or action per se, then those individuals so identified have every right to commence actions in their personal capacities, if their reputations have been affected as a result.” – per Harminder Singh Dhaliwal FCJ in Lim Guan Eng v. Ruslan Kassim & Another Appeal [2021] 4 CLJ 155

---

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 586	MALAYSIA RANI VISVALINGAM & SATU LAGI lwn. PP 1. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil orang yang dilihat bersama tertuduh di dalam CCTV tidak akan menyebabkan anggapan bertentangan dibangkitkan terhadap kes pendakwaan dan seterusnya menjejaskan kes pendakwaan apabila saksi-saksi pendakwaan telah memberikan keterangan yang mencukupi untuk membuktikan kesalahan yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh. 2. Penyeludupan migran boleh berlaku walaupun orang-orang yang hendak diseludup keluar dari Malaysia masih berada di Malaysia atau dalam transit di Malaysia. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang dan Anti Penyeludupan Migran 2007 ('ATIPSOM') - Seksyen 26A - Penyeludupan keluar migran dari Malaysia - Migran menggunakan passport Malaysia yang tidak sah dengan nama samaran yang berbeza dengan nama sebenar - Passport dipegang oleh tertuduh-tertuduh - Sama ada penggunaan passport Malaysia dan nama yang berbeza adalah bertujuan untuk memperdayakan pihak berkuasa - Sama ada tertuduh secara tidak langsung telah memberi bantuan atau perkhidmatan untuk memudahkan pengeluaran orang-orang yang diseludup secara tidak sah keluar dari Malaysia - Sama ada tertuduh mengetahui dan mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai bahawa pengeluaran migran dari Malaysia adalah tidak sah - Sama ada penyeludupan migran boleh berlaku walaupun orang-orang yang diseludup masih berada dalam transit di Malaysia KETERANGAN: Inferen bertentangan - Kes pendakwaan - Kegagalan memanggil orang yang dilihat bersama tertuduh di dalam CCTV sebagai saksi - Pertuduhan penyeludupan migran - Pihak pendakwaan tidak mempunyai sebarang maklumat yang material mengenai orang yang dilihat di dalam CCTV bersama tertuduh - Kewujudan keterangan-keterangan lain yang cukup untuk mensabitkan tertuduh - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada inferen bertentangan wajar dibangkitkan ke atas kes pendakwaan di atas kegagalan memanggil saksi apabila wujud keterangan yang cukup untuk mensabitkan tertuduh PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan - Pertuduhan yang defektif - Pertuduhan tidak menyatakan nama orang yang bersubahat - Tertuduh mempertikaikan pertuduhan di peringkat rayuan - Dakwaan pertuduhan yang defektif tidak pernah dibangkitkan semasa peringkat perbicaraan - Sama ada berlaku apa-apa kegagalan keadilan atau salah laksana keadilan yang memerlukan campur tangan Mahkamah di peringkat rayuan - Sama ada pertuduhan adalah sah dan teratur - Kanun Tatacara Jenayah, ss 152 , 153 , 154 Bagi pihak perayu - CR Selva; T/n CR Selva Bagi pihak responden - TPR Anis Wahidah Mohamad; Bahagian Pendakwaan, Jabatan Peguam Negara; Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
[2019] 1 LNS 1119	MUHMED AZROEL HASSAN & YANG LAIN lwn. PP DAN KES YANG LAIN 1. Keterangan mangsa dalam kes rogol berkenaan penglibatan tertuduh tidak wajar ditolak semata-mata kerana ketiadaan bukti DNA tertuduh dikemukakan. Tanpa kehadiran DNA tertuduh tersebut, penglibatan tertuduh boleh dibuktikan melalui keterangan sokongan lain terutama pengecaman positif identiti tertuduh yang dibuat oleh mangsa. 2. Seseorang tertuduh yang telah mencapai umur lebih dari 18 tahun semasa perbicaraan dan ketika tarikh jatuh hukum boleh dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan mengikut peruntukan di bawah Kanun Keseksaan dan bukan menurut Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 walaupun tertuduh berumur kurang daripada 18 tahun ketika perlakuan jenayah. UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rogol - Seksyen 376 Kanun Keseksaan - Mangsa telah dirogol beramai-ramai oleh tertuduh-tertuduh - Mangsa menggunakan cahaya telefon bimbit yang dipegangnya dan menyuluh ke muka tertuduh untuk mengecam setiap tertuduh - Mangsa telah mengecam tertuduh ketika kawad cam - Mangsa dirogol bersama mangsa yang lain - Kewujudan saksi mata di tempat kejadian - Sama ada mangsa berupaya mengecam tertuduh-tertuduh secara positif - Sama ada kehadiran air mani tertuduh di atas tilam di mana mangsa dirogol menunjukkan bahawa keterangan mangsa bahawa dia telah dirogol telah disokong - Sama ada intipati kesalahan masih boleh dibuktikan tanpa bukti DNA - Sama ada keterangan mangsa berkenaan penglibatan tertuduh wajar ditolak semata-mata kerana ketiadaan keterangan DNA UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rogol - Rogol berkanun - Mangsa telah dirogol beramai-ramai oleh tertuduh-tertuduh - Laporan perubatan mengesahkan kewujudan peninggalan sisa hymen dan kemasukan objek tumpul secara berulang-ulang di dalam kemaluan mangsa - Sama ada keterangan laporan pakar menyokong keterangan mangsa bahawa beliau dirogol secara kekerasan berulang kali oleh ramai perogol - Sama ada keizinan dan kerelaan mangsa adalah relevan - Sama ada intipati pertuduhan telah dibuktikan KETERANGAN: Sokongan - Laporan polis - Pertuduhan rogol - Sama ada laporan polis yang dibuat oleh mangsa adalah dokumen bertulis yang diterima bagi menyokong keterangan saksi di bawah s. 157 Akta Keterangan 1950 - Sama ada pernyataan yang dibuat di dalam laporan polis adalah dianggap benar PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan rogol - Mangsa mengenali tertuduh dan mengecam wajah tertuduh ketika kejadian - Tertuduh menafikan berada di tempat kejadian - Tertuduh tidak membangkitkan pembelaan alibi - Tertuduh mendakwa kehadiran air maninya di tempat kejadian adalah disebabkan perbuatan onani semasa berlepak bersama rakan-rakannya - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh adalah bersifat pemikiran terkemudian - Sama ada pembelaan alibi wajar dipertimbangkan tanpa notis alibi PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan rogol - Mangsa-mangsa dirogol secara beramai-ramai - Tindakan tertuduh tanpa berperikemanusiaan dan kejam - Mangsa masih muda - Tahap keadaan kecederaan kemaluan mangsa yang teruk sehingga meninggalkan serpihan hymen sahaja - Mangsa mengalami pendarahan yang banyak - Kesemua tertuduh telah mengambil kesempatan terhadap mangsa-mangsa yang masih muda dan naif - Mangsa ditahan dan dikepung sebelum dirogol - Mangsa tidak mempunyai peluang untuk melarikan diri - Sabitan selepas bicara penuh yang mengambil masa yang panjang - Sama ada kejadian rogol telah memberikan kesan kepada mangsa-mangsa dan ahli keluarga mereka - Sama ada hukuman penjara yang panjang adalah wajar PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Penghukuman - Pesalah kanak-kanak - Pertuduhan rogol - Tertuduh telah mencapai umur 18 tahun semasa bicara dan tarikh jatuh hukum - Penyandaran kepada keadaan sekeliling - Tertuduh bertindak ganas ke atas mangsa - Sama ada tertuduh wajar dikenakan hukuman pemenjaraan mengikut peruntukan di bawah Kanun Keseksaan atau Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 - Sama ada penyandaran kepada laporan sosial dan akhlak adalah mandatori Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Siti Hajar Alias; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-46-07/2017) & (DA-42S-48-07/2017) - Zuhaidie Akmal Hasan Basri; T/n Zuhaidie Akmal & Najwa Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-50-07/2017) & (DA-42S-52-07/2017) - Nik Mohd Nashriq Mohd Nazman; T/n Nm Nash & Adlina Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-43 & 45-07/2017) - Mohd Zubairi Salleh; T/n Rafizi Zubairi & Co Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-47-07/2017) - Ahmad Nizam Mohamed; T/n Alias Ibrahim & Co Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-41-07/2017) - Ariyani Mohd Amin @ Abdul Hamid; T/n Zulfikri, Ariyani, Sh Mahanom & Co Bagi pihak defendan NO. KES (DA-42S-44-07/2017) & (DA-42S-51-07/2017) - Ahmad Nurie Ab Rahman; T/n Nurie Khairuddin & Co
[2019] 1 LNS 1194	MOGANRAJ VIJAYAN lwn. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI MALAYSIA & YANG LAIN Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri mempunyai budibicara di bawah peruntukan s. 11(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 untuk membuat keputusan dalam melanjutkan tempoh perintah tahanan setelah menimbangkan cadangan atau pendapat Lembaga Penasihat. PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Perlanjutan perintah tahanan - Cabaran terhadap keputusan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri ('Menteri') dalam melanjutkan tempoh perintah tahanan - Budibicara Menteri - Sama ada keputusan untuk melanjutkan perintah tahanan adalah selaras dengan cadangan Lembaga Penasihat - Sama ada Menteri mempunyai budibicara untuk menerima cadangan Lembaga Penasihat berdasarkan s. 11(4) Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-Langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 ('Akta') - Sama ada keputusan Menteri adalah selaras dengan kehendak s. 11A(1)(a)(aa) Akta - Sama ada perlanjutan perintah tahanan adalah teratur dan sah Bagi pihak pemohon - Jay Moy Wei Jiun; T/n Sivananthan Bagi pihak responden-responden - FC Raihana, Peguam Persekutuan
[2019] 1 LNS 1630	PLISCH BROADCAST ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD v. ASIA MEDIA SDN BHD It is incumbent upon the court to look at the surrounding facts and circumstances to ascertain the intention of the parties when there is no concluded agreement between the parties. In relation to supply and delivery of goods, the intention or parties may be inferred from the contemporaneous documents such as emails, delivery orders and invoices. CONTRACT: Intention - Intention of parties - Supply and delivery of broadcasting transmitters - Written agreement pending amendment - Whether there was an effective agreement between parties - Whether surrounding facts and circumstances ought to be referred in order to ascertain intention of parties - Whether defendant had intended to purchase transmitters - Whether intention of defendant to purchase transmitters could be inferred from emails, delivery orders and invoices SALE OF GOODS: Goods sold and delivered - Claim for price of goods supplied to defendant - Supply of broadcasting transmitters - Transmitters were not installed as there were no suitable sites - Whether defendant had purchased transmitters - Whether defendant was responsible to look for new sites - Whether plaintiff could be faulted for not installing transmitters - Whether plaintiff was entitled to claim for transmitters supplied and delivered For the plaintiff - Gunaseelan & Fahrhanah Nisshaa; M/s Gunaseelan & Associates For the defendant - M Scully; M/s Advocates & Solicitors
[2019] 1 LNS 1634	GOPAL KRISHNAN v. TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI, MALAYSIA & ORS In justifying a detention order, the respondents must explain their detention process perfectly and not only upon it being raised or questioned by the applicant. The respondents must provide an explanation where there appears to be a gap in the date of submission and reception of Borang I to the advisory board; the failure to provide evidence to explain the gap is fatal and would further render the detention order unlawful. PREVENTIVE DETENTION: Detention order - Application for writ of habeas corpus - Detention under s. 6(1) of Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 - Existence of 1 day gap between date of submission and reception of Borang I to advisory board - Absence of evidence to explain gap - Whether detention of applicant was valid - Whether respondent must explain detention processes perfectly although issues relating to detention were not raised in applicant's affidavit - Whether failure on part of respondent to explain gap was fatal - Whether provisions of art 5(1) , 5 (2) and 151(1) of Federal Constitution has been infringed - Whether writ of habeas corpus ought to be granted For the applicant - Matthews Jude; M/s Naran Singh & Co For the respondents - Muhammad Sinti; Federal Counsel Ministry of Home Affairs

---

CLJ 2021 Volume 6 (Part 2)

Section 8(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 is an absolute bar to the award of exemplary damages in an estate claim. In order to be entitled to exemplary damages, the plaintiff himself must be the victim of the punishable behaviour. The objective of the grant of exemplary damages is not to compensate the plaintiff but to punish and deter the defendant from and for committing such wrongs. The Federal Constitution does not provide the right of the estate of a deceased to such damages.
Koperal Zainal Mohd Ali & Ors v. Selvi Narayan (Pentadbir Bersama Estet Dan Tanggungan Chandran Perumal, Si Mati) & Anor [2021] 6 CLJ 157 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A Malaysian former High Officer of the Asian International Arbitration Centre, established under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation ('AALCO'), enjoys immunity from any civil or criminal suit or legal process in respect of acts and things that he had done previously in his capacity as the High Officer of the organisation, unless the Host Country Agreement - entered into between Malaysia and the AALCO - or the International Organisation (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1992 provides otherwise. The decision of the Attorney General to prefer the criminal charges against a former High Officer, despite being fully aware of the latter's legal immunity status, was tainted with illegality and, as such, amenable to judicial review and ought to be quashed.
Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v. Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 199 [FC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The transfer of any property belonging to a company after the commencement of winding-up proceedings against it is void if it does not comply with s. 223 of the Companies Act 1965 . The disposition of the lands are rendered null and void and of no effect, save where there is a validation by the winding-up court.
Azabar Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Kumarappan KM Palaniappan & Anor [2021] 6 CLJ 240 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

The application for the appointment of an accountancy firm for the preparation of an expert report consequent to the grant of the Buy-Out Order and the Accountant Order, and as a result of the appellant's petition for an oppression action against the respondents which was anchored on, inter alia, accounting malpractices and financial wrong doings, was consistent with the purpose of the grant of the Order.
Rinota Construction Sdn Bhd v. Mascon Rinota Sdn Bhd & Ors [2021] 6 CLJ 256 [CA]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

'Perintah Entiti Ditentukan' yang dibuat oleh Menteri di bawah ss. 66B dan 66D Akta 613 mengisytiharkan Kumpulan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam sebagai kumpulan pengganas dibuat atas faktor ketenteraman awam dan keselamatan negara, dan itu adalah munasabah dan selaras dengan peruntukan undang-undang serta tidak bercanggah dengan per. 5, 8 dan 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan ; keputusan Menteri itu tidak terbuka untuk semakan kehakiman; sementelah terdapat: (i) kelewatan melebihi lima tahun dalam membuat permohonan; (ii) pemohon bukan 'orang yang terkesan' seperti maksud s. 66B(3) ; dan (iii) kegagalan menggunakan remedi domestik terlebih dahulu iaitu dengan merayu kepada Menteri seperti yang diperuntukkan bawah s. 66B(6) Akta 613.
Balamurugan Veerasamy v. Menteri Dalam Negeri & Satu Lagi [2021] 6 CLJ 267 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

A trial judge, when confronted with an application by counsel to discharge himself from further representing a client, must hear and address the application before proceeding or continuing with the trial. To not adjudicate on the application and to proceed instead with the trial with no participation from the client's counsel, as was done by the learned Sessions Court Judge herein, was to deny the client a fair representation and constituted a miscarriage of justice. A decision reached thereat was thus liable to be set aside; and an order for retrial was appropriately warranted and called for.
Dragger Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd v. Exora Trading & Construction Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 CLJ 286 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

In cases where only the corporation (and not its officer(s)) is being charged with an offence under the Environmental Quality Act 1974, there is no legal basis for the sentencing court to pass, upon a conviction, a fine sentence together with the default imprisonment sentence. The Sessions Court here had thus erred when it meted out such sentences on the respondent company for offences under s. 16(1) of the Act. Be that as it may, the fines of RM13,000 and RM15,000 meted out herein were inadequate, bearing in mind the six previous convictions committed by the respondent. The sentences were hence substituted with the maximum fines allowable by law, ie, RM25,000 for each of the two offences.
PP v. Prolific Yield Sdn Bhd [2021] 6 CLJ 294 [HC]

• SUBJECT
• CORAM
• COUNSEL

---

LNS Article(s)

1. RIGHT TO ARREST VESSELS POST-JUDGMENT/AWARD – WHAT IS THE TIDE?* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by
   Siva Kumar Kanagasabai^[i] Trishelea Ann Sandosam^[ii] Adam Thye^[iii] [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxxii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxxii



MALAYSIA

---

RIGHT TO ARREST VESSELS POST-JUDGMENT/AWARD – WHAT IS THE TIDE?*

by
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai^[i]
Trishelea Ann Sandosam^[ii]
Adam Thye^[iii]

The right to arrest a vessel in an action in rem, i.e. an action against property, is primarily used to obtain security for a future court judgment or arbitral award. But can such right of arrest be exercised against a vessel after a judgment or arbitral award has been obtained pursuant to an in personam action (i.e. an action against a person)?

This is an important question as the advantages and benefits of arrest are manifold. An arrest, which forces the vessel to remain within a jurisdiction, can be exercised based on a prima facie case at the commencement of the in rem proceedings and is relatively easier to obtain than an injunction. The arrest also places pressure on the party whose vessel has been arrested to provide security for the vessel’s release and once judgment in an in rem action has been obtained, the arresting party enjoys higher priority from the proceeds of sale of the vessel as compared to certain categories of creditors.

. . .

*© 2021 Skrine. This Article was first published in Alerts, a Skrine Newsletter. Reproduced with permission by Skrine.

[i] Siva Kumar Kanagasabai (Partner).

[ii] Trishelea Ann Sandosam (Partner).

[iii] Adam Thye (Associate).

[1] The categories of claim recognised in Malaysia (and the UK) as giving rise to a maritime lien are damage done by a ship, master's disbursements, master's wages, crew wages, salvage and bottomry.

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

2. THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND PROTECTION OF DATA FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE* ^{[Read excerpt]}
   by Shahino Mah Abdullah [2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiii

[2021] 1 LNS(A) lxxxiii



MALAYSIA

---

THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND PROTECTION OF DATA FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE*

by
Shahino Mah Abdullah

Generally, AI depends on the data sets provided by humans to support its algorithm to learn. Its strength mostly lies in its computational power and ability to process data with high accuracy, speed and repetitive action in real-time. As long as the task can be broken down into data, AI will be able to learn, process, and complete it. This is where the role of big data is essential for AI to run efficiently, helping it to achieve better decisions and strategic moves. In this regard, AI machine learning needs a huge amount of data to train its algorithm, for which the largest source of data is the web, where most data is unstructured. Big data provided to those AI machines capable of mimicking human cognitive functions allows all types of data to be collected, stored and analysed by advanced analytical methods. It helps big tech companies, for instance, get to know their users' preferences-Google can learn about their users' searches, Amazon can predict product demand, Facebook can improve the accuracy of images, etc. However, there are significant ethical challenges surrounding the process of information extraction, ranging from risks to individual rights, privacy and autonomy, to transparency and trust.

. . .

* Published with kind permission of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. (www.iais.org.my).

---

Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.

Principal Acts

Amending Acts

PU(A)

PU(B)

Legislation Alert