CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
SIS FORUM (MALAYSIA) v. KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR;
MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR (INTERVENER)  3 CLJ 339
FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ; ROHANA YUSUF PCA; AZAHAR MOHAMED CJ (MALAYA); ABANG ISKANDAR CJ (SABAH AND SARAWAK); MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ; VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ; ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CASE NO: BKA-1-01-2021(W)]
21 FEBRUARY 2022
Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 which seeks to give the Syariah courts the jurisdiction and power to hear and decide on judicial review, being a provision which the Selangor State Legislature (SSL) has no power or competency to make, is unconstitutional and void. The substantive jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts is strictly defined by Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; the issue of the absence of the power of judicial review or the power to grant public law remedies in Item 1 aside, it is plain that none of the limbs in Item 1 can be construed as conferring power on SSL to enact s. 66A or to enable the Syariah Court to engage in judicial review. This said, the judicial power of the Federation, of which the 'constitutional' and 'statutory' judicial review are a specie, is by constitutional design exclusively vested in the Civil Superior Courts, as to clothe them with supervisory jurisdiction over legislation passed by any Legislature, as well as the jurisdiction to decide on constitutional issues or to issue public law remedies; the Syariah Courts, on the other hand, for not sharing the same constitutional guarantees of judicial independence as the Civil Superior Courts, are as a matter of constitutional policy incapable of exercising judicial power.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Challenging validity of fatwa - Whether High Court dispossessed of any jurisdiction to consider validity of fatwa - Whether validity of fatwa to be determined in Syariah court in accordance with s. 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity of State legislation - Section 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Syariah courts have power to hear and decide judicial reviews - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil High Courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Jurisdiction - Civil and Syariah courts - Challenging validity of fatwa - Whether High Court dispossessed of any jurisdiction to consider validity of fatwa - Whether validity of fatwa to be determined in Syariah court in accordance with s. 66A of Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 - Whether Syariah courts have power to hear and decide judicial reviews - Whether Selangor State Legislative Assembly ('SSLA') has authority to make enactment giving Syariah courts power to carry out judicial reviews of Islamic authorities' decisions - Whether item 1, List II (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution conferred powers on SSLA to enact s. 66A - Whether s. 66A unconstitutional and void - Whether judicial power of Federation, including judicial reviews, rests solely in civil High Courts - Federal Constitution, arts. 4(1) & 121(1)
WORDS & PHRASES: 'Constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts' - Item 1, List II, (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Interpretation of - Whether conferred powers on Syariah courts to engage in judicial review
WORDS & PHRASES: 'Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam' - Item 1, List II, (State List) of Ninth Schedule of Federal Constitution - Interpretation of - Whether intended to only cover subject matter of personal laws applying to natural persons - Whether to confer judicial review powers on Syariah courts
Majlis Amanah Rakyat v. Ten-Tel And Construction  1 LNS 991 overruling the High Court case of Ten-Tel And Construction v. Majlis Amanah Rakyat [Civil Suit No PA-22NCvC-04-05/2017]
Impact Elite Golf Academy Sdn Bhd v. Mines Excellence Golf Resort Berhad  1 LNS 2174 overruling in part the High Court case of Impact Elite Golf Academy Sdn Bhd v. Mines Excellence Golf Resort Berhad  1 LNS 390
Legal Network Series
 1 LNS 313
MOHD HAIRIE HAIQAL BHADIF SAGAS v. MOHD ZANI CHE DIN
1. A disciplinary authority that decided to dismiss a public officer must be named as a co-respondent in the judicial review proceedings brought to quash the disciplinary authority's decision. Nonetheless, the disciplinary authority's failure to participate could not defeat the judicial review proceedings. On the other hand, the applicant should be penalized for the non-joinder of the disciplinary authority by being denied costs in the judicial review proceedings.
2. Issuance of a mandamus order is a discretion of the court. Where a dismissal of a public officer by a disciplinary authority is found to be irrational and unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense, the court has discretion not to consider an order for reinstatement but instead issue a mandamus order to direct reconsideration of charges by a new panel of disciplinary authority.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Judicial review proceedings - Non-joinder - Effect of - Application to quash decision of disciplinary authority that decided to dismiss a public officer - Disciplinary authority not named as co-respondent - Whether disciplinary authority should have been made as respondent - Whether application for judicial review could be defeated by reason of non-joinder of disciplinary authority as co-respondent - Whether any substantial miscarriage of justice or prejudice could be cured by an order for costs - Rules of Court 2012, O. 1A, O. 2 r. 1(2) & O. 15 r. 6(1)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Exercise of administrative powers - Dismissal from service - Public officer - Irrationality - Contradiction of material facts in decision of disciplinary authority - Disciplinary authority first alleged did not receive officer's representation but later alleged to have considered officer's representation carefully and fairly - Whether decision of disciplinary authority was irrational and unreasonable in Wednesbury sense - Whether reinstatement justified
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Dismissal from service - Dismissal from police force - Police officer was charged for being absent on weekends without leave or prior permission - Whether police officers were automatically on leave on weekends - Whether delay in commencement of disciplinary action could be valid defence against a disciplinary offence - Whether absence from duty had been condoned by respondents - Whether charges preferred were defective
- For the applicant - Manoharan Malayalam; M/s M Manoharan & Co
- For the respondents - Liew Horng; Senior Federal Counsel; Attorney General's Chambers
 1 LNS 195
PP v. MOHD SHUKRI CHE YAACOB
The endorsement date placed by the court registry on a document is not conclusive proof that the said document was filed in compliance with the requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code but merely an endorsement of the fact that a certain document was filed at the court registry.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Notice of appeal - Delay in filing appeal - Appeal by public prosecutor - Notice of appeal was faxed to court registry within time but filed five days after expiration date - Whether there was any application for extension of time to rectify delay - Whether endorsement date by court registry on fax copy of notice of appeal was conclusive proof that appeal has been filed in compliance with requirement of s. 307(1) of Criminal Procedure Code - Whether court could grant an abridgment for delay in filing of notice of appeal by public prosecutor - Whether delay in filing notice of appeal by public prosecutor was fatal
- For the appellant - Nur Farhana Hashim; DPP
- For the respondent - V Santhiran; M/s Charanjit, V Santhiran & Partners
 1 LNS 584
GANA DASS PR PANICKER lwn. NKS AMPIKAI NK SINNADURAI & SATU LAGI
Mahkamah tidak boleh menggunakan kuasanya untuk membatalkan sesuatu tindakan apabila ia berpendapat isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam suatu permohonan pembatalan tidak boleh diputuskan tanpa mendengar keseluruhan keterangan lisan saksi berserta dokumen.
PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pembatalan - Prinsip dan prosedur - Tindakan untuk menuntut bayaran balik wang pelaburan - Kewujudan dan tujuan surat ikatan penyelesaian dipertikaikan - Sama ada mahkamah boleh membatalkan sesuatu tindakan berdasarkan penelitian dokumen secara mendalam - Sama ada tindakan boleh diputuskan tanpa mendengar keseluruhan keterangan lisan saksi berserta dokumen
- Bagi pihak perayu - Anusuya Chandra Sekaran; T/n Shobaba, Linda & Partners
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Revindran K G R Pillai; T/n Renuka Rabindranath & Assoc
 1 LNS 586
MAT NASIR NGAH lwn. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & YANG LAIN
Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ('APJ') digubal bagi menjamin keselamatan awam. Berdasarkan s. 21A APJ, keputusan untuk membekalkan laporan inkuiri kepada orang yang ditahan menurut APJ adalah isu yang perlu diputuskan oleh pihak eksekutif atau keselamatan kerana hanya pihak-pihak tersebut yang mengetahui dan mempunyai kepakaran dalam menentukan sama ada pembekalan laporan inkuiri akan memberi kesan kepada keselamatan awam. Justeru, kegagalan membekalkan laporan inkuiri kepada orang yang ditahan tidak boleh dikategorikan sebagai ketidakpatuhan prosedur.
PENAHANAN PENCEGAHAN: Perintah tahanan - Habeas corpus - Ketidakpatuhan prosedur - Tahanan bawah Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 ('APJ') - Sama ada mahkamah mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk memutuskan perbezaan-perbezaan dalam afidavit pengerusi lembaga jenayah dan pegawai penyiasat - Sama ada pihak eksekutif dan keselamatan mempunyai hak untuk membuat pertimbangan dalam mengemukakan laporan inkuiri - Sama ada kegagalan memberikan laporan inkuiri boleh menjejaskan hak pemohon - Sama ada kegagalan membekalkan laporan inkuiri merupakan suatu ketidakpatuhan prosedur yang mewajarkan campur tangan mahkamah
- Bagi pihak pemohon - Nurazimul Azami & Syamsul Azhar Abdul Aziz; T/n Azhar Aziz & Associates
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - Norazlin Mohd Yusof; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-undang Kementerian Dalam Negeri
 1 LNS 685
MOHD RIDZUAN YUSOF lwn. PP
Mahkamah di peringkat rayuan hanya akan melaksanakan kuasa budi bicara untuk membenarkan kemasukan keterangan baru sekiranya wujud keadaan yang khas atau luar biasa dan setelah kriteria-kriteria ketat penerimaan masuk suatu keterangan baru telah dipenuhi. Permohonan untuk mengemukakan keterangan baru tidak wajar dibenarkan apabila keterangan tersebut tidak mempunyai sebarang kaitan dengan isu-isu yang dibicarakan di mahkamah bicara dan alasan-alasan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan.
KETERANGAN: Keterangan baru dan selanjutnya - Permohonan untuk mengemukakan - Keterangan tambahan melalui pemeriksaan saksi-saksi - Permohonan di peringkat rayuan kes jenayah - Keterangan berkaitan rasa tidak puas hati tertuduh dan keluarga tertuduh terhadap tindak tanduk peguambela tertuduh di Mahkamah Tinggi - Sama ada terdapat keadaan yang khas atau luar biasa untuk menerima masuk keterangan tambahan - Sama ada kriteria-kriteria ketat penerimaan masuk keterangan baru dan selanjutnya telah dipenuhi - Sama ada keterangan tambahan yang hendak dikemukakan relevan kepada isu-isu yang telah dibicarakan serta alasan-alasan rayuan - Sama ada fakta yang telah sedia ada dalam rekod mahkamah adalah wajar dipertikaikan - Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964, s. 61
- Bagi pihak perayu - Fahri Azzat; T/n Fahri, Azzat & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Muhammad Azmi Mashud, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara
CLJ 2022 Volume 3 (Part 2)
The detention of foreign nationals under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) in relation to 'the organization and implementation of online gambling' herein was fundamentally flawed and illegal. Although POCA and its entire scheme applies to both citizens and non-citizens, online gambling simpliciter, for lacking the factual basis of organised crime as envisaged in art. 149(1)(a) of the FC, does not fall within the purview of POCA. This said, habeas corpus applications should always be looked at from the date of the filing of the applications; and the fact that a detenu, subsequent to his application for release, has again been preventively detained by some other authority, or under some other provision, legislation or order, does not vitiate his right to judicial scrutiny over the legality of his initial detention.
Lei Meng v. Inspektor Wayandiana Abdullah & Ors And Other Appeals  3 CLJ 177 [FC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Habeas corpus - Appeal against - Legality of detention - Detenus nationals of People's Republic of China - Detention in relation to 'the organization and implementation of online gambling' under Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Detentions have since expired although detenus detained during disposal of appeals before High Court - Whether appeals before Federal Court academic - Whether applications for habeas corpus could only be directed at presently subsisting order of detention - Whether detenus' right to judicial scrutiny over legality of detention vitiated - Whether there was live issue for Federal Court's determination - Whether High Court ought to have ordered habeas corpus
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Preventive detention - Detention under Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Detenus detained in relation to 'the organization and implementation of online gambling' - Whether online gambling simpliciter fell within scope of POCA
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Preventive detention - Detention under Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Detenus, nationals of People's Republic of China, detained in relation to 'the organization and implementation of online gambling' - Whether POCA applied to non-nationals or foreign nationals - Whether POCA restricted to only Malaysian citizens - Federal Constitution, arts. 8(1), 149 & 151(1)(a)
TENGKU MAIMUN TUAN MAT CJ
MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ
- For the appellant - Gobind Singh Deo, Mohd Haijan Omar, Loi Yap Loong, Jacky, Tiew Way Keng, Loh Suk Hwa, Marcus Lee, Lim Jin Wen & Ho Cheng En; Ms TY Teh & Partners
- For the respondents - Muhammad Sinti, Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan, Nur Jihan Mohd Azman, Farasyeriza Md Zabani & Anasuha Atiqah Mat Saidi; SFCs
The accused's conviction for trafficking of dangerous drugs under s. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was deemed unsafe as the trial judge failed to make an affirmative finding under which section he had decided to ask the accused to enter defence and under which section he had convicted the appellant. The trial judge's failure to indicate at the prima facie stage whether the accused's defence was called on direct evidence under s. 2 or presumed trafficking under s. 37(da) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 was a misdirection which had seriously prejudiced the accused, leaving him wondering which burden of proof he ought to bear in order to prove his defence.
Masih Perviaz (W/Pakistan) v. PP  3 CLJ 230 [CA]
| CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Section 39B(1)(a) - Trafficking - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Discrepancy in weight of drugs - Whether there was break in chain of evidence and tampering of drugs - Whether trial judge failed to direct his mind whether element of trafficking successfully proved under s. 2 or s. 37(da) - Whether accused prejudiced - Whether trial judge erred in deciding accused's defence an afterthought and not credible
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against - Trafficking in dangerous drugs under s. 39B of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 - Discrepancy in weight of drugs - Whether there was break in chain of evidence and tampering of drugs - Whether trial judge failed to direct his mind whether element of trafficking successfully proved under s. 2 or s. 37(da) - Whether accused prejudiced - Whether trial judge erred in deciding accused's defence an afterthought and not credible
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
- For the appellant - Dato' Rajpal Singh & Tiow Poh Nee; M/s Rajpal, Firah & Vishnu
- For the respondent - Mohd Zain Ibrahim & Muhammad Azmi Mashud; DPPs
The true nature of Form 14A in this case was solely to give effect to the renunciation, and did not constitute a gift, made by the beneficiaries who had entered into a deed of family arrangement, agreeing to distribute their late father's interest in lands, to their widowed mother. Accordingly, this attracted a fixed amount of stamp duty of RM10 pursuant to item 32(i) of Stamp Act 1949, ie conveyance or transfer not specifically charged with stamp duty.
Pemungut Duti Setem v. Lee Koy Eng  3 CLJ 252 [CA]
LAND LAW: Stamp duty - Duty chargeable on instrument of transfer - Deceased died intestate - Deceased had interest in properties - Widow and children executed deed of family arrangement to distribute deceased's interest to widow only - Widow executed instruments of transfer of deceased's interest ('Forms 14A') - Collector of Stamp Duty imposed ad valorem stamp duty on Forms 14A - Whether Forms 14A executed attracted ad valorem stamp duty under item 66(c) of Stamp Act 1949 ('SA') ie release or renunciation of property by way of gift - Whether Forms 14A executed attracted fixed amount of stamp duty of RM10 pursuant to item 32(i) of SA ie conveyance or transfer not specifically charged with stamp duty - National Land Code - Distribution Act 1958, s. 6(1)(e)
MOHAMAD ZABIDIN MOHD DIAH JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
GUNALAN MUNIANDY JCA
- For the appellant - Hazlina Hussain, Ridzuan Othman & Mohamad Asyraf Zakaria; LHDN
- For the repondent - Themous Foo, Abigail Kung & Teaw Zhen Yang; M/s Chambers of Jason Chew
Mere prayers for declaratory and consequential reliefs in the statement of claim, without particularising the material facts to support, are insufficient to fulfil requirements on the law of pleadings.
Tan Keng Yong & Anor v. Tan Hwa Ling & Ors  3 CLJ 274 [CA]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Pleadings - Allegations that disputed properties held on trust on behalf of siblings - Whether particulars of alleged trust pleaded in statement of claim - Whether trust established - Whether trial judge footed decision on unpleaded facts and expanded case beyond pleadings
TRUSTS: Creation of trust - Properties - Recovery - Allegations that disputed properties held on trust on behalf of siblings - Whether trust established - Whether supported by evidence - Whether particulars of alleged trust pleaded in statement of claim - Whether standard of proof properly applied - Whether claimants successfully discharged burden of proof - Whether there was appreciation of facts by trial - Whether claim barred by statute and laches
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
CHE MOHD RUZIMA GHAZALI JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellants - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Abraham Au Tian Hui, Simon Tan Hong Jin & Alvina Mun; M/s Aswar, Simon & Azhar
- For the respondents - Yeo Chun Ming & Leslie Looi Meng; M/s CM Yeo & Assocs
Where an accused in a charge for criminal breach of trust under s. 409 of the Penal Code was alleged to have been entrusted with monies belonging to the complainant, and the evidence as adduced showed that entrustment was made not by the complainant but by a third party, then the charge was vitiated by a flaw which could not be cured by s. 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution evidence being inconsistent with the preferred charge, the accused was entitled to be acquitted and discharged without his defence being called.
Cheah Houy Ling v. PP  3 CLJ 320 [HC]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective - Accused charged for breach of trust by public servant or agent under s. 409 of Penal Code - Complainant handed cheque to accused, insurance agent, to increase premium amount payment on insurance policy - Complainant later discovered no change in policy premium payments - Accused used monies for personal use - Whether there was entrustment of monies for payment of premium - Whether prosecution stated by whom entrustment was made - Whether ingredients of offence proven - Whether charge defective - Whether accused prejudiced
MOHD RADZI ABDUL HAMID JC
- For the appellant - Gopal Sri Ram, Yasmin Soh & Peter Siew; M/s Siew, Khairul & Co
- For the respondent - Muna Mohamed Jaffar; DPP
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND — BATTLE OF BIRKINS, NFTS, SMART CONTRACTS AND MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE METAVERSE [Read excerpt]
by Venetia Wong Shin Yee*  1 LNS(A) xxviii
 1 LNS(A) xxviii
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND —
BATTLE OF BIRKINS, NFTS, SMART CONTRACTS AND MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE METAVERSE
Venetia Wong Shin Yee*
The word 'metaverse' itself means 'beyond the universe' but what does it mean, exactly?
Imagine a virtual world where you could hang out with friends, shop for clothes, drive race cars, or do just about anything else you can without actually leaving the comfort of your home.
Taking a literal approach to the word 'metaverse', it is a portmanteau of the prefix 'meta' (meaning beyond) and 'universe' and implies that it is made up of three elements: virtual reality ('VR'), augmented reality ('AR') technology and devices to create an abstract 3-dimensional interactive space that blurs the lines between the real and the virtual worlds. In a nutshell, the Metaverse is a digital space where you can interact with other users and objects in a virtual environment and feel physically present.
. . .
DIRECTORS' INTEREST — TO DISCLOSE OR NOT TO DISCLOSE?* [Read excerpt]
by SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi**  1 LNS(A) xxix
 1 LNS(A) xxix
DIRECTORS' INTEREST — TO DISCLOSE OR NOT TO DISCLOSE?*
SM Shanmugam and Siew Hui Yi**
A director may hold more than one directorship in companies. There may be instances where these directors may cause their companies to enter into agreements or transactions in which they may have interest.
The Malaysian Companies Act 2016 imposes a duty on a director to disclose his interest to the board of directors. The provisions are, among others:
- Section 219 of the Companies Act 2016, which imposes a general duty on directors to make disclosure of, among others, particulars relating to the shares, debentures, participatory interest, rights, options and contracts to the company.
- Section 221 of the Companies Act 2016, which imposes a duty on a director to disclose his interest to the board of directors (whether directly or indirectly) in a contract or proposed contract as soon as practicable after it comes to the director's knowledge.
. . .
AKTA ANTI LOMPAT PARTI: MORALITI DIANGKAT, HAK ASASI DISEKAT? [Read excerpt]
by Khoo Khai Hau[i]Muhammad Zafran Shamil Zulkifili[ii]Prof. Madya Dr. Shahrul Mizan[iii]  1 LNS(A) xxx
 1 LNS(A) xxx
AKTA ANTI LOMPAT PARTI: MORALITI DIANGKAT, HAK ASASI DISEKAT?
Khoo Khai Hau[i]
Muhammad Zafran Shamil Zulkifili[ii]
Prof. Madya Dr. Shahrul Mizan[iii]
Akta Anti Lompat Parti merupakan undang-undang yang telah lama menjadi topik perbincangan bukan sahaja dalam kalangan ahli politik dan akademik, malah ia juga merupakan suatu isu yang sentiasa menjadi tumpuan masyarakat. Permulaan kepada tercetusnya cadangan ini adalah apabila insiden lompat parti oleh Ahli Parlimen atau Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) untuk mencukupkan jumlah majoriti mudah bagi membentuk sebuah kerajaan semakin kerap terjadi. Cadangan untuk memperkenalkan Akta Anti Lompat Parti merupakan suatu inisiatif atau usaha yang dilihat seolah-olah menyekat hak asasi warganegara Malaysia daripada berpersatuan. Tidak dapat dinafikan bahawa Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan turut memberikan mandat kepada Parlimen untuk mengenakan sebarang sekatan terhadap hak tersebut demi kepentingan serta keselamatan masyarakat dan negara. Maka, penulisan ini akan menganalisis persoalan yang timbul, iaitu adakah Akta Anti Lompat Parti ini merupakan suatu undang-undang yang perlu digubal atau ianya akan membawa kemudaratan kepada keharmonian politik tanah air? Perspektif pakar perundangan ahli politik di Malaysia yang merujuk kepada duluan kehakiman mengenai Akta Anti Lompat Parti, serta perspektif ahli falsafah Barat dari fahaman jurisprudens akan dibandingkan serta dikaji dengan ketara. Secara tuntasnya, penulisan ini mendapati bahawa perbuatan lompat parti merupakan isu yang sangat penting untuk dikaji demi kemaslahatan politik serta kebajikan rakyat yang memberi undian kepada pemimpin yang diingini, serta didapati bahawa perbuatan lompat parti adalah tidak disenangi dan peruntukan-peruntukan yang relevan harus diimplementasikan bagi membendung perbuatan tersebut.
. . .
||In force from
||Principal/Amending Act No
||Patents (Amendment) Act 2022
||18 March 2022 [PU(B) 168/2022] except s 14, para 26(a), s 45 and 47, para 48(a), s 55 and para 57(b)
||Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act 2022
||Not Yet In Force
||Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act 2022
||22 February 2022 [PU(B) 120/2022] except sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27
||Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act 2022
||Not Yet In Force
||Copyright (Amendment) Act 2022
||18 March 2022 [PU(B) 167/2022] except s 4, 5, 6 and 10
||In force from
||Akta Perubatan 1971
||5 Mac 2022
||Medical Act 1971
||5 March 2022
||Perintah Jalan Persekutuan (Sarawak) 1996
||10 Januari 2022
||Jadual Pertama dan Jadual Ketiga
||Federal Roads (Sarawak) Order 1996
||10 January 2022
||First Schedule and Third Schedule
||Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan (No. 3) 2021
||13 September 2021 - Subperenggan 2(a); 11 September 2021 - Subsubperenggan 2(b)(i), (ii), (iii) dan (iv); 1 Januari 2022 - Subperenggan 2(c) dan (d)
||In force from
||Malaysia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Order of Priority For Payments of Different Categories of Islamic Deposits, Determination and Classification of Assets and Application of Disposal Proceeds of Assets in the Winding Up of Deposit-Taking Member) Regulations 2017
||1 March 2022
||Perintah Pendaftaran Ahli Farmasi (Pindaan Jadual Pertama) 2018
||31 Disember 2021
||Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2018
||31 December 2021
||Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2013
||Year of assessment 2020