CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
DHINESH TANAPHLL v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS  5 CLJ 1
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
NALLINI PATHMANATHAN FCJ; HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ; RHODZARIAH BUJANG FCJ
[CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 05(HC)-12-01-2021(B)]
11 APRIL 2022
Section 15B of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (POCA) cannot operate to immunise all decisions made under POCA by use of the ouster clause therein. The ouster clause in s. 15B, in seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the court in relation to judicial scrutiny of preventive detention proceedings pertaining to acts of the Prevention of Crime Board constituted under the Act (save for failure to comply with procedural requirements thereof), purports to exclude habeas corpus notwithstanding the express safeguards housed in arts. 4 and 5(2) of the Federal Constitution. It purports to strip the court of its constitutionally entrenched supervisory judicial function, and is thus unconstitutional, void and of no effect.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Habeas corpus - Application by detainee under preventive detention pursuant to s. 19A(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether s. 15B of POCA seeks to oust jurisdiction of court pertaining to judicial scrutiny of preventive detention - Degree of judicial scrutiny - Whether limited to compliance with procedural requirements under POCA - Whether habeas corpus excluded from judicial scrutiny - Whether ouster clause inconsistent with arts. 4(1) and 5(2) of Federal Constitution - Whether ouster clause void and of no effect - Whether rendered court's powers of judicial review no longer restricted to reviewing merely irregularities
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Constitutionality - Ouster clause under s. 15B of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 ('POCA') - Whether s. 15B purports to delineate jurisdiction of courts - Whether sought to restrict judicial powers in relation to preventive detention under POCA - Whether decision of Prevention of Crime Board immune from judicial scrutiny - Whether ouster clause inconsistent with arts. 4(1) and 5(2) of Federal Constitution - Whether ouster clause void and of no effect
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Fundamental liberties - Right to be heard - Habeas corpus - Application by detainee under preventive detention pursuant to s. 19A(1) of Prevention of Crime Act 1959 - Whether afforded full opportunity to be heard - Contradictory versions pertaining to request for witness by detainee - Whether contradictions could be resolved by evidence - Whether withholding of evidence gives rise to adverse inference - Whether detainee denied full opportunity to put forward representations - Whether amounted to breach of natural justice - Federal Constitution, art. 151
Pua Beng Saun & Anor v. Khong Chee Meng  1 LNS 2318 (CA) affirming in part the High Court case of Khong Chee Meng v. Pua Beng Saun & Anor [Civil Suit No.: 22NCVC-57-10/2016]
Ng Kim Gek & Anor v. New Age Portfolio Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 59 (CA) affirming the High Court case of New Age Portfolio Sdn Bhd v. Ng Kim Gek & Anor  1 LNS 1825
Legal Network Series
 1 LNS 2221
HERMIE MD TAHIR v. AMBANK BERHAD
An amendment of pleadings to add another cause of action may be permitted if the amendment arises from the same facts as the original cause of action and does not adversely impact the other party or his case and provides him with an opportunity to respond to the new facts.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Amendment - Re-amendment - Amendment to add another cause of action - Application filed subsequent to discovery of a crucial document and before trial date was fixed - Whether amendments to pleading can be made at any stage of proceeding before pronouncement of decision - Whether any prejudice caused to right of defendant to respond to plaintiff's amended pleading - Whether amendment ensures issues in controversy between parties could be resolved - Whether amendment would turn suit from one character into a suit of another and inconsistent character - Whether facts pleaded in amendment fell within scope of cause of action - Whether amendment maintains original cause of action - Whether amendment was a tactical manoeuvre
- For the appellant - V Mugunthan & Mohammed Nasser Yusof; M/s The Law Chambers of Fauzi & Nasser
- For the respondent - Vasanthi Arumugam; M/s Vas & Co
 1 LNS 2230
NG YONG KIAT v. LEE PEI FEN
In a claim for loss of earnings, the plaintiff must show credible evidence to establish that he had been working prior to the accident by tendering documentary evidence from his employer and calling his employer or his co-worker to support his claim.
DAMAGES: Special damages - Loss of earnings - Loss of future earnings - Plaintiff was 17 years old at time of accident - Plaintiff merely relied on his own evidence and his mother's evidence to support claim - Plaintiff failed to tender any documentary evidence from his employer - Whether there was credible evidence to show employment of plaintiff prior to accident - Whether plaintiff ought to have called his employer and co-worker to support his claim
DAMAGES: Personal injuries - Loss of earning capacity - Plaintiff's own medical specialist wrote that physiotherapy would not be required - Absence of muscle wasting - Plaintiff was able to carry heavy load, walking for prolonged period, using staircase and squat - Whether there was substantial or real risk that plaintiff would suffer reduced earning in future arising from injuries suffered by him - Whether plaintiff has capacity to work
ROAD TRAFFIC: Negligence - Road accident - Collision between motorcycle and motorcar - Conflicting versions - Plaintiff only gave his version of accident in second police report 13 months after initial police report - Plaintiff lodged second police report after he was told that he could claim insurance - Impact on defendant's motorcar was severe - Whether plausible explanation given by plaintiff for delay in lodging second police report - Whether plaintiff's version of accident was an afterthought - Whether plaintiff collided into defendant's rear left side of motorcar at great speed
- For the appellant - Teo Han Ley & Teo Voon Anne; M/s Teo & Associates
- For the respondent - Mohd Tahril Jamia'an; M/s VM Kumaran
 1 LNS 2058
NASRUDDIN MOHAMAD lwn. KETUA PEGAWAI EKSEKUTIF MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM DAN ADAT MELAYU TERENGGANU & YANG LAIN
Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu mempunyai budi bicara penuh untuk mengenakan tindakan tatatertib terhadap kakitangannya yang didapati bersalah mengambil dadah dengan memilih untuk membuang kerja kakitangan tersebut bawah peraturan 7(2) Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 (Pindaan) 2002 ('Peraturan 2002') ataupun menamatkan perkhidmatan kakitangan tersebut demi kepentingan awam bawah peraturan 7(3) Peraturan 2002.
UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Permohonan kebenaran - Permohonan untuk menyemak semula tindakan dan proses tatatertib - Penamatan perkhidmatan kakitangan Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu ('MAIDAM') demi kepentingan awam - Pemohon didapati bersalah mengambil dadah - Sama ada MAIDAM mempunyai kuasa untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan mana-mana pegawai dan kakitangan demi kepentingan awam atas kehendaknya sendiri - Sama ada penamatan perkhidmatan pemohon adalah berdasarkan Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan dan Tatatertib) 1993 (Pindaan) 2002 - Sama ada tindakan MAIDAM untuk menamatkan perkhidmatan pemohon demi kepentingan awam adalah wajar dan munasabah
- Bagi pihak perayu/pemohon - T/n Nordin Kassim & Aziz
- Bagi pihak responden-responden - T/n Zamani Mohammad & Co
 1 LNS 2059
PP lwn. MOHD HUSZIR ANWAR
Dalam memberi pertimbangan terhadap jangka masa tempoh pemenjaraan berkaitan dengan pengakuan bersalah terhadap suatu kesalahan pilihan, mahkamah perlu memperingati diri tentang kesalahan asal yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh. Namun demikian, pengakuan bersalah terhadap suatu kesalahan pilihan tidak mewajarkan pengurangan hukuman apabila kesalahan tersebut adalah serius.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Hukuman - Pemenjaraan - Pemilikan dadah berbahaya - Pengakuan bersalah terhadap pertuduhan pilihan - Pertuduhan awal berkaitan kesalahan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Sama ada mahkamah perlu memperingati diri tentang kesalahan asal yang telah dilakukan oleh tertuduh - Sama ada faktor kepentingan awam perlu diberi keutamaan berbanding dengan faktor kepentingan tertuduh - Sama ada pengakuan bersalah mewajarkan pengurangan hukuman bagi kesalahan serius - Sama ada hukuman bergantung kepada berat dan jenis dadah yang terlibat
- Bagi pihak responden - Timbalan Pendakwaraya Negeri Terengganu
- Bagi pihak responden - Timbalan Pengarah, Penjara Marang
 1 LNS 2231
MOHD HANIF BASRI & SATU LAGI lwn. PP
Apabila dadah dijumpai di dalam bilik sebuah rumah yang dikongsi oleh tertuduh dan penghuni-penghuni bilik lain yang telah ditangkap selepas itu, maka pihak pendakwaan harus menawarkan penghuni-penghuni tersebut kepada pihak pembelaan. Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan menawarkan penghuni-penghuni tersebut merupakan tindakan menyembunyikan suatu keterangan dan anggapan bertentangan bawah s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 wajar terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Penafian - Pertuduhan pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh mendakwa hanya menyewa salah satu bilik rumah di mana dadah dijumpai - Tertuduh berkongsi rumah dengan orang yang lain - Penghuni-penghuni bilik lain telah ditangkap tetapi tidak ditawarkan oleh pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada naratif pembelaan tertuduh telah menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kes pihak pendakwaan - Sama ada terdapat akses oleh orang lain terhadap dadah yang dijumpai di dalam rumah - Sama ada anggapan bertentangan wajar terpakai terhadap pihak pendakwaan atas kegagalan menawarkan penghuni-penghuni lain kepada pihak pembelaan ketika bicara
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Dadah diijumpai di dalam kotak dalam keadaan terbuka di halaman rumah - Tertuduh ditangkap ketika mengambil kotak di halaman rumah - Dadah dan pelbagai peralatan dan bekas dadah diletak dalam keadaan terbuka di sebuah bilik yang tidak berkunci dalam rumah yang dihuni oleh tertuduh - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai jagaan dan kawalan ke atas dadah - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan dan niat bersama untuk mengedar dadah - Sama ada anggapan pengedaran dadah bawah s. 37(da)(xvi) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai
- Bagi pihak perayu - Nik Ahmad Ashraf; T/n Nik Ikhwan & Co
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - TPR Ahmad Nazneen, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri
CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 6)
Clause 12 of the statutory sale and purchase contract under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 is clear in that it entitles a purchaser of a housing unit to claim damages in the event the developer uses different materials for the construction of the property without his written consent; 'different materials' means just that and does not necessarily connote 'cheaper materials'. It is also to be noted that in deciding whether the purchaser is or is not entitled to the damages sought for, the fact that he had opted to claim for damages instead of the alternative right to claim for a reduction in the price of the property is an irrelevant consideration. And in so far as proof of actual loss is concerned, the tendering of a quotation prepared by the building contractor detailing the remedial works to be undertaken, and the costs that it would entail, may suffice to constitute prima facie proof of the damages suffered by the purchaser; it needs no reiteration that in the absence of any rebuttal evidence against such a prima facie proof, it is not open to the developer to retort that the sum awarded is excessive and unreasonable.
Chong Nge Wei & Ors v. Kemajuan Masteron Sdn Bhd  4 CLJ 833 [FC]
CONTRACT LAW: Agreement - Sale and purchase agreement - Breach - Claim for damages - Purchasers claimed for breach of contract against developer for changing building material - Building material for outer brick walls changed from autoclaved aerated concrete building block to flexcore without written consent - Whether losses suffered by purchasers proven - Whether claim for damages for purpose provided in cl. 12 of statutory sale and purchase contract, under Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations, requires proof of actual loss to be shown before damages could be awarded
ABDUL RAHMAN SEBLI FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
HARMINDAR SINGH DHALIWAL FCJ
- For the appellants - Amarjeet Singh, Avtar Singh; M/s Avtar
- For the respondent - Chetan Lachman Jethwani, Ashok Kandiah & Norvindran Sivarajah; M/s Kandiah Partnership
The Federal Court may decline to answer any question posed to it that does not relate to a matter in respect of which a determination had been made by the High Court and or the Court of Appeal. The appellants here, in resisting in the Federal Court the committal orders made against them pursuant to s. 360 of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, cannot thus raise the issue that the committal orders arose from a monetary judgment not befitting of committal proceedings, as nowhere was this issue raised or canvassed before the Judge who heard the committal proceedings or the Court of Appeal. Since the judges of the two courts had not addressed their minds to this issue, it would be presumptuous for the apex court to guess what they would have decided.
Tengku Dato’ Kamal Ibni Sir Sultan Abu Bakar & Ors v. Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd  4 CLJ 854 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Failure to comply with court order - Court made order under s. 360 of Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 to restore to company monies wrongfully paid out - Whether order of court could be collaterally attacked in separate proceeding without it being set aside - Whether all avenues exhausted to challenge validity of order - Whether order valid and binding - Whether there were merits in contention of resisting order for committal
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Leave to appeal - Questions of law - Whether questions posed must be couched to incorporate points of law which has effect of reversing conclusions made by lower court - Whether lower court made determination on issues - Whether issues raised in questions of law arose from judgments of lower courts - Whether court could decline to answer questions of law although leave was granted
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
ZALEHA YUSOF FCJ
ZABARIAH MOHD YUSOF FCJ
- For the appellants - Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Jasbeer Singh Kaura & Wong Ming Yen; M/s Jasbeer Nur & Lee
- For the respondent - Preetha Pillai, Nimalan Devaraja & Muhammad Suhaib Mohamed Ibrahim; M/s Skrine
Forgery of documents in a sale of land is, by itself, sufficient in making a registered title defeasible even though the proprietor or the transferee is not a party to the forgery. This would, in turn, affect an immediate purchaser even if he is an innocent purchaser for value.
Wong Ing Tong v. Yap Piat Eng & Anor And Other Appeals  4 CLJ 882 [CA]
LAND LAW: Title - Indefeasibility - Fraudulent transfer of lands - Forgery - Disputed documents purportedly executed between registered proprietors and fraudster - Registered proprietors had not seen nor signed documents - Whether fraud or dishonesty established - Whether forgery established - Whether registered proprietors remained true owners of lands - Whether registered proprietors held indefeasible title - National Land Code, s. 340(2)(b)
LAND LAW: Fraud - Transfer - Fraudulent transfer of lands through forged documents - Registered proprietors had not seen nor signed documents - Whether fraudster bona fide immediate purchaser - Whether fraud or dishonesty established - Whether forgery established - Whether forgery by itself sufficient in making registered title defeasible even though proprietors/transferees not party to forgery - National Land Code, s. 340(2)(b)
LAND LAW: Charge - Bank - Land titles fraudulently acquired charged to bank - Whether bank carried out investigation and took precautions to find out more about land before granting loan to fraudster - Whether bank acted in good faith
HAS ZANAH MEHAT JCA
HADHARIAH SYED ISMAIL JCA
MOHD SOFIAN ABD RAZAK JCA
- For the appellants/plaintiffs - Wong Mun Hoe, Long Chay Jo, Chua Heaw Eng & Ching Zi Xuan; M/s Munhoe
- For the appellant/2nd defendant - R Rajasurian, Vasudevan Appu & Dennis Xavier; M/s Vasudevan A & Rodwan Chambers
- For the appellant/6th defendant - Shanti Mogan & Hee Hui Ting; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
The alienation of state land under s. 9 of the Sabah Land Ordinance is not mandatory but discretionary. The Director of Lands and Surveys, in revoking the offer to alienate a parcel of land pursuant to the specific direction by the Cabinet, acted so within his discretion. Unless and until the decision of the Cabinet has been quashed or set aside by the court, the decision of the Director stands.
Innowest Sdn Bhd v. The Director Of Lands And Surveys  4 CLJ 900 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for - Application for judicial review against decision of Director of Lands and Surveys ('Director') - Director issued offer to alienate land for parcel and offer was accepted by applicant - Offer later revoked by Director pursuant to decision/direction of Cabinet - Whether Director acted within discretion in revoking offer to alienate land - Whether decision lawful and valid
- For the applicant - Chung Jiun Dau; M/s Chung & Assocs
- For the respondent- Dk Noranisah Pg Hassanel; Jabatan Peguam Besar Negeri Sabah
The rule of pleading accords with the fundamental rule of natural justice ie the right to be informed of any adverse point so that one has the opportunity to state the answer. Equally important is that material facts that supported the claim must be pleaded and failure to do so may be fatal. A claim based on unpleaded material facts cannot be allowed to succeed, and indeed, must necessarily fail.
Ong Led Seng v. Lee Kam Sun & Ors  4 CLJ 933 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Statement of claim - Pleadings - Claimant's cause of action premised upon fraudulent conspiracy to cheat and unjust enrichment - Whether causes of action sufficiently pleaded and established in statement of claim - Whether requirements of pleadings complied with - Whether there was radical departure from pleadings - Whether new issues raised ought to be entertained
- For the plaintiff - John Henry Louis; M/s John & Assoc
- For the 1st & 2nd defendants - Norazlin Mohamad Yusoff
- For the 3rd defendant - Ong Keng Swee; M/s KS Ong & Co
The charge against the accused for an offence under s. 13B(1) of the Food Act 1983 (for selling bottled mineral waters containing sulphate and chloride) is unsustainable. Sub-regulation 360A(11) of the Food Regulations 1985 along with the clarification from the Food Safety and Qualify Division of the Ministry of Health permit minerals such as sulphate and chloride to be include in mineral waters sold in the country. The charge is also defective as the prosecution fails to prove the capacity in which the accused is charged; it is a substantive error relating to the ingredient of the charge and is incurable in law.
Pek Woei Yi & Anor v. PP & Another Appeal  4 CLJ 961 [HC]
FOOD & DRUGS
| CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
FOOD & DRUGS: FOOD & DRUGS: Food control - Offences under Food Act 1983 - Mineral water sold by accused contained sulphate and chloride - Whether permissible in Malaysia - Whether proceedings against accused initiated within time limit provided under s. 19(2) of Food Act 1983 - Whether charge against accused defective - Whether there was non-compliance with sub-reg. 360A(7) of Food Regulations 1985 - Whether there was offence committed by accused - Whether conviction and sentence ought to be set aside
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charge - Defective - Allegation of - Error in stating offence or particulars required to be stated in charge - Failure to prove capacity in which accused was charged - Whether charge was not drafted accurately - Whether substantive error curable - Whether caused injustice to accused
- For the appellant - Ramesh Lachmanan & Kiran Kaur Ram Ramu Naido; M/s Nith, Gowri, Lachman & Partners
- For the respondent - Nurul Wahida Jalaluddin; DPP
The law of defamation in Malaysia does not extend to the protection of a certain religion or a group professing the said religious belief or even blasphemy. It would be inappropriate for the court to create a new form of tort that has not been recognised by the jurisprudence of Malaysian courts or any courts within the Commonwealth. This task should be left to Parliament as it will require details that may only be filled in by legislation.
Radhakrishnan Alagamalai & Anor v. Muhammad Zamri Vinoth Kalimuthu & Ors  4 CLJ 978 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Allegation that words and statements uttered by individual harassed Malaysian Hindus and oppressed Hindu religion in Malaysia - Claim against individual for uttering words and police, Minister of Home Affairs and Government of Malaysia for failure to act against individual - Whether claimants' statement of claim disclosed reasonable cause of action - Whether claim scandalous, frivolous and vexatious - Whether an abuse of court process - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (b) & (d)
TORT: Defamation - Claim - Allegation that words and statements uttered by individual harassed Malaysian Hindus and oppressed Hindu religion in Malaysia - Claim akin to claim for libel or slander - Whether law of defamation in Malaysia extended to protection of religion or group professing certain religious belief - Whether claimants pleaded valid cause of action - Whether cause of action recognised under Malaysian law
TORT: Negligence - Claim - Allegation that words and statements uttered by individual harassed Malaysian Hindus and oppressed Hindu religion in Malaysia - Claim against individual for uttering words and police, Minister of Home Affairs and Government of Malaysia for failure to act against individual - Whether Police Act 1967 created statutory duty enforceable by private cause of action - Whether tort of negligence recognised in law for failure to exercise powers afforded to police
MOHD ARIEF EMRAN ARIFIN JC
- For the plaintiffs - Shanker Sundaram; M/s SK Sundaram & Partners
- For 1st defendant - Syahidah Hanum Mohd Ghazali & Nurwati Mohamed Mokhtar; M/s Syahidah Sharul & Marsyara
- For 2nd to 4th defendants - Mohd Azhar Hamzah; SFC
JURISDICTION TO GRANT PROHIBITORY ORDER IN SARAWAK [Read excerpt]
by Oliver Chua Yaw Kwang*  1 LNS(A) lvii
 1 LNS(A) lvii
JURISDICTION TO GRANT PROHIBITORY ORDER IN SARAWAK
Oliver Chua Yaw Kwang*
The confusion surrounding the jurisdiction to grant prohibitory order in Sarawak persist to date mainly due to the lack of reported case on this issue. This confusion is further compounded by the e-filing system, also known as the court's management system, which allows for the e-filing of prohibitory orders in both the subordinate courts and the High Court at Sarawak. This issue must be answered as obtaining a prohibitory order from the wrong court would render the order invalid and subsequently invalidate the sale of the attached land. However, the Court of Appeal had, in 2018, settled the issues of the court's jurisdiction to grant prohibitory order in the context of the National Land Code. As the National Land Code can only be applied to Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan, but not to Sarawak, this article aims to answer whether the principle in the Court of Appeal's case, decided in the context of the National Land Code, is applicable to Sarawak and whether there is any local Sarawak case law that adopts the principle of the Court of Appeal's case.
. . .
THE MORAL AND LEGAL PERMISSIBILITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY [Read excerpt]
by Donovan Choong En Jie[i]Alfred Ngu Choung Chii[ii]Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii]  1 LNS(A) lviii
 1 LNS(A) lviii
THE MORAL AND LEGAL PERMISSIBILITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY
Donovan Choong En Jie[i]
Alfred Ngu Choung Chii[ii]
Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii]
Capital punishment is a state-sanctioned practise of executing a person as a punishment for a crime. The common misconception is that capital punishment is the cruellest and most inhumane form of punishment deemed immoral and illegal. Although capital punishment is both cruel and inhumane as it seems, it is both morally and legally justified. The authors have constructed the strongest proponents for the implementation of capital punishment whilst addressing a few opposing arguments by the famous abolitionist known as Cesare Beccaria after the extensive reading of online articles, dissertations, books and journal articles. This paper has laid out how and why capital punishment is morally and legally justified using four jurisprudential perspectives: naturalism, positivism, retributivism, and utilitarianism.
. . .
||In force from
||Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021
||1 April 2022
||Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012
||18 March 2022
||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