CLJ Bulletin #21/2022 (26 May 2022)

Issue #21/2022

26 May 2022

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

Case(s) of the Week
1. DHINESH TANAPHLL v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS [2022] 5 CLJ 1
Appeal Updates
1. Appeal Updates
Latest Cases
1. Legal Network Series
2. CLJ 2022 Volume 4 (Part 6)
Articles
1. LNS Article(s)
Legislation Highlights

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

DHINESH TANAPHLL v. LEMBAGA PENCEGAHAN JENAYAH & ORS [2022] 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

APPEAL UPDATES

Pua Beng Saun & Anor v. Khong Chee Meng [2021] 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 [2022] 1 LNS 59 (CA) affirming the High Court case of New Age Portfolio Sdn Bhd v. Ng Kim Gek & Anor [2018] 1 LNS 1825

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2020] 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
[2020] 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
[2020] 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
[2020] 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
[2020] 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 [2022] 4 CLJ 833 [FC]

CONTRACT LAW

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 [2022] 4 CLJ 854 [FC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

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 [2022] 4 CLJ 882 [CA]

LAND LAW

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 [2022] 4 CLJ 900 [HC]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

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

LEONARD DAVID SHIM JC

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 [2022] 4 CLJ 933 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

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

TEE GEOK HOCK JC

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 [2022] 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

BHUPINDAR SINGH JC

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 [2022] 4 CLJ 978 [HC]

CIVIL PROCEDURE | TORT

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

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

JURISDICTION TO GRANT PROHIBITORY ORDER IN SARAWAK ^{[Read excerpt]}
by Oliver Chua Yaw Kwang* [2022] 1 LNS(A) lvii

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] [2022] 1 LNS(A) lviii

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Repealed	Superseded
ACT 836	Geographical Indications Act 2022	18 March 2022 [PU(B) 169/2022]	Geographical Indications Act 2000 [ACT 602]	-
ACT 835	Factories and Machinery (Repeal) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 834	Malaysian Space Board Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	-	-
ACT 833	Finance Act 2021	The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; the Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 29; the Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 36; the Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 45; the Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 52; the Promotion of Investments Act 1986 [Act 327] see s 59; the Finance Act 2012 [Act 742] see s 64 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 66	-	-
ACT 832	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 2021)	1 December 2021 pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(xxiii) of the Revision of Laws Act 1968 [Act 1]; Revised up to 14 November 2021; First enacted in 1966 as Act of Parliament No 13 of 1966; First Revision - 1987 (Act 335 wef 19 October 1987)	-	Societies Act 1966 (Revised 1987) [ACT 335]

Amending Acts

Number	Title	In force from	Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1652	Control of Supplies (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 122
ACT A1651	Employment (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 265
ACT A1650	Supplementary Supply (2021) Act 2022	11 May 2022
ACT A1649	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)	ACT 291
ACT A1648	Occupational Safety and Health (Amendment) Act 2022	Not Yet In Force	ACT 514

PU(A)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 165/2022	Control of Supplies (Controlled Articles) (No. 3) Order 2022	26 May 2022	27 May 2022	ACT 122
PU(A) 164/2022	Income Tax (The Principal Hub Incentive Scheme) Rules 2022	24 May 2022	Year of assessment 2021	ACT 53
PU(A) 163/2022	Excise Duties Order 2022	23 May 2022	1 June 2022	ACT 176
PU(A) 162/2022	Customs Duties Order 2022 - Corrigendum	23 May 2022		PU(A) 114/2022
PU(A) 161/2022	Medical (Amendment of Second Schedule) (No. 3) Order 2022	19 May 2022	20 May 2022	ACT 50

PU(B)

Number	Title	Date of Publication	In force from	Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 268/2022	Notice of Exemption Under Subsection 73(1) (The Heaven Park Berhad)	20 May 2022	21 May 2022	ACT 778
PU(B) 267/2022	Notification of Values of Crude Palm Oil Under Section 12	20 May 2022	1 June 2022 to 30 June 2022	ACT 235
PU(B) 266/2022	Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12	19 May 2022	20 May 2022 to 2 June 2022	ACT 235
PU(B) 265/2022	Temporary Exercise of Ministerial Functions	19 May 2022	20 May 2022	ACT 388
PU(B) 264/2022	Notice Regarding The Certification and Inspection of The Supplementary Electoral Roll For The Month of April 2022	19 May 2022	20 May 2022	PU(A) 293/2002

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No.	Title	Amended by	In force from	Section amended
AKTA 50	Akta Perubatan 1971	PU(A) 161/2022	20 Mei 2022	Jadual Kedua
ACT 50	Medical Act 1971	PU(A) 161/2022	20 May 2022	Second Schedule
AKTA 452	Akta Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja 1991	PU(A) 151/2022	1 Julai 2022	Seksyen 54
ACT 452	Employees Provident Fund Act 1991	PU(A) 151/2022	1 July 2022	Section 54
PU(A) 175/2019	Kaedah-Kaedah Cukai Pendapatan (Sekatan Ke Atas Kebolehpotongan Faedah) 2019	PU(A) 27/2022	1 Februari 2022	Kaedah-kaedah 5 dan 6

Revoked

Act/Principal No.	Title	Revoked by	In force from
PU(A) 449/2021	Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2021	PU(A) 73/2022	1 April 2022
PU(A) 159/2012	Copyright (Licensing Body) Regulations 2012	PU(A) 61/2022	18 March 2022
PU(A) 127/2017	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	PU(A) 41/2022	1 March 2022
PU(A) 182/2018	Perintah Pendaftaran Ahli Farmasi (Pindaan Jadual Pertama) 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 Disember 2021
PU(A) 182/2018	Registration of Pharmacists (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2018	PU(A) 486/2021	31 December 2021

To unsubscribe click here