CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
CONWELD ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ORS v. GOH SWEE BOH & ANOR  1 CLJ 323
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
YAACOB MD SAM JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; GHAZALI CHA JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCC)(W)-849-05-2019]
27 SEPTEMBER 2022
The tort of collateral abuse of process is a distinct tort to cater for the conduct of a party which abuses the court's process for ulterior or collateral purposes rather than to seek legal remedy as provided by law. In circumstances where it had been demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that a plaintiff had filed a suit, not for the genuine purpose of obtaining the requisite reliefs permissible by law but for a collateral purpose of obtaining some other advantages, then such a situation might find cause of action in the tort of collateral abuse of process.
TORT: Abuse of process - Position in Malaysia - Whether tort of collateral abuse of process should continue to be recognised as distinct cause of action - Whether Malaysian courts ought to follow decision of Singapore Court of Appeal in Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v. Management Corporation Of Grange Heights Strata Title Plan No. 301
TORT: Abuse of process - Elements - Whether elements of tort of abuse of process established - Whether process complained of initiated - Whether purpose for initiating process other than to obtain genuine redress which process offers - Whether claimant suffered damage or injury in consequence
WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY & ORS v.
YB DATO' SERI DR AHMAD ZAHID HAMIDI - TIMBALAN PERDANA MENTERI/MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS  1 CLJ 385
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
AB KARIM AB JALIL JCA; S NANTHA BALAN JCA; AZMAN ABDULLAH J
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(IM)-181-03-2018]
08 AUGUST 2022
Declarations will not be granted unless all parties who will be affected by such declarations are properly named as a party and are before the court. Only in the rarest of rare cases would a declaration, without naming the persons who would be affected by the declarations sought, be granted.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Declaration - Appeal - Applicants sought declarations that individual a threat to security and public of Federation and not fit to be permanent resident of Malaysia - Individual not named as party to action - Whether omission to name individual impediment to granting of declarations - Whether court could grant against party not before court
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Originating summons - Applicants sought declarations that individual a threat to security and public of Federation and not fit to be permanent resident of Malaysia - Individual not named as party to action - Whether originating summons ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19
Lee Heng Yau lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara & Yang Lain  1 LNS 2233 mengesahkan kes Lee Heng Yau lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara & Yang Lain  1 LNS 492
Lee Heng Yau lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara & Yang Lain & Satu Rayuan Lain  1 LNS 2232 mengesahkan kes Lee Heng Yau lwn. Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara & Yang Lain [Notis Permohonan No: BA-17D-11-05/Tahun 2020]
Legal Network Series
 1 LNS 163
GAN KOK HWA v. LOO CHOOI TING
The findings of issues ventilated in the defence to the main claim has a direct bearing on the counterclaim when the counterclaim emanates from the same facts in the defence and the issues that arose in the counterclaim are identical with those that arose in the main claim. Where the plaintiff obtains a summary judgment against the said defendant, the defendant is barred from raising the same issues to sustain the counterclaim based on the doctrine of estoppel and res judicata. In such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to apply to strike out the defendant's counterclaim.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Counterclaim - Application filed by plaintiff subsequent to obtaining summary judgment against defendant - Counterclaim for alleged debt which was subject of findings made in summary judgment application - Whether counterclaim emanated from same facts in defence - Whether defendant was barred from raising same issues to sustain counterclaim - Whether doctrine of estoppel and res judicata applicable against defendant - Whether efficient administration of justice and public policy require finality in litigation - Whether counterclaim was obviously unsustainable
- For the plaintiff - Jenny Lim; M/s Ewe Chong & Khoo
- For the defendant - Muhammad Danish Abdul Rasid; M/s Amar Syiimir Izzat & Sham
 1 LNS 166
FINJAYA SDN BHD v. TANG TWANG LOI & ORS
Delay is a matter for consideration in an application to adduce fresh evidence under O. 55 r. 7 of the Rules of Court 2012. In cases where the appellant explained that the delay was due to the time required to verify the contents of the fresh evidence it sought to introduce, such explanation is not unreasonable, more so when the appeal date had not been fixed at the time when the application to adduce fresh evidence was filed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Fresh evidence - Delay in application - Appellant required time to verify contents of fresh evidence that it sought to introduce - Appeal date had not been fixed - Whether delay in filing application was a mere technical non-compliance - Whether explanation for delay was unreasonable - Whether application had prejudiced respondents - Whether fresh evidence could have been obtained during hearing - Whether requirements of O. 55 r. 7 Rules of Court 2012 had been fulfilled - Whether fresh evidence would have a bearing on appeal
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Record of appeal - Error in intitulement of record of appeal - Typographical error in company's registration number of appellant - Whether identity of appellant became vague and ambiguous - Whether cause papers relating to appeal became defective - Whether error had caused prejudice to respondent - Whether error was curable by virtue of O. 1A, O. 2 r. 2 and 3 of Rules of Court 2012
- For the proposed intervener/appellant - Lim Enho; M/s Shu Yin, Teh & Taing
- For the plaintiffs/first and second respondents - Lim Pei Ying; M/s Tan Vincent & Azmi
- For the first & second defendants/third & fourth respondents - Lim Wei Han; M/s Lai & Associates
- For the fifth respondent - Nadia Md Tab; M/s Fatimah Zahrah & Co
 1 LNS 167
MAESTRO SWISS MANAGEMENT SERVICES SDN BHD & ANOR v. KAWALAN PERWIRA (M) SDN BHD
The security provider owes a contractual duty as well as a duty of care to the property owner, which is the subject matter of the security agreement. It follows that the security provider could not disclaim liability for breach of contract and negligence for the losses and damage suffered by the owner as a result of any trespass to the said property which took place during the subsistence of the security agreement.
CONTRACT: Breach - Agreement - Security agreement - Failure to employ and assign security personnel - Property not in operation or occupied - Trespass and demolition of property - Whether property was left unattended for a long time by defendant - Whether there was breach of agreement to provide security services - Whether number of guards willing to be employed by plaintiff was relevant matter to be considered - Whether defendant could disclaim its liability for losses suffered by plaintiff - Whether valuation of costs of property was reasonable
TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Breach - Security agreement - Failure to employ and assign security personnel - Property was left unattended for a long time - Trespass and demolition of property - Whether plaintiff being property owner had suffered loss as a result of trespass on property - Whether defendant was grossly negligent in carrying out its security services - Whether defendant's employees were solely negligent for loss suffered by plaintiff
- For the plaintiffs - Lam Ko Luen & Lay Zubin; M/s Shook Lin & Bok
- For the defendant - Shemesh Jeevaretnam & Charlotte Diana Williams; M/s Jeeva Partnership
 1 LNS 233
PP lwn. ABDULLAH ABD RAHMAN
Dalam mempertimbangkan pembuktian kesalahan bawah s. 13(b) Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeludupan Migran 2007, mahkamah tidak seharusnya bersandar sepenuhnya kepada naratif pengadu semata-mata. Keterangan-keterangan sokongan lain adalah amat diperlukan seperti keterangan terus melalui saksi-saksi mata, dokumen-dokumen, anggapan fakta atau undang-undang atau inferens berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan di mahkamah.
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Akta Antipemerdagangan Orang dan Antipenyeledupan Migran 2007 - Seksyen 13(b) - Pemerdagangan migran bagi maksud eksploitasi dengan cara buruh paksa dengan penggunaan kekerasan - Sama ada mangsa telah datang bekerja secara sukarela ke Malaysia - Sama ada terdapat keterangan yang membuktikan mangsa telah dipaksa dan dieksploitasi secara kerja paksa melalui ancaman atau kekerasan - Sama ada terdapat keterangan sokongan lain di samping keterangan mangsa sendiri - Sama ada kes prima facie telah dibuktikan - Sama ada kegagalan pihak pendakwaan untuk memanggil pakar perubatan bagi mengesahkan kecederaan mangsa mewajarkan pemakaian s. 114(g) Akta Keterangan 1950 terhadap kes pendakwaan
- Bagi pihak perayu - Nasrul Hadi Abdul Ghani & Rif'ah 'Izzati Abdul Mutalif; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
- Bagi pihak responden - Salim Bashir Bhaskaran; T/n Salim Bashir, Ruswiza & Co
 1 LNS 719
NOOR HISHAM MD NAWI lwn PP
Laporan polis merupakan suatu maklumat pertama yang diperlukan oleh pihak polis untuk memulakan siasatan. Ia sekadar menjadi keterangan sokongan bagi keterangan-keterangan saksi-saksi. Justeru, ketidakmasukan keterangan-keterangan yang lebih lengkap dalam laporan polis tidak menjadikan keterangan pembuat laporan tersebut menjadi tidak boleh berdiri secara sendiri.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan dan hukuman - Hukuman penjara 2 tahun dan denda RM2,000 jika gagal 3 bulan penjara bagi kesalahan mencuri kenderaan bawah s. 379A Kanun Keseksaan - Kesalahan dilakukan oleh anggota polis - Sama ada sabitan terhadap tertuduh adalah selamat - Sama ada kesalahan mencuri kenderaan adalah serius - Sama ada hukuman yang dijatuhkan adalah setimpal - Sama ada hukuman wajar digantikan dengan perintah bon berkelakuan baik bawah s. 173A Kanun Tatacara Jenayah
KETERANGAN: Keterangan dokumen - Laporan polis - Butiran laporan polis tidak lengkap - Keterangan sokongan - Sama ada laporan polis merupakan keterangan sokongan sahaja - Sama ada keterangan pengadu boleh berdiri sendiri tanpa laporan polis yang lebih lengkap
KETERANGAN: Saksi - Rakan sejenayah - Kebolehterimaan - Saksi tidak mempunyai niat serta pengetahuan bahawa perbuatannya adalah satu jenayah bersama-sama dengan tertuduh - Sama ada saksi adalah rakan sejenayah -Sama ada keterangan saksi boleh diterima masuk
- Bagi pihak perayu - Mohd Zubairi Salleh; T/n Rafizi Zubairi & Firdaus
- Bagi pihak responden - Norazlinawati Mohd Arshad, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
CLJ 2023 Volume 1 (Part 2)
The participants of group settlement areas under the Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act 1960 ('Act') who had been in occupation, cultivating designated crops under the Act, in this case, for more than 30 years without any interruption, occupy the land in expectation of title. Hence, any interruption to their livelihood is a matter to be determined in full trial and not to be disposed of summarily.
Abdul Latif Puteh & Ors v. Pentadbir Tanah Jajahan Pasir Mas & Anor  1 CLJ 161 [FC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Appeal against - Land settlers participants in group settlement area programme - Land developed for more than 30 years - Rubber trees felled without land settlers' knowledge and consent - Action by land settlers for violation of rights - Whether land settlers had legitimate rights over rubber trees on land - Whether allowed to cultivate and cultivated designated crops - Whether occupation in group settlement areas in expectation of title - Whether matter could be summarily disposed of - Whether required determination in full trial - Land (Group Settlement Areas) Act 1960, ss. 4 & 5
VERNON ONG LAM KIAT FCJ
HASNAH MOHAMMED HASHIM FCJ
MARY LIM FCJ
- For the appellants - Mohamad Nor Azam Rashid Zainol Rashid & Mohd Nasir Abdullah; M/s Mohd Nasir & Co
- For the respondents - Adam Mohamed; Penolong Penasihat Undang-Undang Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan
The decision of a court in refusing bail is not within the meaning of 'decision' under s. 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and is not appealable under s. 50 of the same. A decision that is appealable is only those that have finally disposed of the rights of parties, not any interlocutory judgment or order where the final rights of parties are yet to be disposed of although the judgment, ruling or order is conclusive or final to the subordinate matter.
Gobinath Sinnaya v. PP & Other Appeals  1 CLJ 174 [CA]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Bail - Refusal of - Appeal against dismissal of bail application - Preliminary objection raised - Whether decision of court on issue of bail appealable - Whether fell within definition of 'decision' under s. 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA') - Whether appealable under s. 50 of CJA
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Competency - Appeal against dismissal of bail application - Whether decision of court on issue of bail appealable - Whether fell within definition of 'decision' under s. 3 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether appealable under s. 50 of CJA
KAMALUDIN MD SAID JCA
NORDIN HASSAN JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellant - Lavanyia Raja & Eu Kah Mun; M/s Geethan Ram & Co
- For the respondents - Dhiya Syazwani Izyan Mohd Akhir; DPP AG's Chambers
An application for stay of execution involves striking a judicious and equitable balance between the principle that the successful party ought to reap the fruits of the litigation whilst the unsuccessful party should not be deprived if the subsequent appeal is in his favour. In order to strike a balance, the courts are more inclined to explore a partial conditional stay to balance the competing rights, interest, needs and concerns of the parties without offending the general principles pertaining to granting of stay.
Ahmad Suhairi Mat Ali v. CIMB Bank Bhd & Anor  1 CLJ 183 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Stay of execution - Stay pending appeal - Employee obtained order against employer in his favour - Employer's appeal pending - Whether special circumstances to justify stay disclosed - Whether employee denied fruits of successful litigation if stay allowed - Whether execution of judgment would render appeal nugatory - Whether employer able to recover judgment sum if appeal successful - Whether balance of convenience tipped in favour of employer - Whether conditional stay justified in circumstances of case
- For the applicant - Pravin Kaur Jessy; M/s Meghala & Co
- For the 1st respondent - David Tan Seng Keat; M/s T Thavalingam & Co
In determining whether a case is suitable for summary determination based on O. 14A of the Rules of Court 2012, to be deserving of disposal on point of law, questions of law raised must be established to be suitable for determination without the full trial of the action, and that such determination must also be shown to finally resolve the entire cause of matter or any claim or issue therein. Fundamentally, the determination of the questions of law would not involve, let alone be dependent, on the resolution of any dispute of material facts. If, based on the facts disclosed by the pleadings and affidavit evidence, the court is plainly able to determine the questions of law correctly and would be able to expedite the disposal of a suit, saving time and expenses, a challenge against a court's decision allowing an O. 14A application would be lacking in merit.
EUPE Bangsar South Development (JV) Sdn Bhd v. Lam Sai Yih  1 CLJ 194 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Summary determination - Appeal against writ action being dealt with by way of hearing under O. 14A of Rules of Court 2012 - Suitability of O. 14A proceedings - Whether questions of law raised suitable for determination without full trial of action - Whether determination of questions of law resolved entire cause of matter, claim or issue - Whether Sessions Court able to determine questions of law correctly - Whether challenge against decision of Sessions Court allowing O. 14 application lacked merit
- For the plaintiff - Gan Chong Chieh, Hannah Patrick & Rachel Ng; M/s Mah Weng Kwai & Assocs
- For the respondant - Eugene Khoo Yean Shern & Tay Shieh Chin; M/s Yeoh Shim Siow & Lay Kuan
(i) Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove adultery since it is impossible to obtain direct evidence of adultery. If, from evidence, there is disposition between the spouse and a third party to have committed adultery and there was opportunity for them to commit it, and the adultery is proven on a balance of probabilities, it can then be established that the spouse had committed adultery with the third party and that their adultery had caused and/or led to the breakdown of the marriage. The third party must therefore take the share of responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage and ought to pay damages to the petitioner spouse; (ii) monies in EPF forms part of matrimonial assets and pursuant to s. 53A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1991, the EPF Board after receiving the sealed order of the court is empowered to transfer the sums ordered by court from the husband to the wife. Equality of distribution of matrimonial assets between a husband-and-wife ought to be ordered, including any properties that were purchased during marriage.
Glaret Shirley Sinnapan v. Sivasankar Kunchiraman & Anor  1 CLJ 218 [HC]
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Petition - Breakdown of marriage - Adultery - Standard of proof - Whether on balance of probabilities - Whether circumstantial evidence could be relied on to prove adultery - Whether petitioner wife proved respondent husband committed adultery with third party - Whether led to breakdown of marriage - Whether marriage ought to be dissolved - Whether decree nisi made absolute
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Maintenance - Wife and children - Means and needs of parties - Matrimonial assets - Degree of responsibility to parties for breakdown of marriage - Whether wife and children entitled to maintenance
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Adultery - Third party - Petitioner wife sued third party for breakdown of marriage - Whether circumstantial evidence could be relied on to prove adultery - Proof of third party's text messages to petitioner wife regarding sexual relationship between her and respondent husband - Whether petitioner wife proved on balance of probabilities respondent husband committed adultery with third party - Whether led to breakdown of marriage - Whether third party ought to pay damages to petitioner wife
- For the petitioner - Ranee Sreedharan; M/s Ranee Sree & Assocs
- For the respondent & co-respondent - Jazzmine Khoo Wei Ching, Harvinderjit Singh Daljit Singh & Thanraj Singh Balraj Singh; M/s Jazzmine Khoo & Assocs
It behoves the plaintiff to inquire and verify the name and identification of the correct defendant before suing. To attribute the blame on the defendant once the plaintiff had made an error as to the correct defendant to sue, is misplaced and any judgment obtained in the plaintiff's favour is void ab initio and is unsustainable.
Lim Kong Fai v. Koek Tiang Kung  1 CLJ 247 [HC]
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Judgments and orders - Amendment - Application under O. 20 r. 11 of Rules of Court 2012 - Application to alter originally named defendant - Whether implied that wrong defendant sued and judgment obtained against wrong person - Whether clerical mistake or accidental slip, error or omission justifying amendment - Whether judgment could be enforced - Whether judgment void ab initio and ought to be set aside
- For the appellant/defendant - Justin Chin; M/s Justin Chin
- For the respondent/plaintiff - Manpal Singh & Kiranjit Kaur; M/s Manjit Singh Sachdev, Mohammad Radzi & Partners
The war against drug trafficking involves not only the people committing the acts but also their economic tools and benefits. Keeping those economic tools and gains beyond the reach of these people would inhibit their ability to carry on their activities and prevent them from funding and repeating their crimes. This is inherent in the powers granted under the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, which includes powers of arrest without warrant, seizure and forfeiture of property, powers to intercept communication, powers to request and obtain information and powers to track property.
Ooi Chieng Sim v. PP  1 CLJ 254 [HC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Legislation - Validity and constitutionality - Constitutionality, scope and application of Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 ('FOPA') - Whether any law promulgated under art. 149 of Federal Constitution must be legislation substantively and dominantly dealing with preventive detention - Whether application in compliance with ss. 30 and 84 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Whether there were substantive proceedings from which constitutional questions arose - Whether commencement of application premature and speculative - Whether prayers sought by applicant frivolous and abuse of process of court
- For the applicant - Muhammad Shafee Abdullah & Wee Yeong Kang, M/s Shafee & Co
- For the respondent - Khairul Anuar Abdul Halim, Amril Johari & Yazid Mustaqim Roslan; DPPs, Penang State Legal Advisor's
(i) Kesalahan pengubahan wang haram bawah s. 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 adalah satu kesalahan post-predikat. Seseorang itu tidak perlu disabitkan dahulu dengan kesalahan berat (predikat) yang daripada mana hasil itu diperoleh; dan (ii) 'Transaksi' adalah perkataan paling penting dalams. 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 ('AMLATFPUA'). Berdasarkan takrif s. 3 AMLATFPUA, suatu transaksi itu menghendaki dua perkara iaitu: (i) transaksi adalah antara dua pihak; dan (ii) suatu transaksi itu adalah mengenai pembukaan akaun dan apa-apa transaksi atasnya.
PP lwn. Muhammad Shafee Md Abdullah  1 CLJ 284 [HC]
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kesalahan - Pengubahan wang haram - Tertuduh dituduh dengan empat pertuduhan wang haram - Dua pertuduhan bawah s. 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Wang Haram dan Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan 2001 dan dua pertuduhan bawah s. 4(1)(a) Akta Pencegahan Pengubahan Wang Haram, Pencegahan Pembiayaan Keganasan dan Hasil daripada Aktiviti Haram 2001 - Sama ada elemen-elemen pertuduhan-pertuduhan berjaya dibuktikan - Sama ada wujud kes prima facie
- Bagi pihak pendakwaan - Afzainizam Abdul Aziz & Natasha Chin Le Jy; TPR
- Bagi pihak tertuduh - Harvinderjit Singh, Farhan Read, Badrul Munir Bukhari, Sarah Abishegam, Muhammad Farhan Shafee & Wee Yeong Kang; M/s Shafee & Co
His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') as a constitutional monarch and Head of State, is the ultimate decision maker and the decision by the YDPA in respect of the dissolution of Parliament is non-justiciable in any proceedings in court. In fact, the proclamation and dissolution of Parliament is a matter within the Executive or Legislature's exclusive sphere that should not be entertained by the Judiciary.
Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar v. Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob & Ors  1 CLJ 309 [HC]
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Application for leave - Challenge against request by Prime Minister ('PM') to Yang di-Pertuan Agong ('YDPA') to dissolve Parliament - Whether PM should consult cabinet for advice - Whether YDPA ultimate decision-maker - Whether YDPA acted in own discretion to dissolve Parliament upon PM's request - Whether YDPA's decision non-justiciable - Whether amenable to judicial review - Federal Constitution, arts. 40(1), (1A), 40(2)(b), 55(2) & (4)
- For the applicant - Gopal Sri Ram, R Kengadharan, Yasmeen Soh, Phyllia Lim & Dhanesh Nair; M/s R Kengadharan & Co
- For the respondents - Shamsul Bolhassan & Ahmad Hanir Hambaly; SFCs & Lew Wen; Zhen FC
NAVIGATING THE LABYRINTH: CRYPTOCURRENCY ENFORCEMENT* [Read excerpt]
by Gerard Quek[i] Daniel Ling[ii]  1 LNS(A) i
 1 LNS(A) i
NAVIGATING THE LABYRINTH: CRYPTOCURRENCY ENFORCEMENT*
The hype surrounding cryptoassets has led to an explosion in cryptocurrency-related frauds. This new and fast evolving frontier of fraud gives rise to various novel legal issues, due to the nature of cryptocurrencies.
This article will briefly explain how cryptocurrencies work, then discuss how courts have dealt with the novel issues posed by cryptocurrencies in fraud investigations and recovery, including the following:
1. Is cryptocurrency property?
2. Where are cryptoassets domiciled?
3. Can interim injunctions be granted against persons unknown?
4. How to identify the fraudsters?
5. How to serve court documents against unknown fraudsters?
. . .
ETHICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF EUTHANASIA IN MALAYSIA [Read excerpt]
by Dr Ambikai S Thuraisingam[i] Dr Heamalatha Nair[ii]  1 LNS(A) ii
 1 LNS(A) ii
ETHICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF EUTHANASIA IN MALAYSIA
Dr Ambikai S Thuraisingam[i]
Dr Heamalatha Nair[ii]
This is a conceptual paper to address the ethical and legal perspective of euthanasia in Malaysia. The paper analyses the development, types and legal and ethical debates concerning both types of euthanasia. While deciding on formulating a law prescribing these exceptional situations and enforcing the law, all aspects of euthanasia – medical, social, economic, ethical and legal have been considered.
This study reviews the literature on the development of the common law position in Malaysia, which provides the possibility for a medical practitioner to commission euthanasia if the patient and/or family so desire. The subject of euthanasia has generated many controversial debates, particularly on its legality. This has been primarily due to the doctrine of the sanctity of life, which is a predominant principle in many religions and is embedded in moral values. The underlying precept is that human life is sacred and demands respect, as all life comes from God and life can only be taken away intentionally through due process of law. Thus, ending a person's life, even upon his or her request, is considered in many jurisdictions a criminal offence.
. . .
||In force from
||Akta Cukai Pelancongan 2017
||1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 644/2022]
||Seksyen 66, 69A, 69B dan 70
||Tourism Tax Act 2017
||1 January 2023 [PU(B) 644/2022]
||Sections 66, 69A, 69B and 70
||Akta Cukai Perkhidmatan 2018
||1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 643/2022]
||Seksyen 26A, 38A, 56A, 56D, 56E, 90A dan 90B
||Service Tax Act 2018
||1 January 2023 [PU(B) 643/2022]
||Sections 26A, 38A, 56A, 56D, 56E, 90A and 90B
||Akta Cukai Jualan 2018
||1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 641/2022]
||Seksyen 11A - 11D, 19, 57A, 91, 106, 106A, 106B dan Jadual
||In force from
||Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 15) 2022
||15 Disember 2022
||Road Transport (Prohibition of Use of Road) (Federal Roads) (No. 15) Order 2022
||15 December 2022
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penandaan Harga Barangan Harga Terkawal) (No. 7) 2022
||12 Oktober 2022
||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Price Marking of Price-Controlled Goods) (No. 7) Order 2022
||12 October 2022
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 10) 2022
||8 Oktober 2022 hingga 7 November 2022