HOME

ABSTRACT

This article critically examines the juridical basis and regulatory legitimacy of Bursa Malaysia's Listing Requirements (MMLR), particularly in light of the increasing intersection between capital market regulation and core principles of Malaysian company law. The central focus of this article is to challenge the orthodox characterisation of the MMLR as a consensual "contractual regime" between Bursa Malaysia and listed entities, especially in the context of foreign companies seeking listing on the Main or ACE Market. While listing is formally framed as a non-negotiable instrument, it requires scrutiny through a public law lens.

The analysis is anchored by the recent case of Pop Investments Ltd v. iCapital.Biz Bhd, which raises profound questions about the enforceability of Bursa Malaysia's directives, the procedural rights of listed issuers, and the limits of judicial review under Malaysian administrative law. By comparing this with statutory obligations under the Companies Act 2016 and regulatory provisions of the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, the article examines a disjuncture between the doctrinal promise of consent and the operational reality of regulatory compulsion.

INTRODUCTION

First and foremost, the author is grateful for the opportunity to present her research poster titled 'Malaysia: Towards a Unified Legal and Psychiatric Framework for the Insanity Defence' at the 6th Asian Conference of Criminal and Operations Psychology 2025, Grand Copthorne Waterfront Hotel, Singapore, on 16 July 2025. It was a pleasure to connect with experts and professionals in the field to exchange knowledge and perspectives. The presentation experience sparked further interest and inspired the author to write this article, which the author hopes offers meaningful insights on legal reform of the insanity defence in light of modern developments.

The recent Malaysian Federal Court's decision in PP v. Mohd Rozani Yahaya^[1] reinforces a key legal principle that the defence of insanity under section 84 of the Penal Code^[2] must be proven by the defence during trial and not presumed at the prosecution stage. The Rozani case once again brings attention to an important and often misunderstood issue, despite longstanding legal authority on the matter, highlighting the difference between medical and legal insanity. In criminal law, the two are not the same.

The apex court rules that transactions premised on gambling activities are against public policy and are illegal, null, and void.

A gambling debt is not legally enforceable in Malaysia on grounds of public policy, the Federal Court has ruled. In delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Nordin Hassan noted that the government had repeatedly and firmly voiced its stance against gambling in Parliament on grounds that the public derives no benefit from it.

Globally, there is an unfettered right of access to court proceedings by the public, which is consilient with the principle of open justice as it is regarded as an essential tenet of any justice system to guarantee public confidence, independence, and accountability in the administration of justice. In Malaysia, Section 15 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 states that all civil and criminal matters shall be deemed to be open and accessible to the public. Journalists are often keen to report on cases that are newsworthy and those that garners public interest wherein they act as an intermediary between the public and the courts.