HOME

INTRODUCTION

Sandboxing as part of regulation has been a popular term in Malaysia since it was first introduced by its central banking institution, Bank Negara, in 2016. Technically, Bank Negara refers to a sandbox as a platform for testing out financial products that are coupled with technological innovation within specific perimeters with regulatory oversight before releasing such products to the market. In the Malaysian financial sphere, it is referred to as the Fintech Regulatory Sandbox.^[1] Based on the theory of responsive regulation,^[2] sandboxing is part of regulating innovative products within a controlled environment with the objective of minimising market and regulatory disruption upon immediate release. In the context of Malaysia's financial regulatory framework, the regulatory sandbox functions under the authority of Bank Negara, subject to the oversight of the Ministry of Finance.

Meanwhile, for innovative non-financial products, the regulatory sandbox concept is also applicable. In Malaysia, such matters fall under the National Regulatory Sandbox ('NRS'). The NRS itself is managed by Futurise Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cyberview Sdn Bhd. Interestingly, the regulatory oversight for non-fintech innovations still lies with the Ministry of Finance.^[3] The NRS acts as a platform to facilitate regulatory intervention where existing laws may not adequately accommodate new or evolving technologies. It allows for controlled testing of innovative products, services, or business models that fall outside the scope of current regulations. This is particularly relevant for businesses introducing new technologies or applying existing technologies in novel ways, where the underlying business model was previously unregulated or unclear under the existing legal framework. The NRS provides a structured environment for such innovations to be tested while enabling regulators to assess potential risks and determine the necessary legal or policy adjustments.^[4]

Domestic abuse against men constitutes a significant yet critically underacknowledged societal issue both globally and within Malaysia, frequently obscured by prevailing narratives that focus on female victims and entrenched societal norms surrounding masculinity. This paper synthesises and expands upon findings from a Malaysian study^[1] examining the efficacy and equity of national laws in protecting male victims, identifying catalysts for female-perpetrated abuse, and evaluating public consciousness. Employing a mixed-methods approach that draws on qualitative survey data (N=58), secondary analysis of academic literature, NGO reports, and media analysis, the research reveals a stark perception of legal inadequacy and gender bias within the Malaysian framework, particularly concerning the Domestic Violence Act 1994 ('DVA 1994') and Penal Code provisions on sexual violence. Key drivers identified include financial conflicts, jealousy, coercive control, verbal aggression, physical assaults, sexual coercion, and the perpetrator's history of trauma. Public awareness remains moderate, largely fueled by social media, yet hampered by significant minorities viewing abuse as gender-specific and lacking knowledge of support channels. Official Malaysian statistics confirm male victimhood, yet profound underreporting, driven by shame, fear of disbelief, and inadequate services, masks the true prevalence. Comparative analysis with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom ('UK'), United States of America ('USA'), and Australia highlights similar challenges regarding underreporting and societal scepticism but also reveals variations in legal recognition (e.g., specific offences, gender-neutral language) and the development of specialised support services, offering potential models for Malaysia. The study concludes that domestic abuse against men is an urgent issue demanding immediate legal reform for gender neutrality in Malaysia, intensified public awareness campaigns to dismantle stereotypes, robust, accessible support systems tailored for male victims, and further research to capture the full scope of the problem.

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.