HOME

INTRODUCTION

Sarawak's 2025 State Budget reached a historic RM15.8 billion, with RM10.9 billion allocated to development expenditure, an increase of RM2.2 billion from the previous year.^[1] In parallel, Sarawak secured RM13.4 billion in foreign direct investment in 2024, channelled into high-value sectors such as renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, and high technology, with projections of RM100 billion in investments over the next five years.^[2]

With large-scale infrastructure projects, rising foreign investment, and a rapidly expanding construction sector, the scale and complexity of Sarawak's economic transformation make alternative dispute resolution ('ADR') indispensable. Disputes in this context are inevitable, ranging from construction delays and payment disputes to cross-border contractual claims.

Unlike West Malaysia, where the legal profession is regulated by the Legal Profession Act 1976,^[3] Sarawak regulates its legal profession through the Advocates Ordinance (Sarawak Chapter 110).^[4] At the same time, federal legislation such as the Arbitration Act 2005^[5] ('AA 2005') and the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012^[6] ('CIPAA 2012') applies throughout Malaysia.

The interaction of these frameworks has come under judicial scrutiny in recent cases, most notably in the Federal Court's decision in Masenang Sdn Bhd v. Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd^[7] and the High Court's ruling in Tekun Cemerlang Sdn Bhd v. Vinci Construction Grands Projets Sdn Bhd.^[8]

This article will analyse these cases and their implications on the arbitration and adjudication proceedings within Sarawak's legal framework.

Abstract

The High Court recently broke new ground in constitutional law. In Karnan Rajanthiran & Ors v. Firdaus Wong Wai Hung, it held that non-Muslim parents may sue persons who put their minor children "at serious peril" of being converted out of their religion, apparently because art. 12(4) of the Federal Constitution - which states that "the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian" - gives them that right. But the High Court's reasoning is, with respect, wrong: it effectively allows a private individual to sue another private individual for alleged violations of fundamental liberties, which the Federal Court's decision in Beatrice Fernandez forecloses. That does not mean non-Muslim parents lack private-law rights. Far from it. Those rights instead lie in s. 3 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961; and their public-law rights lie in art. 12(4). This article sets out those rights. And in so doing, we (unlike the High Court's decision) reason from first principles.

Dua pemimpin anak negeri Sabah tampil memberikan respons terhadap kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Presiden Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation, Daniel John Jambun yang mencadangkan reformasi besar-besaran terhadap sistem Mahkamah Anak Negeri, termasuklah pengecualian pegawai-pegawai Muslim daripada pentadbiran hal ehwal anak negeri.

Kenyataan beliau yang menyarankan bahawa hanya anak negeri bukan Muslim sahaja yang layak mentadbir institusi berkaitan undang-undang adat telah menimbulkan kebimbangan terhadap arah tuju dan nada perbincangan reformasi ini.

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