HOME

ABSTRACT

The Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) was intended to guarantee equal partnership between Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak. However, decades of policy decisions and constitutional amendments have led to political, economic, and fiscal disparities, particularly for Sabah and Sarawak.

The erosion of Sabah and Sarawak's parliamentary representation has weakened their political influence. Additionally, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 transferred control over oil and gas resources to Petronas, depriving the two States of their rightful share of revenues, as well as overriding the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958. This has led to long-standing demands for higher oil royalties and greater regulatory autonomy, particularly through Petros in Sarawak. Furthermore, the federal government's failure to conduct mandatory financial reviews under Article 112D resulted in Sabah being deprived of its 40% net revenue entitlement for 47 years, prompting legal challenges from the Sabah Law Society (SLS).

This paper argues that meaningful reforms are necessary to restore East Malaysia's constitutional rights. Key recommendations include amending Article 46 to reinstate one-third of parliamentary representation, honouring the Oil Mining Ordinance 1958, supporting Petros as Sarawak's sole gas aggregator, and enforcing periodic financial reviews under Article 112D. The resolution of these issues is crucial to ensuring fairness and sustainable relations within Malaysia.

Introduction

Brother and sister Judges,
M.D. and Chief Future Officer of Brickfields Asia College (BAC) MR Raja Singham,
Dr. Thillairaj, Chief Technology Officer of the BAC Group,
Inns of Court Malaysia (ICM) Exco Members,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today I am attempting to speak on AI notwithstanding the fact that I am a judge. As a judge I am far more accustomed to dealing with legal issues. My expertise, such as it is, lies in construing statutes and case-law – not algorithms. So, when it comes to AI, I must confess that I feel like a medieval monk or Hang Tuah trying to operate a smartphone. Notwithstanding this I am going to attempt to have a stab at explaining neural networks, and a variety of other topics – in short, my idea of the way forward.

AI

The core of our discussion this evening centers on the integration of artificial intelligence in the public dispute resolution process, and its viability, benefits and risks. This is an exciting and relatively new aspect of the evolution of the law. But with it comes the darker side of AI – will it take control of our lives? Will it replace our work, more particularly the ethos and philosophy of our work? Will the ethics and basic premise of the law be supplanted by AI?

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.

To generations who have passed their lives in the law his is truly clarum et venerabile nomen. Lord Denning was a colossus who strode the judicial landscape in the second half of the last century shedding lambent light on ticklish legal corners and illuminating the legal and judicial landscape with his effulgence. He was unique. His tenure as a judge expanded the universe of judicial discourse. This year 2024 marks his 125th birth anniversary (January 23) and today, March 5 is his 25th death anniversary. It is appropriate that we remember him, draw inspiration from his life and work and salute his memory.