The crime of murder remains one of the most severe offences in every country. Before sanctioning the offender, he is entitled to raise his defences in court. The success of defences might result in the acquittal of the offender. Among all the defences available, necessity remains a controversial topic on how relevant this defence is towards the Lifeboat Case. Following the proposition underlying the utilitarian concept, we should evaluate actions in terms of the propensity to maximise goodness. In other words, killing a person could be justified if it would result in the survival of others which maximises the good results obtained. Contrary to the utilitarian concept, Kant's theory proposes that no matter how the outcome, a moral act remains a moral act. Morality will always take centre stage. This article further analyses the advantages and disadvantages of positive law and natural law in connection with the defence of necessity in a murder case. This article will use qualitative research to examine the relevancy of each jurisprudence approach toward this defence. From the practicability viewpoint in the case of murder, this research found that positive law would be the best law option despite its rigidity and inflexibility. It would provide the best guarantee of the sanctity of the law. Applying other principles might cause the law to lose credibility, leading to even more biased and unjust events. This would result in an outcome that was intended to be rejected, to begin with.

On 9 December 2022, a five-member bench of the Federal Court led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat held that art. 13(2) of the Constitution. But, where as I humbly submit, it may or may not, depending on the way the assessment is made, there is no necessity and no justification to strike down the section. That is besides the other grounds I have forwarded above.

Now, think of the consequences. I cannot think of a way of reversing it. IRB cannot issue a fresh assessment in another case even against a different landowner hoping to get a chance to reopen the issue, because the law enabling a similar assessment has been struck down as unconstitutional.

Is this another example of abuse of judicial review? See "Should the Industrial Court not be allowed to be what it was intended to be?" (4 March 2008). Is this another example of the Judiciary encroaching the powers of Parliament? - see "Not for judges to rewrite the Constitution (12 06 2017), "No judge is a Parliament" (30 March 2018); "Who is encroaching whose jurisdiction, Parliament or courts?" (16 December 2019), "Bapa" juga bermaksud "Ibu": Hakim mengambil alih kuasa Parlimen dan Majlis Raja-Raja" (23 September 2021).

Another point I wish to make is that, in a case where the validity of a law is challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional, the Attorney General should intervene. It should not be left to the party sued, to defend it. The effect is far-reaching, not just between the two parties in that particular case. Valid grounds may be missed resulting in permanent consequences, as in this case.

Arbitration is the most widespread mechanism for resolving disputes in the modern and Islamic eras. The current global tendency calls for an increase in the integration of disruptive technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), into arbitration. This article uses doctrinal legal research methodology to examine the use of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (ChatGPT-3). To achieve that, primary and secondary sources of data are used. The collected data was analytically and critically analysed using the content analysis method. It is found that AI technologies, such as ChatGPT-3 would bring added value to arbitration if they are appropriately employed. However, from a legal perspective, arbitration laws are not mature enough to absorb AI technologies, such as ChatGPT-3. Finally, this article recommends that designing or developing an AI application similar to ChatGPT-3 by the Malaysian relevant authority in general and AIAC in specific would be a coherent milestone for the arbitration industry in Malaysia to be among the well-known international arbitration industry; it would attract more disputes to AIAC.

INTRODUCTION

The judgment of Justice Hishamudin Yunus in Kanagalingam^[1] was unprecedented and sent shock waves to the legal fraternity, as the learned judge courageously chose to adopt the decision of the Court of Appeal^[2] (Ayer Molek COA) over that of the Federal Court^[3] (Ayer Molek FC) in the case of Ayer Molek. He held that the Federal Court's panel in Ayer Molek FC was constitutionally incompetent, having violated both the Federal Constitution and the statutory provisions of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ('CJA'). Therefore, no valid judgment could be rendered by a panel that was unconstitutionally and unlawfully constituted.

Justice Hishamudin's decision fundamentally raises two important questions of law, namely, the concept of stare decisis and quorum failure. In this article, his decision in Kanagalingam will be reviewed in light of these two legal principles.

Employment
The prompt action to bring 373,459 foreign workers into the country via visa by reference based on employers’ applications from January to Dec 4, 2022 has eased the bottlenecks faced by businesses in their daily operations, and assist them to meet their business requirements. The said figures are part of the overall 403,869 applications received by the Immigration Department. Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) president Datuk Dr Syed Hussain Syed Husman said the assurance given by Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail — that the remaining 30,410 employers’ applications for foreign workers will be processed and be considered for approval within seven working days — is indeed very assuring. “It shows Saifuddin’s seriousness in addressing the issues faced by employers due to shortages of foreign labour.”

Employment
The labour market in Singapore continued to improve in the third quarter of this year, but the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) warned of early signs that the momentum was easing in its latest report on Thursday (Dec 15). Retrenchments were also up slightly from the previous quarter, with tech firms laying off more workers. Total employment continued to expand by 75,900 in the third quarter, which was more than the 66,500 in the previous quarter. It is now 1.7 per cent above the 2019 level. The number of non-residents workers increased by 71,100, while resident employment went up by 4,800.

Employment
Singapore's Minister for Manpower Dr. Tan See Leng has recently addressed a Parliamentary query on the number of workers with a Letter of Consent employed in jobs with a job scope or salary equivalent to Employment Pass (EP) holders, S Pass holders, and Work Permit holders. For better understanding, since 1 May 2021, Dependant's Pass holders in Singapore have had to obtain a relevant work pass instead of a Letter of Consent (LOC) to work in Singapore. As such, the majority of the LOC holders at present are dependants of Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents who are holding a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or LTVP-Plus, and working on either an LOC or pre-approved LOC (PLOC).