HOME

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is the non-medical cutting, removal, or injury of female genitalia, most often performed on girls between infancy and 14 years of age. Despite international condemnation and the recognition of FGM/C as a violation of human and children's rights under instruments such as CEDAW and the CRC, the practice remains widespread, affecting an estimated 230 million girls and women across Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. This study examines the socio-cultural factors and effects, including traditions, religious beliefs, community pressures, and economic incentives, that sustain FGM/C. It also investigates how international legal standards are implemented and compares domestic legal frameworks in the United Kingdom and Malaysia. Adopting a qualitative, literature-based methodology, the research draws on secondary sources from academic and legal databases and employs a comparative approach. The findings reveal that while the United Kingdom has established a robust legal regime with specific statutes, extraterritorial provisions, and protective measures, Malaysia lacks a stand-alone law and relies instead on general child protection statutes and religious or cultural justifications. The study concludes that Malaysia must reconcile its international obligations with domestic religious and cultural realities by enacting a dedicated FGM law, setting medical and legal guidelines, mandating reporting duties, and involving religious authorities. Such a pragmatic approach would enhance the protection of girls and women, reduce health risks, and align Malaysia more closely with international human rights standards.

ABSTRACT

The Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act A1737), coming into force on 1 January 2026, represents a major reform of Malaysian arbitration law. For the first time, it establishes a statutory regime governing third-party funding ('TPF'), abolishing the common-law doctrines of maintenance and champerty for arbitration, and introducing rules on disclosure and the regulation of funders. This article analyses the new provisions (sections 46A–46A) of the Arbitration Act 2005 as amended, explains their policy rationale, and compares Malaysia's forthcoming framework with the position in England and Wales following R (PACCAR Inc) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal.^[1] It concludes that the reform brings Malaysia into alignment with leading arbitral jurisdictions and enhances access to justice while preserving procedural integrity.

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.