CASE(S) OF THE WEEK
MATRIX GLOBAL EDUCATION SDN BHD v. FELIX LEE ENG BOON  2 CLJ 34
COURT OF APPEAL, PUTRAJAYA
LEE SWEE SENG JCA; SUPANG LIAN JCA; NORDIN HASSAN JCA
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-01(A)-477-09-2020]
09 DECEMBER 2022
The moment an employee enters into negotiations for a severance package and later puts in his letter of resignation the terms agreed upon, there is a concluded contract. An employee cannot have the best of both worlds; negotiating and accepting the terms of a separation with the employer and then, at the same time, claiming at the Industrial Court that he had been constructively dismissed.
LABOUR LAW: Constructive dismissal - Claim - Employee allegedly dismissed without just cause and excuse by being forced to resign - Employee entered into negotiations with employer and agreed on severance terms before tendering resignation - Employer honoured terms agreed between parties - Employee commenced claim at Industrial Court - Whether there was constructive dismissal - Whether employee barred from claiming at Industrial Court - Whether employee could enter into severance package agreement with employer and later claim for constructive dismissal at Industrial Court
LGB Engineering Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Rayston Resources Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 1997 overruling the High Court case of Rayston Resources Sdn Bhd v. LGB Engineering Sdn Bhd & Ors  1 LNS 1090
Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim lwn. PP  1 LNS 1995 mengesahkan sebahagian kes Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim lwn. PP  1 LNS 328
Legal Network Series
 1 LNS 46
BELUX HOLDINGS SDN BHD v. KETUA PENGARAH HASIL DALAM NEGERI
The availability of domestic remedies in a judicial review application can be raised at the leave stage. Section 99 of the Income Tax Act 1967 ('ITA') is clear that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Director General of Inland Revenue ('DGIR') must first exhaust the internal remedy before commencing with the judicial review application. Where an applicant had already filed an appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') under s. 99 of ITA regarding notices of assessment issued by the DGIR, the leave application for judicial review should be dismissed as the SCIT is the only proper forum to ventilate the applicant's grievance.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Judicial review - Leave for judicial review - Abuse of process - Availability of alternate remedy - Certiorari to quash notices of assessment issued by Director General of Inland Revenue - Applicant had filed an appeal to Special Commissioners of Income Tax ('SCIT') under s. 99 of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether availability of domestic remedy in judicial review application could be raised at leave stage - Whether applicant could proceed with judicial review application when it failed to exhaust internal remedy - Whether issues on merits of assessment is best determined by SCIT - Whether it was abuse of court process to maintain judicial review application when appeal to SCIT is pending
- For the applicant - Karen Lee Foong Voon & Cheah Kha Mun; M/s Wong Kian Kheong
- For the putative respondent - Hazlina Hussain, Peguam Kanan Hasil, Zul-Hasymi & Marvianna Zainol; Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri Malaysia
 1 LNS 69
AL MAARIF TRAVEL & TOURS SDN BHD v. NUR FARHANA YEOP HUSSIN & ANOR & ANOTHER CASE
Any assertion of breach of contract is not equal to being dishonest and a cheat. Hence, a statement published on Facebook alleging breach of contract by a party amounts to cheating and dishonesty is defamatory in nature. Express defamatory averments of cheating, dishonesty, or deceit entitle the plaintiff to damages without any need for proof. However, such damages may be reduced by the court if it is found that the plaintiff operated a business without a valid license when the defamatory statement was published.
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Malicious falsehood - Facebook posting - Defendant expressed unhappiness over decision of travel agency aborting overseas trips last minute - Defendant alleged plaintiff cheated and being dishonest - Publication to third party undisputed - Statements published after plaintiff made good on its obligation to refund monies - Whether there was evidence of malice on part of defendant - Whether breach of contract itself prove original fraudulent intent - Whether statements made defamatory in nature
TORT: Defamation - Defence - Fair comment - Defendant expressed unhappiness over decision of travel agency aborting overseas trips - Statements published after plaintiff made good on its obligation to refund monies - Whether evidence of malice would defeat defence of fair comment - Whether relevant time for addressing malice was during publication of Facebook posting - Whether defence of fair comment and justification made out
TORT: Defamation - Libel - Malicious falsehood - Damages - Illegality - Plaintiff's business collapsed after defendant's postings - Plaintiff was operating business without licence - Whether reputation of plaintiff badly tarnished - Whether plaintiff entitled to damages without need of proof - Whether damages awarded to plaintiff ought to be reduced
- For the plaintiff - Amir Faliq Mohamad Jamil, Siti Nor Syahidah Ismail & Ahmad Radzmin Mohd Razi Rajinder; M/s AmirFaliq & Syahidah
- For the defendant - Muhammad Hasanuddin Mohd Yusoff & Mohamad Ghazali Mazri; M/s Hasanuddin Shafarin & Ghazali
 1 LNS 104
PP v. MOHD ASHFIEQ MOHAMAD
1. When the prosecution relies on direct evidence of a witness who saw the accused taking out an object, the absence of the accused person's fingerprints on the said object does not exonerate him.
2. The conduct of an accused person is not an essential part of what has to be set out in the police report. It suffices that the kind of offence, the date and time of the alleged offence, and a short account of the items seized are stated in the police report.
CRIMINAL LAW: Dangerous drug - Trafficking - Actual possession - Accused attempted to flee crime scene - Drugs found in basket of motorcycle - Inspection in backpack carried by accused upon arrival at police station led to discovery of more drugs - Police report failed to state conduct of accused at crime scene - Whether accused had custody and control of drug substances - Whether accused had mens rea possession - Whether presumption under s. 37(da)(xvi) of Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 triggered - Whether absence of accused's fingerprint on item seized could exonerate him - Whether adverse inference could be invoked against prosecution for not calling motorcycle owner to give evidence
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Exhibits - Break in chain of evidence - Omission to state weight of drugs in seizure list - Seized items not kept in special room - Whether omission to state weight of drugs in seizure list fatal to prosecution's case - Whether there was tampering of exhibits - Whether there was need for special room in police station to keep exhibits - Whether there was proper handover of exhibits
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Allegation that accused was framed - Offence of trafficking dangerous drugs - Drugs found in motorcycle basket - Accused alleged went to nearby mosque for prayer and was caught upon return to motorcycle after prayers - Accused alleged to have gone other places with motorcycle - Whether possibilities raised were mere conjectures - Whether accused's defence created reasonable doubt - Whether presumption of trafficking rebutted
- For the prosecution - DPP Mark Kenneth Netto
- For the accused - Hamida Ambo; M/s Ambo & Co
 1 LNS 1535
RAYAN RAMALINGAM & YANG LAIN lwn. PP & KES YANG LAIN
1. Dalam memutuskan hukuman bagi sesuatu kesalahan, hakim bicara perlu memberi penekanan yang memadai kepada rayuan peringanan hukuman dengan memperoleh maklumat lengkap berkenaan latar belakang dan peribadi tertuduh dan bukan sekadar mencatatkan secara ringkas atau menyentuh sepintas lalu rayuan peringanan hukuman tersebut.
2. Bagi kesalahan yang melibatkan beberapa tertuduh, mahkamah perlu meneliti rekod sabitan lampau tertuduh-tertuduh dan mengambil kira perbezaan-perbezaan yang wujud sebelum menjatuhkan hukuman. Adalah tidak wajar untuk mahkamah menjatuhkan hukuman yang sama ke atas semua tertuduh yang mempunyai rekod sabitan lampau yang berbeza.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan rompakan berkumpulan - Rayuan peringanan dicatatkan oleh hakim bicara secara ringkas sahaja - Hukuman pemenjaraan untuk tempoh yang sama dijatuhkan ke atas semua tertuduh - Sama ada hakim bicara telah memberi penekanan yang memadai kepada rayuan peringanan hukuman - Sama ada hakim bicara telah memperoleh maklumat lengkap berkenaan latar belakang dan peribadi semua tertuduh - Sama ada tempoh masa kesalahan terdahulu dengan kesalahan terkini perlu diambil kira untuk menentukan hukuman pemenjaraan - Sama ada semua tertuduh wajar dijatuhkan tempoh hukuman pemenjaraan yang sama
No. Kes: AA-42S-12-07/2019
No. Kes: AA-42S-13-07/2019
- Bagi pihak perayu pertama & kedua - Kumaresan Shanmugam; T/n S Kumaresan & Associates
- Bagi pihak perayu ketiga - Nahtan N Krishnan & Dayang Nor Emilia Azman Shah; T/n Naht, Guna & Partners
- Bagi pihak responden - Jean Sharmila Jesudason; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak
- Bagi pihak perayu - Kumaresan Shanmugam; T/n S Kumaresan & Associates
- Bagi pihak responden - Jean Sharmila Jesudason; Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Negeri Perak
 1 LNS 1545
ROZAIDI RAMLI lwn. PP
Semasa penilaian kes pembelaan di peringkat pembelaan, mahkamah harus melihat keterangan-keterangan yang dikemukakan oleh pihak pembelaan bagi menunjukkan sama ada keraguan berjaya dibuktikan terhadap kes pendakwaan. Mahkamah tidak sepatutnya mengkaji semula keterangan-keterangan yang sebelumnya dikemukakan oleh pihak pendakwaan dan memberikan komen-komen kepada kes pendakwaan sehingga menyebabkan kegagalan untuk memberi penilaian yang sepatutnya terhadap kes pembelaan. Jika ini berlaku ia akan menyebabkan keterangan-keterangan pembelaan tidak diteliti dengan sewajarnya dan boleh membawa kepada perbicaraan yang tidak adil dan perlu dielakkan.
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Keraguan yang munasabah - Kesalahan pemilikan dadah berbahaya - Dadah dijumpai di dalam kereta yang dinaiki tertuduh - Sama ada pembelaan tertuduh telah menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan - Sama ada mahkamah wajar mengkaji semula kes pendakwaan di peringkat kes pembelaan - Sama ada penilaian yang sewajarnya telah diberi kepada keterangan-keterangan oleh pihak pembelaan - Sama ada mahkamah boleh menentukan hujahan pendakwaan telah disangkal atau sebaliknya oleh pihak pembelaan di peringkat kes pembelaan - Sama ada sesuatu pembelaan yang dianggap lemah perlu diteliti oleh mahkamah
- Bagi pihak perayu - Sri M Ramachelvam & Ameerul Radzi Azlan; T/n Rama-Rozi & Associates
- Bagi pihak responden - Syairah Mohamad Razali, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya
CLJ 2023 Volume 1 (Part 6)
(i) Apabila satu kes disambung dengar oleh hakim yang mengambil alih daripada hakim terdahulu, kesemua keterangan mesti dinilai secara menyeluruh dan jika diambil alih di peringkat akhir kes, wujud kebimbangan bahawa hakim yang mengambil alih tidak dapat menilai audio visual keterangan saksi-saksi penting, dengan itu, mewajarkan campur tangan di peringkat rayuan. (ii) Pembelaan alibi, jika dibangkitkan tertuduh, perlu diberi pertimbangan sewajarnya, khususnya jika pembelaan diberi di awal siasatan.
Danaraj Sasekumar lwn. PP & Satu Lagi Rayuan  1 CLJ 813 [CA]
| UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH
KETERANGAN: Pembelaan - Alibi - Pertuduhan membunuh bawah s. 302 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada pembelaan alibi diberi pada peringkat awal siasatan - Sama ada pembelaan alibi dipertimbangkan sewajarnya - Sama ada tertuduh hanya perlu menimbulkan keraguan munasabah - Sama ada wajar meletakkan beban terhadap tertuduh untuk membuktikan perkara dalam notis alibi
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Membunuh - Rayuan - Hakim bicara mengambil alih pendengaran di peringkat saksi akhir pendakwaan memberi keterangan -Sama ada kegagalan memanggil semula saksi mata menjejaskan kes pendakwaan - Sama ada 'demeanour' saksi mata diberi perhatian - Sama ada tertuduh dicam secara positif oleh saksi mata - Sama ada kegagalan memanggil saksi menarik pemakaian anggapan bertentangan bawah s. 114(g) Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada pembelaan notis alibi dipertimbangkan dengan teliti - Sama ada rayuan bermerit
KAMALUDIN MD SAID HMR
GUNALAN MUNIANDY HMR
GHAZALI CHA HMR
(Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-480-09-2018)
- Bagi pihak perayu - Ramkarpal Singh & Nishwant Kaur; T/n Karpal Singh & Co
- Bagi pihak responden - Hanim Mohd Rashid; TPR
(Rayuan Jenayah No: B-05(M)-481-09-2018)
- Bagi pihak perayu - Saha Deva A Runasalam; T/n Saha & Assocs
- Bagi pihak responden - Hanim Mohd Rashid; TPR
Any person asserting that he is the owner of certain goods, has the right to claim the goods, subject to the proof of his interest, legal or beneficial, in respect of the goods. For the release of seized goods from the Customs Department, the party seeking the release must first establish that it is the owner/consignee of such goods. Failure to do so would result in a lack of locus standi, further resulting in the failure of the release sought.
Sarmiina Sdn Bhd v. Gerry Ho & Ors  1 CLJ 829 [CA]
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: Seizure - Seizure of containers containing alcoholic beverages - Claimant appointed by certain consignors to act as agent in respect of goods - Claimant did not possess requisite import permit to bring imported liquor into Malaysia - Import permit used belonged to another entity - Whether entity consignee/owner of goods - Claimant sought release and return of goods - Whether claimant consignee as per bills of lading - Whether claimant had right to claim for release of goods
HANIPAH FARIKULLAH JCA
AZIZAH NAWAWI JCA
S NANTHA BALAN JCA
- For the plaintiff - JR Ravendren & Agalya J Munusamy; M/s JR Ravendren & Assocs
- For the defendants - Noerazlim Saidil; SFC & Natrah Mazman; FC; State Legal Advisor, Selangor
(i) The proper filing of Forms A and B will determine whether the representative of either party has the locus standi to appear before the court, in this case, the Industrial Court, as that party's representative. A failure to do so would mean that the solicitor is not representing the aggrieved party and is therefore not obligated to inform the latter of the trial dates of the case; (ii) Although it is trite that the standard of proof to establish misconduct is beyond reasonable doubt, a disciplinary proceeding is not subject to the rigid and strict adversarial procedures in criminal trials.
Sivanesan Achalingam v. Pathmanathan Kuppusamy; Majlis Peguam (Intervener)  1 CLJ 870 [CA]
LEGAL PROFESSION: Disciplinary proceedings - Complaint against solicitor - Allegation of misconduct and breach of duty - Appeal against Disciplinary Board's decision to impose fine on solicitor - Whether solicitor had locus standi to appear as aggrieved party's representative - Burden of proof - Whether Disciplinary Committee or Disciplinary Board applied wrong burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings - Whether appellate intervention warranted
YAACOB MD SAM JCA
RAVINTHRAN PARAMAGURU JCA
HASHIM HAMZAH JCA
- For the appellant - R Kengadharan, L Nagarajan & S Lavenyia; M/s A Sivanesan & Co
- For the respondent - In Person
- For the intervener - Heng Yee Keat; M/s Christopher & Lee Ong
In exercising its discretion on whether or not to grant an order for discharge of a bankrupt, the court must look into the totality of the evidence or circumstance of the bankrupt before considering whether it is fair or just to grant a discharge. When a judgment debtor has never been tried or charged for any bankruptcy offence and has satisfied the requirements laid down in s. 33(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967, he ought to be discharged as a bankrupt.
Quek Siew Eng v. Malayan Banking Bhd  1 CLJ 884 [CA]
BANKRUPTCY: Discharge - Order of - Application for - Whether there was contravention of s. 16(1) of Insolvency Act 1967 by appellant as judgment debtor - Whether appellant charged for any bankruptcy offence - Whether application for discharge should fall under s. 33(3) of Insolvency Act 1967 - Whether requirements satisfied - Whether appellant ought to be discharged from bankruptcy
NOR BEE ARIFFIN JCA
LEE HENG CHEONG JCA
MARIANA YAHYA JCA
- For the appellant - Norbert Yapp; M/s Norbert Yapp & Assocs
- For the respondent - Wong Chik Yoong; M/s Sia Mojilip
(i) The Kuala Lumpur Syariah High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine cases on committal proceedings which include contempt of court for a custody order; and (ii) The proceedings and decisions of the Syariah Courts are not amenable to judicial review by the civil courts. The Syariah Courts and the civil courts form two separate legal systems; the Syariah Courts are not inferior to the civil courts in terms of appeal and judicial review by superior courts over inferior courts.
Emilia Hanafi v. Datuk Wira SM Faisal Tan Sri SM Nasimuddin Kamal & Ors  1 CLJ 897 [HC]
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - Syariah Court - Jurisdiction - Applicant violated custody order and punished for contempt by Syariah High Court - Whether Syariah Court seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine cases on committal proceedings which include contempt of court for custody order - Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, s. 46 - Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984, ss. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 & 87 - Syariah Court Civil Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1998, s. 151
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Courts - High Court - Jurisdiction - Application for leave for judicial review against decision of Syariah Court - Applicant punished for contempt by Syariah High Court - Whether civil courts seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving Syariah matters - Whether proceedings and decisions of Syariah Courts amenable to judicial review by civil courts - Federal Constitution, art. 121(1A)
- For the applicant - Nizam Bashir Abdul Kariem Bashir; M/s Nizam Bashir & Assocs
- For the Honourable Attorney General - Mohammad Sallehuddin Md Ali, FC
- For the putative first & second respondents - Akberdin Abdul Kader, Ummi Kartini Abd Latif & Ardy Suffian Akberdin; M/s Akberdin & Co
Pursuant to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, there is only one ground for divorce, ie, the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Fault is irrelevant to the grant of divorce. Insofar as the act of dissolution is concerned, it is both unnecessary and undesirable to re-open old wounds by going into a painful investigation of the past.
Premganesh Dr K Ganaisan v. Nagaletchumy Thangarasu & Anor  1 CLJ 917 [HC]
| CIVIL PROCEDURE
FAMILY LAW: Divorce - Dissolution of marriage - Marriage had broken down irretrievably - Allegations by wife of adultery between husband and third party - Wife named third party as alleged adulteress without seeking damages - Whether frivolous and waste of time to inquire into adultery allegation when parties had elected for dissolution of marriage and wife chose not to claim for damages or any other relief against alleged adulteress - Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, s. 54
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out - Application for - Dissolution of marriage - Allegations by wife of adultery between husband and third party - Applicant named as alleged adulteress in divorce proceedings - Whether frivolous and waste of time to inquire into adultery allegation when parties had elected for dissolution of marriage and wife chose not to claim for damages or any other relief against alleged adulteress - Whether wife's claim ought to be struck out - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a) & O. 92 r. 4
- For the petitioner - Shahreena Abu Bakar Sidik; M/s Shahreena Sidik & Partners
- For the respondent - Jagdeep Kaur Jagjeet Singh; M/s Jagdeep Kaur & Assocs
As a responsible statutory body and tax collection agent of the Government under s. 10 of the Inland Revenue Board of Malaysia Act 1995, the Director General of the Income Tax and the Inland Revenue Board should deal with substantive issues in respect of a taxpayer's tax liability and not rely on vague or obscure procedural means to refuse to look at the substantive issues in dispute or obfuscate the real issues.
Sime Darby Ara Damansara Development Sdn Bhd v. Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri  1 CLJ 924 [HC]
REVENUE LAW: Income tax - Overpayment - Appeal against deciding order of Special Commissioner of Income Tax ('SCIT') - Application for relief under s. 131 of Income Tax Act 1967 - Whether decision made by SCIT ignored extensive primary facts - Whether conclusion perverse and bad in law - Whether s. 131(4) of ITA could override and disregard binding superior court's decisions - Whether decision impact statement ('DIS') issued by SCIT misleading - Whether SCIT wrongly treated DIS as falling within meaning of 'practice of the Director General generally prevailing' under s. 131(4) - Whether such 'generally prevailing practice' existed - Whether SCIT acted in bad faith by resorting to various procedural means to deny taxpayer of entitlement under s. 131(1)
- For the appellant - Anand Raj, Foong Pui Chi, Yeoh Yu Xian & Choo Kelly; M/s Shearn Delamore & Co
- For the respondent - Abdul Aziz Harun; SRC & Elina Abdul Rashid; RC
It is generally the position for public hospitals that its doctors or nursing staffs are the direct employees of the public hospital and the Government of Malaysia is liable for the negligence of its servants and agents. A doctor is under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is properly diagnosed and advised and is informed of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment. Public hospitals and the Government owe a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that their doctors/consultants are equipped with the necessary qualification, skills and competence to carry out tasks in treating patients.
Suzilawati Ali & Anor v. Dr Alif Al Ain Mohd Fathilah, Pegawai Perubatan Hospital Changkat Melintang & Ors  1 CLJ 959 [HC]
TORT: Negligence - Medical negligence - Claim for damages by parents of deceased - Breach of contractual duty to use reasonable skill and care - Diagnosis, management, care, treatment and advise provided - Whether public hospitals and/or servants/agents of Government of Malaysia caused deceased's death - Whether public hospitals and Government of Malaysia vicariously liable - Whether parents contributed to deceased's death
TORT: Duty of care - Non-delegable duty of care - Claim for damages by parents of deceased - Breach of contractual duty to use reasonable skill and care - Diagnosis, management, care, treatment and advise provided - Non-delegable duty of public hospitals and Government of Malaysia to ensure that doctors/consultants equipped with necessary qualification, skills and competence to carry out tasks in treating patient
- For the plaintiff - Ranjit Singh & Harveynder Singh Tyndall; M/s Ranjit Singh & Co
- For the respondents/defendants - Siti Norashikin Hassanor; SFC
LIFEBOAT CASE — THE DEFENCE OF NECESSITY FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER [Read excerpt]
by Chin Jing Hui[i] Hew Min Min[ii] Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii]  1 LNS(A) ix
 1 LNS(A) ix
LIFEBOAT CASE — THE DEFENCE OF NECESSITY FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER
Chin Jing Hui[i]
Hew Min Min[ii]
Nabeel Mahdi Althabhawi[iii]
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.
. . .
GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS IN PROTECTING WELFARE OF THE ELDERLY IN MALAYSIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SIASAH SYAR'IYYAH [Read excerpt]
by Intan Nadia Ghulam Khan[i] Hasnizam Hashim[ii] Haliza A Shukor[iii] Nabilah Yusof[iv]  1 LNS(A) x
 1 LNS(A) x
GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS IN PROTECTING WELFARE OF THE ELDERLY IN MALAYSIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SIASAH SYAR'IYYAH
Intan Nadia Ghulam Khan[i]
Haliza A Shukor[iii]
Based on the 2020 Malaysian Census record, the population of elderly aged 60 years and above was recorded at 3.4 million, 10.4% of the total population showing an increase compared to 2010, which recorded 2.2 million population or 8%. The Department of Statistics Malaysia in 2016 also reported that Malaysia is expected to be an ageing nation by 2035. In line with this ageing population growth, the government needs to prepare and implement policies to ensure the welfare of the elderly is always preserved and they are not exposed to neglect. This coincides with the principles of Islamic public policy or al-siasah al-syar'iyyah in Islam. Hence, by employing the library research method, this paper will discuss the government's role in forming policies related to the elderly according to the perspective of siasah syar'iyyah. The findings of this paper indicate that the Malaysian government has played an important role in this regard through the relevant policies and laws in line with the principles of siasah syar'iyyah. However, improvements can be made by providing specific laws in respect of the elderly in Malaysia so that their welfare can be protected and respected.
. . .
||In force from
||Akta Pemuliharaan Hidupan Liar 2010
||1 Februari 2023 [PU(B) 32/2023] kecuali s. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 61, 65, 68, 73 dan 75
||Seksyen 21, 22, 25A, 29, 36, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78 - 88, 101, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123A, 124, 125 dan Jadual Kelapan, Jadual Kesembilan, Jadual Kesepuluh dan Jadual Kesebelas
||Wildlife Conservation Act 2010
||1 February 2023 [PU(B) 32/2023] except sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 61, 65, 68, 73 and 75
||Sections 21, 22, 25A, 29, 36, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78 - 88, 101, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123A, 124, 125 and Eighth Schedule, Ninth Schedule, Tenth Schedule and Eleventh Schedule
||Akta Saraan Hakim 1971
||1 Januari 2022
||Judges' Remuneration Act 1971
||1 January 2022
||Akta Cukai Pelancongan 2017
||1 Januari 2023 [PU(B) 644/2022]
||Seksyen 66, 69A, 69B dan 70
||In force from
||Perintah Menteri-Menteri Kerajaan Persekutuan 2022
||Lihat perenggan 1(2)
||Ministers of the Federal Government Order 2022
||See paragraph 1(2) of this Order
||Perintah Kawalan Harga Dan Antipencatutan (Penentuan Harga Maksimum) (No. 15) 2022
||8 Januari 2023 hingga 7 Februari 2023
||Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Price) (No. 15) Order 2022
||8 January 2023 to 7 February 2023
||Perintah Pengangkutan Jalan (Larangan Penggunaan Jalan) (Jalan Persekutuan) (No. 15) 2022
||15 Disember 2022