Home Minister Wrong Again: Malaysiakini Press Permit
Publishing a newspaper is a right, not a privilege.
Publishing a newspaper is a right, not a privilege.

Court of Appeal judgment upholding decision to overturn ban on Sisters in Islam Book.
A consideration of several important Federal Court decisions regarding drug weight discrepancy.
Must-read: A constitutional law case affecting all women in Malaysia.

The bold Federal Court decision that decided whether you can set aside a winding up order obtained in the absence of the Respondent company. Oh wait, they didn’t do that.

A commentary of the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s dismissal of the challenge mounted by the infamous UKM 4 against the constitutionality of Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (Act 30).
The Court of Appeal does an about turn and issues its scintillating grounds of judgment on the Abdul Rahim Bin Abd Rahaman appeal about the constitutionality of section 377A and 377B of the Penal Code, and punishment of whipping for males.
On Thursday, 26 August 2010, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed a challenge by Nor Hisham Osman on the constitutionality of the charge against him under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1988. The impact of this decision is very wide: any “offensive” communication online made with intent to annoy another person can now be criminalised.
The grounds of judgment delivered by Dato Hj Ghazali Bin Hj. Cha J on the writ of habeas corpus for 8 detainees held without trial under the ISA for allegedly having links to Al-Qaeda.
A consideration of Syarizan Sudirman & Ors v Abdul Rahman Bukit & Anor [2010] 3 CLJ 877 and the extent of a policeman’s duty of care towards a suspect.
On 28 June 2010 the High Court ruled that the SYABAS water concession can be made public, where Judicial Commissioner Hadhariah Syed Ismail held that it was in the public’s interest that the agreement should be disclosed.
The grounds of judgment in Member of Parliament for Batu Chua Tian Chang, a.k.a. Tian Chua’s appeal in the Kuala Lumpur High Court against majistrate court sentence in his conviction for causing hurt to a police constable and stopping him from discharging his duty two years ago.
Can a judge who previously presided over a matter then take up the case as counsel after his retirement from the bench? If you don’t know the answer because you recently had a lobotomy, consider the High Court decision of Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang v Tropiland Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 CLJ 1061.
The grounds of decision of Ariff Yusof J in upholding the ban on K. Arumugam’s Tamil book, “March 8″ regarding the violent clashes in Kampung Medan on 8th March 2001.