Toby, currently interning at Pusat Rakyat LB, critically discusses the recent Noorfadilla case (where damages were reduced by 90 percent) and compares this with the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the US courts when awarding damages in cases of human rights violations. In the case of Noorfadilla Ahmad Saikin, the Shah […]
Reminder of the NEP ghost in Malaysia. Read with an open mind :)
Rebecca looks at the MOV case in her debut article for the MCCHR
![[Updated] Landmark NoorFadilla “Pregnant Teacher” Case On Gender Equality](https://i0.wp.com/www.loyarburok.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ICON-Selected-Judgments.png?resize=140%2C78&ssl=1 "[Updated] Landmark NoorFadilla “Pregnant Teacher” Case On Gender Equality"){kind=icon}
Must-read: A constitutional law case affecting all women in Malaysia.
Andrew Yong, coordinator of MyOverseasVote, explains why Malaysian citizens overseas won’t give up until they are given the right to vote from overseas.
Andrew Yong, the coordinator of MyOverseasVote, writes about the ongoing fight for equal voting rights for Malaysian citizens overseas.
A follow up to Amer Hamzah’s piece “Ducking at the Court of Appeal?” The Court of Appeal has finally replied the request for its written judgment.
A critical assessment of the racial composition of the Malaysian Judiciary in relation to the Federal Constitution and societal and political environment.
Amer Hamzah Arshad (with Fahri Azzat in support) continues LoyarBurok’s well-taken trademark tirade against the practice of Malaysian judges who duck writing judgments on important constitutional law issues.
An examination of the constitutional validity of Section 54 of Enakmen Kesalahan Syariah (Negeri Melaka) 1991.
Ever since the political trial against Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy in 1999, I had been hoping that the gay community in Malaysia (“the pink brigade”) would have spoken out against our antiquated sodomy laws and fought for equality of treatment for all consensual sex between adults. I have always believed that the rights of any section of our community must be fought for and led by that particular section, for only then can the exploited and those transgressed against be empowered in the process.
However, while the non-Muslim does not have to seek prior approval to organize talks or seminars with regards to his religion, the Muslim citizen appears to have this added hurdle to cross in order to exercise his rights under Article 10 and Article 11 (1). Is this constitutional? Is this legal? I will not ask the question if this hurdle is consistent with the Quran since it is not (my humble view – stand to be corrected). – www.LoyarBurok.com
Recent Comments