2025-11-29
Aiman Nariman Mohd Sulaiman, Yetty Komalasari Dewi
Shareholders’ involvement in directors’ elections is viewed as an important governance tool, enabling the disciplining of non-performing directors. However, this power could be distorted to entrench directors affiliated with controlling shareholders. This article presents a comparative analysis of directors’ election mechanisms comparing Malaysia and Indonesia, jurisdictions with similar concentrated shareholding structures (dominated by family and state control) but with different board structures (unitary versus dual board). Highlighting gaps in statutory laws and corporate governance rules related to shareholder proposal rights, voting mechanisms and the functioning of the nomination committee, the article analyses whether the shareholders’ election rights are effective to counter director entrenchment. The article relies primarily on qualitative research method, combining doctrinal legal analysis and a comparative study of legal provisions, international and regional developments and court decisions. The article finds three key differences: First, Malaysia requires lower shareholding thresholds (2.5% for agenda proposals versus Indonesia's 20%), facilitating minority shareholder participation. Second, Indonesia’s no mandatory poll and slate voting enables controlling shareholders’ dominance that could lead to the entrenchment of affiliated directors. Third, there are different patterns of the tension between the nomination committee’s authority and shareholders' powers. Malaysia showed the nomination committee’s resistance to shareholder nominees, while Indonesian cases reveal concerns about bypassing the nomination committee. This article contributes to comparative corporate governance scholarship by: (1) identifying how unitary versus dual board structures produce distinct shareholder empowerment outcomes in concentrated ownership contexts; (2) documenting gaps in voting mechanisms that facilitate director entrenchment; and (3) providing a framework for evaluating shareholders' election rights across ASEAN jurisdictions.
2025-11-29
Abdul Ghafur Hamid @ Khin Maung Sein
The World Trade Organisation’s multilateral trading system has been pivotal to the development of stable, fair, and robust international trade, free from discrimination and protectionism. However, the protectionist policies advanced under Trump’s “America First” agenda, particularly the imposition of unilateral tariffs, threaten to dismantle this carefully constructed global framework. The world has witnessed an alarming economic confrontation between the United States and China, the two economic powerhouses, marked by dramatic tariff escalations reaching as high as 145% and 125%, respectively. The ripple effects have been profound: global trade volumes have contracted, supply chains have been severely disrupted, and global value chains have undergone a rapid and inefficient realignment, resulting in a less transparent and more fragmented international trade system. This study aims to assess the extent of damage inflicted on the WTO’s multilateral trading system. Adopting a primarily doctrinal legal methodology, the research critically examines relevant WTO Agreements alongside decisions of the WTO Panels and Appellate Body that have been compromised by the tariff war. A supplementary quantitative analysis compares the WTO-bound tariff rates with those imposed by the Trump administration. The findings indicate that the United States’ unilateral tariff hikes constitute clear violations of core WTO commitments—most notably, the prohibition against exceeding bound tariffs (capped at 3.4% for the U.S.) and non-discrimination enshrined in the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle. This tariff conflict has severely undermined the WTO’s rules-based system, posing the risk of a descent into trade anarchy and economic dominance by powerful States. The paper concludes with recommendations aimed at mitigating the damage and restoring the integrity of the multilateral trading framework.
2025-11-29
Tuan Muhammad Faris Hamzi Tuan Ibrahim, Nasrul Hisyam Nur Muhamad, Ahmad Syukran Baharuddin
The growing prevalence of cyber-enabled Shariah offence has necessitated the integration of digital forensic procedures into Shariah criminal proceedings. However, the absence of an explicit legal framework for the chain of custody (CoC) in handling digital evidence within the Shariah courts creates a critical procedural vacuum. This omission exposes proceedings to dual risks: the exclusion of probative evidence due to doubts about authenticity and the potential for wrongful convictions based on improperly handled or contaminated digital evidence. This study examines the operational role of religious enforcement officers (PPA) as Digital Evidence First Responders (DEFR) under the Syariah Criminal Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1997, and their compliance with technical protocols outlined in ISO/IEC 27037:2012 and the Standing Instruction of the Director of the State Islamic Religious Department (2007). Using a doctrinal and comparative legal method, the study further analyses 18 Malaysian civil criminal cases to extract recurring CoC deficiencies and judicial expectations. From this analysis, five core CoC parameters are distilled, documentation continuity, evidence integrity, authentication, expert verification and corroborative reliability. These elements are essential in ensuring evidentiary credibility from seizure to courtroom presentation. The findings demonstrate that while Shariah enforcement officers operationally adhere to the existing procedure, these COC practices remain unrecognized in Shariah jurisprudence. This paper proposes the systematic adoption of CoC parameters within the Shariah proceedings to enhance evidentiary reliability and judicial confidence. Institutionalizing such parameters aligns with the maqāṣid al-sharīʿah by advancing justice and procedural transparency in the adjudication of emerging digital crimes.
2025-11-29
Mazlena Mohamad Hussain, Ainul Jaria Maidin, Claire Lajaunie, Majdah Zawawi, Muhammad Nabiqul Hakim Azuar
According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)’s Living Planet Report 2024, there is an average decline of 73% in wildlife species populations between 1970 and 2020. While conservation efforts aid in saving some wildlife species, urgent action is required if these losses are to be reversed. The impact of the decline in wildlife goes far beyond the potential cultural loss. In fact, countries losing wildlife species are set to suffer from ecological problems that result in loss of biodiversity, which can lead to economic crisis. Wildlife around the world, including Malaysia, is constantly facing numerous threats, such as poaching and trafficking, which leave devastating effects on biodiversity and cause climate change. In Malaysia, the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (WCA 2010) was enacted to regulate, protect, conserve, and manage wildlife in Malaysia. This article scrutinises the application of the WCA 2010 to determine the extent of its application in Malaysia. Aside from that, the article also examines decided cases that deal with various types of offences mentioned in the WCA 2010. Such analysis has allowed the detection of certain weaknesses in the legislation, wherein suggestions for reform are thereby made. This study primarily utilises a doctrinal legal research method through a critical analysis of the WCA 2010 and related cases. The article finds that a comprehensive understanding of the existing policies and laws relating to wildlife conservation in Malaysia is needed. This understanding will enable policymakers, stakeholders and the public to appreciate the overall legal and policy framework of wildlife conservation in Malaysia and promote effective as well as efficient enforcement of the law.
2025-11-29
Mahyuddin Daud
Data sharing is increasingly recognised as a critical enabler of effective governance, improved policymaking, and efficient public service delivery, yet in Malaysia, it has historically been governed through administrative circulars and fragmented provisions rather than a clear statutory framework. Despite recent initiatives such as PADU, MyGDX, and the Open Data Portal, the practice remains hindered by systemic challenges, including misinterpretation of confidentiality clauses as prohibitions, overly cautious agency practices guided by non-binding codes, inconsistent and overlapping data formats, and heightened concerns about privacy and cybersecurity risks. These barriers not only slow inter-agency collaboration but also undermine policy efficiency, weaken service delivery, and erode public trust. Against this backdrop, the enactment of the Data Sharing Act 2025 represents a significant step forward. Yet, questions remain regarding its operationalisation and ability to balance competing demands of accessibility, security, and privacy. This study seeks to analyse Malaysia’s current legal and policy framework on data sharing, identify challenges faced by public agencies, and benchmark Malaysia’s approach against international best practices from the European Union, United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and Singapore. Using content analysis of laws and policies, comparative legal analysis, and semi-structured interviews with government agencies, the research aims to propose reforms that strengthen Malaysia’s governance of data sharing. It is expected that findings will highlight the need for privacy-by-design principles, uniform data governance standards, and robust oversight mechanisms to foster responsible data sharing, enhance public trust, and align Malaysia with global standards while addressing its domestic realities.