“……首先，该问题涉及对财产的剥夺。《联邦宪法》第13(1)条保障任何人不得在非依法情况下被剥夺其财产。在理解与适用该项保障时，应当倾向于维护而非否定该保障。除非且直至有明确的明文条文限制在任何剥夺财产的程序中之参与权，否则任何相关法律均应被解释为允许，甚至鼓励该等参与。否则，就财产被剥夺所支付之赔偿是否充分，可能会受到影响。” —— 联邦法院于  Spicon Products Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2022] 4 CLJ 195   马来西亚《联邦宪法》赋予其公民若干基本权利。其中，财产权受《联邦宪法》第13条之特别保障。财产权本质上包括在不受干预之情况下使用及享有其财产之权利。然而，第13条所提供之保障并非绝对，因为该条文本身亦规定可对该权利作出限制：   “ (1) 任何人不得在非依法情况下被剥夺其财产。 (2) 任何法律不得在未给予充分赔偿之情况下规定对财产之强制征用或使用。”   《1960年土地征用法令》即为其中一项规范土地征用之法律，其目的在于规范土地征用之程序、挑战征用程序之方式，以及评估充分赔偿之机制。此...

The Online Safety Act 2025 (ONSA) came into force on 1 January 2026. Malaysia has now joined a growing group of jurisdictions that do not leave online safety to platform discretion alone. With the coming into force of ONSA, Parliament has introduced a statutory framework aimed squarely at how licensed online service providers manage harmful content, respond to complaints, and design safety into their systems. Over the past decade, digital platforms have become central to commerce,...

Recently, the High Court in CMSB v KPHDN  delivered an important ruling on the tax treatment of interest income arising from instalment sales. The Court held that such charges should be treated as business income under Section 4(a) of the Income Tax Act 1967 (ITA) rather than as interest income under Section 4(c).   The dispute centred on the proper interpretation of Section 24(5) of the ITA, in particular whether the two limbs of the provision operate disjunctively and how the phrase...