From a Shari’ah perspective, no essential difference is noticed between public welfare waqf and a waqf created for the benefit of individuals such as descendants and family of a person, and both are treated as recommended avenues for voluntary gratuitous transfer of benefits. Over the centuries, family awqaf have degenerated due to various social and political factors.  Under the influence of the English law that regards family trusts as non-charitable, family awqaf have been treated as non-charitable institutions, and have been deprived of the privileges and immunities granted to charitable awqaf.  In this context, the current article discusses the essential nature of such awqaf with regard to their position in Islamic law and history as well as their social significance, and attempts to shed light on the degeneration that took place in the recent past, while exploring means of revival.  It finds that the creation of endowments for specific beneficiaries such as waqf for those related to the endower is a recognised form of charity in Islamic law, that function as public serving entities directly or indirectly.  Issues encountered in such awqaf do not necessitate denying their multiple advantages.  Providing the necessary legal regulation and administrative framework as well as tax exemption for all awqaf could go a long way in promoting the cause of waqf.

Purpose This paper aims to examine the potential liability of companies and their board members arising from the use of digital technology and social media as communication and engagement tools with investors and shareholders. Design/methodology/approach The research relies on a qualitative study using legal analysis of corporate and capital market laws as well as the outcome of legal proceedings and regulatory actions to ascertain conduct that could expose companies and boards to liability risks. Findings Social media characteristics expose unwary directors and companies to potential liability for oppressive conduct, selective disclosure or misleading statements. Research limitations/implications This paper informs boards and companies of the types of conduct that could expose companies and boards to liability when social media is relied on to communicate with shareholders and investors. Originality/value The paper contributes to the literature on social media, capital market and corporate communication by presenting the legal perspective concerning reliance on social media as shareholders’ engagement and corporate communication tool.

Waqf is a form of voluntary charity and its purposes are recognised by Islamic law as religious, pious or charitable. Charitable trust is a public trust where the settlor may aim to create certain purposes. Both waqf and charitable trust share the same objective, which is for the benefit of the community at large. The objective of this article is to reveal how the requirements of “public benefit” in charitable trust are applicable to waqf cases. In determining the validity of a charitable trust, the requirement of public benefit is essential, particularly under the last three charitable purposes, namely advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community. Besides, the personal nexus test is applied in the case of charitable trust to ensure no personal linkage between the founder and the beneficiaries. These two elements are necessary to establish a valid charitable trust. The English court will first filter out such a case to ensure that there is no infringement of other people’s rights and exploitation of the charitable trust’s privilege. Public benefit requirement and personal test are also applicable in cases relating to waqf cases. In waqf, the Islamic law prescribes two categories, which are “Waqf Khairi” (Public waqf) and “Waqf Ahli” (Family waqf). However, family waqf is treated as “non-charitable under the influence of English law of trust” because it infringes the rule against perpetuities. The methodology used in this article is doctrinal legal research focusing on the legal principle as well as the cases of public benefit requirement, the personal nexus test, and the rule against perpetuities in charitable trust and waqf. This article found that the requirement of public benefit is applicable in public waqf, but not for family waqf. Despite that, family waqf should be maintained as it is a great channel for wealth distribution and succession planning.

The significance of this study lies in its proposal to insert an appropriate provision into the Patents Act 1983 to embody the provisions of Article 31bis TRIPS Agreement. The methodology adopted in this study is library-based, and relies extensively on primary sources such as the Paris Convention, TRIPS Agreement and Patents Act 1983. This is further supported through secondary sources such as articles, books, websites and newspaper reports. The research question posed in this study aims to identify the most appropriate provision that should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 in addressing the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Article 31bis is best incorporated into the Patents Act 1983, under the right of the government mechanism rather than through the compulsory license mechanism. Furthermore, the scope of this study is limited to issues that address the abuse of monopoly, granted by the patent system, with respect to the dire needs of the public health. Hence, this paper discusses the mechanisms that address abuse of the patent system under Article 5(A) Paris Convention, Articles 31 and 31bis TRIPS Agreement, the relevant corresponding provisions under the Patents Act 1983, and subsequently formulates new proposed amendments to Section 84 Patents Act 1983 to buttress the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The outcome of this study proposes that the provisions of Article 31bis should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 under the right of the government mechanism, by replacing the current Section 84 Patents Act 1983 with a newly proposed Section 84.

The purpose of this study is to highlight the absence of specific provisions on public health under Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, that were not incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 in Malaysia. The main research question of this study is; why should Malaysia immediately amend its Patents Act 1983 to incorporate these flexibilities? Malaysia must develop effective strategies to implement policies, law and governance in managing the country’s public health system. This is to ensure a balance of rights between intellectual property owners and the public, at all times. This study employs a qualitative research methodology that is based on primary sources such as the TRIPS Agreement and the Patents Act 1983, and is further supported by secondary sources such as journals and the contents of authorities’ websites. This study is limited to the issues related to public health and patents. This study includes a discussion on the provisions related to patents and public health, proposed amendments to the Patents Act 1983 that should incorporate the provisions from Article 31bis, and a conclusion on the importance of immediately amending the Patent Act 1983 to incorporate these provisions, especially during the current Covid-19 pandemic. This study proposes that the amendments be made to Section 84 of the Patents Act 1983 in relation to Rights of Government, and not through the compulsory licence mechanism under Part X of the Patents Act 1983. Thus, this study concludes that currently, Malaysia is unable to implement the provisions under Article 31bis, unless the Patents Act 1983 is amended.