Globally, social protection schemes are considered as effective tools in ensuring the well-being of the poor, disempowered and otherwise marginalised people of society. It is applicable in cases of elderly people who are comparatively vulnerable due to their old age, and at times poverty or the lack of financial security.The proportion of elderly people in poverty is higher than that in the working age population, indicating the increasing likelihood of people falling into poverty as they leave or retire from the workforce. Therefore, one way of addressing poverty among the elderly is through social protection mechanisms. Malaysia and the Philippines are two Southeast Asian countries on their way to becoming ageing nations. As such, both these countries have already adopted numerous social protection schemes to ensure the well-being of the marginalised segments of society, including the elderly. Thus, based on existing literature, this paper is an attempt to revisit and re-examine the role and adequacy of existing social protection schemes available in Malaysia and the Philippines.

The Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) which was passed in 1976 and came into force on 1st March 1982, standardized the laws concerning non-Muslim family matters. Many family issues concerning non-Muslim have emerged ever since, the most important being the effects of unilateral conversion to Islam by one of the parties to the marriage. There has been a lot of public hue and cry for amendments to be made to the LRA. After much deliberation, the Malaysian Parliament finally passed the amendments to the LRA in October 2017, which came into force in December 2018. Although the amendments have addressed selected family law issues, the most important amendment on child custody in a unilateral conversion to Islam was dropped from the Bill at the last minute. Howsoever, at the end of the day, the real question that needs to be addressed is whether the amendments have resolved the major issues that have arisen over the past four decades? Hence, the purpose of this article is as follows: first, to examine the brief background to the passing of the LRA, secondly, to analyse the 2017 amendments, thirdly, to identify the weaknesses that still exist in the LRA, and finally, to suggest recommendations to overcome these weaknesses by comparing the Malaysian position with the Singaporean position. In conclusion, it is submitted that despite the recent amendments to the LRA, much needs to be done to overcome all the remaining issues that have still not been addressed.

No abstract

Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 yang berkuat kuasa pada 7 Julai 2008 menunjukkan komitmen negara untuk membantu golongan orang kurang upaya (OKU). Objektif akta ini yang mengiktiraf kepentingan kebolehcapaian OKU terhadap persekitaran fizikal, sosial, ekonomi dan budaya, kesihatan dan pendidikan serta maklumat dan komunikasi yang membolehkan mereka upaya mengambil bahagian secara penuh dan berkesan dalam masyarakat. Hak OKU tidak boleh dilihat secara berasingan dengan prinsip hak asasi manusia. Hak asasi manusia dalam perspektif yang lebih luas telah menjadi semakin penting dalam dunia hari ini. Akta ini telah berjaya menukar konsep kebajikan kepada konsep hak bagi golongan OKU di Malaysia. Walaupun akta ini boleh disifatkan sebagai menyokong hak OKU, akta tersebut masih lemah dari segi penguatkuasaannya, walaupun telah digubal 14 tahun yang lalu. Oleh itu, makalah ini akan mengkaji dan membincangkan secara kritis perkembangan perundangan mengenai golongan OKU di Malaysia. Perkara ini berdasarkan fakta bahawa undang-undang merupakan komponen penting dalam usaha merealisasikan hasrat untuk melihat golongan OKU dilayan secara adil seperti individu yang berkeupayaan. Konsep kesaksamaan ini bukanlah sesuatu yang baharu kerana akta ini termaktub sebagai kebebasan asasi yang telah dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

The court advisers are not a new component in the criminal justice system, especially in cases involving children. In most jurisdictions in the world, the court advisers (as known in Malaysia) or social workers/panel of advisers in other countries, are a component that was introduced to assist the judicial officer in determining a proper and suitable order for the child offenders. In Malaysia, children who have committed offences will be brought before the Court For Children (formerly known as the Juvenile Court). The Magistrate that presides the court will be assisted by two appointed court advisers. Although they comprise laymen without any legal qualification, their roles are recognised as equally important because they are the ones who are going to advise the Magistrate based on their knowledge and experience in dealing with children. In other words, the court advisers are a component that must exist in a trial so that a properly instituted quorum is constituted. The court advisers are introduced in the Juvenile Justice System for a reason. The court shall make sure that the court advisers are called and present throughout the trial. The court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Ayasamy [1955] 1 MLJ 64 highlighted this point more than 60 years ago. The logic is very simple, how can court advisers offer proper advice without attending the trial? Thus, in this article, the writers will explore the importance of making sure that the court advisers are present in the Court For Children trials. At the same time, the writers will also explore if there has been any development in the role and functions of the court advisers in Malaysia post the decision in the case of Public Prosecutor v Ayasamy. The reason being, more than six decades after the said case, the same issue was raised in the High Court’s decision in the case of Pendakwa Raya v Mohd Zairul Iman Zainon [2018] MLJU 578.