Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite widespread recognition as a fundamental human right across common law and civil law jurisdictions, the right to privacy remains a novel concept yet to be fully defined in Malaysia. Due to the absence of written law, Malaysian courts remain starkly divided on whether the right to privacy can sustain a free-standing cause of action enforceable between individuals in civil actions distinct from trespass, nuisance and breach of confidence. To resolve this legal conundrum, this article examines the current state of Malaysian law in recognising invasion of privacy as an actionable tort based on conventional norms. Reference will be made to primary sources of law, i.e., the Federal Constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions, as well as secondary sources of law inclusive of scholarly writings and judicial decisions from foreign common law jurisdictions where laws on privacy have ripened, i.e. the US, UK, New Zealand, and Canada. The article consists of three parts. the first part provides a summary of normative values of privacy. Second, examination of the judicial decisions by the Malaysian Federal Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court on the right to privacy. Third, evaluation of alternative sources of written law and the common law tests to establish the tort of invasion of privacy. This article concludes that a fresh paradigm is required to develop the Malaysian legal framework on privacy to ensure coherence with its normative origins and consistency with the legal standards of other common law jurisdictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".