The rule of locus standi in administrative law / Khazatul Naima Abd Talib, Nur Asmaniza Mohammad and Wan Fatin Fashilin Wan Adeli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the issue of locus standi which has become a major concern in public law as it often becomes a hurdle to the public spirited individuals who seek judicial review against administrative action or decision. Most of the modern countries interpreted the rule liberally. In Malaysia, the liberal approach was celebrated in many decisions such as Lim Cho Hock and Tan Sri Haji Othman Saat. However, the rule suffered a setback in 1988 as the Federal Court adopted a restrictive approach which froze the rule at pre-1977 of common law in Government v Lim Kit Siang. The restrictive approach is condemned in modern era as it does not facilitate the citizens who wish to safeguard their interest or to uphold human rights and rule of law. Hence, many cases in Malaysia were struck out by the court on the basis of lack of standing. Therefore, this research proposes that Malaysia should liberalize the rule of standing to ensure that the rule of law and rights of citizen are safeguarded. This research will also highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches. In doing so, comparison between the position of locus standi in public law action in Malaysia with England, Australia and Canada will be made.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".