*READ THE QUESTION FIRST

- IF DO HAVE WORD “VALIDITY”, USE PERSPECTIVE OF NATURALIST AND

POSITIVIST
- IF DOESN’T HAVE WORD VALIDITY AND THE ISSUE IS ABOUT “SOMEONE
BEHAVIOR”, USE PERSPECTIVE OF ,MORALITY.

NATURALIST AND POSITIVIST;

NATURALIST
ISSUE:
Whether (the new law/ the current act) is valid based on the perspective of a naturalist?
LAW:
- Natural law means the law of nature,law as emanation of the Divine Providence,
rooted in the nature and reason of man.
- It is the nature of every human being to know from his conscience what is right
and lawful.
- So natural laws are rules that can be inferred from logical thinking and human
reasoning.
- Natural law theory subscribes to the Overlap Thesis, which asserts that there is a
necessary relation between law and morality.
- According to John Finnis, law of nature is a set of principles of practical
reasonableness in ordering human life and human continuity.
- Aristotle stated that naturalism universally applies to all people, no matter where
they live.
- Referring to case of Corbett v Corbett, Mrs. Corbett was a transgender and has
involved in the same sex marriage.
- The court later commanded that the marriage is void and to be nulled.
- Same sex marriage is considered against the nature.
- Same sex marriage is also against the biological factors as same gender cannot
do sexual intercourse and cannot have any children.
APPLY:
*Invalid (majority of case)
- By applying the concept of naturalist in the present case, (the new law/current
act) is invalid because it against Overlap Thesis.
- The law is unreasonable because (state what is bad) as it against John Finnis.
- (the harm) to others is universally immoral as stated by Aristotle.
- The principle in the case of Corbett V Corbett can be apply in this case as it
against the nature because (state the suitable reason).
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, (the new law/current law) is invalid from the perspective of Naturalist as
(e.g. it do not give benefit to anybody/ it against the nature) .

POSITIVIST
ISSUE:
Whether (the new law/ the current act) is valid based on perspective of positivist?
LAW:
- Positivism is a theory that established a law commanded by sovereign or
authority.
- The law must be backed by sanctions.
- Positive Law is not concerned and separated from principle of morality as they
uphold separability thesis.
- It means the law is not concern with the goodness and badness of the law.
- As Jurist Summer said, positivism means there is an absolute duty to obey even
evil laws.
- Socrates also provides that positive is to be obeyed in all circumstances.
- Referring to case of Jabar V PP, court held that any law is valid and binding so
long as it is validly passed.
- The court is not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable.
APPLY:
- By applying the concept of positivism in present case, (the new law/ the current
act) is valid as the law is enacted by the authority.
- Even though people argues that this act actually harm others, it does not relevant
to positivism as according to Socrates, people still needs to obey the law in all
circumstances.
- People argue that (the new law/ the current act) is the law that violates (state
whose right), but it still needs to be obeyed according to Summer’s opinion.
- The case of Jabar V PP reflect the idea of positivism in the present case,
whereby people cannot invalidate the law according to morality perspectives as
the morality cannot be questioned when the law is already made by authority
itself.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, (the new law/current law) is invalid from the perspective of positivist as
the law that enacts by the authority needs to be obeyed in all circumstances although it
just bring more harm than good.
MORALITY;
*For this part actually we can choose whether we want to choose moral or
immoral and just stand at that side for every question of morality, we just
need to adjust at the application part.

ISSUE:
Whether (state the behavior) consider as violating the principle of morality or not?
LAW:
- Generally, morality is a set of social principle that determine the right and wrong
acts of a person and can be defined as a value of the acceptable and
unacceptable in society.
- According to Hans Kelsen, relationship between law and morals are grounded on
the fact that law by its very nature is moral, which means behavior commanded
and prohibited by legal norms and moral norms.
- Referring to case of Corbett v Corbett, Mrs. Corbett was a transgender and has
involved in the same sex marriage.
- The court later commanded that the marriage is void and to be nulled.
- Same sex marriage is considered against the nature.
- Same sex marriage is also against the biological factors as same gender cannot
do sexual intercourse and cannot have any children.
- How humans determine what is considered moral or immoral acts, it depends on
various approach to morality such as Popular or Positive morality where the
morality is accepted by a given social group and where morality is something that
considered as normal in society.
- Utilitarianism where morality is based on consequences and act if it is useful.
- Critical morality is the moral of each individual depends on their personal beliefs
on what they think is right.
- The DIvine Command Theory where humans follow commands of god without
concerning themselves with self interest or anything.
APPLY:
*In this note, I choose immoral (to easy my answer), if you want to choose moral, you
can use all the law but at this part, you need counter all of your fact ( means you not
agree with the fact and provide your reason)
- (state the behavior) is consider wrong and unacceptable in the society and that
is why it is consider immoral.
- To determine whether (the behavior) is immoral or not, the standard that is used (
can choose whether popular or positive morality/ divine command theory/ can
use both) is immoral because it is (state suitable answer)
 - According to Hans Kelsen, (the behavior) is not considered as a legal norm
because it is not been practiced among the society as (give reason to support) .
- The principle in the case of Corbett V Corbett can be apply in this case as it
against the nature because (state the suitable reason).
CONCLUSION:
*At this part if you choose moral, so your conclusion need to be moral and state the
suitable answer.
In conclusion, (state the behavior) is against the morality due to this action (write the
action) is wrong and unacceptable to moral norms in society.
JUSTICE;
* FOR JUSTICE WE CAN DIVIDE INTO 2 WHICH ARE NATURAL
JUSTICE ANSWER AND NOT NATURAL JUSTICE ANSWER.

IMPORTANT!!
JUST INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE RELATED ONLY.

NATURAL JUSTICE ANSWER;

* We can classify the question into natural justice by looking at these
keywords; refusing to listen, not getting notice, or situations that have
intention towards bias.

1. refusing to listen / not getting notice = audi alteram partem

2. situations that have intention towards bias = nemo judex

If the question has both audi alteram partem and nemo judex you need to
discuss both. (e.g. Delima’s case)
* refer to this answer.

ISSUE
Whether (state the behavior) is considered justice or not?

LAW
- The Oxford Dictionary defines the ‘just’ person as one who typically ‘ does what
is morally right’ and is disposed to ‘ giving everyone his or her due’.
- Curzon stated that justice is the impartial resolution of disputes arising from
conflicting claims.
- Aristotle defined justice as giving one what is his own.
- The concept that relates in this case is natural justice.
- Natural justice is procedural safeguard against improper exercise of by a public
authority.
- Natural justice is classified into two main components which are the right to be
heard or audi alteram partem and the rule against bias or nemo judex in causa
sua.

* include audi alteram partem if has any issue related, if not just ignore
- Audi alteram partem means ‘let the other side be heard’ .
- In a circumstance where a person against whom any action is sought to be taken
and his right, shall be given an equal opportunity of being heard.
- The rule requiring fair hearing has two components which are notice and hearing.

* if the question has an issue about notice refer this, if not just ignore
- Notice is regarded as sine qua non which condition precedent of the right of
hearing.
- Before initiating adjudication proceedings, the party concerned should be given
notice of the case against him to enable him to defend himself.
- In the case of Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the Federation of
Malaya, the court held that notice must directly specify on the matter of bias,
facts and circumstances against which needs to be taken.
- It’s one of the rights of the individual to defend himself so he should be familiar
with the relevant matter so he may contradict the statement and safeguard
himself.

* if the question has an issue about hearing refer this, if not just ignore
- Hearing could be written or oral hearing because defending on the circumstances
of an individual case.
if the issue did not relate with written or oral hearing use this case;
- In the case of Fadzil bin Mohamed Noor v. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, the fact
that the university dismissed an assistant lecturer on the ground of absence
without leave, the lecturer was dissatisfied and challenged his dismissal.
- His application succeeded in appeal to the Federal Court.
- Dismissal was governed by the law of contract and therefore no right to a hearing
shall be given.
- In other words, the principles of administrative law including natural justice have
no part to play for a pure master-servant case.
- Therefore, in this case, the university must follow natural justice before
dismissing a member of its own academic staff.

* can add on this article if the plaintiff is a public servant if not just ignore.
- Based on Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution, no public servant shall be
dismissed or reduced in rank without being given “a reasonable opportunity of
being heard”.
- This will be used in any case of dismissal or reduction in rank against public
servants.

* include nemo judex if has any issue related, if not just ignore
- The maxim means rule against bias.
 - Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or
unconscious stage in relation to the party or particular case.
- There are three types of rules against bias which are pecuniary bias, personal
bias and policy bias.

just choose one types which related to the issue

- Types of rules against bias which is related to this case is (pecuniary bias /
personal bias / policy bias) .
If choose pecuniary bias;
- Pecuniary bias is a pecuniary interest howsoever small, in a dispute, disqualify a
person from acting as an adjudicator.
If choose personal bias;
- A personal bias may arise in the adjudicator against one party in the dispute
before him under various circumstances.
If choose policy bias;
- The basic function of government agencies is to formulate and apply the
government policy.
- One becomes an adjudicator if he himself is biased of the policy.
Can use this case to all types.
- As in the case of Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, a public limited company filed a
suit against a land owner in a matter largely involving the interest of the
company.
- The Lord Chancellor who was a shareholder in the company decided the case
and gave relief to the company.
- His decision was quashed by the House of Lords because there was an interest
of the Lord Chancellor in the company.

APPLY
- To apply in this case, (state the behavior) is considered unjust because it did not
give (victim’s name) her or his due based on the Oxford English Dictionary.
- According to Curzon (state the behavior) will arise disputes which violate justice.
- (state the behavior) is considered not giving her own said Aristotle.

*use this if the law include audi alteram partem, if not just ignore
- (victim’s name) has the right to get an equal opportunity of being heard based on
audi alteram partem.

If the law include notice use this, if not just ignore

- (state the behavior that related to notice’s issue) which make (victim’s name)
unable to defend himself / herself.
- The case of Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the Federation of
Malaya can be applied in this case, (state the behavior) is considered unjust as it
is one of the rights of individual to defend himself / herself, so he / she should be
familiar with the relevant matter.

If the law include hearing use this, if not just ignore

+ Not relate with written or oral hearing
- To principle in the case of Fadzil bin Mohamed Noor v Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia can be applied in this case, (state the behavior that related) is
considered unjust as (the victim) has the right to be heard and defend herself /
himself by following natural justice.

*can apply this article if the plaintiff is a public servant if not, just ignore
- Article 135(2) of the Federal Constitution can be applied in this case as (the
victim’s name) is a public servant because this article stated that no public
servant shall be dismissed or reduced in rank without being heard.
- So, (state the behavior related) violates this article.

*use this if the law include nemo judex, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior that is related) is considered unjust as the action leads to bias
and gives unfair treatment to (victim’s name) .

If choose pecuniary bias

- Pecuniary bias can be applied in this case as (state the behavior) disqualifies her
/ him from acting as an adjudicator.
- Case Dimes v Grand Junction Canal can be used as (state the behavior) has a
pecuniary interest towards (victim’s name) .
If choose personal bias
- Personal bias can be applied in this case as (state the behavior) is considered
biased in terms of (relationship / friendship / business dealing / hostility) .
- Case Dimes v Grand Junction Canal can be used as (state the behavior) has a
personal interest towards (victim’s name)
If choose policy bias
- Policy bias can be applied in this case as (state the behavior) disqualifies her /
him from becoming an adjudicator.
- Case Dimes v Grand Junction Canal can be used as (state the behavior) has a
policy interest towards (victim’s name) .
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, (state the behavior) is considered unjust because this action may be
against (victim’s name) and lead to unfair treatment towards her / him.

NOT NATURAL JUSTICE ANSWER;

* we can determine the question is not about natural justice if the question
does not have any mentioned keywords above.

ISSUE
Whether (state the behavior) is considered justice or not?

LAW
- The Oxford Dictionary defines the ‘just’ person as one who typically ‘ does what
is morally right’ and is disposed to ‘ giving everyone his or her due’.
- Curzon stated that justice is the impartial resolution of disputes arising from
conflicting claims.
- Aristotle defined justice as giving one what is his own.

* At this point, there is no statute and case law that can be applied so we need to
give 2 concepts (minimum) which are related to the issue.

You guys can choose and discuss any two concepts within;
1. Law can be just or unjust
2. Justice according to law
3. Division of justice by Aristotle;
- Legal justice
- Social / distributive justice
- Political justice
4. Division of justice by roscoe pound
- Substantive justice
- Procedural justice

APPLY
- To apply in this case, (state the behavior) is considered unjust because it did not
give (victim’s name) her or his due based on the Oxford English Dictionary.
- According to Curzon (state the behavior) will arise disputes which violate justice.
- (state the behavior) is considered not giving her own said Aristotle.

* For the concepts, just apply them related to the issue.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, (state the behavior) is considered unjust because this action may be
against (victim’s name) and lead to unfair treatment towards her / him.

*NOTE;
For justice I choose the unjust side (as it is much easier). If you guys want to be
the just side, you can copy but the application part, you need to counter back.
EQUALITY
* FOR THIS PART, WE CAN CLASSIFY EQUALITY INTO TWO WHICH
ARE DISCRIMINATION OR NOT DISCRIMINATE.

DISCRIMINATION;

ISSUE
Whether (state the behavior) is considered as equal or not?

LAW
- Equality is a contested concept where people who raise it or disparage it
disagree about what they praising or disparaging.
- Jeremy Bentham stated that the rationale behind equality is that each person
should be treated in a specific way, not as a mean, hence nobody should be
treated as an instrument of somebody’s will.
- Ihering said the idea that the laws must always be the same is no better than that
a medical treatment should be the same for all patients.

If related to the issue use this article;

- Article 8(1) provides that, all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the
equal protection of the law.
If the issue has related to this 4 grounds which are;
1. Religion
2. Race
3. Descent
4. Place of birth
5. Gender
- Article 8(2) states that, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there
shall be no discrimination against the citizens on the ground only of religion, race,
descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or
employment under public authority or in the administration of any law relating to
the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or in the establishing of any
trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
- Case related is case Norrfadilla binti Ahmad Saikin v. Chayed Basirun & Ors, the
plaintiff applied for and obtained employment as a Guru Sandaran Tidak Terlatih
(GSTT).
- After the plaintiff admitted that she was three months pregnant, her placement
memo informing her of her posting in which she was asked to attend a briefing on
the terms on her service of employment was withdrawn.
 - The plaintiff argued that this act of the defendants was tantamount to gender
discrimination and thus against article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution.
- The High Court believed that the refusal to employ a woman on the grounds of
pregnancy alone is a form of gender discrimination and unconstitutional under
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

* for the concept, we can put 2 concepts which are negative discrimination
and (direct discrimination / indirect discrimination).
Negative discrimination
- Negative discrimination involve a practice which breach any anti-discriminatory
principle without any limitation.
- Negative discrimination only favour certain group and does not justify its action
against another group.
- It has a clear intention to marginalize and alienate such groups from any possible
advantage.
Direct discrimination
- Direct discrimination means where one person is treated less favourably on
grounds due to his identification with a certain disadvantaged group.
- It is an intentional action done on purpose to restrict someone’s equal status
Indirect discrimination
- Indirect discrimination means unintentional and less obvious as the act was done
without the perpetrators being aware that their action are harmful.
- A policy seems fair because it applies to everyone equally, but a closer look
shows that some people are being treated unfairly.

APPLY
- (state the behavior) is considered as not equal because there are some of the
(write what related) that do not agree with that idea.
- (state the behavior) action goes against Jeremy Bentham’s belief that each
person should be treated in a specific way.
- The action also did not give the same treatment to (write based on the situation
given) as stated by Ihering.

If related to article 8(1) use this, if not just ignore

- (state the behavior) is violating Article 8(1) because the action does not give
everyone the same treatment.

If related to article 8(2) use this, if not just ignore

- (state the behavior) is violating Article 8(2) because this action discriminates
against citizens on the ground of (religion, race, descent, place of birth, gender).
 - To apply the principle in the case of Noorfadilla Binti Ahmad Saikin v. Chayed
Basirun & Ors in this case, (people that related in the case) faced discrimination
because of (write based on the situation).
- Negative discrimination can be observed in this action because (state the
behavior) only favour on (write based on question).
If related to direct discrimination use this, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior) is consider a direct discrimination as the action intentionally
done in purpose.
If related to indirect discrimination use this, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior) is consider a in direct discrimination as the action is
unintentional will be harm others.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, (state the behavior) considered as not equal because this action does not
give the same advantage to all people.

NOT DISCRIMINATE;

ISSUE
Whether (state the behavior) is considered as equal or not?

LAW
- Equality is a contested concept where people who raise it or disparage it
disagree about what they praising or disparaging.
- Jeremy Bentham stated that the rationale behind equality is that each person
should be treated in a specific way, not as a mean, hence nobody should be
treated as an instrument of somebody’s will.
- Ihering said the idea that the laws must always be the same is no better than that
a medical treatment should be the same for all patients.

If related to the issue use this article;

- Article 8(1) provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the
equal protection of the law.
If the issue has related to this 4 grounds which are;
6. Religion
7. Race
8. Descent
9. Place of birth
10. Gender
 - Article 8(2) states that, except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there
shall be no discrimination against the citizens on the ground only of religion, race,
descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or
employment under public authority or in the administration of any law relating to
the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or in the establishing of any
trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

* for case law, you can choose between these 3 cases;

1. Plessy v Fergusson
2. Beatrice Fernandez v Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia
3. Datuk Haji Harun v Public Prosecutor

* for the concept, we can put 2 concepts which are positive discrimination
and (direct discrimination / indirect discrimination).
Positive discrimination
- Positive discrimination is recognized as practice which does not breach the
anti-discrimination principle.
- It refers to an attempt to make progress towards substantive rather than merely
formal equality for those group that are currently underrepresented in significant
position in a society.
Direct discrimination
- Direct discrimination means where one person is treated less favourably on
grounds due to his identification with a certain disadvantaged group.
- It is an intentional action done on purpose to restrict someone’s equal status
Indirect discrimination
- Indirect discrimination means unintentional and less obvious as the act was done
without the perpetrators being aware that their action are harmful.
- A policy seems fair because it applies to everyone equally, but a closer look
shows that some people are being treated unfairly.

APPLY
- (state the behavior) is considered as equal because (write which related to the
issue).
- (state the behavior) action not goes against Jeremy Bentham’s belief that each
person should be treated in a specific way.
- The action also gives the same treatment to (write based on the situation given)
as stated by Ihering.
 If related to article 8(1) use this, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior) does not violate Article 8(1) because the action gives
everyone the same treatment.

If related to article 8(2) use this, if not just ignore

- (state the behavior) does not violate Article 8(2) because this action does not
discriminate against citizens on the ground of (religion, race, descent, place of
birth, gender).

To the case part, just apply it according to the case that you choose and
apply it as just.

- Positive discrimination can be observed in this action because (state the

behavior) does not breach the anti-discrimination principle.
If related to direct discrimination use this, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior) is consider a direct discrimination as the action intentionally
done in purpose.
If related to indirect discrimination use this, if not just ignore
- (state the behavior) is consider a in direct discrimination as the action is
unintentional will be harm others.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, (state the behavior) considered as equal because this action give the
same advantage to all people.
FREEDOM

ISSUE
Whether (state the behavior) violated the right to (choose one freedom that related)?

LAW
- Merriam-Webster dictionary defines freedom as the quality or state of being free.
- According to Martin Golding, freedom is the right, power, ability to decide for
oneself what to do and how to live according to one interest, desire, taste,
determination or thought of the mind to realize one’s aims.
- Immanuel Kant defined the right to freedom as independence from being
constrained by another’s choice, insofar it can coexist with the freedom of every
other in accordance with a universal law.

* for the statute part, choose and discuss article that related to the issue
* for case part also choose case that is related to the issue
* for the concept part, you can choose any concept that related which are;
1. Limitation of freedom
- Individual interest
- Public interest
- Social interest
2. Factors that limit freedom (choose one related)
- Condition of living in society
- Mandate given to the government
- Communitarian value and practice
3. Types of freedom (choose one related)
- Positive freedom
- Negative freedom

APPLY
- (state the behavior) because the action violates the state of being free as it can
(state suitable reason that related).
- (state the behavior) did not have right as it happened without according to one’s
interest as stated by Martin Golding.
- The action also violates Immanuel Kant as it is not independent from being
constrained by others choice.

* just apply the statute and case that are being used at law part
 * for the concept part,
- (person’s name in the case) has the freedom to (state related freedom) but there
is limitation under this freedom.
- Apply concept that you used at law part

CONCLUSION
To conclude, (state the behavior) did not violate his right to (state the freedom that
related) because there's a limitation of freedom as it gives (give suitable reason).

That's all from me, if there are any kekurangan maafkan saya. Doakan saya berjaya di
dunia dan akhirat. Thank you. XOXO!!