JANUARY 14 — Judicial reform rarely commands the attention given to budgets, interest rates or electoral politics. Yet from the perspective of a tax lawyer advising businesses and investors, the quality of a country’s courts often matters more than any single fiscal incentive. Legal certainty, predictability and timeliness are not abstract ideals; they shape real commercial decisions. It is for this reason that the Chief Justice’s address at the Opening of the Legal Year 2026 and the Judicial Blueprint he outlined, deserves close attention.
A blueprint for a “multi-door” approach
The blueprint is not a catalogue of quick fixes. It is framed as a ten-year programme of institutional reform, and that framing is important. The tenure of any Chief Justice is necessarily finite but the consequences of judicial reform or its absence, are not. Courts, unlike policies, cannot be rebuilt overnight. They require patient investment in people and systems.
What stands out in the blueprint is its emphasis on structure rather than personality. Judicial legitimacy is treated as something cumulative, built incrementally through capacity, competence and consistency. This is a welcome departure from the tendency, common in many jurisdictions, to personalise reform and then watch it dissipate with changes in leadership.
At the centre of the blueprint is a “multi-door” approach to justice. From the standpoint of legal practice, this reflects an important reality. Access to justice is not simply about throughput or disposal rates. It is about whether disputes are channelled through appropriate, intelligible and proportionate processes. A system that is fast but opaque loses trust; one that is fair but slow imposes hidden costs. The blueprint’s challenge is to balance both.
Judicial training and embracing technology
One of the most consequential elements is capacity building. The establishment of a dedicated Judicial Academy under the Judicial Appointments Commission signals a recognition that judicial excellence cannot be left to assumption. As litigation becomes more specialised, commercial, financial, cross-border and regulatory in nature, judges must be equipped to deal with complexity. Structured, continuous judicial education strengthens decision-making and just as importantly, consistency.
For practitioners and investors, consistency is not a secondary virtue. It underpins predictability, which in turn affects how contracts are drafted, risks priced and disputes assessed. A professionalised judiciary is also a more resilient one, better insulated from external pressures and better able to maintain public confidence.
Technology is another pillar of the blueprint. Malaysia’s courts were early adopters of digital filing and case management through the e-Kehakiman system. The decision to further upgrade this platform, alongside a cautious exploration of artificial intelligence, reflects a pragmatic understanding of technology’s role. Efficiency gains are necessary, but they cannot come at the expense of accountability or judgment.
The Chief Justice’s reminder that algorithms cannot read human nuance resonates with anyone who has spent time in court. Technology can assist with workflow and research, but adjudication remains a human exercise. Used responsibly, digital tools can enhance access and efficiency; used indiscriminately, they risk undermining trust.
Increasing judicial manpower
The most immediate challenge identified in the blueprint, however, is judicial manpower. The growth in criminal and civil case filings over the past four years is not a temporary anomaly. It reflects deeper socio-economic change and, perhaps, greater public confidence in the courts. But confidence alone cannot carry the system indefinitely.
From practice, the strain on the lower courts is evident. These courts are the public’s first point of contact with the justice system, and delays here have a cascading effect. The Chief Justice’s candour in acknowledging the limits of judicial endurance is refreshing. Delay is often framed as inefficiency; in reality, it is frequently a question of capacity.
The call for increased judicial appointments, particularly at the subordinate court level, reframes access to justice as a matter of state capability. Courts are not peripheral institutions. They are part of a country’s economic infrastructure. Delays in civil and commercial disputes increase transaction costs; uncertainty in enforcement raises risk premiums. Underinvestment in the judiciary is, in effect, a hidden tax on economic activity.
Dedicated commercial court
It is in this context that the establishment of the International Commercial and Admiralty Division (ICAD) at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur is to be applauded. In my view, this initiative has the potential to be a game changer for Malaysia, which us an economic household within Asean.
Specialist commercial courts are no longer optional for economies seeking regional relevance. Across Asean, competition for capital increasingly turns on institutional quality. Investors consider not only market size or incentives, but where disputes will be resolved if transactions unravel. By creating a dedicated division to handle complex international commercial and admiralty matters, Malaysia is signalling that it intends to compete on credibility.
The impact of such a court extends beyond dispute resolution. A reliable commercial forum reduces uncertainty, shortens enforcement timelines and strengthens contractual confidence. Over time, it can influence where contracts are seated, how regional structures are designed and where capital is deployed. In that sense, ICAD aligns judicial reform directly with economic strategy.
This reflects a forward-looking conception of judicial leadership. Courts are not merely reactive institutions; they shape commercial behaviour. The decision to prioritise commercial justice at a time of intensifying regional competition suggests an appreciation that Asean’s next phase of growth will be shaped as much by institutional trust as by economic fundamentals. If ICAD is implemented with independence, rigour and consistency, it could become a cornerstone of Malaysia’s value proposition as a place to do business.
Earning confidence
Taken as a whole, the Judicial Blueprint represents an institutional wager. It assumes that public and market confidence is earned incrementally through competence, transparency and discipline. It also assumes that judicial independence is strengthened, not diluted, by efficiency and professionalism.
Whether this vision is realised will depend on sustained support from the other branches of government. Judicial appointments, technology upgrades and legislative reform require political will and fiscal commitment. The blueprint therefore poses a broader question: whether Malaysia is prepared to treat its judiciary as a strategic asset.
What is clear is that the judiciary has chosen to think in long horizons. In an era dominated by short-term pressures, that choice itself is significant. If the blueprint is implemented faithfully, it has the potential not only to ease present strain, but to anchor Malaysia’s economic ambitions in institutional credibility. From the standpoint of those who work daily at the intersection of law and commerce, that is a development worth watching closely.
* S. Saravana Kumar is a tax lawyer with the law firm, RDS Partnership, who was present at the Opening of the Legal Year 2026 on 12.1.26.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
