This article examines
the contrasting judicial approaches in Malaysia and Singapore towards the
practice of setting aside arbitration awards partially due to breaches of
natural justice, exploring how these differences impact the broader objectives
of international arbitration. It advocates for Malaysian jurisprudence to
transition from its conservative stance, which favours setting aside entire
awards, towards adopting Singapore’s more pragmatic approach that upholds
partial annulment and minimal curial intervention. The author also explains how
the drafting nuances of the Malaysian Arbitration Act and the repeal of some of
its former provisions explain this conservative stance. Recommendations include
statutory clarifications and practical steps intended to align Malaysian
arbitration practices closer to international standards on setting aside an
arbitration award for breach of natural justice.