Artificial Intelligence (AI) may be transforming industries worldwide, but Malaysia’s top judge has a reminder — it must never replace human judgment.
Chief Justice Datuk Seri Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh compared AI to a chainsaw: “useful in the right hands, but dangerous in the wrong ones.” He made the remark during his keynote address at the Malaysia Legal Forum 2025 (MLF 2025) held yesterday (1 November) in Kuala Lumpur.
AI’s Place in the Courts
Justice Wan Ahmad Farid acknowledged that AI is already being deployed in legal work — from research and contract analysis to predictive analytics and case management. These tools, he said, could enhance judicial efficiency but must never erode the human essence of the law.
“The law is not merely a compilation of rules and precedents to be processed algorithmically,” he said. “It is a human endeavour that requires judgment, empathy, context, and understanding.”
He reminded the legal community that while technology may assist with analysis, it cannot replace the reflection and wisdom gained through human experience — qualities that define justice itself.
The Chief Justice stressed that law, by nature, evolves alongside society and technology. However, the judiciary’s role remains rooted in fairness and accessibility.
“As judges, lawyers, and legal practitioners, we are the guardians of this evolution,” he said. “Embrace change, but do not lose sight of our core values. Pursue efficiency, but not at the expense of justice. Welcome technology, but do not allow it to diminish the humanity that is at the heart of our work.”
AI and the Legal Frontier
The use of AI in court systems is already under trial in several countries. For instance, the United States and the United Kingdom have experimented with algorithmic tools to assist in bail and sentencing recommendations, while China has deployed AI-based systems for document drafting and case management. International legal experts and organisations such as the OECD have warned that such tools, if not properly regulated, may introduce bias or reduce transparency in judicial processes.
Malaysia’s judiciary appears to be approaching the technology with measured caution — recognising its potential without surrendering human oversight.
