UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

THE MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION

o

Introduction

The Constitutional Developments

The Distinctive Features of the Malaysian Constitution

The Rule of Law

Importance of the Rule of Law

Supremacy of the Federal Constitution

Importance of Supremacy of the Federal Constitution

Grey Areas on the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution

Sources of the Malaysian Constitutional Law

Conclusion

Introduction:

The history of Malayas emergency as a sovereign independent nation after centuries of

colonial domination is a story with such a wealth of perspectives that it can be told and
retold in many ways.

Malaya achieved her political emancipation without much political turmoil. By contrast,
in the United States and India, the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of
martyrs.

Malayas evolution towards independence was largely free of violence. However,

powerful forces were at work under the surface and were contained due to the tact and
statesmanship of Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues.

The Malaysian Constitution evolved from events of the past, both recent and remote.

The Constitutional Developments:

Just like any other constitution, the Malaysian Constitution cannot be accurately
described or understood without making reference to its history.

1 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

Malaysian constitutional development has been influenced inter alia, by pre-colonial

indigenous traditions of sovereignty; colonial conceptions of executive authority; indirect
rule; federalism; and political and social concerns during the immediate pre- & postindependence period.

Factors which influenced the Malaysian Constitutional Development:

(a) Pre-colonial indigenous traditions of sovereignty: Until the 1940s modern democratic and
representative forms of government were more or less unknown in Malaysia. However, this does
not mean that before the colonial period there was no constitutional law. (See the Malacca
Sultanate- which is considered an example of a typical indigenous system in the form of Kanun
Undang-Undang Melaka or the Malacca Digest).

Although it was not the first sultanate (the Malacca Sultanate) the impact on the
constitutional set-up of other sultanates which emerged later, was quite far-reaching. (See
e.g. the Negri Sembilan and the Minangkabau Constitution).

Important to note that the position of the Malay rulers during this period could not be said
as out and out absolute monarchs. As Muslim rulers, they were subject to limitations
imposed by the Islamic law.

Whatever the legal code of the Malay sultanates those days, taking the Kanun Undangundang Melaka or the Malacca Digest as an example, one needs to bear in mind that in
those days there was no representation or party politics.

Apart from the Undang-undang Melaka which contains some constitutional rules, the
traditional Malay constitutions were unwritten, being customary in nature. This does not
mean that they were primitive or absolutist. (Example: Negri Sembilan was a federation
under the nominal sovereignty of a Sumatran prince, & had very complex rules to
succession, etc)

All in all, whatever the status of the rulers, the views are divided over whether the rulers
were really the ones who ran the states. (See the provisions of the code of the Malacca
Digest)

(b) Colonial conceptions of executive authority/Indirect rule/Federalism: The British came to

Malaya as traders but ended up interfering in the affairs of the sultanates, starting with the
cession of Penang in 1786 by the Kedah Sultanate, etc.

2 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

The British rule in the Malay states, started with the signing of Pangkor Engagement in
1874 with Perak. Similar treaties were concluded with other states e.g. Selangor in 1874,
Negri Sembilan in 1879 and Pahang in 1881.

The British did not abolish the sultanates. Instead they used the sultanate to further their
interests in the Malay states. This was done through what was known as indirect rule
where the sultans continued to be the rulers of the Malay states, but for intent and
purpose, it was the British officers known as residents in the Federated Malay States and
advisers in the Unfederated Malay States (Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and
Johore) that ruled those states.

(c) Notion/idea of federalism: After the Japanese surrendered in 1945, British administration
was resumed. The British proposed the creation of a unitary state, the Malayan Union, with a
broad-based Malayan Union citizenship, all citizens having equal rights. (See the Malayan
Union, 1946-8)

The Malayan Union was short-lived. It lasted only two years. Strong opposition came
from the Malays, who realized that the MacMichael Treaties reduced the status of the
Malay states to that of a colony i.e. a unitary state (as opposed to that of Malay States e.g.
FMS and UFMS. Malay States were protected states and not colonies) and deprived the
Malay Rulers of their sovereignty. Why? Because executive power was to be exercised
by the Governor appointed by the Crown. Legislative power at state level was also to be
curtailed.

The Malayan Union later was replaced in 1948 by the first Federation of Malaya
Constitution, regulating the federal conjunction of the same eleven colonies and
protectorates.

The Constitutional Developments: (Continuation)

Six months later, the Tunku led a Malayan delegation to London (the London
Conference) to negotiate for independence. The basic principles upon which
independence could be achieved were agreed on.

The London conference appointed an independent Constitutional Commission to draw up

a constitution providing for full self-government and independence for the Federation of
Malaya by August 1957.

The Commission was headed by Lord Reid, a British judge; Sir Ivor Jennings, a British
expert on Commonwealth constitutional law; Sir William McKell, former GovernorGeneral of Australia; B. Malik, a former High Court Chief Justice from India; and Justice
Abdul Hamid of West Pakistan High Court.

The Commissions terms of reference were to make recommendations for a federal

constitution with parliamentary democracy, a bicameral legislature, a strong central
3 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

government, safeguards for the position of the Rulers, common nationality and
safeguards for the special positions of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other
communities.

The commission held 118 public and private hearings between June and October 1956.
It made its recommendations on Feb 21, 1957, and submitted a draft constitution.

A working party/committee was appointed to examine the Reid Commission

Report/Recommendations.

With a clock ticking against it because the date for Merdeka had already been set, the
Working Party/Committee held 23 meetings between Feb and April and made significant
amendments both in substance and form to the Reid Commission proposals. (Examples:
special privileges; fundamental rights; and judicial review)

Then followed a lengthy and extraordinary process of ratification of the Merdeka

Constitution by the Federal Legislative Council, the Assemblies of the Malay States, the
UK Parliament and the British Crown.

The proposals were accepted by the Conference of Rulers in June 1957, and almost
adopted by the Legislative Council in August. They were given effect by the Federation
of Malaya Agreement 1957, the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 (UK) and
Orders-in-Council thereunder, the Federal Constitution Ordinance 1957, and State
Enactments in the Malay States.

At the stroke of midnight on August 31, 1957, at the Stadium Merdeka, the Duke of
Gloucester, acting on behalf of the British Queen, handed over to the Tunku the
constitutional documents signifying the independence of the federation of Malaya.

With the cries of Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka, Malaysias tryst with destiny had
begun.

Distinctive features of the Malaysian Constitution:

(a) Position of Islam- See Art 3 of the Federal Constitution which provides that Islam is the
religion of the Federation but also states that other religions may be practiced in peace and
harmony in any part of the Federation.

Adoption of Islam as the religion of the Federation does not convert Malaysia into an
Islamic or theocratic state. (See the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v. PP [1988] 2 MLJ
55, the court held that though Islam is the religion of the Federation, it is not the basic
law of the land and Art 3 imposes no limit on the legislative power of Parliament). See
also the case of Ainan bin Mahmud v. Syed Abubakar bin Habib Yusoff & Ors [1939]
MLJ Rep 163- where the court held that the Evidence Act applies to the exclusion of
Islamic law
4 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

See also the case of Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah binti Sihi & Ors
[2006] MLJU 267- where the court by majority ruled that it is not everything that the
Prophet did or the way he did it that is legally (according to Shariah) or religiously
binding on Muslims or preferable and should be followed. From the FCs decision, it
would appear that freedom of religion does not extend to rituals that are considered to be
optional i.e. wearing of turban. See also the case of Halimatussadiah bte Hj
Kamaruddin v Public Service Commission, Malaysia & Anor [1994] 3 MLJ 61.

Art 3 does not declare, as does the Constitution of Pakistan that its an Islamic State.

The Federation is not an Islamic state- See the White Paper on the Constitutional
Proposals for the Federation of Malaya stating that it is a secular state.

Clarification by the then PM Tunku Abdul Rahman further suggests that the Federation is
not an Islamic state. He stated in the Federal Legislative Council in 1958 that this
country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood, we merely provide that Islam
shall be the official religion of the State.

Art 3 must be read together with Art 11 of the Federal Constitution. Also, Art 3 qualifies
the right to practice ones religion i.e. in peace & harmony.

Note: There limitations on freedom of religion i.e. Art 3(1) the practice of religion must
not disturb peace and harmony; Art 11(4) limitation exist in area of propagation of
missionary activity among Muslims may be regulated by States and Federal Laws; Art 11(5)
all religious freedom is subject to public order, public health, and morality; and Art 12(4)
provides that the religion of a person under 18 years is to be decided by his parents or
guardian (see the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ 301where the court stated that the conversion of a 17 year old Buddhist girl to Islam without her
parents consent was of no effect).
(b) Special Position of Certain Classes- Under the constitution, a special treatment is accorded
to the Malays and indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak. (See Art 153 which assigns the
YDPA with responsibility of protecting the special positions of the Malays and indigenous
communities of Sabah & Sarawak). This responsibility is carried out in accordance with the
advice of the Cabinet.

Art 160(2) defines the term Malay as someone professing the religion of Islam,
habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom, etc. On the other hand,
Art 161A defines indigenous person in Sabah & Sarawak as from communities of
Bisayah, Sea Dayak (Iban), Land Dayak (Bidaya), Melanau, etc.

The YDPA may, in order to promote purposes of Art 153, reserve such proportion as he
deems reasonable of positions in the public service; scholarships; educational and
5 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

training privileges or facilities; permits or licences for the operation of any trade or
business; and places in institutions of higher learning; etc.

Take note that these special privileges accorded to them are in line with the spirit of the
Federal Constitution i.e. not in conflict with Art 8(1) which provides for equality before
the law.

(c) National Language-Art 152 provides that the national language is Malay (Bahasa Malaysia),
which by necessary implication must be used for official purposes. The Constitution
(Amendment) Act, 1971 as provided by Art 152 may no longer be questioned, it being
considered sensitive.

Meaning of official purpose-all dealings with the or by the government whether Federal
or State government including the public authorities. (What about the recent decision of
the federal government policy to use English as a medium of instruction for Science and
Mathematics?)

Meaning of public authority- would include the YDPA, the Rulers or State Governors,
the Federal and State governments, local authorities, etc.

Exception to Art 152- the YDPA may allow the use of English. For example,
communicating with foreign governments or international organisations and also for
training conducted by overseas experts for Inland Revenue Department, work relating to
interpretation, computer, accounting, etc. See also some of the exceptions laid down
under the National Language Act 1963/67 e.g. sec 4 allows the YDPA to permit the use of
English language for such official purposes as may be deemed fit.

Take note that no one is prohibited or restricted from using or teaching or learning other
languages. The constitution allows public fund to be used for the use and promotion of
languages of other communities in the Federation. (See the decisions of both the High
Court and Federal Court in the case of Merdeka University Bhd. v Government of
Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 356 HC & [1982] 2 MLJ 243 FC, where the appellant applied for
the setting up of the Merdeka University that will use Chinese language as the sole or
main medium of instruction. The Federal Court ruled that as the university would be
using the Chinese language (and this is considered official by the court) the government
was right in rejecting the application.

See Articles 161 and 161E (use of English and native languages in Sabah and Sarawak)
of the Constitution. Further limitations are imposed while addressing the usage of
Bahasa Malaysia in Sabah and Sarawak. See also the National Language Act, 1963/1967.
This Act does not however apply to East Malaysia.

6 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

(d) The Monarchy or the Malay Sultanates- the YDPA and the Rulers assume the symbolic role
in relation to the legislature and other executive acts. These are the nature of powers which, in
the light of democracy, are generally formal. The law does not expect them to rule in person or to
seek control of the day to day administration of government in their States.
For example, the relationship between the King and the PM is governed by Articles 40(1) & Art
40(1A) which provide that the King is a constitutional monarch who is bound by the advice of
the Cabinet in the entire range of his functions except as to few matters mentioned in Art 40(2).

There are occasions where the YDPA may assert independence such as the appointment
of government and dissolution of the popularly elected house to pave way for elections.
(See Art 40(2)(b) the YDPA has a right to reject the PMs advice to dissolve Parliament)

The Conference of Rulers may play crucial role in certain amendments to the
constitution, such as the provision on Islam, Malay language and privileges. (See Art
38(4)(5) and (6) of the Federal Constitution)

Take note that in all these situations, the Monarchy plays the role of a protector;
something that indicate that they may, when the circumstances warrant, assume more
than just a formal or symbolic roles.

(e) Citizenship-it is naturally a concept as recent as that of the federation itself i.e. it originates
with the formation of the Malayan Union. Prior to that one had the concepts of state nationality
(in the case of the nine sultanates) and British nationality or, later citizenship of the UK and
colonies (in the case of other states).

As a result of the social contract between the various races, millions of migrants to
British Malaya were bestowed with citizenship by the Merdeka/Federal Constitution.

Under the Federal Constitution, there are four avenues through which citizenship can be
acquired- by birth and descent (by operation of law-See Art 14); by registration (see
Art15); by naturalisation (see Art 19); and by incorporation of new territory into the
Federation (see Art 22).

Citizenship provisions are so deeply entrenched that under Articles 159(5) and 161E, any
amendment to these provisions requires a special two-thirds majority in Parliament plus
the consent of the Conference of Rulers and of the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak.
Even in times of emergency, Art 150(6A) bars any tampering with citizenship rights.

Just as citizenship can be acquired, so can it be terminated by renunciation or deprivation.

See Article 23(1) on renunciation of citizenship. Take note that a renunciation of
citizenship can be rejected by the Federal Government in times of war. Why? To prevent
citizens from escaping conscription and compulsory service for national purposes which
7 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

are permitted under Art 6(2). As to deprivation, see Articles 24(1), 25, 26(1)(2), etc.
However, there also safeguards in place i.e. Art 26B(2), Art 27(2), Art 24(2), etc.

The Rule of Law:

The principle of the rule of law can be traced back to the writings of philosophers in
ancient Rome and Greece. For example, the maxim, the rule of law is preferable to that
of any individual, has been attributed to Greek philosopher Aristotle. He argued that
government by laws was superior to government by men.

The idea of the rule of law was not invented by Dicey, but popularised it in the late 19th
century. (See his book titled Introduction to Study of the Law of Constitution (1885)where he claimed that the rule of law meant three things under the British Constitution
i.e. no punishment may be inflicted other than for the breach of the law; irrespective of
rank and status all are equal before the law; and rights and freedoms are best protected
under Common Law rather than a formal Bill of Rights.

The rule of law embodies the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the
law, fairness, and both constitutional and actual guarantees of basic human rights.

The rule of law implies the supremacy of law and that all laws must conform to certain
minimum standards for instance protection of civil liberties. Thus, the rule of law
requires laws to respect certain basic inalienable rights. The doctrine means something
more than government according to the terms of the constitution.

In a Malaysian context, the doctrine could be understood by way of making reference to

Art 4 of the Constitution. Why? Because the purpose of Art 4 is obviously to establish the
Constitution as the basis of the rule of law. (Take note of Art 3(1) of the Commissions
Draft Constitution, which never came into existence and its place came Art 4(1)).

It must be noted that Art 4 which is viewed as the basis of the doctrine of the rule of law
under the Malaysian Constitution could be said to be diluted by two features in the
Constitution. The two features are: (a) amending power conferred on Parliament in
respect of the Constitution under Art 159 & (b) the law-making power confided in the
executive (on whose advice the YDPA is bound to act) under Art 150.

All in all, the rule of law is part and parcel of the Malaysian Constitution irrespective of
the two features mentioned above. See the case of Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of
Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187- where federal court Raja Azlan Shah (now Sultan of Perak)
observed: The Constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes. It is the supreme
law of the land embodying 3 basic concepts: fundamental rights, federal division of
8 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

powers and separation among the executive, legislature and the judiciaryexpressed in
modern terms that we are government by laws, not men. However, take note of the final
decision of the Federal Court.

Importance of the Rule of Law:

It requires that no one be punished except for a conduct which represents a clear breach
of law. All laws should be prospective, open and clear. (See the case of PP v Mohamed
Ismail [1984] 2 MLJ 219- where the defendant was charged with drug trafficking which
was punishable with life imprisonment or death under sec 39B(1) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 1983. While his trial was pending, the law was amended to provide for a
mandatory death penalty. At the close of the trial, the public prosecutor invited the court
to impose the enhanced penalty. In refusing the request, the judge held that the
amendment could not apply to the defendants case as it was enacted after the offence
was committed)

Decisions made by those in authority must be made in accordance with law (supremacy
of law-see Art 4(1) of the Federal Constitution. All government actions must be
authorised by law

Government of the day must also respect the law. (See the case of Lee Gee Lam v
Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia & Anor [1993] 3 MLJ 265where the order of detention stated a number of grounds on which the detainee was
apprehended with the word or and not and in between. The court held that the
statement of grounds in the alternative denied the detainee his constitutional right to
know precisely the reason why he was being arrested)

All government and public officials are accountable to law i.e., the government itself is
subject to law. The government and its officials should not have any special exemptions
or protections from the law. This could best be understood through the operation of
judicial review. (See the case of Chai Choon Hon v Ketua Polis, Daerah Kampar [1986]
2 MLJ 203- in which a condition, attached to a police permit to hold a DAP dinner, that
there should be only seven speakers, was struck down because the permit already
imposed a time limit, which rendered the condition unnecessary

Laws need to advocate for equality irrespective of rank and status in a given society.
Laws must not be gender bias etc. (See Article 8(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution)

Courts have an important role to fulfil i.e., that when they construe the words of the
statute, they should restrict the meaning of that statute as far as possible so that it does not
unduly infringe upon citizens rights. Hence, the independence of the judiciary must be

9 | Page

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

guaranteed and courts must be accessible. Court must be viewed as the custodian of
rights & as well as upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.
Note: Though the rule of law is viewed as an important concept or doctrine, there are also
some criticisms regarding this doctrine e.g. the supremacy of the constitution is a fallacy
especially in the context of the ouster clauses in the constitution itself; the government must
possess clearly defined powers to authorise its actions seems not to be true even though we
have a written constitution; the notion of equality before the law is surrounded by a lot of
grey areas; etc.

Supremacy of the Federal Constitution:

A written constitution represents a higher law, not so much because it is written, but
because these rules are far more difficult to amend. Constitutional rules are usually
amendable by special majorities as opposed to ordinary or simple majorities. (See Art
159(3) of the Federal Constitution which provides that a Bill making any amendment to
the Constitution shall not be passed in either House of Parliament unless it has been
supported on a Second or Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the
total number of members of that House.

Hence, the term supremacy means the highest in authority or rank and this may even
mean being in all-powerful position. (See the American Constitution and the decision of
the SC in the case of Marbury v Madison)

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia purports to be the supreme law of the Federation.
This much is claimed by Art 4(1) which provides: This Constitution is the supreme law of
the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this
Constitution, shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Importance of the supremacy of the Federal Constitution:

By virtue of Art 4(1), in Malaysia only the Constitution is supreme. English constitutional
lawyers speak of the supremacy of Parliament, which Dicey, a famous professor of law,
considered the dominant characteristic of the British Constitution from the legal point of
view. The British Parliament is indeed supreme. There is no law which it cannot make,
repeal or amend.

Unlike in Britain, Malaysia is a federation with a written constitution which is rather rigid
as mentioned above. Our Parliament does not have unlimited powers. The Parliament
derives its power from the constitution which divides legislative power between the
federation on the one hand and individual states on the other (see Articles 73-79).
10 | P a g e

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

In Malaysia, courts are able to invalidate laws passed by Parliament (if it were to
legislate outside its powers). State law may also be invalidated by the courts on grounds
such as: outside the power of the State Legislative Assembly; inconsistent with the
Federal Constitution; or inconsistent with federal laws.

Take note of case law demonstrating the supremacy of the constitution. For example, in
the of Ah Thian v. Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 112- where Suffian L.P
observed: The doctrine of supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we
have a written constitution. The power of Parliament and State legislatures in Malaysia is
limited by the Constitution, and they cannot pass any law as they please. Under our
Constitution written law may be invalid on one of these grounds: (1) Art 74; (2) in the
case of both Federal and State written law, because it is inconsistent with the
Constitution; (3) Art 75.

See also the case of Mamat bin Daud & Ors v. Government of Malaysia [1986] 2 MLJ
192- where the application for leave under Art 4(4) arose as to whether sec 298A of the
Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code were ultra vires the Constitution being in
excess of the legislative power of the Parliament. Mohamed Azmi SCJ held that, for the
applicants to succeed, they must satisfy the court (a) leave is necessary under Art 4(4) &
(b) they have an arguable case in that the application is not frivolous. Since the present
application was not considered frivolous by the court, it allowed the applicants to canvass
their case before the full court on the constitutionality and validity of the new section.

See also the case of City Council of Georgetown v. Government of the State of Penang
[1967] 1 MLJ 169, where the Federal Court applied Art 4 of the Constitution to invalidate
a State law which was inconsistent with federal law by making reference to Art 75. In this
case the Municipal (Amendment) (Penang) Enactment 1966 was passed by the Penang
State Legislature to administer municipal affairs of the State. The petitioner claimed that
the Enactment and related Orders were inconsistent with Local Government Elections
Act 1960 and therefore void. The court applied Art 75 and agreed that the Enactment and
related Orders were void. It is important to note that Art 75 does not apply if Parliament
has no power to pass the relevant Federal law.

See also the case of Yeoh Tat Hong v. Government of Malaysia & Anor [1973] 2 MLJ, it
was argued that a subsidiary legislation made by the State Authority in Penang under the
National Land Code 1965 was ultra vires and null and void. The applicant applied to the
Federal Court for leave to issue a writ of summons for declarations. The Federal Court
held that the High Court had jurisdictions to deal with the matter and thus no leave from
the Federal Court was required. It was also ruled that given the definition of law under
Art 160 the subsidiary legislation in Yeoh Tat Hong was not law under Art 4.

11 | P a g e

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

See also the case of East Union (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Government of the State of Johore &
Government of Malaysia [1980] 2 MLJ 143. Another argument raised was that before the
NLC there was already uniform law- though scattered in the various Enactments of the
Malay States and in the Strait Settlements and that therefore the enactment of sec 100 of
the NCL was not for the purpose only of ensuring uniformity of the law and policy.
Based on this line of argument, the applicant company asked for a declaration that sec
100 of the National Land Code was void as it was ultra vires Art 76(4) of the Federal
Constitution. The court held that as the contention was that Parliament had no power to
pass the law under challenged and that it was not an inter-governmental dispute, but one
between a company and federal and state governments-leave was therefore necessary.
The federal government had argued that the application by the company was superfluous.
Suffian LP ruled, inter alia, that, I do not think it is fair to deny the company
opportunity of having this matter ventilated in court.

Grey areas on the supremacy of the Federal Constitution:

Important to note that the application of constitutional supremacy becomes more difficult
with the limitations imposed in Art 4(3) and (4).

Furthermore, under Art 159 Parliament is clothed with power to make constitutional
amendments that are inconsistent with the Constitution. So, could the Federal
Constitution still be said to be supreme in such a situation? See the case of Phang Chin
Hock v. Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLJ 70, where the Federal Court held The rule of
harmonious construction in construing Art 4 and Art 159 enables them to hold that Acts
of Parliament made in accordance with the conditions set out in Art 159 are valid even if
inconsistent with the Constitution.

Another case to cite is the case of Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia [1977] 2
MLJ 187, where the Federal Court rejected the argument that the Constitution as the
Supreme law cannot be inconsistent with itself. In this case Parliament amended Art 5(4),
denying persons detained under restrictive residence law, right to production before a
Magistrate. The amendment was given retrospective effect to independence day.

Sources of the Malaysian Constitutional Law:

Legal Sources/Rules i.e., the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the land
together with constitutions of the thirteen states comprising the Federation; legislation
enacted by Parliament and the State Assemblies under powers conferred on them by their
respective constitutions; and subsidiary or delegated legislation made by persons or
bodies under powers conferred on them by Acts of Parliament or Enactments of State
Assemblies; and judicial precedent/case law.

12 | P a g e

UCL1612 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Week 5

Non-Legal Sources/Rules i.e., conventions & customs, royal prerogatives, authoritative

works, etc. See the definition of a convention and given by Dicey.

Other Sources i.e., treaties and conventions. Treaties are legally binding agreements
between two or more States. Conventions are legally binding agreements between States
sponsored by international organisation such as the UN.

Conclusion:

The Malaysian Constitution, like most things Malaysian, is a unique expressions of the
countrys varied culture and history. It is an amalgam of diverse elements, some having
their origin in Malay constitutional ideas, some in British, some in Indian, and some
again which derive from a purely Malaysian context determined by the political realities
of its multi-cultural social and political life.

In general terms the Federal Constitution owes much to the Indian Constitution, which
came into force only seven years before it, in that it embodies British principles of
government and constitutional conventions, but also embodies constitutional rather than
parliamentary supremacy, and indeed many provisions of the Malaysian Constitution are
based on their Indian equivalents.

In Malaysia, therefore, the Constitution is the fundamental law from which the validity of
all other laws derives, and superior to all other forms of law.

13 | P a g e