INTRODUCTION Compare and Contrast the Separation of Power in Malaysia, UK and USA?

The theory of separation powers is popularised by Baron de Montesquieu or by his real name Charles Louis de La Brede in his book Spirit of Laws. During the Greece heroic times, exists the three argues, where people are the legislative and the king as the judge and Executive. In this era where people have the legislative power, the March has became diminish because it was indistributed. Separation of Powers is the main factor to uphold the rule of law, where government by the law not based in single power Monarchy alone could bring tyranny, aristocracy alone could bring oligarchy, and Democracy could bring anarchy. Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they ever the laws permit, and if the citizen could do what they forbid he would be no longer possed of liberty, because all his fellow citizens would have the same power. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the nature of things that power should be a cheek to power. A government may be so constituted, as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits. This is the importance of check and balance. In every government there are three separation of power, the legislative, the executive in respect to things dependent on the law of nature, and the executive in regard to matters that depend the civil law. By virtue of the first, the prince of magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual

laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted, by the second, he makes peace or war, sands or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions, By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. Lord John Actor if England remarked that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The principle of separation of powers and checks and balances practiced in the United States, for example, were based upon the assumption that every man invested with power is apart to abuse it. It was argued that if the executive, legislative and judicial power are untied in the system will be tyrannical as was the case with absolute monarchy. It has been pointed out by scholars that monarchs were no more corrupts than those whose powers were more limited. It has been argued that limiting power will not necessarily result in a good government. Those with limited power may find it difficult to achieve their desired goals and hence may, through corruption, try to increase it the individuals who are

sufficiently powerful to accomplish their tasks do not need to be unethical. Thus Lord Actons assertion that power tends to corrupt is wrong. It is a gross oversimplification of the facts, since power also enables and powerlessness also corrupts and enables