You are on page 1of 20

Contents

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................2
2.0 Constitutional Supremacy....................................................3
2.0 A Federal System.................................................................6
3.0 Fundamental Liberties.........................................................9
4.0 Judiciary Independence.....................................................14
5.0 Conclusion.........................................................................18
Bibliography............................................................................19

1.0 Introduction
Malaysia is a Federation which comprises thirteen states. The most important source of
law in Malaysia is the written law; comprises both federal and state laws. Constitutional
supremacy refers to the system which the constitution is supreme and all institutions created
by the Constitution and obtaining their powers from it are subject to its provision. This means
that the government must rule in accordance with the Constitution, their powers are limited in
order to prevent arbitrary powers. In Malaysia, the most important source of law is the
written law. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation. It is the
fundamental law of the land which is used as a yardstick to measure the validity of all other
laws1. The supremacy of the Federal Constitution is set out in Article 4(1) which states,
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.
Any unconstitutionality is liable to be challenged and invalidated in a court of law;
strengthened by Articles 128 that confers power on the superior courts to determine the
constitutional validity of Federal and state laws. Article 162(6) provide that any court or
tribunal applying the provisions of any pre-Merdeka law may apply it with such modification
as may be necessary to bring it into accord with the Constitution. In the case of Loh Kooi
Choon v Government of Malaysia2 which Raja Azlan Shah FJ held that the Constitution is the
supreme law of the land and embodying 3 body concepts, distribution of sovereign power,
fundamental rights and separation of power.

1 Wan Arfah Hamzah, A First Look at The Malaysian Legal System, Selangor: Oxford Fajar, 2009.
2 [977] 2 MLJ 187

2.0 Constitutional Supremacy


Constitutional supremacy is the system of government which Parliament has the
freedom of power to make law in a constitution. In Malaysia, Federal Constitution is the
supreme law of federation. It also means that Federal Constitution is the basic and
fundamental law of the land. If a passed law in the federation was inconsistence with the law
in constitution, then the law will be void. This shows that Federal Constitution is the supreme
law and cannot be challenged.
According to Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution state that the constitution is the supreme
law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this
constitution shall, to the maximum extent of inconsistency, be void.
In the case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia3, it is a case which Federal
Court had decided related to the freedom of right and also involved the amendment of
constitution that made by the Parliament. In this case, Loh Kooi Choon was detained by
Royal Malaysian Police under the provision of the Restricted Residence Enactment 1993
(RRE). In the Article 5(4) Federal Constitution had stated that a person shall not be arrested
without the magistrates authority. Loh Kooi Choon was denied this right and sued Police for
compensation but he failed. Then he appealed to the Federal Court, the Federal Court only
heard his appeal after four years of the original case. But, before his appeal was heard
Parliament had made decision to amend Article 5(4) with adding a provision state that this
clause any person should not apply to the arrest or detention under the existing law related
with the restricted residence and all the provision of this clause shall have integral part of this
Article as from Merdeka Day (independence day).

3 Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187.

But, Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah rejected the argument of the appellant and opine
that the constitution is the supreme law of the land which consists of three basic concepts
which is fundamental rights, federal division of power and separation among the executive,
legislature and the judiciary that expressed that we are govern by laws but not men. It means
all the Malaysian must respect the law. However, the argument was rejected and stated that
supreme law of cannot be inconsistent with itself. Through this case, we can see that federal
constitution is the supreme law and cannot be challenged by other bodies on the ground.
Besides, Article 162 related to Pre-Merdeka law which inconsistent with the federal
constitution shall be modified to make it consistent with the federal constitution. In the case
of Assa Singh v. Menteri Besar of Johore4, it was a case about the applicability of the
Restricted Residence Enactment 1993 (RRE) after Malaysian independence in the year 1957.
Assa Singh was arrested by the police under the provision of the Restricted Residence
Enactment (RRE) with a view that he was forced relocate him to another district to preserve
security and public order. Assa Singh claimed that it was violation of his rights under Articles
5 (personal liberty) and 9 (freedom of movement) of the constitution.
Then the case was referred to the Federal Court to determine the constitutionality of
the Restricted Residence Enactment (RRE) by Lord President of the Federal Court Mohamed
Azmi Mohamed, Chief Justice Ong Hock Thye, Federal Justice Mohamed Suffian Mohamed
Hashim, Federal Justice P. S. Gill and Justice Azlan Shah. The judges held that, RRE still can
be applied by reading these rights into the Enactments although it had violate Assa Singhs
rights but it was not void as an unconstitutional law.
The Solicitor General had stated that only the law that passed after independence
which inconsistent with the constitution will be void while in the clause 6 of Article 162
4 Assa Singh v Menteri Besar of Johore (1969) 2 MLJ 30.

brings a meaning of the law which inconsistent with the federal constitution that passed
before independence day need to be modified but not be void. This submission was accepted
by Suffian who wrote that RRE has four rights that guaranteed by article 5 which is the right
to be informed about the reason of his arrest, allowed to consult and defended by legal
petitioner of his choice, and if not sooner released, to released people within 24 hours without
unreasonable delay. As a result, the breaching of Singhs rights with RRE was constitutional
and Singh was not released. We can know that if the laws that was passed before
independence day then it will not be void but be modified to become a law that suitable to
local circumstances.
The another example is the case of Surinder Singh Kanda v. The Government of the
Federation of Malaya5. This case is about a police inspector was dismissed on July 1958 by
the commission of police under the power given by the pre merdeka police ordinance 1952.
The issue in this case is whether on July 1958 the commissioner has the power to dismiss
Surinder who was a police inspector as under article 135 in the federal constitution stated that
no public service shall be dismissed by authority of subordinate rank and at the same time has
power to appoint a member of that service of equal rank. But since that Inspector Kanda was
dismissed after independence, so it is necessary to follow the article 135(1) that no one could
dismiss the public service. While before independence day there was a law that
Commissioner of Police could dismiss police officers include inspectors of police if the
inspector had been found guilty against discipline.6
Inspector Kanda said that the Police Ordinance 1952 did not continue to use after
independence day as it was replaced by the federal constitution so that the Commissioner of
5 Surinder Singh Kanda v. the Government of the Federation of Malaya (1962) 28
MLJ 169
6 Section 45(1) of Police Ordinance 1952.

Police which was a subordinate to the commission could not dismiss him because he could
not appoint him. Therefore, the government also admit that there was a Police Service
Commission established after Merdeka Day and all superior police, officers, including
inspectors have been appointed by the Police Service Commission. They also admit that in
July 1958, Commissioner of Police was an authority subordinate to the Police Service
Commission.
The Lord Denning held that in a conflict between existing law and the constitution,
the constitution must prevail. The court must apply the existing law with modification so that
it will be consistent with the federal constitution. So, constitutional supremacy is carry on in
our country as any law that conflict with the current constitution need to made modification
or else it will be void and the constitution cannot be challenged by any person.

2.0 A Federal System


Malaysia has a federal form of government which is different from the unitary system in
United Kingdom and Singapore7. Under Article 44, the legislative power of the Federation is
vested in Parliament which consists of YDPA, Dewan Negara (Senate), Dewan Rakyat
(House of Representatives). Article 73 explicit the power of both governments to make law.
Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the Federation and laws with extraterritorial effects which states in Article 73(a) while Article 73(b) gives authority to State
Legislature to make laws for the whole or any part of that state. Given that Malaysia is a
Federation which consists of thirteen states, its written law comprises both federal and state
laws. The relationship between the federal and state governments as well as between both
levels of government and their citizens is clearly regulated in the Federal Constitution and
States Constitutions.
7 Shad Saleem Faruqi. (2011). The Constitution of a Muslim Majority State: The Example of
Malaysia

Legislative list in the Constitution clearly assign the power to either the federal
government, state government or both. According to the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution
under Article 74, there are 3 legislative lists namely Federal List (List I), State List (List II)
and Concurrent List (List III). In their respective sphere of authority, the other may not
interfere because each level of government is given power and deemed as superior authority.
Therefore, in Article 75 it states that when there is a conflict relating to state and federal laws,
the federal law shall prevail and state law shall to the extent of inconsistency, be void.
The general principle is that the passing of any law which encroaches upon others
allocated List will be unconstitutional and therefore invalid unless such encroachment is
specifically authorized by other constitutional provision.
For example, in the case of City Council of George Town v Government of The State of
Penang8 where the law made by the state government which are the City Council of George
Town Order 1966 and Municipal (Amendment) Enactment 1966 were inconsistent with Local
Government Elections Act 1960, which was created by the federal not legitimate. In the
judgment of the court, the provision is invalid in accordance with Article 75. This shows that
when the law made by the State is not in line with the law enacted by the Parliament, it shall
be void as the Federal law prevail over State law.
Another example is that in the case of Mamat bin Daud v. Government of Malaysia9, the
petitioner had acted as imam without being appointed by Terengganu administration of
Islamic law. He was charged under section 298A of the Penal Code which is federal law for
doing acts that may likely to cause disharmony and disunity among Muslims. The issue is
whether who has the jurisdiction to enact law under section 298A of Penal Code. It has been
stated in the Constitution that the Parliament has the power to make law under Article 11(5)
8 [1967] 1 MLJ 169
9 [1988] 1 MLJ 119

relating to public order and morality and specific power under Schedule Ninth, List I, Item 4
which is on Federal List including civil and legal procedure on criminal offence including
Syariah court while the State has the power to control propagation of other religion to
Muslims under Article 11(4) and specific power under Schedule Ninth, List II, Item 1 which
provides that hukum syarak is within state authority. It is said that Section 298A is a piece of
colorable legislation that it pretends to be a legislation on public order when in pith and
substance, it is about Islamic religious offence. Leave from the Federal Court is required as
the case involved both federal and state power under Article 4(3). The validity of the law can
be challenged on the ground that Parliament has trespass into state jurisdiction or vice versa10.
It was held that in pith and substance a law on subject matter of religion, it is the state
who has the power to legislate under Article 74 and 77. This shows that it is forbidden from
violating the federal and state division as both powers are stated in the Constitution, even
though the assumption that everything related to Islamic religion is a state matter is wrong.
This is because crimes against public order are in federal hands even if involving Muslims as
according to the minority view, section 298A was directed not only to Muslims but all
persons who insulted others on religious ground or caused disharmony.
Furthermore, in the case of Ketua Pengarah Alam Sekitar & Anor vs Kajing Tubek 11
where the respondent made a complaint related to the Bakun Hydroelectric Project and
applied for declaration that the Environmental Quality (Amendment) Order 1995 was invalid
and before Ekran Bhd carried out the project, it must comply with the Environmental Quality
Act 1974. The Amendment Order had excluded the operation of the Environmental Quality
Order 1987 to Sarawak. The court granted the declaration. However, the Court of Appeal
reversed the decision made by the High Court. The Court of Appeal held that Sarawak had
10 Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976]2 MLJ 112,113
11 [1997] 3 MLJ 23

exclusive authority pertaining subject matter in the case involving environment and land, so
the Environmental Quality Act 1974 thus does not apply. This shows that when matters
touching on state list, a state will prevail over federal law unless the federal has power to
legislate for state or under emergency power of federation as shown in Article 76(4) the
purpose of standardizing the law. As Malaysia uphold the Constitutional supremacy, such
encroachment upon others allocated List will be unconstitutional.

3.0 Fundamental Liberties


In general, every person including citizen and no citizen has right to
life and liberty as states in Article 5 . This right cannot be taken away unless
there is circumstances allowed the law to do so. The word life mean as
an access to quality of life. Even the pleasure of a pollution free
environment was held to be part of the constitutional protection within the
meaning of life as in Hong Leong v Liew Fook Chuan 12. In the other hand,
fundamental liberty is the power of doing what is allowed by the law 13. In
PP v Tengku Mahmood Iskandar14, it is interpreted as restriction to physical
body of person, and a right not to be subjected to unlawful arrest,
imprisonment or other physical coercion 15. There are disputes arises on
whether life imprisonment, euthanasia and death penalty violates the
constitutional rights under Article 5. In PP v Lee Kee Hoo 16, a case where
the mandatory sentence was challenged on constitutional grounds, the
12 [1996] 1 MLJ 481
13 Shad Saleem Faruqi. Document of Destiny. p208 para 2
14 [1978] 1 MLJ 128
15 Ibid
16 [1983] MLJ 157

court held that it is constitutional under the law for a conviction under
Section 57 ISA. Thus, it is clear that every person is entitled to right to life
except the law allowed such right to be infringed
Also, as provides in Article 6, slavery and forced labour are
prohibited. This can be seen in Barat Estate Sdn Bhd & Anor vs Parawakan
a/l Subramaniam17, court held that the result intended by (the relevant
provisions of the employment Act 1955) is entirely in keeping with the
constitutional right of an employee. One begins with the premise that
every employee has a right to choose his employer. He must give his
employees the right to make a choice as to the course of action he or she
wishes to adopt. That is because compelling an employee to work for a
particular employer, without affording him a choice in the matter, is
merely one form of forced labour.
Article 7(1) generally deduced that a person cannot be punished for
something which at the time when it was done was not an offence. The
case of Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia 18 is a case concerning
the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the extent to which
Parliament can amend the Constitution. This case interprets punishment
as refer to criminal sanctions only. For the civil matters, they can be
backdated. To make it clearer, if someone broke one of the traffic rules in
the pass, the authority cannot then punish him after the enforcement of
certain law specifically on that offence today. The same rule applies to the
17 [2000] 3 AMR 3030
18 [1977] 2 MLJ 187

sentence decided by the court in the past where it cannot be changed


today due to the amendment of laws based on the doctrine of res
judicata19 as prescribed under article 7(2) of the Federal Constitution.
Next, the principle of equality is the most fundamental of human
rights and has been described as the starting point of all liberties 20
under Article 8. This article discusses specifically on the equality before
the laws under few sub sections (1) to (5). In general, every person will
have the same right under the law to be enjoyed and it is equal to
everyone. Nevertheless, there are some privileges given to certain
peoples such as indigenous people and Bumiputera in Malaysia which
cannot be questioned because they are protected by the constitution.
However, despite of the existence of Article 8 which provides equality to
all people, there are still issues arose especially in term of gender
discrimination. What if women and men are not similarly situated? For
example,

in

Beatrice

Fernandez v

Malaysia

Airlines 21,

term

of

employment allows the dismissal of female airline stewardesses who are


pregnant. Here males and females are not similarly situated because only
females can get pregnant as that is a sexual-biological difference between
males and 3 females. To what extent equality can be achieved is still a
question of fact.

19 A matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by
the same parties

20 Mashood Baderin, International Human Right and Islamic Law. (Oxford: oxford University Press. 2003) p.58 quoting
Justice Tamaka in the South West Africa Cases (1966) ICJ Reports. P. 304

21 [2004] 4 MLJ 466

Article 9 generally provides that every citizen has the right to move

freely and stay in any part of the country excluding where any law is
passed relating to the security of the country, public order, public health
or the punishment of offenders. However, it must be noted that freedom
of movement does not cover right to passport as the authority may stop a
person from leaving the country, if for instance there are criminal charges
pending as against him. In Assa Singh vs. MB Johor 22 where the provision
was explained by Raja Azlan Shah J. Reading the provision art 9 together,
it is reasonably clears that it was designed primarily to emphasis the
factual unity of the federation and to secure the right of a free citizen to
move from one place in the federation to another and to reside in any part
therefor. In short, the object of art 9, not unlike art 13(1) of the (universal)
Declaration of Human Right (1948), is to remove all internal barriers in the
country and to make it a dwelling place of all citizens. It is true that every
person is entitled to freedom of movement, so long as they obey the laws,
they will be protected constitutionally.
Moreover, in Article 10, the citizens have freedom of speech,
assembly and association nevertheless these freedoms may be restricted
by Parliament for reasons permitted by the Constitution. The Courts have
said Parliament may only impose restrictions where they are reasonably
necessary such as for the security purposes. In case of Nordin Salleh vs
DUN Kelantan23, an amendment to Kelantan constitution requiring an
assemblyman who crosses the floor to vacate the seat and seek re22 [1969] 2 MLJ 31, p. 47 G - H
23 [1992]1 MLJ 697

election was held to violate the fundamental right of also under art 10.
According to the court, tantamount to denying the right under art. 10(1)
(c). It can be deduced that the authority actually has power impliedly to
decide whether such acts is reasonable or dangerous and whether they
will threaten the well-being and security of country or not.
In order to fully understand Article 11, one must have deep
understanding on Article 3 of the constitution, stated that Islam shall be
the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in
peace and harmony in the Federation24. It must be accepted that the
concept of freedom of religion in Malaysia is far different from what have
been practiced in the West where conversion of Muslim to another faith is
an offence here in Malaysia. Besides, it is also strengthened under this
article that there shall be no discrimination to any person of federation on
the basis of religions. However, there also exist restraints on the freedom
of religion as to what extent a person is protected under the constitution.
An approach was taken by the federal court in case Lina Joy vs Majlis
Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan25 where a born Muslim female was not
allowed to leave Islam. Ahmad Fairuz CJ, delivering the majority opinion of
the court, held that art 11 required the appellant to observe the law and
the practice of Islam and this apply when it comes to exiting from the
religion. The federal court also held that (a) a person professing a
particular religion is bound by the rules of the religion concerned, (b) the
right to profess and practice a particular religion are subject to principles
24 Article 3. Federal Constitution of Malaysia
25 [2007] 4 MLJ 585 FC

and practice determined by the religion and (c) art. 11 does not confer
unlimited right to do anything a person pleases.
Article 12 generally prohibits any form of discriminations on the
grounds of religions, races, descent as well as in the payment of fees. In
Malaysia, primary education is absolutely accessible to every person. In
Teoh Eng Huat vs Kadhi, Pasir Mas 26 the supreme court, reversing the
decision of the high court held that art. 12(3) and (4) should be read
together, holding that no infant shall have the automatic right to receive
instruction relating to any other religion than his own without the
permission of the parent or guardian. For instance, Non-Muslims students
cannot be forced to learn Islamic subject which is compulsory to the
Muslims except he is voluntarily done so. Another important matter issued
under this article is the right to profess a religion. It must be noted that a
person who has not yet achieve the age of majority of 18 years old is
obliged to follow their parents decision in religion matters. The most
confusing scene happened when the case involved the divorce of parent,
and one of the party convert their children to his or her new religion
without the other party permission.
Last but not least, right to property involves not only the physical
thing itself but also the surrounding rights such as exclusive use, the right
to alienate by sale, gift or exchange. Article 13 provides that no person
may be deprived of property save in accordance with law. The court of
appeal took a liberal approach in Sagong bin Tasi vs Kerajaan Negeri

26 [1986] 2 MLJ 228

Selangor27. Here the court was dealing with the nature of customary title
and the plaintiff had been occupying the lands for at least 210 years until
the state government acquired them. The court held that there was
nothing in the National Land Code 1965 that was against the recognition
of customary title. In short, no law may provide for the compulsory
acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.

4.0 Judiciary Independence


In a country which is carried on democratic system, the judiciary occupies a very important
place in the constitutional set-up of the land. Judges play a crucial role in order to check and
balance and prevent the abuse of power. Public is very confidence towards the integrity,
impartiality and independence of the judiciary is, therefore, vital. It is so sad to say that
integrity and impartiality are personal attributes that no law can ensure it. The constitution is
supreme which is mentioned in Article 4 that any laws which is contradicts with the
constitution will be null and void. The Constitution provide a proper system of appointment.
Whether the appointees will have the character, the courage and the intellectual capacity to
soar above the timberline of the trivial and to transcend the prides, prejudices and temptations
that afflict ordinary mortals cannot be guaranteed.
However, in traditional Constitution, independence of judiciary is connoted
independence from the executive. But, nowadays, the judges have the freedom of action that

27[2005] 6 MLJ 289

may also threatened by pressures from within the judicial branch.

28

Besides, the challenge to

judicial integrity from private centers of power cannot be discounted.29


According to the Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, there are the judicial power of the
Federation. Actually, the phase There shall be in clause (1) of Article 121 replaced the
phase Subject to Clause (2) the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in by the
Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988. The phase judicial power is a very important
deletion. The case that can be clearly showed is case of Public Prosecutor v Dato Yap Peng.
30

In this case, Dato Yap Peng was involved in a criminal breach of trust in the Sessions

Court. Deputy public prosecutor tendered a certificate issued by public prosecutor under
section 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code required the code to be brought to High Court.
Dato Yap Peng then argued that it was unconstitutional. Then, the Constitutional was
amended and Article 145 (3A) to provide express power to the Public Prosecutor to transfer
the case from a lower court to a high court. The court in MBF Holdings Sdn Bhd said,
That amendment was the direct consequence of the decision in public prosecutor v
Dato Yap Peng. By that amendment, the phase judicial power was removed from
Article 121 of the Constitution.
Besides, in the case of Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 31, we can
notice that the judge make his own judgement which showed that it was a judicial
28 In the Likas election case, the judge complained that he had been instructed on the phone by
the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to dismiss the application summarily. The learned and
courageous judge defied the instruction and went on to censure the conduct of the Election
Commission: Haris Mohd Salleh v Ismail Majin [2000] 3 MLJ 434

29 In late 2007, a video clip emerged showing a prominent lawyer in conversation with a Datuk
about an elaborate scheme to broker judicial appointments and promotions with the help of a
business tycoon and several ruling party politicians The Star, 22 September 2007, N4.

30 Public Prosecutor v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311


31 Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] 1 MLJ 261

independence. In this case, appellant was the headmaster of a primary Chinese school. He did
not return a sum of RM 3179 of unpaid salary of the schools gardener who had not turned up
for work for several months. He failed to return the money to the Education Department.
Eventually, he did send the money to the Department. However, because he retained the
money, he was charged for an offence under section 409 of the Penal Code. The session court
found him guilty, convicted him and imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment.
However, the High Court substituted the order of dismissal with a reduction in rank. From
this case, we can see that the judge was held a judgement by himself. They are not really
make the judgement simply or follow the act accordingly instead they are judge based on the
severity of the case. This showed that the judges are not being controlled by anyone or any
party and such the judicial independence can be achieved.
In Malaysia, as in most legal systems, appointments are in the hands of the executive.
However, since the judges plays a crucial role in the heart of legal system who need to fight
for justice, so the Constitution seeks to ensure that only those with proper qualifications,
temperament, integrity and calibre are elevated to the hallowed halls of the judiciary.
According to the Article 123 of the Federal Constitution, a judge must be a citizen, has been
an advocate of those courts or any of them or a member of the judicial and legal service of
the Federation or of the legal service of a State or sometimes one and sometimes another for
the ten years.
However, the requirement of being an advocate of any superior court became an issue
in the case of Badan Peguam Malaysia v Kerajaan Malaysia.

32

In this case, Dr Badariah

Sahamid was appointed judicial commissioner on 1 March 2007. Before the appointment, she
was the Associate Professor in University of Malaya. She was called to the Malaysian Bar in
1987 but had never practiced as an advocate or been in Judicial and Legal Service. The Bar
32 Badan Peguam Malaysia v Kerajaan Malaysia [2008] 2 AMR 561; [2008] 2 MLJ 285

Council challenged the legality of Dr Badariahs appointment as judicial commissioner. In


this view, such an appointment contravened Article 122AB and Article 123 as she did not
fulfill the requirement of being in active practice at the Bar or Judicial and Legal Service for
at least 10 years. The Federal Court sat as five judges in a majority of 3:2 declared that the
appointment was valid. This was because the at least 10 years practiced in the relevant
Judicial and Legal Service was an unnecessary. However, the Chief Justice, Abdul Hamid
Mohamad, in a strong dissenting judgement, ruled that the appointment of Dr Badariah was
invalid because she did not fulfill the minimum requirement that had been set. From this case,
we can notice that although the judges have the different view on a case, but the Chief Justice
had the final judgement towards the case. The Chief Judgement was not influenced by any
people or any party which can make the judgement based on his own perception regarding
the rules. This had showed the judiciary independence in Malaysia.
Judiciary independence plays a very important role to maintain the supremacy of Malaysia.
Judges are the one who involve directly in every judgement that had been made. All the
judgements are very important because some of them are the judicial precedent and will be
referred by other judge in the future similar case. The judges will be protected by law and
they must be fair enough not to corrupt in any case. This is because, judges are the person
who is reliable by the citizens to fight for justice and maintain the harmony of a country.

5.0 Conclusion
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia is supremacy with is provided in the Article 4
and any laws that contradicts with the constitution are null and void. Therefore, actually the
Federal Constitution is used to control the government from abuse of power. Thats why the
Federal Constitution is always being amended in the Parliament. However, we can comment
that the Federal Constitution is supremacy but the Parliament is not supremacy. This is
because any judgement is based on the Federal Constitution and the Parliament have no right
to involved in it.
However, recently, the judges are being given the full power in making the judgement
with the condition that they need to base on the Federal Constitution. This is to protect the
right of the citizens in Malaysia and subsequently creates a harmony Malaysia with is now on
the track to achieve the holy Vision 2020 which had been announced by our former Prime
Minister Tun Dr Mahathir.

Bibliography
Bari, A. A. (2009). Constitution of Malaysia Text And COmmentary Thrid Edition.
Petaling Jaya,Malaysia: Pearson Malaysia Sdn Bhd.
Hamzah, W. A. (2009). A first look at the Malaysian Legal System.
Hamzah, W. A. (2009). A first look at the Malaysian Legal System. Malaysia:
Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd.
Hamzah, W. A. (2009). A First look at the Malaysian Legal System. Malaysia:
Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd.
Faruqi, S. S. (2008). Document of Destiny The Constitution of the Federation of
Malaysia. Malaysia: Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd.
Saleem, M., Y. (2005). Environmental Issues in a Federation: The Case of
Malaysia. Intellectual Discourse 13.2:201-212.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loh_Kooi_Choon_v_Malaysia