UNIVERSITI MALAYA PRO FORMA KURSUS PENTING: Kandungan Pro Forma ini tidak boleh diubah tanpa kelulusan Senat bagi perkara-perkara yang telah ditandakan*, Pindaan kepada perkara lain boleh diluluskan di peringkat Akademi/Fakulti/nstitulPusat, AkademilFakult/institut/Pusat Fakulti Undang-undang Jabatan | Program | jazah Sarjana Muda Jurisprudens /\jazah Sarjana Muda Undang- undang Kod Kursus” LXEB 2110 ‘Taluk Kursus* Undang-undang Perlembagaan | | Tiada Prasyarat(Keperluan Minimum, Kursus Masa Pembelajaran Pelajar | 120, (slT) Kredit* 3 Hasil Pembelajaran Kursus" | Di akhir Kursus ini, pelajar akan dapat: 1. Menerangkan maksud keperlembagaan dan prinsip-prinsip umum keperlembagaan iaitu: Keutamaan Perlembagaan, Pengasingan Kuasa, Kedaulatan Undang-undang dan Konvensyen Perlembagaan, 2, Mengaplikasi Prinsip Keperlembagaan di dalam mentafsir Perlembagaan, 3, Menerangkan kuasa-kuasa dan fungsi-fungsi insttusi-insttusi Kerajaan laitu: Yang Dipertuan Agong, Badan Perundangan, Eksekutif dan Kehakiman, Kemahiran Boleh Pindah ‘Sinopsis Kandungan Kursus Kemahiran menyelesalkan masalah, pemikiran kriis, kemahiran berkomunikasi Kursus ini merangkumi Konstitutionalisme dan Perlembagaan sebagai lundang-undang utama, Ini akan termasuk pengajian prinsip-prinsip umum Perlembagaan, sejarah Perlembagaan Malaysia, tafsiran Perlembagaan, pindaan Perlembagaan, institusi-institusi Yang Dipertuan Agong, Majlis Raja-raja, Badan Perundangan, Eksekutif dan Kehakiman, | Strategi Pembelajaran (kuliah, tutorial, perbincangan, dil) Kuliah dan Tutorial Pemberatan Perilaian* Kaedan Maklum Balas Tentang Prestasi Kriteria Dalam Penilaian ‘Sumat Penilaian Berterusan: 40% Peperiksaan Akhir: 60% Markah untuk penilaian berterusan (penglibatan dalam tutorial, pembentangan, tugasan/ujian) akan dimaklumkan sebelum peperiksaan akhir. Markah akan dipaparkan di papan notis peperiksaan Sila rujuk Kaedah-kaedah dan Peraturan-peraturan Universiti Malaya (Pengajian iiazah Pertama) 2010 (UM-PT01-PK03-BR003-S04UNIVERSITI Keperiuan Minumum 4 MALAYA MAKLUMAT KURSUS UNTUK SEMESTER/PENGGAL SEMASA Tahun akademik 2016/2017 - ‘Semester/Penggal 1 Kod Kursus | LXE 2110 Tajuk Kursus Undang-Undang Perlembagaan | Kredit 3 Bahasa Pengantar Bahasa Malaysia dan Bahasa Inggeris, Pra-Syarat Kursus! Tiada Rujukan Utama 4. Vohra, KG, Koh, Philip & Ling, Peter, Sheridan & Groves: The Constiution of Malaysia, 5* ed, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal, 2004 2. Aziz Bari & Farid Shuai, Consttution of Malaysia Text and commentary, Petaling Jaya, Prentice Hall, 2004 3. Abdul Aziz Bari, Malaysian Constitution: A Critical Introduction, Kuala Lumpur The Other Press, 2003 4. Wu Min Aun & Hickling, RH, Hickling’s Malaysian Public Law, Petaling Jaya: Longman, 2003. 5. Tan, Kevin & Thio LiAnn, Contitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore, 3 ed, Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 2011 6. Harding, Andrew, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd, 1996 7. Rais Yatim, Freedom Under Executive Power in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Endownment Sdn Bhd, 1995 8. Mohamed Suffian bin Hashim, An introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, 2° ed, Kuala Lumpur, Government Printer, 1978 Bahan Pengajaran/ Peralatan Rangka Kursus, senarai bahan bacaan tutorial, Power Point slides Strategi Pembelajaran Kullah, presentation, ujianftugasan Masa Pembelajaran Pelajar Perjumpaan Bersemuka: 39 jam Pembelajaran berdikari: 78.5 jam Penilaian: 2.6 jam Kemahiran Insaniah Kemahiran berkomunikasi, pemikiran kris dan kemahiran menyelesalkan masalah, kemahiran kerja berpasukan, etika dan moral profesional Pensyarah Prof. Madya Dr. Johan 8. Sabaruddin, Dr. Saw Tiong Guan Dekan/2,29/2.05 Bik (03-79676500 email: johans@um.edu.my Telefonie-mel 03-79676532 email: sawtiongguan@um.edu.my Sesi Kuliah: Selasa: 3-4 petang HariMasa Khamis: 17-12 tengah hari Tempat DK Dato’ P Balan Sesi Tutorial/Amali ‘Seperti di dalam jadual waktu Fakult Hari/Masa/Tempat ‘Tarikh Penting Ujian: ‘Akan diumumkan Peperiksaan: Akan diumumkan UM-PTO1-PK03-BR004-S04|UNIVERSITI ° MALAYA Jadual Pengajaran MAKLUMAT KURSUS UNTUK SEMESTER/IPENGGAL SEMASA — Rujukan/Bahan Minggu Topik Kuliah/Tutorial/Tugasan Pengajaran/Peralatan 1 | Pengenalan, Unsursunsur Utama Perlembagean dan Rangka Kursus Konstitusionalisme Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 2 Doktrin Pengasingan Kuasa Senarai Bacean Tutorial 3 | Kedaulatan Undang-Undang | Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 4 Konvensyen Perlembagaan Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 7 Perlembagaan Malaysia Dalam Perspektif Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 5 | Prinsip-Prinsip Umum Tafsiran Perlembagaan Senarai Bacean Tutorial 7 | Pindaan Perlembagaan ‘Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 7 Yang diPertuan Agong dan Majlis Raja-Raja Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 8 | Badan Perundangan Senarai Sacaan Tutorial 10 | Badan Perundangen Senaral Bacaan Tutorial 11 | Badan Eksekuti Senarai Bacaan Tutorial 12 Badan Kehakiman_ Senarai Bacaan Tutorial *8 | Badan Kehakiman Senarai Bacaan Tutorial "4 | Remedi Perlombagaan Senarai Bacaan Tutorial UM-PTO1-PK03-BR004-S03SES! 2016/2017 RANGKA KURSUS LXEB 2110 UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN | Maka kami, rakyat Malaysia, berikrar akan menumpukan seluruh tenaga dan usaha kami untuk mencapai cita-cita tersebut berdasarkan atas prinsip-prinsip yang berikut Keluhuran Perlembagaan Kedaulatan Undang-Undang RUKUN NEGARA MALAYSIA “Sekiranya tidak mahu manusia terdorong supaya memberontak sebagai pilihan terakhir bagi menentang kezaliman serta penindasan, maka adalah penting bagi hak asasi manusia dipertahankan oleh kedaulatan Undang-Undang" PERISYTIHARAAN SEJAGAT HAK ASASI MANUSIA 1948 (PERTUBUHAN BANGSA-BANGSA BERSATU)FAKULTI UNDANG-UNDANG UNIVERSITI MALAYA SOALAN-SOALAN TUTORIAL LXEB 2110 UNDANG-UNDANG PERLEMBAGAAN II IJAZAH SARJANA MUDA UNDANG-UNDANG PROFESOR MADYA DR JOHAN S SABARUDDIN DR SAW TIONG GUAN 2016/2017 Hanya untuk kegunaan di Fakulti Undang-undang Universiti MalayaBASES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CONSTITUTIONALISM What is a constitution? Consider the following descriptions: (a)... the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government. These rules are partly legal ... and partly non-legal or extra-legal, taking the form of usages, understandings, customs, or conventions = af ote (K.C. Wheare: Modern Constitutions, p 1) (b) “Constitutions are primarily about political power — the location, conferment, distribution, exercise and limitation of power among the organs of a state, They are concemed with matters of procedure as well as substance; more often than not they also include explicit guarantees of the rights and freedoms of individuals. Sometimes they incorporate ideological pronouncements — principles by which the state ought to be guided or to which it ought to aspire, and statements of the citizens’ duties.” (S.A. de Smith: Constitutional & Administrative Law, p 20) (c)_*... that the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles as in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole (constitutional) fabric has been erected .:. The” principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental, and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.” (Marbury v Madison) What is meant by, and what are the necessary consequences flowing from, the constitution as “the highest law’/ ‘the superior paramount law"? (See Marbury v Madison, and Article 4(1) of the Malaysian Constitution) “ .. Parliament has power to make constitutional amendments that are inconsistent with the Constitution. ... Parliament may amend the Constitution in any way they think fit, provided they comply with all the conditions precedent and subsequent regarding manner and form prescribed by the Constitution itself ...” (per Suffian LP in Phang Chin Hock v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 70 at p 75) How do you reconcile the power to amend: the Constitution with the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law? Critically examine the necessary differences between a “constitutional government" and a "government according to the constitution”Readings : 1 2. KC Wheare, Modern Constitutions, chapter 1. Giovanni Sartori, “Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion” (1962) 56 Am. Pol. Sc. Rev. 853. A Note on Marbury v Madison (Mimeo). Damkanan Afsaid, "Democracy The Worst, Except For All Others” [1990] 2 CL xi. RH, Hickling, “An Overview of the Development of the Malaysian Constitution: Major Achievements and Shortcomings.” (Mimeo DFU/205/9/88) Constitution of Plural Societies (Mimeo DFU/205/10/88) Nwabueze, B.0., Constitutionalism In The Emergent States, Lon: C. Hurst & Co., chap 1 Cases: 4. Marbury v Madison 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60(1803) (Mimeo) Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187. (See also Survey of Malaysian Law, 1977, p. 97) Phang Chin Hock v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 70. (See also Survey of Malaysian Law, 1980, p. 161) Ah Thian v Govt. of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 112. Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan (1996) 1 MLJ 264 Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Suqumar Balakrishnan (and Another Appeal) [2002] 3 AMR 2817GENERAL PRINCIPLES (a) (o) Note: Separation of Powers Rule of Law Parliamentary Sovereignty Constitutional Conventions People's Participation in Government To what extent does the concept of separation of powers with “checks and balances” succeed within the Malaysian parliamentary system in curtailing “undue interference" amongst the three organs of government and inducing necessary "mutual cooperation and coordination"? “Independence of the judiciary is the only true meaning left to the doctrine of separation of powers today.” Discuss this in the light of the following statement: “The question whether the impugned Act is ‘harsh and unjust’ is a question of policy to be debated and decided by Parliament, and therefore not meet for judicial determination. To sustain it would cut very deeply into the very being of Parliament. Our courts ought not to enter this political thicket, even in such a worthwhile cause as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution...” (Per Raja Azlan Shah CJ in Loh Kooi Choon v Goverment of Malaysia {1977] 2 MLJ 187 at p 188) Critically examine the speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad when presenting the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1988 in the Dewan Rakyat on 17" March and discuss the Government's perception of “the overlapping of powers...between the judiciary and the legislature." (Mimeo ~ p.'18, para 78). For a background to the amendment bill, read i) John Peter berthelsen v Director of Immigration Malaysia & 2 Ors [1987] 1 MLJ 134 ii). Karpal Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri [1988] 1 MLJ 468 HC [1988] 3 MLJ 29 SC ‘ ili) PP v Dato Yap Peng [1987] 2 MLJ 311 SC iv) Anandarajan v Mahadevan [1971] 2 MLJ 8 PC v) Ong Ah Chuan v PP [1981] 1 MLJ 64 PC S'pore2. Compare and contrast the following phrases: (a) “Justice according to law’ and "Law according to justice". (b) “Rule of Law” and "Rule by law’ 3. (a) The doctrine of the omnicompetence of Parliament is essentially a preoccupation of the English constitutional lawyer. Why should it also be of practical interest to the constitutional lawyer in a system with a written constitution? (See especially, MP Jain [1976] JMCL Vol 3, Part 1, 170 at pp 173 ~176). (b) Can the word ‘supreme’ ie. having unlimited power be used to describe either the Malaysian Constitution or Malaysian Parliament? ()___ Ifone persists in the search for a supreme organ in Malaysia, either in the legalistic sense or otherwise, which of the following entities would one come closest to ~ Parliament, the executive, the Judiciary or ‘the people"? 4, The involvement of citizens is essential in the evolution of a constitutional government. Discuss, with reference to the growth of citizens’ groups in Malaysia. REFERENCES: (1) SEPARATION OF POWERS: Loh Kooi Choon v Govt. of IM’sia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 Eng Keock Cheng v PP [1966] 1 MLJ 18 Hinds v The Queen [1977] A C 195 Lim Kit Siang v Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad [1987] 1 MLJ 383 Merdeka University v Govt. of Malaysia [1981] 2 MLJ 356 Liyanage v R [1967] 1 A C 259 (Privy Couneil) Malaysian Bar & Anor v Govt. of M'sia [1987] 2 MLJ 165 Jain, MP, Administrative Law of Malaysia and Singapore, chap \V.(2) (3) Tun Dr Mohamed Suffian, ‘Parliamentary System Versus Presidential System ~ The Malaysian Experience” [1979] 2 MLJ lit Lord Hailsham ~ “The Independence of the Judiciary in a Democratic Society’ [1978] 2 MLJ vxv Tun Dr Mohd Suffian ~ “Safeguards for the Judiciary’ [1979] 1 MLJ xev Lord Diplock, “Judicial Control of Government" [1979] 2 MLJ cx! HWR Wade ~ "Law and Government in Britain Today" [1982] 1 MLJ viii P.N. Bhagwati — ‘The Challenge to the Profession by the Judiciary” (mimeo) Dr Mahathir Mohamad — Speech in Dewan Rakyat (mimeo) Tun Salleh Abas, The Role of the Independent Judiciary, (Peranan Badan Kehakiman Bebas) Promarketing, Kuala Lumpur, 1989. RULE OF LAW Khoo Boo Teong, “Rule of Law in the Merdeka Constitution" (2000) 27 JMCL 59 Dicey, A\V., An Introduction To The Study of The Law of The Constitution, 10" ed, ELBS/Macmillan, Chap IV Jain, Administrative Law of Malaysia & Singapore, Chap III HRH Sultan Azian Shah — “Supremacy of Law In Malaysia” [1984] JMCL 1 Declaration of Delhi (1959) 2 Journal of the international Commission of Jurists, 7 - 43. Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Govt. of M'sia [1968] 1 MLJ 119 FC PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY Loke Kit Choy, “Constitutional Supremacy in Malaysia in The Light of Two Recent Decisions” [1969] Malaya Law Review, vol, Il, p. 260, SA de Smith - “Constitutional Lawyers in Revolutionary Situations" [1968] 7 Western Ontario Law Review 93 (mimeo). MP Jain — Book Review in [1976] JMCL Vol 3. Part | Phang Chin Hock v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 70 5(4) Loh Kooi Choon v Govt. of M’sia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli (No 2) [1967] 1 MLJ 46 Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 113 AG For NSW v Trethowan & Ors [1932] AC 526 The Bribery Commissioner v Pedrick Ranasinghe [1985] AC 172 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS K.J. Keith - "The Courts and the Conventions of the Constitution” (1967) 46 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 542. S.M. Thio — "Dismissal of Chief Ministers” (1966) 8 Mal. L.R. 283. Maria Kana — LLM Thesis, Faculty of Law (1978): Constitutional Conventions in Parliamentary Systems. The Government of The State of Kelantan v The Government of The Federation of Malaya & Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj [1963] MLJ 355 Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli (1966) 2 MLJ 187. Tun Datu Hj Mustapha v Tun Datuk Hj Mohamed Adnan Robert [1986] 2 MLJ 420, 469 HC Datuk (Datu) Amir Kahar bin Tun Haji Mustapha v Tun Mohd Said bin Keruak & Ors [1994] 3 MLJ 737ne MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION IN PERSPECTIVE Compare the Malayan Union of 1946 with the 1948 Federation of Malaya. What were the reasons for the rejection of the former unitary system of government in contrast to the acceptance of the latter federal structure? Did the rejection of the Malayan Union proposal indicate a positive preference for the federal principle? Elaborate on the significance of the following events (or documents) leading up to the attainment of independence for the Federation of Malaya in 1957: (a) Rise of Malayan Nationalist activities (b) General elections in 1955 (c) Constitutional Conference in London, 1956 (d) Report of Reid Constitutional Commission (©) 1948 Emergency (f) Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957; Federal Constitution Ordinance 1957 Examine the various methods of acceptance of the idea for the formation of the new Malaysian federation by the peoples of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, Explain also the related external obstacles facing the entry of the three new territories into Malaysia The Kelantan case [1963]: Do you agree with the opinion of the High Court that states within the Federation of Malaya had no rights whatsoever of consultation or involvement in the question of admission of new territories or changes in the structure of the Federation? Did this not mean that states had no power in fundamental matters affecting the federal structure and that states’ rights could be adversely determined without their agreement? Compare this case on admission of new states with the case of separation/secession of Singapore in 1965. After fourty-six years of Independence, is it timely to review the Malaysian Constitution?REFERENCES 1. 2. Sheridan & Groves ~ The Constitution of Malaysia (5"" Edition) Chap 1 Suffian, Lee & Trindade — Chap 1 (Hickling - Overview of Constitutional Changes). M. Noordin Sopiee - From Malayan Union to Singapore Separation (Kuala Lumpur : Penerbit U.M. 1974). Malaysian Constitutional Documents, Vol. 1 Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, 1957. Constitutional Proposals for the Federation of Malaya (London: HMSO Cmnd 210) Proklamasi Kemerdekaan (Proclamation of Independence) — mimeo. Ahmad Ibrahim ~ “Malaysia As A Federation” [1974] 1 JMCL 1. S. Jayakumar ~ “Admission of New States” [1964] 6 Mal, LR. 181. L.A. Sheridan - “Constitutional Problems of Malaysia” (1964] 13 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1349. “Constitutions of Plural Societies" ~ (mimeo). Agoes Salim - “Peranan Rukunegara dalam Pembangunan Negara — Satu Pandangan Retrospektif” — (mimeo). DYMM Sultan Azian Shah ~ “Climates of Freedom" (mimeo). Negara Kita, Chapter on "Malayan Union ke Merdeka” and “Penubuhan Malaysia,” KL: Institut Tadbiran Awam Negara. Government of State of Kelantan v Government of the Federation of Malaya & Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj [1963] MLJ 355. Sultan of Johor v Tungku Abu Bakar & Ors [1952] MLJ 112GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Of what relevance are constitutional cases of other countries in the interpretation of the Malaysian Federal Constitution? What is the role of conventions in constitutional interpretations? What is the meaning of the phrase “ ...any other cause..." in Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution? What is the meaning of the word "law" in Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution? FEDERAL CONSTITUTION Article 160, 11'" Schedule. READINGS: 1 Ahmad Ibrahim, “Interpreting. the Constitution: Some General Principles" in Trindade, FA & Lee, HP, The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspectives And Developments (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1986) PP 18-45, CASES 1 Anchom v PP (1940) MLJ 22 Lim Kit Siang v Dto Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed (1987) 1 MLJ 383 Tun Datu Hj. Mustapha v Tun Datuk Hj. Adnan Robert [1986] 2 MLJ 420 AG of Commonwealth ex relatione McKinley v The Commonwealth of Australia (1975) 135 CLR 1; 7 ALR 593 Dato Menteri Othman bin Baginda v Dato Ombi Syed Alwi b Syed ldrus [1981] 1 MLJ 29 Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319 Teh Cheng Poh v PP [1979] 1 MLJ 50 Phang Chin Hock v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 70 AG of St. Christopher, Nevis & Anguilla v Reynolds [1979] 3 All ER 129 Re Meenal [1980] 2 MLJ 29941 12. 20. 21. Loh Kooi Choon v Govt of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 167 Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Hj Openg and Tawi Sli [1966] 2 MLJ 187 Govt. of State of Kelantan v The Govt. of the Federation of Malaya & Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj (1963) 29 MLJ 355 Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas & Anor [1990] 2 MLJ 300 Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor [1988] 1 MLJ 64, 67 HC Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 697 SC PP v Choo Chuan Wang [1992] 2 CLJ 1242 Chor Phaik Har v Farlim Properties Sdn Bhd [1994] 3 MLJ 345 Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 264 Sugumar Balakrishnan v Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Sabah & Anor [1998] 3 MLJ 289 DYTM Tengku Idris Shah v Dikim Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 4CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS How ean the following articles in the Constitution be amended? (a) Article 6 (b) Article 13 (c) Article 64 (d) Article 150 (e) Article 159(5) () Article 160 Explain the scope, nature, effect and consequences of constitutional amendments pursuant to Article 150. As safeguards for the states in constitutional amendments, evaluate the development and role of the Dewan Negara (Senate) In your opinion, in the Malaysian context, is there “mature consideration” by Parliament before a constitutional amendment is passed? (Loh Kooi Choon v Govt of Malaysia {1977] 2 MLJ 187 F.C.) Discuss also in the light of the controversies surrounding the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1983 and the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1993. Are there sufficient safeguards in our present Constitution to prevent the abuse of constitutional amendments? Evaluate the doctrine of “implied limitation” for constitutional amendments. Could this doctrine be applied to the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988 [Act A704] in view of its effects on the independence of the judiciary? In 1976, a Constitution (Amendment) Act (Act A354) was passed, which inter alia added the proviso to Article 5(4). When this amendment was challenged in Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLd 187, the Federal Court held that — (a Parliament can alter Article 5(4) as long as the process of constitutional amendment as laid down in Article 159(3) is complied with; (b) subject to Article 7, Parliament would bg within the ambit of its competence if it deems fit to legislate retrospectively. Examine the statute and case to answer the following questions: () What was the reason for the amendment? (ii) State the main arguments forwarded by the supporters and ‘opponents of the amendment. u(iii) How long did it take to introduce, debate and pass the Bill in the Dewan Rakyat and Senate? (iv) State the voting pattern, ie. number of votes in favour and against the Bill, and the number of abstentions, if any, (v) Inthe light of the above, comment on - (a) _ the role of Parliament in amending the constitution ~ to what extent are the checks and balances effective? (b) the role of judiciary as a check on the power of Parliament to legislate. Compare with the approach of the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison. (vi) In your opinion, should there be limits on the power to amend the Constitution? If so, what are the limitations? REFERENCES Federal Constitution 1 Articles 159, 161E, 150(5)(6), 45, 62(3), 68(5) 2. Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 [Act A354] 3. Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988 [Act A704] 4 Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993 [Act A848} CASES 4. Marbury v Madson 1 Cranch 187, 2 L. ed. 60(1803) (Mimeo) 2. The Govt. of State of Kelantan v The Govt. of Federation of Malaya & Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj [1963] MLJ 355 F.C. 3. Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Govt. of Malaysia [1968] 2 MLJ 238 P.C. 4. Loh Kooi Choon v Govt. of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 F.C 5. Govt. of Malaysia v Zainal bin Hashim [1977] 2 MLJ 254 F. Cc. . 8. Zainal bin Hashim v Govt. of Malaysia [1979] 2 MLJ 276 P.C Ve Phang Chin Hock v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 70 F.C. 8. Mark Koding v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 120 FC.VI. CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES 1. Whatis the meaning of locus standi? Who would have locus standi to institute legal proceeding against a Prime Minister who refuse to dissolve parliament or tender the resignation of the Cabinat pursuant to a vote of no confidence? 2. Canan injunction or a mandamus be obtained against a goverment or a minister? 4 2 14 Re Datuk James Wong Kim Min [1975] 2 MLJ 244. Minister of Home Affairs v Chu Choo Yong [1977] 2 MLJ 20 Karam Singh v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri [1969] 2 MLJ 129. In Re Ong Eng Guan [1959] 25 MLJ 92 Coelho v Public Services Commission [1964] 30 MLJ 12 Selangor Omnibus Co. Ltd v Transport Workers Union Malaya [1968] 1 ML 242. Chief Building Surveyor v Makhanlall & Co [1969] 2 MLJ 118. Rv Electricity Commissioner [1924] 1 KB 171 Re Liverpool Taxi Owners Association [1972] 1 All ER 509 Loh Wai Kong v Govt of Malaysia [1978] 2 MLJ 175 ‘Ng Bee v Chairman, Town Council Kuala Pilah [1975] 1 MLJ 273 Khoo Siew Bee v Ketua Polis [1979] 2 MLJ 49 United Engineers (M) Bhd v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12; [1988] 1 SCR 1. Abdul Razak Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Johor [1994] 2 MLJ 297. Pro-Forma LXEB 2110/1 104 2012/2013, Js/Sdi26.811FURTHER READING: 1. Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim, An Introduction To The Constitution of Malaysia, 2" ed., Government Printers, 1976, Chapter 21. 2. Suffian, Lee & Trindade, The Constitution of Malaysia : Its Development: 1957 ~ 1977, Oxford University Press, 1978, Chapter 15. 3. Trindade & Lee, The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspective And Developments, Oxford University Press, 1986, postscript, pp. 237 - 261. 4, R.H. Hickling, “Malaysia: Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 and Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984” [1984] JMCL 213. 5. An Overview of The 1983 Constitutional Crisis (Mimeo) 6. Chandra Muzaffar, Freedom In Fetters, Aliran, 1986, pp. 206 ~ 230.FUNCTIONS, INSTITUTIONS & PROCESSES OF GOVERNMENT Yang Di Pertuan Agong and Conference of Rulers Why are the Yang di Pertuan Agong and Malay Rulers regarded as ‘constitutional rulers’? Examine the law and practice relating to the use of their powers in the following cases: (a) Appointment and dismissal of Prime Minister/Menteri Besar; (b) The withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament/State Assembly; (c) The granting of pardons; (4) Exercising the functions of the Conference of Rulers. State whether the Yang di Pertuan Agong acts in his discretion or on advice or only exercises “functional” duties in the following situations: (a) Appointment of Attorney-General (b) — Assenting to bills under Article 66 (c) Address by the Yang di Pertuan Agong to the Houses of Parliament under Article 60 (a) Appointment of members of the Public Services Commission (e) Appointment and removal of judges (f) Appointment of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri State briefly the reasons and procedure which provides for the removal of the Yang di Pertuan Agong.REFERENCES: Readings: 1 Tun Mohd Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, 2" ed., Chaps 3,4 & 5. Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 4" ed., pp. 8, 121 ~ 132, 462 - 464. Trindade, “The Constitutional Position of the YDPA" (In Suffian, Lee & Trindade, Chap 5). Trindade, FA and Jayakumar, S, “The Supreme Head of the Malaysian Federation” (1964) 6 Mal. L.R 280. Hickling, RH, “The Prerogative in Malaysia’ (1975) 17 Mal. L.R 207; S. Jayakumar's reply ~ [1976] 2 Mal. LR 149. Raja Tun Azlan Shah, “The Role of Constitutional Rulers: (1982) JMICL 1; or in Trindade & Lee, The Constitution of Malaysia: Further Perspectives & Developments, Chap. 5. Tun Mohamed Suffian, “Role of the Monarchy” and Azmi Abd Khalid, “Role of the Monarchy - Influences Upon The Development of Parliamentary Democracy” In Aliran, Reflections on the Malaysian Constitution, pp. 30, 44. Muhammad Kamil bin Awang, Traditional And Constitutional Ruler In Malaysia: The Sultan And The Constitution, University of Canterbury, Unpublished thesis, M.Phil in Law, April 1983. Shad Saleem Farugi, The Sceptre, The Sword And The Constitution At A Crossroad (A Commentary On The Constitution Amendment Bill 1993) [1993] 1 CLJ XIV.CASES: 1 2. Sim Kie Chon v Superintendent of Pudu Prison and Ors [1985] 2 MLJ 385. Superintendent of Pudu Prison & Ors v Sim Kie Chon [1986] 1 MLJ 494; [1986] 1 CLJ 548 SC. Mobil Oil Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Official Administrator, Malaysia [1988] 4 MLJ 518 HC. Karpal Singh v Sultan of Selangor [1988] 1 MLJ 64 HC. Teh Cheng Poh v PP [1979] 1 MLJ 50 PC. Merdeka University v Govt. of M'sia [1981] 2 MLJ 386. NN. Madhavan Nair v Govt. of M’sia [1975] 2 MLJ 286. Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Hj. Openg (No. 2) [1967] MLJ 48 PP v Tengku Mahmood Iskandar & Anor [1973] 1 MLJ 128 PP v Tengku Mahmood Iskandar [ 1977] 2 MLJ 123 Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah AI Mustain Billah Ibni Almarhum Sultan abu Bakar Ri’Ayatuddin Al Mu’Adzam Shah {1996} 1 MLJ 617 PP v Mohd Amin & Ors [2001] 1 CLJ 75 Abdul Ghani Ali & Ors v PP & Another Appeal [2001] 3 CLJ 709 DYTM Tengku Idris Shah Ibni Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah v Dikim Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 11. (Haidar FCJ); [2002] 4 MLJ 289 (Dennis Ong JCA).LEGISLATURE Critically examine the legislative process by commenting on the following: (a) (b) (d) Election of members of the Dewan Rakyat ensures that laws which are made will reflect the wishes of the people. The advantage of a bi-cameraal legislature lies primarily in the fact that the Upper House (Senate) acts as a brake on hasty action by the Lower House (Dewan Rakyat). What are the ways in which the public may contribute to the making of laws by Parliament? Refer to the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1981, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Bill 1984; and the Official Secrets (Amendment) Bill 1986. What is subsidiary legislation? What are the checks and balances over such legislation? Members of Parliament: (a) (a) (a) (b) {o) (e) ‘A member of the Dewan Rakyat has been convicted of an offence by a foreign court. What are the consequences? An Act of Parliament is passed, allowing the Committee of Privileges to imprison and/or fine an MP for breach of privileges. Comment. “Disappointed” political party members who have not been nominated for elections are sometimes offered senatorships. Is this constitutional? The remuneration and pension schemes for MPs are designed to enable such persons to perform their duties, free from personal financial worries. Comment. When can or must Parliament be dissolved? Can a “Money Bill" originate from the Senate? What is the quorum of the House of Representatives and of the Senate? List the select committees of the House of Representatives. Do privileges of Parliament apply to a member of the House of Representatives who reveals official secrets during parliamentary proceedings in the House?Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution has expressly declared that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation. This would indicate that all other laws and organs of government are subservient to provisions of the Constitution. In view of this primary legal basis of constitutional government: (a) Can the Malaysian parliament try to assert any measure of political sovereignty similar to that which the English legislature has been practicing for hundreds of years? (b) Is the federal Cabinet of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to be considered a supreme organ since its members wield de facto control over the majority in Parliament? (c) How is the will of the people to be effeftively expressed such that constitutionalism is upheld? REFERENCES U) (i) (iy (v) (vi) wii) vill) (os) ) Standing orders of the Dewan Rakyat Standing Orders of the Dewan Negara Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act, 1952, (Revised 1988) (Act 347) Tun Mohd Sufffan Hashim, An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, 2" ed., Chap 7. Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 4" ed, pp 5,6, 148 - 185, 194-205, K.C. Wheare, Legislatures, Chaps 4,5,9. Nik Abdul Rashid, “The Malaysian Parliament” (In Suffian, Lee & Trindade, Chap 7). Jayakumar, S., ‘Constitutional Limitations on Legislative Powers in Malaysia’ (1967) 9 Mal. LR 96. Good, Tan Sri D.B.W., “Problems of Harmonizing The Laws in The Malaysian Federation” (In Suffian, Lee & Triandade, Chap 9). Merican, Yaacob Hussain, "Developments In The Law Concerning Elections In Malaysia" (In Suffian, Lee & Trindade, Chap 10)(xi) H.F. Rawlings, “The Malaysian Constitutional Crisis of 1983" (1986) 35 ICLQ 237. (xi) Ibrahim bin Ismail, "The Legislative Arrangements Under the Malaysian Federation’ IIU Law Journal, Vol. 2, No, 2, p 62. CASES (i) Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sli (1964) 2 MLJ 187. (ii) Abdul Rahman Talib v DR Seenivasagam [1986] 2 MLJ 66 (il) Fan Yew Teng v Setiausaha, Dewan Rakyat & Ors [1975] 2 MLJ 44 (iv)__Lim Kit Siang v PP [1980] 1 MLJ 293. (vy) Mark Koding v PP [1982] 2 MLJ 120. (vi) Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert, Yang di Pertua Negeri Sabah & Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan [1986] 2 MLJ 391 HC. (vil) Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Legislative Assembly of State of Sabah & Ors [1986] 2 MLJ 388 HC (vill) Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert v Tun Datuk Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun; Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan v Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun [1987] 4 MLJ 471 SC (ix) Election Commission, Malaysia v Abdul Fatah bin Haji Haron [1987] 2 MLJ 716 SC. () Abdul Ghapur bin Hj Salleh v Tun Datuk Hj Mohd Adnan Robert [1987] 2 MLJ 724 HC (xi) Mamat b Daud v Govt of Malaysia [1986] 2 MLJ 192; [1988] 1 MLJ 119 st (xi) Abdul Karim bin Abdul Ghani v Legislative Assembly of Sabah [1988] 1 MLJ 171 SC. : (xii) Che Omar bin Che Soh v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55 SC. (xiv) City Council of Georgetown v Govt. of State of Penang [1967] 1 MLJ 70.(xv) (vi) (xvii) (xviii) (xix) (09, (xxi) Kulasingam v Commissioner of Lands, Federal Territory [1982] 1 MLJ 204, IGP v Lee Kim Hoong [1979] 2 MLJ 291 Lim Woon Chong v PP [1978] 2 MLJ 264 PP v Mark Koding [1983] 1 MLJ 114 PP v Lim Kit Siang [1980] 1 MLJ 293. Times Publishing Bhd & Ors v Sivadas [1988] 3 MLJ 1 Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v Nordin bin Salleh & Anor [1992] 4 MLu 343. [1992] 4 MLU 697 20EXECUTIVE The Prime Minister is not retumed as Party President in the General ‘Assembly meeting of his party, Subsequently, he is nearly defeated in the Dewan Rakyat by a vote of no confidence against him, proposed by the Defence Minister and seconded by a party Vice-President. He does not resign as Prime Minister. (a) Examine these events in the light of relevant constitutional provisions and constitutional conventions. (b) Could the Yang di Pertuan Agong now dismiss the Prime Minister, or request him to step down, or alternatively dissolve Parliament? (©) Could the new Party President force out the Prime Minister through an action for mandamus in the courts? Or does he have some other judicial recourse? REFERENCES: 0 (i) (i) Tun Mohd Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to The Constitution of Malaysia, 2" ed., Chap 6, Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 4" ed., pp 133 — 148, 205-7. Puthucheary, M.C., "Ministerial Responsibility In Malaysia” (In Suffian, Lee & Trindade, Chap 6). (iv) Thio, S.M., ‘Dismissal of Chief Ministers" (1966) 8 Mal. LR 263. (v) HF Rawlings, “The Malaysian Constitutional Crisis of 1983" (1986) 35 ICLQ 237, (vi) Johan Shamsuddin bin Hj. Sabaruddin, "Pengaruh UMNO Di_Atas Perkembangan Undang-Undang Negara’, Kertas Projek 1986/87, Fakulti Undang-Undang, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. CASES 0 (i) (ii) Stephen Kalng Ningkan v Tun Abang Haji Openg and Tawi Sii (1984) 2 MLJ 187. . Abdul Rahman Talib v DR Seenivasagam [1966] 2 MLJ 68. Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert, Yang di Pertua Negeri Sabah & Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan [1986] 2 MLJ 391 HC.(iy) (v) (vi) ) Tun Datu Haj Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert, Yang di Pertua Negeri Sabah & Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan (No. 2) [1986] 2 MLJ 420 HC. Tun Datuk Haji Mohamed Adnan Robert v Tun Datuk Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun; Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan v Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun (1987] 1 MLJ 471 SC. Datuk (Datu) Amir Kahar bin Tun Datu Haji Mustapha v Tun Mohd Said bin Keruak Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sabah & Ors [1995] 1 MLJ 169. Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Perdana menteri, Malaysia & Anor [1999] 1 CLJ 621. 22JUDICIARY What is the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary? To what extent does the successful application of the doctrine of separation of powers in Malaysia depend on an independent judiciary that is fee from undue constraints and restraints in terms of appointments, security of tenure and functions? Cite relevant statutes, judicial decisions, authoritative opinions and significant events (if any) in your answers. Critically evaluate the procedure for the removal of judge(s) from office. The provisions for the Judiciary are found in Part IX of the Federal Constitution. The principle of the independence of the Judiciary is an indispensable requirement of a free society under the Rule of Law. (a) Discuss, with reference to the Federal Constitution, how the independence of the Judiciary has been strengthened or eroded. (4) What are your recommendations, in the form of constitutional amendments, for the strengthening of the independence of the Judiciary? With reference to the articles on amendments, state also briefly the procedure for constitutional amendments to each of your recommendations. (Exam question March 1989) REFERENCES: 0 (ii) (il (iv) wy) (vi) wil) Tun Mohd Suffian Hashim, An Introduction to The Constitution of Malaysia, 2 ed., Chap 9 Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 4" ed., pp. 6 - 8, Chap 10 Tun Mohd Suffian, “The Judiciary ~ During The First Twenty Years of Independence” (in Suffian, Lee & Trindade, Chap 11) ,Lord Hailsham, “The Independence of the Judiciary in a Democratic Society” [1978] 2 MLJ vxv. Tun Mohd Suffian, “Safeguards for the Judiciary” [1979] 1 MLJ xev. Lord Diplock, “Judicial Control of Government” [1979] 2 MLJ cxl. H.W.R. Wade, “Law and Government in Britain Today” [1982] 1 MLJ vil(vii) P.N. Bhagwati, “The Challenge to the Profession by the Judiciary" (mimeo). (ix) Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Speech in Dewan Rakyat (mimeo). (x) * Jain, M.P., “The Courts and the Constitution” - paper presented at the Conference on “The Malaysian Constitution After 30 Years", Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, 22 - 23° August 1987 (mimeo). (xi) “The Judiciary as the Guardian of Democracy” (mimeo) (xl) Tribunal Report on the dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas [1988] 3 MLJ xoxii (xii) Report of the Tribunal established under article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal constitution [1989] 1 MLd 1x«xix (xiv) Mohd Salleh Abbas and K Das, May Day for Justice, Kuala Lumpur Magnus Books, 1989. Raja Aziz Addruse, Conduct Unbecoming, KL: Walrus Books, 1990. P.A. Williams, Judicial Misconduct, Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications, 1990. (xvi) F.A, Trindade, ‘The Removal of the Malaysian Judges’ (1990) Law Quarterly Review 51 (xviii) Mohd Salleh Abbas, The Role of the Independent Judiciary, Kuala Lumpur: Promarketing Publications, 1989. (xix) Govt. of M’sia v Govt. of State of Kelantan [1968] 1 MLJ 129. (009 Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Yap Peng (1987] 2 MLJ 311 HC; [1987] 2 MLJ 316 SC, (xxi) Lye Thai Sang & Anor v Faber Merlin (M) Sdn Bhd & Ors [1986] 1 MLJ 166 SC. (xxi) Liyanage v R [1967] 1 AC 259, PC. (ail) Hinds v The Queen [1977] A.C. 195. (xiv) Tun Dato Hj Mohd Salleh Abbas v Tan Sri Dato Abd Hamid Omar & Ors [1988] 1MLJ64. . (xxv) Lim Kit Siang v Dato Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed [1987] 1 MLJ 383. (xxvi) AG & Ors v Arthur Lee [1987] 1 MLJ 206. (xxvii) Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2000] 2 CLJ 570, [2000] 2 MLJ 481, [2000] 2 AMR 1423 24