GLUP 1113 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

WHY MALAYSIA DID NOT PRACTICE PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY?

Unlike United Kingdom, Malaysia practices Constitutional supremacy instead of

parliamentary supremacy. Constitutional supremacy is a system of government in which the law-

making freedom of parliamentary supremacy cedes to the requirements of a Constitution while

parliamentary supremacy means the unlimited capacity of parliament to make or unmake any

law whatsoever on any matter. Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution in Malaysia declares that

the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the federation. No law shall be valid if it is

inconsistent with the constitution.

In my two cents, the main reason of why Malaysia did not practice parliamentary

supremacy is because Malaysia wants to avoid from having supreme power in the legislative

branch that overrule the other branches. Malaysia have a separation of powers as stated in the

Federal Constitution. If legislative branch which is parliament have the supreme power then it

will become too powerful and power cannot be dispersed equally among the three branches.

Apart from that, parliamentary supremacy is lacked of clarity. Parliament use obscure and

complex language which is difficult for most of the public to understand, making it

unascertainable. Judges will find statues difficult to interpret in many cases of statutory

interpretation. Lawyer also cannot accurately advise their clients without properly understanding

an act of Parliament. Besides that, parliamentary supremacy is unrepresentative. They may be

biased towards certain group. Therefore, it is very in jeopardy if the parliaments are biased and

does not represent the view of the public. This is why Malaysia choose to practice constitutional

supremacy.