Question 1

The naturalist school of thought states that law rules can be drawn or inferred from human
reasoning or logical thinking. Meanwhile, the positivist school of thought states that only
positive facts are recognised and value considerations from the science of jurisprudence are
excluded.
From the perspective of naturalist law, the baby is diagnosed with diseases that comes
from natural causes and is on a course of death from the disease, the doctor has no right to
change the course of nature or even attempt to save the life of the baby. This is because to
even attempt to save a life that has already been decided to be taken away by God is to go
against the natural. Therefore, the doctor is unable to perform the surgery.
From the perspective of positivist law, the doctor is unable to perform surgery on the
baby even if he wanted to because to perform surgery on a child without the consent of their
guardians is against the law. Despite the life of the child is on the line, the doctor has authority
on this matter and can only accept the fact that he has no authority to perform surgery on the
child without the parent’s consent.

Question 2
Prof HLA Hart has made the claim that a legal system can only be validated as a legal
system if it contains two sets of rules, that being primary rules and secondary rules. These two
sets of rules serve to not only maintain the order and balance of the individuals that are
adhering to said rules but also are maintaining the rules themselves to ensure that they are
able to adapt and evolve alongside society.

The first set of rules is called primary rules, which are in simple terms, duty imposing
rules. Primary rules are obligation forcing rules, which obligate individuals to do or to refrain
from doing certain acts and attach consequences when these obligations are not followed.
These rules govern overall social conduct and are the fundamental rules. An example of the
primary rule is the law against murder, which prohibits a person from killing and attaches
consequences for committing, attempting to commit, and conspiring to commit the crime.

The second set of rules is called secondary rules, which confer power to enforce and
change primary rules. They can be seen as rules for the rules, and they exist to combat the
three defects that exist in a system with only primary rules, which are uncertainty, statics, and
inefficiency. Secondary rules can be isolated into three categories, the rule of recognition, the
rule of change, and the rule of adjudication.

The rule of recognition, which is regarded by Hart as the most important rule of the
secondary rules, is the solution to the defect of uncertainty. This rule tells us how to distinguish
a law, and through a collection of standards and criteria, validates laws. Thus, the rule of
recognition confers power to new rules by validating them through a set of tests. By having the
rule of recognition, we can distinguish the law. This allows us to understand and distinguish the
articles and laws set in the Malaysian legal system that has been up ever since we achieved our
independence.

Next, is the rule of change, which is designed to remedy the defect of a static system.
This rule considers the fact that there is no timelessly optimal set of rules to deal with every
problem and understands that rules need to evolve alongside society and its social changes.
Therefore, these rules confer power to the creation, extinction and alteration of primary and
secondary rules. This allows us to adapt laws to be able to deal with the cultural and social
change of society, allowing the law to always be applicable, especially in a fast-growing country
like Malaysia, where cultures are getting more and more involved within the law, and the
coming of a new generation born in the modernized era brings more social changes that need
to be taken into consideration.

Finally, the rule of adjudication deals with inefficiency. This rule empowers certain
individuals and gives them the authority to enforce the law and make authoritative decisions
when a primary rule has been violated. Rules of adjudication govern the election and procedure
of the judiciary.
This allows Malaysia to proceed with common and civil law courts, as with the rules of
adjudication, we can apply the laws that have been recognized and adapted and maintain
peace and order.

In conclusion, the primary rules are set as guidelines for society to follow and allow
social control over individuals under the said system, while the secondary rules are what
determines those guidelines, who enforce those guidelines, and when to change those
guidelines. By having these two sets of rules, only then can a legal system become a valid,
working legal system, and that is how these rules are vital in taking care of the legal system in
Malaysia.

Question 3
There are multiple schools of thought regarding the Jurisprudence of law. The concept
that will be discussed is the naturalist’s school of thought. From the perspective of a Naturalist,
the law is natural and is part of human nature to understand what is right and what is wrong.
This school believes that law can be rationalized, and the reasonability of the Naturalist is what
keeps the community in peace and harmony.

At the same time, they believe that law is not only determined by the nature of humans,
but by God, who has the highest authority, and thus, in turn, natural law has the highest
authority. Cicero had claimed that God is the source of law, who gives natural law its validity. It
is a higher law that is created above any man-made law.
 This means that actions that go against human nature, such as same-sex relationships,
the murder of another human being, or the prevention of humans to undergo their natural
courses of life, are illegal and go against the law, or in this case, the word of God.

The characteristic of Natural Law is that it is an absolute, universal and unchanging law
that is eternal and overrides man-made laws. Natural law is all about reasoning, whether it be
an agreement between man and nature, or man in accordance with divine rules. It follows the
concept of public morality and social justice.

The Malaysian legal system is one that has the application of Naturalist law. This is in the
form of religious law, also known as Syariah Law in the country. These laws are the ones that
apply to Muslims and reference the Al-Quran and several other religious sources when deciding
the law. This is in accordance with naturalists, who believe that the word of God is the law.

Similar to the naturalist school of law, the Syariah law is unchanging, eternal, and is
above man-made law when regarding matters related to it. It is applied the same way
naturalists’ law is applied, in which the word of Allah is followed closely, and the rules for it
restricts any form of unnatural acts.

Another example of the naturalist school of law being applied in Malaysia is the
restriction on same-sex relations, which go against the law of nature. Malaysia applies this law
and has statutes that criminalize same-sex relations.

In conclusion, the naturalist school of thought is one that has law as the word of God
and relies on reasoning and rationality when following natural law. Malaysia’s legal system is an
example of a legal system that has laws that follow the principal of this school of thought.