As Professor Harding noted in his analysis of the Malaysian Constitution, there is no guide as to what principles judges are to rely on when interpreting the constitution. Principles of constitutional interpretation are not codified or even stated in the constitution itself. No Malaysian writer to date has even bothered to research this point inspite of the numerous flaws in constitutional interpretation by Malaysian judges and academics alike.
Judges and academics, lawyers and politicians alike in Malaysia have always treated articles of the constitution as if they were ordinary pieces of legislation like the crimes act, the family law act or the property law act. They are not. Hence the embarrassment and the blind attempts at searching for a solution whenever the constitution is at the heart of a dispute.
Take the Lina Joy case. It was treated largely as an issue of judicial review of an administrative action rather than one of religious freedoms. In Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur the relevance of considerations in administrative decision making was treated as equally important with constitutional freedom of expression.
The constitution must be interpreted within its own four walls. Although authorities from other jurisdictions may interpret similar or identical provisions and offer some guidance, they cannot be regarded as anything more than persuasive.
The constitution must be interpreted broadly. It is not statute where narrow interpretations may be justified. Without going further on the constitution in this matter we turn to the issue of the relevant apparently offending article as follows:
"Section 55 clearly states that the Sultan must act on the advice of the executive council or a member who is acting under authority of the executive council, in exercising his function under the Constitution".
It says nothing as to how the Sultan must act. It says nothing about what is presumed here that the Sultan in acting on the advice of the executive council or a member......"must do as he advises the Sultan" to do or refrain from doing.
The Sultan must accept their advise and act. But refraining from an action is also formally a step or an action. By using his own discretion which the Sultan also possess, and acting in a manner which departs from the actual or specific advise of the legislature or executive council, the Sultan is also acting on the advise. This is because the Sultan is allowed to exercise his own discretion in interpreting that advise.
By defying the advise of the Executive Council and or the legislature the Sultan is also taking a step or acting within his powers under the constitution.
There is nothing that the Executive Council or any part of the legislature can do to the Sultan if the Sultan fails to accede to their "advice".
There is authority within the commonwealth that supports the proposition that the sovereign may do as he pleases. But convention demands they act in conformity with the advise of the legislature, Executive Council (parliament) to preserve the harmony of the comity of the 3 arms of government to preserve unity of government.
There is no provision to effectively sanction the Sultan if he departs from the advise given him by the Executive Council / parliament.
The Sultan may dismiss the Executive Council as it has been done in the Commonwealth previously and there is ample precedent for the Sovereign to dismiss "his" government in the event of a conflict between the two.
Concluding, there is nothing sinister about the award of the contract to demolish the Selangor stadium, not any more than the Sultan of Johor granting the family of Robert Kuok the sugar and flour monopolies in Johore later spreading throughout the federation. There are many more such examples.
Any decent savvy true-blue Bolehlander ought to do better than tossing themselves stoopid over what is essentially a constitution designed by the old colonial massahs.
In other words, the constitution ought to be chucked into the river.
Our mostly plantation niggah lawyers should be put to the challenge of writing our very own pages and pages of words for our constitution, than masturbating all the time over what the colonial overlords, Westminster, the Brit legal system gave our grateful monkeys.
Our "supremacists" have no pride in themselves, wtf!
The big picture of ph bn government is they fail to have malay support. In selangor, there are 5mil malays and umno malay do not even have one post as a local council member in the whole state. They then have to please the ruler to ensure acceptance.hence mrcb who is close to the sultan will get their way.its business based on power. The rakyat will be enticed with cheap rahmah lunch of one fried egg, some rice and gravy for a mere rgt5. There..
We need a stadium mainly for the noble Malaysian politicians' sport of hanky panky.
And even when our dumb politicians, sports stars, sports fans, and the public can only "catch no ball".
As Professor Harding noted in his analysis of the Malaysian Constitution, there is no guide as to what principles judges are to rely on when interpreting the constitution. Principles of constitutional interpretation are not codified or even stated in the constitution itself. No Malaysian writer to date has even bothered to research this point inspite of the numerous flaws in constitutional interpretation by Malaysian judges and academics alike.
Judges and academics, lawyers and politicians alike in Malaysia have always treated articles of the constitution as if they were ordinary pieces of legislation like the crimes act, the family law act or the property law act. They are not. Hence the embarrassment and the blind attempts at searching for a solution whenever the constitution is at the heart of a dispute.
Take the Lina Joy case. It was treated largely as an issue of judicial review of an administrative action rather than one of religious freedoms. In Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur the relevance of considerations in administrative decision making was treated as equally important with constitutional freedom of expression.
The constitution must be interpreted within its own four walls. Although authorities from other jurisdictions may interpret similar or identical provisions and offer some guidance, they cannot be regarded as anything more than persuasive.
The constitution must be interpreted broadly. It is not statute where narrow interpretations may be justified. Without going further on the constitution in this matter we turn to the issue of the relevant apparently offending article as follows:
"Section 55 clearly states that the Sultan must act on the advice of the executive council or a member who is acting under authority of the executive council, in exercising his function under the Constitution".
It says nothing as to how the Sultan must act. It says nothing about what is presumed here that the Sultan in acting on the advice of the executive council or a member......"must do as he advises the Sultan" to do or refrain from doing.
The Sultan must accept their advise and act. But refraining from an action is also formally a step or an action. By using his own discretion which the Sultan also possess, and acting in a manner which departs from the actual or specific advise of the legislature or executive council, the Sultan is also acting on the advise. This is because the Sultan is allowed to exercise his own discretion in interpreting that advise.
By defying the advise of the Executive Council and or the legislature the Sultan is also taking a step or acting within his powers under the constitution.
There is nothing that the Executive Council or any part of the legislature can do to the Sultan if the Sultan fails to accede to their "advice".
There is authority within the commonwealth that supports the proposition that the sovereign may do as he pleases. But convention demands they act in conformity with the advise of the legislature, Executive Council (parliament) to preserve the harmony of the comity of the 3 arms of government to preserve unity of government.
There is no provision to effectively sanction the Sultan if he departs from the advise given him by the Executive Council / parliament.
The Sultan may dismiss the Executive Council as it has been done in the Commonwealth previously and there is ample precedent for the Sovereign to dismiss "his" government in the event of a conflict between the two.
Concluding, there is nothing sinister about the award of the contract to demolish the Selangor stadium, not any more than the Sultan of Johor granting the family of Robert Kuok the sugar and flour monopolies in Johore later spreading throughout the federation. There are many more such examples.
Any decent savvy true-blue Bolehlander ought to do better than tossing themselves stoopid over what is essentially a constitution designed by the old colonial massahs.
In other words, the constitution ought to be chucked into the river.
Our mostly plantation niggah lawyers should be put to the challenge of writing our very own pages and pages of words for our constitution, than masturbating all the time over what the colonial overlords, Westminster, the Brit legal system gave our grateful monkeys.
Our "supremacists" have no pride in themselves, wtf!
The big picture of ph bn government is they fail to have malay support. In selangor, there are 5mil malays and umno malay do not even have one post as a local council member in the whole state. They then have to please the ruler to ensure acceptance.hence mrcb who is close to the sultan will get their way.its business based on power. The rakyat will be enticed with cheap rahmah lunch of one fried egg, some rice and gravy for a mere rgt5. There..