Malaysia's Constitution
Posted on: Tue, 01/29/2008 - 15:59
To do:
Do a quick research and see if you can find anything regarding a Malaysian's right to privacy in the Constitution of Malaysia.
FYI:
Article 5(1) of Part 2 "No person shall be derived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law" does not cover the idea of right to privacy.
Q: Does a Written constitution protect a citizen's right better than an Unwritten constitution?
Is a Written constitution as rigid as assumed?
Would it still be a matter of importance to codify UK's Unwritten constitution?
Think about it.
at the end of the day - they always said that the written constitution would be able to entrench the rights of the citizens and have clarity
It has been seen that this may not be so in Malaysia as it seems quite simple to amend it
Is there ever a real separation of powers at the first place?
The 'true' form of separation of powers is virtually non-existent. The three main organs of the government need some overlapping in order to provide check and balance on each other. Instead of looking at three separate distinct bodies, think of them as complementing each other. Therefore, in regards as to whether the functions and powers of the three organs should be codified in a single document, it is not important to be so rigid or precise.
I, for one, am a believer that UK does not need to codify its constitution. Why? The time, effort, money to be spent would be huge. Who is to decide what is to be codified? Who is to decide which Act of Parliament is of fundamental constitution quality? More importantly, in my opinion, Britains should be proud to be the only country in the world which is so unique, to have an unwritten constitution. Yay!
i agree with you .. that they are the only one with the unwritten constitution
but i have my reservations about time, effort and money - i will never jeopardise rights as a citizen just because of this - its like would pay a ransom for a loved one who is kidnapped? if they want a few million pounds .. how many years would it need a normal wage earner to earn that amount back? will you sacrifice your loved one?
To codify or not to.... that is the question.....
Corny opening line aside, it has been an important issue that has been plaguing academicians and students for a long time... I just believe that it all boils down to the attitude that the leaders of a nation and the citizens of that nation have. If the leaders could not care less about constitutional rights and the citizens in turn allow them to stay in government then no amount of codification or non-codification will help.
Lets take the example of the Malaysian Constitution. Because of the sheer brute force the government has in parliament (199 seats out of 219) it can steamroll through any ammendments it wants and all the arguments you may have learnt about a written constitution proviiding certainty and protection for the citizen will be out the window. We saw this recently with regard to the extension of the Election Commision Chairmans tenure amidst widespread protests.
On the other hand countries without a written constitution although may be subject to some abuse, in the correct hands will give the government wonderful flexibility to properly govern the state without petty politics getting in the way.
So written or not, it just boils down to you and me and our leaders. I think the whole argument is about the form when the substance is what matters. This being so, i say just leave the UK constitution the way it is...
Britain is not the only country in the world to have a written constitution. Israel and New Zealand also have unwritten constitutions. Cheers!