TwoSen

SEVERAL constitutional issues cropped up particularly after the 12th general election. Among them being the right of the ruler to appoint the mentri besar which is not the preference of the executive, the choice of the ruler which has no majority support from the State Legislative Assembly, and the most recent one is none other than the intervention by the ruler in the administration of the state executive.

My objective is certainly not to question the legality of the rulers’ decisions from the constitutional perspective but to propose a solution to resolve these issues. As far as I know, no one has taken any action to resolve the matters with the judiciary, thus rendering people to wonder whether before the rulers came to such pronouncements, do they have the right to do so via the Federal Constitution?

What we have are only different legal and lay people’s views. As the people tend to interpret the subject according to their opinions, benefits and political standing, there would never be a definite solution unless the courts resolve it appropriately.

A Constitutional Court should be set up to decide such issues. This court shall consist of judges who are independent, willing and truly able to protect, preserve and defend the Federal Constitution. The Constitutional Court shall also be the sole court to determine constitutional matters, the decisions made shall be final and must be adhered to by all the parties.

The idea is not new. South Africa established a Constitutional Court in 1994. The provision for the conception of the court can be found in Section 167 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

The executive, and most importantly the legislature, have to study and construe this modest proposal objectively with the view to solving constitutional issues accurately and swiftly. It is only then that the ends of justice can be met and the ordinary people have the faith that their constitutional rights are being safeguarded.

DLSH
Klang

Source: The Sun – May 21, 2008

SEVERAL constitutional issues cropped up particularly after the 12th general election. Among them being the right of the ruler to appoint the mentri besar which is not the preference of the executive, the choice of the ruler which has no majority support from the State Legislative Assembly, and the most recent one is none other than the intervention by the ruler in the administration of the state executive.

My objective is certainly not to question the legality of the rulers’ decisions from the constitutional perspective but to propose a solution to resolve these issues. As far as I know, no one has taken any action to resolve the matters with the judiciary, thus rendering people to wonder whether before the rulers came to such pronouncements, do they have the right to do so via the Federal Constitution?

What we have are only different legal and lay people’s views. As the people tend to interpret the subject according to their opinions, benefits and political standing, there would never be a definite solution unless the courts resolve it appropriately.

A Constitutional Court should be set up to decide such issues. This court shall consist of judges who are independent, willing and truly able to protect, preserve and defend the Federal Constitution. The Constitutional Court shall also be the sole court to determine constitutional matters, the decisions made shall be final and must be adhered to by all the parties.

The idea is not new. South Africa established a Constitutional Court in 1994. The provision for the conception of the court can be found in Section 167 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

The executive, and most importantly the legislature, have to study and construe this modest proposal objectively with the view to solving constitutional issues accurately and swiftly. It is only then that the ends of justice can be met and the ordinary people have the faith that their constitutional rights are being safeguarded.

DLSH
Klang

Source: The Sun – May 21, 2008