Democracy In Malaysia

[Type text]

Introduction Parliament is derived from the French word “parlement”. Parler is to speak where parlement is a discussion or a realm to throw out opinion in decision making. Parliament in a literal way means a legislature.A Legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the power to create, amend and ratify laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. Parliament is the law making body in most democratic countries. Despite having one person making law in authoritarian or dictatorship, parliament is a center of to discuss and to decide in making a law. These three words parliament, legislature and democracy stand in one line of similarities and connection. Abraham Lincoln’s great description of democracy, government by the people, for the people, of the people, is true if we look upon the voting system or electoral system where as from the beginning of forming a government, party system, passing legislation, decision, choosing a leader and etc are made through voting process. Therefore the power is in the hand of the people. The selected people or group (government) is just a representative to execute input and command from the below, theoretically. Here is the definition of democracy quoted from Wikipedia, “Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek; democratia which was coined from (dēmos), "people" and (kratos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens. In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The 1

[Type text]

first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.” Practically speaking, a vice versa situation occurred in few countries and scenario. The reasons behind these are the kind of system which is practiced nowadays in modern times. Democracy is divided into various types and guidelines. There are many types of democracy to be listed but few are commonly used which are constitutional democracy, parliamentary democracy, republican democracy. Not to be confused that many dictatorship have called them self “republics” but generally do not protect the rights or liberty of their citizens. To speak about parliament, there are many types of parliamentary system exist the modern time. Each of this type differ from many aspects but parliament exist as the main law making body. Parliamentary republic will be looked upon to compare and contrast with presidential republic. In short presidential republic is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides separately from the legislatures. We will discuss further on this topic on Parliamentary democracy:

Parliamentary democracy Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people government is exercised

2

[Type text]

by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people Types of Parliamentary Democracy There are broadly two forms of Parliamentary Democracies. •

Westminster System or Westminster Models tend to be found in Commonwealth of Nations countries, although they are not universal within nor exclusive to Commonwealth countries. These parliaments tend to have a more adversarial style of debate and the plenary session of parliament is relatively more important than committees. Some parliaments in this model are elected using "First Past the Post" electoral systems, (e.g. Canada, India and the UK), others using proportional representation, e.g. Ireland and New Zealand. The Australian House of Representatives is elected using the alternative or preferential vote while the Senate is elected using PRSTV (proportional representation through the single transferable vote). However even when proportional representation systems are used, the systems used tend to allow the voter to vote for a named candidate rather than a party list. This model does allow for a greater separation of powers than the Western European Model, although the extent of the separation of powers is nowhere near that of the presidential system of United States.

•

Western European Parliamentary Model (e.g., Spain, Germany) tend to have a more consensual debating system, and have semi-cyclical debating chambers. Proportional representation systems are used, where there is more of a tendency to use party list systems than the Westminster Model legislatures. The committees of these Parliaments tend to be more important than the plenary chamber. This model is sometimes called the West German Model since its earliest exemplar in its final form was in the Bundestag of

3

[Type text]

West Germany (which became the Bundestag of Germany upon the absorption of the GDR by the FRG).

To what extent is the parliament as a democratic law making body? Parliament is a legislature body in parliamentary system government. Democratic literally means upholding a democracy and democracy means a situation or system in which everyone is equal and has the right to vote and make decisions. In the nutshell, parliament is a law making body that has an option and decision made accordingly to the favor of people’s interests in order to uphold the democracy. To say some irrelevant or impracticable idea, a decision may not be discussed or be informed to whole citizens because it is out of mind to gather millions of people in one hall. This is ridiculous. Therefore in the mother of parliament model, the Westminster model provides a representative system for each constituencyand the parliament in Westminster system, is the best description of a PARLIAMENT AS A DEMOCRATIC LAW MAKING BODY. We will look upon Westminster model in detail. Quoted from Wikipedia: “The Westminster system is a democratic, parliamentary system of government modelled after that of the United Kingdom system, as used in the Palace of Westminster, the location of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature. It is used, or was once used, in the national legislatures and/or sub-national legislatures of most Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth nations, beginning with the Canadian provinces and Australian Colonies in the mid-19th century. There are other parliamentary systems whose procedures differ considerably from the Westminster system.” Malaysian parliament is modeled after this Westminster system and we follow almost of these characteristics stated below:

4

[Type text]

•

a sovereign or head of state who is the nominal or theoretical holder of executive power, and holds numerous reserve powers, but whose daily duties mainly consist of performing the role of a ceremonial figurehead. Examples include the British monarch, the presidents of many countries and state/provincial governors in federal systems.

•

a head of government (or head of the executive), known as the prime minister (PM), premier or first minister, who is officially appointed by the head of state. In practice, the head of government is almost always the leader of the largest elected party in parliament.

•

a de facto executive branch usually made up of members of the legislature with the senior members of the executive in a cabinet led by the head of government; such members execute executive authority on behalf of the nominal or theoretical executive authority.

•

parliamentary opposition (a multiparty system);

•

an elected legislature, often bicameral, in which at least one house is elected, although unicameral systems also exist;

•

a lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) Supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion. The Westminster system enables a government to be defeated, or forced into a general election, independently of a new government being chosen.

•

a parliament which can be dissolved and elections called at any time.

•

Parliamentary privilege, which allows the Legislature to discuss any issue deemed by itself to be relevant, without fear of consequences stemming from defamatory statements or records thereof.

•

minutes of meetings, often known as Hansard, including an ability for the legislature to strike discussion from these minutes.

5

[Type text]

Most of the procedures of the Westminster system have originated with the conventions, practices and precedents of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which are a part of what is known as the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Unlike the unwritten British constitution, most countries that use the Westminster system have codified the system in a written constitution. However, uncodified conventions, practices and precedents continue to play a significant role in most countries, as many constitutions do not specify important elements of procedure: for example, some older constitutions using the Westminster system do not mention the existence of the cabinet and/or the prime minister, because these offices were taken for granted by the authors of these constitutions. PM in Westminster have a lot of power in executive and may perform any decision. This might have two effects, if the PM is a prospective, charismatic and competent he may please the whole citizen by fulfilling his manifesto. But a different situation may occur, because mainly in this model the PM is elected from the winning party in election party. He may not be the favourite person in the eye of the citizen but he have trusts at his party member. Therefore he may face a lot of oppose in parliament and by the people. This is how it works. In parliamentary democracy, there are certain models like questions time and etc. members of executive which is also the Member of Parliament may have a debate decision between the other members of the parliament. Therefore opinions are voice out and any uncertainties will be answered in the parliament. Even though a PM in Westminster model may have the power in the government but mostly they have to obey the constitution if they went overboard. For example, a PM must accord to FC and if he fails to do so he may be voted out if he has lost the confidence of the majority of parliament.

Upper House Membership 6

[Type text]

In Westminster system, not all members of parliament is elected by vote, for example members in upper house, some are appointed by the head of government. In the case of Malaysian government, the ratio of appointed members and elected members of dewan Negara is 44:26. How can a parliament uphold democracy it members are appointed. This is absurd. That is why upper house nowadays are given less power compared to the lower house. Upper house may just have the power of reviewing even though in some cases they have the rights to veto and delay law making process. Intended primarily by the framers of the Federal Constitution to be the defender of state interests and a revisory body, the Dewan Negara originally comprised more elected members. It has crushed any hopes that the Dewan would play an effective role in the legislative process. Regarding the appointed members of upper house, if we look on the bright side, proven the picture in Malaysian case, where traditionally Barisan Nasional control 2/3 of seats in parliament. They can form a government and based on the system executive members must came from either each of the both houses. For example, Dato Seri Sami Vellu is the only person who can handle the work ministry while others are unfit for the position. In the recent general election, he lost his position in parliament and unable to retain his office in the cabinet. Then the PM may appoint him as a senate in the Upper House as a staircase to become part of executive member. The PM has the power to appoint he see that no other MP are suitable for the position. To look on the bright side, the department of work may be held by someone competent but unpopular rather than popular but not competent. But still this is against the idea of democracy as Dato Seri Sami Vellu does not represent the people. So people’s interests are not voice out but the nation’s future is secured.

7

[Type text]

In the worst case scenario, some members of upper house may have a lifetime power and seat in the parliament. House of lords is the best example of the scenario. “…..Membership of the House of Lords was once a right of birth to hereditary peers, but following a series of reforms the House now consists almost entirely of appointed members…” This situation is curb by the House of Lords Act 1999. Legislatures Legislatures are often called parliaments under parliamentary systems while it’s called congress under presidential system. The obvious differences from these two systems is presidential system have a stricter separation of powers whereby the executive does not form or appointed by a legislative body. Normally, heads of government cannot be selected and be dismissed by the congress. They also may not make an early desolation as may be in parliamentary system. Briefly, these are the characteristics of congressional system that have certain differentiation between parliamentary systems in separation of powers. Whereby in parliamentary system it has more kinds of checks and balances between those three organs. Therefore further discussion would be in parliamentary systems as it is the key heart of democratic law making body. Some people may say that in parliamentary system, legislation can easily be passing. This is because the executive is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislation. A parliamentary system, or parliamentarism, is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to criticism from some that they lack checks and balances found in a presidential republic. Parliamentarism is praised, relative to presidentialism, for its flexibility and responsiveness to the public. It is faulted for its tendency to sometimes lead to unstable governments, as in the German Weimar Republic and the French Fourth Republic. 8

[Type text]

Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an appointed figurehead with only minor or ceremonial powers. However, some parliamentary systems also have an elected president with many reserve powers as the head of state, providing some balance to these systems. The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use first past the post voting usually have governments composed of one party. The United Kingdom, for instance, has had only one coalition government since World War II. However, parliamentary systems of continental Europe do use proportional representation, so, outside the Commonwealth of Nations, it can be said that PR voting systems and parliamentarism go together. Parliamentarism may also be heeded for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. Modes of Constituional Amendments A written constitution that is immutable may become useless with the passing of time. Changing social, political, and economic conditions will require changes to the constitution. Realizing this, the Reid Commission recommended a method which ‘should be neither so difficult as to produce frustration nor so easy to weaken seriously the safeguards which the constitution provides. The Reid Commission in Reid Commission Report recommended that” “Amendments should be made by Act of Parliament provided that an Act to amend the constitution must be passed in each house by a majority of at least two thirds of the members voting. In this matter the House of Representatives should not have power to overrule senate. We

9

[Type text]

think that this is a sufficient safeguard for the states because the majority of the senate will represent the States…” The modes of Malaysian Constitutional Amendments are provided in Article 159 and Article 161E of Federal Constitution: Amendments requiring a two-thirds majority Most provisions of the constitution can be amended by a Bill enacted for that purpose and which is supported by not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of each Dewan on its second and third reading. This may be considered as the common method of amendment. Amendments requiring a simple majority Certain provisions of the constitution can be amended by an ordinary bill which is supported by a simple majority of members present and voting in each Dewan. These provisions are set out in Article 159(4). They cover some matters of considerable importance, for example: •

the admission of any state to the federation,

•

the composition of the Dewan Negara and the rules concerning the election and the retirement of its members

•

restriction of freedom of movement within the federation, and of freedom of speech, assembly, and association

•

Creation of inferior courts, and the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts and inferior courts.

Amendments requiring the consent of the Majlis Raja-raja the amendments of a number of provisions require, in addition to a two thirds majority, the consent of the Majlis Raja-raja. These provisions, considered the most important in the constitution, concern what are called ‘sensitive issues; the Majlis Raja-Raja itself, the precedence of Rulers and Governors, the federal guarantee concerning the institution and succession of 10

[Type text]

Rulers, the special position and privileges of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, legitimate interest of the other communities, and citizenship. The spectrum of provisions was expanded in 1971 to include provisions concerning restrictions on freedom of speech in the interests of internal security and public order, and any law passed there under prohibiting the questioning (but not the implementation) of also requires the consent of the Majlis Raja-Raja, in addition to the consent of the state itself.

The advantage of parliamentary democracy Some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. Thus, this would amount to the executive (as the majority party or coalition of parties in the legislature) possessing more votes in order to pass legislation. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure. Presidents can also face problems from their own parties. Accordingly the executive within a presidential system might not be able to properly implement his or her platform/manifesto. Evidently, an executive in any system (be it parliamentary, presidential or semi-presidential) is chiefly voted into office on the basis of his or her party's platform/manifesto. It could be said then that the will of the people is more easily instituted within a parliamentary system.

11

[Type text]

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired. It can also be argued that power is more evenly spread out in the power structure of parliamentarianism. The premier seldom tends to have as high importance as a ruling president, and there tends to be a higher focus on voting for a party and its political ideas than voting for an actual person. In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural. There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully made the transition to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully made the transition to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have

12

[Type text]

succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly." A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption. The conclusion is: 1. Easier in making decision— the president is unable to dissolve government and order a

new election, which a British Prime Minister is well within his or her rights to do. In a parliamentary system, the government may introduce legislation, but within a presidential system the chief executive cannot, although he is permitted to veto legislation. There is always, however, within a presidential system, a clear division between the legislative body and the government.

2. Tendency towards democratic — some political scientists say that parliamentary are more democratic rather than presidential system. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted. Parliamentary government is always democratic although a presidential system is never parliamentary. Within the parliamentary system, both the legislature and the chief executive must be in agreement on policy, and if they aren’t, they must work at it until they are. A British prime minister is always a member of parliament but in a presidential system, the chief executive of a presidency as well as all members of the executive branch of government, except the vice president, cannot be members of Congress.

3. Separation of powers — Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation

between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an elected (either 13

[Type text]

popularly or through parliament) president or hereditary monarch. Though in Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be bestowed in the head of state, giving them many codified or uncodified reserve powers, providing some balance to these systems. 4. No Impediments to leadership change — the important difference between the two is that

while the leader of a parliamentary system can be forced to resign and call an election at any time, presidents serve fixed terms and can't be removed, short of impeachment or disability, until their terms are over. Also in a parliamentary system the parliament can vote a governing body out of office, while the United States Congress, except in extreme cases of impeachment, cannot.

Disadvantages of parliamentary democracy One main criticism of many parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly elected. In a presidential system, the president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature. However, in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the legislature, often under the strong influence of the party leadership. Thus, a party's candidate for the head of government is usually known before the election, possibly making the election as much about the person as the party behind him or her. 14

[Type text]

Another major criticism of the parliamentary system lies precisely in its purported advantage: that there is no truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power. Conversely, because of the lack of inherent separation of powers, some believe that a parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary have little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. However, most parliamentary systems are bicameral, with an upper house designed to check the power of the lower (from which the executive comes). Although it is possible to have a powerful prime minister, as Britain has, or even a dominant party system, as Japan has, parliamentary systems are also sometimes unstable. Critics point to Israel, Italy, India, the French Fourth Republic, and Weimar Germany as examples of parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible. Defenders of parliamentarianism say that parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates. Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi criticized the parliamentary system of Iraq, saying that because of party-based voting "the vast majority of the electorate based their choices on sectarian and ethnic affiliations, not on genuine political platforms." Although Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for allowing an election to take place at any time, the lack of a definite election calendar can be abused. In some systems, such as the British, a ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity. Thus, by wise timing of elections, in a parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system. This problem can be alleviated somewhat by setting fixed dates for parliamentary elections, as is the 15

[Type text]

case in several of Australia's state parliaments. In other systems, such as the Dutch and the Belgian, the ruling party or coalition has some flexibility in determining the election date. Alexander Hamilton argued for elections at set intervals as a means of insulating the government from the transient passions of the people, and thereby giving reason the advantage over passion in the accountability of the government to the people. Critics of parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for president under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally. Supporters of parliamentarianism can respond by saying that as members of parliament, prime ministers are elected firstly to represent their electoral constituents and if they lose their support then consequently they are no longer entitled to be prime minister. In parliamentary systems, the role of the statesman who represents the country as a whole goes to the separate position of head of state, which is generally non-executive and non-partisan. Promising politicians in parliamentary systems likewise are normally preselected for safe seats - ones that are unlikely to be lost at the next election - which allows them to focus instead on their political career •

A parliamentary system is that the head of government is in almost all cases not directly elected.

•

No truly independent body to oppose and veto legislation passed by the parliament, and therefore no substantial check on legislative power.

•

Parliamentary system can place too much power in the executive entity, leading to the feeling that the legislature or judiciary has little scope to administer checks or balances on the executive. 16

[Type text]

•

Parliamentary systems where unstable coalitions, demanding minority parties, votes of no confidence, and threats of such votes, make or have made effective governance impossible.

•

Parliamentary instability is the result of proportional representation, political culture, and highly polarised electorates.

•

A ruling party can schedule elections when it feels that it is likely to do well, and so avoid elections at times of unpopularity.

•

Parliamentary system a party can extend its rule for longer than is feasible in a functioning presidential system.

•

Parliamentary systems point out that people with significant popular support in the community are prevented from becoming prime minister if they cannot get elected to parliament since there is no option to "run for prime minister" like one can run for president under a presidential system. Additionally, prime ministers may lose their positions solely because they lose their seats in parliament, even though they may still be popular nationally.

Why royal assent?

“A Ruler may reign but not Rule” In republicanism, conceptually separate from democracy republicanism, included the key principles of the rule by the consent of the government and sovereignty of the people. In effect republicanism meant that the kings were not the real rulers, but rather the people. Why do we need Royal Assent in democracy? Is it for upholding interests and rights? In some parliamentary democracy countries, they have a constitutional monarch. Normally in amending a law, the final process is a royal assent. Figuratively, the assent must be fixed to a bill before it 17

[Type text]

can become a law. The question arise here is for what purpose is the royal assent if the bill is already being given “assent” by the people. Who are move sovereign in democracy? The people or the ruler? Luckily in modern days or in constitutional monarch exactly, the ruler is just a symbol to uphold certain privileges or dignities of the citizen and their assent is just a part of a process. By hook or by crook they have to give assent in any bill pass by a parliament. For example is in article Parliamentary democracy is said to have less tendency to fall into dictatorship or authoritarian government. This is because parliamentary democracy system is to uphold the concept of “rule of law”. In most parliamentary democracy, constitution is highest law of the land. No man can make any law they please. In authoritarian country, only single person has the power vested in his hand to control the whole ratio. In Parliamentary democracy, representatives from each constituency are gathering in lower house of parliament. They will voice out any problems faced by his or her people. But is it all problems are voice out in the parliament? Or just a problems from this subordinate being voice out? The MP’s in real world would just voice out his subordinate’s problem in order to maintain his position and support. MP’s tend to adopt a “cronyism and nepotism” in their leadership. Party System MP’s and members of cabinet are bound to their party system. They have seniority and some decision to be obeyed even though they are not agreeing with it. But most of MP’s may not disagree because they have either step down or get out from the party. With this situation certain ridiculous decision and law pass may not satisfy the citizen. People’s voice may not be hear and certain people will suffer while MP’s are having privileges Imagine if the compositions of parliament members are half opposition and half government

18

[Type text]

What would happen? Is this situation give effects to a good decision making in the parliament or just a barrier for the government to pass law, because certain Bill must be passed with two third majorities in second and third reading. Therefore people’s interest may not be properly cared. Firstly the government cannot implement most of their manifesto in the general election. For example, conventionally Barisan Nasional has always retained their 2/3 majority in the Parliament but for 12th General Election, they have lost support in parliament and failed to maintain 2/3 majority for the seats. MP’s are said to represent their constituent, but in reality MP’s are the representative of their own political party. All their policies, opinions and ideologies are standardized by their party system and they may not come across the decision of their leaders. In modern political trend, a big support to a coalition party may bring benefit to their supporters as a lot of agenda can be carried out with a majority support. But if one political party had always maintain a two third majority, tendency of a corruption to happen is undeniable. As in Lord Acton’s aphorism “absolute power corrupts absolutely” Parliamentary sovereignty vs. Constitutional sovereignty The Malaysian Federal Constitution although based on the British Westminster model, is closer to the Indian Constitution in substance and form. The obvious the difference is where in UK, Parliament is sovereign, not the Constitution. Suffian L.P pointed out in Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2MLJ 112, 113: “The doctrine of supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a written constitution. The power of parliament and of State Legislatures in Malaysia is limited by the Constitution, and they cannot make any law they pleased” In contacts of Malaysian parliament, any law passed must follow the structure of the Federal Constitution. In UK, the parliament is above the constitution, and they can make any law they 19

[Type text]

please. Which doctrine of supremacy is more supporting the idea of democracy? If we look upon the forming of Federal Constitution itself, it is based on Reid Commission report and it is drafted based on Westminster model by five Judges of commonwealth countries. Eventhough in the final process of the report, the Malay rulers and political leaders are consulted but nobody from Malaya Federation involved in this drafting process. Furthermore, this Federal Constitution is so called Rigid because of the amendments process requires majority support and Parliament cannot make any law they pleased. Time has changed and so happen to people’s interest. Anything in the FC may not be relevant in present or the future times, so it needs to be changed. In democracy, people are the highest maker of the law and in parliamentary democracy they have Legislature to pass and discuss the law they want. So to what extent a parliament in the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy can exercise their democratic power? In reality, our Federal Constitution has been repealed a lot of times and some believe that Constitutional Supremacy does not apply in reality, in fact Parliamentary Supremacy is maintained through the ease which constitutional amendments have been achieved since independence (because the government in power has maintained a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament) and the judicial attitude in the interpretation of the constitution. Furthermore, parliament may pass law, provided in Article 149 and Article 150 of Federal Constitution regarding the subversion and emergency declaration. In emergency the power will be conferred to the Yang Dipertuan Agong. The Article 149 clearly permits the act of parliament to retain someone under the Internal Secutiy Act 1960. Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: "Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any 20

[Type text]

manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof." Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any manner prejudicial to the: a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or b) maintenance of essential services; or c) economic life.

ISA has been very controversial in Malaysian political scenario. But in democracy view, ISA does not consult the consent of people in detaining someone. The detainee may voice out something for the rights and liberties of people. Mainly, the detainees came from opposition political party. In fact our former deputy Prime Minister was convicted in many allegation such as sodomy, corruption and etc. Majority vs Minority Austin Ranney defines democracy as “ a form of government organized in accordance with the principle of popular sovereignty, political equality, popular consultation, and majority rule” Therefore democarcy is characterized by four features” •

The ultimate power to make political decisions is vested in all people

•

Each adult citizen has the same opportunityas every adult citizen to participate in the decision making-process. This means “one person-one vote” and indeed, the freedom to choose from alternatives.

•

Public policies are made only after ascertaining the wishes of the peole. 21

[Type text]

•

All political decisions must be made according to the wishes of the majority

Each nation of the world consist of a majority races, colours and religion and includes some minorities which normally came from aboriginal tribe and people who migrated from another part of the world from a long time ago. Parliament plays an important role to ensure that majority interest are taken care. But what about the minority? In some country, monorities are neglected in areas like economy, education and priviliges. Does that mean a minority is not right? Majority does not always carry the rightful decision. They may swing to a wrong decision and minority who oppose has less power in the parliament. Parliament needs to have certain limittation and provision regarding the minorities to ensure their safeguards. That is why in most part of the world, ethnic demolitions are widely done by the majority. For example in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had killed many Qurdish. Arrend Lijpart, Robert Dahl and others have argued persuasively that democracy depends very much upon the beliefs of the political leaders about the legitimacy and necessity of a democratic government. It would seem impossible to maintain democracy if those active in politics are not committed to democratic values and ideals. MP’s in Parliament have to play their card well in Parliament to uphold the democratic value in their law making process.

Conclusion

22