Group backs PN, urges Harapan to honour judicial reform pledge

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has backed Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan's call to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution and restore its original form.
MCCBCHST stressed the need to safeguard judicial independence at all times.
The council urged the government to carry out the promised...

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Malaysiakini

5 hours ago

• Malaysiakini

Group backs PN, urges Harapan to honour judicial reform pledge

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has backed Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan's call to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution and restore its original form. MCCBCHST stressed the need to safeguard judicial independence at all times. The council urged the government to carry out the promised...

Free Malaysia Today

6 hours ago

• Free Malaysia Today

The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia

In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

The Star

6 hours ago

• The Star

SIS wins appeal against fatwa

PUTRAJAYA: A Selangor fatwa (edict) that declared Sisters in Islam (SIS) Forum Malaysia as 'deviant' 11 years ago is not applicable to the company as the entity could not be construed as a person professing Islam, the Federal Court ruled. The court ruled so after allowing an appeal by SIS in its dispute against the Selangor religious authorities over the fatwa that was gazetted in 2014. The judgment, however, applied only to the extent of the edict's application. Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, when reading out the judgment, said the term 'persons professing the religion of Islam' refers to natural persons and not artificial persons such as companies. 'This constitutional interpretation aligns with the fact that only natural persons can profess the shahadah, perform prayers, fast in Ramadan and perform the Hajj – core tenets of the Islamic faith. 'A company, being an artificial entity, lacks the capacity to repent as proposed by the fatwa. 'Hence, we conclude that a company cannot 'profess' Islam in order to be lawfully classified as a 'person professing the religion of Islam' under Item 1,' she said in the 3-1 majority decision yesterday. (In the Federal Constitution, the Ninth Schedule has two lists, namely List I or Federal List, which lists down the areas that the Federal Government can make laws on, and List II or State List, which states what the state government has powers to make laws on. Item 1 refers to the State List.) The appeal arises from a judicial review application filed by SIS and its founder Zainah Anwar in October 2014 to challenge the fatwa that was gazetted on July 31, 2014. They named the Selangor Fatwa Committee, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government as respondents. In 2019, the High Court dismissed the judicial review application while the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in 2023. The fatwa declared that SIS as well as any individual and group that adopted the 'deviant' ideologies of liberalism and pluralism were deviating from the teachings of Islam. The fatwa stated that any publications containing liberal and plural views of Islam should be banned and confiscated. It further directed the Malaysian Com­munications and Multimedia Commission to censor social websites that go against Islamic teachings and hukum syarak. The fatwa also directed that any individuals holding on to liberalism and religious pluralism should repent and return to the path of Islam. Tengku Maimun said the issue of a company, organisation or institution escaping accountability relating to the fatwa does not arise. 'Accountability for violating the fatwa rests with the individuals behind such entities. 'This is further supported by paragraph four of the fatwa, which only requires individuals who adhere to liberalism and religious pluralism to repent,' she said. The apex court also asserted its separation of jurisdiction from the Syariah Courts. 'To avoid misunderstanding, we reiterate that we express no view on the content of the fatwa itself, especially phrases such as: '... liberalism and religious pluralism are deviant and misguided from the teachings of Islam' and 'any individual subscribing to liberalism and religious pluralism ideology must repent and return to the path of Islam'. These fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the respondents. 'With the reasons we have mentioned, we set aside the decisions by the High Court and the Court of Appeal,' Tengku Maimun said. The appeal at the Federal Court was initially heard before a five-judge panel. Besides the Chief Justice, other judges on the Bench were Court of Appeal judge Justice Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, Federal Court judges Justices P. Nallini, Abu Bakar Jais and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, who retired in April. Meanwhile, Justice Abu Bakar, who held the dissenting view, said a company would still be bound by a fatwa, especially in the present case as SIS comprises of Muslims and its work is related to Islam. 'It is disturbing that the first appellant could escape and not be subjected to the fatwa simply by being a company but nonetheless venturing to make assertions and expressing views affecting the precepts and tenets of Islam,' he said. 'It should not be concluded just because a company is not a person professing Islam as a religion such as in this case, the provision of the Constitution should not apply to the same,' Justice Abu Bakar added.