SOUND BITES

blogtunm.blogspot.com Tun M 
For the Lawyers – The Constitution and Parliament

1. When I asked whether the Constitution or Parliament came first, I just wanted to make certain. But I am sorry that most who answered were not lawyers.

2. According to Tun Suffian in his book “An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia”, the Constitution was promulgated on Merdeka Day, 31st August 1957, i.e. before there was a Parliament. In fact the Constitution created the Parliament.

3. The question which arises is whether it is governed by the Interpretation Acts of 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) which in Part 1 section 2 under Application reads;

2. Application

(1) Subject to this section, Part I of this Act shall apply for the interpretation of and otherwise in relation to –

(a) this Act and all Acts of Parliament enacted after 18th May 1967;

(b) all laws, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(c) all subsidiary legislation made under this Act and under Acts of Parliament enacted after the commencement of this Act;

(d) all subsidiary legislation, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(e) all subsidiary legislation made after the 31st December 1968, under the laws revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968

(2) Part 1 shall not aply for the interpretation or otherwise in relation to any written law not enumerated in subsection (1)

(3) Part 1 shall not apply where there is –

(a) expressive provision to the contrary; or

(b) something in the subject or context inconsistent with or repugnant to its application

I hope my question would be answered by a few lawyers at least.

*****

Kasitah Gaddam

(in response to comment by Amiir in KASITAH GADDAM published on Aug 20)

Amiir,

1. My friends cases are not like what happened to Anwar.

2. There was a clear-cut case against him. He was tried in a court of law and he had nine lawyers defending him.

3. He was convicted. He appealed three times. Of the 10 judges involved all except two found him guilty.

4. The two who acquitted him, in a written judgment stated that the prosecution got the date wrong but they also expressed the view that the offence had taken place probably on another day.