Melayu oh melayu..

This is a request from my fellow friend (Haziq tulang:-). He told me to publish this "pantun"..
so, kepada sesiapa yang xsetuju kmen dlm blog Republic of Malaya k..

MALAYS RATHER HAVE PLEASURE THAN PRESSURE?

i came across at this poem at my lecturer's room, mdm aishah. At first, i thought, ape benda la ni pasal melayu, durh... bout the case UiTM n Bumiputera, kecoh satu negara. So everyone have their opinion, i keep mine, takot kene pukul or masuk ISA.. hhahahahha.
So this is the 'sajak'

Di mana boleh cari ramai melayu
Pastinya di Kelantan dan Terengganu
Dan juga di pasar malam dan pasar minggu
Di Akademi Fantasia dan Pesta Lagu
Di JOM HEBOH orang melayu berpusu-pusu
Di Sungai Buloh dan sebelum ini di Pudu
Dan di jalan, lumba haram tak buka lampu
Dan di selekoh duit rasuah depa sapu
Di pusat serenti akibat ketagih dadah dan candu

Di malam kemerdekaan dan malam tahun baru
Terkinja-kinja best giler menari macam hantu

Apa hobi orang melayu
Terkenal dengan budaya malas dan lesu
Berlepak buang masa tak jemu-jemu
Atau baca majalah Mastika cerita hantu
Tengok telenovela dari Filipina dan Peru
Sambil makan junk food kacang dan muruku
Mana tak gendut berpenyakit selalu
Kalau nak berlagak melayu nombor satu
Asal bergaya sanggup makan nasi dan toyu

Boleh tak jumpa mereka di kedai buku
Atau di perpustakaan dan majlis ilmu
Atau ambil kelas kemahiran di hujung minggu
Ada tapi kurang sangat ke situ
Kenapa melayu jadi begitu
Nak salahkan sapa ibubapa atau guru
Pemimpin negara atau raja dulu-dulu
Ayat lazim di mulut ialah malas selalu
Nak harap kerajaan saja bantu
Terutama sekali kontraktor kelas satu
Tak habis-habis gaduh nak jatuh sapa dulu
Dan suka sangat dengan budaya mengampu

Sampai bila kita nak tunggu
Bangsa melayu jadi bangsa termaju
Boleh, dengan beberapa syarat tertentu
Pertama dengan banyak menguasai ilmu
Kata nabi ikutlah al-Quran dan sunnah ku
al-Quran yang diturunkan 1400 tahun dahulu
Tapi apakah yang kita tahu, cuma hafal nak halau hantu

Perjuangan belum selesai...

Salam perpaduan,

Tanggal 25 september 2008 memberikan satu kenangan yang indah dalam hidup ku, bukan kerana hari ini aku mengenali cinta, bukan kerana hari ini hari khamis tetapi kerana pada tanggal ini aku mendengar satu syair dusta nurkilan penyair dari Putrajaya.. mungkin mukadimah tadi agak membosankan tetapi itulah perkara yang berlaku selama 2 jam didalam dewan yang ber ‘air-cond’ sambil mendengar jeritan penceramah yang memberikan tajuk “KETUANAN MELAYU”. Mendengar sahaja tajuk tanpa menghadiri ceramah itu mungkin kita akan beranggapan ceramah ini akan menjadi wadah ilmu kepada pelajar-pelajar dan mungkin juga golongan tua. Tetapi... apa yang terjadi adalah sebaliknya, ceramah tersebut hanyalah tidak lain sebagai satu medan untuk penceramah tersebut melepaskan geram, rasa tidak puas hati dan juga kesal (sambil memasangkan lagu KERANA KAU dendangan Alleykucing). Lupakan sebentar mengenai situasi pada hari tersebut kerana ape yang lebih penting adalah bagaimana tajuk tersebut diolah dan dipandu oleh penceramah? Adakah dengan mengunakan Ferari Merah atau Kancil Hijau atau sebuah lagi kereta keluaran baru yang datang dari Amerika sebuah Mustang Biru. Seperti dijangka, penceramah memilih Ferari Merah kerana sudah jelas kereta tersebut lagi mahal dan lebih sesuai untuk dipandu oleh kontraktor-kontraktor Melayu kelas F. Perjalanan ceramah terasa hangat bila penceramah sudah mula membicarakan mengenai perkara 153 yang akhir-akhir ini menjadi buah mulut setiap masyarakat Malaysia tidak kira walau dimana mereka berada. Penceramah sering menjeritkan suara sambil melaung-laungkan slogan hidup melayu (terasa seperti hidup dizaman Tunku pula) sambil memberikan fakta-fakta meyakinkan. Ingin memetik salah satu fakta yang diberikan oleh penceramah, beliau menyatakan perkara 153 adalah untuk orang melayu dan bumiputra sabah sarawak sahaja. Ternyata sekali penceramah sengaja terlepas pandang mengenai hak kaum lain. Petikan dari perkara 153 “YDPA to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities”. Jelas bahawa perkara 153 tidak seharusnya dipolitikkan untuk kepentingan individu semata-mata kerana ianya hanya akan meghasilkan pergaduhan kaum. Ingat bangsa Melayu, kita sudah jauh ketinggalan kebelakang, lupakan sebentar ketuanan mu dan tegak kan agamamu kerana perjuangan Melayu adalah bukan semata-mata perjuangan Melayu tetapi lebih kepada Agama Islam yang dianuti. Fikir2kan lah, untuk apa kita bercakaran sesama kita sedangkan bangsa lain sudah maju kehadapan. Akhir kata, AKUMELAYU...?

Oh Dr. M...

ini adalah petisyen dari seseorang yang inginkn Dr.M memerintah kembali..
sape2 yang tidak setuju, plz komen dalam blog aku.. AKUMELAYU..?

Dear Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad,
We, the loyal citizens of Malaysia, humbly request that in the light of the current mess that the leadership of (Datuk Seri) Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi has caused, return to lead us once again. Although we may not have agreed with some or many things that you have done during your 22-year tenure in office as the Prime Minister Of Malaysia, but there are things that we can never dispute.
That you’ve made us proud to be Malaysians. You put us on the world map, making much larger nations sit up when they hear your breath down even for far down the corridor.
That you’ve pushed us from a mainly agricultural state to a state with first world amneties.
That you’ve kept the government running in order and were always in control no matter what came in your way.
The current leadership has absolutely no clue on how to run this country. Please do us all a favour by returning!

Darus Abdul Razak
If you agree with me, please sign the “We Need Tun Dr.. Mahathir To Involved In The Government Again” petition online at :

http://www.petitiononline.com/nbe9009/
[Note : Malaysians only please]

Salah siapa?

COPYRIGHT: AKUMELAYU..?

bile bercakap mengenai politik ramai la budak2 muda yg benci..
katanya bosan la, xmenarik la n mcm2 lg..tp pd aku sume 2 adlh luahan yang jujur dr ati ke ati..
slah sape?
nk slahkn pak lah aku rase xbleh gak cz die walau rakyat mrh mcm ner pn jwpan die ttap same "i have a lot of work to do" pak lah oh pak lah dikala anak2 mu sedang memberontak kesedihan dgn situasi poltik skrang pak lah msh lg tido dgn kesenagan semalam(juz an opinion not intentionaly to hurt anyone). habis tue kite nk salah kn saper? aku rase xbleh salah kn sekolah cz bkn keje dieorg.. nk salah kn RTM sbb wat berita jd boring xbleh gak cz kalo xwat "brite boring" nt pak menteri mrh plak..
ntah la pd aku kte xpyh cr salah sape2 satu mekanisme bru mungkn gov bleh consider..
xpyh wat konvensyen, xpyh wat kempen juz yg penting be honest..
byk sgt la penipuan dlm gov sendri.. bdk2 muda nie kalo org jujur dgn dieorg mungkn dieorg leh accept..
sape2 yg ad view lain atau xsetuju dgn opinion nie korang feel free nk kmen k..

Hak MELAYU: Aku diTipu?

WARNING!!!: kisah dibawah hanya untuk bacaan MALAYSIAN yang berfikiran WARAS sahaja...

hak melayu?
itu adalah bingkisan kata yang biasa diungkap oleh orang melayu. mereka sibuk memperjuangkannya dan ada segelintir yang menjadikan hak melayu sebagai ideologi politik untuk "dijual" kepada orang melayu sebagai balasan untuk mendapatkan unduk.
persoalan sekarang apakah itu hak melayu?
hak melayu megikut perlembagaan persekutuan dalam perkara 153 adalah hak keistimewaan orang melayu dan natif sabah dan sarawak. mengikut ahli politik UMNO plak hak melayu adalah kata2 yang akan memberikan mereka undi orang melayu manakala bagi anwar plak hak melayu bermaksud satu kalimah yang akan membuat kan UMNO dgn MCA n MIC bergaduh so, pendefinisian anwar untuk Hak melayu adalah lebih luas..
jd no wonder la kalo ramai "Melayu Moden" memilih anwar kerana anwar memberi pendefinisian yang luas untuk hak melayu.
adakah melayu atau bumiputra benar2 mempunyai HAK?
mengikut perlembagaan persekutuan(federal constitution) di dalam perkara 153 tidak dinyatakan dengan jelas tentag hak melayu. kita tidak akan dapat melihat perkataan hak atau right didalam perkara 153 tersebut. jadi apakah yang dicakapkan oleh pemimpin UMNO n PAKATAN RAKYAT terutama anwar(PM in waiting)adalah kata2 bohong dan dusta sahaja? di kesempatan ini saya juga mengajak rakan2 seperjuangan supaya kita sama2 berfikir yang selama ini kita memperjuangkan perkara yang tidak ada..
secara literally the only word yang ada dalam perlembagaan adlah special priviledge dan bukan rights. jd fikir2 kan lah ye kwn2 untuk apa kita bergaduh dgn non-bumi untuk perkara yang kita sendiri pn xpasti. kita telah sekian lama dimomokan oleh ahli politik untuk kepentingan mereka sahaja. at last, rakyat juga yang jadi mangsa kepada ketamakan dan KEBODOHAN pemimpin politik tersebut. sekian sahaja untuk perkara 153 n nt saya akan bercerita kisah dongeng disebalik ISA dan betapa gelojohnya anwar untuk jd PM sehingakan bagitau satu dunia dia adalah Prime Minister in WAiting(haha, maksudnya dlm bhase melayu AKU XSABAR2NK JD PM). jd fikir2 kn la ye kwn2... AKUMELAYU..?

aRTICLE 121: jUST wET dREAM..

ATTENTION: THIS TEXT INTENTIONALLY IN ENGLISH...
COPYRIGHT: AKUMELAYU..!!!

Understanding that a government's role is to protect individual rights, but acknowledging that governments have historically been the major violators of these rights, a number of measures have been derived to reduce this likelihood. The concept of Separation of Powers is one such measure. The premise behind the Separation of Powers is that when a single person or group has a large amount of power, they can become dangerous to citizens. The Separation of Power is a method of removing the amount of power in any group's hands, making it more difficult to abuse. If a single group shared all three powers, they would have unlimited power. They could specify any law, arresting the 'criminal', and then decide that they are guilty. Through the Separation of Powers, though, no group can have more than one of these powers. Only through the combined use of all three can the government use force. By requiring the consent of all three branches, it increases the likelihood that the government will not initiate violent force. In Malaysia, there are a lot of cases regarding constitutional matter especially doctrine of separation of power. Most political writers believe that the three basic and functions in the administration of any independent state are the legislative, executive and judicial functions.

However, many constitutional bodies or institutions are meant to be independent of the three organs of state and cannot be classified under one of the three traditional branches of government. Among these bodies are the Auditor General (Article 105), the Election Commission (Article 114) and the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (Article 138). Perhaps Constitutional Commissions constitute the fourth branch of government. Strict separation of powers did not operate in Britain, a country whose political structure served in most instances as a model for the government created by the US Constitution. In the UK, the King-in-Parliament (the King acting with the consent of the House of Lords and House of Commons) was the supreme lawmaking authority. The executive branch acted in the name of the King - it was known as "His Majesty's Government" - as did the judiciary. The King's Ministers were in most cases members of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and the Government needed to sustain a majority in the House of Commons. One minister, the Lord Chancellor, was at the same time the sole judge in the Court of Chancery and the presiding officer in the House of Lords. Thus, one may conclude that the three branches of British government often violated the strict principle of separation of powers, even though there were many occasions when the different branches of the government disagreed with each other.

The present case which had a lot of argument is Public Prosecutor v Kok Wah Kuan [2008] 1 MLJ 154 (Federal court of Malaysia). The fact of case is the child respondent in this appeal was convicted in the High Court for murder punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code.. He was ordered to be detained during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) pursuant to s 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 (Act 611) ('the Child Act'). He appealed to the Court of Appeal which upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence imposed on him on the ground that s 97(2) of the Child Act was unconstitutional. The gist of the Court of Appeal's judgment was that as s 97(2) conferred power upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to determine sentence as such power exercisable by the Executive by virtue of art 39 of the Federal Constitution and s 97(2) of the Child Act contravened the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in the Federal Constitution by consigning to the Executive judicial power vested in the courts. The Deputy Public Prosecutor appealed to the Federal Court.

Abdul Hamid Mohamad PCA (now acting Chief Justice) in his judgment said the respondent who was 12 years and 9 months old at the time of the commission of the offence was charged in the High Court for the offence of murder punishable under s 302 of the Penal Code. He was convicted and ordered to be detained during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to s 97(2) of the Child Act 2001. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence imposed on him and released him from custody on the sole ground that s 97(2) of the Child Act was unconstitutional. The Public Prosecutor appealed to this court. The extent of its application varies from country to country, depending on how much it is accepted and in what manner it is provided for by the Constitution of a country. Similarly, judgments from other jurisdictions, while they are useful comparisons, should not be treated as if they are binding on our courts. As such, I do not think it is necessary to discuss all those cases from other jurisdictions referred to us. On these grounds I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Appeal and reinstate the order of the High Court. Ahmad Fairuz Chief Justice, Alauddin CJ (Malaya) and Zaki Azmi FCJ have read this judgment and agreed with it.

Richard Malanjum CJ (Sabah and Sarawak) in his judgment said this is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the conviction of the respondent but set aside the sentence imposed and released him from custody on the ground that s 97(2) of the Child Act 2001 was unconstitutional. I need not summarize the reasons given by the Court of Appeal since it has already been admirably done in the judgment of the learned President of the Court of Appeal. Hence, it is reasonable to emphasize that the amendment should not be construed or viewed as having emasculated the courts in this country to mere automaton and servile agents of a federal Act of Parliament. Anyway, reverting to this appeal, for the reason I have given earlier on I would therefore allow it and restore the order made by the High Court. However, there are different points of view between the two judges as mentioned by Abdul Hamid Mohamad PCA (as he was then), speaking “no provision of the law may be struck out as unconstitutional even though it may be inconsistent with the doctrine (of separation of power). The doctrine is not a provision of the Malaysian Constitution even though it influenced the framers of the Malaysian Constitution”. There was a powerful dissent from Richard Malanjum, CJ (Sabah and Sarawak). While upholding the constitutionality of s.97 of the Child Act on the ground that despite the section, sentencing was still in the hands of the courts, he took a magnificent and admirable view of the judicial role. In his view “Article 121(1) is not, and cannot be, the whole and sole repository of the judicial role”. The doctrine of separation of powers was part of the basic structure of the constitution. The courts are required to perform a myriad of additional, inherent powers and functions besides enforcing “federal law”. Courts are not servile agents of parliament.

Apart from fact and held of the case, one of the core factors which drive the case is the legal issue which specifically related to constitutional law. There are a lot of legal issues in this case and among the legal issue which need to answers by court is whether features of the doctrine of separation of powers embodied in Federal Constitution and as an integral part of Federal Constitution? If the answers are affirm to what extent to which the doctrine of separation of powers applies? Second legal issue we need to answers is whether constitutional provision may be struck out on the ground that it contravenes the doctrine of separation of powers? And the third legal issue is whether doctrine definite and absolute? And to what extent of application to doctrine of separation of power in Federal Constitution are definite and absolute?

In my point of view, the concept of separation of power in Malaysia merely only an ‘implied’ concept and doctrine because it just the concept from philosopher and in Malaysia we can say it’s never ever been practice here. Separation of power is a basic doctrine in modern democratic government. It originated from the writing French philosopher named Montesqieu who in 1748 published a book entitled “The Spirit of the Laws”. In that book, he put forward the idea that power of government were of three kinds: first, the legislative power responsible for making laws; secondly, the executive power which governed and policed the law and thirdly, the judicial power which enforced the laws made by the first branch. Political stability and freedom would be secured if the three arms of government remained separate. Separating governmental power would at least ensure that the person or body responsible for enacting laws would not be permitted to police or enforce them as well (Wu Min Aun, 2005). Montesqieu claimed that if all three powers were held by the same person, that there would be a dictatorship and arbitrary rule would prevail (A Harding, 1990). If this doctrine is strictly followed, it means that no one of the three branches of government can participate in any functions of the others or belong to the others. For example, a member of the executive arm should not be a member of the legislature and judges must be independent of the executive and the legislature. The doctrine of separation of powers also involved a system of “check and balances” to ensure a balance of power between the three arms of government. With separation, Montesquieu further claimed that each body would check the others and ensure they have not exceeded or abused their power. This is only a brief explanation on what is separation of power really is and further I will discuss more with respect on Malaysia situation.

Prior to the amendment to art 121(1) of the Federal Constitution in 1988, there existed a definitive declaration that the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in the two High Courts. The provision also then provided for the two High Courts to have jurisdiction and powers conferred by or under federal law. After the amendment (vide Act A704), there no longer exists a declaration that the 'judicial power of the Federation' as the term was understood prior to the amendment and vests in the two High Courts. The jurisdiction and powers of the two High Courts are now prescribed by federal law and not dependent on the interpretation of the term 'judicial power' as prior the amendment. To say that the amendment had no effect did not make sense. Next, In Public Prosecutor v Dato' Yap Peng[1], s 418A of the Criminal Procedure Code was declared unconstitutional as it was held inconsistent with a specific provision of the Constitution in art 121(1) that then provided inter alia that judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in two High Courts.

The inconsistency then attracted art 4(1) of the Constitution which declared s 418A, to the extent of the inconsistency, void. Dato' Yap Peng's case was not decided on the ground that s 418A was inconsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. In the instant appeal, the Court of Appeal's judgment did not show which provision of the Constitution s 97 was inconsistent with. Instead, the court held that that section (s 97) violated the doctrine of the separation of powers, which, in its view was an integral part of the Constitution. The Malaysian Constitution has features of the doctrine of the separation of powers and at the same time, contains features which do not strictly comply with the doctrine. To what extent the doctrine applies depends on the provisions of the Constitution. A provision of the Constitution cannot be struck out on the ground that it contravenes the doctrine. Similarly no provision of the law may be struck out as unconstitutional if it is not inconsistent with the Constitution, even though it may be inconsistent with the doctrine. The doctrine is not a provision of the Malaysian Constitution even though it influenced the framers of the Malaysian Constitution. In determining the constitutionality or otherwise of a statute under the Federal Constitution by a court of law, it is the provision of the Constitution that matters, not a political theory by some thinkers ; Loh Kooi Choon v Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187 (FC) followed. The extent of the powers of the courts depends on what is provided in the Constitution. In the case of the two High Courts, the Constitution provides that they 'shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.' Therefore, reference must be made to the federal law to know the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts. Federal law provides that the sentence of death shall not be pronounced or recorded against a person who was a child at the time of the commission of the offence. That is the limit of judicial power of the court imposed by law. It further provides that instead, the child shall be ordered to be detained in a prison during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler or the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, depending on where the offence was committed. That is the sentencing power given by federal law to the court as provided by the Constitution. Similarly, in some cases, federal law provides for the death sentence, in others, imprisonment and/or fine, some are mandatory and some are discretionary. The Legislature provides the sentences and the court imposes it where appropriate. The doctrine of separation of powers is not definite and absolute. The extent of its application varies from country to country, depending on how much it is accepted and in what manner it is provided for by the Constitution of a country. Similarly, judgments from other jurisdictions, while they are useful comparisons, should not be treated as if they are binding on the Malaysian courts.

The Prison Act empowers the Director General of Prisons to cancel and restore the remission of sentences upon a prisoner, which may be argued to amount to meddling with the fixed term of imprisonment passed by the court. Following the argument of the Court of Appeal, this should be unconstitutional too. It is common for a statute to empower a Minister as a member of the Executive to make rules or regulations which are within the realm of the Legislature. Yet, there appears to be no provision in the Constitution empowering the Legislature to enact laws to give the power to make such by-laws to the Executive. Therefore, are the provisions in the statutes empowering Ministers to make by-laws unconstitutional on the ground that they contravene the doctrine of separation of powers? Applying the doctrine as a provision of the Constitution would therefore result in absurdity.

It seems to me that the problem lies in judges, lawyers and constitutional scholars attaching too much weight and importance to the phrase 'judicial powers of the Federation' as originally contained in Article 121. It is wrong to suggest that the judiciary derives its power or even its legitimacy from the wording of Article 121 of the constitution to begin with.

Concurring with the majority on the issue of the constitutionality of s 97 of the Child Act 2001 on a plain reading of subsection (2) of s 97 it is clear that it empowers the court, after convicting a person who was a child at the time of commission of an offence punishable with death, to make an alternative order instead of imposing a sentence of death. This alternative power to make such an order as provided for by the subsection is no less than the power of the court to impose a sentence or punishment on a child convict although in a different form, namely, to the care of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or to the Ruler or to the Yang di-Pertua Negeri depending on where the offence was committed. There is nothing unconstitutional in the scheme (of s 97) since it is still the court that makes the order consequential to its conviction order. When the court makes the order it is carrying out the process of sentencing which is generally understood to mean a process whereby punishment in accordance with established judicial principles is meted out by the court after a conviction order has been made following a full trial or a guilty plea. If the subsection left it entirely to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler or the Yang di-Pertua Negeri, as the case may be to deal with a child convict after being convicted by the court, there might be a different conclusion; Public Prosecutor v Jafa bin Daud and Standard Chartered Bank & Ors v Directorate of Enforcement & Ors referred.

Dissenting with regard to the view that the High Court's powers and jurisdiction are solely prescribed by federal law. Accepting the proposition that with the amendment to art 121(1) of the Federal Constitution the courts in Malaysia can only function in accordance with what has been assigned to them by federal laws, would be contrary to the democratic system of government wherein the courts form the third branch of the government and function to ensure that there is 'check and balance' in the system including the crucial duty to dispense justice according to law. The amendment to art 121(1) should by no means be read to mean that the doctrines of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary are now no more the basic features of the Federal Constitution.

In my opinion, phrase 'judicial powers' is in itself ambiguous. Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ did not even attempt to define or explain what it meant. But it is to suggest that the framers, including the great Lord Reid, made a mistake by completely overlooking the need to explain and define the scope of the phrase 'judicial powers of the Federation'. The better view is that the phrase was merely intended to be declatory in nature mean just rhetoric.

Besides that, the amendment did not cause the courts to become servile agents of a Federal Act of Parliament and to only perform mechanically any command or bidding of a federal law. The courts, especially the superior courts, are a separate and independent pillar of the Federal Constitution and not mere agents of the federal Legislature. In the performance of their function they perform a countless of roles and interpret and enforce a myriad of laws. As mentioned by Richard Malanjum CJ that Article 121(1) is not, and cannot be, the whole and sole repository of the judicial role in this country for the following reasons: (i) the amendment to art 121(1) seeks to limit the jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts and inferior courts to whatever 'may be conferred by or under federal law'; (ii) the courts cannot be confined to 'federal law' as their role is to be servants of the law as a whole; (iii) it is not legally possible in a country with a supreme Constitution and with provision for judicial review to prevent the courts from examining constitutional questions; (iv) despite the amendment (to art 121(1)), the common law powers of the courts are intact (see Ngan Tuck Seng v Ngan Yin Hoi referred). Further, the inherent powers of the courts are a separate and distinct source of jurisdiction; (v) the courts cannot be prevented from interpreting the law creatively; (vi) past or earlier statutes have to be applied to modern or current circumstances; (vii) in interpreting constitutional provisions, a judge cannot afford to be too literal. He is to be creative and not passive to enable the constitutional provisions to be the guardian of people's rights and the source of their freedom; (viii) the role of a judge is not just to deliver what is already there but it is also constitutive and creative and goes far beyond a mechanical interpretation of pre-existing law, extending to direct or indirect law-making in the several ways mentioned in the judgment.

Moreover, there are eloquent passages about the inherent common law power of the High Court. The inherent powers are a separate and distinct source of jurisdiction. They are independent of any enabling statute passed by legislature. On Malaysia Day when the High Court came into existence by virtue of Article 121, “they came invested with a reserve fund of powers necessary to fulfil their function as superior court of Malaysia”.

In addition, separation of power also gives us clear and certain separation of interest within three branches of government because everyone has their specific interest no matter what it is and how it is. However, the doctrine only such a believer in terms of implementation it just as rhetoric passage. In Malaysia, for instance, the judiciary may declare void an executive act or an Act of Parliament if either violates the Constitution but judicial appointments to the superior courts are made by executive branch and parliament may change the law so that there is a system of indirect check on judicial power. The executive, on the other hand, is not unfettered because in theory, it is controlled by parliament to which it is answerable. Hence, the system of separating governmental powers together with inter branch checking can effectively prevent the concentration of power in one party.

Separation of power as practised in Malaysia is closer to the British rather than the American model in that executive-legislative power is not separated. This fusion of legislative and executive function is inherent in the Westminster style of parliamentary government. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is ceremonial executive is an integral part of the parliament. The cabinet appointed by the King and in whose hands the real authority rests, consists of Ministers who required by the Constitution to be members of either House of Parliament. It is collectively responsible to the Parliament. In other word, the executive arm of government is an integral part of legislature. In the year 1988 the doctrine of separation of power has been diminished since its unfortunate confrontation when Prime Minister on that time Dr Mahathir Mohamad who saw the executive as the legitimate representative of the popular will expressed through its election and control of Parliament. He resented judicial pronouncements that challenged its legislative or executive acts. In 1988, a series of judicial decisions that went against the government so irritated and provoked the Prime Minister that he lashed out with the remarks that judges described as “fiercely independent” were “indirectly involved in opposition politics”. No doubt the final straw broke the camel’s back was the judicial declaration that UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), the Prime Minister’s political party which existed since 1946 was in breach of the law and had become unlawful. The prime minister moved swiftly to contain what he perceived as likely damage to the credibility of his government. It eventually led to the dismissal of the Lord President and two superior court judges. It gives a shock around the country and this episode was described by retired judge, who presided in the UMNO case, as a “comedy of errors”. The concept constitutionalisms which include rule of law necessarily include judicial independence and its power to declare invalid any law or executive act which is repugnant to the constitution. This concept of constitutionalism had been seen as not practice here because we do not uphold rule of law which is one of the core value in constitutionalism.

In conclusion, separation of powers has again become a current issue of some controversy concerning debates about Judicial independence and political efforts to increase the accountability of judges for the quality of their work, avoiding conflicts of interest, and charges that some judges allegedly disregard procedural rules, statutes, and higher court precedents. It is said on one side of this debate that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches. That is, no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions) but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. That is, it is argued that "checks and balances" apply to the Judicial Branch as well as to the other branches. It is said on the other side of this debate that separation of powers means that the Judiciary is independent and untouchable within the Judiciaries' sphere. In this view, separation of powers means that the Judiciary alone holds all powers relative to the Judicial function and the Legislative and Executive Branches may not interfere in any aspect of the Judicial Branch. It can be argued that there is no natural distinction between executive and legislative forms of government which is legislation that is passed must always be executed, and much executive action requires new laws. As such, the division can be said to be an artificial one. This is borne out by the fact that there is currently no constitutional system which has a complete separation of powers where there is a distribution of the three functions among three independent organs with no overlapping or cross-coordination. Sometimes systems with clearly defined separation of powers are difficult for the average person to understand, resulting in a failure of political process and leading to a lack of engagement. Proponents of parliamentary systems claim that they make it easier to understand how "politics is done" by providing a clearer view of who does what, who is responsible for what, and who is to blame?

---

that's me..!!

salam, tibe2 jer aku rase terpanggil nk tulis blog.. utk pengetahuan korang aku ad sekelumit rase kesal cz bdk2 skrang nie mcm duk dlm dunia dorang jer.aku akn be honest n bg view yg fair utk semua k.. one more aku xduk mane2 dlm party politic cz im think they all suck, nothing much 2 say korang bace la blog2 yg aku akn post.. Most important here IM NOT RACIST.. selamat..