The rule of law is considered to be an essential principle in administering an affective

government whereby it promotes equality for all citizens regardless of who they are. This is because
it safeguards the people’s fundamental rights, impose limitations to the government and practices
the supremacy of the law. Without the rule of law, a country may be governed by political powers
that have absolute control over the administration of the country without considering the rights of
the citizen. The rule of law promotes accountability of the law where it provides jurisdiction for
different matters and giving legal remedies for the citizen where there has been a conflict between
citizens and also the governments and to regulate disputes. The rule of law is also important in
regulating the power invested on the government.

The Rule of law is defined as a system, method, agency, practise, or custom that promotes
the equality before the law of all people, secures a non-arbitrary form of government, and prohibits
the arbitrary use of power. It generally means that rule of law is free from arbitrary form of
government and protects the fundamental rights of the citizen by applying supremacy of the law.
The Rule by law on the other hand is defined as the government having absolute power and may
decide in whatever way they want to attain compliance for their unjust law. it is the rule that is laid
down by the supremacy of the government rather than the supremacy of the law.

The first comparison that can be made between the rule of law and the rule by law is
regarding the control of arbitrary power. This is in accordance with the principle laid out by dicey
where no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or in goods except for a
distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the
land. This shows that the rule of law must applies supremacy of the law where it limits the power of
the government to not act according to their own whim. This also shows that the rule of law is free
from any form of arbitrariness where the government cannot act as they please compared to the
rule by law. For example, in Malaysia, section 7(1) of the federal constitution provides that no
person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done
or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at
the time it was committed. This article shows how the people is ruled by law and not ruled by the
power of the government. In the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ismail where the defendant
was charge for drug trafficking which was punishable by death and during his trial, the penalties was
amended to giving mandatory death penalty for the offence. However, the court was in favour with
the defendant where they held no one should suffer higher punishment for an offence than what
have been prescribed by the law as the enactment was held after the defendant committed the
offence. This shows the supremacy of the constitution where the government shall not act
inconsistent with the law. In the case of Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia (1976) where Lord
President Tun Suffian affirmed that the supremacy of parliament does not apply in Malaysia as the
constitution limited the power of the parliament and they are prohibited to make law as they
pleased1 Besides that, Malaysia also applies the rule of law where the federal constitution is the
supreme law of the land and any other law passed after Merdeka day which is inconsistent with the
constitution shall to extent be void under section 4(1) of the federal constitution. Article 162(6) of
the constitution also provides that court may modify law before the Merdeka Day which also follow
the provision of the constitution. Besides that, Malaysia also practices judicial review where superior
court has the power to question regarding the validity of the law passed by the parliament and the
executive. This means that the constitution applies the rule by law by ensuring the power of the
parliament and the cabinet ministers is limited through the judiciary. Article 128 gives power to the
Federal Court to determine the law passed by parliament whether it is ultra-vires with the

1
Shad Saleem, Our Constitution (Selangor Darul Ehsan: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019)
constitution or not. However, this may not be entirely true. In the case of Loh Kooi Choon v.
Government of Malaysia, the plaintiff was detained under the Restricted Residence
Enactment 1933 by the police and claim that his right in article 5(4) was
infringed. However, the claim was rejected because the police acted with a
warrant given by a competent authority and article 5(4) was amended
providing that the habeas corpus shall not apply for citizen under a restricted
residence. In the case of Phang Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor, [15] where the
Federal Court of Malaysia came to a decision that ‘the rule of harmonious
construction in construing Article 4 & Article 159 enables them to hold that
Acts of Parliament made in accordance with the conditions set out in art 159
are valid even if inconsistent with the Constitution. This shows how the
parliament in Malaysia does not practices rule of law fully as they can be
inconsistent with the supreme law of the land. apart from that, rule by law is an
entirely different concept from rule of law as it exercises arbitrariness which constitute the leader of
a country not answerable under the law. for example, in the North Korea where they practice
dictatorship government, illustrates the concept of rule by law where the leader of the country is not
answerable to the law which to the extent kill the people who demand more from their government.
An Amnesty International study reported that because they disagreed with the government,
hundreds of thousands of people were placed in prison and labour camps 2. This is mainly because
the leader of the government uses force and arbitrary power where they are not answerable to the
law or the citizen.

Furthermore, the second differences between the rule of law and the rule by law is
regarding equality before the law. Another principle that dicey has given according to his theory of
rule of law is that no man is above the law no matter what position, rank or condition and individual
may be, he is subjected to the ordinary law of the country and be bounded to the jurisdiction of the
ordinary tribunals. This shows that even the Prime Minister who is the leader of the country
themselves shall be bound and become subject to the law as well. Neither the government or its
officials are regarded as having special powers, privileges, immunity or exemption from the law. If
there is a breach of law, they should also be treated the same as normal citizen. This can be shown
through the case of Mark Koding v Public Prosecutor [1982] where the member of the parliament
was guilty for uttering seditious word in parliament and was charge under section 4(1) of the
Sedition Act (1982). There is also equality before the law, where the parliament when there is a
practice of judicial review where the superior court has the power to validate the constitutionality of
the executives and the legislatives actions 3. This is in accordance with section 4(1), 4(3), 4(4), 128(1)
and 128(2) of the federal constitution. This can be seen through the case of Mamat Daud v
Government of Malaysia (1988) where section 298A of the federal penal code was held to be
tresspass the state list because Islamic crimes is under the jurisdiction of the state. Besides, the
nominal executive which is the YDPA and the ruler of the state can also be held for offence and shall
be brought to the court for legal proceedings. Article 128(3) povides that The Special Court shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to try all offences committed in the Federation by the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong or the Ruler of a State and all civil cases by or against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Ruler
of a State notwithstanding where the cause of action arose. This shows how the Malay Rulers are
also bound to follow the law whether civil and criminal law no matter what position someone may
be. However, the government does enjoy some privileges where the limitation to sue the
2
BBC, North Korea: Everything you need to know about the country, BBC Newsround. April,27, 2020,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20692214
3
Shad Saleem, Our Constitution
government under contract and tort is reduced to 36 month when originally the limitation was 6
years and where the Official Secrets Act 1972 supressed the facts of their cases, some remedies are
not available against them and so on 4. The Rule by law on the other hand, practices inequality
where the ruler of a country is not bound by the law as he is above the law. The ruler of the country
has unlimited power over a state. For example, countries like Saudi Arabia exercise rule by law
where the Sultan practices absolute monarchy and their word is the law of the country. Rule by law
can be seen in Malaysia itself where parliament and the rulers enjoys some privileges in the court
proceedings including the special court.

The third distinction between the rule of law and the rule by law is regarding the protection
of human rights which are the fundamental rights of the citizen. Dicey also provides that a rule of
law must practice the rights of the people which he believed is secured through common law rather
than a formal bills of rights. For example, In Malaysia, the application of rule of law can be seen
through the federal constitutions where it protects the fundamental liberties of the people. Article 5
until article 13 of the federal constitution provides and also protects the fundamental rights and
liberties of the citizen for their welfare and happiness.it is also enforced through the court and
judicial precedent. Under article 4(1) of the constitution the parliament and the ministers shall not
violates the rights conferred in the constitution. Among the provisions are article 10 of the federal
constitution where citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom to
assembly peacefully without arms and freedom to form association. This can be illustrated through
the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh [1992] where the court held a
restriction can be challenged if it directly affects such fundamental rights or making the practice of
such right to be ineffective and illusory which in this case article 10. However, these rights are not
absolute as they have certain limitations. there are situations where the rights of the citizen are not
properly safeguarded. For example, in the case of Assa Singh v. Menteri Besar of Johor where the
plaintiff was forced to transfer to another districts to preserve security and public order and that the
order infringes his freedom of movement and his personal liberty under article 5 of the federal
constitution. The court held that the Restricted Residence Enactment 1933 did infringes the
plaintiff’s right but did not held the law as unconstitutional on the ground that it is permitted under
section 162(6). The rule by law on the other hand is contrary with the rule of law where the law-
making authority will enact laws without upholding legal morality or justice on the part of the
citizen’s right. For example, In Xinjiang China, authorities practice the concept of rule by law where
Uighurs, Kazakhs and other primarily Muslim ethnic groups to excessive control, arbitrary
imprisonment and forced indoctrination. Many religious figures, intellectuals and academics were
detained in Xinjiang merely for exercising their rights to freedom of religion and expression. Not only
the rights of the citizen are deprived but they are also being abused by the government. Therefore,
rule of law protects the human rights under the constitution while rule by law does not provide
protection against the rights of the citizen.

Last not but least, the difference between the rule of law and the rule by law is regarding the
protection of socio-economic rights. In the concept of rule of law, the protection of human rights is
not sufficient as it must be accompanied with socio-economic rights along with the protection and
rights given to the marginalised and minority groups in a country. For example, according to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 7 and article 8(1) of the Malaysian Constitution
provides that all person is equal before the law and are entitled to the protection of the law 5. Rule of
4
Shad Saleem, Our constitution
5
Shad Saleem, Our Constitution
law can also be illustrated through an indian case, Baker v Carr (1962) where it held that it is
unconstitutional to permit the traditional practice of rural electoral districts to have smaller number
of voters than the urban districts. This means that the marginalised group should also enjoy the
same rights as normal citizen and should not be treated differently. Malaysia also Article 8(2) of the
federal constitution in Malaysia also provides there will be no discrimination against a citizen just
because of their religion, race, sex, descent and place of birth. Article 8(5)(3) of the federal
constitution further provides that this right includes the protection and advancement of the
aboriginal people in Malaysia and the allocation of the aborigines to a reasonable proportion of
public services. Article 45(2) also gives the right to the aborigine people by giving authorities to
senators to represent the interests of aborigines as well. Besides that, there is also special privileges
provided by the constitution such as the special position of malays and natives Sabah Sarawak that is
safeguarded under article 153. Besides that, the existence of regulations such as the Aboriginal
Peoples Act 1954 also gives protection to the marginalised group in malaysia. There is also a case
where the federal government Filed sue the government of Kelantan for failing to protect its
indigenous people’s land rights. It also seeks legal recognition of the property rights of Temiar Orang
Asli and injunctions to prohibit private companies from occupying and damaging their land. Article
153 of the Federation also give responsibility to the YDPA to safeguard the special position of the
malay people and also the native of Sabah Sarawak in terms of public services position, scholarship,
exhibitions, educational or training privileges, special facilities and trading business. However, the
YDPA also holds the responsibility to safeguards the rights of other communities. On the other
hand, the rule by law is when the socio-economic rights of the people are being neglected and the
rates of poverty is untreatable. For example, in Burma which is a country that prioritized military
expenditure rather than the welfare of the citizen. As a result, the fundamental economic and social
rights are systematically denied to the people of Burma, whether it be access to employment, health
care, education or other basic needs. this is what happens when a government applies arbitrary
powers without considering the fundamental rights of the citizen. This happens mainly because of
the government where they destroy the agriculture commodities that have been supplying foods for
the citizen, forcing them to work far from home without giving compensation and many more 6

In conclusion, the rule of law is very important in maintaining a stable, harmonious and organised
country where it upholds the supremacy of the law. it is also to avoid arbitrary power from the
government where there is a separate institutions to practice check and balance between each
other. However, it is almost impossible for a country to fully adopt the concept of the rule of law.
this is because despite on having a supremacy of the constitution, it does not clearly provide the
requirement for a rule of law to be adopted in a country. This can be seen through the constitution
of Malaysia where article 150 allows the YDPA to issue a proclamation of emergency where the
security or the economic life or the public order in Malaysia is threaten. During an emergency, the
parliament may anytime make law even though it is inconsistent with the federal constitution
including the fundamental liberties of the citizen, judicial review is unattainable, the requirement for
two thirds majority Is unneeded and so on. Therefore, the power of the judiciary is very important
on playing the role as maintaining and improving the practice of rule of law in a country to avoid
arbitrary power which is the fundamental concept of the rule by law.

6
Social Watch, Basic Economic Social Rights Denied, Social Watch poverty eradication and gender justice,
https://www.socialwatch.org/node/11016
B) the rule of law is an essential ingredients in administrating a country that is free from
arbitrary power and making sure that the rights of the citizen is safeguarded under a constitution.
According to the general definition laid out by the supreme court of Canada, the rule of law is a rule
that protects the people from arbitrary power by providing a stable, predictable and organised
society in regulating their affairs7. It also ensures that no one is above the law. There are three
concept under the principle of rule of law by Dicey which are the supremacy of regular law over
arbitrary power, equality of all people under the law and enforcement of regular courts to protects
the rights of the liberty of the citizen.

There are many ways on how rule of laws can improve the decision of three branches of the
government in Malaysia and one of them is through the doctrine of separation of power. The
concept of separation of powers is the basis of a democratic country according to the rule of law 8
where it protects the country from arbitrary rules and exercise check and balance between the
governments. The separation of powers is a constitutional concept adopted to ensure that the three
main state institutions, which are the legislative, executive and judiciary, are not concentrated in a
single agency, whether in duties, personnel or powers. According to the Baron De Montesquieiu’s
theory, the doctrine of separation of power is strict as the executive, the judiciary and legislature are
a separate branch and their functions must not overlap with each other. However, based on the
James Madison Theory, the three separate power must practice check and balance as a mechanism
to avoid one government having too much power which eventually leads to arbitrariness. According
to the case of Public Prosecutor v Kok Wah Kuan (2008), the separation of power is the heart and
soul of the constitution and an imperfect version of the check and balance of separation of power is
applied in Malaysia9. The doctrine of separation of power have been clearly displayed in article 121
regarding the judicial power, article 44 regarding the constitution of parliament and the executive
authority in article 39 of the Federal Constitution.

Because of the cabinet type of government in Malaysia, there is no clear separation of

power between the executive and the legislature where the YDPA is required in parliament and in
both house of parliament also consist of the cabinet and the Prime Minister. In article 43(2)(a) in the
Federal Constitution stated that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri
(Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet, a member of the House of Representatives who in his
judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House. Article
43(2)(b) also provides that the YDPA shall appoint other Menteri (Ministers) on the advice of the
Prime Minister, from among the members of either House of Parliament. The YDPA also is required
in the decision making where the Bill that has been passed by both houses, is presented to the YDPA

7
Barbara Billingsley, The Rule of Law: What is it? Why should we care?, Law Now,
https://www.lawnow.org/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-why-should-we-care/
8
Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Public perception crucial to judicial independence, Malaysian Bar Badan Peguam
Malaysia, https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/legal-and-general-news/members-opinions/
comment-judges-and-accountability
9
Shad Saleem, Our constitution
for his assent under article 66(4) of the Federal Constitution. regardless of the overlapping functions
between both branches, the rule of law has improved the executive government through the vote of
no confidence by the Dewan Rakyat. In the case where the legislature no longer believes that the
Prime minister is fit be in the position as the ruler of the country, they may vote for no confidence.
This illustrates the mechanism of check and balance between the legislature and the executive.
Section 43(4) of the Federal Constitution provides If the Prime Minister ceases to command the
confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his
request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the
resignation of the Cabinet. This means that the Prime Ministers and the government shall not be
permanent for their position when they are not deemed fit to be put in that position. According to
Assoc Prof Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz who is a constitutional expert, The motion for no confidence can
be made by the Dewan Rakyat on the ground that the prime minister was not eligible to hold the
post due to his inability to perform his duties, where he make decisions that are detrimental or
adversely affect the country or due to unusual circumstances such as switching parties. For example,
there has been a debate in Dewan rakyat for 27 days regarding the vote of no confidence against
Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin 10. Besides that, under article 43(3) where it provides that
the cabinet shall shall be collectively responsible to parliament shows that the Ministers are
answerable to the parliament. This can be shown during sessions of question time and debates in
parliamentary proceedings. The YDPA also has the power to dissolve parliament from their position
under the advice of the Prime Minister under article 55(2). Despite of the check and balance
between this two branches, there many situations where the executive dominates the law making
process especially under article 80(1) of constitution where it provides the executive authority of the
Federation extends to all matters with respect to which Parliament may make laws, and the
executive authority of a State to all matters with respect to which the Legislature of that State may
make laws. The executive also dominates the legislative process through debates and eventually
them leading the legislature branch.

For the relationship between the legislative body and the judiciary, separation of law is applied
where the judges are barred from becoming a member in the parliaments as judges must be
separated and neutral from politics. Besides that, separation of power is also applied in Malaysia
where the parliament are restricted from discussing regarding the conduct of the superior court.
article 127 of the Federal Constitution provides that the conduct of a judge of the Federal Court, the
Court of Appeal or a High Court shall not be discussed in either House of Parliament except on a
substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one quarter of the total number
of members of that House, and shall not be discussed in the Legislative Assembly of any State. This
shows that legislature cannot be involved in matters relating to judiciary. Not just the legislature but
the judiciary is also restricted from questioning the validity of any proceedings in parliament or the
legislative assembly. This is proven in article 63 which provides the privileges of the parliament and
article 72 which provides privileges for legislative assembly in any proceedings. However, there is a
violation pf separation of power where the common law practices judicial precedent as part of the
law of a country. This means that the judiciary also plays the role of parliament to make laws for the
country which is also binding for the future cases. In terms of the relationship between the judiciary
and the executive, there is a separation of power applied where the judiciary is also barred from the
executive and the executive shall not be a member of the executive. However, there is a violation in
this concept as the YDPA on the advice of the Prime Minister is involved in the judiciary matters

10
Malay Mail, what you need to know about motion of no-confidence against Muhyiddin, Malay Mail,
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/10/20/what-you-need-to-know-about-motion-of-no-
confidence/1914689
where they will appoint judges in superior court after the conference of rulers according to article
112B of the Federal Constitution. In the case of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor [2000]
clearly illustrates that the actual appointing authority is the Prime Minister. Besides that, the
executive also intervenes with the functions of judiciary where article 42 provides that The Yang di-
Pertuan Agong has power to grant pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all offences which
have been tried by court-martial and all offences committed in the Federal Territories of Kuala
Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya; and the Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State has power to grant
pardons, reprieves and respites in respect of all other offences committed in his State. Therefore,
the executives not only dominating the legislature branches but it also has the power in judiciary.
Regardless, the rule of law does help in avoiding the abuse of power by separating the relationship
between the branches of government.

Furthermore, Under the rule of law, separation of power also improves the government by
adopting independent judiciary. The doctrine of separation of power is related with the concept of
independence judiciary where the superior court Is independent from the executive and the
legislature in order to avoid arbitrary and dictatorship in the government 11. according to the case of
Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Anor [2017] where the judge stated
that the power of judiciary of the court resides in judiciary and no one else. Judges should be
independent when making their decision without any influences from external factors including
other institutions. it has the responsibility to protect the constitutionality of the law where both of
the branches shall not violate the supremacy of the law and to safeguards the fundamental liberties
and the rights of the citizen. The first power that the judiciary holds in controlling the power of the
executive and the legislature is through judicial review. The superior courts in Malaysia may validate
the legality of the act passed by the parliament on the ground that is unconstitutional with the
provision provided in the Federal Constitution and is ultra-vires with section 4(1) of the Federal
Constitution. it provides that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law
passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be void. Article 128 gives power to the Federal Court to practice check and balance by
determining the law passed by parliament or legislature in the state whether it is unconstitutional
with the law. For example, in the case of Mamat Daud v Government of Malaysia (1988), the court
held that the parliament did not have power to make law regarding Islamic matters as it belong to
the jurisdiction of the state and therefore was held unconstitutional. Besides that, the judiciary also
has power to validate the legislature and the executive in terms of contempt of the court. under
article 126, the court has the power to punish anyone who interferes with the administration of
justice or challenges dignity or independence of the court whether through word or deed. This can
be illustrated in Public Prosecutor v Datuk Harun bin Haji Idris[1976] where the court stated that
in preserving the balance between individuals and between the state and the citizen, the
court stands as an arbiter and would not hesitate to denounce or strike down any statutory
sanctuary for bureaucratic discrimination, any legislative refuge for the exercise of naked
arbitrary power in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution and any executive
action for the purpose of execution 12. Besides the independency of the judiciary can also be

11
Law teacher, An Independence Judiciary and Separation of Powers, Law teacher, June 25, 2019
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/a-independence-judiciary-and-separation-of-
powers-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=The%20concept%20of%20%E2%80%9Cindependence
%20judiciary,doctrine%20of%20separation%20of%20powers.&text=Judges%20is%20the%20core%20of,their
%20roles%20in%20English%20judiciary.
12
Law teacher, Upholding Judiciary Independence through the Federal Constitution , Law teacher, August 6,
2019, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/upholding-judiciary-independence-
seen through the security of tenure. Under the judiciary, the superior court judges have
permanency in their tenure where they cannot be dismissed except for actions considered
unfit for office by statute, and even then, it must be given by a special procedure by law.
Under article 125(3), the judge cannot be dismissed unless based on the recommendation of
the tribunal of not less than five local or commonwealth judge. This obviously shows
independency in judiciary where the executive and the legislature shall not interfere with the
dismissal of the judge but only be determined according to the investigation and advice
made by other judges. However, there are situations where the independency of the judiciary
is being threated by other institutions of the government.

Next, the rule of law improves the decision of the 3 branches of government by
safeguarding the fundamental liberties of the citizen. In the federal constitution, it had
provided political civil, cultural and economic rights to the citizen and seeks to solve the
conflict between the right of the state and the right of the citizen. Besides that, there is also
protection from ordinary law for example the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act
that protects the citizen from false imprisonment and right to bail and many more. Article 5
until 13 protect the rights of the citizen and One of the example of the fundamental liberties
provided in the constitution is right to be informed on the ground of arrest under article 5(3)
and the right to be consulted with a legal practitioner of their choice to defend themselves.
This is also in alliance with the concept of natural justice where it involves the legal morality
of the law. For example, in the case of Chong Kim Loy v Timbalan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam
Negeri [1989] where it held that oral communication on the ground of the arrest is enough
as long as the arrestee understands the reason for the arrest. In the case of Ooi Ah Phua v
Officer in charge of Criminal Investigation also held that a delay of 10 days between the
arrest of the citizen and the consultation of the council is not unconstitutional. Therefore, this
shows that, the legislature may not legislate laws that violates the fundamental rights of the
citizen or else be void under article 4(1) of the constitution. In the case of Dewan Undangan
Negeri v Nordin Saleh also shows protections on the right conferred on the citizen for
freedom to association under article 10(2) where it held that restrictions can be challenged
on the ground that it makes the practice of such rights to become in affective and illusory. In
this case it illustrates that citizens not only have the right to form an association but also to
resign from an association. Besides the rights laid out in article 5 until 13, there are also other
rights given to the citizen in Malaysia such as the right to vote in general election. Article
55(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that whenever Parliament is dissolved a general
election shall be held within sixty days from the date of the dissolution and Parliament shall
be summoned to meet on a date not later than one hundred and twenty days from that
date. Article 119 also provides the qualifications for voters. This shows that, the citizen also
has some sense of participation in the government as they can vote people who they prefer
to rule the country. However, the rights conferred on the citizen also has their own
limitations in the constitution. For example, article 10(2) of the federal constitution also gives
the power to the parliament to impose restriction regarding the freedom of speech,
assembly and expression where it deems necessary or expedient for the security of the
federation. Ordinary law such as the Sedition Act to restricts the freedom of expression of

malaysia-judicial-power.php
the citizen when it deems sensitive for example relating to race, royalty, religion and so on.
Furthermore, the citizens right one in another is protected by the amendment procedure of
the constitution whereby under article 159, it requires of not less two thirds majority from
the member of the House to amend the constitution and be assented and passed to the
YDPA. This means that it is not easy to amend the constitution which also upholds the
protection of the citizen’s right from being easily taken. However, during emergency the
parliament may enact laws that are inconsistent with the constiutiton under article 150 of the
Federal Constitution.

In conclusion, the rule of law does improve the decision of the three branches in Malaysian
government which are legislature, executives and the judiciary. It improves the legislature and
executives by prioritizing the supremacy of the law and equality before the law which makes the
power of law makers in a country become limited from arbitrary power. It also promotes the
independence of judiciary where they are free from the influence of other branches to interpret and
apply the law and having power to check and balance other institutions through judicial review and
contempt of court. They can also run their duty without fear and hesitant to uphold the law.
However, the rule of law in Malaysia should be stricter to avoid complete arbitrary power of the
government by practicing proper check and balance between the three institutions and the judiciary
must serve proper justice for the citizen.
REFERENCES
Billingsley, B. (2002, April 1). The Rule of Law: What is it? Why should we care? Retrieved from
LawNow relating law to life of Canada: https://www.lawnow.org/the-rule-of-law-what-is-it-
why-should-we-care/

Faruqi, S. S. (2019). Our Constitution. Selangor Darul Ehsan: SWEET & MAXWELL.

Mail, M. (2020, October 20). What you need to know about motion of no-confidence against
Muhyiddin. Retrieved from Malay Mail:
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/10/20/what-you-need-to-know-about-
motion-of-no-confidence/1914689

North Korea: Everything you need to know about the country. (2020, April 27). Retrieved from BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20692214

Public perception crucial to judicial independence. (2006, March 11). Retrieved from Malaysian Bar
Badan Peguam Malaysia : https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/legal-and-
general-news/members-opinions/comment-judges-and-accountability

Teacher, L. (2019, June 25). Law teacher Free Law Study Resources. Retrieved from Law Teacher:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/a-independence-judiciary-
and-separation-of-powers-administrative-law-essay.php#:~:text=The%20concept%20of
%20%E2%80%9Cindependence%20judiciary,doctrine%20of%20separation%20of
%20powers.&text=Judg

Teacher, L. (2019, August 6). Law Teacher Free Law Study Resources. Retrieved from Law Teacher:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/upholding-judiciary-
independence-malaysia-judicial-power.php

watch, s. (n.d.). BASIC ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS DENIED. Retrieved from SOCIAL WATCH
poverty eradication and gender justice: https://www.socialwatch.org/node/11016

Federal constitution