Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2018-07-16 18:10:42
Document Index: 648894483

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 18', 'art 19', 'art 148', 'art 48', 'art 48', 'art 48', 'art 45', 'arts 48', 'art 48', 'art 50', 'art 39', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63']

The position of the president from 1965 to 1990 was essentially the same as that of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in Malaysia. The President was a constitutional Head Of State with vry little discretionary powers, save in the appointment of the Prime Minister and the dissolution of the Parliament at the request of the Prime Minister. This was changed with the passing the amendments to the constitution in January 1991 which had the effect of turning the office of the President into an elected one. The elected President in Singapore possesses substantial powers in certain matters, but remain a titular chief executive in countries such as United States and the Philippines. Most of the President’s powers are negative rather then positive ones. The President’s main power comes from his constitutional right to refuse to give his assent on key issues and appointments in the public service. He has no constitutional power to initiate or implement his own policies. For a more extensive discussion on his role, see “elected Presidency in Singapore" below.
This is the basic difference between the British system and ours. In a country with a written constitution, the constitution is supreme, and the courts must interpret the provision of the document from the words alone, without importing extraneous rules of law, practise or convention. In the case that follow, we examine 2 key questions: first, what discretionary powers does the Head Of State possess? The second question pertains specifically to Malaysia; does the Yang di-Pertuan Agong possesses prerogative powers outside the Constitution? The following cases necessarily deal with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s powers under the Federal Constitution. In the case of Singapore;s Elected President, see the section on “The Elected Presidency In Singapore"
It is accepted that when anyone is given the absolute discretion to decide upon certain matters, it Is not the function of the court to enquire as to how the person exercise his discretion on the matterss and the factors he took into consideration in exercising such a discretion. See Tun Datu Hj Mustapha Bin Datu Harun v Tun Datuk Hj Mohamed Adnan Robert, Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sabah and Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan (No2) [1986] 2 MLJ 420. The subjective determination of the person is non-justiciable. However, considering the matters contained in this application of the plaintiff as a whole, those matters involved various aspect which are not all concerning the issue of questioning the exercise of the discretion of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri Sabah given by the Sabah Constitution.
In August 1990, the government issued a second White Paper on the Elected President. This was presented to Parliament on 27 August 1990. At the same time, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Bill was issued. The proposals of the first White Paper were, at last, specifically spelt out.
In addition to these changes, others provisions relating to the qualification and disqualification of candidates, terms of office, specific government statutory boards and companies to be included in the President’s powers were specifically spelt out.
The Bill And The Select Committee’s Report
The public debate ensued after the Bill and second White Paper were issued was unprecedented in its volume and diversity. The bill went before the Select Committee which received 40 representations.
The Report of the Select Committee and its proposals for amendments were presented to Parliament on 18 December 1990, and a month later, the Bill was passed into law.
Most of the proposals and recommendations of the Select Committee were accepted. Some notable features of the amendments are as follows:
A Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) is established under the new art 18. Its main function is to ensure that candidates for the office of President comply with the requirements under art 19.
The President is entitled to any information concerning the government which is available to the Cabinet; and statutory board or government company under his purview.
The President may also withhold his assent to any Bill which ‘ provides, directly or indirectly, for the circumvention or curtailment of the discretionary powers conferred upon him by this Constitution.
Where the President withholds his assent under art 148A, contrary to the advice of CPA, ‘ Parliament may by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds’ majority overrule the decision of the President.
Structure and Composition of the Legislative Body
Malaysia has a bicameral legislature, consisting of the Dewan Negara as the upper house and the Dewan Rakyat as the lower house. Theoretically, they may be approximated to the House of Lords and the House of Commons in England respectively. The Dewan Negara sometimes referred to as the Senate, and its members as Senators. There are 69 Senators, 26 elected members and 43 members appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Each Senators holds office for a term of 3 years and is not permitted to hold office for more than 2 terms either continuously or otherwise. Every citizen who is resident in the Federation qualifies to be a Senator if he or she is not less than 30 years old, and is not disqualified under disqualifications under art 48.
As can be seen, most of the Senators are appointed on the advice of the Cabinet. Even among the State Senators, elections are indirect in that it is the State Assembly which votes them into office, rather than the voting population.
The Dewan Rakyat or House of Representatives is where the power of the legislature really resides. There are 172 members from the various states and 8 members from the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan. The age requirement for a member of Dewan Rakyat is lower –21 years, and the Federal Constitutions specifies that he or she, too must not be disqualified under art 48.
Singapore’s legislature is unicameral and presently comprises 83 seats. Unlike other unicameral legislatures, however, there are three different types of members and two types of constituencies. First, there is the ‘normal’ MP, who is elected either during the general elections or a by-election based on the first-past-the-post system of elections. These members actually serve their respective constituencies.
Article 39 also provides for the inclusion of up to 6 Non-Constituency MPs who are not directly elected into Parliament. These MPs are appointed from among the losing Opposition candidates which polled the highest votes and they do not serve any constituency. Given the overwhelming dominance of the rulling People’s Action Party, the Non-Constituency MP was introduced in 1984 to ensure that there is always Opposition element in Parliament. Finally there is the Nominated MP serves no constituency, and as the nomenclature implies, is not elected.
Under this system, the President of Singapore may declare any constituency a GRC and at least one of the 3 candidates in every group will be a person belonging to one of the racial minorities. During an election, the voter in the GRC casts his or her single vote for a team of MPs rather than a single MP. Under 1988 amendment, the original number of candidates in GRC was 3. This number was enlarged to between 3-4 just before 1991 general elections. Just prior to the 1997 elections, the number was increased yet again to accommodate up to 6 candidates per GRC. During that election, there were only 9 single-member constituencies left.
Membership, Qualifications and Disqualifications
As mentioned above, the qualifications for membership in the Parliaments of Malaysia and Singapore are very similar. Minor differences are that: first, there is a higher age requirement in respect of Senators in Malaysia, whereas such a requirement Is non-existent in the Singaporean context. Secondly, the candidate for Parliament in Singapore must ensure that his name appears on the current register of voters, and that he has been resident in Singapore for not less than 10 years. Thirdly, the Singaporean MP must ‘ be able with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in the proceedings of Parliament, to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write at least’ one of the official languages.
(2) Disqualifications
Again, the grounds for disqualification in the Malaysian art 48 are similar to those in art 45 of the Singapore Constitution. The main grounds for disqualification are: being found to be of unsound mind, being an undischarged bankrupt; holding an office of profit; having been nominated for election to Parliament and failing to lodge return of election expenses; conviction of offences carrying fines of up to M$2000 or terms of imprisonment amounting to not less than one year without receiving a free pardon; and voluntarily acquiring a foreign citizenship. The cases below deal mainly with the disqualification of MPs who have been convicted of offences which bring into operation arts 48 and 45 in Malaysia and Singapore respectively.
(a) Fan Yew Teng v Setia Ushah, Dewan Rakyat & Ors
The plaintiff was a member of Parliament. He was convicted in the High Court for an offence under the Sedition Act and fined $2000. He appealed to the Federal Court against the decision but before the appeal was resolved, he was informed by the first Defendant that he was disqualified as an MP under art 48(1)(e) of the Federal Constitution , and that his seat had therefore become vacant under art 50(1). Furthermore, the Secretary to the Election Commission directed that by-elections be proceeded with. He applied to the High Court for a declaration that his conviction did not automatically render his seat vacant, and also for a declaration that the Election Commission could not legally hold a by-election because no vacancy of seat had occurred in the relevant constituency.
Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore
Since Kevin Tan’s chapter was published several significant changes have been made to the Singapore Constitution. In respect of the legislature, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Act was passed to provide for the inclusion of Nominated Members in Singapore’s Parliament. In moving the amendment, First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong argued that the two Opposition MPs in Parliament ‘do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber’.
Under the amended art 39, a total of six Nominated Members may be appointed by the President. The candidates for the office of Nominated MP are nominated by a Special Select Committee of Parliament under the terms prescribed in the new Fourth Schedule to the Singapore Constitution.
In order that elected members of Parliament are able to perform their duties without harassment of undue influence from the public or the government, a special status carrying with it certain powers, privileges and immunities is accorded to them. In England, parliamentary privilege began as a means of ensuring to the Crown the unhampered attendance of its servants when engaged in public affairs. In the early days, the Crown was responsible for enforcing these privileges and immunities, but during the reign of King Henry VIII, the House of Commons was permitted to assume this jurisdiction. Since then, these privileges and immunities have also served to enhance the prestige of Parliament and its members.
On a more practical level, privileges and immunities are today used to ensure that elected Members of Parliament are not unduly influenced, harassed or intimidated. They serve to protect MPs from repressive measures or legal actions which may be taken by governments or private individuals. Powers accorded to members also enable them to summon witnesses,experts and other persons, call for records or papers and so on, to assist them in their Committee work. Since Parliament is the keeper of its own house and rules, it reserves to itself the right to punish recalcitrant members who abuse their parliamentary privileges.
In Malaysia, parliamentary privileges are constitutionally entrenched in art 63 which provides that: (a) the validity of proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee shall not be questioned in any court; (b) no person shall be liable to any proceedings of parliament; and (c) no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of parliament. Exceptions to these privileges are made under art 63(4) which states that a person may be liable to proceedings if he or she has been charged with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948.
This last exception is designed to control discussion of sensitive issues like national language, minority rights and status and position of the Malay rulers. It would appear, however, that some Malaysian politicians are having second thoughts about these restrictions after alleged Royal involvement in politics during the 1990 General Elections.At the UMNO Assembly in December 1990, the Deputy Home Minister Datuk Megat Junid Megat Ayob said that the government would amend the Sedition Act 1948 relating to the position of the rulers if it was found necessary.
In addition to art 63, there is the Houses of Parliament Ordinance 1952 which remains in force and has not been modified recently.
The position in Singapore is slightly different. Article 63 provides that the legislature may by law ‘determine and regulate the privileges, immunities or powers of Parliament’. The main privileges and immunities pertain to the freedom of speech and immunity from arrest in certain cases. Most of the rules are to be found in the Parliament Act.
The most important provisions in the Singapore Act provide the parliamentarian the rights of freedom from arrest (s 10); freedom of speech and debate (s 5), and privilege for parliamentary proceedings (ss 7 and 8)
In the event that a parliamentarian abuses the privileges accorded to him, he may be punished for contempt of Parliament. The power to punish for contempt has existed and been exercised since the 16th century. It is a judicial, rather than a legislative power and this power is inherent in the Houses of the British Parliament. This is because they were part of High Court of Parliament and have therefore been regarded as superior courts. This power has been affirmed by the Singapore Court of Appeal in JB Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General of Singapore.
All Answers ltd, 'Executive Branch Of Government' (Lawteacher.net, July 2018) <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1> accessed 16 July 2018
Teacher, Law. (November 2013). Executive Branch Of Government. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1
"Executive Branch Of Government." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 07 2018 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Executive Branch Of Government." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 16 July 2018. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Executive Branch Of Government. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 16 July 2018].
LawTeacher. Executive Branch Of Government [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 16 July 2018]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1.
{{cite web|last=Teacher |first=Law |url=https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/executive-branch-of-government-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1 |title=Executive Branch Of Government |publisher=LawTeacher.net |date=November 2013 |accessdate=16 July 2018 |location=Nottingham, UK}}