The Possibility of Originalism in Malaysia
Abstract
This paper highlights the feasibility of originalism as a constitutional interpretive approach in Malaysia. A doctrinal method through case analysis along with comparative method is applied in this paper. Originalism finds its strength in stability of language through fidelity of the text. This is pertinent in increasing the possibility of coherence and mitigating arbitrariness amidst the contemporary challenges arising from rapid change of values. Through illustration of cases, this paper suggests that originalism may have been applied in the past. This paper also proposes some supporting measures to optimize the effectiveness of originalism in interpreting the Federal Constitution by the Malaysian Judiciary. The author concludes that originalism has a place in Malaysia and in fact, serves a very important role to preserve the country’s traditional values and traditional elements through fidelity to the text.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Al-Attas, S.M.N. (2014). Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam: An Exposition of the Fundamental Elements of the Worldview of Islam. Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Bari, A. A. (2000). Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Atiqurrahman, 2 Malayan Law Journal, MLJ cxxxiii.
Baker, T. E. (2004). Constitutional Theory in a Nutshell. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 13(1), 57-123.
Barnett, R. E. (2013). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. United States: Princeton University Press.
Berger, R. (1990). Original Intent and Boris Bittker. Indiana Law Journal, 66(3), 723-755.
Bork, R. H. (1971). Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems. Indiana Law Journal, 47, 1-35.
Bork, R. H. (1986). The Constitution, Original Intent, and Economic Rights. San Diego Law Review, 23, 823-832.
Bork, R. H. (1985). Styles in Constitutional Interpretation. Texas Law Journal, 26.
Bork, R. H. (1984). Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Choo, K.S. (2018). Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Constitution of the Federal Constitution: An Originalism Perspective https://www.jac.gov.my/spk/images/stories/4_penerbitan/journal_malaysian_judiciary/julai2017.pdf
Clark, G. (2000). An Introduction to Constitutional Interpretation. Suffolk University Law School, 34, 485.
Colby, T. B. & Smith, P. J. (2009). Living Originalism. Duke Law Journal, 59, 239-207.
CTEB & Anor v. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara Malaysia & Ors [2021] 4 Malaysian Law Review, MLRA 678.
Danaharta Urus Sdn. Bhd. v. Kekatong Sdn. Bhd [2004] 2 MLJ 257
Dalip Kaur v. Ketua Polis Bukit Mertajam [1992] 1 Malayan Law Journal, MLJ 1
Dato’ Menteri Othman Baginda v Dato’ Ombi Syed Alwi bin Syed Idrus [1981] 1 Malayan Law Journa,l MLJ 29
Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Harvard University Press.
Faruqi, S. S. (2018). ‘Judicial Activism and Constitutional Supremacy’, A speech delivered at Lincoln’s Inn on 22 March 2018.
Henry, S. J. & Moore, T. O. (1960). A Decade of Legislative History in the Supreme Court: 1950–1959. Virginia Law Review, 1408.
Holmes, O. W. (1920). The Theory of Legal Interpretation: Collected Legal Papers. Courier Corporation.
Kaminski, J. P. & Leffler, R. (1989). Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate over The Ratification of The Constitution. Rowman & Littlefield.
Koperal Zainal bin Mohd. Ali v. Selvi a/p Narayan & Anor [2021] 3 Malaysian Law Review, MLRA 424
Macmillan. (1937). Law and Other Things. Cambridge University Press Archive.
Maggs, G. E. & Smith, P. J. (2015). Constitutional law: A Contemporary Approach (3rd Edition). United States: West Academic Publishing.
Mahisha Sulaiha Abdul Majeed v. Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran & Ors. and Another Appeal [2022] 6 Malaysian Law Review, MLRA 194
Malaysia Federal Constitution
Meor Atiqurrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2000] 1 Current Law Journal, CLJ 393
Meor Atiqurrahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2006] 4 Current Law Journal, CLJ 1
Merdeka University v. Government of Malaysia [1982] 2 Malayan Law Journal, MLJ 243.
Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1979] 3 All ER 21
Murphy, W. F. (1978). The Art of Constitutional Interpretation: A Preliminary Showing. Essays on the Constitution of the United States, 130.
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 US 644 (2015).
Pound, R. (1959). Jurisprudence Vol 1, West Publishing Company
PP v. Kok Wah Kuan [2008] 1 Malayan Law Journal , MLJ 1
Radin, M. (1948). The Law and You. New American Library.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S 113 (1973).
Rosliza Ibrahim v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor and Anor [2021] 1 Legal Network Series, LNS 30.
Scalia, A. (1989). The Lesser Evil. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 57, 573-619.
Scalia, A. (2020). The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. United States: Crown Publishing Group.
Scalia, A. (2018). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law-New Edition. Princeton University Press.
Scalia, A. & Garner, B. A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. United States: Thomson/West.
Utah Junk Co. Porter 328 US 39, 44 (1946)
Sunstein, C. R. (1993). The Partial Constitution. United Kingdom: Harvard University Press.
Toshihiko I. (2002). God and Man in the Qur'an. Malaysia: Islamic Book Trust.
Tsesis, A. (2013). Maxim Constitutionalism: Liberal Equality for the Common Good. Texas Law Review, 91, 1609-1685
Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors [1913] AC 107 118.
Veeder, V. V. (1897). The Judicial Characteristics of the Late Lord Bowen. Harvard Law Review, 10(6), 351-370.
Whittington, K. E. (1999). Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review. United States: University Press of Kansas.
Yaacob, A. M. (1984). Adat – A Source of Malaysian Law. Sari, 2(1), 65-79.
Zarqa, M. A. (1967). Al-Madkhal Al-Fiqh Al-`am. Dar-al Fikr.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.