Oral Presentation

2. Group Member : Calvin Chin Wei Long 0326086
Chiam Jia Ern 0318524
Hii Pai Ling 0320598
Jenny Hoo Yee Tyng 0321841
Liew Chia Niu 0313338

4.  ‘Men are ruled by law and not by men’
 Is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and
not arbitrary decisions by individual government officials
 Can be direct translated to rule according to law
 Requires the government to exercise its powers in
accordance with established and clearly written rules,
regulations and legal principles.
 Shall be define as the balance of governmental power with
the protection of human rights

5. ‘Thin’ Conception ‘Thick’ Conception
By Albert Venn Dicey
1. Supremacy of law
2. Equality before the law
3. Predominance of legal spirit
By Lord Bingham of Cornhill
1. The law must be accessible,
intelligible, clear and
predictable.

6. The application of the Rule of Law under the
Federal Constitution
Constitution is a rule of law, however not all
constitution follows the theory of rule of law.

7. Supreme Law of Federation
The Federal Constitution establishes itself as the
supreme law of the Federation.
Lord Bingham stated law must be intelligible,
clear and predictable.

8. Slavery and forced labour prohibited
No person shall be held and forced in slavery
.
Based on the Dicey’ rule second law, there
has the equality before law for every class of
citizens.

9. • Everyone has the right to choose own religion
and practice it .
• Based on the Dicey’ rule third law, the results
of judicial decisions are better protectors of
the rights of private persons.

10. CASE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V MOHAMED ISMAIL
(18 April 1983)

11.  In this case, Mr Mohamed Ismail was been charged for an offence of
trafficking in a dangerous drug which is contravention in the Dangerous
Drug Acts 1952. Before amendment, he was be provided for imprisonment
for life or mandatory death sentence.
 On the day when the accuse was found guilty, the word of “Imprisonment
for life” were removed from the Act, thus providing only for the mandatory
death sentence.
 Therefore, he appealed and the issues was taken to the court.
 Lastly, the appealed was approved.
 This decision can be said with the provision of Article 7(1) of federal
constitution:
No one shall be punished for an act or omission which was not
punished 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.

12. Simple Explanation

13. Ah Thian v Government of
Malaysia

14. Applicant had been charged with committing armed
gang robbery.
Under section 392 and section 397 of the Penal Code.
An offence punishable under section 5 of
the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act, 1971 as
amended.

15. Penal Code
(i) Section 392: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 30 years,and shall also
be punished with whipping with not less than 12 strokes.
(ii) Section 397: If, at the time of committing gang-robbery, the offender
uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be
less than 7 years and with whipping with not less than 12 strokes.
Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act, 1971
(i) Section 5: Any person who at the time of his committing or abetting the
commission of a scheduled offence has on his person a firearm shall be
punished with imprisonment for life and with whipping with not less than
6 strokes.

16. It was argued that the Firearms (Increased Penalties)
(Amendment) Act, 1974 was ultra vires the Federal
Constitution.
Contravened Article 8(1) of the Constitution
Article 8(1): All the person are equal before the law and
entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Therefore void.

17. On March 30, 1976, at the close of the case
for the prosecution, counsel for the applicant
applied for an adjournment to enable him to
obtain the leave of a judge of the Federal
Court to start proceedings for a declaration
that the Act is void.
 The application was granted.

18. Cases
Chai Choon Hon v Ketua Polis Daerah,
Kampar and Government of Malaysia

19. In this case, Chai Choon Hon applied on August 3rd 1984
for a license to hold a DAP solidarity dinner and lion
dance in public space.
His application was accepted, but stamped with seven
restrictions.

20. Two of seven restriction, he found to be highly
problematic.
There are :
i)The speakers can’t touch on political issues.
ii)There only can have 7 speakers.
He appealed and the issue was taken to Supreme
Court.
Lastly, Chai Choon Hon’s appeal was allowed.
This decision could be said to be in line with the
provisions of Art. 10 (1)(a) of federal
constitution : every citizen has the right to
freedom of speech and expansion.

22. 1. Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Ismail
Article 7 (1) protection against retrospective criminal laws and
repeated trials.
Based on Dicey's rule, no one is above the law, the society must
be governed by law and all must be equally subject to the law.
The government must also give respect to the law.
This case is definitely upholding the rule of law.
2. Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia
Article 8 (1) equality.
According to Dicey’s rule, the constitutional rights of
Englishmen are secured first and foremost by the common law,
not by written constitution.
The judicial decisions in this case determine by using particular
cases brought before the courts.

23. 3. Chai Choon Hoon v Ketua Polis Daerah, Kampar and
Government of Malaysia
Article 10 (1) (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of
speech and expression.
AV Dicey’s said that all public or government officials are
accountable to the law.
They do not have any special powers, privileges, protection, or
exemption from the law.
The appeal is approved under rule of law

24.  The rule of law is an essential element to uphold the rights
and liberties for the people to ensure justice.
 But the fundamental liberties in PART II are limited by
federal law, such as Sedition Act 1948, The Security Offences
(Special Measures) Act 2012, and The Peaceful Assembly Act
2012.
 This shows that Malaysia does not totally disregard the rule
of law but even respect the rule of law.