You are on page 1of 3

Fundamental Right Provided by Malaysian Federal Constitution

The Federal Constitution of Malaysia is considered as the preeminent law in Malaysia. It is


really shaped after the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. The Constitution of the
Federation of Malaya is the establishment of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia today. It is
drafted by Reid Commission that headed by Lord William Reid keeping in mind the end goal
to figure a constitution for the arrangement of a completely self-administering and
autonomous Federation of Malaya. Post Second World War years and 1950s had influenced
the plan of The Constitution of the Federation of Malaya. But then, the development of
Malay Nationalism had contributed numerous option thoughts on the state of Malayan
country that may have brought about moulding an administration that is very not the same as
the Western nation demonstrate. In this way, Reid Commission had looked for the
perspectives from a few political gatherings, non-political associations and people keeping in
mind the end goal to locate a fitting government structure that suits for our nation. The report
of Reid Commission was distributed in February 1957. In its report, the Commission
recommended that the Constitution ought to secure individual's rights and guarantee a
popularity based method for living. With a specific end goal to accomplish the goal of
majority rule and equivalent rights, Reid Commission plan the Constitution by offering
centrality to four imperative components in the constitution which are federalism, detachment
of forces, dug in human rights and established correction prepare.

The first article that states the right of the fundamental liberties is Article 5 of the Federal
Constitution regarding the liberty of the person.
Clause (1) of Article 5 stated that no person shall deprived of his life & personal liberty saves
in accordance with law.
Clause (2) stated that when a person is arrested, he shall be informed on the ground on his
arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
Clause (3) stated that when a person is arrested and not released, he shall be without
unreasonable delay, in any case within 24 hours (excluding the time for any necessary
journey) being produced before the magistrate authority. As in case Lee Mau Seng v Minister
for Home Affair, it was held the person who is arrested must give his Constitutional right of
being represented and the right must be granted to him within a reasonable time.

Article 6 of the Federal Constitution gives that subjugation and constrained work are
precluded. In this article , it was expressed that no individual might be held in subjection and
all types of constrained work are restricted, however the parliament may by law
accommodates an open administration for national purposes. Article 7 of the Federal
Constitution gives is insurance against review impacts of criminal law and rehashed trials.
Proviso (1) of the article expressed that no individual should be rebuffed for any
demonstration or offenses which are not culpable at the time it was done or made and there
might be no individual who will get more prominent discipline other that what is
recommended in the law at the time the offenses was conferred. The Article additionally
expressed that no individual should be striven for the second time with same offenses aside
from the main trial has been subdued and there is a request from court for a retrial. As on the
off chance that Zakaria v Ketua Polis Negara, it was held that despite the fact that the guilty
party has been charge for two disciplinary procedures in various arrangement, it was still
under a similar lead which makes the wrongdoer is charge under twofold risk. The Article 8
of the Federal Constitution talk about equity. It was expressed that all individual are
equivalent under the watchful eye of the law. Everyone must be conceded with their rights to
be dealt with reasonably by the law. As on the off chance that Rethana v Government
Malaysia, it was held that Rethana suing the SUSCO can't sue their bosses if any mischance
happens in their field of work. Article 9 of the Federal Constitution examine about the
Prohibition from expulsion and opportunity of development. In this article it was expressed
that nobody might be exiled from the league with the exception of any law identifying with
the security of the alliance, open request, general wellbeing or criminal offenses. Each
individual additionally have the privilege to move openly all through the league and can
dwelled in any part of the organization with the exception of any law identifying with the
security of the alliance, open request, general wellbeing and criminal offenses. As on the off
chance that Assa Singh v Menteri Besar Johor, it was held that no individual should be exiled
from the organization in light of whatever other enthusiasm with the exception of from what
had expressed previously.

Article 10 of the Federal Constitution gives on the Freedom of Speech, Assembly and
Association. It gives that each individual has their own particular appropriate to discourse and
communicated their feeling and has quiet gatherings and affiliations. The discourse, get
together and affiliations must be protected and are held with no weapons. However the right
to speak freely is confined to the discourse which may be delicate to people in general
intrigue. As in the event that Mahdevan v Public Prosecutor, the permit for the general
population meeting to talk about the consequence of M.C.E Examination and the status of
Bahasa Melayu as the national dialect have been pulled back, the gathering bid and saying
that it has contradicted their privilege of the right to speak freely, it was held that the
condition on the permit of open meeting was not negated . Article 10 likewise expressed that
each religious gathering has the privilege to build up and keep up foundation for their
youngsters for the motivations behind religion or magnanimous reason. As on the off chance
that Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam, it was held that a Sikh man is dead
and the question under the watchful eye of the court whether the perished is still Muslim
when he kicked the bucket? His relatives assert that he had asked at the Sikh sanctuary and
keep on eating pork. Yet, he has enlisted his name as Muslim and he was locked in to wed a
Muslim young lady then the court held that he remains a Muslim

Article 11 of the Federal Constitutions expressed about the flexibility of Religion. In the
Article 11 Clause (1), it was expressed that each individual can affirm and rehearse their own
particular religion, subject to Clause (4) to proliferate it. Provision (2) expressed that no
individual might be constrained to pay cash, which the cash are completely or just piece of it
will be utilized for religions purposes other than your own particular religion. Occasion in the
Article 11 of the Federal Constitution expressed that each religious gathering has their
entitlement to set up and keep up a foundation for their kids with the end goal of training. As
in the event that Jakob Renner v Scott King, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of
International School of Kuala Lumpur, offended party was relied upon to be exchanged to the
Ampang Campus to proceed with his review in centre school, however his entrance to the
school board being rejected and offended party filled an application to sue the litigant and his
worker from frustrating, blocking and averting to get his training in the centre school. Article
12 of Federal Constitution expressed each individual can have their own opportunity for
fundamental instruction. Each individual in the nation has their entitlement to get the
fundamental instruction. Article 13 of Federal Constitution expressed that each individual has
the privilege to claim a property and if the property is taken from the proprietor, the
proprietor must be remunerated with an appropriate measure of pay. As on the off chance that
Adong Kuwau v Kerajaan Negeri Johor, it was held that the offended party must be repaid
with an appropriate measure of pay in light of the fact that the place where there is his
aborigine and hereditary is taken from him. In a conclusion, the privileges of freedom under
Federal Constitution are ensured. A portion of the privilege is total and some have
impediment. The privilege can't be meddle even by power holders.

You might also like