In this book, HP Lee explores how the separation of powers doctrine in Malaysia has been adversely affected by a number of major constitutional conflicts among the various important organs of government. The author first analyses the struggle by parliament for supremacy over the Malay Rulers or Sultans by expunging the need for the royal assent to the enactment of legislation and removing royal immunities. Lee then turns to the contemporary role of the Malay Rulers and the reasons for the perceived rejuvenation of these Malay Rulers. The book goes on to examine the series of controversies and scandals which have plagued the judiciary since the tumultuous judiciary crisis of 1988, and the efficacy of the reforms which have been introduced to restore public confidence in the judiciary. These conflicts and a number of statutory enactments are analysed to determine their impact on the state of constitutionalism in Malaysia. The book concludes with the author's thoughts on the trajectory of constitutional development in Malaysia.

Malaysia's constitution was set at the independence of the Federation of Malaya in 1957 along the lines of the Westminster model, embracing federalism and constitutional monarchy. That it has endured is explained in terms of the social contract agreed between the leaders of the three main ethnic groups (Malay, Chinese, Indian) before independence. However, increasing ethnic tension erupted in violence in 1969, after which the social contract was remade in ways that contradicted the basic assumptions underlying the 1957 Constitution. The outcome was an authoritarian state that implemented affirmative action in an attempt to orchestrate rapid economic development and more equitable distribution. In recent years constitutionalism, as enshrined in the 1957 Constitution but severely challenged during the high-authoritarianism of Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's developmental state, has become increasingly relevant once again. However, conflict over religion has replaced ethnicity as a source of discord. This book examines the Malaysian approach to constitutional governance in light of authoritarianism and continuing inter-communal strife, and explains the ways in which a supposedly doomed colonial text has come to be known as 'our constitution'.

Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts explores how courts engage in constitutional state-building in aspiring, yet deeply fragile, democracies in Asia. Yvonne Tew offers an in-depth look at contemporary Malaysia and Singapore, explaining how courts protect and construct constitutionalism even as they confront dominant political parties and negotiate democratic transitions. This richly illustrative account offers at once an engaging analysis of Southeast Asia's constitutional context, as well as a broader narrative that should resonate in many countries across Asia that are also grappling with similar challenges of colonial legacies, histories of authoritarian rule, and societies polarized by race, religion, and identity. The book explores the judicial strategies used for statecraft in Asian courts, including an analysis of the specific mechanisms that courts can use to entrench constitutional basic structures and to protect rights in a manner that is purposive and proportionate. Tew's account shows how courts in Asia's emerging democracies can chart a path forward to help safeguard a nation's constitutional core and to build an enduring constitutional framework.

"Covering issues such as freedom of speech and expression, the accountability and integrity of the judiciary, the price of access to justice, the electoral process, elected members and the right to change party, the fights of the orang asli, freedom of communication and the Internet, the legal protection of the right to privacy as well as the rights of women in Malaysia"--Back cover.

This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature.