1.4 Law, The State And The Constitution

individuals in ascertaining the soundness of rules, and their impact upon relationships.

1.4 LAW, THE STATE AND THE CONSTITUTION

LAW IN MALAYSIA

 Malaysia, which consists of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, is one political unit but it is not governed by the same set of laws.  There are, two important link which unite the two parts of Malaysia – the

Parliament and the Federal Court.

 Legal systems are administered almost entirely on the basis of the political unit known as the state.  For international purposes, Malaysia is one state. Within Malaysia, however, there are thirteen states altogether, namely, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan,

Terengganu, Penang and Province Wellesley, Perak, Pahang, Selangor, Negeri

Sembilan, Johore, Malacca, Sabah and Sarawak, the Federal Territories of

Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya.  Each state has a government and has rules which lay down who shall govern and how. Malaysia has a written constitution.  This written constitution is called the Federal Constitution.

The Federal Constitution declares itself to be the supreme law of the

Federation – Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution.

WHAT IS A ‘STATE’?

R Rethana v The Government of Malaysia & Anor [1988] 1MLJ133

Facts: The plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that sections 31 and 42 of the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969 (SOCSO) were ultra vires the Federal Constitution. The plaintiff’s contention was that these sections violated Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution which provided for equal protection of the law for all persons and for equality of all persons before the law. The two section of SOCSO were discriminatory because employees, in industries covered by SOCSO, were precluded from suing their employers under the common law for damages arising from injuries sustained in the course of employment.

Held: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as the classification by SOCSO was fair and reasonable and therefore did not offend Article 8(1) and therefore was not void under Article 4(1).