Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Tag: Malaysia

  • Malaysia’s 2020 Government Crisis: Revealing the New Emperor’s Clothes

    —Yvonne Tew, Georgetown University Law Center[1] [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. For more information about our four columnists for 2020, please click here.] In 2018, Malaysia was hailed as a story of democracy’s triumph. In a historic national election, voters ousted the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition, ending its six decades grip on power.[2]

  • Constitutional Quantum Mechanics and a Change of Government in Malaysia

    —Dian AH Shah and Andrew Harding, National University Singapore Faculty of Law Democratic backsliding has become quite the flavour of the decade, unfortunately, as the pages of this blog reveal all too starkly: Hungary, Poland, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and many other instances across the world.[1]

  • In Malaysia, Eastminster Prevails

    –Ganesh Sahathevan, Fellow, American Center for Democracy A decision of the Court of Appeal Malaysia handed down on 28 November 2019 suggests that “Eastminister” style exercise of powers by Malaysia’s Heads of State may no longer be the subject of judicial review once the Head of State’s preferred Head of Government can demonstrate by a simple head count that he or she has the numbers to defend against a vote of no confidence.

  • Return of Judicial Power: Religious Freedom and the Tussle over Jurisdictional Boundaries in Malaysia (I-CONnect Column)

    —Jaclyn L. Neo, National University of Singapore Faculty of Law [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts.

  • Virtual Bookshelf: A Review of “Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia” by Po Jen Yap

    —Richard Albert, The University of Texas at Austin The concept of constitutional “dialogue” has become prevalent in public law scholarship. The term is commonly used to describe one particular form of interaction between courts and legislatures in connection with the interpretation of constitutional rights–an interaction characterized by a judicial-legislative exchange on the proper outcome rather than by immediate judicial finality on the meaning of the constitution.