Against Subversion In Malaysia

Legislation against subversion

One of the distinctive feature of the Malaysian Constitution is the special powers to deal with subversion under Article 149 of Federal Constitution (FC).

Under Article 149(1) of FC , “Subversion” has been defined as causing substantial number of citizens to fear organized violence against persons or property, exciting disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any government in the Federation, promoting feelings of ill-will between classes of the population in such a way as is likely to cause violence, procuring alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of anything by law established, prejudicing the maintenance of any supply or service to the public, or causing prejudice to public order or national

Hence it also included the right to dissolve an existing association and the right to resign an association. In the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh , the Supreme Court strucked down an amendment to the Kelantan Constitution that required an assemblyman to vacate his seat if he defected from the party on whose ticket he had won his seat. On the dark side of this, the rights of freedom of association is also accompanied by restraints such as the Trade Unions Act 1959 (Act 262), The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and The Societies Act 1966 (Act 335). In the case of Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim v Menteri , the new party, Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) applied for registration under the Societies Act. The seven members constituting the party’s committee were mostly from the state of Selangor. The Registrar of Societies then declined their registration at national level because the internal policy stated that there must be representation from at least seven States of the Federation in the committee of a national political society. The PSM argues that the departmental policy was unconstitutional as it was not authorized by the Constitution. Both the High Court and Court Of Appeal upheld the policy as it was not unreasonable. Here, the rights are inherent. Power to restrict rights needs explicit legal justification. Otherwise , no restriction whether legislative or administrative can by-pass the boundaries laid down by the Constitution. The reasonableness of a policy is relevant only if the policy has first satisfied the test of