Comparison between English Law framework and Malaysian Law framework

11 Pages

20 Downloads

Words: 3288

Date added: 17-06-26

Category:

open document save to my library

Abstract

This report concentrates on tow of those frameworks, the English legitimate framework and the Malasysian lawful framework However, distinguishing that this frameworks of equity can't be completely seen in separation, we start with a short remark on the UK' and MY are sacred plans to show how this frameworks will be essential result of the idea that is ordinarily alluded to as 'the principle of law'. Content of list:

Introduction

4
English legal system 5
Primary legislation 5
Secondary legislation 5
The English courts 6
Judicial Precedent 6
Statutory interpretation 7
Malaysian legal system 8
Legislative Authority – Source of Primary Legislation 9
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY - Source of Subsidiary Legislation 10
Judicial Authority 11
Conclusion 13
Reference list 14

Introduction

In the event that posing the question, "why if I comply with the law?", inquiries something we typically underestimate, then we are blessed to have had that extravagance previously. Many nations don't have the profit of the guideline of law or an arrangement of equity that is consistently connected without apprehension, support or preference. In later times and particularly since the late development of worldwide terrorism, we must get to be progressively mindful that we can no more take the profits of a general legitimate framework for allowed. The Rule of Law is the establishment of acculturated social order. It builds a transparent methodology available and equivalent to all. It guarantees adherence to standards that both free and ensure.' Reality, obviously, is that everybody does not generally comply with the law, nor is there dependably an agreement on what the law is or ought to be. However, the support of life in a present day majority rule government obliges an ability from most subjects for more often than not to watch the laws, actually when exclusively they may not concur with them. The standard of law, consequently, concerns the way of the legitimate connections between people and between the people and the state. It additionally concerns the extent of techniques through which the law overseeing those connections might be implemented and directed. Principal topics that have developed out of the idea of the standard of law as it has created in the UK are, for example: •That the law should not be arbitrarily or capriciously administered by those in powers. •That all people are equal before the law. •That there should be a system to apply and interpret the law fairly and for all citizens. English legal system: Primary legislation In Britain, primary legislation is statutory and takes the type of an Act of Parliament. Usually, something like 80 or thereabouts Acts of Parliament accept Royal Assent every year. Before it gets to be law, an Act is known as a Bill and passes through the parliamentary process in draft structure being liable to verbal confrontation, alterations and examination by both Houses of Parliament. Once the Bill has been given the consent of the Monarch it turns into an Act of Parliament. However, an Act may not get to be legitimately "powerful" upon the arrival of its consent, as the legislature may accommodate an alternate day(s) to be designated on which the laws in the Act will come into energy. An Act of Parliament can generally just be corrected by passing an alternate Act of Parliament holding those alterations. The House of Lords used to have the capacity to keep Bills from getting to be law even where the House of Commons voted energetic about them. It is presently acknowledged that this force is constrained by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. It is workable for the House of Lords to postpone a Bill (separated from an alleged 'cash bill' i.e. bills joined with the plan) for up to one year after which the legislature can re-present the Bill and on the off chance that it passes in the House of Commons for a brief moment time, it then gets to be law. The predominating will of the House of Commons is because of Mps being the equitably chosen delegates of the nationals. Despite this, the force is utilized once in a while and most as of late in the questionable passing of the Hunting Act 2004.Secondary legislation Numerous individuals don't understand the gigantic measure of auxiliary enactment made under the power of an Act of Parliament. The Act offers power to an individual e.g. a Secretary of State or other body to make the point of interest of the law for Parliament's sake. For this reason, optional enactment is otherwise called appointed enactment. It takes various structures yet the most utilized kind of designated enactment takes the type of regulations or requests known as Statutory Instruments and commonly about 3,000 are made every year. Auxiliary enactment is essential essentially on the grounds that there is not time for Parliament to manage all the subtle element of data, nor might they fundamentally have the obliged expert learning. There are parliamentary controls on auxiliary enactment in spite of the fact that these are in some cases censured for being inadequate. Delegated enactment has likewise been condemned for being undemocratic on the grounds that it might be made by unelected people, frequently without a formal conference prepare and with almost no attention. The English courts: It could be seen the House of Lords is the most elevated court in the UK and its choices must be upset by a choice of the ECJ or the European Court of Human Rights. (These recent two organizations can additionally upset the choices of the more level courts.) The House of Lords ought not be befuddled with the second authoritative council of Parliament. The House of Lords when sitting as the most senior re-appraising court, comprises of various Law Lords who hear offers which have been sent to them by the Court of Appeal and which they have, likewise, consented to listen. The course of the bolts in the chart, demonstrate comprehensively the way of bids upwards from the choices of the easier courts. After the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal's choices are the most definitive and after those, the choices of the High Court. The framework whereby judges take after the choices of higher courts is known as the 'precept of point of reference' and it is this practice that has prompted the improvement of the 'regular law'. England is a regular law nation and a significant part of the particulars of the law and surely a percentage of the law's most fundamental standards are judge made, having been chosen in cases heard in the courts. The normal law can, obviously, be changed by statute. Judicial Precedent Quickly, legal point of reference implies that a chose guideline of law is followed in comparable cases until it is toppled or altered by a higher court. Where there is no past choice on a purpose of law then a court may settle on its own choice, which might then be advanced in the higher courts. When a higher court achieves a choice, that choice is tying on all more level courts in like-for-like cases. Courts must take after their choices, with the exception of the House of Lords and the High Court. The High Court must take after the choices of its Divisional Courts and normally the later of two clashing judgments. Statutory interpretation Judges also play a role in interpreting Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation. This is often necessary because words can sometimes have more than one meaning and so interpretation can be confusing or ambiguous. The traditional approach to statutory interpretation has been a literal approach where the words are given their plain, dictionary meaning. This stands in contrast to the approach that tends to be favoured in Europe, where judges look to interpret the purpose of the law makers. This is known as taking a purposive approach. The literal approach tends to produce a very gradual, conservative and restrictive attitude towards legal development; the idea being that judges should not make law but simply implement what Parliament has decided. It is now commonly accepted that judges do in fact make law and the purposive approach allows judges to interpret what they think Parliament was trying to achieve. It would be fair to say that there has been a steady move towards a more purposive approach in the English courts. However, the literal approach is still dominant and this is reflected in the various technical rules of statutory interpretation to ascertain the meaning of a statute and the rules to aid the interpretation of individual words. Systems of justice upheld and enforced by the courts The English legal system has a number of distinct systems of justice which operate internally according to their own, often complex, procedures. Malaysian legal system: It is paramount that analysts ought to comprehend that much of Malaysia's history is identified with Great Britain which built around the early states on the Malay Peninsula. In spite of the fact that the Dutch and Portuguese were the prior provinces, the British, who had ruled Malaya for more than one hundred and fifty with only one short interference of the World War II, left more amazing effect upon the law of the nation. The lawful history of Malaysia starts with the procurement of Penang in 1786 and with the presentation of the Charters of Justice in 1807, 1826 and 1855. The Federation of Malaya gained her freedom from the British in 1957. On September 16, 1963, the eleven states of the Federation of Malaya, the previous settlements of Sarawak and Sabah on the western shore of Borneo and the State of Singapore united to structure the Federation of Malaysia. In August 1965, in any case, Singapore withdrew from this recently shaped alliance to turn into an autonomous republic. Malaysia, as it is known today, comprises of the eleven peninsular states that constituted of Malaya (this is alluded to as peninsular Malaysia), Sabah and Sarawak. The gathering of English law gradually developed and created throughout the British colonization. On the other hand, the gathering of English law just got statutory after the proclamation of the Civil Law Enactment of 1937. There are three portions of times of which cutting edge Malaysian laws were made. Prewar law was made throughout the decentralization of Malay states (1866 to 1942). The Malay states around then were partitioned into three gatherings of states. There were the Straits Settlement (SS) gathering of states containing Penang, Malacca and Singapore, the Federated Malay States (FMS) aggregation of states involving Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan and Pahang and the Unfederated Malay States (UMS) assembly of states embodying Johor, Kedah, Perlis, Terengganu and Kelantan. An understanding of the fundamental game plan of the current Malaysian legitimate framework and the idea of partition of (law-production) forces will aid you in seeing how Malaysian lawful assets are composed and found. In spite of the fact that the Malaysian lawful framework is prevalently dependent upon English normal law, there are additionally other optional legitimate frameworks simultaneously influencing certain areas of the law, for example, Islamic law and standard law. Accordingly, it is additionally essential for analysts to note to which locale and assembly of individuals that the law was designated for and whether the laws are still in energy. The legitimate arrangement of Malaysia was designed according to the English lawful framework which drills parliamentary popular government and is administered by a Constitutional Monarchy, with His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the King) formally as the Head of the nation. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is chosen by the Conference of Rulers for a five-year term from around the genetic Rulers of the nine states in the Federation which are governed by Sultans. The states are Perlis, Kedah, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Johor, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. In alternate states, specifically Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Sabah and Sarawak, the Head of State is the Yang di-Pertua Negeri or Governor of the State. The Yang di-Pertua Negeri is named by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for a four-year term. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia plainly separates the law-production power of the Federation into its administrative power, legal power and official power. The division of force likewise happens both at elected and state levels. The elected laws ordered by the elected get together or otherwise called the Parliament of Malaysia applies all around the nation. There are additionally state laws legislating neighborhood governments and Islamic law authorized by the state administrative get together which applies in the specific state. Legislative Authority – Source of Primary Legislation Authoritative power is the ability to authorize laws pertinent to the Federation all in all under Article 66(1) of Federal Constitution. At Federal level, the administrative force is vested in a bicameral Parliament headed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and includes the Dewan Negara (House of Senate) and Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives). The Dewan Negara has 70 parts, of whom 44 are assigned by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and 26 chose by the State Legislative Assemblies. The Dewan Rakyat is completely chosen and has 219 parts. The span of the life of every Parliament and State Legislatures is something like five years and is part into one-year sessions, after which the session is ended or prorogued generally in September. The dissemination of law-production power between the Federal and State Governments is listed in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution; and is situated out in a Federal List, State List and a Concurrent List. The fundamental branches of knowledge of the Federal List are outside undertakings, protection, inside security, civil and criminal law, citizenship, back, trade and delivery industry, correspondences, wellbeing and work. The State List involves matters, for example, land, horticulture, ranger service, nearby government, riverine angling, Muslim law, and so forth. The Concurrent List, under power of both the Federal and State Governments, blankets social welfare, grants, assurance of natural life and town and nation arranging. Should any conflict between elected and state law exist, elected law overshadows state law. The Parliament creates an incredible number of productions holding law fundamentally the elected statutes which are authoritatively distributed in the Government Gazettes by the Government Printer. Most are made accessible in the Internet industrially and official sites. EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY - Source of Subsidiary Legislation The Executive is vested with the power to administer and control the laws by method for assigned and drafts Bills as gave under Article 39 of the Federal Constitution. The ability to legislate that is vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is however exercisable by a Cabinet of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The Cabinet is responsible to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the head of Executive Authority in the nation. Every official demonstration of the Federal Government streams from his Royal power, whether specifically or by implication. Notwithstanding, as per the guideline of a just controlling framework, the Chief Executive is the Prime Minister. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong names a Cabinet - a chamber of Ministers - to inform him in the activity regarding his capacities. It comprises of the Prime Minister and an unspecified number of Ministers who should all be parts of Parliament either the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) or Dewan Negara (House of Senate). The Ministers consider diverse portfolios and are by and large answerable for all choices made by the Cabinet, which is the most astounding approach making body in the nation. To guarantee the smooth authorization of the law, the Government has set up different organizations to achieve its targets. The administration organizations are included three primary segments, in particular services, divisions and statutory bodies. At ecclesiastical level the capacities of the fundamental offices are to form, control and actualize government strategies; while at departmental levels the organizations are answerable for executing all the approaches. Orgs of statutory bodies are semi-government in structure and are answerable for completing obligations doled out to them to meet the legislature's approaches. Judicial Authority The Judiciary is engaged to hear and focus civil and criminal matters, and to settle on the lawfulness of any authoritative or official goes about as gave under Article 125a of the Federal Constitution. It is additionally presented power by law to translate the Federal and State Constitutions. The courts can proclaim on the legitimacy or generally of any law passed by parliament and they can claim on the importance of any procurement of the constitution. The locale of the Malaysian courts is dictated by the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for Superior Courts and the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 for Subordinate Courts The Malaysian Courts of Justice are made up of the Superior Courts and the Subordinate Courts. The Superior Courts involve the Federal Court (the most astounding court), the Court of Appeal and the two High Courts. By ideals of Act 121(1) of the Federal Constitution legal power in the Federation is vested on two High Courts of Coordinate ward and status specifically the High Court of Malaya for Peninsular Malaysia and the High Court of Borneo for Sabah and Sarawak. The Federal Court of Malaysia is the Supreme Court and most noteworthy legal power in the nation and the last court of advance in Malaysia. When 1957, the name "Incomparable Court" was utilized to allude to the most elevated court for Malaysia next underneath the Privy Council. The Supreme Court was renamed the Federal Court of Malaysia powerful from 24 June 1994, and is presently the last court of offer for Malaysia. The Federal Court surveys choices alluded from the Court of Appeal; it has unique purview in protected matters and in question between states or between the national government and a state. When 1 January 1985, the Federal Court was the most astounding court in the nation however its choices were further appealable to the Privy Council in London. In any case, on 1 January 1978, Privy Council requests in criminal and established matters were annulled and on 1 January 1985, all different claims i.e. common claims, with the exception of those recorded before that date, were annulled. Conclusion: Surely, we served to exhibit the need of such a framework in a flourishing majority rule government. Society needs both a hearty but then adaptable legitimate framework which can keep up open certainty and additionally adjust to new tests. We have analyzed the wellsprings of English law and Malaysia low and likewise seen something of how those laws are connected, deciphered and upheld in practice, especially through the criminal and civil equity frameworks. It is inconceivable in such a short article to go into the details of the internal workings of those two frameworks of equity however surely. Reference list

ï‚· A first look at the Malaysian Legal system,Oxford Wan Afah Hamzah 2009

  • English Legal System Lawcards, 2012-2013 - Routledge, 2011
  • Constitutional and Administrative Law, 10th Edition - Hilaire Barnett, Routledge, 2013
  • Legal English, 3rd edition - Rupert Haigh, Routledge, 2012
1
Read full document← View the full, formatted essay now!
Is it not the essay you were looking for?Get a custom essay exampleAny topic, any type available
banner
x
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we'll assume you're on board with our cookie policy. That's Fine