THE FEDERAL LEGISLATURE (Art 44-68)

Art 44: Federal Legislative Authority

Legislative authority for Federation is vested on Parliament

Functions:
-

enact and amend Federal laws (matters falling under the Federal List or the
Concurrent List)
debate matters of the day
approve government financial & expenditures
approves new taxes
examines the governments policies
forum for criticism
the focus of public opinion on national affairs.

st
The 1 YDPA officially opened the First Parliament on 12 September 1959.
The First Meeting of the First Session, First Parliament took place at Tunku Abdul
Rahman Hall, Jalan Ampang.
The House of Representative consisted of 104 elected Members convened for
the first time a day earlier.
The Senate consisted of 38 nominated Members also had its first meeting a day
earlier.
The occasion saw the beginning of parliamentary democracy in a newly
independent country.
The first Parliament was dissolved on 1 March 1964

Now, 13th Parliament

Parliament meets from Monday to Thursday when it is in session, as Friday is

part of the weekend in the states of Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah, and now
Johor.

2008 - 2010 = 3rd Sessions

Sitting Arrangement

A.55: When Parliament is dissolved a general election must be held within 60

days from the date of dissolution and Parliament shall be summoned to meet on
a date not later 120 days from that date.

Structure of Parliament
CC Law Legislature Page | 1

A.44
Parliament consist of:

YDPA
2 Majlis (House of Parliament)

(i) Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)

(ii) Dewan Negara (Senate)
Yang Di Pertuan Agong

Legislative Functions
very limited

(i) Non-discretionary
Art 55(1): summon for Parliament to be in session (on advise)
(ii) Discretionary
Art 48(3): removed a disqualification of a MP under paragraph (d) or (e) of A.43(1)
Art 55(2): dissolve the Parliament after request made by PM (A.40(2)(b)). Can withhold
consent. But Parliament will automatically dissolved after 5 years.
Art 60: address both houses (ceremonial)
Art 66(1) & (4): granting assent to Bill

Summoning and Dissolution of Parliament

Art 55

YDPA
Must summons before 6 months elapse from the last sitting
Continue for 5 years (unless dissolved earlier)

- Once dissolved:
o
o

general election must be held within 60 days

a new parliament must be summoned within 120 days

CC Law Legislature Page | 2

A.45(1) (aa) appointment of two members of Senate for the Federal Territory of
Kuala Lumpur, one member for the Federal Territory of Labuan and one member
for the Federal Territory of Putrajaya; and
(b) appointment of forty members of Senate

DEWAN RAKYAT

Most important part of legislature

Bill commence & debated
A general election is held every 5 years to elect members
Parties with the majority votes can form a government

Composition
Art 46

At present consist of 222 elected members

206 members from States in Malaysia

13 from Federal Territories of KL, Labuan and Putrajaya

KL - 11
Labuan- 1
Putrajaya- 1
How the seats is apportioned not provided under the FC
Art 48: Disqualification (e.g. undischarged bankrupt, hold an office of profit,
convicted for crime)
Art 51: May resign
Art 54: when there is a vacancy it must be filled within 60 days and a by-election
must be held

DEWAN NEGARA

Art 45: Consists of 70 members.

Made up of 2 categories (elected & appointed):CC Law Legislature Page | 3

1. 26 members elected by the State Legislative Assembly to represent 13

th
states (each state represented by two members 7 Schedule).
2. 44 members appointed by the YDPA on the advice of the PM (including 2
from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and each from the Federal
Territory of Labuan and Putra Jaya)
Senator

Senators are drawn from the ranks of persons who

- have rendered distinguished public services; or

- have achieved distinction in the professions, commerce, industry, agriculture,
cultural activities or social service; or
- are representatives of a racial minority or are capable of representing the
interests of aborigines.

A.45 (3)
: His tenure - 3 year term
A.45(3) : Not affected by the dissolution of Parliament
A.45 (3A): Cannot hold office for more than 2 terms

Qualification & Disqualification of members of both Houses

Sitting arrangement

i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

A.47: Qualification
Malaysia citizen & reside in Malaysia
Not less than 30 years old Senator
Not less than 21 years old MP
A.48: Disqualification
Unsound mind
Undischarged bankrupt
Holds an office of profit,
Fails to lodge any return of election expenses
Convicted for crime and sentenced to imprisonment not less than 1 year or fine
not less than RM2,000
A.49: cannot be a member of both Houses at the same time
A.51: May resign by writing to the Speaker or President of the Senate
However, will be disqualified to be a MP for 5 years. (A.48(6))

A.53: decision on disqualification of a member of a House will be made by that

House and shall be final. (no judicial review)
CC Law Legislature Page | 4

A.54: when there is a casual vacancy in Dewan Rakyat, it must be filled within 60
days and a by-election must be held

Legislative process
3 types of Bill
1. Public Bill: matters concerning public interest such as national defence, public
order & taxation
2. Private Bill: matters related with local/private concern
3. Hybrid Bill: matters concerning public interest which also affected the interest of
some private bodies/persons.
a) Government Bill
b) Private Members Bill- Until now there are no members of Parliament actually
introduce bills because to present a Private Member's Bill, the member in
question must seek the leave of the House in question to debate the bill before it
is moved.
A Bill normally originates in the Dewan Rakyat. But, it is possible for members of
the Dewan Negara (Senate) to initiate bills (A.66(2)).However,financerelated/money bills must be tabled in the Dewan Rakyat. (A.67)
Pre-Parliamentary Stage:

Legislative proposal/draft Bill

a government minister/ministry prepares a first draft (Bill) with the assistance of
the AG's Department.

Consultation
the Bill is then discussed by the Cabinet

Printed Bill
- notice to the Secretary of Dewan Rakyat
(at least 1 day)
- the Bill is printed and distributed

Parliamentary Stage:

CC Law Legislature Page | 5

The procedure is set out in Chapter 5, Part IV of the FC and in the Standing Orders
of both Houses

A Bill will go through 3 readings before the Dewan Rakyat.

st
1 Reading: Formality. The minister in charge introduces the Bill by having its
title to be read.
nd
2
Reading: The most important stage. The Bill is circulated to MPs and its
general principles are debated.
Committee Stage: Normally the Committee of the Whole House. Details of the
Bill are discussed and amendments are considered. Minister reports to the
House.
rd
3 Reading: Formality. The Bill is read again in general terms and put to vote.
A 2/3 majority is usually required to pass the bill, but in certain cases, a simple
majority suffices.
Should the bill pass, it is sent to the Dewan Negara, where the 3 readings are
carried out again.
The Dewan Negara may choose not to pass the bill, but this only delays its
passage by a month, or in some cases, a year; once this period expires, the bill
is considered to have been passed by the house.
If the bill passes, it is presented to the YDPA who has 30 days to consider the bill.
Should he disagree with it, he returns it to Parliament with a list of suggested
amendments.
Parliament must then reconsider the bill and its proposed amendments and
return it to his Majesty within 30 days if they pass it again.
The YDPA then has another 30 days to give the royal assent; otherwise, it
passes into law.
The law does not take effect until it is published in the Government Gazette.

Art 66 (3): If the House pass the Bill, it must be sent to the other House.
The other House follow the same procedure. The other Houses must
passed the Bill before it is presented to the YDPA for his assent.
Art 68: Dewan Rakyat may by pass the Dewan Negara.
Art 66 (4) The YDPA must assented to the Bill by affixing the Public Seal
within 30 days of presentation. A Bill assented by the Yang di-Pertuan shall
become Law (called as an Act)
Art 66 (4A): If not assented, after expiration of 30 days it still become law.
Article 66(5): The law shall come into force once it has been gazetted or
published.
CC Law Legislature Page | 6

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

The Constitution confers certain rights & legal immunities designated as

Parliamentary Privileges upon Parliament to enable Parliament to undertake
the responsibilities to it fully and effectively.
It enable members of parliament perform their duties and constitutional
functions without harassment, undue influence or interference or intimidation
of legal actions from the public or the government.
These privileges are enjoyed by each House as a whole, and by individual
members of Parliament.
This privileges are derived from England which practiced Parliamentary
Supremacy. These privileges are spelt out in Art.63 and the Houses of
Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 (Revised 1988).
A.62: Parliamentary Procedure

- each House shall regulate its own procedure e.g. on voting (but not related with
constitutional procedure such as legislative process).
-

Members absent from a House shall not be allowed to vote.

Also provided under the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act
1952.
However, the House may punish them for contempt of the House

Notes:

Members of Parliament have certain privileges and immunities (kekebalan).

These privileges are meant to enable members of parliament perform their
duties and constitutional functions without harassment (gangguan), undue
influence or interference or intimidation (ugutan) of legal actions from the
public or the government.
These privileges are spelt out (ditetapkan) in Article 63 of the Federal
Constitution and the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952
(Revised 1988).
The privileges may be stated as follows:

(i) Freedom of speech

Members are allowed to speak freely during parliamentary proceedings or

debate without fear of legal action on the grounds of defamation or contempt
of court. This means that members enjoy immunity from civil as well as
criminal proceedings with regard to anything said or any vote given by him /
her while taking part in parliamentary debate and discussion. (Art.63 (2))

CC Law Legislature Page | 7

Freedom of publication

No member shall be liable to any legal action in respect of

anything published by or under the authority of both houses
of parliament. (Article 63 (3)).

Immunity from civil or criminal proceedings

No member shall be liable to civil or criminal action, arrest,

imprisonment or damages for any matter that he/she may have
brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or anything said or done
by him/her in parliament.
(Section 7, Houses of Parliament
(Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 (Revised 1988).
However, it must be noted that members are not allowed to use
unparliamentarily language during debates (e.g. words such as
liar, kurang ajar, bodoh and racist and sexist remarks are
prohibited). Discussion on sensitive issues like national language,
minority rights and status and position of the Malay rulers are also
prohibited.
The Parliamentary Committee of Privileges has the power to punish
members for contempt of the house (penghinaan dewan). Members
charged with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 shall be liable
to criminal proceedings.

A.63(1): the validity of any proceedings in either House of Parliament or any committee
shall not be questioned in any court. (for state refer A.72 of that state constitution)

Internal matters of Parliament

Not justiciable
Court has no jurisdiction, no judicial review. The judiciary is unable to correct
abuses of parliamentary proceedings.
This rule was derived from the English Bill of Rights 1689

Gobind Singh Deo v Yang Dipertua Dewan Rakyat [2010] 2 MLJ

674
Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu v Ganesan a/l Retanam [2010] 7
MLJ 355
YAB Dato Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir v YB Sivakumar a/l
Varatharaju Naidu [2009] 4 MLJ 24,FC
Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Legislative Assembly of
State of Sabah [1986] 2 MLJ 388
CC Law Legislature Page | 8

Haji Salleh bin Jafaruddin v Datuk Celestine Ujang [1986] 2 MLJ

412
Lim Cho Hock v Speaker Perak State Legislative Assembly [1979]
2 MLJ 85
Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 262
IGP v Lim Kim Hoong [1979] 2 MLJ 291
Lim Woon Chong v PP [1979] 2 MLJ 246
General Rule
(ii) A.63 (2): Freedom of speech
A person will not be liable in court for anything said by him while taking part in any
proceedings of either Houses or committee.
No person = include also non-members and outsiders
in proceedings = not inside the House premises.
e.g. conversation in Parliamentary caf, media conference at Parliamentary lobby
Proceeding does not include constitutional procedure e.g. legislative process

ABDUL RAHMAN TALIB v. D.R SEENIVASAGAM [1966] 2 MLJ 66

SECK MUN FOO V DATUK HARIS MOHD SALLEH [1997] 1 CLJ 321.

Members are allowed to speak freely during parliamentary proceedings or

debate without fear of legal action on the grounds of defamation or contempt
of court.
This means that members enjoy immunity from civil as well as criminal
proceedings with regard to anything said or any vote given by him / her while
taking part in parliamentary debate and discussion.
(Section 7, Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 (Revised
1988).

(ii) A.63(3): Freedom of Publication

A person will not be liable in court for anything published by him/under the authority
of either Houses

CC Law Legislature Page | 9

e.g. parliamentary notice board, Hansard, official reports of Parliamentary

proceedings
However, correspondence/letters between MPs, media interview,
newspaper reports of parliamentary proceeding are not protected.

unofficial

EXCEPTION

Not applicable outside the proceeding of the House

LIM KIT SIANG [1979] 2 MLJ 37

Art 63 (4): Not applicable to person charged with

(i) an offence under the law passed by Parliament under A.10 (4)
(ii) an offence under Sedition Act 1948 as amended by the Emergency (Essential
Power) Ordinance 1970.
MARK KODING [1983] 1 MLJ 111

Art 66 (5): not applicable if he advocates the abolishment of constitutional

position of the YDPA or Ruler of a State.
Despite certain immunities and privileges that Members of Parliament enjoy,
they are actually subject to more laws than the average citizen.
YOU may be an elected member but that doesnt put you above the law.

In fact, Members of Parliament (MPs) have to live up to a standard of conduct or risk

losing
their
seat
in
the
august
chambers.
One wakil rakyat who is in a dicey situation is Batu MP Tian Chua. He was found
guilty of biting a police officer on Oct 23, and was sentenced to six months jail and
fined RM3,000. He stands to lose his seat in the Dewan Rakyat if his appeal is not
successful.
And even more recently, Sabak Bernam MP Abdul Rahman Bakri was charged for
corruption offences and could lose his seat if he is found guilty.
As members of the ultimate legislative body, MPs are responsible for passing,
CC Law Legislature Page | 10

amending and repealing acts of law that every citizen in the country has to live by.
Thus, the position they hold is an important one and they are expected to conduct
themselves
in
an
exemplary
manner.
Says Universiti Teknologi Mara Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi:
They should be people we can look up to as role models. It is necessary they act
and live above the timberline of the ordinary.
Being elected to the position is a great honour and it comes with certain privileges and
specific rules that they have to uphold.
The scope of their privileges, powers and immunities are spelt out in law, spread over a
few pieces of legislature such as the Federal Constitution and the Houses of Parliament
(Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 (the Act) (see chart on next page).
the history of parliamentary privilege in England, at least is to encourage freedom of
speech and debate and to be free from threats of arrest and bodily harm.
MPs should be as free as possible to speak their minds (in Parliament), represent the
interests of the constituency, and not be fearful of any repercussions, hence the
immunities and privileges. These principles have been used in England and continue
here, he says.
Prof Shad opines that discussion before decision is crucial without which, there can
be no democracy.
Although the government may have its way, at least MPs have their say, he adds.

the Constitution lists down some disqualification criteria which, as detailed in

Article 48, are: those who are of unsound mind; hold an office of profit; are
convicted of a criminal offence and jailed for more than a year or fined more
than RM2,000; is a citizen or pledged allegiance to another country; or failed
to lodge return of election expenses.
These criteria speak of the integrity and suitability of an individual to be an MP.
Bon says that some of the criteria are plain common sense. Taking the
example of an undischarged bankrupt, he says: It is logical that bankruptcy
shows that one is unable to manage money.
MPs are going to deal with thousands of ringgit, so what happens if they
cannot be trusted with money, Bon questions.
He also feels that the disqualification requirement for those who are convicted
needs to be reviewed, and that jail terms and fines may not be an adequate
measure.
Minor offences
It is a question of the seriousness of the crime. In principle, they should be
squeaky clean, but what about minor offences not related to integrity?
CC Law Legislature Page | 11

Say the offence was committed 20 years ago that person has served his
time and should be allowed to run for office, he says.
Similarly, says Prof Shad, there is a case for some criteria to be reviewed.
Not all crimes are crimes of bad character, he says, adding that some can
occur for innocent reasons, citing the example of a bankrupt who may have
been declared such because he stood as guarantor for someone elses loan.
It should be where there is clear-cut mens rea, or intention to commit the crime, he
says, adding that the crimes that apply should be a registrable offence as defined by
the Registration of Criminals and Undesirable Persons Act 1969.
However, one of the most important privileges that an MP has is the immunity from
prosecution for anything said in the House, as prescribed by S7 of the Act and S63(2) of
the Constitution. This is why the challenge to repeat what you said outside Parliament
is sometimes heard.
Bon says this immunity is vital, otherwise MPs will not be able to do their job and
function effectively for the people who elected them.
It is the only place where problems of the constituency, political problems or issues of
everyday life can be brought up, he says.
If they have a report about corruption but are not sure if it is accurate, they can say it in
Parliament. There are other avenues he can file a suit or make a police report but if
you do not have the proof, you will get into trouble, he explains.
This immunity is not absolute, however. There is a single exception to the rule under
Article 63(4) of the Constitution, which subjects all proceedings to the Sedition Act 1948.
This law has been relaxed marginally by Article 63(5), in relation to discussing rulers
MPs are allowed to question their conduct as long as they do not call for the abolition of
their positions.
While MPs may be free from prosecution in courts, they may still be held for contempt of
the House, as prescribed by S9 of the Act. Bon says there is still a need for decorum in
Parliament.
No matter how injurious a statement is, what they should do is counter it with more
speeches. They can always state that the person is lying and can bring up the proof.
After all, this is a house of debate, says Bon.

CC Law Legislature Page | 12

Another privilege is that all proceedings in the house are exempt from scrutiny of the
courts, as prescribed by the Constitution in Article 63(1) and 63(3).
However, the legal position has been blurred by court decisions involving MP for
Puchong Gobind Sigh Deo and the Federal Court decision concerning Perak Mentri
Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and former Speaker V. Sivakumar.
In the former, the court said it could not interfere with Gobinds suspension from the
House because it was exempt, but in the latter, the Federal Court held that Sivakumar
did not have the authority to suspend Dr Zambry and six Barisan Nasional executive
council members from the state assembly.
Why is there a difference in the legal reasoning between two similar cases? asks Bon.
In any case, he says, the decision appears to disregard the doctrine of separation of
powers, where Government consists of three branches the executive (Cabinet),
legislature (Parliament) and judiciary. Each has specific and independent constitutional
powers which neither of the others can encroach upon.
Prof Shad, however, agrees with the Federal Court decision to review house
proceedings.
I fully support the (Federal) courts decision. I am not of the point of view that the
House is totally immune from judicial scrutiny. Yes, it should be left alone in
administrative matters such as the time to start, how many readings, and so on.
This kind of omnibus clause is very much in need of a restrictive interpretation. It
cannot be allowed to mean that the House is totally beyond judicial control, he says.
Prof Shad gives the example of a case in Uttar Pradesh, India, where an assemblyman
went to an area where curfew had been declared by a magistrate. The assemblyman
said he had to serve the needs of his constituency but a policeman on duty refused him
entry. The Speaker of the house subsequently held the policeman in contempt of the
house and sent him to jail. He then filed a writ of habeas corpus questioning the legality
of the detention, and a high court judge released him. The assembly then ordered the
judge to answer a charge of contempt of the House.
Isnt this taking things too far? We cannot allow the Speaker of the House to become a
Napoleon. If they are so immune, how come courts have the power to declare laws
unconstitutional? So if laws can be declared null and void, why cant their actions be
similarly declared? he asks.
His interpretation of Article 63 is that the House is in charge of procedural matters which
do not involve the constitution. But if there is a constitutional matter that involves
CC Law Legislature Page | 13

interpretation of laws, that is best left to the courts.

I do not support the view that the House is totally immune. Nobody should be immune
to judicial scrutiny even the courts themselves, he says, adding that Malaysia has
doctrines which allow the Federal Court to reopen its own decisions.
No one should be above the law even the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is under the law.
So no matter how high and mighty you are, be it at the judiciary, executive or the
legislative level, the law should be still above you, says Prof Shad.

CC Law Legislature Page | 14