Suchergebnisse

This text examines constitutional adjudication in Southeast Asia, focusing on the constitutional courts of Malaysia and Singapore. It examines judicial strategies used for statecraft in Asian courts and shows how these courts can protect a nation's constitutional framework.

This article explores the Malaysian judiciary's approach toward interpreting the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and situates it within the context of the nation's political and constitutional history. It traces the judiciary's movement toward a more rights-oriented approach followed by its more recent retreat, which has been marked by strict formalism and insularity in several appellate court decisions. This article argues that the Malaysian courts' journey toward constitutional redemption has been uneven so far. In order to reclaim its constitutional position as a co-equal branch of government, the Malaysian judiciary must be willing to uphold its constitutional duty to assert its commitment to constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.

This paper assesses the supposed dichotomies between Western and Asian perspectives on human rights and shows how such tensions are often false and should be rejected. Despite the deep flaws inherent in the "Asian values" approach, however, its ideology remains a powerful internal framework that continues to influence the political and judicial elite in Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia and Singapore. This is chiefly due to the lack of any competing theory regarding the conceptualization of human rights in the Asian context. The paper point out the gap in the jurisprudence in this area and concludes with some general observations on how to advance a model of rights protection to fill this lacuna.