sour. The proclamation of emergency was to enable the imposition of federal rule
over the state.
35
The 1969 state of emergency, which was proclaimed because of the May
Thirteenth racial riots, had, until its recent revocation, an adverse impact on the
state of constitutionalism in Malaysia.^36 This proclamation provided the founda-
tions for the constitutional validity of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention
of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (EPOPCO). It also provided the constitutional founda-
tions for the amendment to the Sedition Act 1948 which prohibited public discus-
sion of the following ‘sensitive’ issues: citizenship; the national language and the
languages of other communities; the special position and privileges of the Malays,
the natives of Sabah and Sarawak; the legitimate interest of other communities in
Malaysia; and the sovereignty of the Malay rulers. At first the amendment to the
Sedition Act also removed the immunity of state and federal parliamentarians from
prosecution under the Sedition Act but this restriction on parliamentary freedom of
speech was later removed to enable parliamentarians to criticise the Malay rulers,
short of calling for the abolition of the kingship and of the position of the hereditary
rulers.
37
Towards the end of December 2011 , the Malaysian parliament revoked the
1966 , 1969 and 1977 emergency proclamations. The revocation of the 1969 proclam-
ation of emergency by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (acting on advice of the govern-
ment), or its nullification by resolution of the federal parliament, would mean that
EPOPCO (a law which empowers preventive detention without trial) and the
amendment to the Sedition Act would cease to be operative. The prime minister
also reiterated his intention to repeal the ISA.
Article 150 of the Malaysian Constitution embodies a framework of emergency
powers. Article 150 ( 1 ) provides that if the king is ‘satisfied’ that a grave emergency
exists ‘whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation
or any part thereof is threatened’, he may issue a proclamation of emergency
making therein a declaration to that effect. Such a proclamation can be issued
even before the actual occurrence of the threatening event as long as the king is
satisfied that there is imminent danger of such an occurrence. Article 150 ( 2 B)
provides that at any time, while a proclamation of emergency is in operation,
except when both houses of parliament are sitting concurrently, the king ‘may
promulgate such ordinances as circumstances appear to him to require’.
A proclamation of emergency or an ordinance can be terminated either by express
revocation by the king (acting on the advice of the government) or by annulment
by resolutions passed by both houses of parliament. In the case of an ordinance
(^35) See Khairil Azmin Bin Mokhtar, ‘The Emergency Powers (Kelantan) Act 1977 ’, in Harding
and Lee,Constitutional Landmarks in Malaysia,p. 142.
(^36) See Cyrus Das, ‘The May 13 th riots and emergency rule’, in Harding and Lee,Consti-
tutional Landmarks in Malaysia,p. 103.
(^37) H.P. Lee,Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary Malaysia(Kuala Lumpur: Oxford
University Press, 1995 ), pp. 115 – 19.