which has not been expressly revoked or annulled, there is a third way of terminat-
ing its operation: the ordinance lapses at the expiration of six months from the date
on which a proclamation of emergency ceases to be in force.
Although the repeal of the prior proclamations of emergency was regarded as a
laudable move, meaningful reform to bolster the rule of law in Malaysia requires
substantial reforms to Article 150. Over the course of time, a number of safeguards
to prevent an abuse of the emergency powers were eroded. For instance, prior to
1960 , Article 150 provided that a proclamation of emergency should cease to have
force at the expiration of two months from the date on which it was issued, and
similarly, any ordinance promulgated by the king automatically lapsed, and ceased
to have effect, at the expiration of fifteen days from the date on which both houses
of parliament were first sitting. A constitutional amendment in 1960 altered this
position. A proclamation of emergency and an ordinance now have a continuity of
life until such time as they are expressly revoked or resolutions are passed by both
houses of parliament. A more insidious constitutional amendment occurred in
- Under this amendment, the executive is given unbridled power to declare
an emergency at will and to perpetuate emergency rule as a result of the excision
of the courts’ jurisdiction to consider the validity of a proclamation of emergency.
The Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1981 provided that ‘no court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain or determine any application, question or proceeding, in
whatever form, on any ground’ regarding the validity of a proclamation of emer-
gency, or an ordinance, or the continued operation thereof. Repealing the
proclamations of emergency is not sufficient. Article 150 should be restored to its
original position as set out in the 1957 Merdeka Constitution.^38
The ISA empowered the preventive detention of any person without trial by
ministerial order for up to two years at a time, which can be extended for further
periods not exceeding two years at a time. The constitutional basis for the enact-
ment of this law is Article 149 of the Constitution, which empowers the parliament
to pass laws which may be inconsistent with the Constitution provided that such
laws contain a prescribed recital. Prior to 1960 , such laws must recite that they are
designed to prevent or stop action that has been taken or threatened by any
substantial body of persons to cause, or cause a substantial number of citizens to
fear, organised violence against persons or property. The grounds to be recited were
expanded to include action which has been taken or threatened to be taken to
excite disaffection against the king or any government in the Federation; or to
promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or other classes of
the population likely to cause violence; or to procure the alteration, otherwise than
by lawful means, of anything by law established; or which is prejudicial to
the security of the Federation or any part thereof. It is important to note that the
(^38) See ‘Law Don: Restore Original Constitutional Provision’,Selangor Times, 7 – 9 October
2011 , issue 43.