Court Verdict Against Preacher Step In The Right Direction

---

 


 In a fairly recent judgment involving a Muslim preacher, Firdaus Wong, the High Court judge held the preacher had infringed the constitutional rights of eight non-Muslim parents when Firdaus allegedly encouraged the covert conversion of their minor children via a video posted on social media.
Cases entailing constitutional jurisprudence have always piqued my interest. Thus, it warrants a comment.
Anyway, the judge seemed to have broken new ground by holding that individuals may take legal action against their fellow citizens for breaches of constitutional rights.
Firdaus WongAs expected, Firdaus’ counsel sought to convince the judge that such constitutional rights could only be enforced against the legislature or the executive, and not private individuals, as reflected in the Federal Court’s 2005 ruling involving a legal battle between Beatrice Fernandez and Sistem Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS).
Collective agreement and Constitution
In Fernandez’s case, she was a Grade B flight stewardess who had been coerced into resigning after becoming pregnant, and in the event she failed to resign, her employer reserved the right to terminate her services.
She, however, stood her ground and refused to resign. Consequently, her employer terminated the service of such a poor yet brave woman.
Thereafter, she challenged the termination on several grounds, including a constitutional ground.
She argued her termination was unlawful and unconstitutional in that the collective agreements - upon which the termination was based - clearly infringed Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, which guaranteed equal protection of the law.
The Federal Court, nonetheless, ruled that it was not possible to expand the scope of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution to cover the collective agreements.
It also held constitutional law, which primarily deals with the contravention of individual rights by the legislature or the executive or its agencies, does not extend its substantive or procedural provisions to infringements of an individual’s legal right by another individual.
Further, the reference to the “law” in Article 8 does not include a collective agreement.
The judgment was subject to fierce criticism, especially from constitutional lawyers and the legal fraternity in general.
The Federal Court, with the greatest respect, was accused of being too restrictive, rigid, and unnecessarily pedantic in interpreting the supreme law of the land.
Some lawyers argue that if the Constitution were interpreted like an ordinary statute, the Constitution would die.
Back to Firdaus, although he has decided to appeal against the high court’s judgment, as of now, the verdict by judge Amarjeet Singh in recognising an individual’s legal right to seek constitutional remedies against another individual if a constitutional breach occurs has been, in my view, a step in the right direction.
After all, the judges have duly taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the supremacy of our Federal Constitution. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---