Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Dear Roger,

I think you have stated the misconception very accurately and succinctly:

1. It is simply a non-issue when you talk of replacing the "English common law" system with a "Malaysian common law" system, as what we have now, and have had for the past 50 years, IS a Malaysian common law system; and

2. If you're talking about developing a common law based on Islam or Malay customs, that is a separate issue altogether. Which certainly does offend the Federal Constitution.

Similarly, the contention that this country is devoid of legal expertise and that our legal experts are impotent or are still colonised is ridiculous and baseless. That is a self-serving statement with no merit or logic. That kind of argument is dangerous as it could very easily appeal to overzealous, BUT IGNORANT, self-proclaimed "nationalists" with their own agenda to forward.

In light of that SHAMEFUL video recording, I hope the entire country can / will finally now acknowledge that we have more serious issues to deal with. How do you expect to revamp an entire legal system when the basic rule in the administration of justice, such as having an independent judiciary, has been flagrantly flouted??

So, get a grip, proponents of the common law system revamp - before you talk of re-inventing the wheel, you need to first ensure that the potential spokes are good and hard.

And to the CJ, before you purport to incite national "pride" by sweepingly calling for a revamp of the common law system, you must first redeem yourself for the sense of justice which you have completely crucified, as revealed in the very fortunate expose.

Puteri Shehnaz Majid

The common law forms the basis of the laws subsisting in the United States of America and many countries of the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada, India and New Zealand.

Its potable strength lies in its ability to guarantee the certainty of the law. This certainty is based on the doctrine of stare decisis or the law of precedents which states that on a similar pattern of facts, cases will have similar results.

Public policy is different. Public policy affects the common law. For instance, customary marriages were at one time (I do not know about now) recognised by Indian Courts, while New Zealand Courts never extended such recognition from the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840 . Today, Malaysia does not recognise customary marriage because of a public policy statute called the Marriage Reform Act which requires all marragies to be solemnised and registered by the Registrar of Marriages or his appointed Assistant Registrars.

So the common law which is now Malaysian in content by virtue of its potability should not be confused with public policy. Admittedly, at times, there is tension between public policy and the common law. This tension must challenge the ability of our politicians to make wise decisions in the long-term interests of the entire country, not expedient decisions from which they can attract immediate benefits.

As my learned friend Roger Tan said, "to replace the Malaysian common law on this misconceived basis is a separate issue altogether as it is tantamount to substituting the Malaysian syariah law for the Malaysian common law. A fortiori, to amend the Civil Law Act to allow this will offend the spirit of the Federal Constitution in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society."

I have lived with and borne witness to our sad experience of politicians meddling with our so-called national culture and national education policies because they played to the gallery of these cultural and educational nationalists.

On the cultural policy, we are touching on the present sentiments of all Malaysians while on the education policy we are playing with the very future of our new generations of Malaysians.

The theme that shines brightly in both policy decisions and implementation is that we have ignored the basic "social contract" that was first agreed upon between our respected Founding Fathers.

I am of the view that the common law of Malaysia should remain intact. We Malaysians should exercise eternal vigilance in ensuring that the legal system also remains intact.

That our Court decisions no longer commands the persuasion they used to command in the first 30 years of our national life must be regarded as an eye-opener of what is occurring.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Dear Roger,

You have nailed the point on the dot.

Malaysian Common Law has always been in existence since Merdeka.

I would also like to add that the interpretation of Malaysian Common Law became more "independent" or as some may put it gained more sovereignty when the nation abolished appeals to the Privy Council.

The Law of the land is a reflection of our combined cultures and norms which are held together by the Federal Constitution and the Rule of Law.

To suggest otherwise is a nonsensical. Sometimes I wonder, whether the call for the abolishment of the Malaysian Common Law is an insult to our intelligence and legal training? I will keep on wondering. Good Job Roger.

Vicknaraj Thanarajah