Statutory Interpretation in Malaysia DOCX

Title	Statutory Interpretation in Malaysia
Pages	12
File Size	31.4 KB
File Type	DOCX
Total Downloads	13
Total Views	69

Summary

“Just as literary critics need a working theory, or at least a style of interpretation, in order to construct the poem behind the text, so judges need something like a theory of legislation to do this for statutes. This may seem evident when the words in the statute book suffer from some semantic de...

Description

"Just as literary critics need a working theory, or at least a style of interpretation, in order to construct the poem behind the text, so judges need something like a theory of legislation to do this for statutes. This may seem evident when the words in the statute book suffer from some semantic defect, when they are ambiguous or vague, for example. But a theory of legislation is also necessary when these words are, from the linguistic point of view, impeccable."1 - INTRODUCTION- Countries which have inherited the common law system have seen a major shift from judge- made laws emanating from the courts to statutory laws being enacted by the bulk in the legislative chambers. Malaysia is one of those countries. The function of Parliament is to enact laws, and the judiciary have to interpret the law as it stands, and not as it fancies it to be2 . In doing so, the judiciary must be mindful not to usurp the legislative function of the legislative branch. It follows from this that there are 'rules' of statutory interpretation. As a matter of fact, to call these methods "rules" is really a misnomer. As Lord Reid pointed out, "They are not rules in the ordinary sense of having some binding force. They are our servants not our masters. They are aids to construction, presumptions or pointers."3 Peter Goodrich explained that these rules came about when judges, in delivering their judgements, sought to justify their own conclusions and provide for models of behaviour as to how judges should approach the task of interpretation as opportunities arose. He also added 1 Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (HarperCollins, London, 1986), pp.15- 23 2 Lim Kit Siang v. Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir [1986] 1 MLJ 469, p.383, 385 3 Maunsell v Olins [1975] HL 1...