Latest news with #separationofpowers
Malay Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Report on AG-public prosecutor separation to be sent to Cabinet this month, says law minister
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — The Comparative Study Task Force's final report on the proposed separation of powers between the attorney general (AG) and the public prosecutor will be presented to the Cabinet this month, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said today. The minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) said the Cabinet had already agreed in principle to the reform, and that two task forces — one for comparative studies and another for technical implementation — had been set up. 'The final report from the Comparative Study Task Force will be submitted to the Cabinet in July. 'After that, the Technical Task Force will take over to work on how the separation will be implemented,' she said in a written parliamentary reply to Pulai MP Suhaizan Kayat. Azalina said the comparative task force, which she led, carried out working visits to Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The delegation included MPs from both sides of the aisle, the Bar Council, Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), and the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department. An interim report from the task force, she said, had outlined key policy issues such as appointment and dismissal powers, role clarity, institutional independence, transparency, and accountability. It was tabled before parliamentary select committees in both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. Azalina added that doctrinal research involving nine countries — including Kenya, India, Hong Kong and South Africa — had also been completed, along with a public opinion study which showed strong support for separating the AG's advisory role from prosecutorial powers. The technical task force, she said, is chaired by the deputy law minister and comprises representatives from the Legal Affairs Division, AGC, Public Service Department, Finance Ministry, and the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. 'Overall, the proposed Bill is currently being finalised and will be tabled once it receives approval from the Cabinet,' she added.
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing
It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that 'the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave' – but she did not explain how to counter the threat. The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call 'the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination' has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists' usurpation of what should remain separate powers. While pious talk of the founders' genius in establishing 'checks and balances' is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous 'factions' – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government. The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an 'imperial presidency', whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton's call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise 'unbound executive'. The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive's agenda. Less obviously, Congress's creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister's question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts). Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed 'emergency' which justifies Trump's capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt. Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a 'unified executive' long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week's on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security. Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of 'conservatism' that justifies Trump's total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation). Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders' anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy's demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists). Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there's still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration's 'global war on terror' in the way that Hamilton's self-declared disciples had hoped. But it's still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see 'we the people' as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference. Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing
It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that 'the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave' – but she did not explain how to counter the threat. The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call 'the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination' has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists' usurpation of what should remain separate powers. While pious talk of the founders' genius in establishing 'checks and balances' is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous 'factions' – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government. The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an 'imperial presidency', whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton's call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise 'unbound executive'. The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive's agenda. Less obviously, Congress's creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister's question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts). Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed 'emergency' which justifies Trump's capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt. Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a 'unified executive' long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week's on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security. Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of 'conservatism' that justifies Trump's total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation). Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders' anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy's demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists). Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there's still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration's 'global war on terror' in the way that Hamilton's self-declared disciples had hoped. But it's still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see 'we the people' as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference. Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
France 24
15-07-2025
- Politics
- France 24
Supreme Court allows Trump to resume Education Department dismantling
The conservative-dominated court, in an unsigned order, lifted a stay that had been placed by a federal district judge on mass layoffs at the department. The three liberal justices on the nine-member panel dissented. Trump pledged during his White House campaign to eliminate the Education Department, which was created by an act of Congress in 1979, and he moved in March to slash its workforce by nearly half. Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "put herself out of a job." Around 20 states joined teachers' unions in challenging the move in court, arguing that the Republican president was violating the principle of separation of powers by encroaching on Congress's prerogatives. In May, District Judge Myong Joun ordered the reinstatement of hundreds of fired Education Department employees. The Supreme Court lifted the judge's order without explanation, just days after another ruling that cleared the way for Trump to carry out mass firings of federal workers in other government departments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said in the Education ruling that "only Congress has the power to abolish the Department." "The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave," Sotomayor said. Traditionally, the federal government has had a limited role in education in the United States, with only about 13 percent of funding for primary and secondary schools coming from federal coffers, the rest being funded by states and local communities. But federal funding is invaluable for low-income schools and students with special needs. And the federal government has been essential in enforcing key civil rights protections for students. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) -- previously headed by Elon Musk -- to downsize the government. Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs -- targeting diversity initiatives and abolishing the Education Department, the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and others.
Free Malaysia Today
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Lawyer drops bid to suspend JAC's activities
Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim now intends to pose his legal question to the Federal Court. KUALA LUMPUR : Lawyer Syed Amir Syakib Arsalan Syed Ibrahim has withdrawn his application to bar the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) from recommending judicial appointments and filling top administrative posts in the judiciary. Justice Amarjeet Singh, who had been scheduled to hear oral submissions today, was informed by counsel Daniel Annamalai that his client had instructed him to withdraw the stay application. The judge then struck out the application with no order as to costs. Daniel told reporters later that Syed Amir had declined to proceed with the stay application as he is planning to apply for constitutional questions to be referred to the Federal Court for determination. In his main suit filed in early April, Syed Amir contended that the powers conferred on the nine-member JAC violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the basic structure of the constitution. He is seeking a mandamus order compelling the prime minister and the government to strictly adhere to the judicial appointment process prescribed under Article 122B of the constitution. Syed Amir claims that the JAC Act is inconsistent with Article 4, which states that the written constitution is the supreme law of the land. Under the JAC Act, the commission proposes the nomination of judges to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. It also recommends nominees for the posts of chief justice, the Court of Appeal president, the chief judge of Malaya, and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak as and when they fall vacant. Syed Amir's application was made under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act to persuade Amarjeet to refer the legal question posed to the apex court. Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government and JAC, while lawyers Christopher Leong and Karen Cheah represented the Bar Council, which had filed their written submissions. Amarjeet is scheduled to hear the main suit on July 16.
