The “remedy at the ballot box” argument presupposes an ideal political scene but in the context of our dismal Malaysian society - it is a theoretical crystal ball. When politicians fail us - the courts in upholding the Constitution and its values - is the last beacon of hope.
The Constitution is not subject to the same limitations that apply to ordinary law where intention of its drafter take precedence. The hallmark of Constitutionalism is that courts can administer what is fair and just - the only limitation being the Basic Structure Doctrine.
1. I think this is ultimately the correct decision. The problem lies with the Constitution itself, which discriminates against women. This can only be fixed by Parliament. The courts can only do so much, too strained a reading of a clear provision will only result in absurdity.
Both are equally strong and plausible recognised tools of interpretation and there is nothing absurd about it. To suggest that the courts are powerless when provisions in the FC clearly conflict with each other is the antithesis of Constitutional Supremacy.
@limweijiet And Justice Zawawi (now FCJ) gave us his insights as to how certain words in the poem ought to sound - in terms of vocal intonation and native slang
But WJ knew his priorities. The fight in the courtrooms is far from over but it shall continue in the lawmaking Assembly. I humbly implore voters of No.5 Tenang to give @limweijiet a chance not just to serve, but to be a fearless voice of justice and reason amidst the tumult.