Essay: Emerging from Emergency Rule? Malaysian Law 'Reform' 2011-2013

Abstract

When the Malaysian Prime Minister announced in September 2011 that the time had come to end the state of emergency, abolish detention without trial by repealing the feared Internal Security Act, and remove or reform other repressive laws, it seemed that the government might be genuinely committed to progressive, if limited, law reform. However, as this essay demonstrates, the legislative changes fell well short of the reforms that had long been demanded by the Malaysian Bar and civil and political rights campaigners who have rightly been deeply concerned about the health of Malaysian democracy and the erosion of constitutional governance and the rule of law. The essay identifies two impediments to the Prime Minister’s purported goal of transforming Malaysia into an inclusive democracy that respects fundamental human rights and the rule of law: the entrenching of 'emergency legality' within the constitution, and long-standing government tolerance and encouragement of ethno-nationalist politicians who pervert law and the institutions of the state for their own ends by invoking an emergency mentality.