PM seeks shield fit for a king
Good morning. Here's our news and views that matter for today.
Key Highlights
PM seeks shield fit for a king
Third Reich, Your Honour
Shake-up at the top
PM seeks shield fit for a king
Anwar Ibrahim's unprecedented push for immunity from civil lawsuits has ignited a fierce debate over its constitutional legitimacy. Leading legal experts have voiced doubts about whether the Federal Constitution actually shields sitting prime ministers from such legal challenges.
Several prominent lawyers tell Malaysiakini that, by and large, this kind of immunity does not extend to government officials.
'I think first and foremost, the concept that the prime minister of Malaysia has some form of legal immunity against civil suits or even criminal suits is something that the courts in Malaysia have not decided yet.
'In fact, the Federal Constitution only says that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and state rulers have a certain degree of immunity. The Constitution does not bestow immunity to any other person, including the prime minister,' said Lim Wei Jiet.
'So I am not sure on which basis the prime minister's lawyers are framing these questions of law to the Federal Court, relying on Articles 39, 40, and 43, because those articles don't talk about immunity. They talk about the powers of the executives and the cabinet in general,' he added.
HIGHLIGHTS
Third Reich, Your Honour
Lawyer Shafee Abdullah draws a dramatic parallel between the ongoing royal addendum hearing for ex-premier Najib Abdul Razak and the dark days of Nazi-era rule, taking aim at the presiding judge over what he claims is a serious misstep.
'A judicial decision means you hear both parties. Since when do we do a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing? You must hear both parties,' he exclaimed.
This was related to the contempt of court proceedings launched by Najib's legal team against former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh, over his actions in 2024, where he declined to reveal in court the existence of a royal addendum ordering Najib to serve the remainder of his six-year jail term under house arrest.
Shafee's complaint is that the judge made a decision administratively without hearing both sides, which he argues is improper and unfair.
HIGHLIGHTS
Shake-up at the top
Following the resignations of PKR ministers Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, attention is squarely on Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim - what will his next move be in the upcoming cabinet reshuffle?
Anwar stated that no discussions regarding a cabinet reshuffle have taken place and affirmed that such changes would not take place anytime soon.
Khairy Jamaluddin, who is rumoured to make a comeback, has since downplayed the speculation, saying he is preoccupied with other matters.
A reshuffle could additionally take place in Selangor, regardless of whether Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari moves to a federal post. The PKR election results are being cited to justify potential changes.
HIGHLIGHTS
Views that matter
In case you missed it
HIGHLIGHTS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wondersabout the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sam Holmes)
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
Borneo Post
8 hours ago
- Borneo Post
More seats, better representation: SUPP Stakan branch chief supports potential Sarawak redelineation
Sim says social and economic issues can be heard and tackled more effectively, ultimately improving the quality of life for all Sarawakians. KUCHING (June 28): Sarawak United People's Party (SUPP) Stakan branch chairman Dato Sim Kiang Chiok believes that an increase in the number of state and parliamentary seats in Sarawak would be a positive development, even though talks on redelineation remain speculative at this stage. 'As for how potential new boundaries could impact the next election, I believe that having more constituencies will enhance representation for Sarawakians. 'With more elected representatives, we can better address the unique challenges faced by both urban and rural communities. 'Social and economic issues can be heard and tackled more effectively, ultimately improving the quality of life for all Sarawakians,' he said in a statement todau. Sim was responding to news reports speculating that a motion to increase the number of constituencies in Sarawak could be tabled during the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) special sitting this July 7. He clarified that only the redelineation of state constituencies could be tabled and decided in the DUN, whereas parliamentary constituencies would fall under the federal jurisdiction and require action at the national level. 'Beyond redelineation, it is also possible that the Sarawak government during the July 7 special DUN sitting may have other pressing priorities to address first, such as matters relating to Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) or Sarawak's rights over oil and gas resources, both of which are fundamental to our state's autonomy and economic future,' he said. 'Regarding the timing of a redelineation, our laws stipulate that redelineation exercises must be carried out within a certain time frame to ensure fair and updated representation. 'Therefore, if the timeline under the Federal Constitution is approaching while also taking into account of the adjustment for one third of parliamentary seats for Sarawak and Sabah, it would be both necessary and timely to conduct a redelineation to reflect current realities on the ground and agreement in our MA63,' he added. Asked about how many new state seats would make sense for Sarawak, Sim believed that the Election Commission (EC) would propose a number based on established criteria, including population size, the number of voters, and geographical considerations. 'These objective measures will help ensure a fair and balanced representation across our vast state. However, it is critical to recognise that population numbers alone should not be the only factor guiding redelineation in Sarawak.' Sim pointed out Sarawak's unique geography, marked by expansive rural areas with low population density, meant that many communities were spread far apart and infrastructure in some of these areas remained underdeveloped. 'As such, redrawing boundaries solely based on population without considering physical size and accessibility would place an undue burden on the elected representatives, who would struggle to effectively serve constituents across vast, sparsely populated territories. 'While the prospect of a redelineation exercise has generated understandable interest, it is vital that we approach this issue with clarity, patience, and a firm commitment to fair representation. 'Thus, I urge all stakeholders to stay engaged and informed as developments unfold, so that any decision made truly serves the best interests of our beloved Sarawak.' redelineation Sim Kiang Chiok
