922 Current Law Journal [2015] 8 CLJ Constitution (‘the Constitution’) and was therefore void under art. 4(1) of the Constitution (‘first question’); and (ii) whether the Act is valid and enforceable under the Federal Constitution (‘second question’). Held (answering first question in negative; answering second question in positive) Per Arifin Zakaria CJ delivering the judgment of the court: (1) The Act was first enacted as the Sedition Ordinance 1948 (‘the Ordinance’) by the Federal Legislative Council and had come into force on 17 July 1948. The Ordinance had effect throughout the Federation of Malaya. The Ordinance sought to consolidate the various existing Sedition Enactments in the Malay States and in the Straits Settlements into a single law. The Ordinance was later revised in 1969 under the Revision of Law Act 1968 and renamed as the Sedition Act 1948. It was a pre-Merdeka law. The issue therefore was whether it was saved by art. 162 of the Constitution. (paras 7 & 16) (2) Article 162 of the Constitution is a transitional provision intended to ensure the continuance of all existing laws after Merdeka Day with such modifications as may be made under the said article and subject to any amendment as may be made by Federal or State law. Under art. 162(6), the court or tribunal are given further powers to make any necessary modification to any such law to bring it into accord with the Constitution. The term ‘Parliament may by law’ as appearing in art. 10(2) should not be read restrictively but must be read harmoniously with the other provisions of the Constitution such as art. 162, in consonant with the principle of interpretation of the Constitution as borne out in the case of Dato Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato Ombi Syed Alwi Syed Idrus. (paras 19 & 23) (3) To say that the Act does not come within the ambit of art. 10(2) of the Constitution as it was not made by Parliament would give it a highly restrictive and rigid interpretation to the phrase ‘Parliament may by law’ as appearing in the said article. The framers of the Constitution in drafting art. 162 would have in their contemplation the provision of art. 10(2) and had they indeed intended that the phrase ‘the existing laws’ in art. 162 was not to include the Act, they could have done so in no uncertain terms. On the contrary, the intention of the framers of the Constitution was to provide for the continuance of all existing laws including the Act, subject to any modifications as may be made so as to bring it into accord with the Constitution. The existing law is only rendered void or invalid if it could not be brought into accord with the Constitution. This was to be contrasted with the treatment of post Merdeka Day legislation which by virtue of art. 4(1) was rendered null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution. (paras 24 & 25) A B C D E F G H I