International Law, History & Policy - Centre for International Law

Singapore in the Early Years 23
part of the Agreement and are to be ascertained by an examination
of that Constitution. 48
Thomson CJ further added that the powers of the Federation
were granted by the sovereign rulers as signatories to the 1957
Agreement, and as such, the Federal Government had power to
conclude a new treaty to enlarge the Federation and the Federal
Parliament had competence to pass the Malaysia Act. Thomson
CJ further pointed out that while the Constitution formed an
important part of Malaysia’s municipal law, it was also part of
the Agreement signed by previously sovereign states that went
to make up the Federation of Malaya, and it should thus be
construed according to the principles applied to the interpretation
of treaties:
The general principle is that treaties, being compacts between
nations, are not to be subjected to the minute interpretation
which in private law may result in defeating through technical
construction the real purpose of the negotiators. 49
At first blush, Thomson CJ’s approach was decidedly positivist.
The validity of the Malaysia Act was premised on the powers
conferred on the Federation of Malaya Parliament by the 1957
Agreement. However, he seemed to suggest that there were limits
on this power:
48 The Government of the State of Kelantan v The Government of the
Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj [1963]
MLJ 355. For an academic comment on this case, see S Jayakumar,
‘Admission of New States: The Government of the State of Kelantan v
The Government of the Federation of Malaya & Tunku Abdul Rahman
Putra Al-Haj (1964) 6 Malaya Law Review 181–188.
49 The learned Chief Justice quoted this passage from Henry Wheaton,
Elements of International Law, 6 ed (WB Lawrence ed) (Boston, 1886)
at 522.