“What would Britons need a Constitution for? We know our rights!”- OrangRojak.

Britons have a constitution. They only don’t have a “written” constitution as we Malaysians & (say) the Americans.

I would define “constitution” as meaning the composition or structure or arrangement of the poltical offices or institution in a sovereign state together with a system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.

The Americans drew up the 1st formal written one covering the above in around 1780s. Ours was in 1956 with assistance of Reid Commission headed by Lord William Reid, a distinguished Jurist/judge and constitutional experts from fellow Commonwealth countries appointed by the British Queen and the Malay Rulers/Alliance progenitors.

Britons don’t need “written” constitution because the constitution as defined above could be put in place piecemeal by individual laws enacted by the British Parliament.

The progenitor of Parliament started in circumstances where the King needed sources of money from levies to finance expenses of war, and the privileged class said no money would be raised unless representation/voice given.
The first model British Parliament was during Edward 1’s time in 1295. It wasn’t bicameral ie having two chambers. The parliamentarians were then 2 archbishops, 19 bishops, 48 abbots, 7 earls and 41 barons – the aristocratic class evolving over 900 years to present House of Lords!

After that somemore money was needed to be raised – not only from those who prayed but also those who fought and those who labored and worked. That’s how representation became broad based and the second chamber evolved….

Over 100O years British Tyrants/Monarchs fought and oppressed men of freedom all in the name of High Treason punishable by Death. The latter were quartered, tortured, incarcerated (eg Sir Walter Ralegh) in the Tower of London. Lawyers contributed to development of law & todays freedom. To be fair they were fighting both sides both for and against (Sir Edward Coke) Freedom.

Britons don’t need a written constitution to safeguard Freedoms because partly these Freedoms are already encapsulated in the written laws from Parliament and partly imbued as an ingrained value in the British Blood – because it as hard won by spilling of much of their blood over a 1000 years!

Here is different: The nation is only 60 years old and Ahmad Shabery is still theatening Mohd Nizar with high treason for defying or at least not suppliant to Perak sultan’s decision ordering to step aside. This is Feudal Culture of Hang Tuah carried forward since 1400 Malacca Sultanate. That’s where the difference. If Mohd Nizar, on Anwar’s advice, still remain intransigent as against Ruler’s stance, he can’t win in this game, he’d better migrate. :)

When I say “partly imbued as an ingrained value in the British Blood” it is a metaphorical reference to convention tradition and usage, and when that hardens or fossilises into law by judicial decisions/precedents it is called “common law” or law commonly accepted….

Important to safeguard Freedom is the convention/acceptance of Rule of Law. I don’t think any British legislation defines it and but everyone knows roughly what it means : that Rule of Law must be upheld; that it must be applied equally and with fairness; that no subject/citizen suffer punishment from it unless by established and known procedures – and merits based on circumstances and laws – he has infringed the law; that before he is punished, he is accorded the right under natural justice to hear the case against him and to be heard his side of the story; that though laws are upheld because they are accepted by majority, they cannot override certyian principal rights that are need to protect minority from majority’s oppression; that power tends to corrupt, so those who wield it have to be checked, and there must be check and balance, and if they enforce laws and rules, they cannot do so arbritarily; that somebody else, independent like judges ought to be vested power to peer behind those decisions (what undergrad2 meant by “justiciable”) and for this reason judges must not obnly be fair but seen to be fair to deserve that respect accorded to their impartiality and so and so forth.

When do you think the rakyat or sunstantial section of it will learn all these, get it into the system, be guided by such precepts to be willing to fight for these?

People in power absolutely bank on this not happening for a long time to come.