Government Of Malaysia & Ors V. Loh Wai Kong Case Study

There is a case about the freedom of movement. In the case of Government of Malaysia & Ors v Loh Wai Kong , Loh was a permanent resident of Australia. He returned to Malaysia in April 1975, and was charged with a criminal offense in the High Court at Ipoh on 2 August 1976. Loh obtained bail on condition that he surrenders his passport. On 2 March 1977, his passport expired, and Loh had it returned. He later applied for a new passport, citing the need to return to Australia by 1978, or his resident visa there would expire. The authorities rejected the application, saying that he was involved in a criminal case and that the issuance of a passport was at the discretion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King). Loh then filed suit in the High Court at Penang, asking the court to compel the government to issue him a passport, on the grounds that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental …show more content…
In fact, even Article 5 -- personal liberty itself does not include the right to travel overseas and to have a passport. The government has discretion whether to issue or not to issue, delay the issue of or withdraw a passport. As for the protection against banishment, Malaysia had abolished the Banishment act 1959 which has not been applied since 34 years ago since the case of Home Minister v Chu Choon Yong and Anor. In my opinion, I agree with it when someone is offended, he or she does not have the right to travel to other country. Consequently, in some circumstances, I disagree with above statement especially in the case of Government of Malaysia & Ors v Loh Wai Kong, Loh need to renew his resident visa otherwise the visa will expire. For the abolishing of Banishment act, I support it as it is 21th century now and we, new generation no need to banish citizen to another place unless there is someone very dangerous until threaten the safety of our