A Template for Structural Analysis of an Industry Essay Example for Free

A Template for Structural Analysis of an Industry Essay Corporate Strategy and Policy A Template for Structural Analysis of an Industry You can use the following template for analyzing the structure of an industry. It requires you to rate the attractiveness of an industry on a 5-point scale for several factors relating to each of the five forces in Porter’s (1980) model. (A 7-point or a 10-point scale would perhaps be even better in that it would allow finer discrimination between two businesses with different levels of attractiveness. But the 5-point scale is relatively much easier to use. To help you in the ratings, the template provides the anchors at the two ends of the scale for each factor with examples of industries corresponding to the anchors. You will note that we have included separate sections in the template for exit barriers and government. The former contributes to rivalry among competitors (and is, therefore, not a sixth force). The latter, according to some, should be treated as the sixth force, although Porter says the effect of government on an industry is felt through one or more of the five forces. If you want, you can attach different weights to different forces and also to different factors within each force. If an industry has different segments that are structurally different, you can separately analyze the attractiveness of each segment. You can also analyze the changes in industry structure by using the template at two different points of time (for instance, today and five years from now) to obtain greater insight into likely opportunities and threats that you can expect from the industry environment. To reduce the element of subjectivity, you can get the attractiveness evaluated by several colleagues and arrive at average scores. Even the weights of different factors and forces could be based on the opinion of your colleagues and you could attach greater weight to the opinion of colleagues with greater expertise. Use your creativity to benefit from this tool. You can use the remarks column to annotate your ratings. For instance, consider the first factor in Table 1 (number of competitors).

Overview of the Sport Softball Essay -- essays research papers

George Hancock's first intention was to come up with a way for baseball players to stay in practice during the winter. Instead, on September 16, 1887 in Chicago, he invented a whole new sport, the first version of softball. It was referred to then as just "Indoor Baseball." The first game of baseball consisted of a boxing glove tied into a ball and a broom handle which was used as the bat. After the game was successful with a score of 44-40, Hancock developed a ball and a bat that could be used to play the game. The new sport was moved outside the next year. Another version of softball came about when Lewis Rober, Sr. organized an outdoor game to be used as exercise for firefighters. It was called kitten ball, pumpkin ball, or diamond ball. His game used a ball with a circumference of 12 inches whereas Hancock's game used a ball with a circumference of 16 inches. When sports that were fairly the same were being played all over with different rules and names, the Joint Rules Committee on Softball was formed and standardized the rules and the name, "Softball." The rules of softball can be easily altered yet there are some basic rules no matter how it is played. It is a strike if a legally pitched ball is swung at and missed by a batter or when a foul ball is not caught when the batter has less than two strikes. A ball is called when a legally pitched ball does not enter the strike zone or hits the ground before reaching the home plate, but only if the batter had not attempted to swing. A ball is also called when the pitch is illegal. The batter must always run when a fair ball is hit. If a fair ball or foul ball is caught by an opponent before it hits the ground, the batter is out. When four b... ..., fair ball, is a batted ball is hit into fair territory. Fair territory is the part of the playing field within and including first base and third base foul lines from home base to the bottom of the playing field. A foul ball is a ball that is hit into foul territory. A dead ball is a ball that is not in play. Any ball that is hit into the air is called a fly ball. The strike zone is the space over the home-plate, which is between the batter's armpits and the top of the knees when the batter is in batting position. An overthrow is a play in which a ball is thrown from one fielder to another to try to retire a base-runner who hasn't gotten to or is off a base. The team in the field is called the defensive team. The team at bat is called the offensive team. The batting order is the official listing of offensive players in the order to go up to bat.

The Good Shepherd, John 10

Jesus, Our One True Shepherd Tuesday, October 30, 2012 Introduction Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus offers to those around Him, most specifically His Disciples, metaphors to help them understand who He is and what His purposes are. Jesus uses common phrases to illustrate His point. He does this twenty-three times in the Gospel of John Repeating important. He begins seven of those important statements with two exceptional words, â€Å"I AM†. These words illustrate his world-saving purpose.For example in John 6, Jesus makes the profound statement â€Å"I am the bread of life† right after feeding a huge crowd and speaking of Moses and the manna God gave from Heaven. Without the manna, the nation of Israel would not have survived their time in the desert. Later, in John 8 Jesus speaks of walking in light versus darkness, and makes the statement, â€Å"I am the Light of the world†¦Ã¢â‚¬  We know that a belief in Jesus allows us to walk in the light, to be out of the darkness of sin and death. By the time we reach chapter 10 in the Gospel of John, Jesus is going say again, twice, an â€Å"I AM† statement.The rest of this paper will focus on John 10:1-18. It is important however, to understand that what Jesus is doing in these verses is in the midst of a long line of hugely important moments between Him and those He came to save. In the tenth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus makes two huge â€Å"I AM† statements. The first one Jesus speaks to is addressed in verses 1-10, and is spoken in vs. 7, â€Å"I AM the door of the sheep. † The second comes later in vs. 11, â€Å"I AM the good shepherd. † In John 10, the structure of the passage comes in two parts, yet concludes with one main theme, Jesus is our true Shepherd.The paper will take a look at the first part of the passage where Jesus talks about being the â€Å"gatekeeper†, and then will shift focus into what Jesus being the â€Å"Good Shepherd† means. While again, each could be looked at independently, the focus of this paper will be to demonstrate that each part works together to help Jesus’ followers then and people today understand what it means for Jesus to be the one true Shepherd. It is important to understand weight of each of the â€Å"I AM† statements that Jesus speaks in John 10. In order to gain a better understanding of the premise of Jesus as â€Å"Shepherd†, here are a few important things to note.First, sheep and goats were two of the most well known and spoken about animals in the Bible. Also, â€Å"sheep and goats require constant care, since they are practically defenseless† and such would require a Shepherd, someone to guard them, and provide a constant watch over them. So now, Shepherds became a pivotal part of God’s story. Shepherds not only tended to the feeding and providing of care for the sheep, they guarded and protected them against thieves and robbers. It was the Shepherd’s sole responsibility to care for and tend to his sheep – to make sure they were accounted for and maintained to the best of his ability.Second, even thought this is the first time in John that Shepherding is mentioned, the other Gospels also discus this ‘job’. It is also, as previously mentioned, seen a huge amount throughout the Old Testament. Think back to David or some of the great Prophets, like Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or Isaiah, and you find a vivid picture of what it means to be a Shepherd, one of the sheep, or part of the flock. In John Chapter 10, Jesus will identify Himself as a Shepherd, and the implications of this are great. Not only does Jesus speak about being the ‘gatekeeper’ of the sheep, He also says that he is the â€Å"Good Shepherd†.Both concepts help to illustrate Jesus’ purpose and one main idea, â€Å"Jesus is our one true Shepherd†. The Gatekeeper In the first part of the passage (John 10:1 -10), Jesus is going to identify Himself as the gatekeeper, the guard and protector of the sheep from thieves and robbers. To understand this properly, and to put the first part of this passage in context, we must go back to what the people would have understood as he said this, and why they would have understood its implications. Ezekiel 34 is the starting point for this analysis. The basic implication of Ezekiel 34 is the rebuking the false shepherds of Israel.Making note that one day He will gather the lost sheep and bring them to Himself, as promised. From Ezekiel, Verses 2, 4-5, and 11-12 â€Å"Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, â€Å"Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? † 5 â€Å"They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. † 11 For thus says the Lord God, â€Å"Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. 2 â€Å"As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. The idea of false or evil shepherds can also be found in Jeremiah 23: 2-5. 2Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel concerning the shepherds who are tending My people: â€Å"You have scattered My flock and driven them away, and have not attended to them; behold, I am about to attend to you for the evil of your deeds,† declares the Lord. â€Å"Then I Myself will gather the remnant of My flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and bring them back to their pasture, and they will be fruitful and multiply. 4â€Å"I will also raise up shepherds over them and they will tend them; and they will not be afraid any longer, nor be terrified, nor will any be missing,† dec lares the Lord. What Jesus does by introducing the rightful gatekeeper in the first 10 verses of John is to open the door to Him being the true Shepherd for the sheep, His people.When looking at the passages in Ezekiel and Jeremiah, it is easy to see how the idea of false or evil shepherds was standard in this time. Up until this point, Jesus’ greatest adversaries had been the Pharisees, the ones who claimed to be the most righteous and Godly men around. They were the ‘gatekeepers’ to religious law and practice. They held the mandates and seemed to ultimately decide who was right, or â€Å"in† with the Father. The people also listened to them. They paid heed to everything the Pharisees said and did.When Jesus, in the opening verses of John 10 describes thieves and robbers, He is speaking to these individuals, and all the other leaders of the past that had led Israel astray. John 10:3 details how the doorkeeper recognizes the shepherd, and how the sheep hea r his voice and follow. This is such rich imagery. We may not value this as significant, because in the Western World most sheep are herded by a dog, or by the movement from a ranch hand from behind the flock. In the Near Eastern culture this is not the case. D. A.Carson describes it like this: â€Å"The Sheep listen to the shepherd’s voice†¦ Near-Eastern shepherds have been known to stand at different spots outside the enclosure and sound out their own peculiar calls, their own sheep responding and gathering around their shepherd. † Jesus is making a bold statement in verse 5 to say, â€Å"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. † Jesus is asserting that those who have come before Him, and who have pretended to be His people’s shepherds are nothing more than strangers.He shows that a time will be coming when He will call the names of those whom He loves, and they will know His voice, because they are already His. This moment links us directly to Jesus as Messiah – coming to save those who have been as scattered sheep. Only the one true Shepherd will call His sheep, and only then will the people hear the voice of the this Shepherd. Jesus being the ‘gatekeeper’ is so very important. So not only is the gatekeeper responsible for the sheep in the sense that he decides who will come and go from the fold, Jesus being the ‘gatekeeper’ or the ‘door’, is the means to eternal salvation.Only the one true Shepherd can be held responsible for those who come into the fold. In verse 7 Jesus makes the first â€Å"I AM† statement – He says, â€Å"I am the door of the sheep. † Not only now do the sheep recognize Him as the Shepherd, He now is their passage through the gate into the fold. Jesus points out again in verse 8 that those who came before Him were nothing but thieves and robbers, and that the sheep did not recognize them. The thieves and robbers were only out for their own interests (looking back to Ezekiel 34) and because of this, the sheep are eternally destroyed.But Jesus as the door to the fold, the gate itself, gives life, and does not take it away. Jesus as the one true Shepherd is the only door there is to the Father, the only true gate in which a sheep can enter into the fold. Up until this point, the passage has reflected on the Jewish nation. Jesus as â€Å"The Good Shepherd† will become an even bigger idea, also helping to verify Jesus as the one true Shepherd, and for all people. The Good Shepherd In this portion of the passage, Jesus makes several important claims about His role as the one true Shepherd of the flock.In the earlier verses, this same idea was true, but only for a certain subset of people. As we look through the following portion of the text we will see how Jesus is â€Å"The Good Shepherd† for all, and therefore is the one true Shephe rd of the flock. Right away, John points out something crucial to the passage, and that hints to earlier parts of the passage. He opens up by saying this: â€Å"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. â€Å"He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. This mention of a hired hand again points to those who came before Jesus, who were even there at that time, pretending to be Israel’s shepherds. They, the religious leaders and Pharisees were nothing but hired hands, looking after the sheep yes, but in the sight of danger, they would flee. The ‘hired hand’ cares much more for his own interest than the interests of his flock. We know Jesus to be the complete opposite, and He truly hits it home when He says that as The Good Shepherd, not only will He protect His sheep, He will die for them.Only the one true Shepherd would do that for His sheep. The next portion of the text is also monumental in meaning when it comes to Jesus being the one true Shepherd. Right after Jesus emphasizes that He will know His sheep and His sheep will know Him, He makes a gesture not only to those who already know Him, but also to those who have yet to know Him. From John 10:16, â€Å"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. The significance of this moment in scripture is profound.Jesus states here that He is the One who will bring all to the fold. That no longer will there be a division between Jews and Gentiles, but that there will only be one flock, with the one true Shepherd. Many times throughout the New Testament this same grand gesture is given to the Gentiles. See Galatians 3: 26-29: â€Å"26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were bapti zed into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 9And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. † This moment says exactly this! Jesus is the one true Shepherd, fulfilling a long foretold promise that He and He alone will bring ALL the sheep into the fold and He will be the only Shepherd. The final portion of this text helps us to understand more clearly who â€Å"The Good Shepherd† is. As The Good Shepherd, Jesus makes some declarations about who He is in not only relation to His sheep but His Father, thus explaining His own sovereignty. Jesus’ life is not taken, it is given up by Him and Him alone.This is why God sent Him. The choice to watch over, guard, protect, and call-in His sheep was the plan, the plan of a great and sovereign Shepherd, who had to give His l ife so that His sheep could live, so that they could go through the gate. Jesus was not forced to be The Good Shepherd, the one true Shepherd, He choose to do this willingly. Conclusion Throughout the first 18 verses of John 10, John helps us to understand the implications and simple delight that Jesus is our one true Shepherd. He does this first by helping us to see Jesus as the â€Å"gatekeeper† or the â€Å"doorway† through which we enter into life eternal.John also tell us of the personal relationship that a Shepherd has with his sheep, and likewise that Jesus has with each of His sheep – He knows them, and they know Him. Furthermore, John points out that there have been and will probably always continue to be, false or evil shepherds that come like thieves or robbers in the night to try and steal or sway the sheep. But in regards to the text, the sheep shall not worry, but rather hear the voice of the true Shepherd and follow Him. The second portion of the text discusses the sovereignty of the one true Shepherd.Jesus, by choice is The Good Shepherd, and subsequently came to be the one true Shepherd for all. By His choice to lay down His life for all of His sheep, we are able to enter into the fold where He will reign as our Shepherd for eternity. If another shepherd offered this same promise, or was able to, then Jesus would not be The Good Shepherd, He would simply be like the rest before Him – thankfully this is not the case. The verses in John 10: 1-18 clearly demonstrate that Jesus is our one true Shepherd, by means that He is not only The Good Shepherd, but also the â€Å"door† that we must come through to have eternal life.There are some implications that come from knowing this. As followers of Christ in the modern age, we are prone to listen to other shepherds – often times even letting ourselves run and follow after other voices. It is in fact shameful how easy and accustomed we have become to listening to the other voices, which try and replace our one true Shepherd. We find it easier to place our faith in the hands of those hired and not the One high above. We become attuned to religious practice and not the stillness of the green pasture that He leads us to.We become fixated on practice and not righteousness, letting ourselves adhere to the rules put in place, rather than the standard in which the fold was formed. We forget that our one true Shepherd laid down His life for His sheep – doing this so that they might be able to live a life, which with Him alone is full. Knowing that Jesus is the one true Shepherd also helps us to know how to be good shepherds to those around us. It helps us to better understand how to tend to the flocks that we are a part of. It helps us to understand how to love on the weak and care for those who wander.Finally, it helps us to understand the importance of truly knowing our flocks. As is found later in John, Jesus commands of those who truly l ove and follow Him – â€Å"feed My lambs,† â€Å"love My sheep,† and â€Å"tend My sheep. † The one true Shepherd offers this for us, and in turn we are to offer it, as He has commanded us, to all. Jesus is our one true Shepherd, and the Shepherd of all. Sited Works: 1. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB 2006. The Gospel of John, pg. 1557 2. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB 2006. The Gospel of John, pg. 1564 3. Mattingly, G. L. (2000). Shepherd. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds. , Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck, Ed. ) (1208). Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans. 4. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Eze 34:11–12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 5. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Je 23:2–4). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 6. D. A. Carson (1991) The Gospel According to John, Pg. 382 7. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 10:5). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 8. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 10:11–12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 9. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 995 (Jn 10:16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 10. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Ga 3:26–29). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB 2006. The Gospel of John, pg. 1557 [ 2 ]. The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB 2006. The Gospel of John, pg. 1564 [ 3 ]. Mattingly, G. L. (2000). Shepherd. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds. ), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck, Ed. ) (1208). Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans. [ 4 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Eze 34:11–12).LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. [ 5 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 19 95 (Je 23:2–4). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. [ 6 ]. D. A. Carson (1991) The Gospel According to John, Pg. 382 [ 7 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 10:5). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. [ 8 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 10:11–12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. [ 9 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 10:16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. [ 10 ]. New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Ga 3:26–29). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

An Analysis of the Rule of Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1882 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Tags: Act Essay Did you like this example? Rule of law in general terms is about equality before the law where everyone are protected under the same law of the land regardless of your status in society. In narrow context, it does not really matter whether the law upholds the concept of rule of law or not, but as long as the people ought to follow the law, then it is automatically considered as the rule of law[1]. According to John Rawl, rule of law is related to liberalism where regular and impartial administration of public rule is the essence of just legal system characterised by legitimate expectation of people and several requirements must be met whereby the rule of law must only command actions which are possible that those enact the law must do so in a good faith which for instance, cases must be heard fairly and treated alike and this indirectly complies with the rule of natural justice, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"nemo iudex in causa suaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "An Analysis of the Rule of Law" essay for you Create order On the other hand, rule of law can also be seen as the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"law and orderà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ model which emphasises on a peaceful settlement of disputes without violence. This implies that where a valid law exist, there is surely a obligation of that the citizens to obey those laws being imposed to them. As to that, law and order may lead to the restrain of freedom of the citizen to a certain point[2]. For instance, any action which involves protest will violate the legal rules as to whether it is the rule protested against or otherwise, either way it will still violate legal rules. In Malaysia, the Federal Constitution gives you the freedom to assembly under Article 10 (1)(b) where it is stated that the citizen have the right to assemble peacefully without arms. On the other hand, having street protest needs to go in hand with the procedures under Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 that restricts your rights by imposing conditions to assemble and failu re to follow those conditions in the Act essentially gives way to the Officer in Charge of a Police District to disperse the assembly. As according to A.V Diceyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s first apostolate on rule of law, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"no man is punishable in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land[3]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. Any power given to the one in authority should not be too discretionary. In other words, a person should not be punished except for conduct which is a clear breach of law. This contradicts with the case of Shaw v Director of Public Prosecution (1962) where the appellant published a booklet called à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Ladies Directoryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ listed on the contact details of prostitutes and nude pictures. He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals which is an offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. It was held that the courts were the guardians of public mora ls and that they ought to restrain and punish whatever that is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"contra bonos mores et decorumà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. Eventhough there was no particular law against immoral act as regards to the Common Law at that time, the courts still had the duty to lay down their own decision in the judgement. The appeal was rejected. This creates uncertainty as to what act amounts to an offence which is ought to be overruled when there is no law existing on that particular matter at the point that act was carried out[4]. Diceyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s first apostolate applied in Malaysia, to certain extend, the rule of law is not affirmed here and this can be seen in the case of Loh Kooi Chun v Government of Malaysia (1977) 2 MLJ 187. Loh was detained by Royal Malaysian Police under a warrant issued under the provision of Restricted Residence Enactment 1933. Federal Justice, Raja Azlan Shah delivered judgement brought about Article 5(4) of Federal Constitution specifying, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"a ny person arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours be produced before the magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s authority.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Thus, this guarantees the rights of habeas corpus. Loh was denied this right and sued the police for damages. Unfortunately, his claim was rejected on grounds that the police has acted in compliance with warrant issued competent authority. Loh appealed to the Federal Court which heard his case four years after the original case. But however, before the appeal made, Parliament amended Article 5(4) and added a provision stating, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Provided that this clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Essentially , the amendment had retrospective effect whereby it invalidates rights of habeas corpus. However, the judgement laid down by Federal Justice Raja Azlan Shah, although in Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution states, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"any unconstitutional law passed after independence would be voidà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, but this does not apply to the Constitution itself as the Constitution could not be inconsistent to itself. In other words, the judgement states that the law made under ordinary legislative powers and amendments made to the Constitution were two different things altogether. Over here, it can be implied that Residence Enactment 1933 has supreme position over the Constitution as regards to arbitrary arrest and restriction of movement as Article 5(4) was not applied in the course of arresting and detaining a person Diceyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s second apostolate lays down, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, econom ic and political status and they are subjected to the same law of the land.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Malaysia tries to uphold the rule of law by virtue of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution stating the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In accordance with that, the Federal Constitution acknowledges equality by virtue of Article 8 stating, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"all person are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. However, application of two courts system which are the Civil and Syariah court has gone against the concept of rule of law as citizens are not tried in the same court hierarchy. Prior to amendment of Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, Syariah court was considered to be subordinate court where there was encroachment by civil court on the jurisdiction of the Syariah court and upon amendment, the addition of clause (1A) to Article 121 essentially prevents Civil Courts from reviewing decision made by Syariah Court. A non- Muslims are not allowed to go to Syariah Court for relief and on the other hand, Civil Court has no jurisdiction upon personal law of Islam. Over here, there is no harmonization and even worst, rights of citizens to go to court to certain extend is denied with the existence of two courts system[5]. The doctrine of separation of powers defined by Aristotale in the book à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"The Politicsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ states the three branches of government needs to be arranged and only when those brunches are well arranged will the constitution be bound to be well arranged. Powers needs to be distributed among three branches according to membership and functions which is essentially why we do not find the same constitution in every country for the simple reason that it is drafted differently[6]. Montesquieu formulation did not receive total acceptance which indirectly implies that a rigid separation of powers among the three branches was felt not to be expedient and too much s eparation or restrictions imposed to check any abuse of powers will not only hamper the due exercise of these powers but will virtually bring the government a standstill[7]. In Malaysia, we adopt the view by Madison where there can be overlaps between three branches which comes along with check and balances. As observed in the case of Pengarah Tanah Galian Wilayah Persekutuan v. Sri Lempah (1979) 1 MLJ 135, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise it leads to dictatorship. Every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene.[8]à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ It is fundamental as the Federal Constitution is the supreme law and constitutes the grundnorm that all laws are subjected to. It is the duty of judges to uphold justice in accordance with law and in the event where there is a written constitution, judges should administer the law to make sure laws passed by the legislative is inaccordanc e with the constitution and should be strike down to be ultra vires if the law is deemed to be unconstitutional. The function of legislative is to enact law. As in the United States, there is a clear dividing line between the legislative and executive as the President and his cabinet cannot be part from the Congress. This is a total contrast as pertaining to Malaysia whereby by virtue Article 43(2) of the Federal Constitution, the Prime Minister belongs to the Dewan Rakyat and other cabinet ministers belong to either House. When a bill is introduced into Parliament, it needs to go through four stages before enacted as a law. The two important stages among those four will be the second stage and committee stage and it is in the second stage that the debates on the principles takes place. In Malaysia, not all bills are sent to the Select Committee to be checked and only certain important bills, like the budget bill will be sent to be scrutinized. This appears as a clear breach to the doctrine of separation of powers but there is still a check and balance as the legislative indirectly checks on the executive policies contained in the bill. Amendments may be made after scrutinizing but at the end of the day, the Minister or any member of the House may propose a motion which requires a two-third vote of the majority. As Malaysia practices the First Past The Post, majority seats in Dewan Rakyat is being concurred by the ruling party which favours the Bill to get through easily. Even worst, it is more often than not that guillotine motion and kangaroo closure is used to cut short the time of debate. An example that can be drawn upon will be the Prevention of Crime (Amendment and Extension) Act 2013 which allows criminals to be detained for up to two years. The objective of the amendment on papers is to lower down crime rates but on the other hand, it essentially has restrictions being placed unto it pertaining to our fundamental liberties. This Act passed provides de tention without trial which obviously contradicts with the rule of Natural Justice, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"audi alteram partemà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ and in other words, this amended Act allows the court to review the detentions from a viewpoint on whether or not the procedure in making the order has been complied with or not? [1] Constitutional Administrative Law, 8th Edition, Hilaire Barnett, pg 52 [2] Public Law and Human Rights, 2nd Edition, Helen Fendwick, pg 81 [3] The Constitution of United Kingdom, Peter Leyland, pg 48 [4] Constitutional Administrative Law, 8th Edition, Michael Allen, pg 197 [5] Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, Andrew Harding, pg 144 [6] Public Law and Human Rights, 2nd Edition, Helen Fendwick, pg 103 [7]Constitutional Law In Malaysia Singapore, 3rd Edition, Kevin YL Tan Thio Li-ann, pg 27 [8] Pengarah Tanah Galian Wilayah Persekutuan v. Sri Lempah (1979) 1 MLJ 135