JUDGMENT

Hasnah Mohammed Hashim CJM:

Introduction

[1] This appeal raises the question of whether retired Members of Parliament are entitled to a revision of their pensions when there is a revision of the salary of serving Members of Parliament.

[2] On 2 July 2024, this Court granted leave in respect of the following questions:

Question 1

In view of the subsequent amendments made to the long title, s 20 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] and insertion of new s 17A vide Act A996, whether s 20 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] after its amendment, has dispensed with the need for an express power to be given by the Parent Act and that the delegated authority is entitled to legislate retrospectively notwithstanding the absence of any express provision in its Parent Act?

Question 2

Whether the decision in Kerajaan Malaysia v. Wong Pot Heng & Anor; [1997] 1 MLJ 437; [1997] 2 CLJ 188; [1997] 1 AMR 850 which enunciated that 'a subsidiary legislation could only be made with retrospective operation if it was authorised by an express power in, or by necessary implication from its Parent Act' is no longer binding in view of the subsequent amendments made to the long title, s 20 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] and insertion of new s 17A vide Act A996?

Question 3

Whether the previous Members of Parliament's entitlement to pension under the former (old) para 20 of the First Schedule to the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 [Act 237] which stated that 'Whenever the salaries of a Member are revised, the salary on which a pension granted under para 2 or a derivative pension granted under para 5, 6 or 7 is based shall be adjusted to the revised salary as appropriate and the pension or derivative pension recomputed accordingly' is an accrued or acquired right which is saved or protected by s 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388], at the time when the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2015 was made on 16 February 2015?

Question 4

Whether such previous Members of Parliament's entitlement to pension under the former (old) para 20 of the First Schedule to the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) Act 1980 [Act 237] is a contingent right and neither saved nor protected by s 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388]?

Question 5

Whether the unaccrued inchoate right to receive an increased pension which was not saved by s 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] can be modified or extinguished by retrospective amendment?

Question 6

In view of amendment to long title of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] vide Act A996, whether the scope and character of Act 388 is not merely limited to meanings of words used in written law/interpreting words and phrases of the statutes?

The Factual Background

[3] The Respondents are former Members of Parliament (MPs) and retired before the coming into force of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration) (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act A1491) (2015 Amendment). Vide an Originating Summons filed in the High Court , the Respondents sought a declaration that, as retired MPs, they possessed the right for their pensions to be recomputed and revised in accordance with the increase of salary of MPs pursuant to the 2015 Amendment. The 2015 Amendment was gazetted on 9 July 2015; however, it came into force on 1 January 2015. The reliefs sought are as follows:

(i) Deklarasi bahawa Pemohon-Pemohon yang disenaraikan Jadual A yang semuanya pernah merupakan ahli Senat/Parlimen dan/atau kini merupakan ahli Senat/Parlimen yang telah bersara) berhak untuk menerima dan dibayar pencen yang dikira dan disemak semula ('recomputed and revised pensions') masing-masing berdasarkan kenaikan upah ahli Senat/Parlimen menurut Akta Pindaan Ahli-Ahli Parlimen (Upah) 2015 yang digazetkan pada 1 Januari 2015;

(ii) Perintah selanjutnya bahawa Responden-Responden hendaklah membayar Pemohon-Pemohon yang disenaraik