Wonder where they are going with this?, page-51

the two paragrapshs (in italics) below are extracts from Goanna's excellent link.  The first paragraph would appear to say that Malaysia does not ignore Ouster Clauses and therefore the Minister's power would appear to be absolute Provided that she her decisions do not break any laws.  The second paragraph says that the Law of the Land must be followed by the Government - which is accountable to the people and is responsible for implementing the laws in accordance with the constitution. In my naievety I would interpret this to mean that the Ministers's decision cannot be challenged unless she has broken the law.  Does anyone have a more enlightened comment please.

"In Malaysia, an application for judicial review is often denied due to ouster clauses. Ouster clauses are finality clauses attempt to completely exclude judicial review. Words such as “final and/or shall not be questioned” are often seen in Acts of Parliament to deem the decision made by the Government be conclusive and does not subject to review. Unfortunately, unlike United Kingdom, we are not prepared to ignore absolute ouster clauses.

Malaysia is a God-gifted country in which the land is blessed with natural resources and free from natural disasters. Embracing the concept of constitutional supremacy or keluhuran perlembagaan, it is therefore noticed that public authorities must act in such a way that is compatible with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, failing which the act will be rendered unconstitutional and illegal. Thomas Fuller once said that “be you ever so high, the law is above you”; herein lies the significance of judicial review to ensure that Acts of Parliament are correctly interpreted. Government must be held responsible not only to the Parliament but to the people as a whole!+