The issue is whether Constitution can still be regarded as the supreme law as it is allows certain laws which are

inconsistent with the Constitution. According to the Article 4(1), the constitution is the supreme law of the land and if there is other law that are inconsistent with the constitution, the law will be void. In Article 162(1), any existing law which are passed before Merdeka Day, shall continue in force until repealed by relevant authority that having power to do so; and after Merdeka Day, necessary modification is to be made. Meaning that, any law passed before Merdeka Day, it still can be in force if it is not contrary with the constitution. However, if it was inconsistent with the Constitution, necessary modification or amend on the law itself should be made. For example in the case of Assa Singh, the appellant was detaining under the Restricted Residence Enactment where the fundamental liberty enshrined in Article 5 was not be given to him. In another case is Chia Khin Sze, the detainee was arrested under Restricted Residence Enactment and he was apllied to be allow represented by counsel and ask to call witnesses at enquiry. The issue in this case is whether the Constitution gives a right to be defended by a counsel. According to the Article 5(3), the right to be defended by a counsel does not be given to the person who detained under RRE. It is only applied to persons who are arrested under CPC. In case of Surinder Singh Kanda, the appellant was dismissed by the Commisioner of Police on the ground that he had been guilty of an offence against the discipline. The issue is whether the Commisioner of Police had any power to dismiss him as under the Constitution the power rested inly with the Police Service Commission. In Article 135(1), stated that no member of the services shall be dismissed or reduced in rank by the authority subordinate, which has power to appoint a member of those services of equal rank. However, in Section 9(1) in Police Ordinance 1952, the Commissioner of Police could dismiss an Inspector. The issue is whether the Ordinance continues to inforce after Merdeka Day. According to Article 144(1), the words subject to the existing law means only law that are consistent with the Federal Constitution are going to be in force. If the law are inconsistent, therefore necessary modification should be made. It is because, when there is a conflict between existing law and the constitution, the constitution shall prevail.

Therefore, in the conclusion, the Constitution still can be regarded as supreme even it is allowed provisions that are inconsistency with constitution.