The Malay Monarchies in Constitutional and Social Conception

Robert Aldrich and Cindy McCreery (eds),Monarchies and Decolonisation in Asia (Manchester Uni Press, 2020

Modern Malaysia is characterised by its elaborate monarchy, as well as by its sharply plural society-a Muslim-Malay majority, but with very large Chinese and Indian minority communities. There is not just one royal ruler: apart from the country's King (or Yang di-Pertuan Agong), nine of the states in the federation (which consists of thirteen states and three federal territories) have Rulers (seven with the title 'Sultan'). Every five years, the Rulers choose one among them to be King. The country, not surprisingly, has many royal family members with the titles 'Tengku' and 'Raja'; and many royal subjects from every ethnic group are awarded royal titles-such as 'Datuk', 'Datuk Seri', 'Tan Sri' and 'Tun'. Royal ceremonies, especially royal birthdays, are glittering affairs, with crowds of participants-often dressed in sumptuous songket (brocade fabric), and seated largely according to rankwitnessing royal speeches and the bestowal of royal titles. Malaysia is not the only Asian country where monarchy has survived, but it is unique in being a multi-monarchy state. It is also true that things might have turned out differently-as they did in Burma, Indonesia, India and many other countries. This chapter argues that the tenacity of monarchy in Malaysia was due not only to the particular colonial experience but also to specific qualities in the institution itself, and in the practice of Malay diplomacy. Before the British and Dutch established their authority across the Malay Archipelago, mainly in the nineteenth century, there were numerous monarchies-often called 'kerajaan'-not only on the Peninsula but also on Sumatra, Borneo and other islands. Many had populations of only thousands or tens of thousands, and they tended to rely on trade. They had converted to Islam one after another, commencing in the thirteenth century, and were defined by the personal relation between ruler and subject, rather than by territorial boundaries. Today, the Peninsular monarchies tend to be referred to as 'Malay Sultanates',

Akademika

The Malay Royal Institution has existed for centuries in the social system of the administration of Malay states in Malaysia. In this monarchy system, the sovereign has the absolute power in the state administration. However, during British colonization, the Sultan had to refer to the Resident as advisor except on matters related to Islam and Malay customs. The situation continued until the Malayan Union was introduced in 1946 when the Sultan was only authoritative on the Malay customs and Islam, while the state administration was held by the Governor. When the Malayan Union Constitution was replaced by the Malay Federation in 1948, the Sultan was given the rights to rule the country in accordance with the Constitutional Monarch. This study aims to analyze the perception of undergraduates at public higher education institutions regarding the Malay Royal Institution in the Federal Constitution within the context of ethnic relations in Malaysia. It involved 422 respondents selected from 4 public higher education institutions in Malaysia. The data obtained through surveys was analysed using SPSS program. Descriptive statistics such as frequency was used to describe the background of the respondents and to analyze the students' perception. The findings show that the acceptance level of the students on the position of Malay Royal Institutions in the constitution is relatively and generally high. Based on the findings, several recommendations are put forward to address issues related to the position of the Malay Royal Institution. This study also contributes to the field of knowledge as the methodology employed was quantitative which was different from previous studies which used qualitative methods.

This paper aims to describe the following: 1. to define the concept of separation of power; 2.To discuss the social background of Malaysian constitution; 3.To examine the role of constitutional government in politics. Based on the discussion it is important to note that Malaysia's constitution is very much shaped by its socio-political legacy.

2012

This article revisits and reflects upon the role of the constitutional head of state in times of democratic changes. This article makes this proposition through an examination of the 2009 constitutional crisis in Perak, one of Malaysia’s constituent states. Although the events occurred on the state level, the present uncertain conditions of Malaysian politics since the General Elections of 2008 mean that the same issues could arise on the federal level if a political turnover arises in the next imminent elections. There has never been a change of government at the federal level in Malaysia. It takes a mature and responsible politician to gracefully accept electoral losses. This becomes harder when political power and its attendant benefits have been vested for a long time. The critical questions for constitutional lawyers therefore are these: how does the constitution manage and guide political transitions, and can the constitutional framework constrain political attempts to prevent democratic change from occurring? In whom does the constitution repose the power or functions to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition of government, which secures the electoral choices of the political sovereign — the People of Malaysia? Accordingly, this article argues that in light of democratisation, there is a need to clarify the boundaries and relationship between the popular sovereign and the symbolic sovereign within Malaysia’s constitutional framework. In response to the questions posed above, this article argues that the head of state’s role is an extremely important one in times of democratic transitions, and that this role must be exercised with circumspect and in line with the choices of the political sovereign—the People ofMalaysia. The head of state is a gatekeeper for the Rakyat.

Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 2019

In Semenyih Jaya v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat, the Federal Court of Malaysia asserted that the Federal Constitution continues to vest a distinct and independent judicial power in the judiciary notwithstanding earlier constitutional amendments, and also gave substantive effect to the 'basic structure doctrine' for the first time in Malaysia. This has contributed significantly to the long-standing discussion of whether, and to what extent, the 'basic structure doctrine' applies in Malaysia. Situating that landmark decision within the context of the evolving judicial practice in Malaysia and other jurisdictions on the 'Westminster model', this article evaluates the extent to which Semenyih Jaya has contributed towards strengthening constitutionalism and the rule of law in Malaysia. Considering that the apex court stopped short of directly invalidating the relevant constitutional amendments, this article argues that Semenyih Jaya represents a sophisticated modification of the 'basic structure doctrine' to fit the current context of Malaysian constitutionalism. This article also examines how Semenyih Jaya advances the 'constitutional dialogue' between the judiciary and its co-equal branches of government, and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken by the Federal Court in that case.

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 2015

Albeit with some deterioration in recent years, Malaysia has a state with high levels of capacity that has achieved sustained economic growth through a commitment to macroeconomic stability and other pro-business measures. Recent comparative historical work argues that this state capacity is an institutional legacy of a specific model of British colonization. While Malaysia is an amalgam of areas formerly under direct and indirect rule; the former – a model of colonization characterized by the construction of a legal-rational bureaucracy with extensive geographic reach – was more prevalent. Prior to the transition to independence, the British increased the “direct” nature of their rule by creating a powerful central government that brought the various territories together. And, a concerted transition of power to a cohort of “bureaucrats-turned-politicians” ensured that the new nation’s leaders inherited an intact state apparatus. However, a disproportionate number of these senior bureaucrats hailed from Johor, a state formerly under indirect rule - a colonial model associated with small, neo-patrimonial states with limited capacity. By using colonial sources to map the contours and composition of the Malayan state under British and, subsequently, Japanese rule, this article will explore the reasons for this paradox.

2012

Malaysia, it has been observed, is currently experiencing a "revival" of "Malay kingship" with the growing importance of "proactive and participating constitutional rulers." In fact, modern Malaysia has since independence been characterized by monarchy-by a multiplicity of Rulers and elaborate royal ceremony and hierarchy-as well as by its "plural society." But the modern monarchs-though they have never become quite "constitutional Rulers"-cannot be seen as merely "traditional," because the institution of monarchy was transformed in a fundamental way during the British colonial period. Monarchy continues to be an underexamined feature of the Malaysian polity, and when it is discussed there is a tendency to focus on issues of power and to neglect its sociocultural role. One pre-colonial dimension of monarchy that continues to be significant today-though in a manner less psychologically profound than before-is its identity-giving role. The principal concern of this article is to determine-through a process of hermeneutic retrieval-if this role is merely relevant to the Malay community, or does it possess more inclusive possibilities? Are the Rulers of Malaysia essentially "Malay Rulers" or has the institution a nation-building potential that has so far not been fully utilized? The question is important for a country that many see as becoming increasingly divided.

The goverment systems have been classified by scientist as tyrant, oligarchy, democracy, monarchy, aristocracy and repuclic. The goverment systems that sovereignty belongs to people are parliamentry system, semipresidential system and presidential system. The goverment systems that sovereignty does not belong to people are monist and oligarchic systems. Monist systems are monarchy and despotism. Monarchy is a government system that ruled by one person who called king, sultan, imperial, prince. The all powers such as legislation and executive merge into him/his. Monarchy divides two forms as absolute monarcy and parliamentary monarcy. If powers are gathered at King, Sultan or Imperial, this system is absolute monarchy. If powers are decentralized and limited, this system is constitutional monarchy.

Law and Society in Malaysia: Pluralism, Religion and Ethnicity, 2017

This is a book chapter in an edited volume. Abstract/introduction/overview is available in the file. Wilson TV Tay, ‘Dimensions of Ketuanan Melayu in the Malaysian Constitutional Framework’, in Andrew Harding and Dian Shah (eds), Law and Society in Malaysia: Pluralism, Religion and Ethnicity (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis, 2017).

The goverment systems have been classified by scientist as tyrant, oligarchy, democracy, monarchy, aristocracy and repuclic. The goverment systems that sovereignty belongs to people are parliamentry system, semipresidential system and presidential system. The goverment systems that sovereignty does not belong to people are monist and oligarchic systems. Monist systems are monarchy and despotism. Monarchy is a government system that ruled by one person who called king, sultan, imperial, prince. The all powers such as legislation and executive merge into him/his. Monarchy divides two forms as absolute monarcy and parliamentary monarcy. If powers are gathered at King, Sultan or Imperial, this system is absolute monarchy. If powers are decentralized and limited, this system is constitutional monarchy.