Episode 33: Royal Immunity

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The system of government practiced in Malaysia is a unique fusion of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, a legacy of its British colonial past. Within this system, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA), serves as the ceremonial Head of State. Unlike an absolute monarchy, where power is vested solely in the monarch, Malaysia’s constitutional monarchs have limited powers granted by the Federal Constitution, ensuring they are not above the law. Despite these limitations, the royal families continue to enjoy certain privileges and a degree of immunity.

Historical controversies concerning the royal family, arising from these privileges, led to a significant constitutional amendment passed by Parliament in January 1993. The amendment, outlined in Article 181(2) of the Federal Constitution, removed the immunity of the YDPA and the other Rulers from legal suits when acting in a personal capacity. Furthermore, Article 32(1) of the Federal Constitution established that the YDPA can only be tried in the Special Court, which was conferred jurisdiction over such cases. This amendment marked a turning point in Malaysia's constitutional history as it sought to reconcile the monarchy’s traditional role with the principles of accountability and the rule of law. Despite the 1993 constitutional amendments, only the case of Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v. Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah has been successfully brought before the Special Court to date. This has elicited mixed reactions from society regarding the effectiveness of these amendments. 

This article will shed light on the issue of royal immunity, revisiting its historical context and the relevant provisions in the Federal Constitution. It will also uncover the public’s perspective on royal immunity and provide a comparative analysis of royal accountability in other nations.

2.0 ROYAL IMMUNITY IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION

2.1 Historical Controversies

In a democratic society, citizens enjoy limited freedoms under the law. Any violation of these laws warrants punishment without discrimination, as all individuals are equal before the law.[6] But does this principle extend to the royal family?

In 1972, Tunku Mahmood was accused of attacking two men with a mace for cutting off his car and was convicted the following year.[7] His father, Sultan Ismail, intervened and granted him a royal pardon.[8] In 1987, Sultan Iskandar faced accusations of causing the death of a golf caddy in the Cameron Highlands by assault, following an incident in which the caddy laughed when the Sultan missed a shot.[9] Then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman highlighted that the Sultan, who was then serving as the YDPA, could not be prosecuted due to the immunity granted to Rulers, while condemning Sultan Iskandar's actions. He remarked, a Ruler who breaches any federal law is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. This means that, at the federal level, there was no mechanism for addressing such breaches.

For instance, in a hypothetical situation where a Ruler causes harm to a citizen, whether through malicious intent or extreme recklessness in a road incident, the current laws do not provide a way to take legal action against the Ruler although this situation might lead to public discussions and potential calls for legal amendments.[10]

2.2 The Gomez Incident

The most pivotal case that reshaped Malaysian law on royal immunity was the "Gomez Incident". The crisis began with the reported assault by the Ruler of Johor on a school hockey coach. This alleged assault was linked to earlier events: Tunku Majid, a son of the Sultan of coach. This alleged assault was linked to earlier events: Tunku Majid, a son of the Sultan of Johor and a member of the Johor hockey team, allegedly assaulted the Perak hockey goalkeeper after Johor lost to Perak. As a result, Tunku Majid was suspended for five years by the Malaysian Hockey Federation's disciplinary committee after a hearing which he did not attend. Following his suspension, several hockey teams from Johor withdrew from various competitions organized by or associated with the Malaysian Hockey Federation.

Mr. Douglas Gomez, the hockey coach at Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar (English College), spoke out against the "forced" withdrawal of his college's hockey players from a prestigious national competition, the Malaysian Hockey Federation - Milo Champion Schools Trophy.[11] He called for the resignation of all Johor Hockey Association office-bearers.

Shortly afterward, Mr. Gomez was summoned to the Istana Bukit Serene, a palace of the former Johor Ruler. He was reportedly taken to the palace by a palace official and stayed there for four hours.[12] Later that day, Mr. Gomez left a handwritten statement in the Johor Bahru office of the New Straits Times, stating,

“I, Douglas Gomez, hockey coach of Maktab Sultan Abu Bakar, Johor Bahru, wish to inform you that what has been reported in the Press over the last few days is not true and the situation has been blown out of proportion.”[13]

This incident sparked public outrage and led to calls for constitutional amendments to prevent such occurrences in the future.

2.3 A Motion of Parliament

On 10 December 1992, the following substantive motion, tabled by the then Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Ghafar Baba, was passed unanimously by the Dewan Rakyat.[14] The motion read:

“That the House which sits today feels extremely sad and views seriously the incident involving a Malaysian citizen, Douglas Gomez, who was injured at the Istana Johor on Nov 30, 1992 by the Sultan of Johor.

That the House decides that the incident was an abuse of power which goes against the spirit of the Federal Constitution and was contrary to the aspirations of the laws of the country which are based on the system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.[15]

The day after the Dewan Rakyat passed the motion, the police were directed to charge the Sultan of Johor's son in respect of his alleged assault against the Perak hockey goalkeeper and to investigate assault charges against the Sultan himself.[16]

The United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) supreme council resolved that the government should amend the Constitution. The Prime Minister, after chairing the meeting, announced that a special session of Parliament would be called in a month's time to effect the constitutional changes. On 6 January 1993, the Cabinet unanimously approved a draft of the proposed constitutional amendments.[17]

2.4 The Proposed Changes

2.4.1 The First Draft

On 6 January 1993, the Cabinet approved the draft Constitution (Amendment) Bill,[18] which was subsequently presented to the Malay Rulers during an informal meeting with Dr. Mahathir and other UMNO leaders. On 18 January 1993, the Conference of Rulers unanimously decided that they were not "in a position at this stage to give their consent to certain proposals in the original Bill and to the subsequent amendments without further deliberation and consultation with the government."[19] The Conference of Rulers emphasized the need for "a more detailed study of the principles and the mechanisms involved in the proposed amendments incorporated in the Bill," considering the significant impact these radical changes would have on the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers and the power of the States pertaining to them.[20]

2.4.2 The Second Draft

A major concession made by the government in the second draft was the establishment of a Special Court to try offenses committed by the King or a Malay Ruler and all civil cases involving them. The Conference of Rulers responded to this concession as follows:[21]

“The Conference of Rulers is of the view that such a court is not the most suitable forum for such a purpose. The Conference of Rulers recommends that an Advisory Board be established whose function would be to make recommendations to the appropriate state authority for the removal of the Ruler before he is charged or sued. The mechanics and the details relating to the Advisory Board and of the said state authority, together with its powers and composition, are matters which need further consideration and discussion. Such an important issue cannot, in the view of the Conference of Rulers, be decided in haste, without mature deliberation and consultation.”

2.4.3 The Final Draft

Then Prime Minister Tun Mahathir went ahead and tabled the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1993 at a special sitting of the Dewan Rakyat. The Bill passed with the required two-thirds majority on January 19, and the Dewan Negara approved it the next day. Speculations swirled about whether the King would ultimately assent to the legislation.[22]

The King returned the Bill to Parliament with some proposed modifications agreed upon by the Conference of Rulers. The Bill, with these proposed modifications ("the third draft"), was passed by the Dewan Rakyat on March 9, 1993.[23] The central aim of this third (and final) draft of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1993 was to effectively remove the Rulers' personal immunity.

The main changes brought by the amendment to Article 32 included the removal of the monarch’s total immunity,[24] establishing a Special Court under Part XV, empowered to hear proceedings by or against the YDPA or the State Ruler in their personal capacity. Prior to the amendment, Article 32(1) was subject to differing interpretations: did it provide "complete immunity", encompassing both official and personal acts, or did it only protect the King in his personal capacity? The amendment clarified this by stating that the King's immunity from legal action pertains exclusively to his official duties.

The amended Article 181(2) eliminated the personal immunity of the Malay Rulers due to the establishment of the Special Court. The Rulers thus no longer had 'absolute' immunity. This absolute immunity was provided by Article 181(2) before it was amended.[25]

In addition, to effectively eliminate the personal immunity of the Malay Rulers, modifications to their pardoning powers were made. Originally, Article 42 vested the King with the authority to grant pardons,[26] reprieves, and respites for all offenses tried by court-martial and those committed in the federal territories. The Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State had the power to grant pardons for all other offenses within their respective States. The introduction of clause (12) to Article 42[27] altered this by prohibiting a Ruler from hearing appeals or granting pardons on his own behalf. When the King or a Ruler, or their consort, seeks a pardon, the case is to be decided by the Conference of Rulers, which must include the consideration of any written opinion from the Attorney-General before reaching a decision.

Additionally, a Ruler is prohibited from hearing appeals for pardoning their children. In such cases, the Conference of Rulers will appoint another Ruler to decide the matter, who will act on the advice of the relevant Pardons Board. For the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of a State or their immediate family members, the power to grant pardons is transferred to the King, who will act on the advice of the State's Pardons Board as specified in Article 42.[28]

Moving on, Article 33A specifies that if the King is charged with an offense under any law in the Special Court, he must cease to exercise his official functions.[29] This principle is extended to the State Ruler through the addition of Section 1A to Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution.[30] In such cases, the Ruler must cease performing his duties, which will then be carried out by a Regent or a Council of Regency appointed according to the State Constitution. It is further stipulated that if a Ruler is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for more than one day, he will lose his position as the Ruler of the State, unless he is granted a free pardon. 

3.0 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE ROYAL IMMUNITY

The principle of royal immunity in legal proceedings, as articulated under Articles 181 to 183 of the Federal Constitution, reflects both Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy and a mechanism to safeguard the sovereignty of the Malay Rulers.[31] However, this immunity is not absolute, as constitutional and statutory mechanisms limit its scope. This section examines the extent of protections afforded by royal immunity and the constitutional constraints imposed to ensure accountability.

3.1 Personal Capacity

Since 1993, the YDPA and Malay Rulers no longer enjoy absolute immunity from legal proceedings. This can be seen after an amendment[32] was passed to alter several articles of the Federal Constitution. For instance, the amendment stipulates that the YDPA “shall not be liable to any proceedings whatsoever in any court except in the Special Court.”[33] Furthermore, as stated in Article 181(2), court proceedings against the Ruler of a State in his personal capacity must be brought before the Special Court.[34] However, further emphasis must be placed on the phrase “in his personal capacity.”

The scope of these words was clarified in the first case heard by the Special Court,[35] Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Sultan Ahmad Shah.[36] In this case, the plaintiff, Faridah Begum bte Abdullah, a Singaporean citizen, filed a lawsuit against the Sultan of Pahang in his personal capacity, alleging libel and seeking damages. The case was brought before the Special Court, established under Article 182 of the Federal Constitution. In this context, the term “personal capacity” is understood to mean actions or conduct of the Ruler that are unrelated to their official duties or constitutional role as Head of State, such as torts of libel and defamation.

The implication of personal capacity means that no proceedings in the Special Court can be brought against the YDPA or a Ruler of a State in their official capacity.[37] In other words, the legal immunity vested upon the Ruler of a State will only protect them from the initiation of legal proceedings in their official capacity, such as those related to the exercise of their sovereign functions or constitutional duties. 

3.2 Special Court

The 1993 amendment of the Federal Constitution also introduced the Special Court to compensate for the removal of the Rulers' legal immunity.[38] This means that every court proceeding related to the Rulers of a State must be brought exclusively before the Special Court. This basis was further strengthened in the case of DYTM Tengku Idris Shah ibni Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah v Dikim Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor,[39] in which the court held that a Ruler falls exclusively under the Special Court's jurisdiction, as the High Court, established under Part IX of the Federal Constitution, has never had authority over Rulers, even after the amendments.

The establishment of the Special Court is vested in Article 182 of the Federal Constitution.[40] The article contains several general provisions on the description of the Special Court and its operation. Firstly, it is stated in Article 182(1) that the Special Court “shall consist of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, who shall be the Chairman, the Chief Judges of the High Courts, and two other persons…appointed by the Conference of Rulers.”[41]

Not only that, the two other members will be qualified as Judges of the Special Court if they have held office as a Judge of the Federal Court or a High Court[42] and are also citizens[43] in sound mental and physical health,[44] are not undischarged bankrupts,[45] have not been convicted of an offense by a court of law in Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding two thousand ringgit,[46] and lastly, are not practicing as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court.

Furthermore, under Article 182(3), the Special Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to try offenses committed by the YDPA or the Ruler of a State and all civil cases by or against the same parties mentioned above.[48] This imposes a limit in which royals do not enjoy legal immunity in their personal capacity, regardless of the type of proceedings by or against them. Additionally, the jurisdiction and powers of the Special Court are equivalent to those vested in the High Court and the Federal Court.[49] This ensures that the principles of justice are upheld uniformly, even when the parties involved are members of the royalty.

Interestingly, civil cases can only be brought against the Ruler of a State or the YDPA by a citizen of Malaysia.[50] This can be seen in the case of Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Sultan Ahmad Shah,[51] where the suit against the YDPA for alleged libel failed at the preliminary stages. The Special Court, by a majority of four to one, decided that the plaintiff, being a non-citizen, lacked the locus standi to initiate proceedings against the Ruler in his personal capacity.[52] This case set a precedent that the Rulers of a State and the YDPA still enjoy absolute legal immunity from a suit brought by a foreigner or a non-citizen of Malaysia.

3.3 Consent of the Attorney General

The 1993 amendment also introduced Article 183, which regulates the initiation of proceedings in the Special Court.[53] This article mentions that every proceeding related to the Special Court cannot be brought without the consent of the Attorney General.[54] This provision was given as a concession for stripping the immunity of the royals after the amendment.[55] This is because the filtration by the Attorney General can still grant a safeguard for the Rulers of a State and the YDPA from frivolous or politically motivated suits against them. The requirement of the Attorney General's consent under the Constitution ensures that only credible and legitimate claims are brought before the Special Court. 

In conclusion, while immunity shields the Rulers and the YDPA in official roles, it is not absolute. Past amendments[56] to the Federal Constitution have set limitations to immunity, particularly for personal matters. The Attorney General's consent ensures a balance between protecting Rulers from frivolous suits and allowing legitimate claims to be heard, upholding both the monarchy's dignity and justice.

4.0 CHALLENGES SURROUNDING ROYAL IMMUNITY

A delicate balance must be struck between allowing the monarchs their royal immunity while acknowledging that, if left unchecked, it could lead to an abuse of power and privilege, eroding the public’s trust in the monarchy. The rationale behind allowing the Rulers absolute personal immunity in legal proceedings lies within Article 181, which guarantees the sovereignty, rights, powers and jurisdictions of each Malay Ruler within their respective states.[57]

In a society increasingly emphasizing accountability and transparency as key characteristics of leadership, the government has implemented changes to limit royal immunity to align with these values. This raises questions about the extent to which royal immunity should be limited. Varying perspectives have been voiced on how the government should enact this task. Various scholars have given their two cents on the matter but overwhelmingly, there is a belief that, due to past incidents,[58] royal immunity should be limited, and absolute immunity should be abolished.

The sovereignty and prerogatives of the State Rulers guaranteed by Article 181 of the Federal Constitution ensured that the Rulers enjoyed an absolute personal immunity from proceedings in any civil or criminal court, at least until 1993.[59] The Rulers were, in essence, beyond the reach of the law and, therefore, could do no wrong, or at least could not be held accountable for their actions.

However, with change comes controversy and ambivalence regarding royal immunity and the implications of abolishing it. As former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad stated,  “above the law” could be interpreted in many ways, but it does not include beating or killing people, referencing the Gomez incident.[60] Tun Dr. Mahathir stated that Rulers are above the law in such cases of debts, but that immunity did not extend to killing or hurting people. This could lead to different interpretations of how the former prime minister and the Parliament thought at the time regarding royal immunity. Assault and murder followed by the pardon for the crimes would be wrong; that is almost certain. What remains debated is how far the extent of royal immunity is to reach in cases that aren't cut and dry.[61]

4.1 Royal Immunity in Other Jurisdictions

4.1.1 Britain

Like Malaysia, the British monarchy operates within a constitutional framework, where the monarch is granted limited powers and primarily serves as a ceremonial Head of State. In the UK, a sovereign cannot commit a legal wrong, either civilly or criminally.[62] This immunity stems from the principle that the monarch is the sovereign authority and "can do no wrong," but this is counterbalanced by strict adherence to constitutional norms. 

A stark difference between the Malaysian and British monarchies lies in the laws regarding public scrutiny of the royals. The Malaysian Sedition Act of 1948 criminalizes any speech, act, or publication that criticizes the government or the Rulers of a State. Malaysia has not hesitated to detain or arrest individuals under this Act.[63] In contrast, it is legal to criticize British monarchs, with strong safeguards held in place to protect the right to protest, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[64] and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.[65]

The disparity in how Malaysia and the UK treat their monarchs is stark. In Malaysia, a blunt critique of the monarchy could potentially lead to legal consequences,[66] while in the UK, the monarchy has become a subject of public entertainment. British citizens often create television shows dramatizing or satirizing royal affairs. This staunch difference in public perception, however, might not be so distinct compared to some of Malaysia’s neighboring countries.

4.1.2 Thailand

The Thai monarchy, currently under King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), wields significant power both politically and symbolically. While their power is derived from the Constitution, the Thai Monarchy still plays an active role in shaping the nation’s identity and political outcomes. As a result, the Thai monarch enjoys extensive legal protections. The lese-majeste law criminalizes criticism of the monarchy, with severe penalties for perceived defamation or insult.[67] Severe is an understatement, as the statute holds a punishment of up to 15 years of imprisonment if a person is caught defaming, insulting, or threatening any member of the royal family. 

Even foreigners are not exempt from this law. For example, while visiting Thailand for medical treatment, U.S. citizen Joe Gordon was sentenced to five years in prison[68] for posting web links to a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. 

5.0 CONCLUSION

The concept of royal immunity in Malaysia stands at the intersection of tradition and modern constitutionalism, reflecting the nation's journey toward balancing the reverence for its monarchy with the ideals of accountability and equality before the law. Rooted in the Federal Constitution, royal immunity has evolved through significant historical milestones, most notably the 1993 constitutional amendments. These changes curtailed the absolute privileges of the monarchy, ensuring that Rulers, like their subjects, were not above the law when acting in their capacity. The establishment of the Special Court underscored Malaysia’s commitment to a legal framework that respects the monarchy while ensuring judicial oversight.

Scrutiny of the scope and limitations of royal immunity highlights the nuanced interpretations of these provisions. The distinction between official acts, protected under Article 181, and personal capacity, which subjects rulers to the Special Court, reveals a deliberate effort to delineate the monarchy’s immunity in a way that does not compromise the rule of law. Nevertheless, challenges persist in ensuring transparency, consistency, and public confidence in the judicial processes concerning royal cases. While the Special Court offers an avenue for accountability, concerns about its functionality and impartiality remain, particularly regarding the role of the Attorney General and the lack of openness in its proceedings.

Public perception of royal immunity further complicates the issue. While many Malaysians hold their monarchy in high regard as a symbol of unity and heritage, controversies involving royal figures have, at times, tested public trust. Academic criticisms have also pointed to the gaps in the system, particularly regarding the perceived exclusivity of the Special Court and its implications for equality before the law, as enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution.[69] These issues underscore the importance of fostering a more transparent and accountable system that upholds public trust without undermining the dignity of the monarchy.

A comparative analysis of royal accountability in other nations sheds light on possible reforms and lessons for Malaysia. The United Kingdom’s approach, which integrates the monarchy within a robust parliamentary framework, offers insights into balancing tradition with modern governance. Meanwhile, Thailand’s lese-majeste laws present a stark contrast, highlighting the delicate line between protecting the monarchy’s image and restricting freedoms. These examples provide a broader perspective on how royal immunity can be navigated in ways that align with a nation’s legal and cultural values.

In conclusion, royal immunity in Malaysia is a testament to the nation’s ability to adapt its traditional institutions to contemporary constitutional principles. While significant progress has been made in defining the monarchy’s role and responsibilities, the journey toward achieving a fully transparent and accountable system is ongoing. Continuous discourse, legal reforms, and public engagement are essential to ensuring that royal immunity remains consistent with Malaysia’s constitutional ideals of justice and equality.

REFERENCES

[1] Ahmed, M., Kausar, R., & Behan, R. A. (2019). Analysis of Democratic Constitutional Monarchy: A Case Study of Political System of Malaysia. Asia Pacific-Annual Research Journal of Far East & South East Asia, 34.

[2] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 181 (2).

[3] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 32(1).

[4] Harding, A., & Kumarasingham, H. (2022). The Malay Monarchies in Constitutional and Social Conception. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 9(3), 399-417.

[5] Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v. Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah [1996] 1 MLJ 617.

[6] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 8.

[7] Aliran. (1992). Aliran Monthly (Vol. 12). Penang, Malaysia: Aliran Kesedaran Negara.

[8] Copetas, C. A. (1985). Metal Men: How Marc Rich Defrauded the Country, Evaded the Law, and Became the World's Most Sought-After Corporate Criminal. New York, USA: Harper Perennial; The New York Times. (1984, Apr 26). AROUND THE WORLD; Elected King's Reign Ending in Malaysia. The New York Times. Retrieved from <https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/26/world/around-the-world-elected-king-s-reign-ending-in-malaysia.html>. Site accessed on 4 Dec 2024; Clad, J. (2015). Behind the Myth: Business, Money and Power in Southeast Asia. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.  

[9] Veitch, H. (2010, Feb 3). History of Violence Overshadowed Generosity: Sultan of Johor 1932-2010, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from <https://www.smh.com.au/national/history-of-violence-overshadowed-generosity-20100202-nayz.html>. Site accessed on 5 Dec 2024.

[10] Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj. (1986). Challenging Times. Selangor, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications.

[11] Lee, H. P. (1993). Hereditary Rulers and Legal Immunities in Malaysia. University of Tasmania Law Review, 12(2). Retrieved from <https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/1993/17.pdf>. Site accessed on 5 Dec 2024.

[12] See Footnote 11.

[13] See Footnote 11.

[14] See Footnote 11.

[15] Malaysia, Parliamentary Debates, Representative, Eighth Parliament, Second Session, 10 December 1992, pp. 42-43 (Tuan Abdul Ghafar bin Baba).

[16] See Footnote 11.

[17] See Footnote 11.

[18] Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act A848) (Malaysia).

[19] See Footnote 11.

[20] See Footnote 11.

[21] See Footnote 11.

[22] See Footnote 11.

[23] See Footnote 11.

[24] See Footnote 3.

[25] See Footnote 11.

[26] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 42.

[27] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 42(12).

[28] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 42(5).

[29] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 33A.

[30] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Eighth Schedule s 1(1A). 

[31] Gillen, M. R. (1995). The Malay Rulers’ Loss of Immunity. University of British Columbia Law Review, 29(1), 163. Retrieved from <https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ubclr29&i=173>. Site accessed on 6 Dec 2024.

[32] Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act A848) (Malaysia) s 7.

[33] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 181.

[34] See Footnote 2.

[35] Tao, J. (n.d.). Do you know there is a Special Court for the Monarchies?. AskLegal. Retrieved from <https://asklegal.my/p/e5a8ce8b-b666-4c6a-80ae-3aeaa2d9cba8>. Site accessed on 7 Dec 2024.

[36] See Footnote 5.

[37] Asmida Ahmad, Leong, F. Y., & Andrews, P. L. (2019, 12 Sep). Chapter 3: Other Courts With Specialised Jurisdiction. Asean Law Association. Retrieved from <https://www.aseanlawassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ALA-MAL-legal-system-Part-3.pdf>. Site accessed on 8 Dec 2024. 

[38] LexisNexis Malaysia. (n.d). Special Courts’ Exclusive Jurisdiction. LexisNexis Malaysia. Retrieved from <https://advance.lexis.com/document/documentlink/?pdmfid=1522468&crid=cc3e30be-2638-4293-9713-76d4a9a9d0c1&action=linkdoc&pdcomponentid=&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials-my%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A5SF5-SJF1-JNY7-X4F3-00000-00&pdtocnodeidentifier=AATAZV&ecomp=gvx3k&prid=4b024659-63f0-4949-b41c-7bc192dc7dfd>. Site accessed on 8 Dec 2024.

[39] DYTM Tengku Idris Shah ibni Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah v Dikim Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [2002] 4 MLJ 289.

[40] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 182.

[41] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 182(1).

[42]  Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 182(2).

[43] Rule of the Special Court 1994 (P.U.(A) 525/1994) (Malaysia) r 3(2)(a).

[44] Rule of the Special Court 1994 (P.U.(A) 525/1994) (Malaysia) r 3(2)(b).

[45] Rule of the Special Court 1994 (P.U.(A) 525/1994) (Malaysia) r 3(2)(c).

[46] Rule of the Special Court 1994 (P.U.(A) 525/1994) (Malaysia) r 3(2)(d). 

[47] Rule of the Special Court 1994 (P.U.(A) 525/1994) (Malaysia) r 3(2)(e). 

[48] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 182(3).

[49] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 182(4).

[50] See Footnote 37.

[51] See Footnote 5.

[52] Harding, A. & Nicholson, P. (2009). New Courts in Asia. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge. 

[53] Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993 (Act A848) (Malaysia) s 7A.

[54] Federal Constitution (Malaysia) Art 183.

[55]  Shad Saleem Faruqi. (2010, May 19). Reflecting on the Law: Gaps in Special Court Law. Malaysian Bar. Retrieved from <https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/legal-and-general-news/general-news/reflecting-on-the-law-gaps-in-special-court-law>. Site accessed on 10 Dec 2024.

[56] See Footnote 32.

[57] See Footnote 33.

[58]Veitch, H. (2010, Feb 3). History of Violence Overshadowed Generosity: Sultan of Johor 1932-2010, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from <https://www.smh.com.au/national/history-of-violence-overshadowed-generosity-20100202-nayz.html>. Site accessed on 5 Dec 2024.

[59] See Footnote 55.

[60] K.P. Waran, Jeffrey Ramayah, and Randhir Singh. (1992, Dec 8). Study on extent of Rulers’ immunity to legal action. New Straits Times. Retrieved from <https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=x8G803Bi31IC&dat=19921208&printsec=frontpage&hl=en>. Site accessed on 12 Dec 2024.

[61]  See Footnote 60.

[62] Giffard, H. (1998). Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 12(1): "Crown and Royal Family". Oxford, United Kingdom: Butterworth.

[63] Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15) (Malaysia).

[64] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953), as amended by Protocol No 14 bis to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 27 May 2009, CETS No 204 (entered into force 1 September 2009).

[65] Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42) (United Kingdom).

[66]  Baker, S. (2019, Jan 19). People in Malaysia are being threatened with prison for tweeting mean things about their royal family. Business Insider. Retrieved from <https://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-threatens-prison-insult-royal-family-2019-1>. Site accessed on 12 Dec 2024.

[67] Criminal Code 1956 (B.E. 2499) (Thailand).

[68] BBC. (2011, Dec 8). Thailand jails US man Joe Gordon for royal insult. BBC. Retrieved from <https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16081337>. Site accessed on 12 Dec 2024.

[69] See Footnote 6.

[70] Sinnadurai, V. (2004). The Role of Constitutional Rulers and The Judiciary: Revisited. Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lecture 2004, 385-403.