Lawsuit seeks to declare BM version of Constitution as authoritative text

Summary

• Haniff Khatri files a suit seeking a court declaration that the Malay version of the Federal Constitution is the authoritative text, citing Article 160B and a 2003 proclamation by the then-Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

• Lawyer criticises the government for not enforcing the Malay text and calls the situation a breach of constitutional duty.

Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla has filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the Malay version of the Federal Constitution is the authoritative text that should prevail over the English version if there is any inconsistency.

He cited Article 160B of the Constitution stating that where the Constitution has been translated into Bahasa Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may prescribe it to be the authoritative text.

He argued in his statement of claim that the Bahasa Malaysia text launched by Raja of Perlis Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail in 2003, as the reigning Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the time, is the prescribed text provided under Article 160B.

Among others, he said the former king had written a letter dated Jan 16, 2025, purportedly asking the Attorney-General’s Chambers why the Bahasa Malaysia text launched in 2003 is still not being used as the authoritative text.

While the letter was raised during single mother Loh Siew Hong’s unilateral conversion case against the Perlis religious authorities last year, Haniff contended the matter was not fully adjudicated.

‘Breach of govt’s constitutional duty’

The lawyer had filed the lawsuit in his personal capacity at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today through the law firm Fuad Abi & Aidil, naming the government as the respondent.

In the event the court declines to make the declaration, he asked the court to compel the government to take all necessary measures to make the Bahasa Malaysia version the authoritative text within five years of the court decision.

In a press release, Haniff chastised the government for failing to enforce the Malay version of the Constitution as the authoritative text.

“This is a breach of the government’s constitutional duty to take all necessary steps to implement all lawful governance processes and procedures, including the upholding and empowering of the national language.

“It is highly unreasonable for a sovereign and independent nation like Malaysia to still not possess an official and authoritative text of its Constitution in its own national language, more than six decades after gaining independence.

“The importance of upholding the Malay language as the national language is directly tied to the strength of my patriotism as a Malaysian citizen, which is affected - and will continue to be affected - so long as the highest law of the land, the Federal Constitution, is still not recognised as existing in the national language.”

Past attempts

Previously, the issue of which version of the Federal Constitution is authoritative has been argued in court cases involving unilateral conversions of children.

In the English version, Article 12(4) stipulates that the religion of minors is determined by their “parent or guardian”, with the Federal Court ruling in 2018 that the word “parent” refers to both parents.

The Malay version stipulates that it should be determined by the “father or mother or guardian”.

In January 2023, then attorney-general Idrus Harun revived the proposal to make the Bahasa Malaysia edition of the Federal Constitution the authoritative version.

This prompted backlash from Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), which expressed concern that using the Malay version would undermine the Federal Court’s landmark decision

Tuaran MP Wilfred Madius Tangau had called for consultations to be held before such a shift is made, since the Malay version of the Constitution has yet to be presented to the legislative assemblies of Sabah and Sarawak.

“The English language was used officially to create the 1957 Federal Constitution and in the signing of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), as the British government was also included in these proceedings.

“It is important to acknowledge that language develops over time; the English language used in that period bears nuances and intentions made specific to that particular context of time.

“Hence, a premature changing of the authoritative text to Bahasa Malaysia would fail to reflect the true intention of the 1957/1963 Federal Constitution and MA63,” he said.

COMMENT | Just a translation - or a new Constitution? Part 1

COMMENT | Just a translation - or a new Constitution? Part 2

'Changing Constitution's authoritative text to BM not AGC's purview alone'

LETTER | Constitution in two languages and reconciling divergence in meanings