Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

1993 amendments to the Constitution of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To remove legal immunity of royalty

Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993
Parliament of Malaysia
  • An Act to amend the Federal Constitution.
CitationAct A848
Territorial extentThroughoutMalaysia
Passed byDewan Rakyat
Passed19 January 1993
Passed byDewan Negara
Passed20 January 1993
Royal assent22 March 1993
Vetoed byYang di-Pertuan Agong
Vetoed18 February 1993
Type of vetoPackage
Veto overridden10 March 1993
Commenced30 March 1993
Legislative history
First chamber:Dewan Rakyat
Bill titleConstitution (Amendment) Bill 1993
Bill citationD.R. 01/1993
Introduced byMahathir Mohamad - Prime Minister
First reading18 January 1993
Second reading18 January 1993 -19 January 1993
Voting summary
  • 133 voted for
  • None voted against
  • 23 abstained
Committee stage19 January 1993
Third reading19 January 1993
Voting summary
  • 133 voted for
  • None voted against
  • 16 abstained
Second chamber:Dewan Negara
Bill titleConstitution (Amendment) Bill 1993
Bill citationD.R. 01/1993
Member(s) in chargeGhafar Baba - Deputy Prime Minister
First reading20 January 1993
Second reading20 January 1993
Voting summary
  • 57 voted for
  • None voted against
  • None abstained
  • 4 absent
Third reading20 January 1993[1]
Voting summary
  • 57 voted for
  • None voted against
  • None abstained
  • 4 absent
Final stages
Reconsidered by theDewan Rakyat after veto8 March -9 March 1993
Voting summary
  • 167 voted for
  • None voted against
  • 6 abstained
  • 7[3] absent
Reconsidered by theDewan Negara after veto10 March 1993[2]
Voting summary
  • 58 voted for
  • None voted against
  • None abstained
Amends
Federal Constitution
Keywords
Conference of Rulers,Legal immunity,Monarchies of Malaysia,Sovereign immunity,Yang di-Pertuan Agong,Yang di-Pertua Negeri
Status: In force
Part ofa series on the
History ofMalaysia
Les isles de la Sonde, entre lesquelles sont Sumatra, Iava, Borneo, &c / par le Sr. Sanson d'Abbeville geographe du roy ; A. Peyrounin sculp
Paleolithic
 Lenggong Valleyc. 2,000,0000 BCE
Mesolithic
 Niah cultures 65,000–40,000 BCE
Neolithic
 Bewah man/woman 16,000 BCE
 Perak man/woman 11,000–200 BCE
 Neolithic Klang 500 – 200 BCE
Early kingdoms
Ancient Kedah <100 BCE
Chi Tu 100 BCE–642 CE
Langkasuka 100 BCE–1474 CE
Gangga Negarac. 100 CE–1025
Pan Pan 424–775
Old Kedah 170–1135
Old Pahang 449–1454
Srivijaya 700s–1025
Majapahit 1300s
Rise of Muslim states
Kedah Sultanate 1136–present
Samudera Pasai Sultanate 1267–1521
Brunei Sultanate 1368–present
Malacca Sultanate 1402–1511
Sulu Sultanate 1450–1899
Pahang Sultanate 1470–1623
Aceh Sultanate 1496–1903
Pattani Sultanate 1516– 1902
Johor Sultanate 1528–present
Perak Sultanate 1528–present
Sarawak Sultanate 1599–1641
Selangor Sultanate 1766–present
Besut Kingdom 1780–1899
Setul Kingdom 1808–1916
Reman Kingdom 1810–1902
Kubang Pasu Kingdom 1839–1864
Colonial period
Portuguese Malacca 1511–1641
Malay-Acehnese conflicts 1528–1629
Dutch–Portuguese War 1601–1661
Acehnese invasion of Johor 1613
Acehnese conquest of Perak 1620
Dutch Malacca 1641–1824
Pahang Kingdom 1770–1881
Straits Settlements 1786–1946
Siamese invasion of Kedah 1821–1826
Anglo-Dutch Treaty1824
Burney Treaty1826
Naning War 1831–1832
Kingdom of Sarawak 1841–1946
Separation of Perlis from Kedah 1843
Crown Colony of Labuan 1848–1946
Pahang Civil War 1857–1863
Larut Wars 1861–1874
Klang War 1867–1874
Pangkor Treaty 1874
Perak War1875–1876
British Malaya /Borneo 1874–1946
Jementah Civil War 1879
North Borneo 1882–1946
Pahang Uprising 1891–1895
Mat Salleh Rebellion 1894–1905
Federated Malay States 1895–1946
Anglo-Siamese Treaty 1909
Unfederated Malay States 1909–1946
Battle of Penang 1914
Kelantan rebellion 1915
Formative period
Modern period
1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis 1965–1966
13 May incident 1969
National Operations Council 1969–1971
Declaration of Rukun Negara 1970
New Economic Policy 1971–1990
Federal Territory of KL 1974
1977 Kelantan Emergency 1977
Pedra Branca dispute 1979–2008
South China Sea dispute(Spratly) 1980–present
Dawn Raid 1981
Federal Territory of Labuan 1984
Memali incident 1985
Sabah Emergency 1986
Ming Court Affair 1987
Operation Lalang 1987
Constitutional crisis 1987–1988
Peace Agreement of Hat Yai 1989
Royal Immunity Amendments 1993
Asian financial crisis 1997–1998
Reformasi Movement 1998–2022
Federal Territory of Putrajaya 2001
2008 Malaysian Opposition Wave 2008
2009 Perak constitutional crisis 2009
H1N1 flu pandemic 2009–2010
Lahad Datu standoff 2013
Sedition Dragnet 2014
1MDB scandal 2015–present
Pakatan Harapan takeover 2018
COVID-19 pandemic 2020–2022
Political crisis 2020–2022
Bornean Amendment 2021–2023
Green Wave 2022–present
2023 Sabah political crisis 2023
Incidents
Brunei revolt 1962–1966
North Borneo dispute (Philippine militant attacks) 1962–present
Singapore race riots 1964
Brunei's Limbang claim 1967–2009
Penang Hartal riot 1967
Ligitan and Sipadan dispute 1969–2002
Kuala Lumpur flash floods 1971
Malaysian haze crisis 1972–present
AIA building hostage crisis 1975
National Monument bombing 1975
Campbell Shopping Complex fire 1976
Sabah Air GAF Nomad crash 1976
Japan Airlines Flight 715 incident 1977
MH653 incident 1977
1982 Bukit Merah radioactive pollution 1982
1985 Lahad Datu ambush 1985
Memali Incident 1985
Penang terminal bridge collapse 1988
Taufiqiah Al-Khairiah madrasa fire 1989
Kuala Lumpur–Karak Highway crash 1990
Bright Sparklers disaster 1991
Highland Towers collapse 1993
Genting landslide 1995
MH2133 incident 1995
Pos Dipang mudflow 1996
Tropical Storm Greg 1996
Nipah virus outbreak 1998–1999
2000 Sipadan kidnappings 2000
Al-Ma'unah incident 2000
Sauk Siege 2000
2001 Kampung Medan riots 2001
2002 Taman Hillview landslide 2002
Indian Ocean tsunami 2004
2006–2007 Southeast Asian floods 2006–2007
Bukit Antarabangsa landslide 2008
Attacks against places of worship 2010
2010 Cameron Highlands bus crash 2010
Hulu Langat landslide 2011
2013 Genting Highlands bus crash 2013
MH370 incident 2014
MH17 incident 2014
2014–15 Malaysia floods 2014–2015
Sabah earthquake 2015
2015 Plaza Low Yat riot 2015
Movida Bar grenade attack 2016
Kim Jong-nam's Assassination 2017
Darul Quran madrasa fire2017
2018 Subang Temple riot 2018
2019 Kim Kim River toxic pollution 2019
2020-21 Malaysia floods 2021
LRT train collision 2021
2021-22 Malaysia floods 2021–2022
2022 Batang Kali landslide 2022
2023 Elmina plane crash 2023
2024 Lumut helicopters crash 2024
2024 Ulu Tiram police station attack 2024
2025 Putra Heights pipeline fire 2025
2025 Gerik bus crash 2025
flagMalaysia portal
This article is part of
a series about
Mahathir Mohamad




Coat of arms of Malaysia

The1993 amendments to the Constitution of Malaysia,[4][5] officially known asConstitution (Amendment) Act 1993 (Malay:Akta Perlembagaan (Pindaan) 1993), is aconstitutional amendment passed by theMalaysian parliament in order to remove thelegal immunity of allMalaysian royalties. These changes include amendments to Articles 32, 38, 42, 63, 72, 181 and Eight Schedule of theMalaysian Constitution; and insertion of two new Articles, namely Article 33A and Article 182, into the constitution.[6] The amendments went into effect on 30 March 1993.[6] Before the amendments were made, the Constitution granted rulers who have violated the law not to be prosecuted by the criminal court unless he voluntarily wishes to surrender his legal immunity.[7]

The amendments were made at a time when the Malaysian monarchy witnessed a deteriorating relationship with the Malaysian government. During the late-1980s and the early-1990s, a series of controversial incidents involving the rulers cropped up, many of which came into aconflict of interest with several politicians.[8] After two separate assault incidents by theSultan of Johor andhis younger son which occurred in 1992, the government was prompted to take up the initiative to call for the removal of legal immunity. The rulers were extremely unhappy with the government's calls for the removal of legal immunity, and initially dissented with the government. The government used a two-pronged approach of persuasion and coercion to obtain the assent of the rulers for their rulers. The rulers gave their assent for the government's proposals to remove their legal immunity, which was later implemented in March 1993.

By some interpretations, these events leading up to the constitutional amendments were considered to be aconstitutional crisis,[9] given that the federal government, who needed the endorsement of the Sultans to implement the law, refused and subsequently led to a brief standoff between both sides.[10] However, in most cases, the events leading up to the constitutional amendment was generally closely identified as a monarchy crisis rather than a constitutional crisis.[11]

Background incidents

[edit]

Gomez Incident

[edit]

In later part of the year, two connected assault incidents involving members of the Johor royal family occurred.[12] The first one occurred on 10 July 1992, when the second son of theSultan Iskandar, theSultan of Johor,Tunku Abdul Majid, hit aPerak hockey goalkeeper, Mohamed Jaafar shortly after a hockey championship match between Perak and Johor, supposedly having lost his temper when the Perak team won the match by a penalty stroke.[13][14] The goalkeeper made a police report soon afterward which received attention from Parliament who pressured theMalaysian Hockey Confederation to issue Tunku Majid on 18 October 1992, a ban of five years participation in any national hockey tournaments.[15] The Sultan, enraged by the decision issued to his son, exerted pressure on the state education department to issue orders to school hockey teams in Johor to boycott participation in national tournaments.[16] The decision upsetDouglas Gomez, a hockey coach, who criticised the education department for destroying the leadership and called for the resignation of all key office bearers of theJohor Hockey Association.[17]

The criticisms by Gomez made the Sultan angry, so he summoned Gomez to the palace on 30 November,[18] where he was reprimanded and beaten by the Sultan, in front of his dumbstruck bodyguards,[19] who are members of theJohor Military Force (JMF).[20] Gomez, who suffered injuries to his face and stomach, sought treatment at a private clinic the following day and subsequently filed a police report on 6 December,[20] after receiving tacit support from theMalaysian Cabinet. The government-backed media, on its part, was swift to report on the incident.[19]

Governmental relations with the Sultan of Kelantan

[edit]

The party leader ofSemangat 46,Tengku Razaleigh Tengku Mohd Hamzah, is a member of the Kelantan royal family and was held by high-esteem by the Sultan ofKelantan,Sultan Ismail Petra. Sultan Ismail Petra allegedly campaigned for Semangat 46 during the1990 Malaysian general elections, which resulted in Semangat 46 as well as its then-coalition partner, thePan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) wrestling over control of the Kelantan's state government from theBarisan Nasional government. The Prime Minister of Malaysia,Mahathir Mohamad, expressed his unhappiness over the alleged royal support for Semangat 46, and was accused of violating the rule of political neutrality which was required by a constitutional monarch.[8]

In March 1992, customs officials revealed that Sultan Ismail Petra had owed the government RM$2.1 million in import duties after he had purchased a convoy of twentyLamborghini Diablo cars that were directly flown in fromLondon. The Sultan firmly denied any wrongdoings on his part, and further issued a statement declaring support for the implementation of Islamic laws in the state by the PAS-led state government, which angered the BN-led federal government.[21]

Parliamentary debates and resolutions

[edit]

The press reports on Gomez plight widespread moral outrage within the Malaysian public.[22] A special parliamentary session was held on 10 December 1992 that saw all 96 members of theDewan Rakyat present unanimously passed aresolution, which condemned Sultan Iskandar for injuring Gomez and declared that the Parliament shall "take all necessary actions" to prevent similar incident from recurring.[23] The subsequent parliamentary session on 27 December saw discussions to remove legal immunity which agitated Sultan Iskandar to hold a rally to oppose the government's actions, but was forced to cancel after intense government pressure.[24] Members of the opposition party had a passive stance towards the government's proposals, particularly fromSemangat 46.[25][26]

An informal meeting of theConference of Rulers was held on 16 and 17 January 1993, the following year, which requested the government for additional time for consideration of the government's decision. After extensive negotiation, some rulers chose to refuse to endorse the proposed changes to the Federal Constitution, even after the offer for a special court to prosecute the rulers was proposed,[27] claiming that the implementation of a special court would bring about difficulties in legal technicalities.[28][29]

The proposed amendments also came with the rule to allow commoners to criticise the Sultans, even theYang di-Pertuan Agong without fear of theSedition Act, with the exception of questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy of Malaysia.[27][30] In addition, the proposed amendments also sought to limit the power of the rulers to pardon offences of family members.[31] Public criticisms of the rulers was also allowed by amendments to the Sedition Act, which makes it no longer an offence to criticise the royalty except to areas pertaining to their legitimate existence.[32]

Nevertheless, a two-day long special parliamentary sessions starting from 18 January 1993 saw theDewan Rakyat table the proposed amendments in spite of the Sultans' objections, with prime ministerMahathir Mohamad citing as far to say that there was no need to obtain royal assent to implement laws.[33][34] Back in 1983, the constitution had been amended so that a veto by the Agong can be over-ridden by a parliamentary vote.[31][35] On 19 January 1993, shortly before the Dewan Rakyat concluded its session, 133 out of 180 MPs passed the amendment bill while members of the opposition parties abstained from voting, although opposition MPs fromDAP andPAS still expressed their support in principle.[36][37] The following day,Dewan Negara unanimously approve of the proposed amendments.[38]

The three rulers, on the other hand, continued to withhold their consent to the amendments which saw the government threatening to withdraw the privileges and continued attacks via the national media[39] on instances of royal excesses of their extravagant lifestyles and even hinting a possibility of ending constitutional monarchy in Malaysia, such as the publication of an article of monarchs who abdicated or were disposed since World War II.[40] A compromise was reached with the Agong when the government offered a compromise which allowed the rulers to delay any legislation within sixty days, provided that the delays were given reasons. The previous proposals offered only a delay of fifteen days for any legislation that were to be raised in parliament.[41]

The Dewan Rakyat passed its implementation on 8 March 1993, while the Dewan Negara approved of its implementation on 30 March. A new chapter, Part XV of the Constitution entitled "Proceedings against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Rulers" was also enshrined.[42]

Media coverage

[edit]

The government-backed media, on its part, launched a series of reports between 1992 and 1993 detailing alleged misdeeds by members of the royalty not only by the Johor royal family[43] but also on other royal houses from other states, questioning their extravagant lifestyles and misuse ofmoral authority to gain alleged concessions. The Pahang royal family, in particular, was criticised for the way which they allegedly gained favourable timber forestry concession rates[44] and the unusually high shares which they were accorded in the timber forestry industry.[45]

The views of the Islamic Religious leaders were also well publicised, who criticised the royal excesses and even went as far as placing members of the royalty as equal members with the commoners in the eyes of Allah.[46][47][48]

InKelantan,Sultan Ismail Petra was also heavily criticised for failing to pay import duty taxes after he purchased a convoy of imported Italian luxury sports car as well as[30][49] alleged biased support forSemangat 46 by Dr Mahathir, for violating the constitution which states that monarchs will have to take on a neutral role in political affairs. The leader of Semangat 46,Tengku Razaleigh Tengku Mohd Hamzah was a member of the Kelantan royal family.[50]

Aftermath

[edit]

Another further constitutional amendment in May 1994 allowed any law that has been passed by both the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara to become law within 30 days, irrespective of whether the Agong had given his assent.[51][52] The new legislation further reduced the veto power of the Agong — amended previously in 1983, which also sparked a constitutional crisis. The older bill stated that Rulers could withhold assent of a proposed amendment within 30 days once both houses of parliament pass a proposed amendment.[53]

The new constitutional amendment took some interesting twists following its amendments: In 1996, aSingaporean filed to sue theSultan Ahmad Shah of Pahang for defamation in the special court for the rulers, which was turned down by the Special Court, establishing the precedent that the right to sue a ruler only belongs to a Malaysian citizen.

In 1998, then Tengku Idris (laterSultan Sharafuddin) of Selangor sued a company, Dikim Holdings in the High Court. In 1999, when his father,Sultan Salahuddin was elected as theYang di-Pertuan Agong (Paramount Ruler) of Malaysia, Tengku Idris was appointed as Regent of Selangor. The case was referred to the Federal Court on whether the Regent is considered a ruler, which the court replied in the negative. In 2001, Sultan Salahuddin died and Tengku Idris ascended the Selangor throne. The case was referred to the Federal Court again, which the court ruled that the High Court had lost jurisdiction over the case, and the case must be withdrawn and refiled in the Special Court. In both cases, only the Special Court had authority to exercise jurisdiction over the rulers, whether they were to be tried or intended to try another party.[54]

TheYang di-Pertuan Besar ofNegeri Sembilan,Tuanku Ja'afar became the first ruler to have judgement made against him in the Special Court, whereby he was ordered to settle US$1 million in debts he had owed to a bank.[55] The landmark verdict prompted his oldest son, the Regent ofNegeri Sembilan,Tunku Naquiyuddin to advocate the restoration of rulers' immunity during a speech in November 2008. This raised concerns among the public, in view of the history of past royal excesses, but specifically the Gomez incident. Tunku Naquiyuddin, however, added further that immunity to rulers should not be extended to cases when rulers commit acts of criminality, such as assault.[56]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^"Move not for political gain but to protect citizens, says Ghafar".The Straits Times. 21 January 1993. p. 15.
  2. ^Hassan, Kalimullah (11 March 1993)."Unanimous 'yes' from Senate to strip rulers of immunity".The Straits Times. p. 16. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  3. ^Hassan, Kalimullah (10 March 1993)."Changes to remove rulers' immunity passed by big margin".The Straits Times. p. 1. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  4. ^Nature and Nation: Forests and Development in Peninsular Malaysia, Kathirithamby-Wells, pg 376
  5. ^SHERIDAN MAHAVERA: All in the name of fair distribution of powerArchived 8 December 2008 at theWayback Machine, 2008/12/08, New Straits Times
  6. ^ab"Constitution (Amendment) Act 1993 [Act A848]"(PDF).Federal Legislation (LOM). 29 March 1993.Archived(PDF) from the original on 25 June 2025. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  7. ^Islam in Malaysian Foreign Policy, Nair, pg 133
  8. ^abGovernment and Society in Malaysia,Crouch, pg 146
  9. ^About Malaysia, for all MalaysiansArchived 3 June 2011 at theWayback Machine, SOO EWE JIN, 2 December 2007,The Star (Malaysia)
  10. ^Malaysian Politics Under Mahathir, Milne, Mauzy, pg 38
  11. ^The End of Empire and the Making of Malaya, Harper, pg 372
  12. ^"A stick to beat the sultans of swing: Raymond Whitaker reports from".The Independent. 31 January 1993. Retrieved7 October 2023.
  13. ^"MALAYSIA: JOHOR PRINCE FREED ON ASSAULT CHARGE"(PDF).IPS-Inter Press Service/Global Information Network. 26 January 1993.
  14. ^Kerajaan mansuh kekebalan raja Melayu: semua parti politik sokong, Petah, pg 89
  15. ^Netto, Anil (1992)."The Monarchy Takes a 'Beating': Gomez incident leads to constitutional review"(PDF).Aliran Monthly. Vol. 12, no. 12. Penang: Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran). p. 3.ISSN 0127-5127.Archived(PDF) from the original on 15 June 2025. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  16. ^Jayakrishnan, S.; Sarifuddin, Tengku (7 December 1992)."Gomez lodges police report | Zaman: We will seek A-G's direction to investigate case".New Straits Times. pp. 1, 4. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  17. ^Raja, Gerald (29 November 1992)."Hockey coach takes a swipe at JHA".New Straits Times. p. 1. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  18. ^Raja, Gerald; Nambiar, Ravi; Taib, Mohd Yusof (1 December 1992)."Hockey coach summoned to Johor palace".New Straits Times. p. 2. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  19. ^abNoor, Farish A. (2004).Islam Embedded: The Historical Development of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party PAS (1951-2003). Vol. 2. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Sociological Research Institute. pp. 495–496.ISBN 9839986686.
  20. ^abVijiyan, K. (8 December 1992)."Gomez: Sultan beat me".New Straits Times. p. 1. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  21. ^Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter (1992), pg 35
  22. ^"Abdullah: Rakyat ashamed and angry",New Straits Times. 7 December 1992. pp. 4.
  23. ^"Parliamentary Debates of the House of Representatives [10 Dec 1992]"(PDF).Parliament of Malaysia (in Malay). 10 December 1992. pp. 42–183. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  24. ^Kershaw, Roger (2001).Monarchy in South-East Asia: The faces of tradition in transition(PDF). Politics in Asia. London & New York: Routledge. p. 111.ISBN 9780415243483. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  25. ^"Semangat to oppose changes",The Star, 23 December 1992, pg 2
  26. ^Split over palace issue widens, The Star, 22 December 1992, pg 2
  27. ^abOsman, Manan; Menon, Vijayan; Choong, Alex (18 January 1993)."Six Rulers says 'yes': Amendments made to proposal to remove legal immunity"(PDF).New Straits Times. pp. 1–2. Retrieved26 June 2025 – via Perdana Leadership Foundation Library.
  28. ^Decision of the Special Meeting of the Conference of Rulers on 18 January 1993, New Straits Times, 19 January 1993, pg 2
  29. ^"Rulers: Closer study of draft Bill Needed",New Straits Times, 19 January 1993, pg 1.
  30. ^abRichardson, Michael (15 December 1992)."Malaysia Prepares To Strip Sultans Of Their Immunity".International Herald Tribune. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  31. ^abEuropa World Book 2, Taylor and Francis Group, pg 2757
  32. ^Mahathir, the Secret of the Malaysian Success, Somun, Somun-Krupalija, pg 155
  33. ^"PM tables amendment Bill despite Rulers' disagreement",New Straits Times, 19 January 1993, at 1, 4.
  34. ^Kassim, Ismail (19 January 1993)."Mahathir: Rulers have no powers to block Bill".The Straits Times. p. 1. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  35. ^Jayasuriya, pg 223
  36. ^"133 MPs vote to remove legal immunity of Rulers: Amendment Bill passed",New Straits Times, 20 January 1993, pg 1, 2
  37. ^Hassan, Kalimullah (20 January 1993)."MPs vote to remove rulers' legal immunity".The Straits Times. p. 1. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  38. ^"Senate passes Bill unanimously".New Straits Times. 21 January 1993. pp. 1–2. Retrieved25 June 2025.
  39. ^Showdown with the Royals,Asiaweek, 27 January 1993, pg 30
  40. ^Government and Society in Malaysia, Crouch, pg 147
  41. ^Transitions in Malaysian society and politics: towards centralizing power (2004), pg 316
  42. ^Legal Aspects of Doing Business in Asia and the Pacific, Campbell, pg 379
  43. ^List of criminal acts done by the Johor Sultan, New Straits Times, 20 January 1993, pg 4
  44. ^Union: Review timb er permits for royalty, New Straits Times, 15 December 1992, pg 2
  45. ^Lim: 93,000 acres (380 km2) given to Sultan, The Star, 18 December 1992, pg 2
  46. ^Ulamas back constitutional change, New Straits Times, 1 January 1993, pg 2
  47. ^Qualities worthy of a Ruler in light of Islamic teachings, New Straits Times, 15 December 1992, pg 11
  48. ^Zaleha: Action was against Islamic teachings, New Straits Times, 21 January 1993, pg 2
  49. ^Asian Bulletin, Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League, Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League (China : Republic : 1949– ), Asian-Pacific Anti-Communist League, APLFD (Organization), APACL Publications, 1993, pg 36
  50. ^Asian Recorder, K. K. Thomas at Recorder Press, 1993, pg 23061
  51. ^Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South-East Asia, Leifer, pg 297
  52. ^Handbook of Federal Countries, 2002: A Project of the Forum of Federations, Griffiths, Nerenberg, pg 185
  53. ^Personalized Politics: The Malaysian State Under Mahathir, Hwang, pg 241
  54. ^Test case on right to sue SultansArchived 4 September 2008 at theWayback Machine, 20 August 2008, Shad Saleem Faruqi,The Star (Malaysia)
  55. ^New Ruler for Negeri SembilanArchived 31 October 2010 at theWayback Machine, 30 December 2008,The Straits Times
  56. ^Sheridan Mahavera (27 November 2008)."'Restore immunity of rulers'".New Straits Times.

References

[edit]

External links

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1993_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia&oldid=1324024900"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp