See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357420925

The Interpretation Statutes In Malaysia

Article · December 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 845

1 author:

Sheila Ramalingam
University of Malaya
10 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sheila Ramalingam on 30 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal i

The Interpretation Statutes In Malaysia

by
Sheila Ramalingam*

Introduction
In terms of application, perhaps one of the most complicated and confusing
of all legislation in Malaysia is the legislation on Interpretation. The
application of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 in West Malaysia alone
is confusing in itself, and then there are separate legislations on interpretation
in Sabah and Sarawak as set out in table 1 below:

Table 1
Subject matter West Malaysia Sabah Sarawak
Interpretation Interpretation Acts * Interpretation and Interpretation
1948/1967 General Clauses Ordinance, 2005
Enactment, 1963
* Interpretation
(Definition of Native)
Ordinance 1952
(Sabah Cap. 64)

With specific regard to the interpretation statutes in Sabah and Sarawak, the
Cobbold Commission 1 in commenting on the definition of ‘natives’,
observed that the [Interpretation] Ordinances in the two territories “should
be examined with the object of bringing them into line” 2. Hence, the opinion
of the members of the Cobbold Commission was to streamline the definitions
provided for in the interpretation statutes in Sabah and Sarawak. From here,
it would not be a significant leap to aim for a general Interpretation Act that
would apply across Malaysia. However at present, this is far from the case.
West Malaysia
The preamble to the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 states that it is to
provide for the commencement, application, construction, interpretation and
operation of written laws to provide for matters in relation to the exercise
of statutory powers and duties; and for matters connected therewith. The
Acts are divided into three parts: part I (ss. 2-65) which came into force on
18 May 19673, Part II (ss. 66-129) which came into force on 31 January
1948, Part III (ss. 130-132) which came into force on 30 September 1967.
The different parts of the Acts apply according to whether the law sought to
be interpreted is the Federal Constitution, the Constitution of the States,
Federal law or State law.

* PhD Candidate, University of Malaya

ii Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

Before the formation of Malaysia, there were separate legislation in West

Malaysia governing interpretation of laws, which were (a) in the Straits
Settlements, the Interpretation Ordinance (Straits Settlements Cap. 2); (b) in
the Federated Malay States, the Interpretation and General Clauses
Enactment (Federated Malay States Cap 1); (c) in Johore, the Interpretation
and General Clauses Enactment (Johore Enactment No. 2); (d) in Kedah, the
Interpretation Enactment (Kedah Enactment No. 2); (e) in Terengganu, the
Interpretation Enactment (Terengganu Enactment No. 8 of 1356); and (f) in
Kelantan, the Interpretation and General Clauses Enactment (Kelantan
Enactment No. 12 of 1938). The formation of the Malayan Union in 1946
led to the enactment of the Transfer of Powers and Interpretation Ordinance
1946 (Malayan Union Ordinance No. 2 of 1946) which applied to the
Federated Malay States and all Malay States4. This Ordinance was replaced
by the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1948 (Malayan Union
Ordinance No. 7 of 1948), and was used to interpret all laws in West
Malaysia in force before 18 May 1967 including any such laws which had
been extended to Sabah and Sarawak. In 1967, Parliament enacted the
Interpretation Act 1967 (No. 23) which was to apply at the Federal level
only5. Therefore the 1948 Ordinance was repealed in so far as it applied to
Federal law, but it was still applicable to State law6. As if this was not already
confusing enough, Parliament then enacted the Interpretation (States of West
Malaysia) Act 1967 (No. 57) pursuant to its powers under art. 76(1)(b) of the
Federal Constitution for the purpose of promoting uniformity of laws. Act
No. 57 applied in the interpretation of Enactments of only those states which
adopted uniform laws after the date of adoption7.
In summary, before 1989, there were three laws on interpretation that were
in force in West Malaysia ie, the Interpretation and General Clauses
Ordinance 1948 (Malayan Union Ordinance No. 7 of 1948), the
Interpretation Act 1967 (No. 23) and the Interpretation (States of West
Malaysia) Act 1967 (No. 57). In 1989, these three laws were consolidated
into one single Act ie, the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. However,
although consolidated, they remain separated ie, Parts I, II and III
correspond with the three laws in force before 1989.
Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 applies to all Acts of
Parliament passed on or after 18 May 1967 and subsidiary legislation made
thereunder. It also applied to revised versions of any Federal law and
subsidiary legislation made thereunder, irrespective of whether the law was
made before or after 18 May 1967 so long as they were prepared and
published under the Revision of Laws Act 19688. Part I is expressly excluded
from the interpretation of any other written law9. Part II of the Interpretation
Acts 1948 and 1967 is repealed with effect from 18 May 1967 in so far as
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal iii

it is a Federal law10. However, it continues to apply to any written law

enacted before 18 May 1967, and subsidiary legislations made under such
written law, whether before or after 18 May 196711. Therefore, any Federal
law which does not fall under s. 2 of the Acts shall be subject to interpretation
under Part II of the Acts. Part II of the Acts applies to every written law
(except those specified under s. 2 of the Acts).
Part II also applies in interpreting the Federal Constitution. Section 66 of the
Acts specifies that Part II applies to every written law and in all public
documents enacted, made or issued before or after 31 January 1948. ‘Written
law’ is defined as ‘all Acts of Parliament, Ordinances and Enactments in
force in the Federation or any part thereof and all subsidiary legislation made
thereunder, and includes the Federal Constitution’12. Since Part I of the Acts
expressly forbids its applicability to any other written law not specified in
s. 2(1) of the Acts, Part I does not apply to the interpretation of the Federal
Constitution. Article 160(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that the
Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1948 (Malayan Union
Ordinance No. 7 of 1948) as in force immediately before Merdeka Day shall,
to the extent specified in the Eleventh Schedule, apply to the interpretation
of the Federal Constitution. Therefore, the 1948 Ordinance, ie, Part II of the
Acts applies to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution. This was
agreed to by the Federal Court in Lee Kwan Woh v. PP13 and Sivarasa Rasiah
v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor14.
Section 130 of the Acts provides that Part III shall extend only to such of
those states which adopt this part pursuant to art. 76(3) of the Federal
Constitution. Section 131 further provides that where one of the States of
West Malaysia adopts Part III of the Acts, Part I of the Acts with the
modifications and additions contained in the Second Schedule, shall apply
for the interpretation of and otherwise in relation to Enactments
(and subsidiary legislations made thereunder) of the adopting State enacted
after the date of adoption as it applies for the interpretation of and otherwise
in relation to Acts of Parliament enacted after the commencement of that
Act. To complicate things further, s. 132 provides that the adoption of Part
III repeals Part II in so far as it is the law of a State to which Part III extends,
and Part II shall continue to apply to State law made before such repeal. In
other words, when a State adopts Part III, Part II will be inapplicable only
with respect to State law enacted after the date of adoption. For States that
do not adopt Part III, Part II will continue to apply. To date, only Pahang,
Penang, Perak and Kedah have not adopted Part III of the Acts. The
respective State Enactments adopting Part III of the Acts is set out in
table 2 below:
iv Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

Table 2

State Enactment

Johor Interpretation (Adoption of Part III of the Interpretation Acts

1948 and 1967) Enactment 1990 (En. 9/1990)

Malacca Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption) Enactment

1988 (En. 5/1988)

Pahang None

Penang None

Perak None

Selangor Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption by Selangor)

Enactment 1983 (En. 2/1983)

Kedah None

Kelantan Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption) Enactment

1982 (En. 2/1981)

Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption)

(Amendment) Enactment 1982 (En. 4/1982)

Negeri Sembilan Interpretation (Adoption of Part III of the Interpretation Acts

1948/1967) Enactment 1989 (En. 7/1989)

Perlis Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption) Enactment

1988
(En. 4/1989)

Terengganu Interpretation (States of West Malaysia) (Adoption) Enactment

1981
(En. 11/1981)
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal v

The application of Part I and II of the Acts is very aptly summarised by the Attorney-
General’s Chambers in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Summary of extent of application of Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967

Source: The Attorney General’s Chambers Official Blog at http://agc-blog.agc.gov.my/

agc-blog/?p=2180

Part I and Part II of the Interpretation Acts 1948 And 1967

The definition sections of the Acts15 provides the definitions of various words
and phrases. Some of the words and phrases in Part II are outdated and no
longer correct, for example the definition of ‘Chief Justice’ which is defined
as “the Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya or of the High Court in
Borneo, as the case may require”. However, the term ‘Chief Justice’ is now
used to refer to the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, who is the Chief Justice
of the Federal Court16. Another example is the word ‘Malaya’ which is still
defined in Part II as “the States of the Federation and Singapore”. Then there
are some words which are found in Part I but not in Part II, such as
‘division’, ‘document’ and ‘East Malaysia’, and some words which are found
vi Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

in Part II but not in Part I such as ‘abet’, ‘appropriate Service Commission’

and ‘British possession’. Finally, there are some words that are found in both
Parts I and II of the Acts, but are differently defined. For example, ‘law’ is
defined in Part I as “has the meaning assigned by art. 160(2) of the Federal
Constitution” whereas in Part II it is defined as “includes written law, the
common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part
thereof, and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation
or in any part thereof”. Similarly, the phrase ‘rules of court’ is defined in Part
I as “rules or other subsidiary legislation regulating the practice and
procedure of a court or courts” whereas in Part II it is defined as “when used
in relation to any court, rules made by the Rule Committee”.
Sections 4 to 12, Part I of the Acts provides for explanations or expansions
on the generalities of some words and phrases, such as grammatical
variations, gender and number17, the references to offices etc. established by
the Constitution18, public officers19, office-holder20, the High Court, the
Minister and the Treasury 21, States22 and service by post23. This is not
provided for in Part II24, but its generality is useful for the purposes of Part
II. The rest of the sections contained in Part I and Part II of the Acts are
largely similar, dealing with general provisions affecting written laws25,
provisions on subsidiary legislation26, repeal and amending laws27, powers
and appointments28 and other miscellaneous matters29. The main differences
between Part I and Part II are firstly, s. 17A of Part I which provides that
in the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would
promote the purpose or object underlying the Act, whether express or
implied, shall be preferred. This is not found in Part II. Secondly, s. 18 of
Part I which provides for the publication of the Federal Gazette. This is also
not found in Part II. Thirdly, ss. 81 to 83 of Part II which deal with Imperial
Acts, ie, Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is not
found in Part I. Fourthly, s. 117 of Part II which provides that in case of any
conflict or discrepancy between the English text of a written law and any
translation thereof, the English text shall prevail. This is not found in Part
I. Finally, s. 120 of Part II provides for the reprint of written laws, which
is not provided in Part I.
East Malaysia
Meanwhile, the States of Sabah and Sarawak have their own statutes
governing interpretation of state laws and they are not affected by the revised
Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. In Sabah, the interpretation statutes are
the Interpretation and General Clauses Enactment of Sabah (No 34 of 1963)
which came into force on 9 October 1963 and is used to interpret all Sabah
Enactments in force at the commencement of the Interpretation Enactment
and subsequent enactments and the Interpretation (Definition of Native)
Ordinance 195230 which came into force on 10 December 1952 and is solely
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal vii

to define the word “native” as applicable in Sabah. In Sarawak, there is the

Interpretation Ordinance, 2005 of Sarawak (Cap 61) which came into force
on 1 July 2005 and is applicable to all written laws in force and those made
subsequently, and to any instrument made or issued under it31. Part I of the
Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 is not applicable to both Sabah and
Sarawak as Part III does not extend to both States32.
The Definition section of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 of Sabah33
contain the definition of some words which are specific to the State of Sabah,
for example ‘Assistant Minister’ is defined as “an Assistant Minister of the
State34 appointed under art. 7A of the Constitution35, “Cabinet’ is defined as
“the State Cabinet established under art. 6 of the Constitution, and before
Malaysia Day includes the Executive Council of the Colony of North
Borneo”, ‘Consolidated Fund’ is defined as “the Consolidated Fund of the
State mentioned in art. 29 of the Constitution”, and ‘division’ is defined as
“one of the divisions into which the State is for the time being divided in
accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Divisions Ordinance
(Cap 167)”. However, the definition of the word ‘native’ is contained in a
separate statute, the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance 1952
and is defined as a person indigenous to Sabah, or ordinarily resident in
Sabah and living as a member of a native community, or ordinarily resident
in Sabah and is indigenous to the State of Sarawak, the State of Brunei, the
Republic of Indonesia or the Sulu group of islands under specific
circumstances36. Similarly, the Definition section of the Interpretation
Ordinance 2005 of Sarawak37 also contain the definition of some words
which are specific to the State of Sarawak, for example ‘Majlis Mesyuarat
Kerajaan Negeri’ is defined as “the body constituted under
art. 6(1) of the State Constitution to advise the Yang di-Pertua Negeri in the
exercise of his functions”, ‘native’ is defined as a “citizen of Malaysia of any
race which is now considered to be indigenous to Sarawak as set out in the
schedule”, and ‘Order’ is defined as “in respect of legislation prior to the first
day of July, 1946, means a law enacted by His Highness the Rajah, or enacted
by His Highness the Tuan Muda with the authority of His Highness the
Rajah, or enacted by the Officer Administering the Government by and with
the advice of the Committee of the Administration, or enacted by his
Highness the Rajah with the advice and consent of the former Council
Negeri”.
Similar to ss. 4 to 12, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967, s. 3(2)
to (18) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 of Sarawak provides for
explanations or expansions on the generalities of some words and phrases,
such as definition38, reference to Government property39, provisions for
gender and number40, service by post41, time and distance42, the Sovereign43,
Straits Settlements44, Federated Malay States, Malaya or Federation45, public
officers46, general provisions on written law47 and exercise of powers in
viii Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

special cases48. Apart from this, the rest of the provisions in the interpretation
legislations in Sabah and Sarawak are largely similar, dealing with general
provisions affecting written laws49, provisions on subsidiary legislation50,
repeal and amending laws51, powers and appointments52, penal provisions53,
imperial statutes54, and other miscellaneous matters55. Both interpretation
legislations in Sabah and Sarawak have a similar provision on having regard
to the purpose of an Enactment or Ordinance when constructing or
interpreting the same56. The main difference between the interpretation
legislations of Sabah and Sarawak is that in the Interpretation Ordinance
2005 of Sarawak, the definition of ‘native’, is contained in the Ordinance
itself, whereas in Sabah, the definition of ‘native’ is contained in a separate
statute ie, the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance 1952. While
the definition of ‘native’ in Sarawak seem to only cover people who are
indigenous to Sarawak, the definition of ‘native’ in Sabah appear to be much
wider and may even include people indigenous to the State of Sarawak, the
State of Brunei, the Republic of Indonesia and the Sulu islands. One other
difference is the provision for reprint of State laws, which is provided for in
the Sabah Enactment57 but not in the Sarawak Ordinance.
Summary Of Interpretation Statutes In Malaysia
A summary of the similarities and differences of the provisions of the various
interpretation statutes in Malaysia is set out in table 3 below:
Table 3
Provisions in interpretation statutes West Malaysia Sabah Sarawak
Part 1 Part II
Definitions varies varies varies varies
Explanations/expansions on x x
generalities of some words and phrases
General provisions affecting written laws
Provisions on subsidiary legislation
Repeal and amending laws
Powers and appointments
Miscellaneous matters
Purposive interpretation/construction x
of statutes
Publications of Federal Gazette x x x
Imperial Acts x
Discrepancy between English text and x x x
any translations
Reprint of written laws x x
Definition of ‘native’ x x
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal ix

As can be seen, the three interpretation statutes in West Malaysia, Sabah and
Sarawak contain many similarities. The main variation is the definition of
the words and phrases which vary from statute to statute.
A Unified Interpretation Act?
As the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 stands now, Part II of the Acts
apply to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution, Acts of Parliament
and subsidiary legislation made thereunder before 18 May 1967 and State
Constitutions58, whereas Part I generally applies to Acts of Parliament and
subsidiary legislation made thereunder after 18 May 1967. As for the
interpretation of state enactments in West Malaysia, if a state in West
Malaysia adopts Part III, Part I will apply as at the date of adoption;
otherwise Part II will apply. In East Malaysia, the Interpretation and
General Clauses Enactment 1963 and the Interpretation (Definition of
Native) Ordinance 1952 of Sabah applies to the interpretation of all State
Enactments in Sabah, whilst the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 of Sarawak
applies to the interpretation of all State Enactments in Sarawak. There
appears to be no real benefit of having different provisions applicable to
different statutes. It is submitted that it is entirely plausible to have one
Interpretation Act that applies to all legislations throughout Malaysia.
This can be achieved by having definitions that are streamlined ie, to have
a common list of all words and phrases that need to be defined, based on
current definitions that are consistent with all other current legislations in
place, while getting rid of all outdated definitions such as ‘Malaya’ (defined
in Part II as the States of the Federation and Singapore) and ‘Chief Justice’
(defined in Part II as the Chief Justice of the High Court in Malaya or of the
High Court in Borneo, as the case may require). Additionally, definitions that
are peculiar to Sabah and Sarawak or to any of the States in West Malaysia
should also be included here. In essence, all definitions that may be used by
all States in Malaysia (including Sabah and Sarawak) should be included in
the unified Interpretation Act.
Secondly, a purposive interpretation of statutes should be applicable to all
statutes regardless of whether it is State or Federal law. Thirdly, the general
applicability of ss. 4 to 12 of Part I would be useful for a unified
interpretation statute. Similarly, provisions for publication in the Federal or
State Gazette as well as for reprint of laws are useful to be included into a
unified interpretation statute. Finally, archaic and outdated provisions such
as those dealing with Imperial Acts (Acts passed by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom) ought to be done away with as they are no longer relevant today.
With particular regard to the interpretation of the Federal Constitution,
while the unified Interpretation Act may act as a general guide or aid to the
interpretation of the Federal Constitution, it must be remembered that there
are also various case laws which offer guiding principles in interpreting the
x Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

Federal Constitution, beyond the ambit of any interpretation statute. In the

first place, art. 160 of the Federal Constitution provides for definitions of
words and phrases that are used throughout the Federal Constitution.
Secondly, art. 4(1) of the Federal Constitution provides, among others, that
any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the
Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Article 162 of
the Federal Constitution provides that pre-Merdeka laws shall continue to be
in force until repealed59, and in the meantime such laws may be modified
(which includes amendment, adaptation and repeal)60 by Federal or State
law, or by way of judicial interpretation for the purposes of bringing such law
into accord with the provisions of the Federal Constitution61. With regard to
the existing laws of Sabah and Sarawak in force before Malaysia Day, s. 73
of the Malaysia Act provides that such laws continue to be in force on or after
Malaysia Day. One learned author opines that the same principle applies to
the pre-existing laws of Sabah and Sarawak ie, when laws existing prior to
Malaysia Day conflicts with the Federal Constitution, the courts could
exercise its powers under art. 162(6) to ‘modify’ the provisions thereof for
the purposes of bringing them in line with the provisions of the Federal
Constitution62. It can therefore be seen that the Federal Constitution itself
places a lot of emphasis on judicial interpretation of the provisions of the
Federal Constitution.
In so far as case law is concerned, the Federal Constitution has been referred
to as a “living piece of legislation”, and therefore “judicial precedent plays
a lesser part than is normal in matters of statutory interpretation”, and its
provisions ought to be broadly construed and not in a pedantic way “with
less rigidity and more generosity that other Acts” 63 . However, such
interpretation must not go against certain fundamental principles, such as the
observance of the rule of natural justice or to promote the objects of the
Constitution as may be ascertained from the language used in the document64.
When construing entrenched provisions of the Federal Constitution such as
the special privileges accorded to Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysian courts have
demonstrated that generally they would uphold and protect them 65 .
Historical background events are also taken into account by the Malaysian
courts in interpreting the Federal Constitution66. The Federal Court in Dato’
Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin v. Dato Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir67
adopted the ‘organic theory method’ in interpreting the Federal Constitution,
which requires the court “to see the present social conditions and interpret
the Constitution in a manner so as to resolve the present difficulties”. In
ZI Publications Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor
(Intervenor)68, the Federal Court held that “it is an established principle of
constitutional construction that no provision can be considered in isolation”,
and a provision of the Constitution should be read harmoniously in
conjunction with the other provisions of the Constitution as a whole69.
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal xi

It is therefore submitted that it is entirely plausible to have a unified

Interpretation Act which applies throughout Malaysia for the interpretation
of Federal laws, State laws as well as the Federal Constitution. Such a unified
Act would do no harm to the interpretation of statutes in Malaysia, including
the Federal Constitution which contains its own provisions of interpretation
and abundant case laws to aid in its interpretation. A unified interpretation
statute would contribute to consistency and certainty in the law and eradicate
the myriad of confusion currently surrounding the application of the
interpretation statutes in Malaysia. Achieving uniformity, consistency and
certainty in the law is one of the hallmarks of the rule of law, which is
something every nation ought to aspire to.
Endnotes:
1. A commission under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold was set up to
ascertain the views of the people of Sabah and Sarawak on the idea of a
political association with, among others, the Federation of Malaya. This
commission came to be commonly known as the Cobbold Commission.
2. See para. 163 of the Cobbold Commission Report.
3. P.U. (A) 204/1967.
4. Excerpt from the The Attorney General’s Chambers Official Blog at http:/
/agc-blog.agc.gov.my/agc-blog/?p=2180
5. The ‘interpretation of federal law’ is an item on the Federal List in the
Federal Constitution (Item 4(e)(i), List 1, Ninth Schedule).
6. Excerpt from the The Attorney General’s Chambers Official Blog at http:/
/agc-blog.agc.gov.my/agc-blog/?p=2180
7. Wu, M.A. (1999), The Malaysian Legal System, (2nd edn), Kuala Lumpur:
Longman, Chapter 6, p. 219.
8. Section 2(1) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
9. Section 2(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
10. Section 65(1) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
11. Section 65(2) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
12. Section 66 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
13. [2009] 5 CLJ 631; [2009] 5 MLJ 301.
14. [2010] 3 CLJ 507; [2010] 2 MLJ 333.
15. Section 3 (Part I) and s. 66 (Part II) of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
16. See art. 122B of the Federal Constitution.
17. Section 4, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
18. Section 5, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
xii Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

19. Section 6, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.

20. Section 7, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
21. Section 8, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
22. Section 9, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
23. Section 12, Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
24. With the exception of the provision for measurement of distance which is
provided for in both Part I (s. 11) and Part II (s. 103).
25. Sections 13 to 18, Part I and ss. 67 to 72, Part II of the Interpretation Acts
1948 and 1967.
26. Sections 19 to 33, Part I and ss. 84 to 92, Part II of the Interpretation Acts
1948 and 1967.
27. Sections 28 to 34, Part I and ss. 73 to 80, Part II of the Interpretation Acts
1948 and 1967.
28. Sections 37 to 52, Part I and ss. 93 to 102, Part II of the Interpretation Acts
1948 and 1967.
29. Sections 35, 36, 53 to 64, Part I and ss. 104 to 115, 118 and 119,
Part II of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.
30. Sabah Cap. 64.
31. Section 2 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
32. See ss. 130 and 131 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. See also Wu,
M.A. (1999). The Malaysian Legal System, (2nd edn), Kuala Lumpur:
Longman. Chapter 6, p. 219.
33. Section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Enactment 1963
(Sabah).
34. ‘State’ is defined as the State of Sabah.
35. ‘Constitution’ is defined as the Constitution of the State.
36. Section 2 of the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance 1952
(Sabah Cap. 64).
37. Section 3(1) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
38. Section 3(2) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
39. Section 3(3) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
40. Section 3(4) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
41. Section 3(5) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
42. Sections 3(6), (12) to (14) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
This is also provided for in ss. 34 to 40 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963
(Sabah).
[2018] 5 CLJ Cu rrent Law Jou rnal xiii

43. Section 3(7) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).

44. Section 3(8) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
45. Section 3(9) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
46. Sections 3(10) and (11) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
47. Sections 3(15) to (17) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
48. Section 3(18) of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
49. Sections 3A to 8 and 9 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and
ss. 4 to 8 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
50. Sections 19 to 27A of the Interpretation Enactment, 1963 (Sabah) and
ss. 14 to 21 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
51. Sections 13 to 18 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and ss. 10
to 13 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
52. Sections 28 to 33 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and ss. 22
to 37 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
53. Sections 41 to 50 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and ss. 38
to 48 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
54. Sections 10 to 12 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and ss. 56
to 58 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
55. Sections 55 to 59 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and ss. 49
to 55 and 59 to 62 of the Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
56. Section 8A of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah) and s. 9 of the
Interpretation Ordinance 2005 (Sarawak).
57. Section 55 of the Interpretation Enactment 1963 (Sabah).
58. With the exception of the Johore laws enacted after 25 April 1991 whereby
Part I of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 applies.
59. Article 162(1) of the Federal Constitution.
60. Article 162(7) of the Federal Constitution.
61. Article 162(6) of the Federal Constitution. See also Assa Singh v. Mentri Besar
Johor [1968] 1 LNS 9; [1969] 2 MLJ 30 at p. 35.
62. Fong, JC (2016). Constitutional Federalism in Malaysia, (2nd edn), Kuala
Lumpur: Thompson/Sweet & Maxwell Asia, p. 179.
63. See the judgment of Raja Azlan Shah, Ag LP (as His Royal Highness then
was) in Dato’ Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato’ Ombi Syed Alwi
Syed Idrus [1984] 1 CLJ 28; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 98; [1981] 1 MLJ 29.
See also Badan Peguam Malaysia v. Kerajaan Malaysia [2008] 1 CLJ 521
at p. 545.
 xiv Cu rrent Law Jou rnal [2018] 5 CLJ

64. See PP v. Sihabduin Hj Salleh & Anor [1981] CLJ 39; [1981] CLJ (Rep)
82; [1980] 2 MLJ 273.
65. See for example Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v. Sugumar Balakrishnan
[2002] 4 CLJ 105; [2002] 3 MLJ 72 at p. 106 where the Federal Court
reiterated the importance of the immigration provision in Part VII of the
Federal Constitution which enables Sabah and Sarawak to have control
of entry into, and residence in, the two States.
66. See for example Dato’ Menteri Othman Baginda & Anor v. Dato’ Ombi Syed
Alwi Syed Idrus [1984] 1 CLJ 28; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 98; [1981] 1 MLJ
29 and East Union (Malaya) Sdn Bhd v. Government of Johore & Anor [1981]
1 MLJ 151. See also Thomas, T (2008). The Social Contract: Malaysia’s
Constitutional Covenant, Malayan Law Journal, vol, 1, p. cxxxii.
67. [2010] 2 CLJ 925 at p. 941.
68. [2015] 8 CLJ 621 at p. 829.
69. See PP v. Azmi Sharom [2015] 8 CLJ 921 at p. 934.

View publication stats