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

net/publication/282641095

MALAYSIAN FEDERALISM – ISSUES AND ACCEPTANCE

Article · April 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 8,183

4 authors:

Nazri Muslim Khairil Azmin Mokhtar

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia International Islamic University Malaysia
46 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rasyikah Md Khalid Faridah Jalil

23 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
27 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Establishment of Fundamental Institutional Framework through Innovation of Law and Policy relating to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Malaysia View project

Rights of PWD in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khairil Azmin Mokhtar on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Australian Journal of Sustainable Business and Society
Volume 1 No. 1 March 2015

MALAYSIAN FEDERALISM – ISSUES AND ACCEPTANCE

Nazri bin Muslim
National University Malaysia, Malaysia
Faridah Jalil
National University Malaysia, Malaysia
Nurhafilah Musa
National University, Malaysia
Khairil Azmin Mokhtar
International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia
Rasyikah Md Khalid
University of Technology MARA, Malaysia

Abstract
After the 2008 General Election, Malaysians were witnessing dynamics of a federal system of government after being ruled by
the same coalition parties of Barisan Nasional (National Front) since Independence. When the coalition of Pakatan Rakyat
(People’s Front) won five states in the 2008 General Election, many intergovernmental conflicts occurred. Pre-2008, the conflict
was confined to family matters such as legal effects of conversion to Islam in a non-Muslim marriage. Post 2008, the federal
conflict entered the public law sphere involving a legal tussle between the federal government and the state of Kelantan in the
petroleum royalty issue. These federal conflicts have been highlighted in the mass media, catapulting the public from being
ignorant about federalism to being curious as to which level of government actually has the power to manage the issues raised. A
quantitative study was conducted to find out Malaysians’ level of knowledge, understanding, acceptance and perception towards
the federal system in the country. The paper discusses some of the outcomes of the study.

JEL Classification: K490

Keywords: Malaysian Legal System, Malaysian Federalism, Kelantan Petroleum Royalty, Conversion to Islam
Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

One of the outcomes from 2008 Malaysia General Election is that Malaysians are able to witness the dynamics of a
federal system of government. When five states won by the coalition of Islamic Party Malaysia (PAS), Democratic
Action Party (DAP) and People Justice Party (PKR), many conflicts relating to the division of powers between the
federal government and the state governments arose. Major issues such as legal effects of conversion to Islam and
petroleum royalty became headlines in the mainstream media, catapulting the public from being ignorant about
federalism issue to being curious as to which level of government actually has the power to manage the issues
raised.
The outcome of the 2008 and 2013 General Elections have denied Barisan Nasional (National Front) two
third majority in the Parliament, making it difficult for any constitutional to be passed for the next few years. For the
2008 General Election, Barisan Nasional lost five states to Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) while in the 2013
General Election, Pakatan Rakyat managed to hold on to three states; Kelantan, Penang and Selangor. The states
that have experienced being ruled by a difference party from Barisan Nasional are Kelantan, Sabah and Terengganu.
The impact of being in a federal system was not obvious as the states were in the east coast of Malaysia and did not
have a lot of resources. When Pakatan Rakyat managed to wrest Penang and Selangor, two of the richest states in
Malaysia, from Barisan Nasional, the impact is different because these two states are industrial states and the focus
of foreign investments. These two state governments were able to formulate and finance policies that benefitted the
people in the states. This created a situation where the people in the states of Selangor and Penang can compare
policies made by the states with the policies made by the federal government on similar matters. On the other side of
the coin, there are many unresolved problems in the operation of Malaysian federalism. Two of the problems which
are going to be discussed in the paper are relating to legal effects on conversion to Islam in a non-Muslim marriage

  109  
and the distribution of petroleum royalty. At the same time, this paper is going to highlight some of the outcomes
from a quantitative study conducted on Malaysian federalism.
The quantitative study was conducted upon 960 Malaysians to gauge their level of knowledge,
understanding and acceptance towards the federal system as implemented in Malaysia. This research was conducted
due to the fact that there is a lacuna in the existing Malaysian federalism literature where the focus is usually
qualitative. The result from this quantitative study will be discussed in the light of the two problems highlighted
earlier: effects of conversion to Islam in a non-Muslim marriage and the distribution of petroleum royalty. The paper
begins with a historical overview of federal system in Malaysia, followed with a brief discussion on literature
relating to Malaysian federalism and the two federalism issues highlighted previously. The research methodology
used in the quantitative study will be explained in the next section so as the discussions on the data analysis. This
paper ends with some observations.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA

The concept of federalism, which was introduced to Malaya by the British in 1895, is not an alien concept.
Federalism is believed to start in the 16th century when nine districts, namely, Segamat, Naning, Rembau, Sungai
Ujong, Johol, Jelebu, Hulu Pahang, Jelai, and Kelang agreed to merge and create what is known today as Negeri
Sembilan. Each district was headed by Undang who was given the autonomy to govern the affairs of the people in
the district. The Yam Tuan Besar acted as the head of the Federation of Negeri Sembilan. Both, the Yam Tuan Besar
and the Undang had a consensus on the division and scope of their jurisdiction enjoyed by the respective district.
Later in 1895, the British put forth a federal concept through the Federal Agreement in 1896. The Federal
Agreement amalgamated four Malays states namely Selangor, Perak, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan. These states
were also known as the British protected states and they were governed by a central government, led by a Resident
General. The aim of the federation is to assist the less developed state (Pahang) and to stimulate economic growth,
specifically, tin mining. It is important to note that although the four Malay states were called the Federated Malay
States, there were no formal division of powers between the central government and the units.
After the Second World War, the federal form of government continued after the failed attempt to form a
unified government called Malayan Union in 1946. Before independence, the British and the people of Malaya
agreed to form the Federation of Malaya 1948. This was the first time a formal form of federal government was
formed in Malaya. When Malaya gained independence in 1957, the 1948 federal system of government was
reaffirmed in Malaya. On 16 September 1963, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore agreed to join Malaya and a new
federation known as Malaysia was formed.
The basic outline of the Malaysian federalism is consistent with Wheare’s understanding of federalism
which emphasizes on the distribution of powers between the states and the central government. He states that the
concept of federalism implies that there are two levels of government, namely the central government and the state
government; each level of government is granted the power in certain fields and affairs and they have no right to
intervene in the matters not under their respective jurisdiction. In Malaysia, the distribution of powers is outlined in
Part VI of the Malaysian Constitution, read the Ninth Schedule. The state-federal powers were distributed into three
lists namely, the Federal List, State List and Concurrent List. Important affairs such as external affairs, defense and
internal security, finance and commerce are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Meanwhile, the state
government deals with matters relating to Islamic religion and laws, land, agriculture and forestry, local government,
local services and machinery of the State Government. The Concurrent List enumerates areas whereby the federal
government shares its executive and legislative powers with the state governments. Those areas include social
welfare, scholarships, national parks and wildlife, drainage and irrigation and other related areas specified in the
Concurrent List.

MALAYSIAN FEDERALISM: PREVIOUS STUDIES

Scholarship on the Federal Constitution can be divided into three approaches. The first approach follows closely the
political and the historical evolution of the constitution. This traditional approach is adopted by scholars such as
Ratnam, Means, Karl von Vorys, Shafruddin and Heng Pek Khoon. Ratnam and Karl von Vorys, investigates the
development and the progress of the Malay politics, while Heng Pek Khoon traces the development of the political
awareness among the Chinese ethnic. The study of Means concentrates on several important aspects in the
constitution as laid down in the Reid Commission Report, the memorandum from organizations and individuals, also
newspaper reports. Mohd Agus Yusof and Regina Lim provided a federal-state relation perspective in Malaysia
federalism. The second approach is the legal approach as made evident by Hickling, Mohamed Suffian Hashim,

  110  
Sheridan and Groves, Mohamed Suffian Hashim, Trindade and H.P Lee, Abdul Aziz Bari and JC Foong. Most of
the writings discussed federalism in the context of the Malaysian Constitution and issues surrounding it. Mohamed
Suffian Hashim discusses on the practice of federalism with special reference to provisions outlined in the
constitution such as the jurisdiction of the central and the state governments, financial arrangement, consultation
bodies and others as stated in the Constitution. Heillustrated the relevant debates that lead to the acceptance of the
proposed provisions into the current Malaysian Constitution. The same approach was also taken by Mohd. Salleh
Abas when he explains the implementation of federalism in Malaysia. For example, he explains about the
cooperation of the central and the state governments through the establishment of a national body such as the
National Land Council, the Local Government Council and the Conference of Rulers. The difference between the
legal approach and the historical and political approach is that the discussions of the former are focused on
interpretation of statutes made by the courts on haw powers were exercised by the federal and state governments.

The third approach touched on the issues on the concept and implementation of federalism. B.
Simandjuntak for example, analysed, the pressing issues that have prevailed in the Federation of Malaya involving
citizenship, language, education, finance, economy and defence. The issues raised are discussed in the context of
multiracial society that exist in Malaya at the time. The analysis of Mohd Noor Alam on the concept and the
implementation of federalism in Malaysia centers around the evolution of of the concept involving the incidents on
the opposition of the Malays towards the Malayan Union and the contentious jurisdictional issue. Analysis on the
previous works shows that there is still room to investigate on federalism in Malaysia with regards to the level of
knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the Malaysian society towards the concept of federalism and its
implementation in Malaysia. This is due to the fact that the previous studies adopted qualitative approach and
concentrates on documented resources. The present study aims to fill in the lack of quantitative study on Malaysian
federalism.

ISSUES IN MALAYSIAN FEDERALISM

This paper will discuss briefly two issues in relation to federalism in Malaysia to demonstrate on how the level of
knowledge, understanding and acceptance affects the response of Malaysians towards these issues. The first issue is
conflict of laws in private affairs namely the effects of religious conversion when a non-Muslim married a Muslim.
This is a long-standing issue emerged after the enactment of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 that
has yet to be resolved despite numerous call to amend the relevant laws affecting the Muslim and non-Muslim
parties. The second issue is a conflict involving public law regarding Kelantan’s petroleum royalty which came up a
few years ago and caused strained relationship between the federal government and the state of Kelantan. The
discussion of these two issues is an attempt to demonstrate that both issues require a better understanding of the
operation of federalism in Malaysia in order to resolve the conflict.

Legal Effects of Religious Conversion in a Non-Muslim Marriage

A long-standing inter-religious problem in Malaysia is when one of the spouses who are married according to civil
marriage embraced Islam, he or she does not have any right to dissolve the marriage in the civil court. Section 51 of
the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 provides that only the non-Muslim spouse can apply for
dissolution of marriage on the ground of conversion to Islam. If the non-Muslim spouse does not do so, the newly
convert spouse can only resort to the Sariah court.
Although according to Islamic jurisprudence, a marriage is automatically dissolved when there is a
difference of religion between spouses; all the states’ Islamic law provides that the dissolution of marriage must be
made officially in the Syariah court. Application to dissolve the non-Muslim marriage can be made in the Syariah
court by the newly converted spouse. The Syariah court would dissolve the non-Muslim marriage but that
dissolution is not recognized by the civil court because the Sariah court does not have any jurisdiction upon non-
Muslims. This is a federalism issue due to the jurisdictional conflict between the civil court and the Sariah court
because the former is a court system under the federal government while the latter is a court system under the state
government.
Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia have been living together for more than 50 years and conversion to
Islam take place very often. The issue is, again, inequality of treatment between non-Muslim spouse and Muslim
spouse where one can apply for divorce and the other has no avenue to dissolve the civil marriage. This has created
a lot of ancillary issues such as custody, maintenance and to ascertain the religion of a minor. The recent cases of
Indira Gandhi and Deepa show that people can accept the different family laws between the Muslims and non-

  111  
Muslims in Malaysia. In these two cases, the husbands converted to Islam and consequently, converted the children
to Islam and sought custody at the Syariah court which was granted. The mothers went to the civil court seeking
custody of their children. Their application were granted and clashed with the custody approval given by the Syariah
courts. The mothers are non-Muslims and therefore cannot intervene in the husband’s application for custody in the
Syariah court.

Kelantan Petroleum Royalty Claim

The petroleum royalty issue has been an on-going issue causing estranged relationship between the federal and the
state of Kelantan. The PAS-led government wrote officially to the federal government seeking RM1 billion in
royalties backdated to 2004. The state learned that oil wells have been found in the waters off its coast. The Federal
Government argued that the payment is in accordance with the Petroleum Development Act 1974, wherein Sabah,
Sarawak, and Terengganu had all received 5% royalty whereas Kelantan, also a petroleum-producing state, had been
denied its equivalent. Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, in response to a query in Parliament in November 2009,
announced that the federal government would pay ‘goodwill money’. The Prime Minister argued that the state was
not entitled to oil royalty because the oil and gas was extracted beyond Kelantan’s three nautical miles of territorial
waters. It was argued that Kelantan has no right to oil royalty due to the fact that Ninth Schedule provides that the
state can only extract mineral within its territorial waters. Since the oil wells are located roughly 150 km from the
coast, they are located in the continental shelf, which under Malaysian law, is in the federal government’s hands.
The said argument cannot hold water because other oil-producing states are receiving royalties despite the fact that
the oil wells are beyond the specified territories.
This unequal treatment by the Malaysian federal government towards the oil-producing states including
Kelantan is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment before the law under Article 8 of the Federal
Constitution. An NGO movement using the name ‘R’ has been established by a group of people in Kelantan to
create pressure upon the federal government to give the Kelantan the petroleum royalties as provided by the law.
The establishment of a non-governmental movement may indicate that the people in Kelantan accepted and
understood the federal system that has been implemented in Malaysia and the move towards obtaining the petroleum
royalty can be an indication that they understood that equal treatment between the states is a must in a federal
system.

METHODOLOGY    

This research is descriptive in nature to gauge the level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of Malaysians
towards the federal system in Malaysia. According to Wiersma, descriptive method is suitable to measure or
evaluate the attitude, perception and achievement of a program. Descriptive approach is suitable if the study seeks
to understand the phenomenon that is taking place. Thus, a researcher has to construct a set of questionnaire that
meets the objectives of the study. According to Tuckman, the questionnaire will serve as the most effective tool to
get the relevant information from the respondents. The instrument used for data gathering in this study is a set of
questionnaire. Following Oppenheim and Tuckman both the questionnaire and interview are effective to obtain
information from the respondents besides observations. The questionnaire is divided in two sections; Section A and
B. Section A deals with respondents’ demography, while Section B deals with the knowledge, understanding,
acceptance and perception of Malaysians on the concept of federalism and its implementation in Malaysia. All
Questions in Section B are crafted as positive statement, and respondents were required to state their perceptions in
Likert scale.
The population chosen for this study comprises of all eights state over 14 state are selected in Malaysia.
Financial and time constraints prevented researchers to conduct this study in all state in Malaysia. The selections of
eight states are Selangor, Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Kelantan, Melaka, Pahang, Sabah dan Sarawak. Sample selection
was made by means of cluster sampling. Cluster sampling can be used to determine the number of clusters such as
by state, county or district. This selection may be appropriate if the population is large and scattered. It can also save
time and reduce various anticipated problems since researcher classifies the samples in a batch prior to
implementing the random selection. Therefore, in order to determine the number of respondents, Krejcie and
Morgan Sample Size Determination Table was used. Based on population in the eights state, sample size for this
study is set to be 960.
The data obtained were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) program
version 18 through the mean, standard deviation, Chi square and cross-tabulation. The descriptive statistics like
frequency, percentage, score average or mean, cross-tabulation and correlation coefficient are used to explain the

  112  
background of the respondents and analyze the level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the society on
the concept of Federalism and its implementation in Malaysia. To discuss descriptively the findings of this study,
mean score interpretation was used as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. MEAN SCORE INTERPRETATION FOR MALAYSIANS LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE,

UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE TOWARDS THE CONCEPT OF FEDERALISM AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION IN MALAYSIA

Mean Score Mean Score Interpretation

1.00 – 2.33 Low
2.34 – 3.67 Average
3.68 – 5.00 High

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This paper attempts to highlight a few outcomes from the study. Table 2 deals with the demographic data of the
respondents’ in relation to their level of knowledge on federal system and its implementation in Malaysia. Table 3
breaks down the respondents’ background into ethnic, education and residential area. These data are tabulated
against the respondents’ level of understanding towards federalism and its implementation in Malaysia. Table 4
elaborates on the respondents’ level of acceptance towards federalism and its implementation in Malaysia based on
ethnic, education and residential area.

TABLE 2. LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ON FEDERAL SYSTEM AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN

MALAYSIA BASED ON DEMOGRAPHY

Low Moderate High Total

Gender
Male 48 (10.7%) 226 (50.4%) 174 (38.8%) 448 (46.7%)
Female 54 (10.5%) 247 (48.2%) 211 (41.2%) 512 (53.3%)

Ethnic
Malay 53 (9.1%) 284 (48.6%) 274 (42.3%) 611 (63%)
Chinese 31(17.5%) 96(54.2%) 50 (28.2%) 177 (41.8%)
Indian 6(10.5%) 27(47.4%) 24 (42.1%) 57 (5.9%)
Sabah/ Sarawak Muslim 3(10.0%) 15(50.0%) 12(40.0%) 30 (3.1%)
Bumiputera
Sabah/ Sarawak Non-Muslim 8(7.8%) 46(44.7%) 49(47.6%) 103 (10.7%)
Bumiputera
Others 1(11.1%) 5(55.6%) 3(33.3%) 9 (0.9%)

Religion
Islam 54(8.8%) 298(48.7%) 260(42.5%) 612 (63.7%)
Buddha 29(20.9%) 67(48.2%) 43(30.9%) 139 (14.4%)
Hindu 5(8.2%) 31(50.8%) 25(41.0%) 31 (3.2%)
Christian 11(8.5%) 64(49.2%) 55(42.3%) 130 (13.5%)
No religion 3(20.0%) 11(73.3%) 1(6.7%) 15 (1.5%)
Others 0(0.0%) 2(66.7%) 1(33.3%) 3 (0.3%)

Age
Below 20 years 13(7.5%) 98(56.6%) 62(35.8%) 83 (8.6%)
21-30 years 38(10.0%) 198(52.2%) 143(37.7%) 379 (39.4%)
31-40 years 15(8.4%) 75(49.1%) 88(42.4%) 178 (18.5%)
41-50 years 18(16.4%) 53(48.2%) 39(35.5%) 110 (11.4%)
51-60 years, 13(14.0%) 38(40.9%) 42(45.2%) 93 (9.6%)
60 years and above 5(18.5%) 11(40.7%) 11(40.7%) 27 (2.8%)

Occupation
Private 24(9.5%) 137(54.2%) 92(36.4%) 253 (26.3%)
Self-employed 33(19.6%) 94(56.0%) 41(24.4%) 168 (17.5%)
Central government 5(4.0%) 39(31.5%) 80(64.5%) 124 (12.9%)
Student 12(5.7%) 111(52.9%) 87(41.4%) 210 (21.8%)
Unemployed 14(23.7%) 32(54.2%) 13(22.0%) 59 (6.1%)
State Government 4(6.5%) 26(41.9%) 32(51.6%) 62 (6.4%)

  113  
 Pensioner 0(0.0%) 7(50.0%) 7(50.0%) 14 (1.4%)
Others 10(14.3%) 27(38.6%) 33(47.1%) 70 (7.2%)

Education
Primary school 16(31.4%) 22(43.1%) 13(25.5%) 51 (5.3%)
Secondary school 51(13.0%) 208(53.2%) 132(33.8%) 391 (40.7%)
STPM/Diploma 15(5.4%) 138(50.0%) 123(44.6%) 276 (28.7%)
Bachelors’ Degree 12(6.4%) 83(44.1%) 93(49.5%) 188 (19.5%)
Masters/PHD 2(8.7%) 8(34.8%) 13(56.5%) 23 (2.9%)
Others 6(19.4%) 14(45.2%) 11(35.5%) 31 (3.2%)

Income
Below RM1000 50(13.7%) 206(56.6%) 108(19.7%) 364 (37.9%)
RM1001-RM3000 39(8.7%) 208(46.2%) 203(45.1%) 450 (46.8%)
RM3001-RM5000 13(11.3%) 45(39.1%) 57(49.6%) 115 (11.9%)
RM5001-RM7000 0(0.0%) 11(57.9%) 8(42.1%) 19 (1.9%)
RM7001-RM9999 0(0.0%) 2(33.3%) 4(66.7%) 6 (0.6%)
Above RM10000 0(0.0%) 1(16.7%) 5(83.3%) 6 (0.6%)

Residential Area
Urban 57(11.7%) 248(50.8%) 183(37.5%) 488 (50.8%)
Suburb 40(9.2%) 207(47.8%) 186(43.0%) 433 (45.1%)
Rural 5(12.8%) 18(46.2%) 16(41.0%)
Total 102 (10.6%

The ethnic-based analysis on Table 2 shows that the level of knowledge of the Malays and Indians is good (high
level) which exceeds 40%, and the same goes with ethnic groups in Sabah and Sarawak. For the Chinese, the level
of knowledge stays low which is below 30 %. The same pattern applies to religion. In terms of the occupation, it is
clear that students, as well as officers from the central or the state governments have high level of knowledge as they
are often exposed to the debate on the federalism implementation in Malaysia and for government officers, they are
officers who are directly involved. At the education level, the higher the level of education, the higher the level of
knowledge of Malaysians, and the same pattern it is for the monthly income. Interestingly, the level of knowledge in
the suburban areas is higher compared to the urban areas as the city dwellers tend to be more critical about
environmental issues involving the federal system in Malaysia.
This finding confirms that by ethnic, the society’s level of knowledge is high, except for the Chinese
ethnic’s knowledge that is slightly lower as they are mostly self-employed. It is the same case with age and
education and monthly income whereby the higher the level of education, or age or monthly income, the higher the
Malaysians’ level of knowledge. This is may be due to the fact that the concept and implementation of federalism
are taught in the education system in Malaysia, and information related to federalism is easily available in the
discussions in the Internet.

TABLE 3. LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING TOWARDS FEDERALISM AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN

MALAYSIA BASED ON ETHNIC, EDUCATION AND RESIDENTIAL AREA

Low Moderate High Total

Gender
Male 61 (13.6%) 229 (51.1%) 158 (35.3%) 448 (46.6%)
Female 61 (11.9%) 247 (48.2%) 204 (39.8%) 512 (53.3%)

Ethnic
Malay 67(11.5%) 285(48.8%) 232(39.7%) 584 (60.8%)
Chinese 32(18.1%) 102(57.6%) 43(24.3%) 177 (18.4%)
Indian 9 (15.8%) 29(50.9%) 19(33.3%) 57 (5.9%)
Sabah/ Sarawak Muslim Bumiputera 4(13.3%) 17(56.7%) 9(30.0%) 30 (3.1%)
Sabah/ Sarawak Non-Muslim Bumiputera 9(8.7%) 39(37.9%) 55(53.4%) 103 (10.7%)
Others 1(11.1%) 4(44.4%) 4(44.4%) 9 (0.9%)

Religion
Islam 67(10.9%) 305(49.8%) 240(39.2%) 620 (64.5%)
Buddha 28(20.1%) 73(52.5%) 38(27.3%) 139 (14.4%)
Hindu 10(16.4%) 31(50.8%) 20(32.8%) 61 (6.3%)
Christian 13(10.0%) 54(41.5%) 63(48.5%) 130 (13.5%)
No religion 4(26.7%) 10(66.7%) 1(6.7%) 15 (1.5%)
Others 0(0.0%) 3(100.0%) 0(0.0%) 3 (0.3%)

  114  
Age
Below 20 years 11(6.4%) 101(58.4%) 61(35.3%) 173 (18.0%)
21-30 years 47(12.7%) 207(54.6%) 124(32.7%) 378 (39.3%)
31-40 years 17(9.6%) 72(40.9%) 89(50.0%) 178 (18.5%)
41-50 years 22(20.0%) 45(40.9%) 43(39.1%) 110 (11.4%)
51-60 years, 17(18.3%) 42(45.2%) 34(36.6%) 93 (9.6%)
60 years and above 7(25.9%) 9(33.3%) 11(40.7%) 27 (2.8%)

Occupation
Private 33(13.0%) 126(49.8%) 94(37.2%) 253 (26.3%)
Self-employed 32(19.0%) 100(59.5%) 36(21.4%) 138 (14.3%)
Central government 9(7.3%) 49(39.5%) 66(53.2%) 124 (12.9%)
Student 13(6.2%) 118(56.2%) 79(37.6%) 210 (21.8 %)
Unemployed 13(22.0%) 30(50.8%) 16(27.1%) 59 (6.1%)
State Government 10 (16.1%) 19(30.6%) 33(53.2%) 62 (6.4%)
Pensioner 1(7.1%) 5(35.7%) 8(57.1%) 14 (1.4%)
11(15.7%) 29(41.4%) 30(42.9%) 70 (7.2%)

Education
Primary school 15(29.4%) 23(45.1%) 13(25.5%) 51 (5.3%)
Secondary school 57(14.6%) 199(50.9%) 135(34.5%) 211 (21.9%)
STPM/Diploma 28(10.1%) 139(50.4%) 109(39.5%) 276 (28.7%)
Bachelors’ Degree 14(7.4%) 93(49.5%) 81(43.1%) 188 (19.5%)
Masters/PHD 3(13.0%) 7(30.4%) 13(56.5%) 23 (2.3%)
Others 5(16.1%) 15(48.4%) 11(35.5%) 31 (3.2%)

Income
Below RM1000 57(15.7%) 196(53.8%) 111(30.5%) 364 (37.9 %)
RM1001-RM3000 46(10.2%) 221(49.1%) 183(40.7%) 450 (46.8%)
RM3001-RM5000 17(14.8%) 45(39.1%) 53(46.1%) 115 (11.9%)
RM5001-RM7000 1(5.3%) 12(63.2%) 6(31.6%) 19 (1.9%)
RM7001-RM9999 0(0.0%) 1(16.7%) 5(83.3%) 6 (0.6%)
Above RM10000 1(16.7%) 1(16.7%) 4(66.7%) 6 (0.6%)

Residential Area
Urban 64(13.1%) 259(53.1%) 165(33.8%) 488 (50.8%)
Suburb 51(11.8%) 196(45.3%) 186(43.0%) 433 (45 1%)
Rural 7(17.9%) 21(53.8%) 11(28.2%) 39 (4.0%)

The ethnic analysis in Table 3 shows that the level of understanding of the Malays and Indians is low, compared to
their level of knowledge which is below than 40%. For the Muslim Bumiputera in Sabah/Sarawak except for the
non-Muslims they make up more than 50%. For Chinese, they have a lower level of understanding which is below
25%. The same pattern is observed for religion. Based on age, the older the Malaysians are, the higher their level of
understanding on the system of federalism. In terms of occupation, it is clear that employees tend to have higher
level of understanding, except for those self-employed and not working (low level of understanding). For education,
the higher the level of education, the higher the understanding of the Malaysians and this goes the same with
monthly income. Interestingly, as is the level of knowledge, the level of understanding in the suburban areas is
higher as compared to the urban areas. The level of understanding of the people in suburban areas is lesser than that
of the urban residents as the latter is more exposed to the various information through the mass media and they are
more critical on federalism-related issues in Malaysia.
The finding validates the fact that by demography, the level of understanding is lower compared to the
level of knowledge as they are often exposed to the concept and implementation system of federalism in Malaysia
but many are in understanding how federalism is supposed to operate in Malaysia.

TABLE 4. LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE TOWARDS FEDERALISM CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION

IN MALAYSIA BASED ON ETHNIC, EDUCATION AND RESIDENTIAL AREA

Low Moderate High Total

Gender
Male 22 (4.9%) 138 (30.8%) 288 (64.3%) 448 (46.6%)
Female 8 (1.6%) 134 (26.2%) 370 (72.3%) 512 (53.3%)

Ethnic
Malay 16(2.7%) 145(24.8%) 423(72.4%) 584 (60.8%)
Chinese 7(4.0%) 80(45.2%) 90(50.8%) 177 (18.4%)

  115  
 Indian 2(3.5%) 21(36.8%) 34(59.6%) 57 (5.9%)
Sabah/ Sarawak Muslim Bumiputera 0(0.0%) 6(20.0%) 24(80.0%) 30 (3.1%)
Sabah/ Sarawak Non-Muslim Bumiputera 4(3.9%) 18(17.5%) 81(78.6%) 103 (10.7%)
Others 1(11.1%) 2(22.2%) 6(66.7%) 9 (0.9%)

Religion
Islam 16(2.6%) 150(24.5%) 446(72.9%) 612 (63.7%)
Buddha 5(3.6%) 62(44.6%) 72(51.8%) 139 (14.4%)
Hindu 1(1.6%) 22(36.1%) 38(62.3%) 61 (6.3%)
Christian 7(5.4%) 30(23.1%) 93(71.5%) 130 (13.5%)
No religion 1(6.7%) 7(46.7%) 7(46.7%) 15 (1.5%)
Others 0(0.0%) 1(33.3%) 2(66.7%) 3 (0.3%)

Age
Below 20 years 1(0.6%) 51(29.5%) 121(69.9%) 173 (18.0%)
21-30 years 19(5.0%) 107(28.2%) 253(66.8%) 379 (39.4%)
31-40 years 4(2.2%) 40(22.5%) 134(75.3%) 178 (18.5%)
41-50 years 5(4.5%) 30(27.3%) 75(68.2%) 110 (11.4%)
51-60 years, 1(1.1%) 36(38.7%) 56(60.2%) 93 (9.6%)
60 years and above 0(0.0%) 8(29.6%) 19(70.4%) 27 (2.8%)

Occupation
Private 12(4.7%) 66(26.1%) 175(69.2%) 253 (26.3%)
Self-employed 9(5.4%) 64(38.1%) 95(56.5%) 168 (17.5 %)
Central government 1(0.8%) 22(17.7%) 101(81.5%) 124 (12.9%)
Student 2(1.0%) 65(31.0%) 143(68.1%) 210 (21.8%)
Unemployed 4(6.8%) 19(32.2%) 36(61.0%) 59 (6.1%)
State Government 1(1.6%) 11(17.7%) 50(80.6%) 62 (6.4%)
Pensioner 0(0.0%) 5(35.7%) 9(64.3%) 9 (1.4%)
Others 1(1.4%) 20(28.6%) 49(70.0%) 70 (7.2%)

Education
Primary school 1(2.0%) 17(33.3%) 33(64.7%) 51 (85 %)
Secondary school 20(5.1%) 109(27.9%) 262(67.0%) 391 (40.7%)
STPM/Diploma 3(1.1%) 82(29.7%) 191(69.2%) 276 (28.7%)
Bachelors’ Degree 1(0.5%) 51(27.1%) 136(72.3%) 188 (19.58)
Masters/PHD 1(4.3%) 6(26.1%) 16(69.6%) 23 (2.3%)
Others 4(12.9%) 7(22.6%) 20(64.5%) 31 (3.2%)

Income
Below RM1000 13(3.6%) 120(33.0%) 231(63.5%) 364 (37.9%)
RM1001-RM3000 12(2.7%) 112(24.9%) 326(72.4%) 450 (46.8%)
RM3001-RM5000 4(3.5%) 30(26.1%) 81(70.4%) 115 (11.9%)
RM5001-RM7000 0(0.0%) 8(42.1%) 11(57.9%) 19 (1.9%)
RM7001-RM9999 0(0.0%) 2(33.3%) 4(66.7%) 6 (0.6%)
Above RM10000 0(0.0%) 1(16.7%) 5(83.3%) 6 (0.6%)

Residential Area
Urban 14(2.9%) 158(32.4%) 316(64.8%) 488 (50.8%)
Suburb 16(3.7%) 99(22.9%) 318(73.4%) 433 (45.1%)
Rural 0(0.0%) 15(38.5%) 24(61.5%) 39 (4.0%)

The ethnic analysis in table 4 shows that the level of acceptance of all ethnic groups is higher, which exceeds 50%.
The same pattern applies for religion, age, occupation, education, monthly income and accommodation. This finding
confirms that by demography, although the levels of knowledge and understanding are still low that is below 40%,
the level of acceptance is high showing that the concept and implementation of federalism are well-received by
Malaysians as this system is practiced prior to Independence.

DISCUSSION

Referring to the survey conducted on the Malaysian society’s level of knowledge and undeerstanding about federal
concept and its implementation in Malaysia, it can be said that their level of understanding and knowledge is
moderate, which is under 60%. Nonetheless, the level of acceptance is better which is 74%. This goes on to show
that although the levels of knowledge and understanding of the people are still low, the society still accepts the
concept and implementation of the federation in Malaysia. Looking at the demographic factors, the level of
knowledge, understanding and acceptance over the concept and implementation of the federation in Malaysia, there

  116  
has been no difference in terms of ethnicity, level of education and reesiddential area. This explains that the Malay,
Chinese and Indian societies have come to accept the provision that is already dictated in the constitution even
though their level of knowledge and understanding is low. The perception of the society as a whole towards the
concept and implementation of the federal is well accepted as evident in the fact that the federal system is very
appropriate to be practiced and to be continued in Malaysia, the jurisdiction among the state and central
governments needs to be balanced as ruled out and it needs to be respected and acknowledged in collaboration.
CONCLUSIONS

The perception of the society as a whole towards the concept and implementation of the federal is well accepted as
evident in the fact that the federal system is very appropriate to be practiced and to be continued in Malaysia, the
jurisdiction among the state and central governments needs to be balanced as ruled out and it needs to be respected
and acknowledged in collaboration. Nevertheless, old issues like distribution of oil royalty and religious conversion
posed relevant challenges on the relationship between the federal and state governments and the continuous
discrimination against the state government under the opposition coalition. It is thus important that both
governments to respect and uphold the true spirit of federalism as a mechanism towards national unity and social
cohesion.

ENDNOTES

* This paper is written by a sub-project research goup led by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Faridah Jalil, under the Long Term
Research Grant Project entitled ’National Social Cohesion Program’ (LRGS/BU/2011/UKM/CMN) headed by the
Distinguished Professor Datuk Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin of Institute of Ethnic Studies, National University
Malaysia.

REFERENCE

Abdul Aziz Bari 2001. Perlembagaan Malaysia: Asas-asas dan Masalah. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala
Lumpur.
Ahmad Ibrahim 1974, ‘Malaysia as a Federation”, Journal of Malaysian Comparative Law, vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Deepa a/p Subramaniam v Izwan Abdullah, 2014. Available at: <http://www.theantdaily.com/main/use-legislation-to-resolve-
overlapping-jurisdictions-between-syariah-and-civil-court.
Foong, JC 2010, Constitutional Federalism in Malaysia., Sweet & Maxwell, Malaysia.
Heng Pek Khoon 1988, Chinese Politics in Malaysia, Oxford University Press, Singapore.
Hickling, RH 1960, An introduction to the Federalism Constitution. Government Printer, Kuala Lumpur.
Indira Gandhi v Jabatan Agama Islam Perak [2013]5 MLJ 552.
Lim, Regina 2008, Federalism-State Relations in Sabah, Malaysia, ISEAS, Singapore.
Means, GP 1991, Malaysian politics. The second generation, Oxford University Press, Singapore.
Mohamed Suffian Hashim 1987, Mengenal Perlembagaan Malaysia. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohamed Suffian Hashim, Lee, HP, Trindade, FA 1983, Perlembagaan Malaysia: Perkembangannya, 1957-1977,
Fajar Bakti Publisher, Petaling Jaya.
Mohammad Agus Yusoff 2006, Malaysian Federalism – Conflict or Consensus, UKM Publisher, Bangi.
Mohd Majid Konting 1990, Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohd Salleh Abas 1984, Sejarah Perlembagaan Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Nurhafilah Musa, Nizamuddin Alias, Mumtaz Muhd Nawi 2014 ‚ `Malaysian Federalism and Equal Wealth
Distribution – A Case Study on the State Kelantan`. Available from:
https://www.jus.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2014/wccl-
cmdc/wccl/papers/workshop17.html
Oppenheim, AN 2004, Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Heinemann, London.
Ratnam, K J 1969, Communalism and the political process in Malaya, University of Malaya Press, Kuala Lumpur.
Shafruddin BH 1987, The Federal Factor in the Government and Politics of Peninsular Malaysia, Oxford
University Press, New York, Singapore.
Shaik Mohd. Noor Alam SM Hussain 1988, Federalisme di Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur.
Sheridan, LA, Groves, Harry E 1979, The Constitutions of Malaysia, Malayan Law Journal, Singapore.
Simandjuntak, B 1985, Federalisme Tanah Melayu 1945-1963, Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn, Petaling Jaya.
Tuckman, BW 1999, Conducting educational research, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth.

  117  
 von Vorys, Karl 1975. Democracy Without Consensus. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wheare, K.C 1980, Modern Constitutions, Oxford University Press, London.
Wiersma, W 1995, Research methods in education: An introduction, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

  118  

View publication stats