Amending the Federal Constitution: The Four Routes Article 159 Sets

Article 159 opens by subjecting itself to its own rules. Clause (5) lists the provisions that cannot be amended without the Conference of Rulers’ consent — and the last item on that list is “this Clause” itself. The amendment procedure protects its own amendment procedure. That detail alone tells you the Federal Constitution was never meant to be changed by one simple rule.

It isn’t. Article 159, read together with Article 161E, sets out four separate procedures — and which one applies depends entirely on which words in the Constitution you’re trying to change.

At a glance

Provision	Article 159 (Amendment of the Constitution) and Article 161E (Sabah/Sarawak safeguards)
Part	Article 159: Part XII — General and Miscellaneous · Article 161E: Part XIIA — Additional Protections for States of Sabah and Sarawak
Default rule	Clause (3): two-thirds majority of the total membership of each House
Lighter route	Clause (4): a short list of amendments needs only a simple majority
Heavier route 1	Clause (5): two-thirds majority plus the Conference of Rulers’ consent
Heavier route 2	Article 161E(2): two-thirds majority plus the concurrence of Sabah’s or Sarawak’s Yang di-Pertua Negeri

Route 1: the default — two-thirds majority alone

Clause (3) of Article 159 sets the general rule. A Bill amending the Constitution — or amending a law passed under Article 10(4) — cannot pass either House unless it is:

“supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of that House.”

Two details matter here. First, the threshold is measured against the total membership of the House, not against the members present and voting — so abstentions and empty seats count against the amendment, not for it. Second, this is the default: it applies to any amendment that Clause (4) does not exempt and Clause (5) or Article 161E does not additionally restrict.

Route 2: the exception — simple majority

Clause (4) carves out a short, technical list of amendments that Parliament can pass by ordinary simple majority, the same threshold as any other law. As the text lists them, these are amendments:

• to Part III of the Second Schedule, or to the Sixth or Seventh Schedule;
• incidental to or consequential on Parliament’s exercise of a law-making power conferred elsewhere in the Constitution (other than under Articles 74 and 76);
• made for or in connection with a State’s admission to, or association with, the Federation, or a consequential modification of how the Constitution applies to a State already admitted — subject to Article 161E; and
• consequential on an amendment made under the first item above.

These are, by design, the Constitution’s housekeeping provisions: schedules of subjects, technical follow-on drafting, and the mechanics of bringing a new state into the Federation. None of them touches the substantive rights or institutional balances the Constitution otherwise protects with a higher bar.

Route 3: two-thirds plus the Conference of Rulers

Clause (5) is where the higher bar sits. It names specific provisions that cannot be amended — by any law, at any two-thirds vote — without the Conference of Rulers first consenting:

“A law making an amendment to Clause (4) of Article 10, any law passed thereunder, the provisions of Part III, Article 38, Clause (4) of Article 63, Article 70, Clause (1) of Article 71, Clause (4) of Article 72, Article 152, or 153 or to this Clause shall not be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.”

Spelled out, that list covers:

Provision	Subject
Article 10(4) and laws made under it	Parliament’s power to restrict questioning of matters protected by Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181
Part III	Citizenship
Article 38	The Conference of Rulers itself — its constitution and functions
Article 63(4)	Removal of parliamentary immunity for offences under Article 10(4) laws
Article 70	Precedence of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertua-Yang di-Pertua Negeri
Article 71(1)	The Federation’s guarantee of a Ruler’s right to succeed to, and hold, his State’s throne
Article 72(4)	The equivalent removal of immunity in State Legislative Assemblies
Article 152	National language
Article 153	Special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak
Clause (5) itself	The consent requirement, entrenching itself

The Conference’s power here is a narrower instance of a wider role. Article 38(2)-(4) sets out what the Conference of Rulers does generally: electing the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Timbalan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, agreeing to extend religious observances federation-wide, consenting to laws and appointments that require it, appointing members of the Special Court, and exercising the pardons power under Article 42(12). Clause (4) adds a standing rule beyond the Clause (5) list: “No law directly affecting the privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers shall be passed without the consent of the Conference of Rulers” — meaning some Ruler-related legislation can require Conference consent even outside a formal constitutional amendment.

Route 4: two-thirds plus Sabah or Sarawak’s consent

Article 161E adds a separate, geographically specific safeguard, dating from Sabah and Sarawak’s entry into the Federation. Clause (2) provides:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution without the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of the State of Sabah or Sarawak or each of the States of Sabah and Sarawak concerned, if the amendment is such as to affect the operation of the Constitution as regards any of the following matters…”

The five matters it protects are:

1. Citizenship of persons born before Malaysia Day connected to Sabah or Sarawak, and equal treatment of their citizenship compared with persons connected to the States of Malaya.
2. The High Court in Sabah and Sarawak — its constitution, jurisdiction, and the appointment, removal and suspension of its judges.
3. State versus federal legislative and executive power in Sabah and Sarawak, and the related financial arrangements between the Federation and the State.
4. Religion, language use, and the special treatment of natives of the State.
5. The State’s quota of House of Representatives members — the allocation to the State, in any Parliament summoned to meet before the end of August 1970, of a quota no smaller in proportion to the other States’ total than the quota it held on Malaysia Day. Clause (3) makes clear that changing this quota can never itself be treated as “equating” the State’s position to the States of Malaya for the purposes of Clause (1).

Clause (1) adds a structural point: as from Malaysia Day, no amendment made in connection with Sabah’s or Sarawak’s admission to the Federation can be waved through under the Article 159(4)(bb) simple-majority exception unless it equates or assimilates that State’s constitutional position to the States of Malaya’s. And Clause (4) extends the same concurrence requirement to certain federal-law rights on entry and residence in Sabah or Sarawak, treating them as if written into the Constitution’s Clause (2) list.

When the two consent lists overlap

The Conference of Rulers list and the Sabah/Sarawak list are not mutually exclusive. Article 152 (national language) sits on the Conference of Rulers list; Article 161E(2)(d) separately protects “the use in the State… of any language” in Sabah and Sarawak. Article 153 (special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak) sits on the Conference of Rulers list; Article 161E(2)(d) separately protects “the special treatment of natives of the State.” Part III (citizenship) sits on the Conference of Rulers list; Article 161E(2)(a) separately protects the citizenship of persons connected to Sabah or Sarawak born before Malaysia Day.

Where an amendment falls within both lists at once, both consents are needed on top of the two-thirds vote — the Conference of Rulers’ consent under Article 159(5), and the concurrence of the relevant Yang di-Pertua Negeri under Article 161E(2) — because neither Article displaces the other.

Common mistakes

“Two-thirds is always enough.” It’s the default under Clause (3), but Clause (5) and Article 161E(2) add consent requirements on top of it for specific provisions, and Clause (4) removes the two-thirds requirement entirely for a short technical list.

“Only the Rulers can block an amendment.” Sabah and Sarawak have an independent veto under Article 161E(2), running alongside — not instead of — the Conference of Rulers’ role under Article 159(5).

“The amendment procedure itself can be changed like any other clause.” Article 159(5) names Clause (5) among the provisions it protects, so amending the consent requirement is itself subject to that same consent requirement.

What’s next

For where Article 159 sits within the whole document, see the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. For what the Conference of Rulers is and how it is constituted, see Majlis Raja-Raja. For the Sabah and Sarawak-specific background behind Article 161E, see MA63. For the text of two provisions named in the Conference of Rulers list, see Article 152: The Six Clauses That Define Malaysia’s National Language and Fundamental Liberties.

---

This article is classified as sensitive (constitution) under NegaraKu.md’s editorial policy because its subject is the Federal Constitution’s amendment mechanism, including provisions on Rulers’ privileges and Malay/native special position. It is written to be strictly descriptive — reporting the clause text as published, without commentary or interpretation — and is held as a draft pending human review before publication.