# The Sources of Malaysian Law: Five Streams, One Order of Precedence

> Malaysian law is not one body of rules but five distinct sources — the Federal Constitution, federal and state legislation, common law and equity, Islamic law, and adat (customary law) — that do not compete on equal footing. The Constitution is supreme over all of them; the rest each have a defined lane.

- Category: law
- Language: en
- Status: published
- Updated: 2026-07-24
- Canonical: https://negaraku.md/en/law/sources-of-malaysian-law

---

A Malaysian court deciding a single family dispute might, in principle, have to
reach for four different bodies of law before it even gets to the facts: a
constitutional provision, a federal statute, an inherited English equitable
rule, and — if the parties are Negeri Sembilan Malays under Adat Perpatih —
a custom with the force of law behind it. None of that is a hypothetical
edge case. It is the ordinary architecture of the system.

Malaysian law is not one thing. It is five sources, layered rather than
merged, and they do not all outrank each other the same way twice.

## The short answer

The Federal Constitution sits above everything. Below it, legislation
(federal and state), common law and equity, Islamic law, and adat each
operate in their own defined lane rather than competing head-on in every
case. Where two sources do collide — state law against federal law, or an
English common law rule against a Malaysian statute — the Constitution and
the legislation that implements it settle the conflict explicitly.

## 1. The Federal Constitution — supreme, and self-enforcing

Article 4(1) states it directly:

> This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed
> after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to
> the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

That is not a preamble-style aspiration. It is an operative rule: an
inconsistent law does not need a court to strike it down in some separate
proceeding for the inconsistency to matter — Article 4(1) says the
inconsistent part is void to that extent. Every other source discussed below
exists, and is valid, only because the Constitution permits it to exist.

Article 160(2), the Constitution's interpretation clause, is doing quiet but
important work here. It defines "law" to include "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 any
part thereof." In one sentence, it puts legislation, common law and custom
on the same constitutional map — while leaving the actual boundaries of each
to be worked out by the sources described below.

## 2. Legislation — split by the Ninth Schedule, ranked by Article 75

Below the Constitution sits legislation: Acts of Parliament and State
Enactments, plus the subsidiary legislation (rules, regulations, orders)
made under them.

Who may legislate on what is fixed by the **Ninth Schedule**, which divides
subject matter into a Federal List, a State List, and a Concurrent List
available to both. Civil and criminal law, procedure and the administration
of justice sit in the Federal List — Parliament's territory, and the reason
the Penal Code, the Contracts Act and the Companies Act are all federal Acts.
Islamic law and the land- and custom-related matters discussed below sit in
the State List instead.

Because two legislatures can, in principle, both touch a subject in the
Concurrent List — or a State Enactment can stray into Federal List ground —
the Constitution needs a tie-breaker. Article 75 supplies it:

> If any State law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law
> shall prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of the
> inconsistency, be void.

That is the same voiding technique as Article 4(1), one level down: federal
legislation cannot override the Constitution, but it does override
inconsistent state legislation. For how a Bill actually becomes one of these
Acts, see [how a Bill becomes law](/en/law/how-a-bill-becomes-law).

## 3. Common law and equity — imported, then frozen

Malaysia is routinely called a "common law country," but the label
undersells how deliberate the arrangement is. English common law and equity
did not simply carry over from the colonial period. They were switched on
by a single statute, the **Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67)**, whose section 3
applies the common law and rules of equity "as administered in England" —
but frozen at a specific date, and a different date for each region:
7 April 1956 for Peninsular Malaysia, 1 December 1951 for Sabah, and
12 December 1949 for Sarawak.

That freeze is the key structural fact. English case law decided before the
relevant date carries the weight of Malaysian common law; English decisions
after it are, at most, persuasive. And common law only operates where it is
needed: it fills gaps left by written law, not areas Parliament or a State
Legislature has already legislated on. Land law is the clearest carve-out —
section 6 of the Act keeps English land law out entirely, leaving land
matters to the Torrens-based **National Land Code**.

The full mechanics — including why the freeze dates differ by region and
what the reception clause deliberately excludes — are set out in
[common law in Malaysia](/en/law/common-law-in-malaysia).

## 4. Islamic law — a State List matter, for Muslims, in its own courts

Islamic law is a source of Malaysian law, but a bounded one. Item 1 of the
Ninth Schedule's State List gives each State the power to legislate on
Islamic law and the personal and family law of persons professing the
religion of Islam. Two limits are written directly into that item: Syariah
courts have jurisdiction "only over persons professing the religion of
Islam," and only "in respect only of any of the matters included in this
paragraph." A separate federal statute, the **Syariah Courts (Criminal
Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355)**, caps how much criminal jurisdiction a
State may confer on its Syariah courts at all.

That is why Islamic law runs alongside the rest of Malaysian law rather than
sitting inside the same court ladder as it. Civil courts and Syariah courts
are two separate systems, each constituted under a different part of the
Constitution — the detail is in
[civil courts and Syariah courts](/en/law/civil-and-syariah-courts).

## 5. Adat — custom, only where something gives it the force of law

Adat is the source most often described loosely as "tradition" rather than
law. Article 160(2)'s definition of "law" already answered that: custom or
usage counts as law only "in so far as it is in operation" and has been
given "the force of law" — meaning adat needs an instrument behind it, the
same way common law needed the Civil Law Act.

Two adat traditions are usually distinguished. **Adat Perpatih**, practised
among Malays in Negeri Sembilan (and parts of Malacca), is matrilineal —
property and certain leadership positions descend through the female line.
**Adat Temenggong**, patrilineal, describes the customary practice found
among Malays in most of the rest of the Peninsula.

The clearest example of adat actually being given legal force sits inside
land law. The National Land Code does not simply ignore customary land
holding: its section 4 savings clause preserves the operation of "any law
for the time being in force relating to customary tenure," rather than
sweeping every existing land arrangement into the Code's ordinary title
system. That is the mechanism that keeps Negeri Sembilan's customary land
holdings under Adat Perpatih legally recognised rather than simply
overwritten.

Sabah and Sarawak run a further, separate strand: each state legislates its
own native law and custom and its own native court system for its
indigenous communities, under State List powers reserved to them
specifically. As with the rest of the State List, the detail — what
counts as native law, and which native court hears what — is fixed
state by state, not nationally.

## How the five sources actually rank

| Source | What decides its content | Who/what it binds | What can override it |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Federal Constitution | The Constitution itself, amended under Article 159 | Everyone and everything below | Nothing — Article 4(1) voids anything inconsistent with it |
| Legislation (federal) | Parliament, within Federal List/Concurrent List powers | Everyone within its scope | Only the Constitution |
| Legislation (state) | State Legislatures, within State List/Concurrent List powers | Everyone within the state and subject matter | The Constitution, and federal law under Article 75 |
| Common law and equity | Frozen English case law (Civil Law Act 1956, s.3) + Malaysian precedent since | Matters not covered by written law | Any applicable written law |
| Islamic law | State Islamic law enactments (State List item 1) | Muslims, on the matters listed | The Constitution and the federal ceiling in Act 355 |
| Adat | The specific instrument recognising it (e.g. National Land Code s.4) | Communities and matters that instrument names | The Constitution and any inconsistent written law |

## Common mistakes

**Treating common law as the top of the hierarchy.** It is the most visible
source in litigation, but it only fills gaps left by written law — and it
sits below the Constitution and legislation, not above them.

**Assuming Islamic law applies to everyone.** It is confined by the State
List itself to persons professing the religion of Islam, and only on the
matters that list enumerates.

**Treating adat as informal custom rather than law.** Where an instrument
like the National Land Code's savings clause recognises it, adat has the
same "force of law" status Article 160(2) gives to written law and common
law — it is simply narrower in scope.

**Assuming a State can legislate around a federal Act.** Article 75 settles
that directly: an inconsistent State law is void to the extent of the
inconsistency, full stop.

## What's next

Read the [Federal Constitution](/en/law/federal-constitution) page for how
Article 4 and the rest of the supreme law fit together, [common law in
Malaysia](/en/law/common-law-in-malaysia) for the Civil Law Act 1956 in
full, and [civil courts and Syariah courts](/en/law/civil-and-syariah-courts)
for how the Islamic law source is administered. For how legislation itself
gets made, see [how a Bill becomes law](/en/law/how-a-bill-becomes-law), and
for the Torrens system that adat land tenure sits alongside, see the
[National Land Code](/en/law/national-land-code).

## Sources

- Federal Constitution (Reprint 2020) — Article 4, Article 75, Article 160(2), Ninth Schedule List I item 4 and List II item 1 — https://lom.agc.gov.my/ilims/upload/portal/akta/LOM/EN/Federal%20Constitution%20(Reprint%202020).pdf (Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia)
- Act 67 — Civil Law Act 1956, principal act detail and amendment history — https://lom.agc.gov.my/act-detail.php?act=67&lang=BI (Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia)
- Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) — full text of sections 3, 5 and 6 — https://www.easylaw.com.my/statutes/general-litigation/civil-law-act-1956 (Easy Law)
- National Land Code, Act 828 (Revised—2020) — section 4 savings clause for customary tenure — https://lom.agc.gov.my/ilims/upload/portal/akta/outputaktap/20201015_828_BI_WJW015175%20National%20Land%20Code%20Act%20828%20(Pewartaan).pdf (Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia)
- Kanun Tanah Negara (National Land Code) — legislation listing — https://www.jkptg.gov.my/en/panduan/senarai-undang-undang/kanun-tanah-negara (Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah dan Galian (Department of Director General of Lands and Mines))
- Act 355 — Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, principal act detail — https://lom.agc.gov.my/act-detail.php?act=355&lang=BI (Attorney General's Chambers of Malaysia)
- Laman Utama — Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia — https://www.jksm.gov.my/ (Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia)

---
Source of truth: https://github.com/negaraku-md/NegaraKu.md
License: CC BY-SA 4.0