On 4 October, the Council of the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Ruling Chiefs said that certain letters sent on 30 September were “an act of treason”.¹Statement of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, signed by its Secretary, dated 4 October 2026, as reported in Malaysiakini, 5 October 2026. It asked the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers to investigate and prosecute.

The next day came the reply.

The accusation, said the other side, had been made “without citing a single section of the law”.²Malaysiakini, 5 October 2026.

Both sides, in their way, have asked the same question.

What does the law actually say?

This essay answers that question, and only that one.

It says nothing about whether anyone has done anything. That is for investigators, a prosecutor and, in the end, a judge.

As this essay goes out, no charge under the sections discussed below has been reported in connection with Negeri Sembilan.

TWO WORDS THAT SOUND ALIKE

Malay has a word older than any statute: ‘derhaka.’

It means disloyalty to one’s Ruler. It is a moral idea and a political one, carried for centuries in story and custom.

Every Malaysian schoolchild meets it in the Hikayat Hang Tuah, where loyalty to the Ruler is the highest of virtues and derhaka the gravest of faults.

English has a different word, and a colder one. Treason is a crime. It has elements, a punishment and a burden of proof.

The two words often travel together. They are not the same passenger.

On 13 September, the Council ruled that a document of 5 September could be regarded as grave disloyalty to the monarch.³Malay Mail, 14 September 2026, “Negeri Sembilan Dewan Keadilan rules Sept 5 document treasonous, Tuanku Muhriz remains Yang di‑Pertuan Besar”; South China Morning Post, 14 September 2026.

That is a finding by a constitutional council about loyalty, within its own sphere.

It is not a criminal conviction. That belongs to a court, and to a court alone.

WHAT THE PENAL CODE SAYS

The chapter on the State

The Penal Code has a chapter called “Offences against the State”. Its first sections protect the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertua Negeri.

Section 121 punishes waging war against them. Section 121A punishes offences against their person. Section 121C punishes abetting either, and section 121D punishes a person, bound to inform, who keeps silent.⁴Penal Code (Act 574), Chapter VI, ss 121, 121A, 121C and 121D; section headings as they appear in the Arrangement of Sections, Reprint as at 4 July 2023.

The section that fits the word

The section closest to the week’s word is section 121B. Its heading speaks of offences “against the authority” of the Rulers.

Here it is, in full:

“Whoever compasses, imagines, invents or intends the deposition or deprivation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong from the sovereignty of Malaysia or the deprivation or deposition of the Ruler, his heirs or successors, or of the Yang di-Pertua Negeri from the rule of a State, or the overawing by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force the Government of Malaysia or of any State, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years and shall also be liable to fine.”⁵Penal Code (Act 574), s 121B, as amended by the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023 (Act 846), s 8; text read on Lexis+ Malaysia and Westlaw International (Asia), 8 October 2026. Some free websites still show the older punishment of life imprisonment; the 2023 amendment replaced it.

Two features stand out.

The first is the punishment. Thirty years is the floor. Parliament does not set floors like that for careless talk.

The second is the verbs.

Words with a long pedigree

“Compasses” and “imagines” are not words a modern draftsman would choose.

They come from England. The Treason Act of 1351 made it treason when a man “doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King”.⁶Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw 3 Stat 5 c 2), as published on legislation.gov.uk.

Five centuries later, the Treason Felony Act 1848 added the rest of the formula: whoever shall “compass, imagine, invent, devise” or intend to deprive or depose the Sovereign.⁷Treason Felony Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict c 12), s 3, as published on legislation.gov.uk.

Lay that beside section 121B, and the family likeness is plain.

The law of treason, it seems, is a conservative creature. It keeps its furniture.

It also sleeps a good deal.

In 2003, the House of Lords looked again at the 1848 section. Lord Steyn recorded a quiet fact. Its publishing limb had once been aimed chiefly at newspaper editors, and no one had been prosecuted under it since 1883.⁸R (Rusbridger) v Attorney General [2003] UKHL 38 (HL), [4] (Lord Steyn); judgment read on BAILII, 8 October 2026. The observation concerns English practice in the period stated. It says nothing about Malaysian law.

Singapore inherited the same words through the same Indian code, and chose another path.

In 2019 it rewrote its section 121B. The four old verbs became one plain one: whoever “plans” the unlawful deposition of the President.⁹Penal Code 1871 (Singapore), s 121B, as amended by the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 (Act 15 of 2019); current text read on Singapore Statutes Online, 8 October 2026. Singapore’s section protects an elected President, not a hereditary Ruler, and carries a different punishment. The comparison is of wording only.

Malaysia has kept the older form. What its words mean here is for Malaysian courts.

WHAT THE COURTS HAVE DONE WITH THESE SECTIONS

Malaysian courts have used this chapter, but rarely, and for armed revolt.

In 2000, members of the Al-Ma’unah group took weapons from army armouries in Perak. Their leaders were tried for waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The trial judge, Zulkefli J, traced section 121 back through the Indian Penal Code to the English Statute of Treasons. Malaysian treason law, he showed, has an English grandparent.¹⁰PP v Mohd Amin bin Mohd Razali & Ors [2002] 5 MLJ 406; [2002] 5 CLJ 281 (HC), judgment text read on CLJLaw, 8 October 2026.

He then adopted a test from the Patna High Court: “waging war” means war “in the manner usual in war”.¹¹Ibid, citing Mir Hasan Khan v The State AIR 1951 Pat 60. The Patna judgment is cited here as quoted in Mohd Amin; its own report was not consulted. On appeal: Mohd Amin bin Mohd Razali & Ors v PP [2003] 4 MLJ 129.

Seizing the guns was not enough on its own. The purpose behind them had to be proved.

In 2013, armed men landed at Lahad Datu in Sabah. Again, section 121 was the charge.¹²PP v Atik Hussin bin Abu Bakar & Other Cases [2016] MLJU 968 (HC); PP v Kadir bin Uyung & Anor and Another Appeal [2017] MLJU 1692; [2017] CLJU 1403 (CA).

Section 121B is another matter.

A search of the reported Malaysian cases found no reported prosecution under it.¹³Searches of Lexis+ Malaysia (MY Cases) and CLJLaw (case law), 8 October 2026. A null result is not proof that no case exists; unreported and very recent decisions may be missing from both.

So the section most often named in conversation is, in the reports at least, almost untouched ground.

WHO DECIDES?

Not the loudest voice

A council may call for a prosecution. A citizen may lodge a police report. A newspaper may print the word in capitals.

None of them can charge anyone.

The Attorney General

Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution gives that power to one office.

The Attorney General “shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence”.¹⁴Federal Constitution, art 145(3); text read on Lexis+ Malaysia, 8 October 2026.

Half a century ago, the Federal Court read those words plainly. In a humble case about a parang and a lesser charge, Suffian LP’s court said the clause gives the Attorney General “very wide discretion over the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions”.¹⁵Long bin Samat & Ors v PP [1974] 2 MLJ 152 (FC), 158 (Suffian LP, Ali Hassan and Wan Suleiman FJJ); report read on Lexis+ Malaysia, 8 October 2026, where the database title spells the first name “Samad”.

So the next step, if there is one, belongs to him alone.

The judge

A charge proves nothing. Every element of the offence must then be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, before a court.

That includes the intention the section names. The words “compasses, imagines, invents or intends” describe a state of mind. A state of mind must be proved by evidence, like anything else.

The smaller door

There is also a lesser law, often confused with treason. The Sedition Act 1948 is about words, not deeds. It reaches a “tendency” to bring any Ruler into “hatred or contempt” or to “excite disaffection” against him.¹⁶Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15), s 3(1)(a); text read on Lexis+ Malaysia, 8 October 2026.

Sedition and treason are different rooms. The first is about what is said. The second is about what is intended, and done, against the throne itself.

WHERE THE WORD BELONGS

So, is it treason?

The honest answer is that the word lives in three places, and they must not be confused.

In a statement, it is an accusation.

In a charge sheet, it is an allegation the State must prove.

Only in a judgment does it become a fact.

Negeri Sembilan has seen the first.

Whether it ever sees the second is for the Attorney General.

Whether it ever sees the third is for a court.

The Hikayat took generations to tell its tale of loyalty.

The Penal Code asks for something narrower and harder: one trial, on evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.

That is the whole difference between a story and a crime.

∞§∞

This is for general information only, not legal or technical advice. Obtain independent legal advice where needed.

Thanks to KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela and Lydia Jaynthi of GK Legal, and Abhishek Tewari of Unsplash for the image.

Claude assisted with drafting; Perplexity Pro fact-checked. The views and any errors are the author’s.

© GK Ganesan Kasinathan. All rights reserved. All site content is protected by copyright. No reproduction or use without prior written permission: gk@gkganesan.com.