Talk:Yang di-Pertuan Agong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Malaysia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I am doubtful about the translation of Yang di-Pertuan Agong as "he who is lord and king". Agong means 'supreme', so accepting Yang di-Pertuan as "he who is lord" or "ruler", Yang di-Pertuan Agong means "Supreme Ruler", Yang di-Pertuan Besar means "Great Ruler", Yang di-Pertuan Negara means "National Ruler". Andrew Yong 04:01, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am sure your Malay is better than mine, so feel free to change it. Jpatokal 04:39, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yang Di-Pertuan Agong can be, and often is, translated as Supreme Ruler, Supreme King or Supreme Head. These are all generaly good translations. But if you translate it officialy it is " He who is made Lord " I think we should leave the current translations as they are, but also add " he who is made lord " for acuracy. User: MED12345678 Nov 4 2006.

Type of Monarchy[edit]

I found my way to this page from Elective monarchy and yet this page claims it is a Constitutional monarchy and I don't know enough to correct. Oniony 14:13, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

It is both. A constitutional monarchy in the European sense: few real powers, and a requirement to act on the advice of the government. An elective monarchy (with fixed terms) since an election takes place (though with only a small number of voters) and some candidates have been blocked in the past. --Henrygb 22:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Term of office[edit]

Im suprised by one thing-he(the curent Yang di P.A.) became ruler in 2001 and so his terms expieres in 2006,this year.Why hasnt anyone noticed it yet? David

I'm not certain, but I suspect that as his predecessor was elected in 1999 and died in 2001, he first served his predecessor's term until 2004 and then was elected for his first full term until 2009. —Nightstallion (?) 12:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's how election works.Of you look on Sultan Yahya Petra ibni al-Marhum Sultan Ibrahim,he has been "Supreme ruler" 1975-1979 and his successor was in office 1979 - 1984. (making things clerer,the former died before his term ended and the later had a normal five year term) New Babylon

In an event which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dies, a new Yang di-Pertuan Agong is elected in the same way as if the previous term has expired. The new Yang di-Pertuan Agong will serve for a full term (5 years). After his term expires, a election will be held and he may not be reelected. Joshua Chiew 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
And as he was elected in 2001,five years ago,for a term of five years,his turn must expiere in 2006. new Babylon
Yes you're right, his term will end in December 2006. This whole thing started because David asked why anyone hadn't noticed that his term expires. Actually, I'm sure quite a lot of people have noticed his term will expire. I'm not however sure why David brought it up? Nil Einne
I'll tell you a secret-I'M David,I just didin't have a figured out username by then.New Babylon
Okay so what exactly did you mean why hasn't anyone noticed? As I stated, I think many people knew. It's not something you have to notice, it's obvious. So I'm not quite sure what the question was? BTW if you use four tildes to sign (~~~~) your post is dated and it's easy for people to directlty identify you since they can visit your page Nil Einne 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The 13th Yang di-Pertuan Agong[edit]

Malaysia have a new King now, The 13th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Sultan of the state of Terengganu

--Bukhrin 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I read in the newspapers that his 5-year reign will begin on 13 December. So he hasn't officially hold the office yet. Joshua Chiew 16:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

head of Islam[edit]

The article currently says:

In addition, the constitution makes him the Head of Islam in the four states ruled by appointed Governors. [...] According to the constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's is also the head of Islam in Malaysia.

So does the constitution make him head of Islam in Malaysia, or only head of Islam in the four states ruled by appointed Governors? --Delirium 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the head of Islam for individual states is the Ruler of the state because Islamic affairs are regulated by individual states, not by the federal government. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the head of Islam in states where there are no hereditary ruler (i.e. Penang, Melaka, Sabah and Sarawak) and the three federal territories as well as his own state. Joshua Chiew 00:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to reflect the election of the 13th Agong[edit]

I noticed that since the the Sultan of Terengganu had been elected to succeed the current Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the article had been changed for a number of times by both anon users and registered users to show that the current Agong is the Sultan of Terengganu. IMHO, he is not the Agong until he officially takes office (13 December), and the current Agong is still Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin. Any comments? Joshua Chiew 09:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, the Sultan of Terengganu will not assume office untill the 13th of December.--MED12345678 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Role of the Agong[edit]

I have noticed that the section on the role and functions of the Agong is very limited. I am Planing to greatly expand the information there. It will take me a good deal of time to get started.--MED12345678 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Have just made some edits to add more information on the Agong's roles. comments anyone? --MED12345678 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The full Article 40 is unnecessary, as it disrupts the flow of the article. I added a link to the Wikisource article on the Constitution of Malaysia instead in the external links section. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you oppose my plans to expand the article ( on Agong's roles ) in general,or just the use of Article 40?--MED12345678 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

eh, I think the role of Agong very limited at this moment, they only act as symbol for the nation and Malay right/special, beside doing their role over Islam (protecting the muslim right), ?military? and ?law?, the constitution can be change with or without their approvel. and thats just it, they can not declared state of emergency and so on. can we add this in the article?--Towaru 19:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing explanation[edit]

Under "Order of States" we read:

"After the first cycle of nine Yang di-Pertuan Agong (1957–1994), the order among the eligible, all peninsular, state rulers has followed the order established by that cycle..."

Which seems clear enough. But then under "Election":

"The original order has at times been varied by the Council of Rulers..."

How has the "original order" been "varied"? The "Order of States" section says that it hasn't, and the actual list of rulers supports that. The nine states all had their turn, and then it started again from the beginning. What varied?

And continuing under "Election":

"... After all nine Rulers of the states had served as Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the order of seniority had been based on the order of seniority of the states whose rulers have been elected as Yang di-Pertuan Agong."

I don't understand what this means. Is "the order of seniority had been based on the order of seniority of the states whose rulers have been elected as Yang di-Pertuan Agong" just a very complicated way of saying the same thing that is said at "Order of States" (namely that now that all states have had their turn, the cycle just repeats over), or is it saying something else, and if so what? The second "had" is also problematic - is it just a typo for "has" or is there some cryptic intended meaning?

Perhaps an expert on this subject might want to have a crack at clarifying this in the article. Matt 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

When the Yang di-Pertuan Agong office was established in 1957, the order of assuming the office was determined by the seniority of the Malay Rulers, i.e. the order of their succession to their respective state thrones. At times, the most senior Ruler might have declined nomination or disqualified by other Rulers, so his state would be moved to the bottom of the succession list. When a Ruler died, his state would also be moved to the bottom of the succession list. After all nine states had served the office, the order of succession is firmly established regardless of the seniority of the Rulers. For example, the current Agong, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin succeeded his father as Sultan of Terengganu in 1998, which made him relatively junior compared to other states' Rulers, but this did not prevent him from becoming the Agong in 2006 because the current order is the order of the states whose Ruler served as the Agong in the first round. However, the Conference of Rulers still have the right to disqualify a candidate. --Joshua Chiew 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See here for the various orders of seniority since 1957. --Joshua Chiew 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You may want to change the article to make this clearer. As I say, the statement "The original order has at times been varied by the Council of Rulers" is confusing because it appears from the rest of the article that the original order (i.e. the order of the first nine rulers) hasn't been varied. So far it has just repeated. It might be better to say that the order could be varied if the council so decided, if that's what's meant.
Also, the statement "the order of seniority is based on the order of the states whose rulers have been elected as Yang di-Pertuan Agong" is difficult to understand. If it just means that order of states established by the first nine appointments repeats itself, then I think there should be a much clearer way of saying this. I would make these changes myself except I know nothing about the subject so might write something that's just plain wrong! Matt 22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC).
Let me add a little more: the order of state established at the completion of the first round can still be changed; i.e. when the first candidate on the list declines nomination or being disqualified. After the completion of the second (current) round, the order of third round may be based on the order of the second round. However, this is unclear because in the current round no Ruler had declined or being disqualified, so this should not be included because it may constitute original research.--Joshua Chiew 00:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


The article does not mention anything about the sovereign immunity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Before 1993, the King has sovereign immunity, i.e. he cannot be sued in court. But in that year, the parliament passed some amendments that remove this immunity. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong (as well as other Malay Rulers) can be sued in a special King's court with the consent of the attorney general. I read about this in my STPM textbook. Does anyone bother to find some sources and add it to the article? --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. However, the king still has Sovereign immunity. It is his Personal immunity that was changed in 1993. He can be sued in the Special Court for acts committed in his personal capacity only. When he performs any act as the Yang-Di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia he cannot be sued. --Amirmed 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It was his personal immunity that was removed in 1993. While he himself cannot be sued when performs any act as the Yang-Di-Pertuan Agong, the offended party may sue the federal government. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So he can't shoot his golf caddy any more, then ?Eregli bob (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Etymological Analysis on the Royal Title[edit]

Could someone please verify the following and see if it could be appropriately rephrased/summarised to be inserted into the article?

"yang" is a Malay pronoun/adjective similar to the English words for "who"/"which". "Yang" is also an ancient Malay word that means "deity".

"Tuan" is the etymological mutation of the word "tuhan" which means "lord" or "god". "di" is a prefix which means "in", "at" or "being". Therefore, "di-Pertuan" would transliterate into "being the Lord" which means "Lordship". "Agong" means "Supreme".

"Seri" is a Sanskrit word for "divinely beautiful". "Paduka" is from an ancient Indo-European/Sanskrit word for "feet". "Baginda" means "Majesty".

Therefore, the royal title "Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Seri Paduka Baginda" would mean "He who is the Supreme Lord, at His Divine Feet (we submit to) his Majesty". If taking the ancient meaning of "Yang" into account, the title would mean "The Supreme Lord of gods, His Majesty, at Whose Divine Feet (we submit)".

It is to be noted that this title evokes a measure of disagreement among Islamic radicals (as well as Christian evangelicals) as Malaysia and Brunei are the only Muslim countries in the world with Muslim heads of states with the official role of "Protector of Islam" whose titles condone the worship of the Monarch and place the Monarch in titular equivalence to the Divine Creator. It is a vestige from ancient Hindu kingdoms in the region, a tradition which Malaysians are scant to abandon.

Miamidot (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Other elected monarchs[edit]

If no one objects, I will clarify the reference to Andorra.

(1) The notion of "two monarchs" is logically impossible. I would replace the phrase with "co-monarchs" here. The term used in Andorra is "co-prince".

(2) Since the French co-monarch is actually chosen by the citizens of another country, it seems debatable whether this is an example of an elected monarch, since Andorrans have little voice in the matter. Monomoit (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "YDP" as an acronym[edit]

The article was changed to use "YPD" instead of "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" whenever the king is mentioned. Although I agree that the title is a bit wordy, as I had noted in my edit summary, nobody uses "YPD" to refer to the king. If any acronym is used, it should be "YDPA", but again, it is not official and not in common usage. Official usage has always been the full title or "Yang di-Pertuan Agong", and he is commonly referred to as the "Agong" by the people.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 02:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. Would it not be better to use "King" as shortform?--Marked4life (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Tuanku Abdul Halim of Kedah as the 14th Yang Di-Pertuan Agong Malaysia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Tuanku Abdul Halim of Kedah as the 14th Yang Di-Pertuan Agong Malaysia.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Tuanku Abdul Halim of Kedah as the 14th Yang Di-Pertuan Agong Malaysia.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Following a discussion of the death of a former office-holder at WP:ITN/C, it's been queried whether an English title might not be better for this article. I'm neutral on this topic, leaning towards preferring an English title if one is agreed on. The problem here is that WP:EN and WP:COMMONNAME may well indicate different answers here. But it does look as though we're using an honorific to describe the office-holder here; discussions at Talk:Elizabeth II generally come down against calling her 'Her Majesty' in the prose.

So is there an agreed English form of the title for the subject of this article? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, I think the answer to your question is no, there isn't an agreed English form. English forms used include "King", "Supreme Ruler", "Paramount Ruler", "Supreme Head of State", "Supreme Head of the Federation", and "Supreme Lord". Also I don't think "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" is an honorific in that sense. As the article says, the full Malay style is "Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong". "Seri Paduka Baginda" seems to be equivalent to "His Majesty", while "Yang di-Pertuan Agong" is equivalent to "the King/Supreme Lord/etc". Neljack (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources and clarification history and election[edit]

Section 2 (History) and 4 (Election) refer to no sources.

Plus, the article goes "The position de facto rotates among the nine Rulers. The selection of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong initially followed an order based on the seniority (calculated by length of reign) of each Ruler in 1957 at the Federation of Malaya's independence from the United Kingdom."

However, seniority in 1957 (in section 2) does not match with the order od seniority of states (section 4) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)