Philip Koh, an adjunct professor at Universiti Malaya, pointed out that Johor was not a part of the Federated Malay States established by the British in 1895.
He said the state had always been treated differently by the British government.
Koh cited the English Court of Appeal case of Mighell v Sultan of Johore (1894) in which the sultan successfully argued that the UK courts had no jurisdiction over him due to his status as an independent sovereign ruler.
He said the sultan’s position was supported by a letter from the colonial office confirming that Johor was an independent state.
“This case illustrates the complex history of Johor’s status and adds a significant perspective to the current discussions on federalism and fiscal policy,” Koh told FMT.
He said the British crown had in an agreement with Johor signed nine years earlier referred to Johor as an ally, rather than a suzerainty or a dependency. It also recognised the sultan as an independent sovereign ruler.
Koh was commenting on Hassan’s support for Johor regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim’s call for the state to be treated as a federal partner, akin to the position enjoyed by Sabah and Sarawak in the federation.
On Monday, Hassan expressed his support for Tunku Ismail’s views, saying it had “constitutional, political and historical” validity.
“Therefore, (Tunku Ismail’s) call for Johor to be treated as a federal partner like Sabah and Sarawak is not nonsensical,” he added.
Hassan said that historical records affirm Johor’s status as an independent state, distinct from Melaka, Penang and Singapore, which formed the Straits Settlements.
Koh said Tunku Ismail’s comments were part of “rising expectations among states in the sharing of fiscal revenues”.
“It cannot be viewed only through legal and constitutional lenses but must also be examined through historical antecedents,” he said.
However, lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla disagreed, pointing out that all Malayan states, including Johor, were parties to the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 and covered under the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957.
He said those documents did not confer on Johor any special position.
“In law we are not concerned whether the narration is nonsensical or not. We are more concerned whether it is accurate constitutionally or legally,” he told FMT.
Haniff said the Federal Constitution does not give Johor the same status as Sabah and Sarawak.
“Article 1(2) of the Federal Constitution which lists the states that make up the federation lists Johor alongside other states, without any special provisions,” he said.