This article examines the constitutional tensions between federal environmental regulation and state authority over land development within the Malaysian federal system. Although land and natural resources are constitutionally placed under state jurisdiction pursuant to Article 74(2) and the State List of the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, the expansion of federal environmental legislation, particularly through the Environmental Quality Act 1974 (Act 127), has increasingly blurred the boundaries of legislative and executive competence. The problem addressed in this study concerns the absence of a clear constitutional allocation of environmental powers and the resulting conflict between federal supremacy and state autonomy, especially in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements imposed on land-based development projects. Accordingly, the objectives of this study are threefold: first, to examine the constitutional framework governing the division of powers relating to land development and environmental regulation in Malaysia; second, to analyse the judicial reasoning in Director General of Environment & Anor v. Kajing Tubek & Ors [1997] 3 MLJ 23 and its implications for Malaysian federalism; and third, to evaluate whether Malaysia’s existing constitutional arrangement reflects a coherent model of cooperative environmental federalism through comparative analysis with India, Canada, and Australia. This study adopts a qualitative doctrinal legal methodology based on the analysis of primary legal sources, including the Federal Constitution, the Environmental Quality Act 1974, and relevant judicial authorities. The doctrinal analysis is supplemented by comparative and critical legal approaches to assess the evolving relationship between federal and state powers in environmental governance. The findings demonstrate that Malaysian courts have generally adopted a purposive interpretation favouring federal environmental regulation, thereby legitimising an incremental expansion of federal authority into areas traditionally reserved for states, particularly land and natural resources. The Kajing Tubek decision illustrates how environmental governance has been judicially framed as a matter of national concern, notwithstanding the constitutional protection of state autonomy and residual powers under Article 77. Comparative analysis further reveals that other federations have developed clearer constitutional or judicial mechanisms for balancing environmental protection with regional autonomy. The article concludes that Malaysia requires a more principled framework of cooperative environmental federalism through constitutional clarification, judicial development, and intergovernmental coordination to reconcile environmental sustainability with the federal balance established under the Constitution
Abdul Aziz, B. (2003). Malaysian constitution: A critical introduction. Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press.
Aziz, S. A. (2011). Federalism and constitutional interpretation in Malaysia. IIUM Law Journal, 19(2), 121–125.
Aziz, A. (2012). Islamic criminal law in the Malaysian federal structure: A constitutional perspective. IIUM Law Journal, 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v15i1.62
Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta [2007] SCC 22.
City Council of Georgetown v. Government of the State of Penang & Anor [1967] 1 MLJ 169.
Commonwealth v. Tasmania [1983] 158 CLR 1.
Director General of Environment & Anor v. Kajing Tubek & Ors [1997] 3 MLJ 23 (MY).
East Union (Malaya) Sdn Bhd v. Government of Johore & Government of Malaysia [1980] 2 MLJ 54 (MY).
Environmental Quality Act 1974 (MY).
Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 1996 (Act A953) (MY).
Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987 (MY).
Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 2015 (MY).
Faruqi, S. S. (2008). Document of destiny: The constitution of the Federation of Malaysia. Selangor: Star Publications (Malaysia) Berhad.
Federal Constitution of Malaysia (MY).
Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 SCR 3 (Can.).
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511 (Can.).
Hamzah, W. A. (2010). The dynamics of federal–state relations in Malaysia. IIUM Law Journal, 18(2), 150–155.
Hussain, S. M. (1988). Federalisme di Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Indian Constitution (IND).
Livingstone, W. S. (1974). Federalism and constitutional change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Penang Institute. (2025). A critical need for effective state-federal relations in Malaysia. Penang Institute.
Saunders, C. (1997). The Australian constitution and federalism. Melbourne University Press.
Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat, [2017] 3 MLJ 561.
Sharom, A. (2008). Environmental laws in Malaysia: Time to walk the walk. In Proceedings of the Inaugural University of Malaya Law Conference: Selected issues in the development of Malaysian law (pp. 45–62). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Shuaib, F. S. (2023). The constitution and human rights: Revisiting the contribution of Tan Sri Harun M. Hashim. IIUM Law Journal, 31(2), 48–57.
Shyamsundar, P. (2002). Poverty–environment interactions in India: Evidence and policy implications. World Development, 30(3), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00127-3
Simandjuntak, B. (1969). Malayan federalism 1945–1963. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Strong, C. F. (1966). Modern political constitutions. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.
Sulaiman, K. F., Satriawan, I., Musa, N., & Fathi, M. A. (2025). A comparison of decentralization policy in Indonesia and Malaysia. Petita: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah, 10(1), 297–321.
Tenggara Gugusan Holidays Sdn Bhd v. Public Prosecutor [2006] 2 MLJ 681 (MY).
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 (India).
Watts, R. L. (1966). New federations: Experiments in the Commonwealth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wats, R. L. (2008). Comparing federal systems (3rd ed.). McGill–Queen’s University Press.
Wee, C. H. (2023). Regional disparities and federalism in Malaysia. University of Malaya Press.
Wheare, K. C. (1964). Federal government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Widiarto, A. E., Hassan, M. S., Rusli, M. H. M., & Setiawan, E. B. (2025). The authority relationship of central and local governments in forming laws and regulations: Between Indonesia and Malaysia. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 33(1), 148–167.
Zines, L. (1997). The high court and the Constitution (4th ed.). Sydney: Butterworths.
References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, [2021] SCC 11 (Can.)
Zin, M. H. M., & Nawang, N. I. (2026). Environmental Federalism and Land Development in Malaysia: Constitutional Tensions and Lessons From Kajing Tubek. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 16(5), 1130–1149.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
