Selangor's pig-farming saga: The rule of law must prevail

Demographics or the use of so-called “Malay-populated areas” cannot and should not be elevated into a new legal criterion for regulation or governance.

Doing so departs from constitutional principles and risks normalising race-based governance under the guise of administrative discretion.

The recent pig-farming controversy in Selangor is not a legal crisis, nor does it arise from any new law. It is fundamentally a political and administrative issue, shaped by land-use planning, environmental considerations, and community sensitivities. Any attempts to reframe it as a race-based legal matter are misguided and dangerous.

Law must rest on constitutional foundations, not demographics

In Malaysia, law and public policy must be anchored in clear constitutional and statutory authority, not in the racial composition of a locality. Any regulatory approach that implicitly privileges or disadvantages communities based on ethnic demographics undermines the rule of law and drifts towards race-based governance.

The Federal Constitution already provides a carefully balanced framework. Article 153 safeguards the special position of Malays and natives while protecting the legitimate interests of other communities. However, it does not authorise the creation of geography-based racial criteria for general administrative, planning, or development decisions.

To suggest otherwise is a constitutional overreach.

Framing “Malay-populated areas” as a distinct legal or regulatory category would intensify ethnic sensitivities in an already plural society. Malaysia has long debated affirmative policies in education, housing, and land management grounded in history and constitutional design.

But conflating these established policies with ad hoc, locality-based racial criteria risks creating an ethno-territorial hierarchy, whether intended or not. That perception alone is corrosive to inclusive governance and national cohesion.

This is precisely why careful legal reasoning matters. Laws must articulate: • clear policy objectives, • sound constitutional grounding, and • universal, non-discriminatory standards.

They must not rely on demographic proxies as substitutes for proper legal justification.

Equal application of law is non-negotiable

Once the majority population becomes a regulatory threshold, the principle of equal applicability of the law collapses. The danger is the emergence of a new rule where the dominance of the majority prevails instead of the rule of law.

Different communities begin to perceive that they are subject to different standards not because of law, but because of numbers. That perception erodes trust, fuels grievance politics, and weakens state legitimacy.

On the Selangor pig-farming issue, the facts are clear: • No new federal or state law was introduced. • Decisions were made by the legitimate authorities within existing legal and administrative frameworks. • The dispute centres on land use, environmental impact, public health, and social harmony, not race-based legal prohibitions.

The Selangor Ruler’s concerns were correctly framed in terms of local sensitivities and the broader social context, particularly regarding a majority Muslim population. They should not evolve into a new legal doctrine grounded in ethnicity. This distinction is critical.

A political appeal to demographic realities, such as questioning the suitability of an odour-producing industry near a predominantly Malay Muslim community, is not the same as creating race-based legal thresholds. The former is political judgement; the latter is constitutional malpractice.

Why racial narratives must be checked

When policy debates are racialised or religiously framed, they risk reinforcing narratives of dominance and hierarchy. These are the themes that have historically acted as flashpoints in Malaysia.

Such framing distracts from the real issues: • environmental standards, • planning compliance, • public health safeguards, and • evidence-based social impact assessments.

Policy must be driven by law, science, and reasoned administration, not demographic symbolism.

We must remain clear and disciplined. “Malay-populated areas” cannot be a legal criterion. Law must rest on constitutional authority and universal standards, not ethnic composition.

The pig-farming controversy is political and administrative, not a race-based legal regime. Racial narratives must be resisted, as they inflame tensions and obscure substantive governance issues.

Upholding the rule of law and preserving social cohesion requires resisting the temptation to govern by racial demography and instead committing to transparent decision-making, evidence-based planning, and equitable treatment for all.

As a matter of good governance and constitutional practice, the Sultan of Selangor should have been comprehensively briefed by the authorities before decisions were made public, not after a royal titah was issued.

A proper briefing would have avoided unnecessary embarrassment to the state government, saved entrepreneurs time and financial loss, and protected Selangor’s reputation as a stable and predictable destination for investment.

Failure in process – not law – is what ultimately damages confidence. And in governance, process matters as much as outcome.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.