The Federation of Malaya Agreement and the 1957 Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, followed by the Malaysia Agreement never meant the surrender and disposal of the sovereignty (ceding of sovereignty) of the Malay rulers as claimed by GK Ganeson, which was published in a website called Paradox. On the contrary, the sovereignty of DYMM Sultan of Selangor and other Malay rulers remains sovereign as enshrined in the respective State Constitutions and is even stated in Article 181(1) of the Federal Constitution. Article 181(1) which reads:

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the sovereignty, prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers, and the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Ruling Authority of Negeri Sembilan within their respective territories as they have existed and enjoyed until now are permanent and unaffected.

GK Ganeson's allegations are very serious because they have distorted the country's legal history and laws to deny the sovereignty of the Malay rulers which is guaranteed by constitutional law.

Malaysia's position as a Federation and the guarantee of the sovereignty of the Malay rulers by the Federal Constitution is an important aspect in interpreting the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.

If we examine the method of constitutional interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada Indira Gandhi A/P. Mutho v. Director of the Islamic Religious Department of Perak & Ors and other appeals,  interpretation according to history, law and local context is a requirement while federalism is acknowledged as one example of the basic structure of the constitution.

[1] The constitution implements a structure of government and must be understood by reference to the constitutional text itself, the historical context, and previous judicial interpretations of constitutional meaning…. The rules of constitutional interpretation require that constitutional documents be interpreted in a broad and purposive manner and placed in their proper linguistic, philosophic, and historical contexts… Generally, a constitutional interpretation must be informed by the foundational principles of the constitution, which include principles such as federalism, democracy, the protection of minorities, as well as constitutionalism and the rule of law ….

These rules and principles of interpretation have led this Court to conclude that the Constitution should be viewed as having an ‘internal architecture’, or ‘basic constitutional structure’ … The notion of architecture expresses the principles that the individual elements of the Constitutional are linked to the others, and must be interpreted by reference to the structure of the Constitution as a whole’ … In other words, the Constitution must be interpreted to discern the structure of government that it seeks to implement. The assumptions that underlie the text and the manner in our interpretation understanding and application of the text. 

[2] [2018] MLJU 69