# What are the differences between adat perpatih and adat temenggung in malaysia
## Introduction
In Malaysia, customary law, known as *adat*, forms a significant part of the legal landscape alongside written statutes and Islamic law. *Adat* primarily governs the personal laws of the Malay population, particularly in matters of land tenure and inheritance. The two main systems of *adat* are *Adat Perpatih* and *Adat Temenggung*. While both originate from tribal traditions, they developed into distinct legal and social codes. This essay will outline the main differences between *Adat Perpatih* and *Adat Temenggung*, focusing on their principles relating to social structure, property inheritance, and criminal justice.
## Social Structure and Governance
The most fundamental difference between the two systems lies in their social and political organisation. *Adat Perpatih*, which is predominantly practised in Negeri Sembilan and parts of Melaka, is a democratic and matrilineal system (Mohd, 2011). This means that lineage, clan membership, and the inheritance of ancestral property are traced through the female line. The political structure is also unique, with leaders being elected from the bottom up. Power is decentralised and rests with the community, starting from the family head (*Buapak*), who is part of a council that elects a clan chief (*Lembaga*), who in turn elects a territorial chief (*Undang*). The *Undangs* collectively elect the head of state, the *Yang di-Pertuan Besar* (Wan Arfah, 2006).
In contrast, *Adat Temenggung* is patrilineal and autocratic, and was historically practised throughout the other Malay states. In this system, descent is traced through the male line. The governance structure is hierarchical and centralised, with the Sultan or ruler holding ultimate authority. Succession is hereditary, typically passing from father to the eldest son, reinforcing a patriarchal and aristocratic model of leadership (Hooker, 1972). This system more closely resembles a feudal monarchy, where power is concentrated at the top.
## Property Inheritance
The contrasting social structures directly influence rules on property and inheritance. Under *Adat Perpatih*, there is a key distinction between ancestral property (*harta pesaka*) and acquired property (*harta carian*). *Harta pesaka* consists of land and property inherited by the family over generations. This property is held in trust by the female members of a clan (*suku*) and cannot be sold or transferred to outsiders. It is passed down from mother to daughter, ensuring that the clan’s women and children have economic security (Wan Arfah, 2006). Men may cultivate the land, but they do not have ownership rights.
Conversely, inheritance under *Adat Temenggung* is more individualistic and has been heavily influenced by Islamic law (*hukum faraid*). Property is generally owned by individuals rather than the clan, and upon a person’s death, it is distributed among their heirs. Under this system, male heirs typically receive a larger portion of the inheritance than female heirs, following a common interpretation of Islamic inheritance rules (Mohd, 2011). This reflects the patrilineal focus of the system, where wealth and property are kept within the male lineage.
## Criminal Justice Principles
The philosophical approaches to crime and punishment also differ significantly between the two *adats*. *Adat Perpatih* is fundamentally restorative. Its primary goal is not to punish the offender but to provide restitution to the victim and their family, thereby restoring social harmony. The system operates on the principle of collective responsibility, where the family or clan of an offender is responsible for making amends, often through the payment of compensation (Hooker, 1972). The emphasis is on preserving the community and the *adat* itself, as captured by the maxim “let the child die, but not the custom” (*biar mati anak, jangan mati adat*).
*Adat Temenggung*, on the other hand, is retributive and punitive. The law is designed to punish the wrongdoer and deter others from committing similar offences. As the Sultan is the source of law and justice, crimes are seen as an offence against the ruler and the state. Consequently, punishments could be severe, including physical mutilation and capital punishment, reflecting the ruler’s absolute power (Wan Arfah, 2006). This approach aligns more with a state-based legal system focused on retribution and maintaining order through fear of punishment.
## Conclusion
In summary, *Adat Perpatih* and *Adat Temenggung* represent two very different customary legal traditions within Malay society. *Adat Perpatih* is characterised by its democratic governance, matrilineal social structure, female-centric inheritance of ancestral property, and a restorative approach to justice. In contrast, *Adat Temenggung* is defined by its autocratic rule, patrilineal system, male-biased inheritance rules influenced by Islamic law, and a punitive justice system. Although the influence of both *adats* has diminished with the introduction of civil and Sharia law, their principles continue to have relevance in specific areas, most notably in matters of land and inheritance in Negeri Sembilan.
## References
- Hooker, M.B. (1972) Adat Laws in Modern Malaya: Land Tenure, Traditional Government and Religion. Oxford University Press.
- Mohd, A. (2011) The Malaysian Legal System: The Roots, the Influence and the Future. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10), pp. 196-202.
- Wan Arfah Hamzah. (2006) A First Look at the Malaysian Legal System. Oxford Fajar.
