2025 Certified Translation Guide for the Malaysian High Court (for Legal Practitioners)
* Most of the content is derived from Defamation Principles & Procedure in Singapore & Malaysia, Second Edition by Doris Chia, as available at LexisNexis.
1. Procedure
1.1 For West Malaysia, a court document shall be in Malay, and may be accompanied by an English translation, but any document in the English language may be used as an exhibit even without a translation in Malay [1].
For East Malaysia, a court document shall be in English, and may be accompanied by a Malay translation [2].
Failure to observe the translation rules is fatal [3].
1.2 Once the prosecution/ plaintiff has pleaded the translation, he must prove that the translation provided is correct by filing an affidavit by the translator enclosing the translation and his qualifications and calling the translator as a witness at trial unless the translation is not disputed or his testimony is dispensed with by the other party [4].
1.3 It is open for the defendant to provide the court with an alternative version of the translation at the trial [5], but if he intends to do so, he should indicate in his pleadings that he intends to challenge the accuracy of the prosecution’s/ plaintiff's translation so that the prosecution/ plaintiff will not be taken by surprise at the trial [6]. Whether the translation is correct or accepted as the translation of the original publication is a question of fact to be determined at trial [7].
1.4 Therefore, practically, translation should be prepared by someone who is available to testify and defend its accuracy in court. It should not be done by someone in the law firm as s/he usually cannot be called and cross-examined as a witness (Rule 28, Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978). It should also not be done by the Court Interpreters as they are there to assist the judge, not any party, and this would violate paras 6 and 8 of the Judges Code of Ethics 2009 P.U.(B) 201 concerning impartiality of judges.
1.5 In practice, the Malaysian High Courts deem translation done by the following organisations as certified:
(i) Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia (ITBM);
(ii) Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka (DBP); and
(iii) Malaysian Translators Association (MTA).
1.6 MYLegalTrans’ team is certified by:
(i) ITBM;
(ii) MTA;
(iii) DBP;
(iv) Kuala Lumpur High Court; and
(v) Sarawak High Court.
1.7 The position as to whether the failure to plead the statements in their original language is fatal is less clear. In the Court of Appeal decision of Hassan & Anor v Wan Ishak & Ors, it was held that the words in their original form should be pleaded but failing to do so was not fataI to the claim [8]. According to practitioner Doris Chia, the case could perhaps be explained on the basis that the failure to plead in their original language was not objected to by the defendant throughout the proceedings, hence suggesting that there was no prejudice to the defendant [9].
However, in Lim Kit Siang v Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik & Ors, the High Court held that the exact words uttered must be reproduced in the original language with a certified translation in the language of the court, failing which, the claim will fail [10]. It appears that the Court of Appeal case of Hassan was not brought to the attention of the High Court in Lim Kit Siang.
In Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran, the Court of Appeal expressed the view that it is to be preferred that the statements are set out in the original language in the Statement of Claim, but did not express a view as to whether the failure to do so was fatal [11].
In Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing v Datuk Justine Jinggut, the defendant argued that the action ought to be struck out as the statements complained of, which were in Mandarin, were not expressly pleaded in the Statement of Claim. The High Court refused to do so and said that the publication containing the defamatory words in question had been sufficiently identified and the English translation of the alleged defamatory words (English being the language of the court in Malaysia at that time) in the Statement of Claim constituted a sufficient cause of action for the purpose of resisting the striking out application [12]. Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing distinguished Karpal Singh on the ground that the view that the defamatory words must be set out in the original language in the Statement of Claim, was obiter.
1.8 Generally, after the pleading stage, a challenge to the translation can no longer be made unless the "Important Influence" test can be satisfied, as per para 16 of Ho Min Hao & Anor v Ho Yee Chin & Anor [2017] MLJU 06. The challenge will then be presented as fresh evidence.
In most cases, after the pleading stage, the witness who makes statements to challenge the translator must also satisfy the "expert witness" test. Although an expert witness needs not be certified, s/he must generally be experienced in the field of translation, depending on the complexity of the case (para 229 of Junaidi bin Abdullah v PP [1993] 3 MLJ 217, SC).
1.9 Executive summary:
(i) Translation should be prepared by an experienced translator ready to defend the translation in court (as an ordinary witness).
(ii) Law firms should not prepare their own translation or ask the Court Interpreters to translate for them.
(iii) Translation can be challenged by a translator who satisfies the "expert witness" test.
2. FAQs
2.1 What does Certified Translation mean? How is it different from non-certified translation?
In Malaysia, Certified Translation is provided by one of the following Malaysian statutory organisations:
(i) ITBM, formerly known as the Malaysian National Institute of Translation (ITNM), established based on the approval of a cabinet meeting in 1992 following a memorandum from the Minister of Education [13]. As a limited company, its share capital is wholly owned by the Ministry of Finance and its administration is managed by the Ministry of Education [14].
(ii) DBP, established based on the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Act 1959. Its administration is managed by the Ministry of Education [15].
(iii) MTA, a voluntary professional body established under the auspices of DBP, and is the sole member of the Federation of International Translators (FIT) [16], an international organisation which has consultative status with UNESCO [17].
(iv) High Court Interpreters, governed by the Practising Certificates Unit and supervised by the High Court of Malaya [18].
A translation is considered certified when it is registered with ITBM, DBP, MTA or the High Court. A certified translation is authoritative in a court of law.
2.2 Why does Certified Translation take so long even for documents with just a few words?
For the High Courts, before certification, the translation goes through the following processes:
(i) Text extraction
The translation process begins with text extraction and formatting by a DTP specialist, with inquiries about untranslatable or unclear text.
(ii) Translation
Translations are handled by native translators who are subject matter specialists with at least three years of experience.
(iii) First Review
The first review is conducted by nationally certified translators.
(iv) DTP & Formatting
DTP and formatting ensures the translated document mirrors the original.
(v) Final Review & Certificate of Translation
A final review is done by certified translators, with an ITBM/DBP/MTA stamp applied. The translation is then recorded by the stamping organisation.
2.3 Can I submit a softcopy or photocopy of the Certified Translation to the High Court?
Yes. The Malaysian High Courts accept softcopy Certified Translation with the original ITBM/DBP/MTA stamp. However, for record-keeping purposes, law firms usually request for hardcopy.
Resources:
[1] Malaysian Rules of Court 2012, O 92 r 1(1); Rekha d/o Munisamy v Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 5 MLJ 836 (CA) at [44]-[52]; Yuvarani w/o Ravindra v Percetakan Kum Sdn Bhd & Ors and another suit [2010] 6 MLJ 106 (HC) at [12]-[15] (translation from Tamil into Bahasa Melayu); Synergistic Duo Sdn Bhd v Lai Mei Juan [2017] 9 MLJ 697 (HC) at [10] (translation from Mandarin into Bahasa Melayu).
[2] Malaysian Rules of Court 2012, O 92 r 1(2).
[3] Rekha d/o Munisamy v Ortus Expert White Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 5 MLJ 836 (CA) at [44]-[52] (where the plaintiff did not translate the words in the amended Statement of Claim into Bahasa Melayu and the court held that it was fatal to the plaintiff's claim. The court referred to Art. 152 of the Federal Constitution read with s. 8 of the National Language Acts, 1963/1967 (Act 32) and s. 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388)), followed in Dr. Vijaendreh a/l Subramaniam (Chairman for the Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine (MAAFIM)) & Anor v Kerajaan Malaysia & Anor [2023] 7 MLJ 922 (HC) at [29]-[33].
[4] Yuvarani w/o Ravindra v Percetakan Kum Sdn Bhd & Ors and another suit [201] 6 MLJ 106 (HC) at [15].
[5] Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing v Datuk Justine Jinggut [2003] 6 MLJ 433 (HC) at 442D.
[6] Yuvarani w/o Ravindra v Percetakan Kum Sdn Bhd & Ors and another suit [201] 6 MLJ 106 (HC) at [15]-[16].
[7] Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing v Datuk Justine Jinggut [2003] 6 MLJ 433 (HC) at 442C-D.
[8] Hassan & Anor v Wan Ishak & Ors [1961] MLJ 45 (CA) at 46.
[9] Chia, D. (2016). Defamation: Principles and procedure in Singapore and Malaysia (2nd ed., at [17-30]). LexisNexis.
[10] Lim Kit Siang v Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik & Ors [1997] 5 MLJ 523 (HC) at 526D.
[11] Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran [2001] 4 MLJ 161 (CA) at 176H (rev’d sub nom Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran [2003] 2 MLJ 385 (FC)).
[12] Dato' Seri Tiong King Sing v Datuk Justine Jinggut [2003] 6 MLJ433 (HC) at 440I-442B. This holding can perhaps be explained on the basis that it was an application to strike out the claim and there was nothing to stop the plaintiff from amending his Statement of Claim subsequently to rectify this.
[13] OIC Today. (n.d.). An interview with Sakri Bin Abdullah: Chief Executive Officer of ITBM. https://www.oictoday.biz/interview-details.php?id=517/an-interview-with-sakri-bin-abdullah-sakri-bin-abdullah.
[14] Institut Terjemahan & Buku Malaysia. (n.d.). Organisational structure. https://www.itbm.com.my/en/organisasi.
[15] Section 4, the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Act 1959 (Revised in 1978). https://lamanweb.dbp.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Akta-213-Akta-Dewan-Bahasa-dan-Pustaka-Disemak-1973.pdf
[16] International Federation of Translators. (n.d.). Members directory: Malaysia. https://en.fit-ift.org/members-directory/?country=MY.
[17] UNESCO Archives. (n.d.). International Federation of Translators. https://atom.archives.unesco.org/international-federation-of-translators.
[18] Kuala Lumpur Court Complex. (n.d.). Practising certificates unit. https://kl.kehakiman.gov.my/en/practicing-certificates-unit