Why don’t Malaysian lawyers wear wigs? In some Commonwealth countries, judges and lawyers still maintain the tradition of wearing wigs, but Malaysia has long abolished this practice.
This is not just for “keeping cool” — it is the result of historical, cultural, legal, and practical considerations combined.
Here’s a full breakdown of this phenomenon from six perspectives 👇:
🏛 1. Historical Background: Adopting English Law but Preserving Local Autonomy
Malaysia became a British colony in the 19th century and gradually adopted the English Common Law system, including:
• Judicial systems (such as appellate structure)
• Trial procedures and legal education based on the British model
🔎 The key point is that Malaysia’s Federal Constitution explicitly guarantees the independence of its legal system.
This means Malaysia can draw from Britain’s system but is not obliged to copy it entirely.
📌 For example, the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1965 differs from British law, reflecting the spirit of “legal localisation.”
🇲🇾 2. Post-Independence Decolonisation: Breaking Away from Colonial Traditions
In 1957, Malaya gained independence, and in 1963, the Federation of Malaysia was formed. The government strongly promoted national identity, legal independence, and cultural decolonisation.
👨⚖️ In British courts, wigs symbolise “law above the individual,” but in Malaysia, this attire was seen as a relic of colonial formalism.
🚫 Therefore, abolishing the wig was a symbolic act of decolonisation and a statement of establishing legal authority with local characteristics.
☀️ 3. Climate Factors: Tropical Countries Are Not Wig-Friendly
Malaysia lies on the equator, with year-round heat and humidity, making wigs highly unsuitable:
• 🌡️ Temperatures often exceed 30°C
• 💦 Humidity levels reach 70%–90%
• 🏛️ Poor courtroom ventilation (especially in older buildings)
👎 Wigs are often made from horsehair — heavy and stuffy — and prolonged wear can lead to:
• Excessive sweating
• Heat exhaustion
• Reduced focus, affecting trial efficiency
Thus, from both health and efficiency perspectives, abolishing wigs was a practical decision.
🕌 4. Multicultural & Religious Considerations: Respecting a Multi-Ethnic Society
Malaysia is a multi-ethnic nation, with Malays, Chinese, and Indians as major communities, and Islam as the main religion.
🧕 For Muslim women lawyers, wearing a headscarf is a religious obligation, which conflicts with the wig attire.
✅ Abolishing wigs was not only about cultural decolonisation but also reflected respect for:
• Islamic values
• Multi-cultural coexistence
• Southeast Asian aesthetics and lifestyles
⚖️ 5. Legal Modernisation: Less Formalism, More Substantive Justice
The global legal community is moving toward modernisation, placing greater emphasis on:
• ✅ Substantive justice > Formal decoration
• ✅ Efficient, transparent, and accessible legal systems
🎯 While wigs once symbolised tradition and authority, in modern society they are often viewed as outdated symbols that weaken public trust.
🌍 Many Commonwealth countries have also abolished or reduced wig use, including:
• Singapore 🇸🇬
• New Zealand 🇳🇿
• Canada 🇨🇦
• Australia 🇦🇺
• Hong Kong (in certain proceedings) 🇭🇰
👔 6. Malaysian Court Dress Code (The Wig’s Replacement)
Although Malaysian lawyers do not wear wigs in court, there is still a strict dress code to maintain professionalism and dignity:
• Male lawyers: white neck bands, black suit, black robe
• Female lawyers: white blouse, dark skirt or trousers, and robe
• Muslim women may wear a headscarf, usually in black or white
📌 The dress code still emphasises solemnity and professionalism, reflecting respect for the court and legal system.
🔚 Conclusion: Abolishing Wigs Was a Rational Choice on Many Levels
The decision for Malaysian lawyers not to wear wigs is far more than just about “hot weather.” It encompasses:
✅ Historical context
✅ Independent legal culture
✅ Decolonisation and multicultural integration
✅ Health and practical considerations
✅ Modern legal pragmatism
This change makes Malaysia’s legal system more attuned to local society, reflecting deep adaptation to its culture, religion, and environment — a powerful symbol of legal localisation and institutional modernisation.
