This paper discusses the application of Chiba's tripartite model to Southeast Asian laws. Chiba criticises the 'universal' Western model jurisprudence as disregarding cultural specificity. Societies have always “cherished their indigenous law as an integral part of their cultural heritage.” In fact, Southeast asian countries are an epitome for ecclectic cultural and legal diversity. Chiba's tripartite model structures a legal-system into three parts, namely “official law”, “unofficial law”, and “legal postulates”. Chiba’s theory supposes that none of these elements ever exists in isolation; they continuously interact in dynamic fashion. Therefore in Chiba’s view law is always plural. The purpose of Chiba's model is to identify the structural alignment and function of the indigenous laws in relation to state laws which are, mostly, based on received Western law (with Hellenistic/Christian colouring). My thesis argues that the three elements continuously overlap, especially regarding legal postulates, and that the model cannot work without including Chiba's other two legal methodologies: “the dichotomies model” and the “model of received and indigenous law”. Chiba acknowldges these overlaps when he applied his model to Japan for instance. After all, Asian countries are driven by “an ongoing process of self-developing indigenous law.”
Official laws are laws accredited by state authorities (state laws) and form the overall jurisdiction over a country. Interestingly, as customary/religious laws are also partially or fully applied as state law, official law itself has an internally plural nature. To name one, Indonesia's secular Constitution officially recognizes customary Adat Law (legacy of Dutch colonialism). Adat is relevant even in fields of criminal (eg “blood money”) and property law; areas that tend to be regulated by secularized laws. Hereby, Chiba challenges