Legal framework on freedom of religion and actual application
Malaysia’s Constitution protects religious freedom. However, the rights and interests of both majority and minority communities are constrained by the constitutional and legal privileges granted to Sunni Islam as interpreted by the government. Under Article 3 (1) of the Constitution, “Islam is the religion of the Federation [of Malaysia] but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” Article 11 stipulates that everyone “has the right to profess and practise his religion”, but, at the same time, paragraph 4 of the same article declares that the laws of the states and the federal government “may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.” The provisions of the Constitution have been interpreted to allow states to prevent Muslims from converting to other religions and to restrict any Muslim minority sect that is considered deviant by Malaysia’s religious authorities.
Article 160 of the Constitution defines a “Malay” as, among other things, “a person who professes the religion of Islam.” Bumiputeras, ethnic Malays (in peninsular Malaysia), and indigenous groups (in East Malaysia) represent nearly 70 percent of the population. They are formally and constitutionally defined as ethnically and religiously distinct from other ethnic groups; that is, people of Chinese and Indian origin who adhere mostly to Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, other religions, or no religion.
Non-Malays are free to convert to any religion of their choice, including Islam. In contrast, conversion from Islam by Malay Muslims is deemed apostasy and is formally forbidden. However, reports suggest that a procedure is technically in place whereby Muslims can convert out of Islam via a lengthy process that requires the formal consent of a Shari‘a court in accordance with state Islamic law. This consent, in turn, requires that those wishing to convert spend months in religious “rehabilitation” centres where they are pressured to remain Muslim.
In a series of judgements, civil courts have ruled that apostasy cases must be directed to Shari‘a courts, which, again, must formally consent to any conversion. However, in recent years, civil courts have been able to intervene in cases where there is a strong presumption that the individuals in question were never Muslims in the first place.
In a landmark case in May 2016, a Hindu woman, Indira Gandhi (no relation to the Indian leader), successfully argued before the country’s highest judicial body, the Federal Court, that the attempt by her husband, a former Hindu who converted to Islam, to convert their three children was invalid and therefore they were never Muslims. Consequently, Shari‘a courts lacked any jurisdiction over their religious identity and religious choices. In addition, in 2016, “the High Court of Sarawak permitted Rooney Rebit, a professing Christian, to convert out of Islam…In this particular case, the Court considered the case a constitutional rather than a jurisdictional issue. While acknowledging that the Shari‘a courts had jurisdiction over issues of conversion, the Court argued that it was apparent that Rooney was never a Muslim in the first place (one does not need to practice Islamic law to know that a person does not practice Islam).”
All Muslims in Malaysia are governed by Islamic law through State Islamic enactments, which place all matters of personal law (i.e., marriage, divorce, and inheritance) under the jurisdiction of Islamic or Shari‘a courts. A constitutional provision stipulates that civil courts do not exercise any jurisdiction over matters that fall within the jurisdiction of Shari‘a courts.
Each Malaysian State has its own Islamic authority that governs Muslim affairs in that state. The State Islamic authorities have, to a large extent, side-lined minority forms of Islam through regulations of religious activity. For example, the National Fatwa Council declared Shi‘a Islam deviant in 1996 and banned it outright, despite the fact that Malaysia is home to hundreds of thousands of practising Shi‘as. The federal religious authority, the Department of Islamic Development (JAKIM), along with State Fatwa committees, closely monitor and systematically control all forms and interpretations of Islam in Malaysia. State religious authorities play a supervisory role over mosques, influence the content of sermons, and ensure that the teachings they convey are in line with Sunni orthodoxy as interpreted by the State.
Many Shi‘a Muslim publications remain banned under the Communications and Multimedia Act of 1998. The period since 2015 has witnessed an increase in legal action to “pressure, investigate and/or arrest media outlets, senior editors and individual journalists who had allegedly pushed the boundaries of critical coverage.” Additionally, “proselytising or promoting Shi’a Islam can result in a higher risk of official discrimination, and may include arrest or other forms of harassment by state authorities.” According to the 2022 Annual Report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the religion curriculum for Muslim students aged 16–17 includes material that expressly characterises Shi’a Islam as “deviant” and Sunni Islam as “superior”.
The Printing Presses and Publications Act of 1984 poses problems for non-Muslim groups with respect to the use of the word “God”. According to the law, the word “Allah” (the Arabic term for God) is exclusive to Islam. This has led to the ban of a Malay Bible that uses the word “Allah” for God, and the seizure, in recent years, of more than 20,000 copies that make reference to God as “Allah”.
On 23rd June 2014, the Federal Court of Malaysia refused to hear an appeal brought by the Catholic Church challenging the ban on the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims. According to the Herald Malaysia, a Malaysian Catholic weekly, banning the use of “Allah” by non-Islamic publications is unconstitutional and constitutes a violation of religious freedom. The Appeal Court’s ruling was interpreted by the government to apply only to the Catholic publication in question, even though it set a legal precedent for a comprehensive ban on the usage of the term between non-Muslims. The Court declared that the use of the word “Allah” is not essential or integral to the Christian faith and went on to rule that any non-Muslim religious speech or practice must be tested against its potential to offend Muslims.
On 11th March 2021, Malaysia’s High Court overturned the judgement banning the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims. Justice Nor Bee ruled that the ban was “illegal and unconstitutional” and that “the freedom to profess and practice one’s religion should include the right to own religious materials.”
In Sarawak, the majority of the population is Christian. However, discrimination against certain Christian religious institutions is entrenched in that State. Larger, more well-known Churches are recognised under a Missionary Societies Ordinance (MSO), but smaller Churches in particular face significant difficulty in registering and securing government recognition and support. Additionally, smaller Churches have difficulties when applying for grants from UNIFOR (Unit for Other Religions), a state government agency in Sarawak established in 2017. In September 2020, Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Amar Douglas Uggah reaffirmed the government’s policy that only religious groups registered with the Registrar of Societies (RoS), or the State Missionary Societies Ordinance (MSO), are eligible to receive financial support from UNIFOR.
Incidents and developments
Considerable religious intolerance and hostility continued in Malaysia during the period under review, including against Christians. In April 2021, a book entitled Pendedahan Agenda Kristian (Exposing the Christian Agenda) resurfaced online. Originally published by the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) in 2014, the book labels Christians as enemies of Islam and warns that a “Christian agenda is a highly cunning organised movement that often operates under the radar”.
On 8th September 2021, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) stated that it was glad that four new Shari‘a bills proposed by Deputy Minister UB Ustaz Ahmad Marzuk would not be going forward. For the Minister, they were part of an “empowerment plan” to strengthen Shari‘a laws, but organisations representing minorities like the MCCBCHST and the Archdiocese of Kuching strongly opposed the plan, arguing that these particular bills would go against Malaysia’s constitutional protections of religious freedom.
Rohingya refugees from Myanmar continued to face persecution and hostility amidst widespread xenophobia, with social media stoking “fear of losing jobs to foreigners”.
Malaysia is home to approximately 181,000 refugees and asylum seekers, many of them Rohingya, yet it is not a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Due to the inability of many Rohingya to obtain documents that would give them legal access to social services, they were disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, left without jobs and the means to support themselves. Rohingya women were also often victims of sexual harassment and body shaming.
On 20th April 2022, six Rohingya out of a group of 528 died during a breakout from a temporary detention centre in northern Malaysia. The UNHCR reported that due to the government’s refusal to allow access to immigration detention centres, many vulnerable individuals were left without assistance.
On 4th June 2022, a Malaysian woman named Siti Nuramira was arrested for allegedly insulting Islam under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Federal Territories Act during a performance at a stand-up comedy club. She was released on 19th July 2022, a day before she was supposed to be charged. However, the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) still plans to prosecute her.
In the State of Sabah, experts reported that government officials sometimes arbitrarily change the official religious identity of Christians to Muslims, and Christians have “minimal recourse” when this occurs. Lawyers specialising in religious freedom and human rights report instances where Christians are labelled as Muslims on their ID cards. Experts in Sabah also note that other restrictions have been added during the period under review, including restrictions on Christian proselytising, the Churches’ ability to welcome seekers and inquirers from all backgrounds, and the freedom of Christian students to pray openly in some schools.
Prospects for freedom of religion
Many senior Malaysian leaders, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, continue to be deeply dissatisfied with the country’s oppressive religious and political climate.
Although there have been a few positive developments during the period under review, such as the removal of the ban on the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims and the non-implementation of additional Shari‘a laws that would have obstructed religious freedom for minorities, overall religious restrictions on both Muslims and non-Muslims remain severe, systematic, and widespread. Among many acute problems, Rohingya refugees (who are mostly Muslim) continue to be discriminated against and are systematically denied basic protections and government services.
Additionally, Malaysia’s dual legal system remains largely intact, leaving in place a massive contradiction between a state-enforced ideology of ethno-religious nationalism and the protection of equality and fundamental human rights under the rule of law. The prospects for religious freedom remain negative.
Malaysia