Dennis Ignatius
~ Provoking discussion, dissent & debate on politics, diplomacy, human rights & civil society.
Article 3 Is Not A Licence To Discriminate And Intimidate
29MondayJun 2026
Posted in Multiculturalism, Politics, religious freedom
[1] The Selangor state government recently revised its guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship, removing some of its most discriminatory regulations. It was long overdue.
[2] As expected, PAS and various Muslim NGOs were quick to protest. PAS information chief Fadhli Shaari invoked Article 3 — Islam as the religion of the Federation — to justify his opposition. Others piled on: Why provide land for non-Muslim houses of worship when Islamic institutions aren’t given equal emphasis? Why prioritise this when affordable housing, road congestion and lack of schools remain unresolved?
[3] These objections are risible — and contemptuous of the Constitution itself. What those invoking Article 3 conveniently ignore is that the very same article which declares Islam the religion of the Federation immediately adds: “but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” Article 11 reinforces this further, explicitly guaranteeing freedom of religion — including the right to build houses of worship. Read together, Articles 3 and 11 make one thing abundantly clear: the recognition of Islam as the religion of the Federation was never intended — and cannot be used — as a constitutional basis for discriminating against, or subordinating, other faiths.
[4] The Constitution treats all religions with respect, dignity and equal standing before the law. Anyone who uses Article 3 to harass non-Muslim communities, obstruct the building of temples and churches, or brand minority faiths as undeserving of government support is not defending the Constitution — they are betraying it. It is bigotry dressed up in legal language.
[5] As well, the claim that Islamic institutions are neglected is both disingenuous and misleading. The federal government alone allocated RM2.6 billion for Islamic development in Budget 2026 — the highest in history — with state religious department budgets adding significantly more. Non-Muslim religious institutions receive no equivalent budget line; only sporadic, discretionary allocations. The disparity is a matter of public record, and those making the neglect argument know it, but facts are inconvenient when the goal is to incite.
[6] As for affordable housing, road congestion and lack of schools — these are legitimate concerns but they have nothing to do with whether non-Muslims are entitled to build houses of worship. The Constitution does not require minorities to wait until every other policy problem is resolved before non-Muslim religious groups can be treated with fairness and dignity.
[7] Article 3 does not make Malaysia an Islamic state, however often the claim is repeated. As Tunku Abdul Rahman declared during the constitutional debates in 1958: “This country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood; we merely provided that Islam shall be the official religion of the State.” That was the constitutional understanding of Malaysia’s founding generation and remained the official position of the first three prime ministers. Mahathir’s later Islamic state declaration may have been politically expedient but remains constitutionally irrelevant.
[8] Fadhli also asks what the “pressing need” is for Selangor’s revised guidelines. The answer is obvious to anyone who has watched non-Muslim communities spend years — sometimes decades — applying to build a temple or a church, only to be denied, delayed or shouted down. The Church of the Divine Mercy in Shah Alam waited nearly three decades, from its initial land application in 1977 to its opening in 2005 — a saga of bureaucratic obstruction, repeated site changes and organised opposition. It is not an isolated case. It is the norm.
[9] The Selangor guidelines are not an attack on Islam. No mosque is being demolished. No Muslim right is being curtailed. The state is doing its job: governing for all its citizens, not just some of them. That this is even controversial tells you how far things have gone.
[10] The threat to religious freedom is real and growing. It is rooted in a deep-seated intolerance towards other faiths that has been allowed to fester for decades and is now reflected in the conduct of public institutions. Radical preachers and activists routinely demean other religions with impunity, while the authorities who would act swiftly if the target were Islam look the other way. The enforced disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and others remains a chilling reminder of how vulnerable religious minorities have become. These are not isolated abuses. They are the consequence of a sustained distortion of the Constitution to legitimise discrimination and unequal treatment. If Article 3 continues to be weaponised against the very religious freedoms the Constitution was designed to protect, it is not only non-Muslims who will lose. It is the Constitution itself – and with it, the idea of Malaysia as a nation governed by law rather than prejudice.
Dennis Ignatius | Kuala Lumpur | Monday 29 June 2026
