[2] Now it is to end. A directive from the office of the armed forces chief has instructed Pernama’s 80-odd outlets to stop selling beer once existing stocks run out.^[1] No reason has been given, but I would not be surprised if the decision were driven by religious considerations.

[3] Non-Muslim soldiers served, bled and died for this country alongside their Muslim comrades. Why should a facility used only by non-Muslims, and harming no one, be quietly withdrawn? Malaysia may be a Muslim-majority country, but that does not mean non-Muslims have no rights. What is forbidden to Muslims cannot simply be denied to everyone else.

[4] On its own, the Pernama decision might seem trivial. But it is part of a steady and unmistakable trend: officials, bureaucrats and politicians extending Islamic norms into the public space and onto the lives of non-Muslims, often without law, debate or explanation.

[5] In 2021, Kuala Lumpur City Hall banned the sale of hard liquor in sundry shops, convenience stores and Chinese medicine halls, despite protests that it infringed on the rights of non-Muslims.^[2] Two years later, City Hall was still insisting the ban stood.^[3]

[6] In 2015, after a row over dress codes at government offices, a mufti suggested that non-Muslims dress “appropriately” out of respect for Muslims.^[4] Today, it has become normal for non-Muslim women to be denied service at government departments unless they cover up, often with a sarong handed to them at the door.

[7] In February 2025, the religious affairs minister announced guidelines that would have required organisers of non-Muslim celebrations and funerals attended by Muslims to seek the views of Islamic authorities. The idea was shelved only after the Sultan of Selangor intervened.^[5]

[8] In October 2025, the prime minister himself issued a “stern warning” to the tourism minister after wine and beer were served at a Global Travel Meet dinner – one the minister insisted was hosted by private industry players.^[6] And when Christmas comes around, some religious official will inevitably make a fuss about whether halal-certified restaurants are permitted to display Christmas decorations.^[7]

[9] Each incident is invariably dismissed as an isolated misunderstanding. Taken together, they tell a different story – of creeping Islamisation, where someone, somewhere decides that his personal vision of what Malaysia should look like must apply to all.

[10] None of this happened overnight. In September 2001, when then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad declared Malaysia an Islamic state^[8] – a declaration with no basis in the Constitution – non-Muslim leaders in his government kept quiet. Their silence laid the groundwork for much of what we are witnessing today.

[11] The Constitution is clear. Article 3 makes Islam the religion of the Federation but guarantees that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. Articles 8 and 11 guarantee equality before the law and freedom of religion. Nowhere does it authorise the state to impose the religious obligations or values of one community on another. Nor does it demand that respect and tolerance be reserved for one community alone.

[12] Non-Muslims are frequently warned not to touch on Islamic matters. But this is not about Islam; it is about our constitutional rights. And every time we keep quiet, those rights are eroded a little more.

[13] Which brings us to the most troubling question of all: where are the politicians who swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? Where are the non-Muslim parties in government that once loudly championed minority rights? Too often they fall silent, fearful of being labelled anti-Islam or anxious not to upset their coalition partners.

[14] Silence is not neutrality. It is acquiescence, and acquiescence only invites further encroachment. It is incumbent upon our leaders – and upon ordinary Malaysians – to stand up for the rights the Constitution guarantees.

[15] It is time for an honest national conversation about the rights of non-Muslims in the public square – not as favours to be granted or withdrawn at the whim of officials, but as constitutional entitlements. If we do not have that conversation now, we may soon find there is very little left to talk about.