My name is Andrew Khoo. I am a lawyer practising in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. My 

practice focuses mainly on human rights and constitutional law issues in Malaysia, 

and in particular on freedom of religion or belief. I Co-Chair the Malaysian Bar 

Council’s Constitutional Law Committee, and also act as a consultant and advisor to 

several non-governmental organisations. However I speak here today in my individual 

capacity.

On 11 January 2024, Turkish academic Dr. Ahmet T. Kuru, who is a professor of 

political science and Director of the Center for Islamic and Arabic Studies at San Diego 

State University, claimed that he was approached by police officers, interviewed, and 

threatened with arrest as a terrorist as he waited to board a plane from Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia to Lahore, Pakistan. Dr. Kuru had been in Malaysia at the invitation of a nongovernmental organisation called Islamic Renaissance Front (”IRF”) to launch a Malay

language translation of his 2019 book “Islam, Authoritarianism, and 

Underdevelopment: A Global and Historical Comparison”, which had been translated 

and published by IRF. He spoke at several events, and was scheduled to launch his 

book at an Islamic institute associated with a leading local public university. This 

however was cancelled by the institute at the last minute. A substitute launch had to 

be put together at a private university. For the record, the Malaysian police have 

denied that Dr. Kuru was under any investigation and refute his allegation that he was 

approached by police officers.

(See https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/01/11/us-scholarclaims-he-feared-arrest-at-klia/)

On 17 January 2024, a Malaysian film producer Tan Meng Kheng and a Malaysian 

film director Khairi Anwar Jailani, were charged in separate courts for “hurting religious 

feelings” in contravention of Section 298 of the Malaysian Penal Code. Both men were 

released on bail and were made subject to a “gag” order not to make any comments 

about the case. They were charged for having produced, written and directed a movie 

entitled ‘Mentega Terbang’ (literally ‘Butter Fly’), which revolved around a Muslim 

female teenager seeking to understand what other religions believed about death and 

whether there was life thereafter, as she faced the impending death of her mother from 

cancer. The movie had been released in 2021 and had earned several awards at 

international film festivals without incident. However, when in February 2023 a local 

blogger drew attention to the existence of the movie, the director and several of the 

actors became the subject of investigations by either or both secular and Islamic 

religious authorities. The director and one of the actors received death threats, and 

that actor had acid thrown at his car. The perpetrators have not been identified. 

(See https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/01/17/039mentega-terbang039-

director-producer-claim-trial-to-charge-of-hurting-religious-feelings)

On 8 January 2024 it was reported by several local online news portals that a popular 

Muslim religious teacher in Malaysia by the name of Azhar Idrus had pronounced that 

it was prohibited by the teachings of the religion of Islam, or ‘haram’, for postpubescent persons to go to bed with teddy bears or other such stuffed toys.

(See https://www.nst.com.my/amp/news/nation/2024/01/998756/it-haram-sleepteddy-bears-dolls-says-ustaz-azhar-idrus-)
I mention these three incidents as they represent, in my opinion, the state of religious 

freedom in Malaysia, and are also reflective of the infiltration of certain negative 

international authoritarian trends into the Malaysian religious freedom landscape.

The first is an institutionalised intolerance of views that run contrary to the accepted 

religious and/or ideological position of the state, in countries where the state is neither 

secular nor agnostic. The views may not necessarily be heretical, nor need they be 

unorthodox. However they directly or impliedly cast existing religious or non-secular,

or ideological, regimes in these countries as somehow compromised and corrupted 

by the desire of political elites to hold on to political power by the control of what can 

and cannot be accepted. Malaysia has in the past, for example, deported/refouled

émigré Uyghurs back to China, liberal Muslims back to Saudi Arabia, and alleged 

Gulenists back to Turkey. We have also had four domestic instances of the enforced 

disappearance of three Christian pastors and one Shia-Muslim religious activist.

The second is the increasing resort to the criminalisation of religious free speech and 

expression in the guise of preventing anticipated or actual breaches of the peace, 

disruptions in public order, or direct threats to national security. Freedom of religion 

or belief is not acceptable when the status quo is deemed to be threatened. This is 

assisted in certain circumstances by a less than independent judiciary that has all too 

easily surrendered its role as a protector of the fundamental liberties under a 

constitution and legitimised such arbitrary detentions in the name of safeguarding and 

preserving the peace, often overlooking the loss of any due process rights in the 

course of detention, investigation and prosecution. Again, we do not have to look too 

far in our region for examples of where this kind of state action has been conducted.

The third is the reluctance or failure by governments and others in authority to prevent 

and counter extremism before it becomes violent. Extreme conservative 

interpretations of religious texts are seldom challenged in public. Wild and unfounded 

allegations against minority religions by those who claim to speak on behalf of the 

majority religion go unchallenged and unstopped. Whereas even mild comments 

touching on the majority religion result in accusations of “hurting religious feelings” or 

“stepping on religious sensitivities” and invite the heavy-handed invocation of the 

entire machinery of government to enforce the law which prohibits the same. Such an 

asynchronistic application of the law breeds a sense of impunity and immunity 

amongst those who claim to speak on behalf of the majoritarian religion or ideology, 

and creates a climate of fear and self-censorship amongst those who do not share the 

majoritarian view.

The net result of all of the above is a rapidly narrowing safe space for honest 

conversations and public dialogues about religions, and the closing of the minds of 

people towards inter-religious acceptance. Diversity is not so much accepted as 

tolerated, but only so long as the peace and harmony of the adherents of the majority 

religion or ideology is not disturbed or overly-fragile sensitivities not hurt. 

State secular and religious authorities may benefit from greater exposure, via peopleto-people contact between the United States and Malaysia, to multi-religious 

communities that can peacefully co-exist and practise respect for and acceptance of 

religious diversity, and inter-faith activities that demonstrably exhibit shared values.