Malaysia is not supposed to offer religious equality

MALAYSIA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO OFFER RELIGIOUS EQUALITY 

/ a review of legal and emotional structures /

For education's sake, let's look at the Malaysian constitutionality of the issue.  

1.

Article 11.4. delegates to EACH STATE the power to restrict any non-Muslim religion NM, from proselytisng to Muslims M. 

1.1. EACH STATE has in the 1970s, subscribed to a CIVIL LAW framework called the EUBI or Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam. This variously includes the arrest without warrant, and detention without trial, of NM who do things such as talk to M about other religions, or who use certain words legislated as exclusive to M.

1.2. You can Google the exact text of these laws. Because we have a poor legal rigour about precision of all law writing and enforcement in general, some of this contradicts with the practice of allowing, for example, other religions to use the word Allah. It's a broad and messy landscape, which politicians are incentivised to "avoid tidying up".

2.

Article 160.2. defines what a Malay person is. This includes professing Islam. Famously pivotal. I call this, with respect, "kedukaan sebangsa Malaysia" , because its adjacent articles have led to 70 years of violent and inefficient manipulation by politicians. 

2.1. The result of articles 11.4 and 160.2 combined : MANY citizens of Malaysia view inequality of religious rights as a core element of Malaysia's federal identity. To them, any discourse about making such inequality into an equality of rights, is TREASON against the implicit values expressed by the explicit text of the constitution. 

2.2. So people like Ronnie are, with some awareness of the environment, taking a risk by raising such issues. This is a political decision, within present environmental conditions. As environments change, such discussions are more or less politically risky. Right now, they remain quite risky.

3.

The risk is less one of breaking the law, and more one of scaring and angering the sorts of citizens who feel that their values are being threatened. The constitution itself does not forbid proselytism to M by NM, leaving it to the states. The state laws may of course be challenged for constitutionality in the future. 

3.1. The risk of raising the issues comes with opportunity for the following sort of strategic nuance. Using the current concern as an example, 

/ WHAT TO DO /

3.2.a. NM must succinctly express their concerns, citing constitutional articles, about where NM rights are being infringed. 

3.2.b. NM must avoid placing blame on rights constitutionally granted to M. 

4.

In order to do this, it would seem that Malaysian politicians should consult with both lawyers and public relations specialists before making public statements. But perhaps this is expecting too much from politicians.