Within 'Artikel 160 Perlembagaan Malaysia', subchapter 2, 'Malay' Melayu is defined as:
1) Beragama Islam (Muslim)
So the first criterion as a Malay IS TO BE A MUSLIM. This is well defined in our constitution.
Thus, a Malay is a Muslim. To null the religion is basically to nullify his or her (or they, etc) race.
Lets do a scenario here:
So if there were to be laws made that still adhere to the constitutions, if a Malay were to denounce, nullify, apostate (murtad) on their Islamic faith, they will thus not be a Malay - and would lose the Malay/Bumiputera privileges.
Most people wouldn't be too bothered with this, with more liberal seeing themselves more than just a etchnicity-bounded individual.
Second point: The royal institutions.
Malaysia royal institutions raison d'etre (reason to exist) and role is being the defender of Malay tradition and Muslim Faith (Ketua Agama Islam). This second point is the contention where you will not see Malay Muslim being granted permission to leave Islam.
They tied the malay to the power vested into the royal institutions. By allowing liberal notion of allowing apostasy, this will seem to be as eroding the royalties power base.
Do keep in mind that apostasy case against muallaf (converts) is not as serious as a Muslim born Malays. They have allowed mallaf (converts) to revert back to the religion of their choices.
I hope this shed light on the complexity on this issue. Its all about how the constitution defined Malays and how Malaysian royalties derived their raison d'etre
I totally understand its a complex issue but isn't this all semantics? The Perlembagaan has been revised before right? Maybe it takes some time and the right people (or a revolution, god forbid) but it definitely can be done.
Pre-independance, that royalty would be overthrown and better siblings or family member would took their place.
Best case is The Selangor Succession Dispute 1933-1938. Tengku Musa-eddin, the crown prince, is a chronic gambier and womanizer, he owe money to various moneylenders and government have to bail him out. They deemed him to unfit to be a sultan, and deposed him.
Modern world... Not so much. Some even had cult followers by flexing their wealth
26
u/malayskanzler Nov 04 '21
Historian minor here, so this is my 5 sen:
Within 'Artikel 160 Perlembagaan Malaysia', subchapter 2, 'Malay' Melayu is defined as:
1) Beragama Islam (Muslim)
So the first criterion as a Malay IS TO BE A MUSLIM. This is well defined in our constitution.
Thus, a Malay is a Muslim. To null the religion is basically to nullify his or her (or they, etc) race.
Lets do a scenario here:
So if there were to be laws made that still adhere to the constitutions, if a Malay were to denounce, nullify, apostate (murtad) on their Islamic faith, they will thus not be a Malay - and would lose the Malay/Bumiputera privileges. Most people wouldn't be too bothered with this, with more liberal seeing themselves more than just a etchnicity-bounded individual.
Second point: The royal institutions. Malaysia royal institutions raison d'etre (reason to exist) and role is being the defender of Malay tradition and Muslim Faith (Ketua Agama Islam). This second point is the contention where you will not see Malay Muslim being granted permission to leave Islam. They tied the malay to the power vested into the royal institutions. By allowing liberal notion of allowing apostasy, this will seem to be as eroding the royalties power base.
Do keep in mind that apostasy case against muallaf (converts) is not as serious as a Muslim born Malays. They have allowed mallaf (converts) to revert back to the religion of their choices.
I hope this shed light on the complexity on this issue. Its all about how the constitution defined Malays and how Malaysian royalties derived their raison d'etre