Every Malaysian knows the Rukun Negara. We grew up reciting it at assembly every Monday, right hand raised, pledging five principles before the school week began. For most of us, it became routine. But the words we spoke carry weight, and two of them speak directly to what I have experienced over the past eight years.

The third principle, Keluhuran Perlembagaan – affirms the supremacy of the Constitution.

The fourth principle, Kedaulatan Undang-Undang – affirms the Rule of Law.

These are not aspirations. They are pledges. And the Rukun Negara’s own explanation of Kedaulatan Undang-Undang is clear – justice is founded on the rule of law; every citizen’s standing is equal before the law; and fundamental liberties, including freedom of religion, are guaranteed for all.

“Keadilan diasaskan atas kedaulatan undang-undang. Setiap rakyat tarafnya sama di sisi undang-undang. Kebebasan asasi terjamin bagi semua warganegara. Kebebasan ini termasuklah kebebasan seseorang, perlindungan sama di sisi undang-undang, kebebasan beragama…”

The full text of the Rukun Negara, including its explanation of each principle, is publicly available through the National Archives of Malaysia (see Arkib Negara).

What the Rule of Law Means

The rule of law is one of the first doctrines every Malaysian law student encounters. At its core, it stands for a few fundamental ideas: the law must apply equally to everyone; no one should be deprived of their rights without lawful justification; justice must be accessible and not prohibitively costly; courts must be impartial; and the state itself is bound by its own laws.

These are not foreign imports. They are embedded in our Federal Constitution. Article 4(1) establishes constitutional supremacy – the Constitution is the supreme law, and any law inconsistent with it is void. Article 8(1) guarantees equality before the law. Article 5(1) protects personal liberty, which the courts in Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan [1996] have interpreted to include the right to livelihood and quality of life. And Article 11(1) guarantees that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion.

Islam in the Constitution

I want to be clear, I respect that Islam holds a special position in our constitutional framework. Article 3(1) establishes Islam as the religion of the Federation, and the Ninth Schedule grants state legislatures power to administer Islamic personal law and to create offences against the precepts of Islam. These provisions reflect the history and identity of this nation, and I do not seek to diminish them. Indeed, the Rukun Negara’s own explanation of the first principle – Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan – acknowledges this while also stating clearly – other religions may be practised in peace and harmony, and discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion is prohibited.

“Ugama-ugama dan kepercayaan-kepercayaan lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan tenteram dan tindakan membeza-bezakan terhadap sa-saorang warganegara atas alasan ugama adalah dilarang”

(see Arkib Negara)

What the Constitution also makes clear, however, is that this position exists within a broader framework of rights and protections that apply to everyone. As the Federal Court affirmed in Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988], Article 3 does not override the other provisions of the Constitution, including the fundamental liberties guaranteed under Part II. The Constitution grants power and sets limits – and it is designed to be read as a whole.

At the Regional Southeast Asia Human Dignity Conference in 2024, I had the privilege of hearing Sultan Nazrin Shah – who at the time served as Chairman of the National Council of Islamic Religious Affairs (MKI) – speak about dignity, inclusion, and the value of every human life. His Royal Highness declared that Malaysians of all races, religions, and geographic locations must believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have a place under the Malaysian sun, and that everyone, regardless of faith and background, deserves to feel safe, respected, and included.

These are the words of a Ruler and they give me confidence that the values of fairness and dignity are not in tension with Islam – they are championed by those at the highest level of Islamic leadership in Malaysia.

Watch His Royal Highness’ speech here:

How My Experience Tests These Principles

If the rule of law means that justice must be accessible, then a process that costs between RM10,000 and RM180,000 in legal fees – just to exercise a right the Constitution guarantees – raises a serious question about who can afford fundamental liberty.

If the rule of law means that the law must apply equally, then the contrast I have witnessed is difficult to reconcile. My wife changed her religious status at the National Registration Department in half a day, for approximately RM10. I have spent eight years and thousands of ringgit in the Syariah Court and still have no resolution. The same constitutional right – professed differently, administered worlds apart.

If the rule of law means that courts must be impartial, then a system in which all court personnel – including the presiding judge and the lawyers permitted to practise before it – profess the same faith, and where the doctrinal position of that faith is against the very outcome I seek, must at least invite the question of whether impartiality can be fully assured.

If the rule of law means that the state is bound by its own laws, then the defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s own deadline – submitting the counselling report six days late, with no consequence – while my application was rejected, suggests that compliance is expected of only one party.

And if the rule of law means that no one should be deprived of their rights without lawful justification, then ordering a person to undergo 60 sessions of compulsory counselling – after seven years of proceedings, a baptism certificate, and three witnesses testifying to a different faith – raises the question of what would constitute sufficient evidence.

In Minister for Home Affairs v Jamaluddin bin Othman [1989], the Supreme Court at the time held that the freedom to profess and practise one’s religion guaranteed under Article 11 must be given effect, and that any act by the state that restricts that freedom would be inconsistent with the Constitution. The court affirmed that this protection goes well beyond what can normally be regarded as professing and practising one’s religion.

My case has now lasted eight years. The question I ask is whether the process I have been put through reflects the principles that the Constitution enshrines and that the Rukun Negara pledges.

The Pledge We Made

The Rukun Negara was born in 1970 out of a desire for national unity after the events of 13 May 1969. It envisions a society that is democratic, just, liberal, and progressive – one where members are free to practise their respective religions, customs, and cultures.

I believe in that vision. I believe in this country. And I believe that asking whether the rule of law has been upheld in my case is not an act of defiance – it is an act of loyalty to the Constitution, to the Rulers who champion human dignity, and to the pledge that every Malaysian has spoken aloud since childhood.

Kedaulatan Undang-Undang. The rule of law. It is not just a principle to be recited. It is a promise to be kept.

This article was originally published on Buy Me a Coffee.