Malaysian Court Reserves Decision on Preacher's Appeal Over Minors' Conversion Video

The Court of Appeal will announce its decision at a later date regarding the appeal of preacher Firdaus Wong. The case involves a lawsuit initiated by eight parents concerning a video that allegedly depicted the secret religious conversion of minors. A three-judge panel, led by Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, stated that the court requires time to thoroughly examine the constitutional issues presented before issuing a comprehensive judgment with full grounds.

"After discussing this matter, we realize the heavy burden in making a decision, as this is a very important constitutional issue," said Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan. "And I think it is only fair that we deliver a decision accompanied by full grounds of judgment. So please be patient. We may take some time to make a decision." The court has scheduled an e-review case management for August 27 to set a date for the decision announcement.

Previously, on July 10, 2025, High Court Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh (now a Court of Appeal judge) allowed the originating summons filed by eight non-Muslim parents. The lawsuit pertained to a video uploaded by Firdaus Wong, whose real name is Firdaus Wong Wai Hung, on his TikTok account. The judge declared the video a violation of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution and ordered its deletion from his TikTok and other social media accounts.

Firdaus Wong's legal team argued that an individual cannot sue another solely for alleged violations of constitutional rights, asserting that constitutional rights primarily govern the relationship between citizens and the government, not private actions. They also claimed there was no evidence of a child's religious conversion or a violation of parental constitutional rights. However, the parents' lawyer countered that the High Court's decision was correct, emphasizing the case's focus on parental rights in determining a minor's religion, not solely on religion or Firdaus's role as a preacher. He argued that constitutional rights must be protected, and courts can issue appropriate orders, including the deletion of the video, when these rights are infringed.