KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA – A Malaysian cabinet minister’s claim that work stress can help cause LGBT lives triggered a wave of public criticism and concern from rights advocates.
Minister’s written reply links work stress to LGBT behavior
In a written response to parliament, Dr. Zulkifli Hasan, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Office responsible for religious affairs, drew a connection between workplace pressure and what he described as “LGBT-related behavior.” He wrote that possible causes included “social influence, sexual experiences, work stress and other personal factors,” and also cited weak religious practice as another factor.
Parliamentary question on LGBT trends
The remarks were made in the context of a parliamentary question on LGBT trends in the country, where lawmakers had requested information on age, ethnicity and possible triggers for such behavior. The answer was addressed to opposition lawmaker Siti Zailah Mohd Yusoff of the Islamist PAS party, who had asked about the background and development of these trends.
Criticism, ridicule and human rights concerns
The minister’s statements prompted strong reactions from the public as well as from legal and human rights groups, which rejected his claims in social media posts and formal responses, in some cases openly mocking them. Critics warned that such assertions could reinforce prejudice and be used to justify restrictive measures against sexual minorities.
Restrictive legal framework and recorded cases
Same-sex relationships remained criminalized in Malaysia, and the comments reignited an already heated debate over how the state dealt with LGBT people. Zulkifli stated that between 2022 and 2025, 135 cases of arrests or prosecutions related to LGBT activities had been recorded, figures that human rights organizations viewed as evidence of continued pressure on those affected.
Debate on state responsibility and workplace stigma
The controversy raised questions about the role of state institutions in addressing sexual diversity, particularly the characterization of mental strain at work and supposedly weak religiosity as drivers of LGBT lives. Observers argued that this line of reasoning problematically linked the world of work and religious practice with the criminalization of minorities.
Opinionated reactions highlight broader concerns
Some responses went beyond legal and political criticism to question the underlying assumptions about sexual orientation and identity. One commentator framed the issue as a broader problem of governance, arguing that the key concern was not why people are LGBT but why governments still felt compelled to explain who was allowed to be who they are.
“The statements seem less like policy and more like a textbook example of how prejudice is sold as morality.”
said an unnamed commentator, reflecting the tone of critical opinion pieces.
“The real question is not why people are LGBT, but why governments in 2026 still believe they need to explain who is allowed to be who they are.”
said the same commentator, underscoring ongoing tensions over state attitudes to sexual minorities.