You can’t ban layman talk on religion, lawyers tell IGP

Tuesday, 24 March 2015 12:26pm

©Malay Mail (Used by permission) by JOSEPH SIPALAN KUALA LUMPUR, March 24 — Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar’s attempt to stop non-expert discourse on religious matters has no legal basis, lawyers said, pointing out that police powers are entirely dictated by the laws they enforce. Such ad hoc prohibition, they said, would never work as existing laws do not criminalise layman talk on religion. “Criminal laws, such as the Penal Code, do not make it an offence for non-experts (in the words of the IGP) to comment on religion,” civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan told Malay Mail Online when contacted. “This is a new threshold of standard which the IGP has come out with which has no basis in law,” he added. On Sunday, Khalid said on microblogging site Twitter that police will probe those who publicly issue comments on sensitive religious matters if they are not experts on the subject, stressing that the police have “no choice” but to do so. His post followed an earlier announcement that police will investigate business radio station BFM and its presenter Aisyah Tajuddin over a satirical video criticising PAS’ implementation of hudud in Kelantan. The video — which was posted on BFM’s website and YouTube channel —sparked uproar with some commenters allegedly issuing rape and death threats against Aisyah. The video has since been taken down on both sites, and both BFM and Aisyah have publicly apologised. Syahredzan claimed that there is a “deliberate blurring of lines” between criticism of law such as the Kelantan State shariah enactment — which was amended last week to pave way for hudud implementation in the state — and criticism of the religion. He argued that there has yet to be a clear case where comments on the hudud issue were aimed at the religion; instead, the criticism was directed at PAS’ attempts to legislate hudud in Kelantan. “Criticising a law, whether it is a shariah law or not, is well within the ambit of legitimate criticism protected by our Federal Constitution. It should not be equated as criticising the religion itself,” he said. Civil liberties lawyer New Sin Yew stressed that an offence must first be committed before either the police or religious authorities like the Malaysian Islamic Development Department can take action, “otherwise, they’re acting unlawfully”. He also questioned Khalid’s credentials in determining who is qualified to publicly speak on religious issues, noting that it would take an expert to be able to come to such a conclusion. “I think Khalid has absolutely no right in preventing debates on religion; he has overreached his powers. “There is absolutely nothing in any laws or the Federal Constitution permitting only experts to debate on religion,” he said. Human rights lawyer Andrew Khoo concurred that there is no law in the country that expressly states that only “experts” can comment on religious issues. He added that the so-called ban should not have any effect on parliamentary immunity of MPs who intend to debate hudud, should the Dewan Rakyat decide to allow two private members’ bills on the matter to be tabled. “There should be opportunities and also safe spaces for these issues to be discussed. It cannot be  that a discussion of these issues is out of bounds to ordinary or so-called ‘lay’ persons. “These issues affect all Malaysians, not just Muslims, because it affects the direction of where our country is heading,” Khoo said.