THE media reported that Bukit Aman is investigating Ipoh Timor MP Howard Lee for allegedly making his own interpretations of verses from the Quran.
The investigation is in relation to two police reports respectively lodged against him at Jalan Tun Razak (police station) and in Perak and is being undertaken by Bukit Aman’s Classified Crime Investigation Unit.
Howard is being accused of insulting Islam by some PAS leaders for misinterpreting the Quranic verse from surah Al-Nisa’ (4:59).
This article is never intended to support either Howard or PAS. The writer is only interested in ventilating this issue through the lens of law.
Since two police reports have been made against Howard the police have no alternative but to open the “IP” (an investigation paper) and in turn to carry out the necessary investigation against Howard.
The very idea of any police investigation is primarily to find out whether any crime has been duly committed. In order to determine whether any crime has been duly and properly perpetrated, the investigator must be able to fully understand and comprehend the issue at hand.
The issue at hand entails an allegation made by some leaders from PAS that an MP from DAP has made a statement purportedly insulting and smearing the religion of Islam by “interpreting” the Quranic verse in his TikTok posting.
It goes without saying that to determine whether the statement made by Howard is tantamount to insulting Islam would entail the necessary comprehension of Islam and the Quran on the part of the investigating agency, namely the police force.
Is our police force clothed with such a necessary expertise? To begin with, Horward is a non-Muslim and the matter at issue has to do with Islam, which falls squarely under the jurisdiction of a state.
Constitutionally speaking the police, with due respect, have no business at all to deal with any Islamic-related issues. Such issues are simply beyond the purview of police work – period.
Therefore, such issues should be properly handled by the religious department in the state. The lingering dilemma of this case is that Howard – being a non-muslim – is not beholden to any Islamic authority.
Hence the issue seems to revolve around politics rather than law let alone criminal law.
But the police may argue that it has the power to investigate the case under the Sedition Act or the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) respectively. A quite fair proposition but it still does not solve the problem.
Anyway, the end result of any investigation would be a prosecution of crime. And the ultimate aim of any criminal prosecution would be to secure conviction. Otherwise, it would be a waste of huge amounts of time for everybody and public funds too.
And to secure a conviction, the prosecution badly needs a top-notch investigation. If the police are not equipped with the necessary expertise to investigate any Islam-related matter, it would be preposterous to expect our police force to carry out a splendid investigation on this case.
As far as criminal law is concerned, the rule of the game would be “investigate first and then prosecute” and not the other way around. The nation definitely does not want “Zahid’s tragedy” to recur in our criminal law system whereby the rule has been unduly reversed i.e.”prosecute first and investigate later!”
It is high time, perhaps, for Malaysian politics to be defined by a new political culture. – September 23, 2023
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is former deputy law minister and a former Sepang MP. He was also a lawyer.