REGULATING RELIGION: Is Malaysia doing it RIGHT?

CONVENTIONAL wisdom has it that to have a peaceful and harmonious society, government should restrict dissent and hateful speech. This is certainly the case in many parts of the world, where laws and policies are created for such a purpose. But has this necessarily worked?

Academic Dr Timothy Shah from the Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, and who leads the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University, believes not.

IDEAS had the privilege of hosting him and another expert on religious diversity recently as part of a tour to meet both government and non-governmental organisations on how unity can best be achieved. Sessions with government representatives were very productive, which was encouraging.

According to time-series research by the Pew Research Center, the higher the level of government restrictions over religion in a particular country, the higher the amount of social hostilities linked to religion. Government restrictions were measured by indicators such as whether religious conversion is allowed, whether there are denouncements on "sects" and so on. Social hostilities were measured by religion-related incidents such as violence motivated by religious hatred, hostility over proselytizing or conversion, and others.

The data shows, for example, that countries which have very high government favouritism of religion have social hostility levels that are five times higher than that of countries without such favouritism. Similarly, countries that had widespread government intimidation of religious groups were almost four times more likely to have high social hostility as opposed to countries without such intimidation.

Although the relationship between government restriction and social hostility may seem counter-intuitive to some, this actually follows logic. The more government regulation there is over society generally, the less space there is for people to develop and express themselves, or exercise creativity and critical-mindedness. Pent-up suppressed emotions tend to lead to more frustration.

The same is true with religion. The more government regulates religion, the more those who fall "outside the box" tend to feel excluded, isolated and disenfranchised from society. This has huge economic impacts, since they are the most likely to leave the country in search of places they feel they can belong to, thereby contributing to further brain drain.

Malaysia happens to fall into the category of "countries with very high restrictions on religion", alongside Myanmar, Tajikistan and Pakistan. Accompanied with a social hostilities index that is on the rise, this is certainly of great concern to policymakers and citizens alike.

The government has responded by setting up the National Unity Consultative Council (NUCC) that has gone on a nationwide roadshow to collate feedback from all walks of life, and this must be commended. But the challenge still remains: what exactly can and should government do to contain social tensions?

Perhaps the right answer, given the research cited above, should actually be: Very little, since the more government intervenes, the worse things get. Having said that, this does not mean that government has absolutely no role to play. Government ought to be an impartial referee that enforces laws and policies equally without fear or favour. In fact, countries were more likely to be socially hostile if the government did not intervene in religious discrimination cases.

There are different country examples that we can refer to, since Malaysia is not the only place where multiple religions and ethnicities co-exist. It seems fairly consistent that in most countries, hate-crimes and incitement to violence are criminalised.

The inconsistency lies in whether or not hate speech is considered illegal. For instance, Belgium, France, and Germany have different variations of laws that penalise hate speech, and many other countries, despite protecting the freedom of speech, would make an exception to statements that threaten to stir up hatred. The US is unique in that it does not prosecute those who incite hatred – the speech would have to be strongly indicative of inciting violence before it is considered criminal.

The thinking behind this is that speech – even if it is hateful – should be given its space to be aired. If one makes illegal any form of speech that, say, "threatens national security", one runs the risk of sliding down the slippery slope to practically silence all forms of speech. And this is where the danger lies, since it is not possible to resolve conflict without the ability to speak openly in dialogue with one another.

Back home, the space for conversation about things we disagree about seems to be fast narrowing. There has been talk of replacing the Sedition Act with a National Harmony Act, and it is positive that the intention is to have a less draconian law to manage ethnic relations.

But one must also caution that the government does not prescribe to its people just how exactly Malaysians should behave with each other, lest it falls into the trap of "more regulation, more social hostility". Instead, the law ought to prevent discrimination by upholding each citizen's rights and enforcing it equally. Such is the rule of law. -Sundaily