No laughing matter - laws not applied equally

 

I am confused. But not as gravely as certain sections of our community who supposedly get confused seeing anything resembling a cross, and that includes air-wells and lights in buildings.

At the outset, to prevent any confusion among the populace, I have to categorically state that I am not insinuating, let alone accusing, anyone of wrongdoing or favouritism. I also concede the attorney-general (AG) has the absolute discretion to prosecute anyone for any breach of the law.

Why the confusion? On Wednesday, a woman was charged for causing disharmony, disunity, enmity, hatred, and ill-will on the grounds of religion between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions.

To put matters in the right perspective, she was charged under Section 298A of the Penal Code, which states:

(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner:

(a) Causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will; or

(b) Prejudices, or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years.

Having read and re-read the above, it is obvious that this clause does not state any specific religion(s). It is applicable to all and sundry.

The phrase “by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations” is meant to include posts on social media, including YouTube and TikTok.

The people must be grateful such laws are in place to prevent all kinds of labels being affixed on one set of people or individuals and groups being chastised or reprimanded for being a follower of any religion. This would certainly bring about disharmony and ill-will among the people.

Unwilling to prosecute

But what would happen if someone goes up on stage clad in a veshti (a type of sarong) and a thalapa (a type of headgear)? He then takes off the veshti and his jippa (a loose shirt) and thalapa to reveal his sports shorts and a singlet.

This is not splitting hairs but seeking clarity on what is deemed to be “causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred”.

This question has to be addressed because the AG “was unwilling” to prosecute two preachers who allegedly insulted various religions.

On April 12, two individuals filed an application for a judicial review to challenge the AG’s decision.

In dismissing the application, High Court judge Wan Ahmad Farid said that the petitioners had failed to prove mala fide (bad faith) on the part of the AG in his decision not to prosecute the alleged offenders.

“However, I concur that the petitioners have locus standi on the case as per the videos and other materials provided as proof of evidence,” the judge was quoted as saying.

The application was filed after deputy public prosecutor Ainul Amirah had previously told the magistrate’s court that the AG had no plans to prosecute the duo.

Ainul added that the AG was unwilling to prosecute the preachers as police had classified their cases as “no further action”.

Law must be applied equally

This is where the confusion lies. Why did the police classify the above case as such?

Investigations would have revealed that all ingredients required to prosecute were submitted to the police, including copies of the videos, the posts on social media and other documents.

This will again cause confusion as to why certain individuals are allowed to criticise, berate and rebuke followers of other faiths with impunity in breach of Section 298B?

The police and the AG have a duty to inform the public why they had not proceeded with the case, lest they cause further confusion among the public.

This will immediately bring about the cessation of accusations and speculations that there are different sets of laws and norms for different sections of the community.

They have previously explained their stand in several other cases, and hence, there are precedents which can be followed.

“No one is above the law” may be an overused phrase, but surely the law has to be applied equally and fairly to everyone – preachers included.

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread and butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com. - Mkini