On Jan 12, police raided the settlement of the New Testament Church at Bukit Markisa, Perak. The Christian sect which originated from Taiwan had established a private retreat centre near the hill resort of Cameron Highlands for its members. Two days earlier, the Malay-language press had highlighted the neighbourhood residents' complaints of a "mysterious village" there.

The police action on the settlement raised a number of disturbing issues.

Firstly, can there be any justification in the police carrying out raids on peaceful religious groups in their lawful premises? The right to religion and its practice is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution; Article 3 declares that while Islam is the religion of the country, "other religions may be practised in peace and harmony".

Thus the peaceful and harmonious practice of religion is permitted and encouraged by the Constitution. If this is the case, it is then the duty of the government, including the police, to not only respect but also to protect religious groups who carry out their religion in a peaceful manner.

Raid without ground

What is disturbing is that the police carried out the raid despite having full knowledge that there were no unlawful or harmful activities carried out by the church. On Jan 11, Inspector-General of Police Norian Mai explained that the so-called "mystery village" in Bukit Markisa was a legal church settlement, that it posed no threat to national security and that it had no links to any deviationist group. He also said that police had been monitoring the settlement since 1994 and knew about its history.

Yet, the very next day, police raided the settlement by cutting locks of the front gate and then breaking locks to enter the rooms of settlers. The fact that no one was arrested or that nothing was seized showed that what the IGP said the previous day about the settlement was correct.

To justify the raid, the IGP said the raid will once and for all put an end to all allegations made against the church. Does this mean that the police action against the settlement was carried out in order to appease certain parties? Will this case serve as a precedent such that each time some parties make allegations against a religious group, the police will carry out a raid on the religious group to shut up the complaining parties?

The police must respect the sanctity of religious premises. Article 11(3) of the Constitution states that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs and to establish its own institutions for religious purposes. Thus, places of worship, religious schools and religious retreats together with the religious activities that take place there are permitted by the law.

Article 11(5) does not permit religious groups to do any act contrary to laws relating to public order, public health and morality. This means that the police should only enter religious premises if they have suspicions that specific criminal acts are being committed on religious premises. In the Bukit Markisa incident, the IGP in his statement made the day before the raid made it very clear that the police believed that there was nothing criminal going on in the settlement.

Secondly, if the police are carrying out an investigation on a religious group what procedures should they follow? Is a surprise raid the first option? In commercial crimes involving companies and businesses, the police normally interview the company directors or manager to get information before they come in to raid the company. The obvious procedure is to get your facts in an amicable and peaceful way first. Is there any good reason why this procedure should not be followed in respect of investigations of religious groups?

Wisdom of dialogue

A better course would have been for the police to call in the leaders of the settlement for a dialogue. The wisdom of this is as follows. Each religious group has its own religious outlook and their own reasons for doing what they do. It is quite unusual for outsiders to fully understand or to appreciate their beliefs or actions. It is very unlikely that the police has a full understanding of all the beliefs, practices and customs of the many religious groups that exist in Malaysia.

Thus, if there is a complaint made against a religious group, the police should first seek to understand the religious group they are investigating. This can be best achieved by calling for a dialogue with the leaders of the religious groups. Commando-style operations should be the last resort and only if there is suspicion of criminal acts being committed.

The police must be committed to this friendly approach in order to allay the fears of religious groups which have resulted from the Bukit Markisa incident. No church or temple wants to operate under the constant fear that they will be raided just because some members of the public do not understand their activities and have complained to the authorities.

Thirdly, is there a need to regulate religious groups? Following upon the Bukit Markisa incident, a former preacher has suggested that a law should be enacted to govern religious groups, in particular Christian groups. He seemed to find as objectionable certain aspects of the New Testament Church's practices, e.g. what seemed to him to be its closed-door approach and its lack of accountability.

Article 11(3) permits every religious group the right to manage its own religious affairs. This means that the law respects the independence of a religious group. This is pragmatic as each religious group, even within the same broad religion, has its own distinctive beliefs and practices. Some of these religious beliefs and practices may relate to the administration and the communal character of the group. For example, all the major religions have sections within their broad religious community which are monastic in character.

Many religious groups also have the minimum of accountability in that all the decision-making, including that of finance, is conferred on its religious head. Religious groups should not be equated with conventional bodies of modern society like companies or societies. Religious groups are sometimes governed by antiquarian rules that nevertheless form part of its religious beliefs.

Broad outlook

Therefore, it can be seen that regulating a religion is easier said than done. The founding fathers of the nation realised this during the drafting of our Constitution. They opted for non-regulation of religion because they believed in the healthy promotion of religion in a multi-racial society and they wisely realised that the alternative is impracticable.

In a multi-racial society like Malaysia, a broad outlook towards religious practice is necessary. There is no need to be alarmed by religious groups isolating themselves or going back to nature. If that is how they seek God and become better human beings, then let them be. Neither is there anything wrong with someone giving his church, temple or mosque large sums of money as part of his religious devotion. Accountability in terms of finance is not a cause of concern as there are sufficient laws to deal with anyone misappropriating money whether it is from a company, society or a religious group.

The root of incidents like this is the inability to understand and to tolerate the differences in the character and practices of the religion of others. Appeasement of intolerant factions will not resolve but aggravate inter-religious tensions. The call for inter-faith dialogue should therefore include the participation of various governmental agencies. In this way, the government can play a leading role in the just mediation between the various religious communities of Malaysia.