ACCORDING to media reports, police have initiated an investigation into Seputeh MP Teresa Kok concerning her statement that mandatory halal certification would place a burden on traders.
Due to such a statement, we know Kok has been subject to a whole raft of brickbats and opprobrium. And now the police have started a probe against her too.
Is a police probe against her really necessary?
In her statement, Kok, inter alia, insisted that the move could impose significant burdens on small businesses, restrict consumer freedom, and may clash with Malaysia’s cultural diversity while establishments – including numerous small Malay-run restaurants – would face increased financial strain.
It seems that even her friends from Pakatan Harapan (PH) have not spared her either. Yes, as usual, politicians are more inclined to play to the gallery.
In my view, it is fair and reasonable for anyone – including politicians – to disagree with Kok’s statement regarding the aforementioned issue. Nothing unusual. Nevertheless, Kok’s right to free speech should be considered and tolerated as well.
True and genuine justice should serve the two sides of the aisle, and Muslims ought to realise that justice is the hallmark of Islamic civilisation.
The Muslims’ holy book instructed Muslims to dispense justice – even for their enemy. That is why in Islam, we read the story of Sheikh Ahmad Zarruq, a prominent figure in Islam, who was banished to Libya for defending the oppressed Jews in Morocco.
Muslims should be fully aware of the true and par excellence quality of leadership embodied by Emir Abdelkader El Djezairi who defended the Christians in Damascus despite his country Algeria being occupied by Christians before. In July 1860, he managed to cease a conflict between Muslims and Christians in Damascus.
It goes without saying that Kok is constitutionally entitled to her opinion. It is submitted that the constitutional protection for free speech should include a speech which is infected by errors, otherwise, such a protection would be meaningless and illusory.
Assuming she made a mistake or an error in her statement, those who disagree with her should have the corresponding right to criticise her or even rectify her mistake. And I noticed some good points that have been intelligently made to rebut her points.
While Kok or even DAP may not be able to fully appreciate the importance and seriousness of the issue of halal certifications, Muslims themselves should exhibit a high level of compassion for her as she merely expressed concerns among the non-Muslims on this very issue.
Being an MP, she has the duty to voice out the non-Muslims’ concerns. Hence she has to speak out without fear and favour. Unfortunately, due to inherent fear and unsettled perception against her or her party. many Muslims fail to see her statement from such a perspective. Hence she was presumed to be guilty from the get-go.
The freedom of speech and expression – duly guaranteed in our apex law – should, in my view, necessarily encompass the right to air even an erroneous view. As one Indian judge beautifully said, “In a democracy, one has the right even to sing a lousy song”.
Needless to say, the right to free speech is built upon the principle of tolerance, and tolerance does not, by all means, imply condonation.
To our chagrin, many seem to have failed to draw the line of distinction. When a speech – especially a political speech – is met with a threat of police report, it is no longer considered free speech.
To sum up, I believe that politicians should be extremely slow in roping the police in when it comes to political contestation of ideas. – September 9, 2024
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is a former deputy law minister
