COMMENT | This new policy by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) for new recruits to undergo an Islamic (for Muslims) or moral (for non-Muslims) test is the kind of a hypocritical agenda that only a morally and intellectually bankrupt state advocates in lieu of substantive policies which would ensure a functional security apparatus. A good example of substantive policy – I have no idea of the follow-up though – is when inspector-general of police Abdul Hamid Bador said this: "An example is illegal gaming and vice syndicate operations, which have seen police officers being compromised by these syndicates before. I have issued a warning, an ultimatum to all these officers to cut off any connection whatsoever that they have with these syndicates."

Furthermore, this Islamic or moral test is also another policy that divides us – in this case, the state security apparatus – along religious lines. At first glance, Muslim recruits taking an Islamic test and non-Muslims taking a moral test seems logical, especially in this climate of heightened racial and religious suspicion.

However, what this is is merely an ongoing narrative that religion, in this case Islam, is somehow different from the “morals” of non-Muslims. When Bukit Aman Management Department director Abdul Rahim Jaafar says that religious education is a shield (whatever that means) against bad behaviour, what he is implying – even though he may not mean to – is that Islam supposedly shields its adherents from bad behaviour while downplaying the value of the test the non-Muslim recruits take since it is not a “religious” test.

If he did not mean to imply this, then why not all recruits take the same “moral test” instead of furthering entrenching religious beliefs amongst the personnel of the state security apparatus? After all, is there a difference between an Islamic test and a moral test?

However, any religious or moral test is a moronic idea. Forget about the moral force of the law. The reality is that new recruits learn how to operate or behave not from standard operating procedures (SOPs) but from their senior colleagues. There is a reason why Abdul Hamid reminded cops on Hari Raya leave to celebrate with their families and visit the graves of their relatives instead of hanging out with senior cops. He understood that this culture was based on camaraderie and corruption.

If senior personnel have fidelity to the law then the new recruits would internalise this. Tradecraft, ethics and enforcement are extremely difficult to navigate especially when political interference is the norm in tottering democracies like Malaysia.

Nevertheless, forget about all that for a moment. Let us talk about this Islamic test for a moment. Abdul Rahim claims, “We must understand that religious education is important, as without that 'shield' they will be prone to involvement in things they are not supposed to." Keep in mind that there is no empirical evidence to support this statement but let us assume this is true for a moment.

How does religious education work when someone like Islamic preacher Zakir Naik claims that it better to vote for corrupt Muslims over non-corrupt Muslims working with the kafirs (non-believers)? What message does this send to new Muslim recruits when it comes to the issue of corruption and Muslim leaders who are corrupt?

More importantly, if Muslim politicians working with non-Muslims are verboten to Islam according to Zakir Naik, what does it mean for Muslim police officers working with their non-Muslim counterparts? Does this mean that Muslims should always side with Muslims, be it cop or criminal?

Zakir Naik says that God will take care of Muslim (leaders) who have sinned in the afterlife but it is the duty of Muslims – Zakir Naik cites the Quran – to vote for corrupt Muslim leaders over righteous non-Muslims or non-corrupt Muslims in a coalition with non-believers.

Zakir Naik claims that it really does not matter if a non-corrupt Muslim leader provides a better existence because of how long are Muslims living in the world. What is paramount is that Muslim unity trumps anything else.

So when it comes to religious education, how are the new Muslim recruits going to distinguish between following corrupt orders from fellow Muslims and carrying out their duties (if religion is supposedly a shield against “bad behaviour”) when bad behaviour committed by Muslims should be ignored by all Muslims in the name of solidarity?

Keep in mind that Zakir Naik is extremely influential. Keep in mind that the religious czar of Pakatan Harapan has called him an “inspirational” figure. Keep in mind that the Harapan government and the majority of Muslim leaders support Zakir Naik. In 2016, a then deputy minister said this of Zakir Naik: "He is more Indian and South Asia-centric but some of his ideas can be used here; that's why he was awarded the 'Tokoh Maal Hijrah' award."

Now, I have no idea about the kind of Islamic test given to these new Malay recruits, but how exactly does answering a test “correctly” jive with the reality that we have a Muslim preacher who is praised by Malay scholars and politicians as a great intellectual, disseminating ideas that make it palatable for Muslims to support corruption?

Supporting corrupt Muslim leaders, and justifying this act by using the Quran, is supporting corruption. The two are not mutually exclusive. Does anyone really think that new Muslim recruits come as blank slates for this test? Does anyone really think that these new recruits have not already been exposed to religious dogma?

What has the corruption and slavery of Wang Kelian taught us? What did the Special Branch report on customs and immigration reveal about the systemic corruption in this country? What are the ongoing 1MDB trials and the acceptance of mainstream Islamic parties of Najib & Co teach us about the religious and racial perspectives about corruption? I believe the state security apparatus would reform if did not have its hands tied by "kuasa-kuasa tertentu'.