PASTOR RAYMOND KOH and jurisdic�on in respect of the enforcement against the propaga�on of Chris�anisa�on. 176. During the Public Inquiry, several concerns regarding the interac�on between the Police and the State religious authori�es were raised, inter alia: 176.1. Seminars and religious mee�ngs were held and extended to the public par�cularly to Muslims, the inten�ons and message behind these ac�vi�es were mainly on religious issues and protec�ng the Islamic faith against Chris�anity; and 176.2. No formal complaints were lodged to the religious authori�es or to the Police that could jus�fy why the religious authori�es, or the Police needed to look into the ac�vi�es of Pastor Raymond Koh or Harapan Komuni�. Even if the religious authori�es had reason to look into the ac�vi�es of Pastor Raymond Koh or Harapan Komuni�, why was Police presence required; 177. The Panel is of the view that the Police should not be involved in religious ma�ers unless the situa�on warrants such interven�on as explained in paragraph 178 below. Therefore, a clear demarca�on of police interac�on with other departments such as the religious authori�es in this case and agencies of the government must be drawn up, shared with the public and enforced accordingly. 178. The Panel recognises that there may be situa�ons where religious authori�es may need the assistance of the Police so as to ensure that law and order is maintained in the country, where the religious authori�es may not have the adequate support and infrastructure to deal with such situa�ons. As such, there must be clear Standard Opera�ng Procedures (SOPs) to govern the interven�on of the Police. Importantly it must be emphasised that Police interven�on to maintain law and order should only be exercised in situa�ons of real, grave and imminent threats to na�onal security of the country. Reforms to Standard Opera�ng Procedures of the Police 179. Throughout the Public Inquiry, several complaints were made against the Police. The apparent lack of coopera�on, suppression and concealment of evidence by the Police was evident during the course of the hearing of the Public Inquiry. The Panel has highlighted some shortcomings in the Police Inves�ga�ons in paragraphs 152 to 152.15 above. The Panel therefore, makes the following recommenda�ons: 62