Time to be afraid

ARCHIVES 2009

By admin-s On Sep 10, 2009

(The Nut Graph) "BE afraid. Be very afraid." That, in essence, was what the protestors against a Hindu temple relocation in Shah Alam were saying. But they were not just saying it to their Hindu neighbours in Section 23, Shah Alam. They were also saying it to the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government. In fact, they were saying it to all Malaysians.

How else can we explain their actions? First, on 28 Aug 2009, when they demonstrated with a severed cow head outside the Selangor state secretariat, promising bloodshed if a Hindu temple was relocated to their neighbourhood. And then on 5 Sept 2009, when they acted aggressively and threatened to rape and harm during what was meant to be a state government dialogue with the residents.

What's worse is that the Barisan Nasional leadership and the administration under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is doing little to address this threat of violence. Indeed, if Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein's actions are anything to go by, it would seem that the Umno vice-president actually supports the threat of violence by disgruntled Malay-Muslim Malaysians in their bid to get their way.

It's the violence, stupid

Yes, six of the cow-head protestors were charged with sedition on 9 Sept after much public outcry at the state's double standards when dealing with demonstrators. These six, together with another six men, were also charged with illegal assembly.

The Star quoted the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan in a report on 8 Sept 2009 as saying the police was serious about taking action against protestors who offended the people of other faiths. But doing so does not address what the real problem is.

What is the real issue at hand? It is this — violence and the threat of violence should not be tolerated. Period. And it is incumbent on the state to ensure that people are protected from violence. That, unfortunately, isn't what the state is doing.

Hishamuddin

Hishammuddin's failing in defending the cow-head protestors in his office, mind you, was showing that he actually has a high tolerance for the threat of violence. Unfortunately, his actions also signal a particular tolerance for uncouth behaviour if it's by a Muslim-Malay Malaysian group towards non-Muslim, non-Malay Malaysians. We shouldn't be surprised, of course. He is, after all, the former Umno Youth chief who raised the keris twice at the Umno general assembly in upholding ketuanan Melayu.

My question is, why are the cow-head protestors and the violent residents at the 5 Sept town house meeting not being charged instead with assault under Section 351 of the Penal Code? Why charge them with sedition, which we all know, from numerous past cases, is arbitrary?

And by justifying the charge of sedition with terms like "offending other faiths" and "disrupting harmony" as was underscored by the 8 Sept Star news report, doesn't that demonstrate that any other act which is remotely seen as "offensive" to another faith would be open to charges of sedition as well?

For example, does this mean then, that if a Muslim-majority neighbourhood deems the sale of pork in a wet market as offensive, pork sellers can be charged with sedition? What about the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims? Can Christians be charged with sedition then for offending the sensibilities of some Muslims, most notably those in government who continue to uphold the ban on the use of the word by Christians?