Who misled the public – Liow or Nancy, asks DAP

DAP national vice-chairman Teresa Kok says ministers Nancy Shukri and Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai contradicted each other. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, October 20, 2014.

Contradictory statements from two federal ministers on the Datuk Ibrahim Ali Bible-burning threat has the DAP questioning who had misled the public on the Cabinet discussion of the contentious issue.

DAP national vice-chairman Teresa Kok said a Chinese daily had quoted de facto Law Minister Nancy Shukri as saying that the Cabinet had discussed the case against Ibrahim and had reached a decision on why he was not prosecuted.

Nancy was also reported to have said that the decision was confidential and would only be conveyed to the relevant agency, and for consideration by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Kok pointed out that today, however, the same daily quoted  MCA president Datuk Liow Tiong Lai who rebutted what Nancy had said.

"Liow reportedly said that the Cabinet did discuss the issue but did not make any decision.

"He also said that the remark that the Cabinet had made a decision was misleading.

"So the question now is, who had misled the public, Nancy or Liow," Kok asked in a statement today.

She also questioned how was it that two ministers could have different understanding of whether the Cabinet came to a decision, adding: "Was one of them sleeping during the Cabinet discussion?"

Kok also called on Liow to explain why the Cabinet failed to reach a decision and if he was happy with that.

She added that Liow had previously said that the police must give a more detailed explanation to the public as to why no action was taken against Ibrahim.

According to Kok, Liow was also reported to have said that a thorough investigation was needed so that Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail could make a professional decision whether to charge a person with sedition.

The Seputeh MP pointed out that Liow appeared to emphasise on investigations by the police, despite the fact that Nancy had said that the A-G's chambers did not prosecute because of Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 11(4) of the constitution pertains to restrictions that are allowed on the freedom of religion when it involves proselytisation to Muslims.

"Can Liow tell the public if he had obtained more details from the police, and if so, was he satisfied with the reasons given?

"Can he also explain the real reason why Ibrahim was not charged?"Kok questioned.

Nancy  in her parliamentary written reply on October 7, had said that the police decided not to act against Ibrahim over his call last year to burn Bibles because he was merely defending Islam.

In the reply to Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, Nancy had said that the police concluded that Ibrahim's words were directed at specific individuals, and not a threat to the larger society.

Two days after the parliamentary written reply was published, Nancy issued a statement, hitting out at the opposition for making capital gain over her reply.

She also blamed social media users for spreading articles, saying "irresponsible quarters" had only taken excerpts from her answer in Parliament to "create misinterpretation and misunderstanding".

In her statement, she had again defended the decision not to charge Ibrahim with sedition, saying it was made fairly and without favouring any parties to ensure justice for the victim, witness, accused and the public.

"The decision by the Attorney-General Chambers to not prosecute Ibrahim was because the context of his speech was in line with the spirit in Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution," Nancy had said.

- TMI