IGP wrong on brother’s ‘sedition’ case

He’s unfit to judge the case of Abdullah because the latter is his brother.

KUALA LUMPUR: Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar, it has been pointed out, is caught in a conflict of interest situation given the fact that it was his elder brother, Abdullah, who allegedly “instigated” the 50 Muslim protesters at a church in Taman Medan, Petaling Jaya on Sunday.

Petaling Jaya Utara MP, Tony Pua, begs to differ with Khalid who dismissed the protest in a pre-emptive move as not seditious after reportedly phoning his brother and getting an explanation. “He’s unfit to judge the case of Abdullah instigating the protest against the church because the latter is his brother. His impartiality can be questioned.”

“The IGP failed to immediately tweet for the protest to be at the very least investigated. He has justified the use of thuggery, intimidation and threats by race and religious extremists to instill fear in minorities and bully them into submission.”

Pua was also expressing support for Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, the IGP’s immediate superior, who was quoted as saying in the media that the protest was seditious. “The MPs had to rely on the Minister himself in Parliament to provide answers on the Sedition Act,” added Pua who is also DAP National Publicity Secretary. “So, nobody else could be better placed than him to define whether the law had been broken.”

If the contentious Sedition Act wasn’t breached, Pua ventured, there’s still the Penal Code where Section 298A(1) makes it an offence on two grounds viz. if an action causes/attempts to cause/is likely to cause disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will; or prejudices/attempts to prejudice/is likely to prejudice the maintenance of harmony or unity on grounds of religion.

He noted the 50 protesters insisted that the church remove the cross from its premises, demanded the place of worship be shut down and/or shifted to another location which was not specified. “The fact that it was a protest against a church, its symbol, location and its freedom to practise makes it entirely about religion,” said Pua who argued that the IGP was wrong to say that the protest was not about religion or Christianity.

“Malaysians of all races and religions are shocked by the nonchalant response given by Khalid in dismissing the protest against the church as not seditious.”

Khalid noted that “the cross was taken down following the community’s request” and “there was no violence.”

If violence is the measure of whether a seditious act should be investigated, why have some 150 people been arrested or called to “assist” with investigations related to the Sedition Act despite the fact that there was absolutely no violence?

Why for example, was cartoonist Zunar charged with a record nine counts of sedition when none of his cartoons have caused a single drop of blood to be shed in the past decade? “The fact that the Church was willing to take down the cross from its building does not in anyway mean that its rights have not been infringed.”

Such extremist demands – bringing down the cross — runs directly afoul of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which provides that every person has the right to profess and practice his own religion, stressed Pua. “The Constitution does not specify that the freedom to practice was subject to restricted or designated locations in Malaysia.”

“There are also no restrictions in the letter or spirit of the Federal Constitution which prohibits the use of religious motifs for its buildings.”

Abdullah, a former Umno divisional chief, has since claimed that bringing down the cross was a temporary measure. He cited the need to cool down the situation which had first begun in a WhatsApp group where he was a member.