Writer: Ling Guo Wen
Chin’s Press, April 23, 2015
In the past two days, people have learned a new benchmark and definition of sedition. Those generous enough in teaching us the new benchmark and definition are from the same political party and law enforcement agency. Scores of Muslim residents from Kg Medan in Petaling Jaya went over to protest against a new church and forced the church to take down the Cross on its building, claiming that 95 percent of the residents there are Muslims. The protestors used harsh language on the church people and also threatened a reporter who is a Chinese Christian.
People with normal IQ would think that this group of bullying protestors have violated the freedom of worship guaranteed under the Federal Constitution and have incited religious sentiment. However, our IGP, whose IQ is always unusual, thought that forcing the taking down of the Cross is not seditious and thus, the Police will not carry out investigation under the Sedition Act.
Earlier, when civil societies and opposition parties demanded the abolition of the Sedition Act, both the Government and the Police insisted that the law should stay to safeguard racial and religious harmony.
Now as the Sedition Act stays on, the IGP has come out with an immediate clarification that forcing the demolition of the Cross did not involve sedition. Earlier threatening to burn the Bible also did not involve sedition.
Now we know that we have such a high level of religious tolerance! One can recall that in 2008 DAP MP Theresa Kok was detained for a week without trial just because she was accused of being involved in the discussion of the sensitive issue of the noise level of mosque prayers.
In 2011, MCA strategy bureau deputy chairman lawyer Wu Jian Nan (translated) also complained about the noise level in prayer time from the mosque opposite his house and his picture was burnt. He was forced to apologize to Muslims at the UMNO Pantai branch.
When non-Muslims complain about the noise level of prayers from the mosque, it becomes a seditious issue. When Muslims forced non-Muslims to take down a Cross, it is not seditious. How can the IGP convince the people?
There are certain notable points in the protest. Firstly, the leader of the demonstration is the IGP’s elder brother. The IGP even called up his brother to verify the incident and said that he did not violate any law.
Secondly, most protestors are UMNO Petaling Selatan branch members and the location is in a Keadilan constituency.
Is the IGP being impartial and professional? There is no need for lengthy discussion here as we all know how to judge. What concerned us is that since people with different racial and religious backgrounds have been living in this country for so long that we still have people who cannot tolerate the sight of a Cross.
May be this was an attempt to shift the focus of attention from Dr Mahathir’s attack on Najib. This could be a motive but we cannot rule out the fact that there are narrow-minded people who feel uncomfortable by just looking at the Cross.
People are not born with such kind of narrow mindset and all religions teach us to be good. Why are there people obsessed with such narrow mindset? It could be attributed to UMNO which has been preaching the doctrine that Malays and Muslims will perish without UMNO.
In order to rationalize such a doctrine, there is a need to create in the minds of Malays and Muslims a hidden threat, a bogeyman. During the last few decades, non-Muslims have been pictured as the “others” who threaten the Malays and Muslims. After being brainwashed for a long time, many of them harbor a fear of the Cross. Nothing quite surprising.
Original Source:
容不下一個十字架？