|  There is no reason to act against Perkasa chief, says the minister, as 'society is mature enough to know a clown when it sees one'.
The government does not need to act against Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali for his 'holy war against Christians' speech because society is mature enough to deal with sensitive issues.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said Malaysians are no longer afraid of discussing issues that not too long ago were considered taboo.
“As a result of your alternative media, you have actually opened up society... the presence of alternative media (has) opened up a new dimension, in the sense that you can discuss anything,” he told a press conference at Parliament's tower block.
“Over the last two or three years, I have seen society has changed, matured. Things like that, uttered by Ibrahim Ali, are actually things that are no longer regarded as too sensitive for us to talk about.” Two weeks earlier, Ibrahim issued a challenge to holy war against Christian leaders, whom he accused of conspiring to make Christianity as the official religion. Calling Ibrahim a “clown”, Nazri said the government could take action against the former if his speech sparked an immediate violent reaction, but pointed out that the Perkasa chief's fiery rhetoric finally amounted to nothing.
“It's been more than 10 days since Ibrahim made his statement. I don't see any riot. I don't think people should take seriously what he has said... if his statement sparked such a reaction, then we can arrest and charge him.”
'I changed with society'
Nazri acknowledged that he had once been a “strong proponent” of the Sedition Act, but stressed that Malaysians have shown him that there is little need to take such drastic measures.
Taking the example of blogs, he said many things appear online that at one time could be considered seditious, but there is nary a reaction from the public.
The situation however is different for the more traditional print media, which faces constant demands for action against them should similar material appear in their publications, he argued.
“This is double standards. The effect is the same, when you say it in a blog or a paper. To me it's ridiculous now if you want to take action against something said in print but not on the alternative media.
 “I remember the case of manure thrown at a surau, and the church arson. If that happened years ago, it would have caused a riot. Now society is more understanding, they want to first hear why this happened so who are we as politicians to tell them otherwise?
“The whole idea of the Sedition Act is to protect society, but society has changed. Of course the argument used against me (now) by those who oppose my view is the same that I used last time, but I have changed and they are regressive,” he said.
PPPA justified?
However, when asked if he is calling for the controversial Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) to be repealed, Nazri skirted the question, saying instead that the PPPA and Sedition Act are different.
 He said there is a “very fine line” between simply publishing a controversial statement by a newsmaker and having an agenda to promote a certain stance that could be “harmful to society”.
“We must differentiate between a person saying something and a newspaper company deliberately running an article to hurt people's feelings.
“I feel that newspaper companies (that) have been given permits to print newspapers must act with responsibility. What about in the UK (United Kingdom)? I believe they also have a similar law, so there must be a reason for that.
“Anyway, it's an open discussion,” he said.
On a separate issue, Nazri declined to comment much on PKR de facto chief Anwar Ibrahim's claims that the police would “take a big risk” by revealing the identity of the man in the latter's purported sex video, calling Anwar a man “under siege”. Nazri warned however that the government will not take Anwar's statement lightly, equating it to a threat.
“It's becoming like a threat now, you reveal (the identity) and something bad will happen.
“We don't tolerate that. Nobody threatens the government. You have a problem, you solve the problem. Don't ever threaten the government,” he said. |
Comments