We can see it coming now. After a “small” crowd of 50 people did their vile, embarrassing, insulting, and damaging stunt with an animal head in from of state government office, the police and Home Minister have provided some input. While the police said the probe was completed and case files to be submitted to AG office today, there need to be an inquiry on why the incident was allowed to take place in the first place since the police gave rather innovative reasons – situation was not permitting and that a junior officer was in charge. Granted the district police chief was forced to apologise for the inaction, but still need to review to avoid future problems. I mean, people are asking – why is this particular protest handled differently from others? What’s so unique about it? Is it due to the fasting month? Is it due to the participants? Is it due to the large crowd and lack of officers? Wasn’t there a worry of the  later impact of the protest even though the immediate situation on the ground was controlled (protest was allowed for 15 minutes or so).

Did the probe also cover (i)  the statements by the protest leader that his protest was hijacked (what a lousy leader! I won’t want him to represent me after this, if I was a resident in Section 23 – small protest also cannot handle, how to face the state government?), (ii) the source and the owner of the animal head, (iii) identification of the culprits based on the video clip freely available on the Internet?, (v) the hate-inciting and religion-insulting banners/words uttered, and (v) the persons behind the scene who instigated or planned for the s0-called hijack? I hope so because IGP said 60 people were interviewed within 3 days and the persons involved have been identified.

Our esteemed Home Minister have also provided his valuable thoughts after issuing warning action against actions that can be detrimental to national security (I take it as meaning if someone protests against the cow head protestors?):

“We need to look at the angle where a temple is going to be moved there, so we need to go across the political ideology. The relocation could be offensive to anyone.

Hmm…I guess we should only consider that angle. Non-relocation also offensive to “anyone”. So, why no just demolish and pretend nothing happened?  Can ask a certain ex-MB for advice and contacts – he’s experienced in ordering demolition of temple.

Home Minister Hishamuddin also met some of  the residents at Putrajaya. He tried his best to rationalise the action of the protestors, which is kind of unexpected for a person who is supposed to be in charge of internal security. Probably wanted to show a softer approach to this problem. Among the interesting arguments put forth by the minister:

he said the protesters “had no intention at all to bring the cow’s head and invoke racial sentiments or cause tension”.

“They are not going (to be let off) scot-free. But they just feel victimised because they feel there is another valid explanation and had no intention to cause racial (divisions),” he said. [don’t we all feel victimised. So, means can carry some head or another to voice our dissatisfaction? how about wearing certain color shirts? No? Only cow head allowed? Need clarification here.]

… Hishammuddin said he was told that the “residents did not know the organisers and did not know a cow’s head would be brought during the demonstration”. [I thought the organiser also attended this meeting? Or is the organiser an outsider, a non-resident?]

“When we sat and discussed this, they (said they) realised that they were in a situation they could not control.” [sesal dahulu pendapatan, sesal kemudian tak berguna – have heard of this proverb? Doesn’t apply here?]

He further defended the protesters, saying that “they just wanted their voices to be heard”.

“However it was unfortunate that the protest was given negative publicity because it was linked to religious and racial sentiments,” he said. [Err…isn’t that the whole point? So, we must give it positive publicity? If want to voice out also, use the brain a bit la. Very clear even for small kids, that this is not voicing out, but provocation.]

… The minister noted that the residents have since taken “a pro-active” measure by meeting with members of the Hindu Sanggam two days ago, and that both sides will hold another meeting tomorrow.“So if it can be resolved quickly and both sides understand each other, why (should) they be penalised?” said Hishammuddin. [Ahh..so if you do something and later do something else to negate the first action, then it should be alright. I like this word pro-active. Maybe the residents should have approached MHS BEFORE allowing outsider to organise the protest, siap dengan banner pulak! That would be super pro-active. Can win prize for best RA.]

Although the protestors reportedly did not have a permit the minister said “the protest was not big and they (organisers) were very respectful of the Selangor sultan” [Hmm…two criterias outlined for protests in Selangor. Is this written somewhere or just use common sense? ].“They even limited the number of people from the committee to only 10. In fact if they wanted to have a bigger protest they could have, but they were conscious (of the impact).“All they wanted to do was to voice their unhappiness and the unwillingness of the state government to consider their request.” [so, this is the way to voice out. Lesson to be learnt here?]

Hishammuddin said the Selangor government made a poor decision in relocating the temple to a predominantly Malay area.“Even the Hindus are not passionate about the relocation of the temple to the area,” he claimed. [The minister should have elaborated which Hindus are not passionate on the relocation – MHS, Section 19 residents, Section 23 residents, or some MIC people.  There should have been some statistical data, backed by the complete case study and survey forms /AV recordings of the interviews. Then it would carry more weight. And surely, can provide sugggestion for alternative location? Shah Alam has about 30-odd sections only].

Asked why the police had not acted when the cow’s head was brought in, he claimed that action had been taken.“I was monitoring it myself and reporting it to the prime minister,” he said. Commenting on the upcoming dialogue between the Shah Alam Municipal Council and the residents to be held on Saturday, Hishammuddin said this comes “a little too late”.“The residents had met the state representatives before. If they (the representatives had) resolved it then, there wouldn’t need to be a protest (in the first place),” he said. [So, this is not considered pro-active after residents said they are unhappy? The meeting was already being arranged, but the protest still went ahead. Why?]

On a personal note, Hishammuddin felt the protest “in this day and age should be accepted in this world, as the people want their voices to be heard”.“If we don’t give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest. (But) regardless of the action they take, they have to adhere to the laws of the country. So they have to be responsible,” he said. [Motivation talk to protest responsibly.]

Hmm… I wonder if HINDRAF /candle vigil/”wear black” protestors can borrow him to argue their case. The reasons seems applicable to them as well.

The resident association also met with MHS earlier, and will be meeting them again to issue some sort of statement – damage control I guess. For the greater good.

Anyway, I guess we know the outcome. Anyone willing to bet a prosecution to take place?