“The suspect also received instruction from another senior Malaysian IS fighter in Syria to purchase a pistol, M-16 and AK-47 assault rifles along with a hand grenade from a neighbouring country and launch an attack on non-Muslims and their places of worship.”

- Inspector-general of police Mohamad Fuzi Harun

COMMENT | I want people to focus on language for a moment. Inspector-general of police (IGP) Mohamad Fuzi Harun claimed that the reason why the beer festival was cancelled was because “militants were planning to commit sabotage at the festival, as they believe it was against their struggle.”

Two words are important here - “militants” and “struggle”. The first word “militant” denotes people with a dogmatic belief system, intolerant of any other belief systems and in this context, militaristic in their actions. The second denotes a cause, which implies a moral dimension.

How many times have we heard race-based Malay political parties and politicians warn the non-Malays/Muslims to observe the “sensitivities” of the majority Malay/Muslim weltanschauung? How many times have we heard Malay politicians from either side describe their raison d'être to carry on the struggle for race and religion?

MCA’s Ti Lian Ker claimed that Better Beer Festival 2017 had to be cancelled “due to a security threat from Islamic State (IS) militants rather than political pressure from PAS.” Let us look at this rationally. PAS wanted the event cancelled. IS wanted to disrupt the event.

Hence by cancelling the event, the outcome that PAS and IS wanted was achieved. Indeed, the outcome desired by all the Malay/Muslim groups that opposed this festival because it offended their “sensitivities” was achieved.

What kind of message does this send to the Islamists in this country, many of whom claim that they do not subscribe to the beliefs of IS but benefit from the terror that this group spreads? What kind of message does this send to non-Muslims when it comes to their constitutional right of freedom of speech, expression and assembly?

Coming right after the Malaysian prime minister claimed that the Chinese community would be in danger because Islamic extremists would attack them if the present government were not in charge, seems rather dubious. The Umno state, in this case, did not defend the rights of non-Muslims to co-exist in this country; it instead facilitated an outcome that benefited certain groups in this country that apparently have the same goals (in this case) with an international Islamic extremist group.

However, here is the strange part. Last month, as reported in a press statement that includes the quote that begins this piece, the state security apparatus apprehended individuals who were planning attacks against non-Muslims and their places of worship.

I have often made the claim that even though there are all these claims that our institutions are failing (this writer has also made those claims as well), the state security apparatus while compromised remains one of our best assets when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorism.

What I find strange though, is that during the period of the investigation – I assume this includes surveillance, etc – the state did not warn non-Muslims that their places of worship were possible targets and that holding religious events which obviously went against the “struggle” of these lunatics was ill-advised. As far as I recall there was no panic, only covert and professional police work.

Now if the state security apparatus could handle possible threats against non-Muslim places of worship, and doing so without compromising the investigations and public order, why is it that a simple beer festival in a controlled environment poses such a security risk...