Speaking to FMT, its chairman Ahmad Farouk Musa said it is high time the government “thinks hard” about the issue of hate crime, for the country to become a truly plural society.
“That can only be achieved if we have laws to prevent hate speech in whatever form, be it racial, religious or gender.
“Hate speech should be outlawed. There can be no justification, even on religious grounds, for it.”
His comments came following Singapore’s home affairs ministry’s move to bar two Muslim preachers, Malaysian Haslin Baharim and grand mufti of Zimbabwe Ismail Menk, from entering its shores.
Both preachers were scheduled to participate in a religiously-themed cruise from the island republic next month.
In a statement issued on Monday, the ministry said the decision was made to safeguard Singapore’s social cohesion and religious harmony.
It also said Ismail had been known to preach segregationist and divisive teachings, citing his claim that it is a sin and a crime for a Muslim to wish a non-Muslim “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Deepavali”, for example.
Haslin, meanwhile, was alleged to have expressed views that promoted disharmony between Muslims and non-Muslims which were described as “deviant”.
Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim agreed with Singapore’s actions, saying Malaysia should also look into doing the same.
“I hope they (the government) will, but I know they won’t. Because while the Singapore government is very clear on what they want for their country, our government is not,” he said to FMT.
“Our government doesn’t know what to do with the country. Their vision is very short-term, serving only their political conveniences.
“The ruling party wants to be seen as an Islamic party, sympathetic to Islamic causes. So they will tolerate these preachers, who will destroy the fabric of our society.”
Zaid, who is now a member of DAP, expressed hope that if opposition coalition Pakatan Harapan comes to power after the next general election, they would take the necessary steps to reunite all Malaysians.
Amanah communications director Khalid Samad, on the other hand, said it would be unfair for anyone, including Haslin and Ismail, to be “punished” before they were given an opportunity to defend themselves.
Making decisions to bar an individual solely based on a third party’s report or videos available online would be unfair as their speeches could be misinterpreted, said Khalid.
Asked if the government should intervene and look into measures to protect the country from “divisive speeches”, Khalid said “yes”.
“Not by taking action in a draconian way, but by having debates shown on television, wherein these views can be shown to be extreme and deviant.
“They are influential only among the ignorant. Hate speech cannot be categorised as free speech.
“Obviously, it must be handled. One way is to argue against it, using arguments from Islamic sources,” he added.