I was unclear what Yamin Zakaria's concern was in his/her letter ' One rule for Kilroy-Silk, another for Mahathir '. Yamin seemed to think that BBC talk show host Robert Kilroy-Silk was getting away with making racially-charged statements that former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad could not.

Yamin may live in the UK and have access to information, but it seems to me that journalist Kilroy-Silk got away with nothing.

Immediately after publishing his remarks he was condemned by Muslim and non-Muslim groups and individuals alike. He was suspended from his position with the BBC from which he is forced to resign and now facing a police investigation.

He also issued an apology, which some have not accepted for being incomplete or insincere, but an apology nonetheless. And sure, many defended his right to say what he did but few actually gave his remarks open support

I did not see the same actions taken against Dr Mahathir when he said equally damaging statements about the Jews. Mahathir was not suspended from his job nor did he resign over these remarks. He did not face a police inquiry and he did not issue any apology or express any regret over his speech.

And he also received widespread support from all of the delegates at the conference and many individuals and organisations in the Muslim world.

Yet the main difference between Kilroy-Silk and Mahathir is that Kilroy-Silk was speaking as an individual and Mahathir was speaking as a world leader representing the people of his country and so should be held to a higher set of standards.

For those who do not understand the concept of free speech, the remarks said by Kilroy-Silk as a member of the journalistic society are best met with counter argument and denouncement rather than censure, dismissal or legal action, which only serve to stifle free speech (and in this Jewish lobby groups are equally bad).

If what he said was counter to BBC policy, then I suppose they have the right to ask him to resign even though these remarks were not made on air.

Mahathir as a world leader was best handled by diplomatic condemnation by other governments, which is what happened. In the condemnation no one was advocating banning Mahathir from such conferences or suggesting that he be dismissed from his position but condemning what he said. This is true to the principles of free speech.

Yamin argued that a lot of what Mahathir said was true and even complementary (which really was in the vein of a white supremacist saying that black people are good at physical labour).

Then, in the same way, much of what Kilroy-Silk said was true as well. Some Arab Muslims are suicide bombers and many others support them. Some Muslim countries do amputate limbs and many other Muslim countries are seeking to implement these laws (as are many Muslim groups in the UK and other Western countries, and as is PAS).

And in many Muslim countries women do face some societal and political oppression. These are undeniable facts, although Kilroy-Silk used them as blanket statements, which was journalistically incorrect.

Like it or not, without oil, Arab countries would not be in the world's eye as they are now. Many have argued that both Iraq wars were all about oil whether you believe that or not. In addition, wasn't it Mahathir who suggested that oil be used as an economic weapon against the West?

What makes Kilroy-Silk's remarks hate speech can be found in the manner in which and the intent for which they were said. I hope that these factors are used in the investigations and not just public pressure.

If Mahathir was held to the same standards as Kilroy-Silk, he would have resigned in disgrace and not acclaimed by his fellow countrymen and the larger Muslim world.