The recent hullabaloo over some alleged anti-Islamic comments on a Malaysian blog, Screenshots, calls into question three issues, namely, the government's commitment to freedom of speech, its lack of careful investigation into an allegation before its ministers launched threatening actions on innocents, and its all-too-readiness to brandish the ISA like a convenient rotan.

Careful scrutiny of the so-called anti-Islamic comments indicated that a reader of Screenshots criticised Umno and its 'promise' of progressive Islam (Islam Hadhari) rather than Islam itself. The reader who used the pseudonym of 'Anwar' stated: 'Islam is Islam. Nobody can modified Islam and called it Islam Hadhari or whatever. Islam is a comlplete way of life' (sic).

From this statement, one wouldn't be too far incorrect from averring that the reader Anwar is in fact a Muslim him or herself, probably even a staunch one at that.

But obviously he or she upped the ante on the blog topic that Umno's avowed religious values (the 'promise' of Islam Hadhari) seems meaningless in the face of alleged money politics during the recent Umno general party elections.

One could gather Anwar was of the opinion that likening the blatant inconsistency between the 'talk' and 'walk' of Umno to 'oil and water' was far too generous and lenient, and offered a harsher and very crude comparison.

But, whether using 'oil and water', 'chalk and cheese' or the very vulgar items that he or she offered, this had merely been to support the thrust of Anwar's description of Umno's inability to practise what it preaches.

The choice of Anwar's words unfortunately allowed a sinister misrepresentation, leading to the incorrect condemnation of his or her statement as being anti-Islamic. The victim of the polemical outrage - either genuine, contrived or agitated - was not only Jeff Ooi, the owner of the blog, or Anwar the author, but the context of the discussion.

An outrage required a villain, with Ooi initially filling that role. However, when the brouhaha had simmered down, cooler heads prevailed eventually, and Ooi was off the hook.

Unfortunately, ministers including the prime minister, have been dragged into an issue that they shouldn't have. The issue wasn't even that of a 'mountain' made out of a molehill for the reason there was no molehill in the first place.

Presumably some of the big brass had acted on the advice or briefings of incompetent aides, while some jumped on what they thought was a politically profitable bandwagon.

When the truth eventually emerged from the fog of misrepresentation, there would undoubtedly have been some red faces. There has been unjustified and excessive ministerial ado over a blog nothing.

It became inevitable a face saving gesture has to be made. Anwar the 'culprit' must now assume the villainous position where Ooi was in previously, so that he or she may be pursued to justify some hasty ministerial and Umno utterances over the last few days.

This must be truly a case of tragic proportion, where a member of the Malaysian public has to suffer fear of incarceration because his or her parliamentary representatives and some political leaders made silly judgement of errors and were too proud to come up with an apology.

It is also an indictment on some Umno leaders, with respect to their support of the democratic value of free speech and the willingness to speak up for victims of free speech.

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak and Energy, Water and Communications Minister Lim Keng Yaik were the only ministers who acted in a reasonable manner in the whole episode.

Najib in saying that he wasn't going to waste his time responding to allegations on the Internet while Lim dismissed the accusation against Ooi and reprimanded a newspaper for attributing statements to him (Lim) that he hadn't said.

I congratulate these two ministers for acting in a measured and fair manner. They have correctly dismissed the silly case for what it had been - a non-affair of free speech on an Internet blog. If one finds the blog offensive, don't visit it. This is also about free choice.

On the opposition side of politics, it has been only the DAP, represented by Lim Kit Siang, who spoke out against the undeserved attacks on Ooi. However, Lim could have been more inclusive by speaking up for Anwar as well.

If we take Lim at his words , it would appear that the whole affair had been the outcome of a personal feud between Ooi and a newspaper personality. It seems the latter had been the driving force behind the whole sorry affair.

When one considers the turmoil, anger, hatred and unnecessary angst that has been raised, with so many ministers and departmental resources involved, and one a very frightened citizen trembling in seclusion somewhere, the newspaper person responsible for stirring up matters must be made accountable for derailing goodwill and free speech through misrepresentation.

If my memory does not fail me, the Sedition Act may be used against malicious rumour- mongering that may cause ill will among Malaysia's multiracial society.