Removing the race columns from all forms would be a giant step in achieving national unity, as it would emphasise oneness.

IT’S a small step but the Sabah and Sarawak governments must be commended for their efforts to scrap the term “dan lain lain” or “others” in the race column in government forms.

While the three major races – Malay, Chinese and Indian – have their own columns in these forms, all other minorities in the country simply were classified as “dan lain lain”. It is not wrong to say that the term “dan lain lain” is demeaning and is almost equivalent to the term “alien”.

In fact, after 57 years of independence, it is incredible that we are still asking Malaysians to state their race.

While the Federal Government has insisted that there is a need to keep the race columns to help the government monitor the development of each race, it could certainly emulate what Sabah and Sarawak have done.

Even in the peninsula, putting minorities under the “dan lain lain” column would hardly help the government get an accurate picture of these ethnic groups, who are Malaysians, like everyone else.

Surely, as a responsible government, it would also want to know in greater detail the position of the Eurasians, Portuguese, Siamese, orang asli and other minorities.

Last week, the Deputy Home Minister rightly pointed out that in Sarawak, those classified under the “dan lain lain” group in the state actually outnumbered the Malays, Chinese and Indians. These three races are only distinct under a peninsula-driven classification.

The Sabah government has also decided to follow Sarawak and agreed to remove the “dan lain-lain” option in the race column on government documents. Those filling in the forms can now identify their ethnicity in the blank space provided.

According to Sabah State Secretary Tan Sri Sukarti Wakiman, “the state government will come up with a list of ethnic races in Sabah to be handed to the National Registration Department to reference in processing birth registration applications and Malaysian identity cards for those from Sabah”.

The “dan lain-lain” column in the race category has been a point of contention among Borneo’s native races who are mostly from ethnic communities, with Sabah itself having over 30 ethnic groups.

But it would not be wrong to say that many Malaysians have long questioned the need to state one’s race, and religion, on any form.

The requirement not only creates a deep psychological impact on Malaysians but gives the impression that we are officially divided by our racial and religious identities five decades after independence.

We will continue to be regarded as a country that is obsessed with race and religion when our nationality takes a back seat. We proudly see ourselves as Malaysian when we are overseas but the moment we step back on Malaysian soil, we are reminded about our race and our religion.

In many countries, it has become taboo, even unlawful, to state one’s religion in any official form. Religion is deemed as a private matter which no one, especially the government, has any business to ask.

In fact, Indonesians are required only to state their nationality in official forms, never their racial identity.

It is a diverse country like ours but because of assimilation, one cannot distinguish an Indonesian’s race and religion simply from the person’s name.

Removing the race columns from all forms would surely be a giant step in achieving national unity, as it would emphasise oneness.

While the Federal Government has given various reasons as to why it needs to maintain the race column, it could, for a start, eliminate this column in forms where the issue of race has absolutely no bearing.

As an example, if a Malaysian wants to seek the approval of the municipal council to carry out renovation of one’s property, it makes little sense that he has to state his race in the application form.

This may be a small start, but we need to do away with such requirements, especially if they have no bearing on the collation of statistical data.

This need to identify our race goes beyond official matters. I was at a shopping mall recently and decided to sign up for a discount card which cost me RM15. Guess what? I had to state my race in the application form.

To be fair, in the United States, there are still certain forms which require information about one’s race. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development still insists on racial information, especially when one is seeking assistance, but there is a disclaimer – there’s no penalty if you choose not to fill up the entire form because you do not want to state your race.

The private sector should also remove such columns about race and religion from their job application forms. They should also not state their racial preferences when they advertise their job vacancies.

Employers, both in the private and public sectors, must be able to see the tremendous advantage of having a multi-ethnic and even multi-national workforce.

Sabah and Sarawak have made a bold move which may provide the necessary catalyst for further changes. But as with any change, there will always be fears and concerns.

Those who are against removing the race column have expressed reservations on the loss of rights, privileges and identities. These are sentiments brought up by well-meaning people. We have to respect and understand certain realities.

But at the same time, we must also not be fearful of embracing changes – Malaysia and Malaysians need to grow up.

If we aim to be a developed nation, it is necessary that we also accept values fitting of a developed nation. Narrow sectarian, religious and ethnic issues are hallmarks of a Third World country. What Sabah and Sarawak have done would hardly meet calls to remove the race column but at least, “dan lain lain” has disappeared.

There will still be the need to state one’s race but at least we have given recognition and respect to our fellow Malaysians on how they should be identified in this category. It’s a baby step but we must congratulate the Sabah and Sarawak state governments. It’s a good start.

Today, thanks to social media, just about anyone can now share an opinion in an instant. But Malaysians are in need of clever and intelligent discourse.

IT is a mark of our maturing society that we are now beginning to be able to engage in discourse, even on the most sensitive of issues, without causing offence to one another.

The ability to disagree without being dis­agreeable is to be lauded. Too often, we have seen how individuals or groups prefer to engage in name-calling and verbal abuse, rather than talk rationally about an issue.

I have been a journalist for over 30 years and have also covered the Dewan Rakyat in my earlier years. While there was a fair share of those who spoke just to make sure they got themselves in the news, there were also many outstanding politicians with the gift of the gab who could debate rationally, their arguments punctuated with much wit, and they had the uncanny ability to cool things down when temperatures went up a few notches.

Older Malaysian journalists have told me of their experiences following the great debating skills of our founding fathers like Tunku Abdul Rahman and the earlier Opposition figures like the Seenivasagam brothers, S.P. and D.R., and Tan Sri Tan Chee Khoon.

They were legends who did not have to raise their voices or resort to using racial remarks to make themselves heard. They had class and have deservingly been accorded their place in our history.

Today, we are more exposed to how people engage in civil discourse for a wide variety of issues through different platforms. Democracy has never been so noisy.

Thanks to social media, just about any­one can now share an opinion in an instant. The more savvy politicians too have embraced social media but they are aware that they will never escape scrutiny and, of course, criticism for whatever they say.

But Malaysians are in need of clever and intelligent discourse. They want to read beyond generalised statements found in blogs and on Facebook. Instant responses, often clouded by emotional prejudices, cannot take the place of rational debate.

If anyone, especially a public figure, stands up for something, he must be prepared to square off with someone with a directly opposite view. It’s the same for academics who have to face peer review and cannot simply rattle off their views without being willing to listen, or offer space, to contrarian views.

For Malaysia, we have of late seen an active engagement of views over issues like race and religion. We have seen the emergence of the voice of moderation, as more people, many of them prominent members of society, speak their minds.

I am proud that this media group, which I helm as its chief executive officer, has given fair and equal opportunity to all sides to articulate their views. This is how it should be. So, if we give space to the so-called Group of 25, we have likewise given space to the Group of 32. So long as the debate remains civil, we should allow this to carry on. More importantly, both sides have called for a meeting of the minds on the issues affecting the nation.

It does not matter if even The Star’s Voice of Moderation campaign has been criticised by the Group of 32. We are ready to be cri­ticised by anyone, as long as they back it up with sound and rational viewpoints. We may be on direct opposites but most of us, whatever our beliefs, surely do not subscribe to any form of name-calling and threats.

When 32 men and women with consi­derable knowledge and accomplishments come together to take a stand, we ought to hear them out. Surely they are no different than any of us in wanting the country and its people to continue to do well. Never mind if we may not subscribe to some of their views, but differing views is a basic of democracy.

Let me put on record that I also share some of the views expressed by the Group of 32, such as those about economic disparity and corruption.

Be that as it may, it is unfortunate that there are some who are only able to see the world, or Malaysia, via a racial or religious prism.

The minority groups of different faiths make up a substantial number of this country’s population. They need not be reminded, over and over again, that they have to be grateful and that as a minority, they must be submissive and not speak up.

The Star has been criticised for purportedly using Malay personalities to voice their moderate views against the other Malay groups who do not share their liberal views.

Nothing could be further from these warped arguments. When we first initiated this campaign, ahead of National Day and Malaysia Day, we wanted to emphasise the importance of moderation. It needed to be pointed out that moderation was a key criterion for Malaysia to secure a seat in the United Nations Security Council.

There is also a government-funded Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), initiated by the Prime Minister, of which I am a trustee. Surely, if we talk about moderation on the world stage, we also need to practise it at home. Former MP Datuk Saiffudin Abdullah, another moderation advocate, heads the GMM.

It is also important to note that most of the writers and contributors featured in the campaign have been long-term columnists with The Star. They include Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, Zainah Anwar, Azmi Shahrom, Zaid Ibrahim, Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Karim Raslan. They were not plucked from the air with no basis. Many of them have long been associated with The Star.

Minister Datuk Seri Idris Jala also writes for us and former diplomat Tan Sri Razali Ismail, who is also the chairman of GMM, is someone I have known for some time. Zainah has been a good friend since 1990 when I first met her as a journalist. And I am privileged to know her other family members as well. I hold her in high regard.

These are the people, who happen to be Malays, who have always been the moderates in our country. They have always been given the space to articulate on issues that they care about, including moderation. What the campaign has succeeded in doing is to make more people aware of the need to speak out if they do not want the forces of extremism to gain ground.

It is an insult to suggest that the Group of 25 and other moderates who support them are being used as pawns in a racial plot. These people have long-established credentials with sterling service records to the country.

Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, who is the coordinator of the group, is not only a former ambassador but also one of the top legal brains in this country, having served more than 25 years in the judicial and legal service including stints as a magistrate and Sessions Court judge. At Wisma Putra, she handled territorial and maritime issues before her posting as Malaysia’s ambassador to the Netherlands, where she also served as Malaysia’s co-agent to the International Court of Justice on the Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan case.

Then there is Liyana Khairuddin, who initiated the #iam26 social movement in support of the eminent Group of 25. Unknown to many, Liyana, who humbly prefers to be known as just a scientist, is a virologist who specialises in HIV research.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Malays have been generous and it was the community’s willingness to share and build consensus that chiefly helped us get our independence and build Malaysia to what we are today. But we must not forget that without the support of the other communities, there would be no independence and without the Sabahans and Sarawakians, there would be no Malaysia either. Our founding fathers, who travelled to London for the talks, did so as a multi-racial team, lest we forget.

Every community has its share of extremists. This writer has criticised groups like Dong Zong and Hindraf, with its racist overtones, long before even Perkasa was born.

There have also been personal attacks, almost all the result of racial prejudices, from people who do not know me. But it is worth repeating here that my love for the Malay language and culture was the main reason why I sat for the Malay Literature paper in my Sixth Form examination, when it was called Higher School Certificate. I had to memorise Sejarah Melayu and Tuhfat Al-Nafis. I studied Islamic History as well.

When I entered Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, I chose the Malay Letters Department in my first year as an extension of my love for Malay literature. Pantun, Indonesian and Malay literature enriched my life greatly, and I have spoken out many times that there is no basis to the fear of learning about Islamic Civilization in our public universities.

It was a compulsory course in UKM and remains so, and I had the privilege of listening to the lectures of the late Fadzil Noor, who went on to be become a PAS president, and former lecturer Dr Haron Din, who is now a PAS elder.

I find it odd that there are politicians who still attempt to use the teaching of Islamic Civilization as a political issue. I learnt it 30 years ago, and I can’t think of any non-Muslim in my batch who converted as a result!

I have continued to be engaged with the works at the Al-Bukhary Islamic Museum, where I continue to collect some of the best books on the religion by the museum.

In fact, there are family members who have embraced Islam and my favourite aunt is a tudung-clad Muslim who naturally shares my moderation stand.

Many of my Malay friends find the views of certain extreme Malay groups embarrassing but they are caught in a situation where they know they will be criticised if they openly declare themselves as liberals.

All these recent discussions, passionate in many aspects, have helped me to forge a wider world view and have a greater appreciation of our communities in Malaysia. In the process, they have also strengthened my moderation views.

From the start of the campaign, we have emphasised that we wanted to speak about common values of all races and religions such as compassion, tolerance, patience, understanding and mutual respect.

We cannot pretend that religious extremism does not exist in this country. In fact, extremism in all forms can be found everywhere; such is the nature of men.

Religious extremism is not widespread in Malaysia but it is a threat nevertheless because the words and actions grab a lot of attention. They intimidate and agitate and, in certain circumstances, they can quickly spiral out of control.

We cannot afford to be dismissive about something that can potentially wreck our way of life.

God, by whatever name we call Him, has made Malaysia a plural society. He has put colour into our lives. He must have a reason for doing so, and surely if we believe in God, He would want us to live in harmony and to showcase our plurality in our daily lives – not just for show to the tourists!

THERE is outrage sweeping across newsrooms throughout the world over the heinous murder of 12 people, 10 of whom were journalists, in the attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris on Wednesday.

The other two killed were policemen – one was the police guard of the editor Stephane Charbonnier, and the other, who was shot in the street during the getaway, was a Muslim officer of Moroccan descent.

Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical weekly newspaper that pokes fun at just about everything under the sun, including revered religious figures.

We may not agree with the mocking of religious and political figures by this magazine but it is hard to justify any act of terror in retaliation to the magazine’s work. It was just plain murder, but carried out in the name of religion.

These terrorists have done nothing to help non-Muslims have a better understanding and appreciation of Islam, which promotes peace and tolerance.

They have, in fact, caused serious ­damage and have given those who push the Islamophobia agenda an excuse to take their plans a step further.

The world’s media community shares the grief of the families of these journalists who were killed while performing editorial duties.

It is important to note that Muslim leaders including Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak have come out quickly to condemn this horrendous act.

“Malaysia condemns in the strongest terms all acts of violence. We stand in unity with the French people. We must fight extremism with moderation,” he said in a Twitter posting on Thursday.

Likewise, our Foreign Ministry also said, “Nothing justifies taking innocent lives. Malaysia is united with the families of the victims, the Government of France, and the French people.”

But even as we condemn the killings, there is an important lesson for the world, especially the Western world, to learn from this tragedy.

There may be no sacred cows for the Western media because of their fervent belief in the freedom of expression. But the reality is that not everyone accepts nor appreciates such a principle.

And because we are so globally connected, it is no longer possible to operate just within a particular society that embraces such an approach. The media’s work, from whichever part of the world, has basically become freely available to everyone.

World political leaders and entertainment figures can be lampooned without any major consequences, but like it or not, religion remains an emotionally charged issue.

The demography of many European countries, especially France, the United Kingdom and Holland, has changed drastically with a high Muslim population. In fact, there are six million Muslims in France, making it the country with the most number of Muslims in Western Europe.

While Europe expects all Muslims to accept assimilation into Western values, not everyone can accept the regular mocking of Islam and, in this case, to denigrate and desecrate a Prophet, as Dr Chandra Muzaffar, president of the International Movement for a Just World, aptly described.

Certainly, the right of expression does not include the right to insult what is regarded as sacred and important to any religion and, by extension, the millions of its faithful.

The Prophet, Jesus, Buddha and the Hindu gods cannot be likened to politicians who are merely human beings who can be subjected to scrutiny, which satirical magazines can target regularly.

When it comes to matters of faith, so-called rationality is not something that can be applied nor used as argument for freedom of expression.

It is important that the Western media does not fan fears of Islam following this Paris tragedy. The reality is that many such incidents are perpetrated by evil people with their own agendas, not about their religion.

The recent incident in Sydney, for example, showed us how the authorities and the people of Sydney came together to reassure the Muslims there that although the gunman was a Muslim, the hostage crisis at the café was not about his religion.

There are good and bad people in every faith, as well as among those who do not believe in any religion.

There are, for example, white supremacists among Christians. Have we forgotten the 32-year-old right wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik, who went on a shooting spree in 2012 in Norway?

Certainly, all right-minded Christians did not condone the action of the pastor of the Christian Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who announced he would burn 200 Quran on the 2010 anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks.

His stupidity caused 20 innocent people to be killed as his threat sparked protests in the Middle East and Asia. He later apologised and pledged never to burn a Quran, but that came too late as lives were already lost.

Surely, the action of this man, who calls himself a pastor, is not representative of the religion.

In every religion, there will always be extremists who interpret their holy books to suit their personal or political agendas. There will be people who want to act and sound like religious figures and, likewise, there will be religious figures who want to be political figures. When the line between religion and politics becomes blurred, it becomes dangerous.

Religion can be so easily manipulated because the ordinary adherents of the faith are, by nature, fearful of challenging any religious authority, especially those who dress up to look religiously pious.

I remain a believer that the Sedition Act should be kept intact simply because there should be zero tolerance for anyone whose actions or words can lead to security concerns. But there should be a golden rule – please exercise the powers fairly. We cannot scream for certain individuals to be hauled up for sedition charges and in the same breath call for its abolition. We need to be consistent.

Let no Malaysian have the perception that some individuals or organisations have special protection that allows them to get away with offensive remarks or actions. Nor should the Sedition Act be used to shut up a political opponent or, worse, an academic who cites a case study in an article or gives a view to a newspaper.

But more importantly, the one lesson from Paris for the rest of the world is that we must never let extremists have their way. Moderation must always prevail. And let’s not forget that we must not let evil defeat us but instead conquer evil with good.

In the coming weeks, more like-minded Malay moderates are expected to step forward to keep the Voice of Moderation alive.

IT’S heartening to kick off 2015 with the Voice of Moderation gaining more momentum. As I write this article, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin, the former Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, had just sent out an e-mail to the media to inform them that more eminent Malays have joined the Group of 25 to make their stand against extreme racial and religious views.

The latest group of respectable figures to join the Group of 25 are former Public Services Department director-general Tan Sri Alwi Jantan, former Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor Tan Sri Rafiah Salim, businessman Datuk Seri Nazir Ariff, former Ambassador and Asean deputy secretary-general Datuk Ahmad Mokhtar Selat, former Petronas Dagangan Berhad CEO Datuk Anwaruddin Osman, former Defence Ministry deputy secretary-general Datuk Baharuddin Musa, Universiti Malaya Faculty of Medicine dean Professor Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman, former Universiti Malaya Economics faculty dean Professor Dr Ariff Abdul Kareem, former MP Mohamed Tawfik Tun Dr Ismail and former Commerce International Merchant Bankers Berhad corporate finance executive Shazal Yusof Mohd Zain.

The 10 all share the same concerns over recent developments regarding race relations, Islam and the rise of extremist behaviour in Malaysia. The group of 25 prominent Malays had, on Dec 7, called for a rational dialogue on the position of Islam in a constitutional democracy.

“Given the impact of such vitriolic rhetoric on race relations and political stability of this country, we feel it is incumbent on us to take a public position,” Noor Farida Ariffin, a lawyer, had said in a statement when the group released its letter to the media.

I believe that in the coming weeks, more like-minded Malay moderates will be stepping forward to keep the cause alive.

These are the concerned citizens who will openly make their stand even though they are aware that they will be called all sorts of names for doing so. Many have already declared their support to the group, including CIMB group chairman Datuk Seri Nazir Razak and former deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam.

Nazir, in an interview with The Edge in its Dec 22, 2014 issue, said, “it was refreshing to read the recent public statement by 25 prominent senior Malaysians calling for a dialogue on religion and political stability. I could not agree more.”

In the article, he was also asked whether there was anything that he reckoned Malaysians should be thinking about more.

His reply: “National unity. Why do we allow the racial paradigm to dominate us when there is so much power in unity and leveraging diversity?”

Meanwhile, Musa, who proudly proclaims himself “always a moderate and proud to be one,” said in an interview with this newspaper on Dec 22, “I was very happy to see the statement made by the 25 prominent Malay personalities. To me personally, that was a very good symbolic statement made by them in that they triggered thinking, arguments and conversations.

“Then there were the responses, which I compliment also because they are not calling names. They are not arguing based on irrationality but arguing on an almost point-by-point basis.”

The highly-respected Tan Sri Munir Majid, a visiting senior fellow at LSE Ideas Centre for International Affairs, Diplomacy and Strategy, wrote in his column in The Star yesterday that “The great – and main – contribution of the 25 prominent Malays who wrote that open letter calling for rational dialogue on the application of Islamic laws in the country, is to highlight there is a serious existential problem over the political system to which Malaysia subscribes – which is being loudly and evidentially challenged.

“It cannot any longer be avoided or swept under the carpet. It could lead to violence and violent change. It needs management through strong political leadership.”

Supporting the calls for dialogue, Dr Munir also pointed out that “In any such discussion, the two groups should be mindful of the sensitivity of re-opening issues in the constitution which touch upon inherent rights, especially of the non-Muslims.

“It has to be borne in mind that the minorities in multiracial Malaysia are not insubstantial and that there is an intermingling among the races which can raise issues – and there are numerous cases of this – which affect fundamental civil rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.”

All of them have hit the right chord about the need for rational discourse. This is in fact in line with the politics of consensus that has been pivotal in the governance of this country.

The Alliance and subsequently the Barisan Nasional, by bringing together different political parties representing different interests, has been able to rule this country since independence because it subscribes to the winning formula of consensus-building. Compromises have to be worked out to ensure that all races are represented in the Government to ensure its legitimacy.

It is a winning formula and there is no reason for any party within the coalition, even if it represents a particular group, to only focus on the interest of that group and forsake the interests of others.

What has troubled many Malaysians is that of late, a small group of individuals and a few organisations have been emboldened to make endless racist and seditious statements. They have no credible track record but continue to be in the limelight because they seem to be able to get away with their rantings, giving the impression that they have the perceived approval of the authorities. A terribly dangerous signal has been sent off.

Coupled with this is the insistence of PAS to push for hudud laws in Kelantan and this has put Umno in a spot, with religion now becoming a central agenda in Malay politics. If both parties support it, an unprecedented political development would be set off. It would certainly trigger off reactions from the non-Muslim component parties in both the Barisan and Pakatan Rakyat.

There will be no turning back if Malaysia, starting with Kelantan, takes on a different route – one which was never on the plan of our founding fathers, who clearly stated that Malaysia is to remain secular.

It is the height of naivety for non-Muslim citizens of this country to believe that this is strictly an issue for the Muslims – that hudud laws would not affect them, as PAS wants many of us to believe.

We live in a multiracial and multireligious society, where the interaction between people of different faiths cannot be avoided. How will the laws be applied, say in a rape case where the victim is a non-Muslim woman and the perpetrator is a Muslim man? How do we reconcile the weight of evidence required to prove rape under hudud and our existing Penal Code?

And what about a business contract involving Muslim and non-Muslim parties going awry? Which court will arbitrate and how will justice be dispensed?

Many Malaysians are deeply concerned over the state of the nation and the direction this country is heading towards. In the words of Noor Farida, she fears that Malaysia would end up like Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the religious authorities would reign supreme.

Moderates like Noor Farida and many others have had to pay a price for standing up against the extremists.

Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali has filed a suit for RM500,000 against me and Star Publications.

I have no intention of paying him a single sen, and I am waiting for the papers to be served on myself so we can get down to the formal stage of filing my statement of defence. Hopefully, the court will strike off this frivolous suit, which is nothing more than just intimidation.

Ibrahim has also threatened to sue Noor Farida, and it is good that the latter has urged Ibrahim to go ahead with the legal threat, so the matter can be settled in the courts.

Many personal threats and insults have been made against this writer by other like-minded extremists. In their inability to argue their case rationally, they resort to political and racist bullying. By now, most of us are pretty tired by simplistic arguments like, “go back to your country of origin if you don’t like Malaysia.”

This is unlike the rebuttal by the Group of 32 to the Group of 25, whose letter was also published in this newspaper. Their point-for-point response is the kind of civil discourse that we want to see, so that Malaysians can study the views that are put forth.

For the moderates, the biggest challenge has always been about their ability and willingness to point out, even criticise, the flaws of their own communities and religions.

I have been accused of not making criticisms against groups like the Chinese education group Dong Zong and the Opposition, to cast aspersions on me as a true moderate. Can they just Google my past writings? Stop being lazy.

In 2012, in a Tweet, I strongly criticised the Chinese group for their outrageous suggestion that non-Mandarin speaking teachers be transferred out of Chinese primary schools.

Earlier in Nov 5, 2000 I questioned Dong Zong, in my column, on its objection to the Vision School concept, where three schools of different mediums of instruction – Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and Tamil – would occupy a common compound and share facilities.

“These schools have been totally integrated under the Vision Schools but their characters have remained unchanged. It would do a lot of good to the Dong Zong if it emphasises less on ethnicity,” I wrote. And these are just two examples.

I am a product of the English-medium school system and I will be among the first to tell off groups like Dong Zong that it cannot operate like a communist cell group.

The same line of attack has been made against Noor Farida and other moderates to make them go on the defensive. But the moderation movement does not belong to any one individual or group. It has become the People’s Movement.

Ordinary Malaysians – fresh faces and voices – have emerged. Names like Lyana Khairuddin, who initiated the #iam26 social media movement, and moderate advocates like Hannah Kam, Dina Murad, Firdaus Zulkifli, Alia Aishah Sharir, Michael Teoh, Sunildave Parmar, Tan James Anthony and Kanyakumari Damodran. They may not be household names but they dare to stand up and be counted, and make their voices heard.

If what started as the Voice of Moderates initiative by The Star in August last year – ahead of the National Day and Malaysia Day – has snowballed into an awakening with more moderates joining in, then I believe this spontaneous movement will grow larger, on its own.

Certainly, the court case involving me will add more spark, but more critically, ordinary moderate Malaysians must come together to send out a loud message to our leaders.

We will not let the extremists hijack Malaysia. Let no one be cowed, bullied or intimidated by those uncouth mouths, as we unite to keep Malaysia moderate.