All ironed out: Mais chairman Datuk Mohammad Adzib Mohd Isa (second from right) returning copies of the Bibles to Association of Churches in Sarawak chairman Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok at Istana Alam Shah in Klang. Looking on are Sultan Sharafuddin and Mentri Besar Azmin Ali.

The return of the seized Bibles has proven that rational Malaysians are still the majority, and there is no place for extremists who call for the burning of Bibles, or any holy book for that matter.

COMMON sense has finally prevailed with the return of the Bibles to the church, the rightful owner of the Holy Book.

It may have taken a longer time than it should, and there are still questions as to whether the Bible should have been seized in the first place. But that’s a moot point now. 

The pertinent point is that the issue has been resolved through reasoning, compromise, patience and tolerance – which are surely the values of both Islam and Christianity. 

The announcement is certainly timely as the world marks International Day for Tolerance today. It is a significant day, more so for a country like Malaysia.

The 351 copies of Al Kitab and Bup Kudus, the Bahasa Malaysia and Iban Bibles, were seized by the Selangor Islamic Department (Jais) from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) office in Damansara on Jan 2.

More than 10 months later, on Friday, these Bibles were returned to Christians in Sarawak through the Association of Churches in Sarawak (ACS) in a formal ceremony at the Selangor palace. 

As part of a compromise deal, the Bibles were handed directly to Sarawak (where the Bibles were meant for in the first place) and not to the peninsula-based BSM, and with the understanding that such material were not to be distributed in Selangor, especially among Muslims.

The public debate over the issue was intense as everyone – politicians, religious authorities, lawyers and the common practitioners of both faiths – wanted to have a say.

Unknown to most people, there were plenty of behind-the-scenes steps being worked out to ensure that the parties involved were amicable and able to accept the final solution.

As in most organisations, there would always be those who were more prepared to compromise while there would be strong personalities who would insist on holding to what they perceived as their rights and principles.

Months earlier, even when Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was still the Selangor Mentri Besar, various approaches were made to the BSM, Jais and the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais).

The most trusted aides and friends of His Royal Highness Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah worked, without the glare of publicity, to prepare the ground to end the impasse.

No politicians were involved, for sure. It was the wisdom of His Royal Highness who initiated the reconciliation process.

The proposal to return the Bibles was made known to the stakeholders but they were also told that a third party should come into the picture – in this case, the Sarawak Christians.

The Malaysian Bible Society, it was learnt, did not have a branch in Sarawak or Sabah. If there was one, the return could have been expedited.

There was scepticism and even signs of hostility towards those who moved quietly to work out the solution. So much anger had surfaced publicly that it would be difficult for those who were vocal to make the necessary compromise. 

There were doubts over the clout of the “emissaries” and whether they represented the palace.

Understandably, there was also the question of wounded pride involving all sides.

But they had to be impressed upon that the prolonged crisis needed to end. Rightly or wrongly, the fact remains that in the state of Selangor, the distribution as well as the printing of Bibles that contain the word “Allah” is an offence under the Non-Islamic Religious Enactment (Control Development Among Muslims), 1988.

But the Attorney-General had also said there was no basis to charge BSM as the Bibles were not a threat to national security.

It made little sense for Jais to defy the orders and not return the Bibles. The two religious bodies, Jais and Mais, may be able to ignore the state government and the former mentri besar but when the palace came into the picture, the mood changed dramatically – or to put it in a better perspective, more positively.

The church groups were also advised about the futility of pursuing any form of legal action, which would not help resolve the issue.

The BSM and the Association of Churches in Sarawak chairman, Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok, worked hard to ensure the formula worked.

The Archbishop is a highly respected church leader. He is the acting president of the Council of Churches in Malaysia and a member of the Anglican Community’s Team to the Christian Muslim Dialogue at Egypt’s Al-Azhar University.

Jais and Mais, too, understood the significance of the compromise.

In the meantime, the Chief Minister’s office in Sarawak was kept informed of the matter so that the return of the Bibles could be smoothly carried out.

It has taken almost a year to close this chapter but it is important that the controversy has come to a harmonious end.

There is a lesson to be learnt here – moderation works. This episode has proven that rational Malaysians are still the majority, and there is no place for extremists who call for the burning of Bibles, or any holy book for that matter.

The role of the palace, especially the wisdom of the Sultan of Selangor, must be recorded. Without his intervention, all this would not be possible. 

And it should also be put on record that the support of Mentri Besar Azmin Ali made this whole endeavour a real success. Azmin had earlier made clear his administration’s stand that the Bibles belong to the Christians.

At the same time, we must not forget the role of Khalid as it was during his tenure that he made the decision to let the Sultan decide.

There are issues that we still need to resolve, of course, such as the huge number of Sabahans and Sarawakians who work or study in the peninsula, especially in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.

They attend church service in Bahasa Malaysia, where the word “Allah” is used, and they cannot be expected to use the English Bibles. For them, it would still be the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia or in Iban.

In fact, the Al Kitab is available online, so how does one ban the Internet version?

These are realities which all sides must learn to accept as Malaysia evolves. The growing use of Bahasa Malaysia is also the result of the education system where most people, especially the young, prefer and are more comfortable with the national language.

We cannot now tell them that when it comes to the Bible, they have to read it in another language.

What is important is the respect and sensitivity we must have for one another, so that in fully practising our faith, which is a right extended to all citizens under the Constitution, we do not intrude or cause consternation among our fellow citizens of different faiths. This has always worked well in our country where places of worship can co-exist side by side without any problems.

All Malaysians, regardless of race and religion, have a stake in this beautiful country. Let moderation prevail.

WE have got to get used to it – a real democratic society can be a noisy one as each and every one of us has the right to speak and is free to exercise this right.

And this is something that some of our politicians and self-proclaimed race and religious champions need to also understand, and accept.

A true democratic society is never quiet, unlike authoritarian and theocratic societies where only the leaders have the right to speak.

But this is Malaysia. We may not yet be a shiny example of a democracy but it is maturing. Malaysians have become more educated and are not only more exposed to differing opinions and information, but know how to seek them out. We are no longer like the proverbial katak di bawah tempurung but have travelled far and wide to see the world. And we are certainly better off.

No one should expect middle class Malaysia, especially, to pay homage and reverence to politicians, as in a feudalistic society. Our leaders should no longer think they are all mighty and powerful, where the people must submit to their every command, and that no one can have an opinion except themselves.

In a true democracy, we should respect, and accommodate, every view even if they are in direct contrast to our own. That’s how democracy works and it is still not too late for some of our politicians to accept this new reality.

As The Nation’s columnist, Supalak Ganianakhundee, rightly wrote, “A society in which people have to comply with their leader’s commands is an authoritarian one.

“The process of reform towards demo­cracy needs to be an inclusive one and for this process to be efficient, it should allow every faction in the system to participate.”

In his message to the Thai military govern­ment, Supalak reminded them that “maybe the junta should stop and realise that bringing about reform will be very difficult if it forces all the citizens to have just one political opinion”.

Meanwhile, in our own backyard, we are still grappling with certain personalities who cannot articulate and argue their case convincingly to win over the electorate. The easiest way out, to make up for their lack of grey matter, is to continually spew remarks that intimidate or instil fear among the people.

In any democracy, we can expect such an approach from the really fringe groups or ultra lunatics whose views are often ignored. But it is sad that in our country, political bullying gets national prominence, whereby certain groups and individuals with their political links not only shout down those who do not share their views, but also play the race and religious cards to threaten them.

The country’s political future is determined by Malaysians of all races and religions. Politicians who think they are the only ones who shape and decide Malaysia’s future need to see their shrinks quickly. They need serious help.

All of us have the right to speak up and tell our politicians and government officials what we desire for our country now and in the future.

We have the right to tell leaders, politicians, officials, and journalists off if we think they are not doing their jobs right. It is fundamentally wrong to think that elected representatives and civil servants cannot be told how to do their jobs.

Our job, as concerned citizens, is not just to mark a cross on the ballot paper. The people we vote into power must be held accountable all the time. The civil servants may be unseen but they exist to serve the people in the correct manner, all the time too.

For sure, the media has a right to comment on current issues and to also allow ordinary Malaysians to articulate their views – so long as it is within the boundaries of the laws.

They must be responsible for what they write or say, and if it affects the nation’s security, then they must be prepared to face the consequences, be it via the Sedition Act or other laws. But expressing an opinion is surely not seditious.

Opinions need not be right, or popular. And even if it is the opinion of one person, it is still his right within a democracy. Because of the ever-changing scenario, especially in the political domain, the media has to allow room and space for decent and rational debate. Views from opposing sides should be encouraged, provided they are not racist or extremist.

Some of the politicians in our country have still not woken up to the reality that “government” and “opposition” are no longer labels that apply only to specific parties. Barisan Nasional, for example, is the federal government, but in Selangor, Penang and Kelantan, Barisan representatives are in the opposition.

There are still politicians from the Pakatan Rakyat coalition parties, even though they are now government leaders in the respective states, who are still talking like opposition underdogs in a ceramah.

But more worrying is the increasing number of voices outside the mainstream political arena who are challenging the accepted norms of public discourse with their strident and extremist views.

These uncouth personalities may not be directly linked to any political party but their antics occasionally give some politicians aspiring to be noticed by their party leaders the opportunity to jump onto the bandwagon.

In the process, these individuals actual­ly make the few MPs who are known for their controversial outbursts in the Dewan Rakyat look like harmless angels. At least, their circus acts are good for laughs in the sombre settings and they get their two minutes of fame to justify their MPs’ allowances.

But the increasing number of personalities and ordinary Malaysians, of all races, spewing hate comments is seriously worrying.

Some have argued that it is better to ignore these political weaklings but many Malaysians are worried over where the country is heading, where seemingly powerful characters who taunt the public with their skewed racist and religious remarks seem untouchable.

The country’s leadership is sending the wrong signals to the people.

To be moderate, open minded and liberal seems to be politically incorrect now. How things have developed in Malaysia.

Malaysia’s democracy is growing up fast with some of us even arguing that it is maturing. But we hope some of our politicians would start growing up equally fast, and stop throwing tantrums like spoilt kids.

IT smacks of double standards and no one can fault moderate-minded Malaysians, who have some sense of justice and fairness, to feel that the statement from the Attorney-General’s Chambers lacks any conviction.

The ordinary Malaysians are finding it difficult to be convinced by the legal arguments put up by the Attorney-General on why Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who had called for the burning of the Bahasa Malaysia Bible, has not breached sedition laws.

We are now told that Ibrahim was merely defending the sanctity of Islam. No one can accept this mind-boggling spin, more so when it comes from the principal legal adviser to the government.

It is appropriate that former Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah and the former head of the prosecution division of the AGC, Datuk Stanley Isaacs, have put forth their views (The Star, Oct 23, Oct 31 and Nov 1) on why the A-G’s legal reasoning cannot stand. Vohrah had also served in the AGC and is fully aware of how the system works.

The A-G’s decision not to file charges against Ibrahim based on “context” and “intention”, which are actually matters for the court to decide under the Sedition Act, is a dangerous precedent.

In future, any extremist, of whatever faith, can call for the burning of any holy book, and then cite the same pathetic reason that he or she was merely defending the sanctity of his or her religion.

It is simply unacceptable for anyone to belittle another religion, and worse still, in this particular case, even calling for the burning of a holy book.

We were already shocked by the reply from the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri in Parliament and the A-G’s statement justifying Ibrahim’s action certainly made matters worse.

We are now told that we must read Ibrahim’s remarks “in the entire context”. Going by the same argument, how then does the A-G justify the other recent sedition cases?

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has also weighed in with a comment that Ibrahim “was giving an opinion that could be accepted by Muslims as it was not seditious”.

Those of us who have followed closely the political career of the former prime minister would know that he has always stood by his supporters, in this case, Ibrahim. But with due respect to Dr Mahathir, we believe he should and would also stand by the side of justice and fairness, as we are sure he would oppose any form of extremism.

But the statements from the A-G and Dr Mahathir are unacceptable because what they are saying, in short and simple layman’s language, is that Ibrahim has done no wrong and they wonder what the fuss is all about.

Ibrahim can actually now say that he can carry on with what he has said. After all, the A-G, who is the sole authority in deciding who to prosecute, has not only let him off, but given us reasons that basically open the door for similar actions in the future. And it certainly does not help that Dr Mahathir, with his own way of reasoning over the burning of holy books, has stood by him.

The A-G’s argument on “context” and “intention” sounds more like what the defence counsel for Ibrahim would say if he had been charged. And even then, going by the provisions of the Sedition Act, such a defence would probably be struck down.

So we are to believe that Ibrahim is merely expressing an opinion which is not seditious. How convenient.

My fellow columnist in The Star and Universiti Malaya law professor Azmi Sharom has been charged with sedition for expressing an opinion which is not even about religion or race.

Many Malaysians are still wondering how Azmi’s opinion could have caused offence or threatened national security, while a number of high-profile and consistently recalcitrant extremists continue to get away with their offensive statements.

Who can blame Malaysians if they deem that the authorities are being selective in who they haul up for sedition.

If anyone dares to call for the burning of the Quran, I am confident that all rational-minded Malaysians will rise up and ask for the person to be arrested immediately and be charged with sedition.

If there is any non-Muslim stupid enough to make such a call, then all the non-Muslims in this country must speak out. No non-Muslim should remain silent if such an offensive remark is made to cause offence to their fellow citizens who are Muslims.

Likewise, I think Malaysians expect the same response from non-Christians when someone calls for the destruction of the Bible.

And the ordinary people’s response must be supported by the politicians and the leaders. It is very sad for Malaysia when politicians keep a deafening silence when gross injustice is done.

We expect our politicians to be the leaders of all Malaysians, regardless of their race and faith, and not to merely represent the interests of their own race.

No one should have the suspicion or perception that only the feelings of one race matters in Malaysia.

All it takes is for one individual or one NGO to express a negative view on the activities of another community, be it with regard to Oktoberfest, Halloween, Valentine’s Day, a concert or whatever, and suddenly the whole nation is engulfed in a major debate which takes up so much valuable time and resources, especially from the authorities who have more serious matters to deal with.

In a maturing democracy, we cannot prevent anyone from articulating their views and beliefs, even those that we find most objectionable.

Our challenge is to remind ourselves that while they do not represent the majority view, they must not be allowed to gain ground because the majority has chosen to remain silent. The voices of moderation must ring out loud and clear, all the time.

In a plural society like ours, everyone has the right to practise and celebrate any occasion. It is certainly far-fetched and even laughable to suggest that there are atheists and non-Muslims who want to weaken the faith of their fellow Malaysians.

Events like Halloween and Valentine’s Day do not even have any religious significance. In fact, they are nothing more than commercially driven opportunities for the entertainment and food outlets.

We should be thankful that we are a nation where religion is paramount. The first principle of our Rukunegara espouses our “Belief in God”.

But our faith is not just about religious rulings and paraphernalia. It is in the way we live our lives – how we exhibit compassion, mercy, justice for fellow human beings, and in our concerns over what is wrong and unjustifiable in our country, be it with regard to corruption, intolerance, violence, and the growing divide between the rich and the poor.

These should be the concerns of all religious leaders in their sermons and statements, instead of dwelling on petty issues. They should focus on common values shared by all Malaysians instead of dividing us further.

The Kelantan PAS state government is now determined to go ahead with the implementation of hudud law and again, non-Muslims are expected to believe that they would not be affected by these Islamic laws.

Whatever our faith, we are all closely linked in our daily lives. The laws peculiar to one faith, if implemented in a plural society, will have implications for everyone. To even suggest non-Muslims are not affected is laughable but there will be non-Muslims, because of their anger towards the federal government, who would actually want to believe so and even vote for PAS, which has never hidden its Islamist plans and ambition.

Let’s get our priorities and bearings right.

Malaysia is at the crossroads. We can, as a united people, go straight and take the middle path, and be sure we are on the correct track where we support one another.

Or we can allow ourselves to be divided and take different roads, which will mean we no longer believe in a common destiny.

Our choice is simple — we must all fight to keep Malaysia moderate and inclusive, and fully embrace the vision of our founding fathers.

Many businesses are suffering even as the ordinary people grapple with daily bread-and-butter issues in a weak market. But incredibly, all these concerns do not seem to bother the hate mongers who are hell-bent on sowing disunity.

IT’S incredible how some Malaysians can dedicate so much of their energy on issues, or more precisely non-issues, that really bring no benefit to the country.

This country has already got enough religious and racial bigots, whether they are politicians, retired politicians, half-baked politicians or ordinary Malaysians.

These are the characters who have no ability to make any meaningful changes to Malaysia except to generate some news in the portals.

I really feel pity for this pathetic lot. A few of them have excelled in their work, despite their somewhat limited academic qualifications, and should be remembered for their contributions to society. Instead, in this new phase of their life, they re-emerge sordidly as racists.

One personality who tried to pass himself off as an academic amazingly wondered why he has not been accorded any respect by moderate Malaysians. Well, maybe the real reason is he has been creating headlines for his outrageous remarks instead of his research work.

But the man at the centre of the storm now for making silly remarks is Gerakan’s Johor delegate Tan Lai Soon, who implied that Indians, Chinese and Malays are “pendatang” or immigrants.

At the party’s 43rd National Delegates Conference on Sunday, Tan chastised Umno members for calling Chinese and Indians “pendatang” and said that Malays were no different as they too were “pendatang” who came from Indonesia.

Tan said only the orang asli and natives in Sabah and Sarawak could be considered the original inhabitants of the land.

What’s wrong with this guy? By using the “pendatang” label in this manner, he is no different from those who call the Chinese and Indians as such.

And, seriously, what’s the point of making that remark and what can he get out of it except to generate more hostility and, worse, give the bigots more grounds to up the ante with their hate rhetoric?

The Gerakan central working committee, after an emergency meeting on Monday that was called in response to complaints by 14 of its party members, has rightly decided that Tan would be suspended. He has been issued a show cause letter.

Gerakan deputy president Datuk Dr Cheah Soon Hai reportedly told reporters on Monday that the party condemned the remarks made by Tan.

“It is not the party’s stand, we are all Malaysians and no Malaysian is a ‘pendatang’ or an immigrant.

“All Malaysians who are born here are Malaysians. I think that if a Malay called a Chinese ‘pendatang’ it will hurt and vice versa,” Cheah said, adding that “we have taken note that Tan has retracted his remarks and apologised for it”.

I am sure the Gerakan delegates do not want members from other parties to bring up such an offensive remark at their AGMs.

Such an amateur anthropological claim has no benefit and does not serve the interests of the nation. It is precisely this trend of unrestrained statements coming from all sorts of people, including at forums that we least expect, that is worrisome.

Likewise, there is no reason why the vernacular schools, which have been in existence for over six decades, should continue to be an issue.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has already given his assurance that these schools remain protected under the Federal Constitution, and in the 2015 Budget, RM50mil has been allocated for Chinese schools.

The controversy, in the words of Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, has been “canned” and certainly there is no need for anyone to reopen the issue, especially senior ranking ones.

With two months left of the year 2014, we can say that it has been a horrible year for Malaysia.

To borrow the Latin phrase made famous by Queen Elizabeth II in her 1992 speech, it is befitting to describe 2014 as “annus horribilis” for Malaysians.

The slew of issues and non-issues continue to grab the headlines in a year when we have suffered terribly from two air crashes involving our Malaysia Airlines.

The market is still weak, judging from the quarterly results announced by many public-listed companies. In short, many businesses are suffering even as the ordinary people grapple with daily bread-and-butter issues. And the outlook for 2015 does not look too good either.

Businesses now in the midst of making their budgets for next year are taking a hard look at how they can perform better next year.

Most are predicting a tough year ahead with cuts on their operating expenses, which would have a painful impact for many, especially the wage earners, with the inflationary rate expected to go up.

But incredibly, all these concerns do not seem to bother the hate mongers. How can we blame them, as they are idiots after all, with little intellect to grasp the economic issues ahead?

We can, and we should, come together to face the challenges ahead in an unpredictable year.

How can we convince investors, in the wake of competition from our neighbours, to put their money in Malaysia if they keep hearing about the silly antics of these self-appointed heroes of their race and religion?

We should not waste our time on these political wannabes and minnows whose only talent is to create disunity among us.

We are sending a seriously flawed message if those who are perceived to be close to the government are spared the full wrath of the law.

IF anyone of us is stupid or crazy enough to call for the burning of the Quran, we can be sure that the person would be immediately hauled up and charged with sedition. And rightly so, too.

If the call were to be made by a non-Muslim, whether a politician or even an ordinary individual, we wouldn’t dare to think of the consequences. Such is the fragile nature of anything to do with religion.

But in the case of Perkasa chief Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who has called for the burning the Malay language Bible, a fact which he has not even denied, he is let off scot-free.

More incredibly, he has the privilege of having a minister to defend him in the Dewan Rakyat, when she reportedly said the decision not to charge Ibrahim under the Sedition Act was made “fairly and without favouring any parties to ensure justice for the victim, witness, accused and the public.

“The decision by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to not prosecute Ibrahim was because the context of his speech was in line with the spirit in Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.

“Hence, the decision to not charge Ibrahim was taken after considering the outcome of the investigation by the police.”

We do not know whether Nancy Shukri, the de facto law minister, knew what she was reading out, but any level-headed Malaysian would surely not accept her reasoning.

With the slew of recent sedition cases over a wide variety of issues, can Malaysians be blamed if they are sceptical over how the law is applied without fear or favour? Or are there different laws for different people? Or do we simply accept that Perkasa, despite the controversial racial and religious stand its leaders have made, has special protection from the authorities and is immune from prosecution?

According to one media report, “Nancy hoped that people could see the government’s transparency in handling the legal process and for them to stay calm and not to issue statements or do things that could undermine harmony and hurt the feelings of the country’s multi-racial community”.

Oh yes, thank you very much. Of course, Ibrahim has not issued any statement that can be deemed as undermining harmony and hurting the feelings of the other races. It’s very convincing and we are supposed to accept all this without questioning it.

This writer has consistently written that it is not just the politicians, retired politicians and individuals who have been playing with fire. Because they seem to be able to get away with their inflammatory remarks, even ordinary Malaysians are joining in the fray.

These people from all races are spewing clearly racist remarks without much thought. The seditious remarks on social media, especially Facebook and certain blogs, have gone out of control because they think they can never be arrested.

One retired politician incredibly claimed in a blog that the Chinese were the biggest giver of bribes in this country. Obviously he has not heard of the reported practice of money politics in political parties, including Umno, which has been brought up by party leaders themselves. And what about the takers? There can be no bribery without the giver and the taker.

Surely there are elements of sedition in such claims when they are not substantia­ted by any evidence except for a sweeping racist accusation.

We are sending a seriously flawed message if those who are perceived to be close to the government are spared the full wrath of the law. It will give rise to accusations, even if they are not justified, that there is a selective form of prosecution involving sedition cases.

This writer has gone on record to support the existence of the Sedition Act to stop extremists from making remarks that can threaten racial harmony.

Many of us in our 50s or older have seen how dangerous the effects of a racially charged environment can be for this country, what more if religion also comes into play. That is why most of us know we have to be sensitive in what we say or do.

The irony of the situation is that even Ibrahim agrees that the Sedition Act should be kept intact, but that has not stopped him from making outrageous remarks.

He also has the company of controversial lecturer Ridhuan Tee aka Tee Chuan Seng, who reportedly claimed that “Malaysia did not have the characteristics of an Islamic country due to the increase in the number of temples and churches”.

And we do not know whether to laugh or cry at Ridhuan’s latest column where he raised his concerns over there being more pigs in this country than other livestock.

Many of us would certainly like to know whether such remarks will foster greater racial and religious harmony. Just do a Google search and judge for yourselves how many of Ridhuan’s statements are seditious.

He has been investigated by the police before and even moaned that no one came to defend him the way they stood up for Universiti Malaya lecturer Azmi Shahrom. Well, Ridhuan should just be thankful that he has not been charged.

Under fire from critics, Nancy, a first-term minister, repeatedly told her Twitter followers that she had “never defended” Ibrahim but was merely passing the message by government agencies on what actions had been taken against the outspoken Malay rights group leader.

And in a report in The Borneo Post, the minister stressed that she does not support Ibrahim Ali and would never agree with any religious or racist action against non-Muslims.

Nancy said she grew up in Sarawak in a multi-racial family and as such, race and religion were non-issues to her.

“I never dreamt that one day I would be branded as someone who is anti-Christian or a supporter of those calling for Bible burning,” she said in the report.

Well, Malaysians, especially Sarawakians who pride themselves as the model for inter-racial and religious harmony, expect her to do better. She shouldn’t be reading an answer that she does not believe in, and she would not get any respect for defending herself on the sidelines. As a public official, what she says in public must be consistent with what she says in private.

In our parliamentary system of demo­cracy, we understand that the ministers have to depend on the civil servants to supply the answers to many of the questions raised by the MPs. But once these answers are in their hands, they have to take full responsibility for what they say.

The same applies to ministers or CEOs who make speeches at public forums. You cannot blame the civil servant or the speech writer.

Our diversity is our strength, and we should be thankful that the majority of our people want a peaceful and harmonious society. But justice is blind, and as a nation where the Rule of Law is paramount, we want to make sure that justice is dispensed fairly, without fear or favour.

As the highly respected British judge Lord Hewart said way back in 1923, “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

It is bewildering that vernacular schools should be made the scapegoat for race relation issues in this country when our greatest asset is our multi-racial society, which puts us above our Asean neighbours in competing for the economic pie. 

MY father sent me and my two elder brothers to study at the St Xavier’s Institution in Penang because he felt we all needed a good education in an English-medium school.

My eldest brother studied at a Chinese school and did not fare well. It was enough for my dad to be convinced that we should all be in a missionary school.

My father Wong Soon Cheong spoke fluent Malay with a thick northern accent and had taught himself to read and write English while he improved his command of Chinese.

Like many Chinese in his time, and even now, they knew that the key to success was education, and the best education facilities were found in the English-medium schools.

When I entered Year 1 in 1968, England was still the economic powerhouse of Europe, and mastering the Queen’s English would be the passport to a brighter future.

Fast forward to 2014 – the economic balance has shifted. China has become a superpower and besides being the biggest producer of just about anything, it is also the biggest market for anyone from anywhere wanting to sell anything.

My biggest regret now is that because I am a product of the English-medium system, I am unable to speak or write in Chinese. The dialects I am able to use, the smattering of Hokkien and Cantonese, is of little value in mainland China.

Anyone who wants to do business in China needs to speak Mandarin. It’s as simple as that, and this writer will be shoved out of the door if he cannot go beyond the initial greetings.

Even in Kuala Lumpur, I would never be employed in any company that has business dealings with China. This is not discrimination as, in the business world, my linguistic handicap cannot be ignored.

By the time my daughter had to be enrolled in a primary school, the scenario had changed. There were no more English-medium schools and the national schools were no longer the first choice for many Chinese parents. They were not only concerned about the quality of education but everyone also knew by then – that was in 1998 – that China would be the country to watch.

This, of course, led to many households being rather mixed up as the English-speaking parents had to grapple with their children being schooled in Chinese.

But it was a simple economic decision, nothing more than that. Most of us had no relatives in China and certainly no political sentiments whatsoever towards China.

As someone who spent all his years in the then English-medium school, I had no affiliation for many things Chinese. I am what many would call a “yellow banana” – a yellow-skinned Chinese but one who is white-hearted. But the global future of China was there for all to see.

When my daughter went to England to do her A-Levels, her school had a full class of students from different nationalities wanting to sit for the Chinese language examination. The school appointed the best teacher to teach the class. Such was the importance it placed on its students acquiring the language skills.

My daughter left for England before the SPM but she returned to Kuala Lumpur to sit for the examination. We wanted to make sure that she cleared this examination and also get a credit in Bahasa Malaysia, which is necessary if she wants to be a lawyer in Malaysia.

Her school in the United Kingdom frowned on her taking leave of absence to take the SPM. After all, how she fared in the BM paper (she got a distinction) would have no bearing on her ongoing studies for the A-Levels.

The Chinese can be described as being very practical people, and we needed to cover all our bases.

The fact is that 90% of Chinese parents today send their children to Chinese primary schools in Malaysia, and that 15% of students studying at the nearly 1,300 Chinese primary schools in the country are non-Chinese.

Even my personal driver, an Indian, sent his daughter to a Chinese primary school. It must have been tough for the parents but she speaks Mandarin fluently, besides Bahasa Malaysia, English and Tamil. It will certainly benefit her in the long run.

Schools in the UK, the bastion of Anglo-Saxon culture, know the global economic value of Chinese. They are making plans to ensure that their children study Chinese so that they won’t be left out.

London Mayor Boris Johnson has been quoted as saying that all students in the UK should study Chinese.

Johnson, who is studying Chinese himself, reportedly suggested that Britons should be learning as much as possible about China, as the East Asian giant continues to expand its global influence.

He said the children would grow up naturally knowing about China’s importance. When quizzed on whether they should also learn Chinese as a standard subject in schools, he told the Press Association: “Why not? Absolutely. My kids are learning it, so why not? Definitely, definitely.”

The mayor told the press he was learning Chinese “from the beginning” as he showed the journalists a folder on which he had written the words “Middle Kingdom” or “China” in the language. He told university students in Beijing that his 16-year-old daughter was learning Chinese and was due to visit China.

Singapore is often used as an example of a nation, despite its Chinese majority population, not having Chinese primary schools. The fact is that every Singaporean has to be schooled in English, and then it is compulsory for them to be schooled in their mother tongue. With special permission, they can also take up an extra subject in one another’s mother tongue languages.

Chinese is therefore a compulsory subject for Chinese students in Singapore while the non-Chinese can choose Malay or Tamil as options. English is a compulsory subject to pass over there.

Now we come to the point I am leading to – why is there a need for anyone to suggest that Chinese and Tamil schools be closed down, supposedly because they are the source of disunity in this country?

It is bewildering that vernacular schools should be made the scapegoat for race relation issues in this country.

I do not think anyone would be so naïve and simplistic, especially politicians, as to actually believe that by abolishing these schools, all the problems will disappear.

Many mono-ethnic countries are highly divisive even though they have the same language, religion or culture, particularly in Eastern Europe and parts of Africa.

Our biggest problem is not whether we are using Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese, English or Tamil to teach – we should be worried over the falling quality of education in our schools and in universities.

We should be losing sleep that 70% of our teachers teaching English actually failed in the competency tests.

And why isn’t anyone worried that our public universities have still not made it into the top-ranked universities in the world?

Or why our students, despite their string of distinctions, are now not getting into Ivy League universities in the United States.

Mandarin, in fact, isn’t enough. We should all be able to speak Arabic because the richest countries are in the Middle East. With so many Arab tourists visiting Malaysia, are there enough Arab-speaking tour guides?

Malaysia’s greatest asset is its multi-racial society, which puts us above our Asean neighbours in competing for the economic pie.

The Mandarin speakers can penetrate markets in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the Malay speakers can look after Indonesia, the biggest market in the Asean region, and the Malaysian Indians can make their mark in India. When we work together, we can become very powerful. We should make full use of our combined strength.

Languages are assets, not liabilities. I understand that there are those who believe that only a single-stream school system would unite our young.

Those who called for the closure of Chinese schools should talk to the parents of non-Malay students who study in such schools. Can our politicians just listen and not talk for just a moment, so perhaps they can learn something?

Walk around these schools, see the facilities, check out how discipline is instilled or why parents are called up by the school authorities when their children do not do well.

Certainly, the history of Communist China is not taught there. Neither is anyone brainwashed into voting for the DAP if that’s what the suspicions are all about. The national schools in predominantly Malay Kelantan and Terengganu are the same elsewhere and yet, many of the parents and school leavers have always voted strongly for PAS. Would these schools be regarded as a source of disunity and anti-establishment?

The English-medium schools in my time were regarded as neutral ground, where children of all races came together. But that’s history and our country’s standard of English has taken a free fall since then.

And for the record, before I am accused of being a racist, I wish to emphasise that I voluntarily studied Malay Literature and Islamic History in Sixth Form. When I went to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, I signed up for courses at the Malay Letters Department.

The Islamic Civilization course at UKM is compulsory and I have written many times that fears expressed by some non-Muslim politicians about this course, which they wrongly claimed as a religious indoctrination course, are unwarranted and silly.

We must never be afraid of quality education and the study of multiple languages. How many of our elite politicians send their children to private or international schools in Malaysia or even to the UK or Australia? Some even pack them off to study at the secondary school level overseas, despite telling ordinary Malaysians to study in our schools.

This debate on vernacular schools should not go any further. We have bigger problems ahead to worry about, like the cost of living, the inflationary hike and the weak market sentiments. We are all in the same boat together.

Pro-democracy protesters flash lights during a rally to protest the violence seen in Mong Kok, in Hong Kong, China, 4 October 2014. – EPA/ALEX HOFFORD

Despite the tension in Hong Kong, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes. 

THERE has been plenty of restraint by both the protest movement and the authorities in Hong Kong. The threat by some student leaders to storm government buildings did not take place after the midnight deadline on Thursday.

If the international media still expect to see a serious clash between the protesters and the police, then I believe they will be disappointed.

Beijing must surely be aware that the world is watching. They would never want a repeat of the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 where many protesters, mostly students, were reportedly killed. Until today, no one knows exactly the actual number of casualties.

The Chinese government has also not used harsh or emotive language except to say that the gathering is illegal and the crowd should disperse. The protesters are angry at China’s plan to vet election candidates for the first direct election of the chief executive in 2017.

Beijing had ruled at the end of August that while Hong Kong residents would have a vote, their choice of candidates would be restricted by a committee. The protest began on Sept 22 when student groups launched a week-long boycott of classes.

On Sept 28, Occupy Central and student protests joined forces and took over central Hong Kong in what is now dubbed as the “umbrella revolution”.

Despite the tension, both sides have exercised tremendous self-restraint, which must be unusual, if not unprecedented, when seen through Western eyes.

The protest was orderly, and quite extraordinary, based on the news reports which showed how protesters collected garbage and separated them into recycling bins and how the police held up placards warning of impending tear gas action. And there was even a poignant picture of a policeman helping a protester hit by tear gas.

There are good reasons – the people of Hong Kong are fully aware that nothing that they demand, at least for now, will be fulfilled immediately. They are practical people but they want their voices to be heard by Beijing.

The people have also accepted the fact that Hong Kong is part of China. The British returned Hong Kong to China in 1997 and nothing is going to change that. The future of Hong Kong is in the hands of China – not the United Kingdom or the United States.

But the locals are also angry at the huge number of mainlanders crowding into tiny Hong Kong. The pressure on the housing, health and education sectors has led to great resentment.

There are plenty of video clips on YouTube posted by Hong Kong people on what they see as the crass and rude behaviour of the less-polished mainlanders, which ranges from eating in the underground train to defecating in the streets to loud chattering. These have led to scuffles between Hong Kong people and mainland tourists and these are well documented.

There has been retaliation, in the apparent clash of cultures, except for the fact that both are ethnically Chinese. One professor appeared on Chinese TV and called the people of Hong Kong names while claiming that they were paying homage to London. He also hammered the Hong Kong people for preferring to speak Cantonese instead of Mandarin.

On the other hand, advertisements have appeared in Hong Kong newspapers, referring to the mainlanders as locusts who hog the resources of Hong Kong.

As far back as January, the South China Morning Post had reported on protesters who marched along Canton Road, a luxury shopping street that is a popular destination for mainland tourists, holding up signs that read “Go Back to China” and “Reclaim Hong Kong”.

Xenophobia seems like an oxymoron because the Hong Kong residents and the mainlanders are all Chinese and belong to the same country.

Ironically, Hong Kong’s retail sector is crying at the missed business opportunities of the Oct 1 China national day. This is when mainlanders flock to Hong Kong for long holidays and, of course, to dine and shop. This time they have stayed away as a result of the protests and it is Hong Kong that is paying the price. Shops have been forced to shut because of the protests and businessmen are blaming the student leaders.

In fact, Beijing does not have to do anything against the protesters. The central government can afford to sit it out because the students will eventually have to go back to classes, the protesters need to report for work, and businesses must go on.

This is Hong Kong after all, where the cost of living is among the highest in the world. Sitting on the road will not last long when there are hefty bills to be paid.

A middle-ground solution to allow both sides to back down without losing face looked possible, but the plan for the students to talk with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam appears to have been scuttled by the clashes in Mongkok.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has said he would not negotiate with the student leaders, nor would he resign.

Now, the students have called off the talks with Lam, claiming that the police had allowed “triad” gangsters to infiltrate their protest camps.

But the talks will have to eventually be held because it is the right thing to do. Any dialogue between them will reflect the genuine desire of both sides to end the impasse. It will also show that Beijing is prepared to hear and respect the voices of the young people in Hong Kong, which is an autonomous territory.

This is an opportunity for the students to put on record that they accept Beijing. The reality is that their anti-communist China slogans, which may be morale-boosting during their protests, won’t change a thing. It is better that these students be practical instead of being too idealistic.

Business Hong Kong will not allow students to lead at the expense of Hong Kong and China, it is as simple as that. The clashes between the students and the traders in Mongkok on Friday are a sign that patience is wearing thin for those who need to earn a living.

Interestingly enough, most of the student leaders in the Tiananmen protest are now growing old in exile in the US, UK and France. Unable to return home, they could never have imagined how Beijing has embraced capitalism and the speed of economic progress as China’s middle class expands.

As academics Chen Dingding and Wang Jianwei of the University of Macau correctly pointed out in an article, “The English word ‘crisis’ in Chinese actually consists of two words: danger and opportunity. A crisis itself is not necessarily a bad thing – it also presents an opportunity to solve the problem.”

I agree. In the case of Hong Kong, it is better that Beijing let Hong Kong grow at its own pace and in its own way. And the people of Hong Kong can protest, but they should not go overboard.

We can claim that we did our part to help make Malaysia moderate, even if it is seen as just a small step.

THANK you to the majority of Malaysians who supported and encouraged us on the Voices of Moderation campaign in the run-up to National Day and Malaysia Day.

The campaign, which urged Malaysians to emphasise on commonalities and shared values instead of differences, certainly struck a chord among most of us.

It was clear from the many messages we received that Malaysians, regardless of their race or religion, were fed up of politicians, or any group or individuals, who used race and religion to win support. They were likewise fed up of those politicians who maintained a deafening silence as the voices of some racist personalities and groups grew louder.

Many also found it disturbing and sad that it was the private sector and concerned individuals who took the lead to push the message of moderation in this season.

As with all initiatives, it is not always possible to please everyone. One complainant who sounded educated alleged that the Voices of Moderation campaign was a subtle anti-Malay and anti-Islam move.

Another reader wrote a stinging message to me pointing out that the campaign was pro-Malay as the majority of writers and personalities featured were Malays! He pointed out that there were only two Chinese and one Indian writers while criticising me in the same breath that I am racist and unable to think as a Malaysian despite what he admitted was a noble campaign.

One well-intentioned gentleman tried to call me many times, insisting on speaking to me only and no one else, because he was upset that there was no Sikh writer. I wish to thank all of you for your feedback, if you are reading this.

A small number of right-wingers, known for their ultra-nationalistic views, posted angry statements on their blogs but offered no rational and balanced view apart from making sweeping personal remarks.

Again, I wish to express my appreciation for the oftentimes humorous remarks, which have made Malaysian politics more colourful.

On the plus side, there were a few people who wanted to sign up as members, thinking that the Voices of Moderation campaign was a movement. No, we are not, and we have no intention of going into politics.

A group of young talents comprising graduates from prestigious universities here and in the United Kingdom and the United States, offered to be writers and speakers for our campaign, saying we must not stop.

To these fresh faces, you guys are certainly the beacon of hope, and the people we want to pass the baton to in our efforts to make Malaysia a better home for all.

Meanwhile, some even called us up to purchase our posters, saying that they wanted to put them up on their office and home walls.

One tycoon offered to let us use his hotel for future meetings and public forums, saying he was committed to the cause, as he, too, believed in moderate Malaysia.

BritishIndia, an upmarket chain of fashion clothing, supported us by creating a unique visual display of the campaign’s personalities at its store windows as part of the National Day celebrations. Thank you for shouting for us and believing in us.

At Taylors University, a group of multi-racial students spent their lunch time listening to my views and that of Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, head of the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMM).

They were clever, articulate and attentive and it was encouraging to meet these students who shared with us what they want to see for Malaysia.

How I wish our politicians would spend more time listening to these young moderates instead of just making speeches and doing all the talking most of the time.

The first phase of the campaign has ended. We need to take a breather and assess what we have accomplished.

Our next move would be to reach the young in our colleges and universities, and together with the GMM, we are now charting our plans on how we can reach the 60 tertiary institutions spread across the nation.

It is a long-haul campaign and we all need to sustain the momentum to make it effective and at the same time, interesting.

The message of moderation should never become a blind spot. At the same time, we do not want to be preachy, nor do we want to reach out only to those who are already converted.

What is important is that most of us should, in our lifetime, be proud to support and be associated with the Voices of Moderation campaign. We can claim that we did our part to help make Malaysia moderate. Even if it is seen as just a small step, at least we walked that journey.

We are Malaysians. To quote the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.”

As Malaysians, regardless of our race and religion, we share a common destiny. Let us keep fighting for a moderate Malaysia.