I refer to YW Yeoh's letter Dream on for a Malaysian race and PK Yang's Suhakam defends sedition act, not free speech.

Firstly, according to international human rights rules and conventions that was adopted after World War II, it is wrong for a nation-state to deny its citizens the right to name their children according to the traditional manner of their nation or race.

Yeoh may recall that the Japanese, before World War II, colonised Korea and insisted that the Koreans adopt Japanese names. In fact, after World War II, the only country that did this was Indonesia when the country saw the eclipse of Sukarno in 1965. Sukarno had tried to balance the three pillars of Indonesian politics — nationalism, the armed forces and religion — but lost.

The nationalists, in particular, the cultural nationalists, were courted by Sukarno's successor, General Suharto, "the smilin' general" of one of the pillars, the armed forces. As a concession to the nationalists, the Chinese were forced to adopt Indonesian names and even disallowed the use of their language and the perpetuation of their culture. It is truly a historical irony that the rise of a Muslim leadership under Gus Dur, albeit centrist, cooled down this situation that was understandably not reversed.

Secondly, the lament by PK Yang on Suhakam's defence of the Sedition Act. According to the general principles of international law, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNHDR) adopted earlier in 1948 and since signed by most of the UN member countries has become international law by virtue of the jus cogens principle.

Whether Malaysia or any other country signs it or not is irrelevant. I use that word "irrelevant" not to slight a member of the Malaysian bench who has since become identified by Malaysians with that particular word. That the UNDHR is international law by international convention means that the application of the Sedition Act, theoretically correct, may be wrong in practice. This is so mainly because at international law, self-determination is the inalienable right of any people.

Having said that, I concur with the views of Dr Too Chee Cheong, a friend and former leader of the Dong Jiao Zong in the 1960s. I go further and call on Dong Jiao Zong, as an umbrella of Chinese organisations, to not only uphold the principle of multilingualism, but also adopt the Chung Ling model.

Chung Ling in Penang used to teach both Chinese and English, to the extent that its graduates in the 1950s and 1960s were not only proficient in both languages but were also able to use their mastery of both languages to provide exemplary leadership to the Chinese community in the political and economic sectors.

I appeal to the leaders of the Dong Jiao Zong to display intellectual wealth and political perception. If they can rise to this challenge, they should eschew the politics of language and race in the name and in the interest of the dwindling Chinese minority in Malaysia.

By doing so, the present leaders of the Dong Jiao Zong will align themselves to the wishes of the majority of Chinese Malaysians who have always demonstrated to all and sundry that they unreservedly adopt the responsible politics of accommodation, of compromise and of consensus, and refuse to indulge in the irresponsible politics of one-upmanship, of race-baiting and of confrontation.