I sense that Jamil Spatafore Abdullah's article entitled 'Islamisation: This is, after all, a democracy', again resorts to sleight of words when debating about the Islamisation process in Malaysia. I trust this is done out of ignorance.

First, on his take on Anti-Wabbit's letter. Without needing to read it many times, it should be clear to a neutral party that the letter was attempting to infer that MPSJ's dog-licence policy is discriminatory in nature and is driven by the Islamisation process that is enveloping the nation ominously (by the way Majlis Perbandaran Shah Alam has a similar policy can anyone get them to back off as well?).

As for exclaiming that this is an inevitable process of a democracy, one should draw the author's attention to the country's history and the social contract between races. Was there ever an agreement between races to be dominated by the dominant race based on absolute democratic norms? No. And rightfully so. Democracy has various shades and not even the Oxford dictionary is able to capture its full essence as practiced by different countries.

In Malaysia, we settled for democracy based on reasonable behaviour among all races not tyranny of the majority. Also, as pointed out by the author, the Oxford dictionary notes that in a democracy there has to be an equality of rights in society, group, etc. Does that exist in Malaysia? No. Islamisation is another case of equality of rights being thrown out of the window.

Which brings to another point raised by the author Christian churches dominating the Southern landscape of the United States of America. Good for them. Now the crucial question is who built these churches? Were they built from tax revenues collected from all segments of the society? Nope. Christian churches are built the common sense way by Christian communities themselves. Less mosques and synagogues in these areas? Too bad for them.

But again learn to ask the right question are non-Christian communities barred from building respective houses of worships by the state? Nope. So it is a question of economics (or community will) and not politics. How about the situation in Malaysia? Don't you know the truth? Mind you, ignorance is not always a bliss.

Anyway, simply said, the debate should not be about what the majority can dictate, houses of worship based on population ratio, etc. The more reasonable argument should be whether it is right for one racial group to usurp the right of all others for its own self-interest immaterial of the social contract drawn up at the dawn of the nation's independence. The Islamisation process is a crude attempt to negate the social contract between races that forms the bedrock of this nation's foundation.

I wonder when educated men like Jamil will ever learn that understanding and tolerance is always a two-way street.