Much has been said about the halal/non-halal food issue. Allow me to chime in my two cents. I understand that Muslims are concerned about cooking utensils contaminated by coming into contact with pork. The solution is very simple: have separate utensils, or better still, have separate caterers.

I think banning non-halal food is an overkill. The government need not sacrifice the rights of one group in order to satisfy the need of another group, even if that group constitutes the majority. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if not for the fact that some overzealous bureaucrats essentially want to use a sledgehammer to crack an egg.

Some European countries, including Turkey I believe, ban female Muslim students from wearing the tudung or the hijab, ostensibly because it is an overtly religious symbol. Malaysia is an example where the pendulum is swung to the other extreme.

It is particularly regretful because this non-halal ruling for school canteens is coming from a supposedly enlightened part of the world.

But on another note, in the US, dog owners are required to clean up after their dogs, not because of some religious teachings, but because it is common courtesy. Personally, I wouldn't mind having a law here that requires dog owners to clean up after their dogs.

Our government would not encounter so much resistance to some of its proposals if they just appeal to our common interests and stop putting an Islamic stamp on every thing.

How seriously do they mean it when they talk about inculcating unity among Malaysians and then turn around and divide the county into Malays and non-Malays, Muslims and non-Muslims?

In the US, calling an Arab Muslim a non-Christian or a non-Caucasian is considered being racist and insulting. Sadly, we Malaysians accept this kind of racism as something normal.