I refer to your report Perak Mufti acts on 'offensive' cartoon poll .

Your report quoted the Mufti's office that "the answers provided in the multiple-choice questionnaire did not reflect the views of the department." Fair enough. But the more important question is: Is the mufti at all concerned about the distribution of answers to the poll?

By the chart in your report, 14% of respondents wanted to "hunt and kill" the perpetrators or "launch a war". Actually, when I last checked, on the morning of March 1, it was 20%.

That's a 1-in-7 response. It is reasonable to conclude that this is not a tiny fringe element and makes me wonder what's being taught in all those religious and moral classes that so many think that such an option is within the realm of the permissible.

Nevertheless, we should be grateful to the Mufti's office for conducting the poll and for phrasing the options the way they did. It was revelatory of a dark side in this country, both on the part of those who designed the poll, and those who responded to it.

What do the answers reveal? I think they reveal the following, judging by the distribution as of the morning of March 1:

1-in-7 of the respondents are pretty bloodthirsty;

Another 1-in-6 are more than happy to tar whole countries and peoples for the actions of a few, for that is the implication of options (3) and (4), as those actions are targeted at countries and peoples. By such a logic, it should be equally valid to tar all Muslims for the actions of the few who engage in horrendous brutality and acts of sacrilege, such as blowing up and burning mosques.

Even the seemingly mild option of "ignoring them" is distressing. What does it mean to "leave them to their world, and we to ours"? Who is the "them", and who the "we", that it would be even remotely possible to "leave them to their world, and we to ours"?

However, it may be very possible that the poll responses are not at all reflective of opinion in this country. It is well known that the design of a poll shapes the answers. Thus, the distribution of responses may instead reflect the thinking of the people who designed the poll.

And the options provided are truly disturbing. First, there is the arrangement of options, with the "hunt-and-kill" appearing at the top.

Then, there are the options themselves. Why did the Mufti's department, or whoever designed the poll, select those options to poll and not any number of others? Why, for example, were there no options taking the cue from the prime minister's call for dialogue and bridge-building?