Paul Warren does a great disservice to the current debate over the proposed forced wearing of the 'tudung' by non-Muslims policewomen. He is just not comparing apples with apples. Comparing the wearing of the habit by Christian nuns and the wearing of the tudung just does not match up.

Christian nuns make a positive choice in choosing to live as nuns including taking the solemn vows of chastity and poverty. The nuns' habits are a natural extension of their chosen vocation or way of life.

In what respect does a non-Muslim woman who chooses to serve her country by joining the police force, sign up for the tudung? In what way is the tudung a natural extension of upholding the law and keeping public order? Why is she forced to wear a symbol which is specific to some Muslim women? (I say "some" because the case for wearing the tudung remains controversial even within Muslim circles and is not prescribed anywhere in the Qu'ran).

How did Warren come to the conclusion that Christians, in particular, take offence to the proposed ruling by the Inspector-General of Police? Did you take a poll amongst all non-Muslim policewomen and potential recruits to arrive at that conclusion?

As for Terminator , how did he/she surmise that the IGP came to the belief that "female policewomen of other races and religions have no qualms about wearing it (the tudung)"? Did the IGP conduct a survey amongst his non-Muslim female staff? Given the strength of the negative response of your readers, I beg to differ otherwise.

I am surprised that malaysiakini printed their letters given the obvious sloppiness and lack of merit in their arguments.

The IGP's imposition of a "Muslim" dress code for non-Muslim policewomen has given Minister in the Prime Minister Department Nazri Abdul Aziz one of the real reasons why non-Malays are under-represented in the civil service.