I find it improper for the police to be making wild allegations against Hindraf . If the group is linked to terrorist organisations then why doesn't the police produce the evidence and charge those involved with terrorists?

The role of the police is to be independent and to perform its investigations without fear or favour. For it to suddenly come out with those wild allegations after the Hindraf march only makes it appear to be on a witch-hunt. It could be accused of being the obsequious tool of the administration instead of being an independent law enforcement force.

Peaceloving and law-abiding Malaysians disdain terrorism. It is an insult to suggest they support a terrorist-linked organisation. They know who is the one crying wolf and it is not Hindraf leaders who are merely acting as catalysts for social justice. We know the real terrorists are the police stormtroopers who attacked hapless citizens who merely want to air their grievances in public. It is their constitutional right. Those who try to harm and hurt them with chemical-laced water cannons, batons and make trumped-up charges against them are the real terrorists. It is unIslamic to slander and spin lies about others.

If the government is smarting from the Bersih and Hindraf marches, it should be trying to reach out to them and be more conciliatory. Anyone with an objective stance will tell you that their gripes are valid and justifiable, rather than unreasonable or difficult to redress. Malaysians want a fair go for everyone. It does not help the government's cause if it is seen to act in a heavy-handed manner instead of listening to the people and helping them as it is elected to do.

The government should be mature enough to accept that the people have marched and made their points. It is now up to the government to respond constructively and resolve the problems. Some of these can be easily resolved while others take longer. If the government is sincere, it will be more positive instead of flexing its muscles against those who are no match for their brutality.

As for ethnic cleansing of Indians in Malaysia, that too sounds like a wild allegation. Ethnic clashes and racism must not be confused with ethnic cleansing. At its extreme, it means genocide. The Wikipedia encyclopaedia defines it as including "the forcible removal of an ethnically-defined population from a given territory, occupying the middle part of a somewhat fuzzy continuum between non-violent pressured ethnic emigration and genocide". In simple English, it means that ethnic cleansing need not always be violent, bloody or involve wiping out a race.

In the 1980s, I wrote to newspapers complaining about the ethnic cleansing of Cambodians by their Vietnamese invaders through forced marriages between Vietnamese men and Cambodian women. Back then, the term was not used. It was known as “forced assimilation”. But the results would have been the same. In Malaysia, the closest to this form of ethnic cleansing involves the Orang Asli in remote regions. According to authors like R Howard Berman in 'The Development of the International Recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' (1993), this happens when groups are "subjected to administrative control, dispossession of lands and resources, and/or forced or induced assimilation".

Orang Asli experiences of those conditions have been well-documented. Many have been coerced or seduced into mainstream culture and religion. They have been given new names that leave little trace of their indigenous origin. But there is little evidence to suggest this has happened to Indians too. If they have been dispossessed of their lands, which has happened many times, the lands are illegally-occupied staying private or state lands which the owners wanted back for development.

Complaints against crucifixes in mission schools indicate a disturbing trend of religious intolerance. It should be remembered that this country’s modern education is the legacy of Christian missionaries. If some Malaysians are wont to be ungrateful, they should not be forgetful. The first secular English school in Southeast Asia was the Penang Free School founded in 1816 by an Anglican clergyman Reverend RS Hutchings. Not long after, he also started a school for Muslims. The first headmaster of Malay College Kuala Kangsar in 1905 was RW Hargreaves, a former headmaster of the Penang Free School.

The Christian brothers and nuns later opened more schools for the poor, whom they had devoted their lives to serve. The convents run by the nuns produced good female students. The country's third Agong, our first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and former Penang chief minister Lim Chong Eu were schooled at Penang Free Sschool. Malay College Kuala Kangsar the is alma mater to many of Malaysia’s big names.

Without the early contributions of missionaries, it is unlikely that the country would have been able to achieve the progress it has. In the 1970s, most of them had to leave the country. That period also saw major changes in the education system with Bahasa Malaysia becoming the medium of instruction and a government policy restricting missionaries. Until the beginning of the 20th century, Malays were still sending their children to madrasas (religious schools) but they subsequently sent their children to mission and public schools upon realising that these schools offered a more comprehensive education.

It should be of particular concern to Malaysians that the growing religious intolerance will only polarise Malaysians more. Some may even say 'religion cleansing' exists and that may not be as far-fetched as the idea of ethnic cleansing.

People should also bear in mind that the crucifix is but a symbol of Christianity, albeit a central one. Many Christians do not wear the symbol around their necks but in their hearts. Those who watch too many Dracula movies may ascribe it more significance than necessary. They should not be ignorant but try to understand what it really stands for. Religious dogmas may polarise people only because they themselves have a divisive mind-set.

Every religion teaches their followers to live in peace with others and it is upon us all to reach out to one another in true sincerity and love. There is more to life than religious beliefs. Those who are able to live in peace with others are the true peacemakers. We need more of such people instead of those who use religion to create trouble for others. The world has no need for more bigots. They are of no use to God or man.