I refer to the Malaysiakini article When fiction comes too close to reality .

Eric Loo talks of context in the interpretation of art in his column on Chamil Wariya's notorious cerpen . I'm sorry to say that Loo himself has failed to see the context in which the cerpen was written and published.

If Chamil was indeed hitting out against racist politics, why suggest Teresa Kok as the subject as if to propose that she practises that? Where that is concerned, it is highly debatable that she does.

Why doesn't Chamil go for the obvious case and write about Umno politicians who have been playing the racial card for the last how many decades?

Now, there's no dispute over that. Anyone can see that Umno is famous for practising racial politics - unless they choose to be blind. Read Utusan Malaysia (talk about context!)

Observe the roadshows organised right after March 8 going round the country to warn Malays that because of the election outcome, Malay land had now fallen into non-Malay hands.

Who plays the race card the most? Does Loo not really know? So if he wants to talk about context, he should get a proper perspective on it.

Chamil says that his goal in writing the cerpen was to ‘remind politicians not to incite communal feelings’. Why not, for example, write one based on the famous instance when Hishammuddin Hussein wielded the keris ?

Wouldn't an anti-racist story with a protagonist modelled on Hishammuddin being that impart a more persuasive message?

I think it certainly would, and any level-headed individual, Malaysian or otherwise, would agree. But then, it might incite people of Chamil's race. The Sedition Act might be thrown at him. He might even be detained under the ISA, like Raja Petra Kamarudin.

If Loo wants context, that’s context for him. As it has turned out, nothing of that sort has happened to Chamil for writing about a Chinese YB. He has merely incensed the people of another race, and it seems that’s all right as far as the authorities are concerned.

What can be derived from this is also the more insidious context of double standards. And that is what level-headed Malaysians are worried about.

Loo quotes Chamil undeservedly in the same sentence as Salman Rushdie. In Rushdie’s case, the reaction to his insult against Islam called for his death, which is not the case with Chamil. What is more worthy of note is that Muslims had a right to be incensed by that insult.

Unless Loo disagrees, he should acknowledge that those who perceive Kok to have been unfairly maligned have also the right to take offence. Even make a police report.

Writers have to be responsible for what they write. Great literature has always been to affirm life and humanity even when it depicts suffering, despair, evil, etc.

Any piece of writing that has a nefarious intent – such as murdering someone, even a so-called fictitious character – demeans the human spirit.

And especially if it is written on the side of power, which thereby guarantees the writer protection from state persecution.