Suhakam has recently brought the local media to task over a recent spate of media reports purportedly attacking "effeminate men, masculine women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals". There was also some discussion on the possibility of repealing laws on gays, lesbians, bisexual and trans-gender individuals, but this was considered to be far more difficult considering the religious norms of the majority population in the country (i.e. Muslims).

At a more personal level, some gay Buddhist teachers have written about their experience on the Buddhist path. One example is Ven Vajra Karuna, a teacher at the Gay Zen Group of Los Angeles and the founding member and first vice-president of the American Civil Liberties Union Gay Rights chapter.

At the end of his 16-year homosexual relationship, he had an experience of 'satori' or 'kensho'. This is the Japanese term for a state of awareness or being in an individual which is considered in the Zen Buddhist tradition to be a small glimpse into the full experience of enlightenment that the Buddha achieved 2,500 years ago.

The fact that a sexually active gay person is capable of achieving one of the highest technical accomplishments in the Buddhist religion is all the testimony that is required of the status of a gay person in Buddhism.

Coming back to this issue in the context of our country's legislation, it should be clear that legislation prohibiting homosexual relationships is a direct violation of the religious rights of gay Malaysian Buddhists, such as myself. That it is a violation of my secular, human rights as well needs no stating.

While it may be pointed out that some Malaysian Buddhists are opposed to homosexual behaviour, this opposition arises from a cultural context and not from a religious one. The constitution of our country provides protection for freedom of religious practice, not enforcement of cultural norms.

As an analogy consider another sensitive issue: polygamy. This is frowned upon in most cultures and religions, but it is permitted for Muslim men in our country because of their religious practice (Islam). Similarly, the consumption of alcohol may be prohibited in Islam, but it is still legal for other non-Muslims in this country.

Thus, it would make sense to decriminalise homosexual relationships in secular law but maintain it as an offence under Syariah law, which is applicable only to Muslims. This would be the same approach as the one adopted for other issues such as khalwat (prohibited for Muslims under Syariah law, permissible for non-Muslims), which appears to have worked out well so far as the different religious communities are concerned.

However, I must concur that this is unlikely to happen as the self-appointed moral authorities of our country seem more intent on pushing forward certain agendas based on trumpeting slogans such as 'all religions and cultures condemn homosexuality', which as we have seen, is an outright fallacy.

These same authorities claim that they have a high level of understanding and tolerance towards other religious beliefs, but still remain blindly ignorant of statements in our supposedly secular constitution that blatantly violate the fundamental religious beliefs of certain communities.

For example, the first principle in the Rukun Negara, 'Belief in God', is a clear impingement on Buddhist beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Buddhists do not believe in God (or at least they do not subscribe to a monotheistic version espoused by Islam or Christianity).

It appears Malaysians still have quite far to go when it comes to truly understanding, tolerating and respecting the beliefs of our fellow Malaysians.