In response to Miss Peace's letter, ' Reformasi demonstrations don't work here ', what would she answer if asked this question: how do I effect positively in the democratisation of Malaysia?

The writer would likely answer: find another way other than staging public protest - but without actually postulating a reasonable option. You have to admit that in Malaysia, the options are very limited. But I suppose that writer does not care too much for that.

Let us take this issue to scrutiny

First, public protest does not have to produce violence. They are two different concepts, political expression and mob violence. Gandhi used to end public protests initiated by him when they turned violent.

There would always be people who would turn the concerted voice of the many into a chance to cause mayhem, yet they are the exception and should not be used as the basis to decide the validity of the methodology.

Second, being in Malaysia, and Miss Peace actually believes in correcting the wrongs, how do you go about it? There is no access to national or regional media. There is no public debate allowed on any issue. There is not even a sensible period of politicking before general elections, as Malaysia has one of the shortest election processes in the world.

I mean ma'am, how do you engage with the Malaysian people and the governing coalition otherwise? Therefore if people resort to public protests, just like other oppressed people around the world, how do you begin to condemn it?

The Malaysian government loathes critique. Even a non-racial and purely economical debate like Proton is not held in public, just in isolated internet newspapers. The views of the leader and his minions is paramount and infallible, and beyond scrutiny, not unlike the North Korean leadership.

Second question is, why would the opposition politicians seek to sow violence within their protest structure? They are aware how adverse the violence perpetrated by a minority of their supporters affected their electioneering in 1999.

Malaysians generally are petrified by the spectre of street violence, engendered by repeated indoctrination in schools and media since 1969. No leader, partisanship withstanding, would start a public protest hoping for violence.

Tian Chua and the rest have their politics, and whether we agree to their ideas is immaterial. However, in a working democracy, citizens must have the right to express themselves and engage with the population in order to canvass their political beliefs. If that does not occur in Malaysia, then the fault lies at the doorstep of the prime minister and the home minister, who are conveniently the same person.

Using the platform of public protest, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr became symbols of love and change, and have affected change. They brought the British Empire and institutionalised racism to their knees. They garnered their strengths from the thoughts of Henry David Thoreau, of opposing injustice with civil disobedience. It is as applicable today as when that American lived in a small town two centuries ago.

Miss Peace, the pretensions of non-violence is not peace. There is a seething anger in the minds and hearts of many Malaysians, the young ones especially. With cable and internet access, they are able to view the participatory processes available elsewhere and know that such things do not exist in Malaysia.

It is contrary to basic human emancipation to be crippled like that. It is insulting to the basic human intellect to be told that universal literacy and high graduate ratios are not enough to allow political discourse in our midst.

The change we seek, may only be found in the marches we make for freedom.