I refer to the article by Elizabeth Wong entitled Living together in real harmony . I read with growing frustration at the patronising tone this article took.

While I wholly support Wong's point, the way she said: 'Trust the ever-predictable Umno types to ignore the substance of Yang's argument to take a shot at cheap publicity and political mileage (since they didn't get their chance to burn down the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall the last time)' was frankly a cheap shot that does not help matters.

If her point is to preach to the choir then I suppose she's achieved her purpose. But if her point is to reach out to others to change mindsets, then perhaps she needs to try and phrase things more diplomatically, regardless of her personal feelings.

If she cannot do that, then all her positions with Suaram, being a human rights fellow with the Carnegie Council of Ethics etc. don't mean a thing because she's is then there for her personal satisfaction and not to further the common good.

Other phrases used in her article which prompted me to write this include:

' ... to come out with a completely LSD-induced take on the article.'

'So one rule for them and diddly-squat for us.'

Being in the minority of believing and being able to voice clearly opinions which do shape the public consciousness means that people like Wong need to realise that while there are frustrations aplenty, allowing them to seep into one's written opinions on the matter just do not help.

The 'other side' will just fixate on these cheap shots and the entire point of that well-written article is lost.