I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protesters stop Bar's 'conversion' forum .

The Bar Council takes up issues pertaining to law as if affects public interests. The forum entitled 'Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution' disrupted last Saturday concerns one such important public issue related to law.

It proceeded with the forum on the assumption that people were or ought to be matured enough to discuss inter-faith issues civilly and rationally. Participants of the forum were representatives of various organisations, both academic, secular and religious. It was a forum open to the public in which all could express their views.

This is what civil society is all about. Civil society is as a 'third sector,' distinct from government and business.

Civil society refers essentially to the so-called 'intermediary institutions' such as professional associations, religious groups, labour unions and citizen advocacy organisations that give voice to various sectors of society and enrich public participation in democracies. The evolution of civil society and civil discussion promotes open society and democracy.

Being ‘intermediary institutions’, a civil society is apolitical. It sides with what is right, just and good for the country. It does not take political sides whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat (PR). It is, in short, pro-Malaysia.

Which is why the Bar Council might be forgiven for not weighing political calculations: whether the timing of the forum was right or wrong or that it might be exploited by those whose interest it is to drive a wedge amongst PR’s members for the imminent Permatang Puah by-election.

Arrayed on the opposite side on Saturday were 300 protestors. They threatened to storm the Bar Council forum (which had a lawful permit to hold the forum till 12 noon) if the forum did not stop as they wished. They represented a group opposed to civil and rational discussion of complex issues confronting society.

It was an uncivil group outside in the streets – ‘uncivil’ by reason that it was delivering threats, was not interested in civil discussion and not interested in dialogue and rational discussion. It was in confrontation with the group inside interested in rational and civil discussion.

It was a classic confrontation between the voices of force, intimidation and violence versus the voices of reason, dialogue and civil discussion.

It is a sad indictment of the state of openness, maturity and democracy in this country that an uncivil group outside in the streets eventually had their way over the civil group inside the building.

Various leaders of Islamic NGOs, Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam and Umno Puteri information chief Shahaniza Shamsuddin were among those who have suggested that Ambiga and the Bar Council be cited under the ISA and Sedition Act for Saturday's incident.

If PR acquiesces the actions of key players from its own component parties to attack civil and rational dialogue by a civil society as epitomised by the Bar Council, in what way then is the PR any different from those on the opposite side of the political fence that it criticises?

PR too will be guilty of placing greater priority on political considerations bearing on race and religion rather than the principles of civil and rational dialogue and tolerance of different views which is what democracy is all about.

If after 50 years, the country has regressed rather than progressed in terms of openness and tolerance, where might, more than ever, still triumphs over right, force prevails over reason, uncivil society will have its way over civil society, and interest of race and religion over interest of nation – what hope lies in the next 50 years, the political tsunami of March 8 notwithstanding?