On May 14, a group of people had gathered in Pulau Pinang for a forum to discuss the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and the rights and liberties guaranteed thereunder. The forum proceeded but was dispersed within half-an-hour due to efforts by another group of people who claimed that the forum had a secret agenda, that is, the discussion of apostasy and the formation of an Inter-Faith Commission.

The forum organisers have repeatedly denied any secret agenda and have insisted that the forum was intended to provide a space for a free discussion of the rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

The group that caused the disruption of the forum, by demonstrations outside the hotel and heckling and other interruptions inside the hotel during the speeches, did not in the least concern themselves with the rights of others. They appeared to be blinded by some invisible threat that prevented them from allowing their fellow Malaysians from gathering and speaking.

I might understand if some form of protest occurred after the forum, after hearing what was said by the speakers and participants of the forum, after verification of some threat that the protesters felt required protesting. That would be understandable but that, of course, did not happen. It appears that the pre-emptive strike method, a method supposedly of Western origins, was the preferred modus operandi of the protestors on that day.

So now, amidst all the disappointment and anger that still lingers, the proverbial ball is in the attorney-general's proverbial court. The police have completed their investigations in respect of the protests on that fateful day and have handed over the investigation papers to the Attorney- General's Chambers.

Will the Attorney-General's Chambers vindicate the rights of all Malaysians? Will it punish the wrongdoers, irrespective of who they are and what they believe in? Why wouldn't it? The clients charter of the Attorney-General's Chambers is this: 'We are committed to provide legal service of the highest quality to clients and we always act according to the Constitution and laws efficiently, justly and equitably'.

I, for one, would take the clients charter to mean, in the context of the failed forum in Penang, that if the protesters had on May 14 broken the law, they would face prosecution. If they hadn't broken the law, then they are free to go ahead and do the same the next time somebody feels the urge to discuss rights under the Constitution or even perhaps if someone wishes to debate the price of fish in Chow Kit.

I m not holding my breath for vindication. The head of prosecution at the Attorney-General's Chambers stated recently in the newspapers, 'The police have recommended that we prosecute the protesters but we need to find out whether the protesters had gone there to cause trouble or there was some kind of instigation'.

Shouldn't the question instead be, 'Are the protesters guilty of an illegal gathering and was the conduct of the protesters an offence and an infringement on the rights of others who had gathered peacefully for discussion and debate?'

What is even more disturbing is the head of prosecution's sensitiveness. He is reported as saying, 'This matter concerns religion. It is very sensitive ... I need to consult the AG first before taking any action'. How is sensitivity an issue where a crime has been committed and why is the head of prosecution concerned with the sensitivity?

I hope this letter of mine is a complete waste of time and that the Attorney-General's Chambers will show Malaysians that their purpose is to prosecute in accordance with the law and not be guided by sensitivity. Lastly, I hope that the head of prosecution would rise to the occasion and prove to everyone that I am a rambling idiot for ever doubting the chambers of the honourable attorney-general.