You may not have a problem with his statement but I have a problem with him as PM. I do not know who is really leading the party. I know which party is running the government - and it is not Barisan.

Effort should be concentrated on the real issues, the “substance”.

After all the pomps and gongs, what else is left? A mountain of bills to be settled by the taxpayers money!

In particular,what the PM said - “Secular nations do not practise such (i.e., religious) freedom. To them, religious practice can only be done at home,” - actually upped and confused Islamist fundamentalists desiring an islamic state. That statement is one where, on one hand, it appeases them by saying that we’re not exactly secular in western sense (because in secular state, religion is a matter of home or private realm unlike here where government publicly promotes religion in public realm) and frustrates them on the other hand by saying that the government promotes in public realm not only one, the official religion (which would make us an Islamic state) but all other religions (in his statement - “Be it a surau, masjid, temple or church, when there is a need for it, the Government gives the necessary aid.”

YB, we should give credit where it is due and in this case give the PM the credit of coming out with a clear statement like this to clear the air (after what Najib had said about the Islamic state that confused and divided the nation).

I have no problem with the PM’s statement : the position is more or less what some of us have posted in this blog.

Now our wise PM proclaimed that “Malaysia is not a secular state and neither is it a theocratic state”, adding more rojak wisdom to the already conceptually-enriched citizens.

Furthermore he defined secularism: “Secular nations do not practise such (i.e., religious) freedom. To them, religious practice can only be done at home,” he said, responding to critics who claimed that the Government advocates secularism.

Our generous and considerate PM also said: “Be it a surau, masjid, temple or church, when there is a need for it, the Government gives the necessary aid.” Sweet, sweet words to Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and Jews in Malaysia – kindly forward your applications for land and financial assistance to build temples, churches, shuls, and synagogues. Our generous and considerate PM had spoken, fulfilling the spirits of Rukun Negara.

The current struggle was to eradicate poverty and prejudiced feelings that could derail the nation’s unity, our PM added. Yes, we must eradicate prejudiced feelings like some well-educated individuals who felt that all monkeys are bloggers.

So, it looks like BN under our wise, generous and considerate PM, our supremo servant, is not too bad afterall.

It is but one step towards burning the flag - the former is a political statement and the latter desecration of the flag.

This shows they don’t understand the issue and symbolism of the event.

First of all, water is basic and heritage of all mankind. As Charles Santiago writes, Islam ascribes the most sacred qualities to water as a life-giving, sustaining and purifying resource, a vital resource, one in which all people have the right to a fair share, which effectively makes water a community resource to which all, rich or poor, have a right. This is something other religions equally ascribe.

The event therefore symbolizes the convergence, as opposed to divergence of different religions, that there are areas of common beliefs and cooperation that can form bridges to understanding, and that the existence of different faiths does not necessarily reflect conflict but cooperation….

The interest in the subject proceeds on the first premise that if water is basic and a common heritage of all mankind - and good and clean water, a right and entitlement to rich or poor irrespective of race, religion, creed etc – then, proper management by government of water resource and its equitable distribution will necessarily be the first important governance issue. For water is not just a matter of an economic good; it is a sometimes a private good, other times a public good, and many times in between!

The corollary to that will be the basic question - if one cannot give proper governance to something as a basic a right as water, how could a government provide proper governance to other socio-economic resources of the state?

Government then plays an important role but not exclusively. To attain the objectives of clean water being available and enjoyed by all, government’s management of this resource requires the broader participation and cooperation by civil society, private enterprises and the media, all working together in cohesion to conserve, distribute clean water. (One cannot have a situation of private enterprises or individuals pouring effluent and toxic wastes into rivers or water sources).

Equally broader participation and cooperation by civil society, private enterprises and the media interacting with the government as in basic right to water will also provide the same better framework of governance in respect of all other areas concerning basic rights whether relating to prudent management of scare national resources, combating corruption or upholding of civil liberties as against abuse of power etc. There lies another symbolism behind why water governance is the first between all other governances.

To have such an event promoting such important governance issue at the Conference Centre of the National Mosque can only be interpreted (symbolically) as a gesture of respect to the official religion rather than the opposite, something which probably ABIM fully understands, and the National Mosque authorities approve.

The detractors and would be protestors do not grasp at all how holding such an event at the venue of the Conference Centre of National Mosque is symbolic of the recognition of importance bestowed upon their faith and instead thought otherwise…

Which only shows that at any given time, forces of unreason rage against those of reason in our society and it is important that our authorities do not appease and relent to the threats of former category or accede to the demands of those ignorant who would break the law by illegally assembling as a mob to deprive the rights of those who are enlightened and trying to do good for society by lawfully assembling to discuss an important governance issue such as water, its conservation and distribution.

That the authorities should withhold granting the permit because of the threats of demonstration is regrettable and show they cannot differentiate between right and wrong and always end up siding the forces of unreason against those of reason ands rewarding those who would threaten to illegally gather by acceding to their demands/threats against those who are well meaning and law abiding applying for permits to pursue an important subject.

At the rate we’re going, Toyol has the last word that “everything they try to do takes us backwards. Soon we will indeed live on trees!”