NOW WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SAY?

It has been an interesting week with me throwing the cat amongst the pigeons and playing the devil’s advocate to provoke debate on the Allah word controversy. Unfortunately, the debates, if you can even call them that, have been disappointing.

Most who do not like the message tend to shoot the messenger. Shooting the messenger is, of course, a saying that many probably do not know. I will not bother to explain what this means and how that saying came about as all you need to do is to Google it for enlightenment.

Many also cannot tell the difference between an opinion and a narration. I narrate (relate, recount, tell, describe, report, etc.) what happened or what someone said and many jump on me and express their profound (deep, intense, extreme) disagreement with my view (opinion).

This is probably because of their poor comprehension of the English language (and judging by the comments from these people that appears to be the case) so they cannot understand the distinction between what you think and you reporting about what others think or said.

The fact that I use the third party in reference to a certain statement, opinion, belief, etc., and not the first party (you being the second party who I am talking to, of course) appears to have escaped them. And this, as I said, can only be because of their poor comprehension of the English language.

If I were to say ‘I believe’ or ‘I am of the opinion’ that yada, yada, yada…then this is the first party (me) talking to the second party (you). But when I say ‘according to the Muslims’ or ‘according to Islamic beliefs’…then this means I treat Muslims or Islamic beliefs as the third party and not the first party (me).

This is the first thing you need to understand about the English language if you wish to debate in English.

This was the same problem I faced with the Statutory Declaration that I signed in June 2008, which got me into a lot of trouble. The IGP and AG had not even read that SD yet and they immediately made public statements that I had lied and hence the government was going to take action against me.

What was it that I lied about? I said in my SD that an old school friend of mine I have known for 50 years since 1963 and who works for Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah had told me a story (I also said this in my recorded statement to the police). I did not know whether this was true or not but I urged the prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial to investigate this matter since the trial was still ongoing.

So, I was the first party talking to the second party about what a third party had told me. But they arrested me and charged me on the basis that I, and not the third party, had made that allegation.

Hence you can see that even the number one in the AG Chambers and the number one in the Police Force have a poor comprehension of English. So what can we expect from a layman like you who engages in a debate without any inkling of how the English language works?

So, first understand whether it is I talking or I reporting about what someone else said before flying off the handle. If not you would sound very pathetic screaming at me about your disagreement regarding my so-called opinion when I never said that that was my opinion.

For example, I also write that the Chinese are not happy about what they perceive as their second-class treatment and that is why more than 90% of them voted opposition in the recent general election.

Am I Chinese? Is it I who is not happy? Is it I who perceive I am being treated as a second-class citizen? So, are you going to whack me for perceiving that I am being treated as a second-class citizen and that was why I voted opposition? Is it not true that more than 90% of the Chinese voted opposition in May last year? Is it not true that the Chinese voted opposition because, according to their claim, they are fed up with being treated unfairly?

How come when I say ‘Chinese’ you understand what I am saying but when I say ‘Malay’ or ‘Muslim’ you cannot seem to understand what I am saying? Is this because of the blinkers you are wearing?

Anyway, before you embarrass yourself any further, maybe you can read the two news reports below to get a clearer picture of the Selangor ban on those 25 words.

Last time never uttered even one squeak. Today talk so much. Now what have you got to say? Blame Umno’s education system that made you stupid? I suppose we can also do that. Then you do not need to take any blame and we can blame someone else instead.

****************************************************

All non-Muslims are not permitted to use the word ‘Allah’ in Selangor, and that includes the Sikhs, said Selangor state exco for Islamic affairs, Sallehin Mukhyi, today.

“The Selangor Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) prohibits all non-Muslims from using ‘Allah’ and 34 other Arabic words.

“Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s decree last December specifically states that the word ‘Allah’ is exclusive to the Muslims,” said Sallehin.

Free Malaysia Today (READ MORE HERE)

****************************************************

When the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment was passed by the State Legislative Assembly on April 4, 1988, the only two voices that represented the minorities were two DAP assemblymen.

Despite earlier contentions that non-Muslim BN representatives “objected” to the enactment, which prohibits non-Muslims from using 25 Arabic words including “Allah”, the Hansard of the proceedings shows that these representatives were silent as the enactment went through in a day.

The DAP representatives faced down a full block of 37 BN assemblymen in the House, with hardly a sigh from MCA and MIC representatives.

MCA was represented by Datuk Yap Pian Hon, Datuk Wong Ah Taih, Datuk Tang See Hang, Datuk Ng Thian Hock, Datuk Ng Soon Por, Datuk Eng Hoi Choo, Tong Yoke Seng and Sim Keng Seik.

MIC representatives in attendance were Datuk TM Thurai, Datuk M Mahalingam and Datuk M Sellathevan.

The only absentee was then opposition leader Datuk Dr Tan Seng Giaw.

Other DAP reps in attendance were Dr Tan’s wife Dr Oon Hong Geok, Chan Kok Kit, M Madhavan Nair and Tan Sin Piau.

The session, which was presided by speaker Datuk Saidin Tamby, was also attended by state secretary Datuk Sulaiman Osman, state legal advisor Mohtar Abdullah (who went on to become Attorney General) and state financial officer Abdullah Kuntom.

Terence Fernandez (READ MORE HERE)