The Nut Graph
15 Jan 10
By Koh Lay Chin
[email protected]
GENERIC term? Noun or pronoun? Conversion conspiracy or copyright? What exactly are Malaysians fighting over with regard to the “Allah” issue? And how is it all being played out in cyberspace?
A check on Facebook, Twitter, some blogs and an assortment of other sites since 8 Jan 2010 when churches started being attacked shows that the issue is far from being a singular one.
The cacophony of voices can be difficult to unravel because they are based on different arguments. So, while people are arguing about who can use “Allah” in Malaysia, what are they really angry about?
Different arguments
The first argument is one of exclusive ownership. This is tied to the theological concerns of a wide number of Muslims who find it offensive, or at least uncomfortable, to imagine “Allah” being used in the same sentence as Jesus Christ, who in Christianity is God’s begotten son. To them, Nabi Isa is the Prophet Jesus.
This may not be currently well articulated in tweets or comments across cyberspace, with most Muslims instead opting for the “Why use ‘Allah’ when you can use ‘Tuhan’?” argument. Still, underpinning this argument is the fear by some Muslims that Christians are using “Allah” in a way that could be blasphemous. Hence the need for Muslims to claim the word so they can protect its meaning.
This discomfort is clear even in quieter reflections, some of which include links to certain Christians’ disagreement over the use of the term.
The confusion has been heightened with the government’s argument that Malaysian Muslims are angry because they are afraid “Muslims may be confused” and hence convert to Christianity. It is safe to say that most Muslims know their own faith fairly well. If anything, more non-Muslims, both local and international, seem to be in a state of confusion over the issue. I tracked a number of tweets and comments online, and found that “I don’t get it…” was a popular start or end of tweets circulating.
Many do not understand the fuss, are looking for more information about the religious terms, or are puzzled as to why so many are upset over the issue. There are, in fact, many non-Muslims who are not Christians who are scratching their heads over why Christians would want to use the term “Allah” in the first place.
The second argument on cyberspace is about freedoms and the constitution. Many comments from Muslims against the use of the term by non-Muslims have expressed anger that this religious issue was taken up to court. “This is not the avenue for the courts!” say some groups.
Several in the Facebook group Menentang Penggunaan Nama Allah Oleh Golongan Bukan Islam, for example, are blaming Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam for taking the issue to court, and see him as trying to escalate the issue. These people are clearly not interested in the debate that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have used the term “Allah” for generations. Instead, they choose to frame the issue as one where peninsula-based Christians are supposedly and unfairly demanding the right to use “Allah”. Suspicion over Christian motives is high on their list. As is anger over what they see as provocation by Christians.
While many from the so-called liberal camp have argued that the term has been used without problems by non-Muslims in other countries, some argue that one cannot compare Malaysia to Indonesia, for example. They argue that this is because the Malay Malaysian’s racial identity is closely intertwined with their religious identity.
The third argument is related to the politics of the controversy. This is where the actions of the government, political parties and political leaders swamp the debate, making it unclear what everyone is actually frustrated about.
Many are angry that government stewardship came so late, or some argue not at all. Others point fingers at leaders of both sides of the divide for merely trying to gain political points. Yes, there were even tweets and links circulated on Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s past comments on the issue, for which he has received flak.
There are also the conspiracy theorists who believe these acts were either committed or urged on by the current government or the opposition party, or their supporters. Go figure.
The good stuff
Not all arguments online were framed in heated, negative or despairing tones. There were also lucid and well-written appeals for calm, rationality and reason. For example, the piece by Umno Youth’s Shahril Hamdan, which took to task Akhramsyah Muammar Ubaidah Sanusi, another Umno Youth blogger, for his views.
“I’m equally confident that many Malays are willing to engage in informed discussions and dialogue to better learn about one another’s positions, rather than having to resort to violence or, dare I say, seditious acts — after all, contentious issues such as this often expose the poverty of our knowledge, not its wealth,” Shahril wrote.
The best news of all? While they argued long and hard over their views on religion and politics, an overwhelming majority denounced those who had used Molotov cocktails and paint on churches, a Catholic school and a Sikh gurdwara. There were also Muslims who reached out to Christians to demonstrate that troublemakers and arsonists did not represent them. Others held peaceful gatherings, forums and patrols for churches.
God, grant me the serenity…
Going through the flood of information and comments, perhaps I could offer three quotes to help us emotionally navigate through the controversy.
Bertrand Russell once said: “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”
While there have been different strains and levels of ferocity, one cannot deny that there are roughly three main camps of thought:
*the “Christians, Don’t Use ‘Allah’!” camp;
*those who think everyone should be allowed to, and
*the Confused.
Ultimately, people fear what they don’t know or understand.
Another quote is Reinhold Niebuhr’s “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference”.
Perhaps it is only natural that as human beings, we are still arguing over religion. We may never be able to change this, with it being the Mother of Irreconcilable Differences throughout history. We can certainly, however, improve the way we debate.
Most importantly, let us not argue over our constitutional freedoms; the constitution is what binds us Malaysians to our state.
Finally, let us not stimulate or provoke fears, which can be unrealistically amplified in cyberspace. As Aung San Suu Kyi once put succinctly: “Fear is not the natural state of civilised people.”
________________________________________
Koh Lay Chin has two twitter accounts, one public and one private. Both were equally flooded by tweets on the “Allah” controversy. Some were difficult to read, but she believes in the benefits of debate.
#1 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 5:37 am
Koh’s subject caption should be “Allah” in cyberspace – “without Tun Dr Mahathir” (TDM)!
One cannot ignore TDM’s factor in relation to current unhappy events. If one look at Muslim countries in Middle East/parts of Africa, large swathes of them is enmeshed in quagmire of poverty, lack of economic development, anger and strife in spite of and, in many cases because of Religion. [It became more acute after Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian Revolution]. TDM then had a “brainwave” to counter all these: he would make and showcase Malaysia a model Islamic State – and put the rest to shame – by combining Islamisation and Modernisation. [No one has done this feat. Turkey? Bad example as it is secular]. So in 22 years Mahathir’s Admin poured lots of money into Islamisation building mosques, sponsoring religious studies here and abroad (to secure allegiance of state sponsored ulamas), introducing Islamic think thank like IKIM, expanding Syariah state laws and courts with an eye of economic development for eg pushing for Islamic finance/banking, insurance etc . The premise here has always been centrality of Islam to Muslim Malay world view/cultural identity. TDM’s thinking was that if his administration state-sponsored and controlled Islamic discourse/thinking, his party would control securely the vote bank of Muslim Malay majority, differentiating & outwitting PAS’s more orthodox/fundamentalist approach! It is important to note that such a program could be pushed for, and executed, on the assumption of TDM’s authoritarian style and personal strength as a leader that could put all other institutions (whether economic, Islamic, judicial, security agencies) in his pocket. Detractors including three DPMs were put out of action by him.
After he left office, whatever programs of Islamisation-cum-Modernisation he started, were left to be continued by successors who are less Machiavellian, less strong in controlling party or civil service warlords, state sponsored religious establishments but they still have to tackle and manage his legacy! Pak Lah tried Islam Hadari. It didn’t really catch on. Not having size of TDM’s feet is one thing – but having to meet new challenges like Globalisation, the Internet (unmanacled due to TDM’s Guarantee of Cyber Freedom), proliferation of NGOs of all ideological persuasions including Muslim NGOs and growing Middle Class including Malay Middle Class, exposed to Western education & ideas and pursuing materialistic goals without sacrificing religious beliefs, all pressing for their say whether on the street or via blogs??? We’ve also got Rural-Urban drift, people who thanks to our educational system are not proficient in English, and who can’t get job in over bloated civil service, hanging around the city looking for distractions, becoming Mat Rempits and maybe throwing molotov cocktails for hire/payment….
Present political leaders have to tackle these new changes whilst, in the absence of intellectually sustainable alternatives, are still using TDM’s tried formula of playing racial/religious card to control their traditional Malay/Muslim vote bank. However they are not Mahathir. The game does not suit the character/temperament/capability of the players if they at the center unlike Mahathir cannot hold all parts together that will soon fall apart! So it has come to pass in 12th Malaysian election when a substantial part of that vote bank deserted and left for PKR & PAS when an opposite of TDM’s temperament was expected to carry on what TDM set, as a legacy, in place. That legacy is not just Bumiputraism/Ketuanan – and Crony Capitalism – but Islamisation-cum-Modernisation programmes where UMNO is supposed to control tightly and arbiter the Islamic discourse/space, rules, interpretation. They’re not doing that great a job up to now when they first banned Herald’s use of the word, without considering its negative effect on their vote bank in East Malaysia or how opportunists could capitalise on the dispute to lob molotov cocktails at churches, disrupting harmony and attracting adverse international attention inimical to the economy, the lifeblood of the ruling elites’ patronage gravy train! If they don’t backtrack they “kena” and if, balancing all competing imperatives, they do back track, as they apparently have done (so far), it doesn’t mean they won’t “kena” some more!
#2 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 6:51 am
The dilemma is aggravated by the Churches’ attacks (whether random by the emotionally marginalized or organized by the politically mischievous) which threaten their East Malaysian vote bank from 900,000 Christians and force them to reverse. Any reversal (after one has goofed) is understandably sugarcoated by face saving excuses but are these excuses plausible, and if not will more problems follow?
The first excuse for reversal is that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak could now use the word but not Peninsula. However how does one justify two sets of rules on the usage of the word demarcated by geography? He says its not geography but “common tradition” -because it is a common tradition in East Malaysia but not so in Peninsula. This however is not that plausible as there is no connection between “common tradition” with the dispute/contention in first place. The dispute precipitated by the ban and appeal against Justice Lau Bee Lan’s decision is based on the objection to Christians using the same expression to describe the Almighty just as the Muslims, which allegedly confuses or proselytizes the latter – and this has nothing to do with “common tradition” in Sabah and Sarawak. For if one acknowledges that it is “common tradition” for Christians in Sabah and Sarawak to use that word, why should one ban its use by Herald in the first place and appeal against Justice Lau Bee Lan’s decision favouring Herald?
Oh, the second excuse : that’s because of “the subsequent arson attacks on the churches proving that the government was right about the ban” – but how does that prove it? Arson attacks occurred SUBSEQUENT to the Govt banning Herald’s use & appealing against High Court’s decision favouring Herald, and soft approach to demonstrators. There were no attacks BEFORE then even when Herald has used the word for decades! The Cause & Effect is pretty mixed up here. [On the contrary when extremists lobbed Molotov cocktails in such milieu, one is placed in unenviable position of admitting either (1) extremists are on same side as one’s cause or (2) one’s championing of the cause against Herald incites extremists!]
To justify selective application of the ban in Peninsula and not East Malaysia, the honourable minister cited “the Federal Constitution for support to point out that no other religion can be propagated to Malay Muslims and this article had been enacted in all states in Malaysia where the sultan is the head of state…So this excludes the Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah”. Which creates another problem of whether it implies that in the Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah can one proselytize another religion to a Muslim when the Constitution does not prohibit? Nazri explains “no” – “In these states, for the ban on the use of ‘Allah’ to be implemented, the home minister can use the Printing Act to enforce it”. Which of course does not explain how a lesser legislation like Printing Act can override the Constitution not prohibiting proselytizing in these 4 places and promising Freedom of Religion at same time to all.
The issue of selective ban in Peninsula is more than just overcoming Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Religion to Muslims. It is also for Catholics/Christians including those in Peninsula, albeit numbering less than those in East Malaysia. Peninsula Catholics/Christians will then ask why East Malaysian Catholics/Christians enjoy more privileges than them (unfairly discreminated against) in use of that word when Federal Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion and (between Peninsula as well as East Malaysian Cahtholics/Christians) Equality before the Law.
How to answer these objections? Maybe have to consult TDM whose legacy and attendant problems they find hard to manage.
#3 by monsterball on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 6:58 am
I still say …certain UMNO members are trying to use religion to provoke and insult….with the hope…we forget the present current unsolved corruption and murder cases.
Najib is not in control…just a figure head with no power..or a idiot…worst than Pak Lah.. trying to hold on to power.
#4 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 7:31 am
My statement that the Constitution may not prohibit proselytizing of Muslims in “Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah” where they don’t have sultans as the head of state/Islam may be incorrect. However the Minister’s statement – that there cannot be proselytizing of Muslims where “this article had been enacted in all states with sultans” – is also vague. Has constitutional prohibition of proselytizing to be enacted in all states (with sultans) before it becomes effect? I would have thought that if the Constitution says “no” to proselytizing, it means “no” even in states of East Malaysia without sultans.
It is anyway hard to understand the argument.
The use of the word “Allah” in Malay version of bible and sermons in Churches (to which the ban is justified) is unconnected to argument of proselytizing of Muslims. How could they be proselytized when Muslims don’t attend churches for sermons or read Malay version of Bible referring to that word?
If one still insists that they could be proselytized in justification of the ban (in Penisula), then how come “common tradition” of Christians in using that common word in East Malaysia could mitigate or avert the risks of proselytizing of Muslims in East Malaysia, the same of which is not true in West Malaysia? Why the risks of proselytizing are more in West Malaysia/Peninsula? What’s the basis of distinction? The fact is how can one talk of (1) ‘common tradition’ justifying lifting of the ban in East Malaysia and (2) ‘risks of proselytizing’ justifying imposition of the ban in West Malaysia/Peninsula all in one breath when (1) and (2) are mutually incompatible to exist at same time? It is hard to maintain that Peninsula Catholics/Christians don’t share “common tradition” in use of the word with East Malaysian counterparts – or that if the ‘risks of proselytizing’ are real in Peninsula it is not or lesser real in East Malaysia or that if the the risk of proselytizing exists in East Malaysia, “common tradition” can override that risk.
#5 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 7:59 am
It is difficult for me to accept that Mahathir was able to forge a “modern’ Islamic state when compared with many of Muslim countries as alluded to by one the sage here. I think the conclusion drawn was not accurate and erroneous.
This country was able to progress and become “modern” not because of the particular brand of Islam promoted by Mahathir. More so, it is because of the sizeable non-Muslim population and the significant roles they played in the Malaysian economy. Factor all this out, I believe Malaysia would be no difference from many of the “stone age” Muslim countries alluded to by this sage.
#6 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 8:08 am
The whole problem with us is that we have a government who want to do too much. We have a government who wants to take care of the every facet of our life when that government itself is not very smart.
Please, just collect the taxes and use the money prudently to build infrastructure, “rational” education, and health care. There is no need for you to think of promote this or that, subsidising or protecting this industry or that industry, mental development or national ideological training, and moral education or religious education. We the people know how to take care of all these better.
#7 by Dap man on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 8:56 am
ABIM, Muslim NGOs and UMNO supporters should now tell us what exactly they had been fighting for since Allah could now be used in East Malaysia.
What has come of the Allah ownership by Muslims?
What has come of the confusion it will create among Muslims?
What about the connection between the Trinity and Allah which they opposed?
Are they still with UMNO? Or are they still confused with their convoluted brains?
Or will they find some new justification for their struggle.
Or are they plain stupid?
#8 by wanderer on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 9:01 am
When a nation is run by brainless cows, it becomes the joke of the world!!
Allah or God is LOVE. Obviously, not the way the UMNO fanatical muslims see it…trying very hard to claim sole ownership without a cause…just to gain political mileage to regain lost ground by their stupidity.
This is C4, 1Malaysia!
#9 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 10:04 am
I said that TDM then had a “brainwave” to make and showcase Malaysia as a model Islamic State by implementing his policy of Islamisation and Modernisation. The acts of his administration and its programmes followed this policy.
This is altogether different from saying that Mahathir suceeeded in his policies of forging a “modern’ Islamic state when compared with many of Muslim countries or that if our nation is relatively modern by comparison it is due to his policies. I don’t recall anywhere in my posting #1 I have ever said these.
#10 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 10:35 am
1. If you have not said what I interpreted, then tell us clearly, in simple English what exactly did you say?
2. Mahathir is not that great, be it on economic management, religious administration or fostering unity among Malaysians despite whatever means he used. It is my inference that if he had presided over the 12 election, the loss BN suffered would be even bigger. If he were to run this country today, the grudge, the unhappiness and the frustration would be even intense. He is the main cause if not the only cause in the demise of this great country. If Pak Lah was a wrong guy to succeed him, we must remember he was the one who appointed him. He has a hand in everything that has gone wrong in this country today – from unfettered entry of foreigners especially in Sabah, economic management, cronyism, corruption, erosion of government institutions and civil service, religious bigotry and racial polarisation. And, simpleton, stop saying he was the one guaranteeing us cyber freedom.
#11 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 10:44 am
“In the peninsula, the Malays accepted Islam and the name ‘Allah’ because we distinguished it from other meanings of God. But it’s different in Sabah and Sarawak. The Muslims there are more open towards the generic usage of Allah,” Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said (The MalaysianInsider 16th Jan).
So East Malaysian Muslims are different from Peninsula’s Muslims. So also are East Malaysian Catholics/Christians from Peninsula’s counterparts because, according to Nazri, East Malaysian Catholics/Christians have a common tradition there to use of that word in Malay version.
This means that there will have to be two Bibles in Bahasa version: one for East Malaysia with the word Allah” and another for use in West Malaysia perhaps with “Tuhan”. Likewise the Herald publication – 2 versions?
Curiously there is only 1 constitution – whether relating to issues of Freedom of Religion or prohibition of proselytizing Muslims – for both East & West Malaysia.
Asked why the need for two sets of rules on the usage of the word, Nazri stressed that this is not a unique practice as Malaysia also has two sets of laws on other matters, citing the syariah court and the civil court as examples.
But here Muslims subject to syariah courts and Catholics/Christians subject to civil laws are within each subset further differentiated along lines of East Malaysians or West Malaysians.
All along we have dichotomy between Bumiputras and Non Bumiputras and Muslims and Non Muslims. Now we also have the third dichotomy between East and West Malaysians.
Whatever becomes of “1 Malaysia”? Looks like 3 Malaysia!
#12 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 11:00 am
//If you have not said what I interpreted, then tell us clearly, in simple English what exactly did you say?// – LimKam Put
My postings #1 and #9 are plain and simple English: how much plainer and simpler can it gets? Where did I say Mahathir suceeeded in his policies of forging a “modern’ Islamic state when compared with many of Muslim countries or that if our nation is relatively modern by comparison it is due to his policies?
I said he had an intention to do so or show case he could do so by his policies/programs of Islamisation-cum-Modernisation.
Does saying a man have an intention and implementing that intention by his programs/policies suggest to you that it is also saying at the same time that he has succeeded in doing so as he intended by his programs/policies?
If this simple distinction is not easily perceived, little wonder then, and it can now be more fuller appreciated why there is so much confusion over the semantic meaning of the word “Allah” by which one has to grap[ple with complexities and delve into the etymological origins of the word.
#13 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 11:18 am
//And, simpleton, stop saying he was the one guaranteeing us cyber freedom.// – LimKamPut
My simpleton view is that point 7 of MSC Bill of Guarantees promises the world community/investors the Malaysian Government’s commitment to ensuring no Internet censorship.
Wasn’t it Mahathir administration that inked MSC Bill of Guarantees under the cover of which the Online News Bulletin Malaysiakini started operations until today disseminating alternative news – with TheMalaysianInsider and other blogs joining in- unmanacled by the Printing Press Publication Act?
#14 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 11:48 am
Do you think I would not know about the MSC Bill of Guaranttee?
What I am saying is that the government can say many things but whether or not they are implemented would very much depend on expediency and development of the time. To say that we have cyber freedom because we have MSC Bill of Guarantees is again to simplistic. Even China today has grudgingly allowed its citizen to have access to the cyber space.
#15 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 11:50 am
The focus of #1 on Mahathir’s aggressive Islamisation-cum-Modernisation policies and programs of 22 years is to highlight how it has created conditions (by way of political legacy) difficult for those after him, who by style and temperament are different from him, to play (as his administration did) the same religious/racial card for political capital and manage it.
It is supposed to provide the back ground to the present fiasco of how a non problem (Herald use of the word) has been made a problem (hence the ban/court case) by his successors, and how that problem has created other problems (like church attacks and concomitant threat of withdrawal of electoral support for BN by East Malaysian Christain Votebank if ban remains) that merit a back pedalling by selective withdrawal of the ban in East Malaysia (in balance of contending forces there and awakened sensitivies here in Peninsula) and how such a selective application of ban, as a fire fighting method, may create yet further problems due to lack of internal inconsistencies of policies.
It was not intended to eulogize Mahathir on how successful he was, by his Islamisation-cum-Modernisation policies and programs, in making this country a ‘modern’ state though that was his purported intention.
Whether he was successful or unsuccessful and the extent of it, is a different issue for another day which is hardly in focus here though it takes a reader like Lim Kam Put, who either has ‘superior’ reading skills/comprehension or an overstimulated imagination, to be to read and impute shadowy nuances and conclusions in a such posting that it neither said nor intended.
#16 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 12:12 pm
You may know about MSC Bill of Guarantee but you singling out (nit picking I would describe it) a sentence like “(unmanacled due to TDM’s Guarantee of Cyber Freedom)” to argue about whether true or not true we have freedom from internet censorship, how much is that freedom compared to others, can that freedom be really restricted in practical terms and how much whatever extent of freedom we enjoy was attributable to Mahathir.
That is hijacking the context and meaning of the posting, the focus of which is not to evaluate how modern or free Mahathir really made Malaysia by his policies/legacy but the context is more of the “CHALLENGES” of his legacy/policy – including his aggressive Islamisation-cum-Modernisation policy as well as MSC Bill of Guarantee bequeathed to his successors that paved the way for proliferation of both NGOs including Muslim NGOs and demands to meet their expectations and other blogs and cyber discussion of “Allah” word by those for and against, that his successors now have to grapple with, but without help of his authoritorian personality or control of forces/other factions in contention.
I really cannot on each occasion hold your hand explain more and more and make you understand that which you do even not understand at first reading before criticising, which is quite consistent in relation to what I post. It is a waste of my time.
#17 by tenaciousB on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 12:14 pm
http://www.malaysiakini.com/v6/link.php?http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/KhalidSamad/~3/AWZjjF6dok8/video-al-jazeera-whose-god.html
#18 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 12:32 pm
So you would prefer his authoritarian personality and control to continue so that our country is more orderly and less chaotic even though unreasonable policies including aggressive Islamisation are allowed to continue?
Because of my observation, you are now more careful to describe Mahathir positively. But even in his negative qualities, you are trying to do a positive spin.
Sorry sage, maybe my England is not as good as yours, but I did pass form five, form six and GMAT well.
#19 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 1:34 pm
///So you would prefer his authoritarian personality and control to continue so that our country is more orderly and less chaotic even though unreasonable policies including aggressive Islamisation are allowed to continue?/// – Did I say this?
(1) You suggested that I had praised “Mahathir suceeded in his policies of forging a “modern’ Islamic state” when all I did was to mention his policies/programmes intention which is different from saying he succeeded.
(2) Not satisfied you proceeded next to seize on my mention of “(unmanacled due to TDM’s Guarantee of Cyber Freedom)” to distract as if I was talking about his achievement in providing us freedom from internet censorship, and when I pointed out in #16 that what you suggested was out of context of what was intended to be addressed, (3) you moved on once again next to say “so you would prefer his authoritarian personality and control to continue so that our country is more orderly and less chaotic even though unreasonable policies including aggressive Islamisation are allowed to continue?” which is putting words into my mouth as nothing in my posting suggested such preference but only the highlight of problems of successors not having his authoritarian style/temperament facing problems of handling conditions/legacy that the man created and bequeathed.
So it can be seen from your criticism/challenges/retorts that you are moving goal posts from (1) to (2) and from (2) to (3), criticising for the sake of criticising, harddly honest even in the act of criticisms, much less engage in discourse.
You did pass form five, form six and GMAT well? Oh what has that got to do with paper qualififications or “England” when the true measure of what of your understanding of things (as distinct from separate issue of your grasp of “England”) is the substance of your posting ( criticisms), shifting from post to post like the authorities’ flip flop policy on the Herald issue?
#20 by copperhead on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 1:42 pm
Way to go gal for leaving that bastion of Umno propaganda. Now you can write the way you want it without being hamstrung by sycophantic and sometime racist editors.
#21 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 2:04 pm
“…maybe my England is not as good as yours, but I did pass form five, form six and GMAT well….” – Lim Kam Put
Another attempt of false self effacing attempt at humility.
If truth be said, your English is good – I make more spelling grammatical and other mistakes than you (in part because I cannot be bothered with such things)- more than what could possibly be desired for our youngsters today without the benefit of form five, form six in the time before the change to Malay stream.
So don’t blame language (“England”) or lack thereof for misconstruing what others say.
Is it defect of understanding or capacity to understand? Though I like kneading you of it, thats also not likely the case.
It is just this psychological and emotional condition that you like to criticize and diminish what certain others say or post – never mind seizing quotes out of context or twisting it to put words in other mouths – for the sake of doing it, never mind distruption to the flow of discourse in the forum or the waste of bandwidth.
The party to which you should seek out to understand why you have this not so laudable propensity to disrupt and how to curb it is not an English Professor or a Life’s Sage but frankly a clinical psychologist. Then again you may not want understanding and remedial prescription as you are very pleased with this marginal emotional condition and are happy that it subsists, and may be flower more with progression of age. That’s of course your prerogative but do think of the rights of others here.
#22 by Onlooker Politics on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 2:18 pm
//The issue of selective ban in Peninsula is more than just overcoming Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Religion to Muslims. It is also for Catholics/Christians including those in Peninsula, albeit numbering less than those in East Malaysia. Peninsula Catholics/Christians will then ask why East Malaysian Catholics/Christians enjoy more privileges than them (unfairly discreminated against) in use of that word when Federal Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion and (between Peninsula as well as East Malaysian Cahtholics/Christians) Equality before the Law.
How to answer these objections? Maybe have to consult TDM whose legacy and attendant problems they find hard to manage.// (Jeffrey)
Jeffrey,
By advising people to go consult TDM on the question of how to manage his legacy and attendant problems could be misundertood as a praise statement which praises the might and wisdom of TDM. TDM will never provide a panacea for all problems arisen in this country of plural cultural and plural religions. In the past, TDM just managed to avoid emergence of the problems to the surface by avoiding to disturb the hornet nests of different racial groups and different religious groups. However, when the challenge of problem like Lina Joy’s case appeared, there was no way that the Malaysians could continue to avoid talking about the sensitive religious issues. In this kind of dispute, there must be a supreme arbiter who can come out strongly and convincingly in order to permanently settle all the disputes which happen amongst the multi-religious groups. I do not know of any other better person besides the Chief Justice of Federal Court who can finally become the last arbiter in this kind of religious issue!
#23 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 3:41 pm
///By advising people to go consult TDM on the question of how to manage his legacy and attendant problems could be misundertood as a praise statement which praises the might and wisdom of TDM. TDM will never provide a panacea for all problems arisen in this country of plural cultural and plural religions.///
Onlooker Politics when one asks/suggests a person to consult another to solve a problem caused in the first place by the other and his legacy, there are of course 2 possibilities of interpretation (1) praising the other (of his superior problem-solving ability) if it were really true that the other could solve and is the panacea for the problem OR (2) is an attempt as what we call “Sarcasm” if it were believed that the other could not solve the problem but would actually compound it having caused it in the first instance!
I guess one has to pick which – (1) or (2) – the likelier case and interpretation.
So take your pion
#24 by limkamput on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 3:53 pm
Oh, now those not able to understand you or understand you “incorrectly” are having psychological problems. How convenient. Has it ever occurred to you that you are the master of twisting and turning?
I read again post #1 and para 1, and my understanding of what you wrote was Mahathir was relatively successful in fostering modernisation and Islamisation – a feat very few have achieved, not even Turkey. He was able to do it because of his personality – authoritarian and forceful that you find his successors lacking. If his successors have those personalities, then I am sure that problems we encounter today will not emerge.
But I disagree with this. I felt that he achieved nothing other than sweeping the problems under carpet and by bullying others over the past 22 years.
Yes you stated clearly in Post #13 that it was Mahathir’s Bill of Guarantee that gave us
cyber freedom. I said that is nonsense.
You have also said how the present fiasco of “a non problem (Herald use of the word) has been made a problem (hence the ban/court case) by his successors”. This is nonsense again. His successors may have done it, but the tone, the mentality and the inclination can all be attributed to him. I remember Mahathir said (before the Church arson but after the high court decision) that that A-word should be solely used by Muslim and the solution to this problem is not through the court but must be made politically (to which I interpret it as political power irrespective of whether the decision is fair and just will settle all scores). See that old fox is now keeping very quiet on this issue. Look, sage, don’t try to twist and turn. You definitely gave him more credit than deserved whichever way one chooses to interpret what you wrote.
#25 by frankyapp on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 4:15 pm
” The confusion has been heightened with the government’s argument that malaysian muslims are angry because they are afraid”muslim may be confused ” and hence convert to christianity ” I think this argument has little substance,may be none because islam is an official regilion in malaysia. Since interpendence some 53 years ago,the government has given centre stage in term of facilities such as mosques,islamic library,museum,islamic council ,school and university. In addition the government also promote the religion daily throught the news media and in all TV channels.In an nutshell, the muslim name it,they have it all FOC from the government .Now the same government over 53 years ago, still think the muslim are afraid and may be confused and hence convert to christianity is something no reasonable person would accept. I think on the contrary, to say the christians may be confused due to daily exposure of the islamic faith throughtout the news media ,TV channels and the daily five times a day through the loudspeakers calling for muslim to prayer may be true. Despite all these pounding,christian never said they are afraid and confused especially those in the state of Sabah and Sarawak whose GOD is also ALLAH. I think the government should be pragmatic in dealing with the real situation rather than following a general order which is not realistic and practical.
#26 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 4:48 pm
Lim Kam Put, you can choose to read and interpret whatever you think it is. I think I am wasting my time – and others – engaging in this hither thither arguments/clarifications with you. The Mind sees not what it refuses to see, and sees only what it wants to see. Yawn.
#27 by tanjong8 on Saturday, 16 January 2010 - 10:27 pm
UmnoUtusans are culprits behind this unproductive and destructive discourse of the word Allah !!!
They are not fit to run the country !!!
They must be asked to go.