trivia: after dinner tea at kedai simpang kerdau

X: i think the catholic church of malaysia have been hijacked by certain quarters with wild imagination and a penchant for exaggerations, courtroom and public space drama, romanticism, fatalism and heroism. so don't be fooled.

Y: why do you say that and how do you come to that conclusion?

Z: minum?

X, Y: roti telur, roti kosong dua, nescafe ais, teh tarik, air mineral.

X: two recent cases, 1. kalimah allah, and 2. the two al-islam reporters. to me these are simple, straight forward issues but made out into explosive and unnecessary controversies due to the wild imagination and dramatisation involved. look at the main players in both of it.

Y: i’m listening. bang, tambah kuah ni.

Z: banjir?

X: mintak ais kosong satu. ok, back to the kalimah issue. what is actually the real issue here? is it not the issue of using the malay language as the medium of religious instruction for religions other than islam? a straight forward one, right. a non-issue at all, but look at how it was presented to the public and eventually to court, as a religious one, nay a religious right. even the court was duped, you know.

Y: again?

X: the court should have been asked to determine whether the herald or even the bible can use the malay language in its formal and written form, but what was presented to the judge to adjudicate was whether the word ‘allah’ is exclusive to islam and muslims instead. look at how they jump from the non-exclusivity of the word to permission to use it in their malay language publication without even looking at the language issue at all. in fact the language factor was totally and purposely not given any importance.

since the malay language was and is the deciding factor here, the court should have summoned language experts to give their testimony as witnesses to guide it to its decision, but that did not happened. why?

if you look at the triumphant face of tan sri pakiam holding a jawi written bible cover so, so very similar to the style that you normally see in the al-quran, i think you’ll get the idea.

Y: ok, you have my ears. and the al-islam reporters?

X: ok. again this issue is a very simple and straight forward one, i.e., of two reporters on an undercover mission that went bust. a very normal, daily occurance to many parties in their relationship with nosy reporters. a very normal reaction to these intrusions would be to kick these reporters out and that's it. in cases where such intrusion is considered too much, what the aggrieved party would normally do is to ask for a formal apology from the media involved.

the real damage from these over-zealous reporters would be the reports that they publish, as such, unless and until those reports were publish, normal people would consider such encounters as unnecessary nuisance only. just give them the boot. no harm done nor taken.

but look at how certain people made this issue to be. again as a religious issue and rights! hey, you orang media! berapa kali budak-budak you kena halau dari majlis orang hah? berapa kali orang maki you dalam telefon?

Y: biasalah tu bro, cari makan. occupational hazard! hahaha. kalau tak sensasi, mana orang nak beli, miss shoru maa!!! mintak maaf, habislah cerita, berita tak dapat. lain kali buat lagi, nasib baik, lepas. hahahaha.

X: so you see how this penchant for drama and romantics and heroism of certain quarters are causing us all these unnecessary trouble and unrest. in this case, i totally agree with the ag to not pursue it any further (nfa). just a waste of time. they should have just ask for a formal apology from al-islam for intrusion and insensitivity instead and stop all these drama, heroism, victimism and all and save us all the trouble. period.

and as muslims, i think we too should demand an apology from al-islam for behavior unbecoming of muslims and muslim organisation, for tarnishing the teaching and image of islam and for giving us a bad name. in a nutshell, for being crass and stupid and unprofessional.

Y: i think i’ll agree with you on this. i’ve read this book on cultural identity and trait by a nobel prize winner from our neighbour india, amartya sen. just cant remember the title of the book, but basically he said the same thing. certainly my 40 years of experience living as a malaysian would conclude the same. no pun intended.

X: thats the point and i’m not being racist or what. in fact i consider myself a hard core pluralist, and by saying that i mean, we should understand our differences and learn how to accept and live with and be frank about it, but we must never deny its existence or pretend that we are all the same. denial is a very dangerous game.

we would not know how to react when these differences or peculiar traits come to fore in our common life. in most cases, we react to other’s cultural expression and behavior the same way we would normally do within our own cultural circles, and kabooom. the same thing must not necessarily mean the same to everybody and people do express the same things differently too, right?

Y: i again say aye. i’ve read this one very interesting book about an australian fugitive exploits by the name of gregory david roberts in india entitled shantaram. very interesting and surely an eye-opener. i think they should make it recommended reading on cultural understanding to our students.

X: yup. just look at these issues – mic vs mic, mic vs ppp, ppp vs ppp, hindraf vs all, hindraf vs hindraf, hindraf's kl showdown, hindraf's multi billion dollar suit against the british government, temple demolitions in selangor, burial ground issue in kedah etc etc. do see any common denominator in all of these? what are the standard line of thinking, behavior and s.o.p in it all?

ask yourself, if these issues were to take place among other cultural groups, what would be the same and what will be the differences? would you react the same way in all circumstances and to all groups or not? to me, the way we see and react to it will determine our understanding and maturity as a human being and also a member of a plural society.

the same goes with the kalimah and al-islam issue. if you fail to see this, you will react wrongly and unwisely and kaboooom. you'll fall squarely into their plot. the key operative phrase here is distraction by illusions.

Y: eh, orang nak tutup kedailah, sambung lain kalilah. bang, berapa ni?

X: alright. part 2 kat arab nasik panjanglah pulak. set?

Z: 7.30 bang.

Y: set. buat apa esok?

X: aku nak 'gi pekan 'sari kejap, nak cari ikan tenggalanlah.

Y: hahaha, sedaplah bergulai!