TGIF 8-8-8

Sydney, 8th August 2008

To a great number of people worldwide, today may be an auspicious day thanks to the unusually consecutive 8-8-8 in the numerical system of international date that we use (both AD & BC). And hence these couples intentionally preset this special date as their nuptials & say their once-only sacred vow.

To the greatest nation on earth centred in Beijing, this date marks the end of their long-awaited day being the host of the world's biggest event and the proud beginning of massive demonstration of the rich, splendid Chinese culture and civilisation embedded in the festive Opening Ceremony currently underway at these hits of letters on my keyboard.

To all nations and even a greater number of people, it is time to revel & be merry as mankind are united in this universal Olympic spirit as well as cheer their national sports warriors on to go swifter, higher, and stronger for more golds than any other country to top the medal tally of this Games of the XXIX Olympiad.

To me, I wish it were just another day, another TGIF day to look forward to for the morrow. But somehow I've got myself a bit carried away by the globally ubiquitous delight... with quite a distinct, personal reason, though. That it is on this very day too I have been privileged to officially become a CPA (Certified Practising Accountant) of CPA Australia.

So, what else to utter than a relieved, lengthy "finally...... thank You, Lord! I can't believe this."

(Emil Jayaputra CPA)

Benefit of the Doubt

It is almost a certainty that most common words have their translation in another language. When it doesn't, it should have its nearest equivalence at the very least. There are many a fitting example for this. Take 'membina' for example. There is no exact rendering of this vocabulary in English. The nearest one is perhaps ‘to train’ or ‘to cultivate’ despite still not reflecting its whole meaning. On the other hand, an idiom does have a much greater probability of not being able to be translated into a target language due mainly to local culture and tradition. For instance, the metaphor ‘si jago merah’ cannot be literally translated into ‘the mighty red’ since it doesn’t mean anything to English native speakers. Or ‘pagar makan tanaman’ (plant eating fence) would be even more difficult to be explained in English than ‘si jago merah’ that could merely be written ‘the enormous fire’.

It is also true with English being a language rich with idioms whose meaning cannot instantly be put across in Bahasa because there is really no idiom or similar expression equivalent to it in Bahasa. If the title of this writing is literally rendered as 'Manfaat Keraguan', it would be just meaningless in Bahasa. To the contrary, this 'benefit of the doubt' idiom has been part of daily choice of verbal/written expression among English native speakers but which we may not have observed and put to use in life.

There was a season where I had been thinking of how a doubt could have a benefit? Or what is the benefit when I'm doubtful? This particular expression turned out to be directed from the first person (I) to the third person (him/her) or the second person (you). When I have some doubt on somebody over an uncertainty of a problem, I had better give him the benefit of the doubt. This means I decide to trust him and put aside any negative thought thay may otherwise be possible (and even logical) resulting from what he had allegedly said or done.

The other intention to give somebody the benefit of the doubt is that we offer the other party a second chance to confirm our doubt over the seemingly unbecoming indications that we have observed at first sight -- which may well be wrong and unreliable. An analysis of the term 'benefit of the doubt' will sort of discover two sides, bright and dark. Giving the benefit of the doubt means showing the bright side of the doubt and trust (once more) that our brother may not be as (bad as) we thought.

An example of application. Someone you know very well has been rumored to harbor an ill-fated intention or show mannerism by some certain people. You can help scotch the 'fire' from spreading by saying to each other: "People tell me we can't trust him anymore, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt." And go on to clarify the uncertain issue with the person directly. Someone in central position like a public figure or a church leader who oftentimes have to make public statements or reports need the benefit of the doubt from all of us, members of the public nationwide.

In essence, each one of us needs not only to give but also receive the benefit of the doubt in daily life. A life laden with the ongoing learning process of interpersonal communication, mingling with the inner and near circle of people in society, but above all in the network of family and friends. The need for the benefit of the doubt may well arise at any given time. When you know someone with high integrity has been severely disgraced due to an alleged scandal and you know that person has not been allowed a chance to defend himself, you are in a fitting position to give him the benefit of the doubt. Even in simple cases when you’re waiting for a friend to reply to your important email and it’s already a week or so that the expected response has not hit your inbox, you still need to offer this benefit to your friend. Well, it’s hard, though. I need to sort of struggle within myself to having to extend this benefit to them. My flesh nature would just form a judgment, but this particular writing of mine keeps reminding me not to.

That’s why the spotlight of this language corner does fall upon the idiom ‘benefit of the doubt’ itself from man to man that we need to understand both its definition & context in the native language, and not upon the single word benefit or doubt separately. What is certain, though, out of the wealth of a language we can all learn to make this world a more lovely & peaceful big house provided the inhabitants give the benefit of the doubt to each other generously. Despite hard and it is never easy. (EJ)

Note: This piece first appeared on Reformedia Bulletin Volume IX (IRC Sydney).

Responding Insistence & Non-responding behavior

WE ARE NOWADAYS privileged (if not spoiled) to make communication with one another through numerous ways and means. Long gone are the days where you can only be in touch with your far-away family members by posted letter or at a later stage by the conventional so-called landline telephone. At the very least, we are now able to reach anyone almost anywhere at anytime thanks to the mobile phone, or simply text short messages using the same device unless conversation is necessary, send a free e-mail in just seconds, or make long-distance photocopying (fax). We can even talk for free on the Internet using the likes of Skype or MSN Messenger in our spare time.

Some people, though, have a "home-made" insistence that if you try to reach someone by mobile phone but failed for any reason, the person contacted should return their call by phone too. If you send a text to someone, they should reply by SMS too. So their view is that it is not appropriate for you to send an email in response to a missed call that you received from someone. While I do respect this principle, let me take you to reality where this is not always practical and eventually inappropriate to being dubbed 'discourteous'.

Let's say this morning you've got a casual email from your brother overseas telling you that he's planning to get married this year. You're surprised and have so many things to question him about this plan. But you're quite busy at work that you have little time to reply to him by email, so you decide to ring him at home tonight instead. Is there anything wrong with this (email returned by phone)?

On another fine day, you heard a beeping tone on your mobile and opened the message from an old school friend saying that she's got your mobile number from another friend and she gave you her office email address as well in the message. You found yourself hilarious to find her again, and decided to just email her in response to the SMS thinking you'd be unrestricted to just 160-character (max.limit of 1 phone message) in expressing your joy and sharing all your recent updates with her plus asking for more detailed news surrounding her. In doing this, you've also let her know that you received her text message. Is there anything wrong with this (SMS returned by email)?

On one Saturday afternoon, you had a missed phone call from a work colleague. But you happened to learn of the missed call only in the evening around 10pm. You don't want to ring him that late knowing he has kids sleeping already, but you know it's very unusual for him to call you at such time and that call might be important. So you decided to text him a short message following up the missed call which he then quickly replied by SMS too. Is there anything wrong with this (phone call returned by SMS)?

Just from these three daily situations, any sane person should be able to conclude that there's really nothing wrong with a different way of responding to someone's trying to communicate with us. Which all come back to one's personal or specific circumstances and levels of urgency/importance of the message of the sender. The most important thing is that we make sure we do RESPOND to the person back, and so communication transpires in both ways.

The unacceptable thing (and hence discourteous) is when and if the person you emailed, SMS, or phone never reply your message (which clearly requires their response) as if you had never said anything to them before. They simply ignored you pretending they didn't know the answer or even worse they disagree on what you said/wrote but somehow are too timid to show you their differing opinion and therefore just staying silent to the end of the world.

To recap, mutual response is primary and crucial since it is the substance of communication. But how the response is delivered, it may be a secondary subject to one's personal circumstances as detailed above. Let the primary be the first which is sort of uncompromised, and treat the secondary flexible enough, not vice versa. (EJ)