As an animal lover who wrote in earlier (' They're domesticated dogs, not wild dingoes ') in relation to the Subang Jaya Municipal Council's (MPSJ) 'dog complex', I naturally took an interest in the comments on Anti-Wabbit's letter by Jamil Spatofore Abdullah , a self-confessed Westerner and practising Muslim married to a Malay.

Anti-Wabbit's ( ' Spin it all you want, Islamicisation is evident ') was a comment on a 'pro' MPSJ letter , while amazingly Mr Spatofore gives an altogether new 'spin' (that was never there) to the original 'Spin' letter.

Let me first admit that I'm partisan but 'This is, after all, a democracy'; although I would like to acquaint the orang putih (as he appears unaware of this) that even the top political leaders of Malaysia have allowed that what we have here is a form of 'guided democracy'. To what extent the guidance, well...

I've re-read Anti-Wabbit's letter and am nonplussed as to the (non-existent!) part from where Spatofore drew his allusion: "Unfortunately, the author seems to have been caught up in all the photos of Umno, MCA, and MIC holding hands at various ethnic events." Spatofore's off-tangent observation joins two dots to make a curious line of his own, but readers, please read for yourself.

On the other hand, I think this sentence from Anti-Wabbit's letter encapsulates the crux of his complaint: 'The authorities (through the ruling on neighbours' written consent) are intent on making us answerable to our neighbours by law.'

That aside, from my reading of it, Anti-Wabbit touched on the sources of neighbouring loud noises that could be construed a nuisance by certain householders. Dogs barking, yes. Babies bawling and cats caterwauling? By some, maybe. Mosques blaring the subuh prayers at the crack of dawn over loudspeakers? As anticipated, hackles are raised.

Spatofore writes: 'It seems that the author is upset about the number of mosques in his/her given area compared to Buddhist/Hindu temples.'

That is a mis-reading. The rhetorical points raised by Anti-Wabbit were 1) five temples would not have been permitted to be built within a very small radius compared with mosques and suraus which are, indisputably, plentiful and everywhere, and 2) these temples would not have aired prayers over loudspeakers at the crack of dawn.

On point 1), this issue - restricted or altogether no permission for the building of new temples and churches - has been of longstanding debate. The orang putih may be a relatively recent arrival to our country. So perhaps he should subscribe to malaysiakini 's archives to do a more thorough research on the pertinent news reports, or alternatively read his own country's (the United States) state department report on the freedom of religion around the world, or try to access the several other international human development agency reports/global index.

Spatofore writes: 'I hope that no one would argue that Buddhists or Hindus don't have places of worship.' Some quarters would certainly argue that the Buddhists or Hindus don't have many spanking new places of worship (barring the Tumpat district in opposition state Kelantan where the construction and renovation of temples is currently taking place), while the old places of non-Muslim worship do not receive government funds for their maintenance nor for their clergy's allowance.

He may also like to know that some Christians in Malaysia attend service in shoplots (has he read of the long saga concerning that would-be Catholic church in Shah Alam?), or gather to pray in the home of one of the congregation due to 'impediments' in obtaining permission to build churches. On another hand, some Hindus would inform the writer that not too long ago, the Selangor state government bulldozed dozens of small Hindu shrines for the 'reason' that these were 'unlicenced' (oh, that ubiquitous word again).

On point 2), I'll invite Spatofore to put on his walking shoes and take a tour of the Klang Valley (the opposition-led Kelantan is, by comparison, relatively charitable as I've mentioned earlier). Scan the rooftops of the temples and churches and tell us in which ones he finds loudspeakers attached. And whether there are loudspeakers attached to all the roofs or minarets of mosques?

On the point of ratios that Spatofore has brought up, he claims to have come from the Bible Belt where 'the ('overwhelmingly' - his word, my emphasis) Christian majority outnumber the other minorities by so much, the Muslims feel lucky to have at least one mosque.'

So, what are you trying to tell us here? That, similar to Malaysia, it is entirely at the discretion of the American authorities to refuse permission for the building of a city synagogue or mosque even though an adequate number of the constituents demands it? That the majority has free rein to 'rule' roughshod over the minority?

In Malaysia, the demographics are not an obverse of his place of origin - the American South. Here, the Muslims do not outnumber the other minorities by so much, at least not yet. I do not have the updated figures but at last count, it was estimated that some 55 per cent of the population is Muslim (the number of bumiputeras is higher but of these, some natives are Christians and animists).

As to the 'fairness' of the ratio to state-funded, splendorous places of worship, I'll leave that to the malaysiakini open and democratic forum.

Lastly, on the issue of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's declaration in the context of Malaysia as an Islamic 'state' (note, not 'Islamic nation'), that has been a matter of public serious discussion as well. Nobody would gainsay the fact that the majority of the population practise Islam, the state religion. The bone of contention is whether the former PM's seemingly off-the-cuff declaration of an 'Islamic state' is ultra vires the federal constitution.

But in any event, welcome to Malaysia, sir, and we hope you'll learn more about our country in due course. Enjoy your stay.