Commentary: Faith and Public Life

SOO-INN TAN
sooinn@graceworks.com.sg

Recently I was asked to share something about the political situation in Malaysia at a missions prayer group. I was given about ten minutes so only the highlights. I shared that in the past, many churches and Christians in Malaysia did not get involved in politics as they saw this as a distraction from the only work that mattered --- evangelism. After all, this world is temporary but saving souls is for eternity. I shared that times had changed. There was a new generation of Christians who did not see a dichotomy between evangelism and social engagement.

On the whole, I said, I thought this was a healthy development. Involvement in politics took seriously the fact that God had ordained governments as a key structure to order human life (Romans 13:1). As Charles E. Gutenson writes:

Governments are ordained by God. While God does not indicate that any one particular form of government is to be implemented, Scripture does lead us to conclude that government in general is intended by God as one of the "powers" that orders human life. Broadly speaking, God intends governments to serve and empower what might be considered a kingdom agenda. (Charles E. Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011, 119)

Gutenson goes on to say that a kingdom agenda is one that pursues justice and mercy. In other words, governments are God's idea but they exist for the purpose of serving God's agenda for justice and mercy. Therefore, if we have the opportunity to choose a government, we should do so, and select a government that better serves God's agenda. (I have written on this before. See http://tinyurl.com/6o9mdu2)

But I also shared my concern that the church in Malaysia not swing to the other extreme and put too much faith in the political process to make Malaysia a better place. Again I like the way Gutenson puts it:

. . . we tend to put too much trust in the political process for making the world a better place. . . . I think that the public policies and institutions can serve a kingdom agenda. The concern I express here relates to putting too much confidence in them. (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 136).

This is a heady time for the church in Malaysia. While a committed few have always been engaged in the political arena, Christians in general have become much more visible and vocal on the national stage especially after the 2008 General Elections when for the first time in the nations' history, it looked like there was a possibility to change the government. Those who believed that it was time for a change of government were emboldened. This included many in the church. I am one of them. I don't believe there are any perfect governments this side of heaven but I think the present federal government's track record on racism, corruption, mismanagement, human rights, and their treatment of the marginalised, warrants that they spend some time in the opposition (http://themicahmandate.org/2011/04/we-must-vote-for-change/). All Malaysian followers of Jesus should vote, and vote wisely, in the coming general elections.

But as I shared at the prayer meeting I couldn't help but think about the church's unique contribution to the nation. There is a place for political activism. When we do this we join the ranks of folks from many faith traditions in pursuing a common good. But as followers of Jesus are there unique contributions we can bring to the nation? I can think of two.

First, the church must model the values we are pushing for in society and which we wish to see practised by the governments of the day. Among other things, it means that our churches:

* are communities where all races are welcomed and celebrated;
* have leaders who are not self-serving. They are humble servant leaders who serve for the sake of the community;
* are free from the love of money; and
* are reaching out to the weakest and marginalised in the church and the community.

Gutenson cites Stanley Hauerwas on this:

Stanley Hauerwas has observed that the most basic job of the church is just to be the church --- to embody a different way of being that arises from following the radical Rabbi from Nazareth . . . (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 142).

Getting our own act together will be tougher and will take longer than marching in the streets. Yet we will be failing our nation if we do not model what we preach.

Next, our unique contribution to the nation is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is perhaps the most controversial of the church's contribution to the nation but the greatest problem of humankind is sin, a sin that cuts us off from the God of life, and therefore the best way to see society transformed is to see hearts transformed by the gospel. Christians have sometimes been accused of "converting people." I have argued elsewhere that we can't convert anyone. That is the work of the Holy Spirit (http://tinyurl.com/88ruuv4). But we are to bear witness to the gospel, and humbly and sensitively extend God's invitation to people to turn to God through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Evangelical revival in England in the 18th century led to the betterment of society at many levels, including the eventual abolishment of slavery. The evangelicals of the day did not shy from engaging society but never wavered from their passion for evangelism.

The evangelicals were not detached from politics, as the Pietists were, but their controlling passion was the conversion of the lost (Bruce L. Shelley, Church History In Plain Language, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995, 332).

Society changed for the better because people were becoming followers of Jesus.

The 13th General Elections in Malaysia will be called soon, maybe as early as June. May all followers in Malaysia be in prayer, and vote on polling day. I am now residing in Singapore but I will be back to vote. I feel that in Singapore, the nation is tweaking a system that is by and large working, but in Malaysia we are fighting for the soul of the country. Should Christians in Malaysia be involved politically? Yes of course. But our ultimate trust is in the Lord and we should never neglect the need to model and to share the gospel.

It will be difficult to hold the many agendas in tension but we must try.

Maintaining a position that allows the church to primarily to be the church while still offering a critique to political institutions is difficult . . . The role of the church is to be the church, but in doing so the church should both embody and speak critique to the powers that have been corrupted and no longer serve the kingdom agenda. (Gutenson, Christians and the Common Good, 142-143.)

My last word to the prayer group was: "Please pray for the revival of the church in Malaysia."

PS. Further reflections on issues of faith and politics in Malaysia can be found in The Bible and the Ballot, a Graceworks publication (http://tinyurl.com/7jko87n). Let us know if you need help to get a copy.

The Bible and the Ballot

The Bible And The Ballot

How do we relate Christianity to political engagement in Malaysia today? This is the question that we, as part of the community of believers, are trying to answer in this book. It is our conviction that “if Jesus Christ is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all”. We proclaim the lordship of Jesus over every aspect of life. Therefore, it is important for us to reflect on the relationship between what we confess on Sunday and what is happening in the country every day.

Was the Sultan Not Properly Informed?

The Christian community has waited with anticipation for DYMM Sultan of Selangor, to come out with a statement that will help resolve the inter-religious crisis sparked off by the JAIS raid on DUMC on 3 August, 2011.

We welcome the Sultan’s wish that religious harmony should continue in the state and his decree that there be no prosecution against any of the parties involved.

However, the Sultan’s statement does raise a few issues of serious concern for the non-Muslim community as there are views expressed therein that suggest that the Sultan may not have been properly informed by his advisers.

First, the statement suggests that “the actions of JAIS were correct and did not breach any laws enforceable in Selangor,” as they “are in line with the jurisdiction provided under Syariah Criminal Procedure (State of Selangor) Enactment (2003), Syariah Criminal (State of Selangor) Enactment, 1995 and the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment of 1988” (herein referred to as the “Selangor Enactment”)

With all due respect, I beg to differ from this interpretation of the State Enactments. In the first place, the jurisdiction granted by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution was to permit the state to control or restrict the propagation of religion among people professing to be Muslims. This must be read in the context of the Article itself which fundamentally provides for every person the freedom to profess, practice and propagate his religion. Such power to control or restrict propagation cannot be understood as absolutely prohibiting any conduct or activity on the excuse of some unspecified complaint that they are for the purposes of propagation of religion. Such power cannot be taken as licence for officials to intrude or trespass into a function conducted within the premises of what is clearly a non-Muslim religious institution (in the present case a Christian institution) without legal authority

There is no legal provision under the Propagation Enactment that allows JAIS officials to intrude into the premises of DUMC, much less carry out a raid. From my reading of the Selangor Enactment (1988), the closest possible justification that can be offered by JAIS are sections 12 and 13 which specify that “an authorised officer may investigate the commission of any offence under this Enactment and may arrest without warrant any person suspected of having committed any such offence.”

He may also apply for warrants of arrest from a Magistrate to require the attendance of witnesses. There is however, simply no unilateral power to carry out an entry and search under the Propagation Enactment or for that matter even to apply for a search warrant. If the officer responsible for the raid intends to conduct an entry and search he must base his power from some legal source. JAIS officers appear to have acted under Syariah Enactment which however does NOT apply to non-Muslims and cannot be imported into the Propagation Enactment.

While superficially this provision seems to grant disturbing power to this “authorised officer”, the enforcement must be consistent with the more fundamental provisions under Part II of the Federal Constitution relating to fundamental liberties and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) relating to search and arrest which presumes that a search warrant should have been sought as a matter of course, and that the warrant is granted only upon reasonable suspicion that a seizable offence has been committed at the DUMC premises. The requirement of a search warrant is a fundamental recognition of the right to privacy within one’s own domain and space.

More importantly, given the sensitivity of inter-religious relations and the sanctity of religious places of worship, such a warrant should be granted only by a magistrate or judge from the Civil Court and only upon firm and clear grounds.

The fact remains that JAIS carried out the raid with disregard for established provisions and procedure of law – the leader of the JAIS party failed to present relevant identity documents to confirm he was indeed “an authorized officer”, specify the offence(s) or suspected offence(s) relating to propagation under the Selangor Enactment that was alleged to have been committed and that he had obtained a search warrant from a Magistrate or the High Court, especially when a church was the target of the raid. For these reasons, it may be argued contrary to the Sultan’s statement, that prima facie, JAIS had not acted lawfully within the bounds of law when it raided DUMC.

Second, it should be noted that the statement claims “there were attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims but that the evidence obtained would be insufficient for further legal actions to be taken.” The plural word “attempts” suggests Christians at DUMC were guilty of subverting Islam not only on 3 August 2011, but that they were repeatedly committing the alleged offence. This is a most unfair and misleading accusation that imputes guilt to DUMC without offering any evidence that could be verified or refuted.

It may be noted that the English version of the Sultan’s statement uses stronger words than the official Bahasa version – it translates the word “memesongkan (distort, deviate) fahaman dan kepercayaan fahaman orang Islam” with the word “subvert the faith and belief of Muslims”

The statement unwittingly exposes the feeble foundations of its accusations when it concedes that there was insufficient evidence obtained for further legal action. In simple terms, this must means that JAIS had FAILED to make a prima facie case against DUMC. I may add that despite the attempt to hide behind the legal term of “insufficient evidence”, the reality is that there was simply NO evidence of subversion of the Islamic faith. Beating a hasty retreat from the threat of prosecuting DUMC was the best option left for JAIS.

Third, it is alarming that the statement describes the activities of DUMC as subversion of the Islamic faith. This charge is injurious to the integrity of Christians with regard to their profession and practice of faith.

Regarding integrity of profession of the Christian faith: Christians at DUMC have never pretended to be teaching any religion other than Christianity. DUMC is, after all, a church. Christians have every right to uphold their beliefs and practice their faith and while doing so, should not be judged as subverting or deviating /Memesongkan fahaman Islamic beliefs on account of the doctrinal differences between the two religions. Following the logic of JAIS, Christians could equally have charged Muslims for subverting the Christian faith when Muslims preach a faith different from Christians.

Regarding practice of faith: Christians are well known for their social work that flows from their belief in the love of God for the poor and needy. As the Bible says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27). Hence, the press statement from DUMC says, “DUMC conducts all its activities to serve the community and for the welfare of all Malaysians regardless of creed, race or religion.”

It is therefore alarming when JAIS casts aspersions against the charity work done by Christians and claims that Christians are subverting Islamic beliefs on account of their good works. It may well be the case that some needy Muslims have availed themselves to the good services offered by DUMC, and DUMC obviously cannot turn them away simply because they happen to be Muslims. DUMC may well be charged for promoting religious disharmony if it makes religion a factor before anyone can receive welfare. On the other hand, Christians may well be advised to stop their work that may incline a Muslim to view the Christian faith favourably since this would incur the wrath of JAIS officials. At best, the Sultan’s statement can be misconstrued by mischievous parties and exploited to misrepresent the altruistic intention of Christians; at worst, it maligns the welfare work of Christians.

Therefore, we welcome the announcement made by the Mentri Besar of Selangor, Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, that the Selangor government will set up a special committee to fine-tune the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) followed by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) in handling attempts to proselytise Muslims.

We hope the committee will come up with recommendations that will 1) ensure JAIS fully understands and observes the bounds of its authority, that is, that it has no jurisdiction over non-Muslims, and 2) any investigation of non-Muslims leading to intervention by the Islamic authorities should follow a proper procedure and law, including obtaining a search warrant granted by senior judicial officials from a religiously neutral institution such as a Magistrate or a High Court judge.

Otherwise, the government ends up surreptitiously investing illegitimate and excessive authority to Islamic officials over non-Muslims. The consequences will be abuse of power, and insensitive and provocative actions against non-Muslim believers as seen in the case of the JAIS raid of DUMC.

We do well to listen respectfully and sympathetically to the appeal from the victim of religious abuse, in this case DUMC, when it says in its media statement, “We sincerely ask that all religious communities and places of worship be treated with utmost respect and not be intruded upon.”


Dr. Ng Kam Weng
Kairos Research Centre
12 October 2011

The Christian And Politics (Malaysia)

Christian and Politics (Kairos Magazine May2011)

A Christian Perspective On The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

The global community was rudely shocked by the stark reality of jihad on 11th September 2001 when hijacked planes crashed into iconic buildings that symbolize American economic and military power. In response to the specter of religiously-inspired violence, the subsequent ‘war on terror’ would loom large over the early years of the 21st century.

At the center of this worldwide unrest is the long-standing Palestine-Israeli conflict that continues to be a source of its political and religious impetus. Orthodox Jews honor Jerusalem as the city of peace that once housed the temple of Yahweh. Christians make pilgrimage to the Promised Land where Jesus Christ once lived, was crucified and resurrected. Muslims treasure the city as the third holiest site in Islamic history. With the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1949, many adherents from these three major faiths have staked a claim in supporting or opposing it in the name of God or Allah.

However, the idea of ‘holy war’ is not unique to Islam. In the book of Joshua, a scriptural text embraced by both Jews and Christians, we would find the concept of Yahweh as a warrior waging battle against Canaanite deities and nations through His covenant people Israel in the conquest of the Promised Land. In some military campaigns, the Israelites were divinely decreed to utterly destroy an entire population of men, women and children (Joshua 6:18-19).

This raises difficult moral dilemma for sensitive believers as well as concerns that such warfare narratives may be used to justify violence and genocide today.

In this paper I would attempt to answer three questions: “What is Old Testament teaching and justification for ‘Yahweh war’ in the conquest of Canaan? How should Christians perceive the continuity and discontinuity of these Old Testament concepts in light of New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ? Finally, what are the resulting theological implications for how we understand the establishment of the modern state of Israel?”

Yahweh War and Modern Israel

A Christian Political Perspective

Political Realities & The Christian Response

Publish at Scribd or explore others: marketplace Christian

Speaker: Richard Yeoh presently serves as Petaling Jaya City Councillor and was a former Executive Director of Transparency International Malaysia. He has 6 years of fulltime civil society involvement which is his passion and calling. He holds an Economics degree from the University of Malaya and has 26 years international corporate and banking experience in Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa and the U.S. Amongst his previous appointments are Group CEO with TA Enterprise Bhd, Managing Director of TA Investment Holdings South Africa Ltd and TA Bank of South Africa Ltd to name a few. Richard has interesting and unique insights into the current political environment.

Hannah Yeoh is a member of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly (ADUN or Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri) from the Democratic Action Party (DAP). Hannah, a former lawyer and event manager, won the N31 Subang Jaya state seat against MCA, a Barisan Nasional component party in the Malaysian General Election, March 2008. She aims to bring Christian faith and service to the public sphere. Amongst her key concerns are better management of state funds, the environment and recreation, development and public transportation.

Brief Programme:
2.15pm-2.30pm : Registration
2.30pm-2.45pm : Announcement and Introduction of Speakers
2.45pm-4.15pm : Forum
4.15pm-4.30pm : Break
4.30pm-5.00pm : Discussions and Q&As

Both Richard and Hannah Yeoh will provide insights into the current political situation in Malaysia especially the ongoings in the Perak and Selangor States. They will also brief us on the recent PAS elections and the philosophies of the Ulamas and the Progressives. They will also give us their perspectives of the ruling Barisan Nasional. Their key aim at the end of the session is to help us respond Christianly and walk through with us what should be our prayer agenda and our involvement as concerned Christian citizens with a Kingdom of God perspective.

Through discussions and questions and answers from the speakers utilising Kingdom principles, we hope to encourage one another to embark on this journey of faith in the “political minefields” of this country so that we can thrive and find meaning in the midst of challenging times.

Do join us for the GCF Halftime Forum on “Political Realities And The Christian Response”.

Date: 20 June 2009 (Saturday) Time: 2.30pm-5.00pm
Venue: People's Park Baptist Church
14, 1st Floor , Jalan SS 4D/14
47301 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Directions: Please click on map
Note : Offering bag will pe pass around and the collection will be use to support GCF ministry

Please RSVP before Saturday 20th June 2009 or contact any of us for more details:
(i) Jimmy Lee at jimmylee_79@yahoo.com
(ii) Eng Bee at sgcheong@streamyx.com

Malaysia: Moving Towards a 2-Party System?

Excerpt from an article from Catholic Asian News: The Next Elections

The period leading up to the next general election is riddled with uncertainty. The BN will be constantly challenged by the opposition and it will not stand back and sit idly in the face of these challenges. There will be reactions and counter reactions. Other forces will try to fill some of the power vacuum left open by the BN and the opposition, including NGOs as well as the various palaces, at the state and national levels.

As Christians, we have a role to play in shaping the national discourse of what we want our country to look like moving forward. Every person has their role to play in this discourse. Some have fewer responsibilities - such as carrying out the minimal act of registering to vote and then voting come election time.

Others have slightly more - perhaps being relatively well informed about the issues of the day and then being responsible opinion shapers among friends and families. And yet others may be more directly involved in the process as activists in NGOs and other social and religious organisations, or as community leaders, or as journalists, or as pastors and church leaders, or as members of political parties, or perhaps as political leaders at the state or national levels.

In these exciting times of defining what is possible, all we can ask for is to approach our responsibilities with prayer, discernment and diligence. The rest, we place in the hands of God Almighty.

Ong Kian Ming is a PhD Candidate in political science at Duke University. He can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com

‘Allah’ is allowed for non-Muslims, says Nik Aziz

On Saturday night I had a lengthy YM conversation with an online Muslim friend whom I look forward to meet one day (insya Allah)... Began to understand more of the theological dilemma that many Muslims struggle with on this issue (konsep ketuhanan in both religions are different so using the same term 'Allah' is seen as confusing). Despite the debate that rages, this issue should be seen as 'khilaf' or 'adiaphora' (in christian parlance)

I shared how Christians and Muslims have called God "Allah" in Arab countries, in East Malaysia for a long time. Even in Indonesia. There doesn't seem to be any confusion. It boils down to education perhaps.

Again, Tok Guru showed his wisdom and statemanship in making a clear stand on this issue and the 'bumiputra' issue in the midst of much polarising politics that have been going on.

KOTA BHARU, March 1 – Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the Pas spiritual leader and one of the country’s most respected Muslim leaders, said today that non-Muslims should be allowed to use the word “Allah.”

But he said it was up to the federal government to decide whether to allow its use by non-Muslims.

“I do not want to interfere in this matter. Let the federal government decide,” he was quoted as saying by the national news agency Bernama in Kota Baru today.

The Pas leader was responding to the intense debate over the Catholic newspaper Herald’s law suit against the federal government’s decision to ban the use of the word “Allah” in its publication.

Yesterday, the Home Ministry rescinded a government gazette issued a day earlier which allowed the conditional use of the word in Christian publications.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said a mistake had been made and the government’s ban remained in force unless the courts decide otherwise.

The government had recently ordered a ban on the Herald's Malay edition until the court makes its decision, as part of conditions for it to be allowed to continue publishing in English, Chinese and Tamil.

Muslim groups have been up in arms over the Catholic newspaper’s use of the word “Allah” and were particularly upset when the ban was rescinded on Friday.

These Muslim groups have argued that allowing Christians to use the word “Allah” would cause confusion among Muslims.

They are also suspicious about the intent of Christians, with some accusing churches of trying to use the word “Allah” to convert Muslims.

However, the Catholic Church says the word “Allah” is being used by its members, especially those in Sabah and Sarawak, who are fluent only in the national language.

They also contend that “Allah” is the accurate translation for the word “God” as opposed to “Tuhan” which they use to mean “Lord.”

The church has also pointed to the fact that the word “Allah” is also used by Christians in the Middle East and in Indonesia.

One Conversation At A Time

Edward Ling could only lie in bed after hurting himself in a football game. With nothing to do, he wondered about what to do with his young life. (photo courtesy of Akalminda)

Then an iBridge friend came to visit, and they began to talk about Malaysian politics and their responsibility as Christians for justice and truth and mercy. The conversation inspired him to sign up in a political party, and later encouraged a like-minded ex-school mate to do likewise.

That person turned out to be Hannah Yeoh, and the rest is Subang history. She had this to say about her political secretary who has since recovered from his football injury:

"For those who do not know, Edward Ling played a key role in inspiring me to register myself as a voter prior to March 2008. His interest in politics started when he was still in school. He would read the newspapers more than his textbooks and that passion never ceased. Returning from Australia after obtaining his degree, he began to seriously consider how he could make a difference in our nation's politics. He would speak to his friends over coffee on the effect of corruption and danger of being indifferent. I was one of them at such coffee sessions. Sometimes, a single act of encouraging someone to do something small yet positive could lead to something way greater than what you can ever ask or imagine."

How true! And the person who visited his bed-ridden friend that day was John Chung who co-started the Agora and will be doing a talk on political involvement for RZIM soon. You'd never know the domino effect of every random act of kindness or conversation...

In an interview from his blog, Edward Ling (young politician/activist) was asked, "How does your Christian faith and worldview inform your politics? Are there specific Biblical references or teaching your draw from in your work?"

Check out his reply: "Well, the Bible speaks a lot about governance. The Bible speaks very much about God’s instruction to man on how to govern. Take numbers/leviticus/exodus for example.

John Chung was instrumental in helping me realize how easy it was to be involved.

You can read more about Christian involvement here:
Politics, Why Bother? By John Chung"

Great advice!

New Political Realities in Malaysia

by Rev. Wong Fong Yang



Everyone in Malaysia is talking about the new political realities after the General Election in which the Barisan National, the ruling party was dented in its ego.

The new political realities: Umno's dominance is crippled. Its invincibility is exposed. Umno like the proverbial emperor is without clothes.

BN has never lost two third of Parliament seats but it did. Worst, BN lost 5 states to the opposition party, which is unprecedented. BN leaders wanted honest and brutal post mortem so that they could win back the hearts of the people. But whom are they hearing from?

The Barisan Rakyat is euphoric and in cloud nine and the Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng and Menteri Besar of Selangor, Khalid had implemented clear policy of transparency and integrity. All tenders must be open tenders and for public view and scrutiny. It is to be totally above board. They are on the right track so far. But will power corrupt them eventually? Time will tell.

The arrogance as epitomized by wielding the keris at the Umno General Assembly, the blatant corruption at high places, the unfairness of awarding government contracts without open tenders and many other factors led to the downfall of BN. Umno Putra have benefited from the power of the ruling government. The Bumi Putra are resenting against the Umno Putra. Even Malays are not happy with the government. The swing votes were telling sign of protest.

Many Hindus temples were demolished, the poor Indians were marginalized and the pent up feelings finally exploded and shocked the nation. Social injustice as experienced by the minority Indians had brought about Hindraf rally- a tipping point that toppled Samy Vellu and brought about Tsunami effect in the General Election.

Churches and Christians have been harassed by the little Napoleans – banning the use of God's name Allah, banning of Christian books and literature which use the name Allah, demolition of Orang Asli church buildings. Christians have been denied legitimate places of worship. Fairness and justice is just empty slogan. Malaysia is a pluralistic society and not an Islamic republic.

The local councils are corrupted and incompetent. They shut their ears to the voice of protest by the Rakyat.

These days our RM $50 have shrunk.

My reflection on political realities:

The race-based policy by ruling party has been rejected by the Rakyat. Christians cannot go along with such ethos, as it is unbiblical.

Leaders whether political or religious are not to be self-serving but to serve others. If there is ambition in leadership, it must be ambition to serve others. The worldly system thinks of greatness in terms of mastery and rule, in God's kingdom, greatness is manifested in service. The way forward for BN and BR is to be humble in lowly service, to fear God and to be uncorrupted.

The greatness of a nation is not in its wealth or superiority in weaponry nor technological advances but how it reaches out and take care of the minority, the poor, the destitute, the marginalized regardless of race, creed or religion. Righteousness exalts a nation. Therefore national leaders must do what is right in the sight of God. Church must take the lead to share its wealth with the poor.

The Church must be awakened to its role in nation building. More Christians must participate in Public Square. Christians must be encouraged to take up politics as a vocation.

Church leaders must teach political theology and good governance to Christians. Church to model good governance and structure and practice.

Christians must learn the moral courage and moral vision of great men and women who brought changes to their nations (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nelson Mandela, Aleksandar Solzhenitsyn, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi…)

Church must see itself as an NGO that can play significant role in society.

Civil Society can act as check and balance for the government through wise and righteous policy.

Ordinary Rakyat can be a voice of conscience to the nation.

God can use righteous, fair-minded non-Christians to speak up against injustices.

Christians need to learn how to work alongside people of different faiths for the common good of society.

Racial integration and reconciliation are possible and Christians must take the lead by loving people and communities unconditionally.

Human hearts are corrupted. The depravity of sin is present in every human heart. Everyone needs the gospel. Evil structure and institution can only be changed when human hearts are transformed by the gospel.

We need to pray unceasingly for our nation.

The Palestine-Israel Conflict

Redcliffe Issue 5 Editors: Jonathan Ingleby and Rob Hay

The Rev Colin Chapman, well known throughout the Christian world for his writings on Islam and the Middle East, provides the main input for this edition.

Articles 1 and 2 are reproductions of this year’s Redcliffe Lectures on Contemporary Christianity, given by Colin, and we commend them as a very comprehensive and thoughtful discussion of issues which deserve our closest attention as Christians trying to be faithful to God’s mission in the twenty first century.

Because the articles are much longer than those usually published, we have also included edited versions (Articles 3 and 4). Readers ‘on the run’ may find these helpful.

Two other brief articles, one on Christian-Muslim relationships (Article 5) and one on the church in post-war Iraq (Article 6) complete the edition.

Experienced readers will soon discern that Colin Chapman, in particular, is coming from one side of a very definite fence in the evangelical discourse about Islam and the Middle East. They will also know that this debate has tended to be highly controversial.

Please, whoever you are, feel free to respond. We welcome debate, and feel that one of the great advantages of an Ezine is that it makes this debate possible.

Article 1: 'Islamic Terrorism': How should Christians & the West respond? (Rev Colin Chapman)

Article 2: Israel and Palestine: Where is God in the conflict? (Rev Colin Chapman)

Article 3: 'Islamic Terrorism': How should Christians & the West respond? (Rev Colin Chapman)

Article 4: Israel and Palestine: Where is God in the conflict? (Rev Colin Chapman)

Article 5: Muslims - Friends or Enemies. (Dr Jonathan Ingleby, 1548 words)

Article 6: The Church in One Small Corner of Post-War Iraq. (Clare W Henton)

Ketuanan Melayu - a non-Muslim view

From Malaysiakini

Before I begin, I want to caveat this by stating that I am not, and do not pretend, to be an expert on Islam. I am writing this purely from my perspective as a non-Muslim Malaysian.

The issue of Ketuanan Melayu has yet again raised its head after the recent speech by former minister Zaid Ibrahim at the LawAsia conference. In the aftermath of that speech, Zaid has been called a traitor to his own race and has been asked by Umno leaders to apologise.
Instead of deconstructing Zaid's speech and the predictable Umno response, I want to examine the possible negative effects that Umno's unyielding stand on emphasising Ketuanan Melayu has had on the public image of Islam in the eyes of non-Muslims in Malaysia.

As far as I know, Islam is one of the two major faith traditions in the world (the other being Christianity) which practices active proselytisation. In Christianity, these activities are sometimes known as evangelism. In Islam, it is known as 'dakwah' which literally means 'an invitation' or to 'to invite' in Arabic.

Again, as far as my limited understanding is concerned, dakwah or reaching out to non-Muslims, which may be prioritised differently depending on the rules of government in that state, is nonetheless an important responsibility on the part of Muslims.

If this is indeed the case, then the question of why there are relatively few non-Malay converts to Islam is certainly worth asking. There are currently an estimated 50,000 Chinese Muslims in Malaysia out of a total Chinese population of more than six million. In other words, less than 1% of the Chinese population in Malaysia is Muslim.

The percentage of Indian Muslims is presumably higher but this has to do more with migration of Indian Muslims to Malaysia rather than new converts among the Indian community who are not Muslim.

In Malaysia, all Malays are Muslims

To answer the question with any level of certainty would require numerous years of serious study and research. For now, I would like to propose a hypothesis for why this could be the case.

We in Malaysia have been conditioned assumed that all Malays are Muslims. Indeed, it is stated in the constitution under Article 160 that ‘Malay’ means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, and conforms to Malay custom.

But what is not stated in the constitution is that all Muslims must necessarily be Malays. Indeed, many non-Muslims often forget that there is a significant number of non-Malay bumiputera Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak and that pockets of Indian and Siamese Muslims can be found in Penang and Kedah.

The perception among non-Muslims in Malaysia that all Malays are Muslims and that most of the Muslims they know are Malays. This is surely a challenge and obstacle which groups such as the Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim) who want to proselytise to this group of people must face. If Islam is the preserve of Malays only, why should I, as a Chinese or Indian, want to step into this preserve?

But such proselytising efforts, already difficult to begin with because of social and cultural obstacles, are surely made much more difficult by Umno's insistence of repeating the mantra of Ketuanan Melayu.

By doing so, they are inadvertently changing the public perception of non-Muslims towards Islam - that it is no longer a religion which emphasises equality of all races. Again, as far as I know, there is no one 'superior' race or nationality in Islam. Malay Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Pakistani Muslims, Arab Muslims and all other Muslims are of equal standing in Islam.

But with the assertion of Ketuanan Melayu, the status of equality is threatened, at least in the context of Malaysia. Malay Muslims are suddenly elevated to a position of racial superiority over that of Indian and Chinese Muslims.

One of the underlying driving forces of the civil rights movement in the United States was the fact that black soldiers who were fighting and dying side and side with their white brethren in Vietnam found themselves segregated when they returned home.

While not equivalent, one can imagine a situation which a fictitious Chinese Malaysian may face if he undertook a similar journey such as the one Malcolm X took to the Middle East and discovered the reality that was the Muslim 'ummah' converging from all over the world and coming from different nationalities to worship in Mecca but then went back home to Malaysia only to find that his Chinese Muslim children do not have the same rights as those of his Malay friends.

Putting immense psychological barriers

With each increasingly strident cry of Ketuanan Melayu, Umno leaders are putting up immense psychological barriers in the path of non-Muslims who may otherwise have been attracted to the tenets and practices of the Muslim faith, especially when approached by trusted friends whom they see as excellent examples of the religion in practice.

Almost as important is the fact that such cries also put barriers in the minds of Malays who may otherwise not find it problematic to proselytise to their non-Malay friends. If they have been influenced to think that Islam is only the preserve of the Malays, then why should they reach out to their Chinese and Indian friends and tell them about Islam?

Of course, one can easily show examples of other countries where Islam is not equated with a particular race but has not gained many converts. Our neighbours in the north and in the south are good case in points.

But I would counter with the argument that Malaysia occupies a unique position in the world in that it is one of the few countries with a majority of Muslims and a significant proportion of non-Muslims in its population. Not many other countries in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) can boast of this unique configuration.

As such, Malaysia has the opportunity to demonstrate not only to its minority non-Muslim population but also to the rest of the world that Islam can be and is a religion which is attractive and relevant for all peoples rather than with a certain group which has traditionally been associated with that religion.

Imagine the kind of statement which Malaysia would be making on behalf of Islam if by good governance and the implementation of a more open, just and equal society, it would attract a significant number of Chinese, Indians and other non-Muslim bumiputera groups in Sabah and Sarawak to embrace Islam on their own accord and on their own terms? Would that not yield more returns for Islam than the constant shouting from the rooftops about Ketuanan Melayu?

In putting forth this hypothesis and trying to stretch it as far as I think it will go, I've had to leave aside other explanatory factors as to why many non-Muslims in Malaysia do not consider Islam as a viable alternative in their 'menu' of religious alternatives.

I've left out the fact that many of them probably do not see Umno leaders as exemplary models of what a Muslim lifestyle should be. I've left out the fact that institutional structures have increasingly equated converting to Islam as 'masuk Melayu' where one has to abandon one's culture even if some aspects of it do not contravene with Islamic practices. I've left out the many social and cultural pressures which a Chinese or Indian convert to Islam faces among his own family and friends.

But I do this for a specific purpose. If this article reaches the hands of any Umno leader or member, I hope that they will reflect on some of the consequences of their hardline stance on Ketuanan Melayu.

With every shout of Ketuanan Melayu, you push away another non-Muslim from Islam. If you think that the responsibility of dakwah to non-Muslims is important, perhaps even more important that the NEP or calls for racial supremacy, then you should reconsider your current position.

No matter how one tries to spin it, most non-Muslims will equate Ketuanan Melayu with racial superiority of the Malays and this puts an indelible psychological mark on their minds that Islam, at least the version that is espoused by Umno, is not consistent with the equality of races within the religion. You need to consider that your actions may be partly responsible for preventing most non-Muslims from even considering a religion which, in my opinion, all Malaysians need to learn more about, even if they do not consider embracing it.

ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University.

Neither Christ Nor Antichrist

By Soo-Inn Tan

Scully (to Skinner): "With all due respect, sir, I think you overestimate your
position in the chain of command."
("The Blessing Way", X-Files Season 3)

I have friends who think that the Democratic Party is a tool of the devil. They
are terribly disturbed that Barrack Obama has been elected and see him as a strong candidate for the Antichrist. Many others see him in Messianic terms. They are overjoyed that he has prevailed and see him as ushering in a bright new era for the United States. My word to both groups --- get real. Obama is neither Christ nor Antichrist.

This is a historic moment in American politics and because in so many ways what happens in America affects the rest of us, it is also a historic moment for the world. The hunger for change was so overwhelming that it carried a black first term senator with a name like Barrack Hussein Obama into the White House. Not quite walking on water but close. With minimal hyperbole, Thomas Friedman calls the election of Barrack Obama as the moment the American Civil war finally concluded. Those of us in Malaysia can only look on with envy and wonder when we will ever move beyond the politics of race.

And Obama has made all the right promises. His rhetoric of hope has galvanised a nation. If he can deliver on only a fraction of the things he promised, America and the world will be a better place. I am hopeful but not holding my breath. I have learned long ago, from life, and from the Scriptures, that all human leaders have clay feet and are destined to disappoint us.

1 and 2 Kings contain a record of the various kings that ruled Judah and Israel. Some were better than others. None of them could come close to the reign of King David. He was the benchmark of human leadership and he was marked by spectacular failures. God can use human leaders to bring about substantial change for good. I think of the Lincolns and the Churchills and the Sun Yat-Suns and the enormous good they did in their life times. It is very possible that Obama will be used by God to bring his nation to another level in her development. But I will not be dismayed if he doesn't. I am not cynical, just realistic. All human leaders are flawed.

Malaysians will remember the hopes that came with the election results of March 8th 2008. There was so much hope that Anwar would quickly usher in a new era in Malaysian politics. But he has not delivered on a number of key promises. And there are signs that some components of the opposition coalition are reverting to old ways of thinking. We need to be realistic as to what we can expect from human leaders.

I am glad March 8th happened. In many ways Malaysia has changed for the better. March 8 slowed down the march of racism and corruption that had crippled the nation for so long. But I am not surprised that Anwar and the coalition he leads could not deliver on all they had promised. Sooner or later we all learn that we must not overestimate our capacity to influence history. (Remember the promises that Abdullah Badawi made when he was running for election?)

So those who think that Barrack Obama is the Antichrist shouldn't be too worried. There is just so much he can do. And those who think that Obama is the Messiah should lower their expectations a notch or two or ten. He was not born in a manger. (And neither was he born on Krypton and sent to save planet earth.)

All leaders running for public office must give some indication to how they can deliver. Obama has come across as honest and realistic while giving his vision of change. The level of euphoria greeting his election however, tells me that deep in the human heart, there is hunger for a Messiah. In our darkest moments we know we cannot save ourselves. But Christians should never forget that our ultimate salvation will not come form politics.

That doesn't mean that Christians should withdraw from the political process. As Jordan Hylden reminds us in a recent article:

[... Christians are called to act like Christians in the many places in the world
that are not the church --- in our jobs, schools, communities, and governments. Involvement in secular institutions is no substitute for the gospel, of course. But it would be a small gospel indeed that could have no effect on the way they are run. As William Wilberforce showed, such involvement can make a real difference in the word and can itself be a witness to the gospel. ( "Aliens and Citizens," Christianity Today, November, 2008, 37).

I am delighted that many of my friends are actively involved in the political process and see their involvement as an expression of their discipleship. I am just concerned that we do not get so carried away with the euphoria of the hour that we begin to equate our battles in the political sphere as the only or the main way to bring about permanent change in society --- and get unduly elated or unduly worried by the political fortunes of our chosen candidates/parties.

Our ultimate hope is still in a God who is on His throne, a God who decides which ruler rises and which ruler falls. While we work for kingdom values in all spheres of life our ultimate hope is in the King Himself, a Messiah who came and is coming again.

[For the Mighty One is holy,
and he has done great things for me.
He shows mercy from generation to generation
to all who fear him.
His mighty arm has done tremendous things!
He has scattered the proud and haughty ones.
He has brought down princes from their thrones
and exalted the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away with empty hands
(Luke 1:49-53 NLT)]

==============================
Please support Grace@Work ecommentaries

If the ecommentaries have been helpful please consider donating to the work. How?
1. Pay by Cheque/Drafts:
Make cheques/drafts out to:
GRACEWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED

and send them to:

GRACEWORKS,
Ghim Moh Estate Post Office,
PO Box 161
Singapore 912736

NB. All cheques and drafts banked in Singapore must be in
Singapore currency.

2. Pay by Credit Card: Visit www.graceatwork.org to pay via PayPal
with any major credit card.

If you have difficulties with the above two payment options do let
us know. Write us at: enquiries@graceworks.com.sg

Ecommentaries are archived at www.graceatwork.org
To sign up for this weekly e-reflection, go to the Grace@Work website

CHRISTIAN WITNESS IN TIMES OF POLITICAL TRANSITION

Excerpt from CHRISTIAN WITNESS IN TIMES OF POLITICAL TRANSITION (written by Kam Weng in 2001)


Possibilities for Witness
An important question of leadership arises. Who, after all, speaks for the Christian community? Is it CFM, maverick pastors or Christian social activists? Others may wonder why we should expect the Church always to have a public opinion on issues. Impatient youths will find such questions to be unnecessary diversions given their sense of urgency to translate ideals into action. However, it would be naïve to imagine that one enters into politics merely to promote a set of social ideals. Politics is, after all, about gaining power to implement a specific ideology (a plan for social engineering). Realistically speaking, this strategy for changing society from above is not an option for the Malaysian church. The Church is only a small and insignificant player in an arena where power sharing is based on the number game, that is, power is apportioned according to the player’s ability to mobilize large followers on its side.

The wider public, however, is open to proposals for reform, provided that these reforms are cogently presented. That being the case, it would be better for Church officials to adopt a focused agenda and address issues within their competence. Historically, these have been matters related to education, welfare and fundamental rights since they have natural affinities to the preaching of the Gospel. We should not underestimate the influence of a creative minority that not only offers an agenda for social reforms but demonstrates how it can be implemented in a social context. In this regard, the first responsibility for Christians is to be the church, that is, a community with an inner life that embodies the ideals which it recommends to wider society.

Admittedly, the Malaysian Church is marginal in the political game, but surely the opportunities for social engagement should not be restricted to direct political action. We do well to remember that while “everything is politics, politics is not everything.” Likewise, the Church’s goal in social engagement is influence rather than social control. The Church as a social institution supports just policies and not specific political party. Such considerations suggest that Christian initiatives for social change must begin at the grass roots. I have in mind the example of the early Church which out-loved and out-thought their contemporaries.

The Church should develop educational programs to build up a citizenry that has the moral discipline without which democracy degenerates into selfish competition and without which it would be difficult to enforce law and order. That is to say, the Church’s contribution is to shape the ethos or moral environment of social institutions. It is arguable that in the long term such moral formation is more crucial than policy prescription.

Seen in this light, Churches may support and implement their own programs of social services (works of mercy) in order to inculcate habits of good moral choices among its members. This initiative should be seen as a pre-requisite for social action (which seeks to change public policy) to ensure that social welfare is more than band-aid social engagement. Still, to gain a hearing the Church must demonstrate through its works of mercy that it has the capacity to transcend self-interests.


Christian Witness to Political Powers

Christian youths, especially those with a passion for justice, have been strident in their call to the Church to be faithful to its prophetic calling and engage with issues of wider society. Church leaders should not dismiss these calls just because they reflect the impatience of idealistic youths. Nevertheless, it is also reasonable to question the tendency to associate prophetic witness with negative judgment against the status quo. Nor should it be assumed that solidarity with marginal groups necessarily entail adoption of an antagonistic posture against the status quo.

Christian activists must avoid two extremes. On the one hand, it is easy to lash out in self-righteous anger. But political engagement should not be driven by anger arising from despair or self-righteousness. Otherwise the Gospel can be exploited to justify our own anger. On the other hand, Christian leaders could compromise in order to live an undisturbed existence on terms set by the government. Romans 13: 1-5 has served as a convenient justification for this course of action. Either way, we are painfully aware that our motives are mixed despite our insistence on taking the path of Christian obedience.

The message of Christian freedom is relevant precisely because of the ambiguities of politics. The Church should maintain flexibility in deciding whether to support or reject public policy on a case-by-case basis. The Church discharges a prophetic ministry when it supports oppositional critique towards wrongdoings. It mediates a priestly ministry when it sides with reform movements within the government. The two approaches complement each other. Christians in one ministry must to give the benefit of doubt to the brother in the other ministry. Christian brotherhood must transcend political differences. Above all, the Church must reject any tendency to politicize faith to ensure that it makes an impact beyond sectarian interests.

Every government has the responsibility to maintain justice for all citizens. But governments often neglect their duty to promote just policies that promote welfare for all citizens and justice for the common good. Under such circumstances, the Church must have the courage to remind the government of its social contract and election promises. Finally, if the government should violate its legitimate bounds of authority, the Church must have the courage to call on the government to be accountable to a higher transcendent authority and be judged by laws of natural justice.

Salt & Light In Politics

Dr. Toh See Kiat is a former MP for Aljunid GRC, and former President of CASE. He is presently Chairman of the Biblical Graduate School of Theology, and Chairman of Goodwins Law Corporation. His online broadcast "The Christian as salt and light in politics" is now available at BGST website.

Sermon powerpoint slides and transcripts can be downloaded here and here.

Whither Malaysia?

This Kairos edition is a must-read and carries the minutes of a post general election consultation that some of us attended. A sample article from Lee Kam Hing, a research editor with a news daily:

"The changing political landscape offers a challenge to the Church in Malaysia to play a unique role. Here is a Muslim majority country where there are meaningful competitive elections. Indonesia is about the only other Muslim majority country practising democracy with competitive elections. In Indonesia, there are Islamic parties competing with secular nationalists parties and with secular parties at the moment being more influential. Competitive elections in Malaysia have, on the other hand led to the creation of multi-ethnic coalitions involving Islamic and secular parties. The questions we must deliberate on are clear. Is there anything we can learn from the Indonesian experience in terms of democratising and the role of the Church? Or is there anything the Church here can do to help advance democracy? Can it enhance its role as a witnessing church and in so doing offer an example or encourage for Christians elsewhere in Muslim majority countries?"

Between Romans 13 and Revelations 13

From NECF: (NOTE: This is an extract. The full paper 'Human Dignity and Religious Liberty' is available in the book titled Religious Liberty after 50 years of Independence)


Christians often look to Romans 13 to answer questions on the relationship between Church and State. Some appeal to the passage to argue for unqualified submission to the authorities. I find this rather troubling since such a recommendation ignores the dynamic nature of the State that can swing from being God’s servant (Romans 13) to being a demonic State demanding ultimate allegiance and worship from its subjects (Revelation 13).

But what is stated clearly in Romans 13 – that the State is merely a servant of God and thereby possesses only limited authority – is correct. Likewise, the State – being merely one created institution amongst other divinely-installed institutions (family, school, market and church) – must respect and refrain from infringing other spheres of human authority.



Primary Social Task

The primary social task of the Church is to be itself – that is, a people who have been formed by a story that provides them with the skills for negotiating the dangers of this existence, trusting in God’s promise of redemption.1

The Church must resist two temptations:

Subjecting the gospel to ‘righteous’ anger, lending itself as the instrument of political/ideological struggle. Charles West has given us a pertinent challenge,“The church must project Christ’s Lordship into the search for a proper structure of justice and peace in society, which is also the business of political authorities. It must do so holistically, not taking refuge in the false purity either of nonpolitical projects or a romanticised oppressed people. It must do so in a secular way, recognising the involvement of every religious project in the mixed motives and misused powers of human life, the need of correction, and the limits of political coercion in the establishment of true humanity. The life of the community of faith with Christ Himself should keep things in proper perspective.”2
Accepting the terms on which the State allows them an undisturbed existence so long as it (the Church) remains isolated from the concerns of society. The end result would be that the Church legitimises the status quo. To quote West again, “the Church of Jesus Christ is called to be the Church for the world, not the servant of one of the world’s powers.”3


Conditional obedience

We affirm the clarion call from Bonhoeffer when he insisted that the individual’s duty to obey the State is presumed until the State directly compels him to offend against the divine commandment, that is to say, until the State openly denies its divine commission to enforce social justice and protect the freedom and dignity of the individual and forcefully suppresses the gospel. At this point, Christians must choose to disobey the State for conscience sake and in obedience to the Great Commission.



Realistic Social Engagement

Christians must avoid a naïve political outlook and must not pretend that they are pure and immune from the temptations of power. Still, the Church cannot avoid being in the world even though it may not be of the world. The Church must engage politics in a ‘secular’ manner, that is rooted in concrete historical realities and yet, while recognising that notwithstanding its mixed motives, it will seek to project Christ’s lordship into the search for a proper structure of justice and peace in society.

The Church should acknowledge that no human form of government is perfect, and all are necessarily under constant scrutiny in terms of the processes which they have promoted and do promote, and the processes which they counter and negate.

As human rights are inter-related, and are also subject to ongoing historical processes, their fulfilment, negation or violation by any group or agencies or even churches, have to be judged in a similar manner. Structures created by human beings are in constant danger of becoming self-perpetuating and self-fulfilling, and hence of becoming idols – in a truly biblical sense.



The right balance

A Christian approach to civic responsibility balances both Kingdom Justice and the Gospel of Peace in order to distinguish responsible from irresponsible political action. Pursuing justice without peace only perpetuates social conflict. Accepting peace without justice amounts to capitulation to a hegemonic power. Politics is judged on moral terms derived from a transcendent authority (God).

Christian political analysis must be rooted in local history and social context. This requires sensitivity to the ever-changing dynamic equilibrium between the competing power groups in society. Demands for both individual rights and community rights must take into account the enduring principles that were foundational when the founding fathers of the nation agreed in a social-legal contract at Independence (1957) and formation of Malaysia (1963).

We must deal with the full reality of politics and government in the contemporary world. Public policies must be supported by public arguments that go beyond simplistic quoting of scriptures (Biblical or Quranic), naïve moralism or mindless ethnic nationalism. We cannot work for anything less than a cosmopolitan, pluralist democracy.

This calls for a hermeneutical retrieval of Christian political theory that was vigorously developed in church history. I have in mind the Christian understanding of Statecraft which is defined as the “art of careful reasoning, judging, and acting in the process of making, executing, and adjudicating public laws.” Good statecraft depends on insight into God’s creation (including human nature), which is an order unfolding through the history of countless human generations.

If the Christian community fails to pool together its intellectual resources to inform its social engagement, it will by default remain divided and confused by the conflicting political dogmas and buffeted by social currents. It will easily be intimidated by hostile political groups and passively accept a political agenda that is imposed on it and remain ineffective with its ad hoc and piecemeal participation in national politics.

The challenge to develop a Christian political perspective that is coherent, integral, and comprehensive is indeed urgent. The fruitfulness of such a project is promising. Christian witness demands nothing less than the fulfillment of a contextualised Christian political theology that can assist citizens in their defence of freedom and justice.

Liberty Sentinel

Objectives of Religious Liberty Watch

• Assess prospects for religious liberty and explore new social/legal initiatives to strengthen religious liberty in Malaysia

• Inform the public on trends and current controversies of religious rights and multicultural politics

• Explore Christian public theology for social engagement and develop resources that help in strengthening Religious Liberty and Pluralistic Democracy

• Facilitate networking among lawyers and Christian leaders who are addressing current issues and development pertaining to religious liberty and Islamization and dhimminization of non-Muslims.

No prizes for guessing who Liberty Sentinel is... hehehe...

Political Analysis

We have plenty of news these days but very little analysis or well-reasoned interpretation of what these events might mean. Much soundbites, little insights.

To fill this gap, Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh have already posted 25 episodes of political analysis podcasts on WebmobTV: "where we cut through the crap to give you real insights"

Check it out fast:

"Currently there is much heated debate over whether Dr Mahathir Mohamad or Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is more to blame for the various woes that afflict the country.

Our perspective is that Dr M's misdeeds were sins of "commission" while Pak Lah's were that of "omission". The former caused much institutional damage but the latter failed to fix the mess he inherited although he was given a huge mandate to do so."

Making sense of the political tsunami

From Malaysiakini: Ong Kian Ming | Mar 11, 08 12:24pm

analysis As Malaysians go back to work yesterday, the historic results of the 12th general election are beginning to sink in slowly.

Before the results were announced on Saturday, many people were discussing the possibility of this election being similar to the 1986 general elections where the non-Malay vote swung against Barisan Nasional and the DAP had its best performance where it won 24 out of a possible 172 parliamentary seats.


But it is more apt to compare this election to the last time the BN lost the popular vote in Peninsular Malaysia and failed to capture a two-thirds majority in parliament for what was the first and only time in Malaysia’s electoral history, up until now. That was in 1969.

While the Alliance failed to obtain a majority of the popular vote, it still managed to win 67 out of 104 parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia (64.4%), partly aided by the fact that nine parliamentary seats were not contested.

In this election, the BN managed only to win 85 out of 165 parliamentary seats, slightly more than half the parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia (51.5%).

The BN also won a smaller percentage of state seats in Peninsular Malaysia in 2008 compared to 1969. In 1969, the Alliance won 60% of the state seats - 167 out of a possible 279 seats - while in 2008, the BN won only 55% - 247 out of a possible 445 state seats in Peninsular Malaysia.

In 1969, the Alliance failed to win state government in only three states – Kelantan, Penang and Perak while in 2008, the BN failed to form the state government in five states – Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor.

In terms of the overall vote, the BN won 49.8% of the valid vote (without spoilt votes) and 48.7% (including spoilt votes) in 2008, less than half of the total vote. In 1969, the BN won 46.2% of the popular vote (including spoilt votes) and would have won a larger share of the popular vote had there been fewer uncontested seats (since these seats where in BN strongholds)

To put this result in starker terms, the MCA won 13 parliamentary seats in 1969 compared to 13 for the DAP and eight for Gerakan, which was then in opposition. After Gerakan joined the BN, the number of parliamentary seats held by the two Chinese-based parties in the BN was 21 compared to 13 for the Chinese-based opposition.

In 2008, Gerakan and MCA won a combined total of 17 parliamentary seats in Peninsular Malaysia, a significant number of which were not Chinese-majority seats while the DAP won 26 parliamentary seats giving them a larger representation in parliament than both MCA and Gerakan combined.

But the largest surprise of 2008 came in the form of PKR, which won 31 parliamentary seats, making it the largest opposition party. For the first time in Malaysia’s electoral history, the leader of the opposition would be a truly multi-ethnic party that have Malay, Chinese and Indian MPs (20 Malay, seven Chinese and four Indian).

This is all the more shocking given that PKR contests mostly in ethnically ‘mixed seats’ which are traditionally stronghold areas for the BN. Many of these mixed seats which were considered ‘unwinnable’ seats for the opposition fell like bowling pins including Balik Pulau in Penang, Kelana Jaya in Selangor and Wangsa Maju in Kuala Lumpur.

How did this happen? Why did no one, including myself, see this happening? How can we account for this massive swing towards the opposition?

Why the massive swing?

There are three ways in which I will try to account for this massive swing towards the opposition.

The first deals with the hard numbers – on how each ethnic group swung its support towards the opposition in Peninsular Malaysia, and where.


The second deals with the psychological underpinnings of this swing – many of the voters themselves probably didn’t anticipate such a swing which helps explain why they voted the way they did.


The third deals with the issues surrounding the swing and much of the blame has to fall on Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s inability to deliver on his election promises made four years ago in 2004.
Firstly, who swung their votes towards the opposition and by how much.

It was widely anticipated that there would be a swing in the non-Malay votes against the BN but what was not anticipated was the extent of that swing. At the same time, there was no indication that there would be any shift in the Malay support for the BN. Indeed, there were some who speculated that Abdullah had consolidated his hold over the Malay vote and had a chance of winning back Kelantan.

Using a statistical method called ecological inference, theorised by Gary King, who is a professor of government and statistics at Harvard University, I estimated the percentage of BN support by the three main ethnic groups in Peninsular Malaysia – the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians. I found that the Indian vote swing against the BN in Peninsular Malaysia was approximately 35%, the Chinese vote swing was approximately 30% and the Malay vote swing was approximately 5%.

I also estimated the percentage of the popular vote won by the BN among the various ethnic groups in Peninsular Malaysia - Malays (58%), Chinese (35%) and Indians (48%).

It is important to highlight that these vote swings are not uniformly distributed. For example, the Malay vote swing in the West Coast states, especially in Penang, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur was higher than the estimated 5% and was closer to 10% or even higher in certain constituencies like Balik Pulau, Gombak and Lembah Pantai. It would not have been possible for the opposition, PKR in these cases, to win without a sizeable swing in the Malay vote.

The largest swings against the BN came in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, at approximately 21% and 20% respectively, followed by Penang at 17.5%. These swings were across the board swings among Malay, Chinese and Indian voters though the swing among the non-Malays were probably greater than among the Malays. While the Malay vote did not swing much in Terengganu (a small swing of 1.2%), the swing was certainly felt in Kedah (12.7%), a state which is 75% Malay.

The fascinating observation in regards to the Chinese and Indian swing was that it occurred almost regardless of the opposition party in question or the race of that candidate.

Chinese and Indians were happily voting for Malay PKR candidates as well as Malay PAS candidates in addition to Chinese and Indian PKR candidates. This would not have been something that many would have predicted.


Who would have thought that Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad would win in Kuala Selangor, a seat that is only 60% Malay or that PAS would eke out victories in Kota Raja (Selangor) and Titiwangsa (Kuala Lumpur), seats which are barely over 50% Malay? Certainly not me.

At the same time, DAP also won many seats partly because of a greater willingness among Malay voters to vote for the DAP. The DAP probably would not have won in Taiping, Beruas and Teluk Intan (Perak), Seremban (Negri Sembilan) and Segambut (Kuala Lumpur) and Bakri (Johor) if not for the presence of some Malay swing against the BN in these seats.

As such, many opposition wins can be explained by the fact that many voters were willing to vote for the opposition by crossing ethnic boundaries that were previously not possible or seen in very few numbers such as Chinese voting for PAS candidates and Malays voting for DAP candidates.

The tipping point

A second explanation for the extent of the swing is that many voters themselves probably didn’t vote thinking that the opposition would do as well as it did. They wanted to cast a protest vote but because of the fear of voicing their opinions and the strict controls on the mainstream media, there was little indication among the elite as well as among the voters that the swing would be as big as it was.

I had been discussing Malcolm Gladwell’s book called the ‘Tipping Point’ with a friend and heard many opposition leaders claiming that such a tipping point was possible in these elections but my conservative instincts stopped me from believing that this was possible. I was wrong. The voters voted and the tipping point was reached and breached, at least in the state of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor.

It is unlikely that so many voters would have voted for the opposition had they known in advance that the swing was going to be this big and that the state governments in Penang, Kedah, Perak and Selangor would fall. Many of them, especially the non-Malays would have been too fearful of the potential backlash from this happening.

Ironically, the mainstream media’s reporting of the BN’s confidence in easily securing a two-thirds majority actually helped the opposition because more voters felt more secure that their protest vote was just that – a protest vote with little significance, at least in terms of causing state governments to fall or previously safe seats to tumble.

The third explanation for this swing has to do with the issues surrounding the 2008 general elections. While many may point to the concerns in regards to the economy, price inflation in urban areas and crime, as main reasons why the voters voted against the BN, one needs to remember that the economy was in much worse shape in 1999, that price inflation has been going on in urban areas for the past 10 years and that crime and safety issues ranked as high concerns in 2004 as well as in 2008.

The major issue, I argue, is that voters voted against the BN as a sign of protest against Abdullah. Abdullah took much of the credit for the historic BN ‘sweep’ in 2004 and he deserves much of the blame in the historic ‘losses’ suffered by the BN in 2008. Voters voted against Abdullah because of his inability to deliver on the promises he made in 2004 including the promise to fight corruption, the promise to reform the police force, the promise to be a prime minister for all ethnic groups, and the promise to improve the civil service.

Most voters could not name a significant aspect of the Abdullah administrative post-2004 which effectively ‘fought’ corruption. MPs who asked custom agents to conveniently overlook excise taxes for imported cars and state assemblymen who built giant mansions for themselves and their families were left unpunished.

The recommendations of the royal commission to improve the police force were left largely ignored. The promise to be a PM to all ethnic groups fell flat in the inability of Abdullah to curb ethnic extremism within his own party, Umno, and to manage the problems concerning conversions out of Islam among non-Malays.

It is extremely difficult for me to think of reasons why Abdullah should not immediately resign as the president of Umno and prime minister of Malaysia given this historic ‘defeat’ at the polls by the BN and how this would be linked to his failure to deliver on his 2004 messages.

The Malaysian voters should be congratulated on two counts. The first is that they showed tremendous courage in going out to vote for opposition parties and candidates in the face of many ‘threats’ arising from the BN, including the threat of no representation in the cabinet and the threat of economic instability.

The second is that the voters were measured in their post-election response. They did not take to the streets to celebrate which would have raised the specter of another ‘May 13’ but instead stayed at home at the prompting of many of the opposition leaders.
The BN too, should be congratulated for accepting the results of the general election and not resorting to underhanded tactics (as of now) to try to win back control of certain states or seats. The quick concession by Dr Koh Tsu Koon in Penang is particularly recommendable.

This is a clear sign that our electorate and our leaders are becoming more political mature marking Malaysia’s gradual move towards a more mature and open democracy.

What next for the opposition?

Even as we discuss why the results were the way they were, it is as if not more important to discuss the implications and questions for the opposition, of which there are many.

How will the DAP govern Penang given that it is the first time that it is holding power at any level of governance? How will it try to resolve the federal-state relationship that PAS has been managing in Kelantan for the past 18 years? Will it be able to attract FDI (foreign direct investments) and federal dollars as an opposition party governing Penang?

How will the opposition in the states other than Kelantan nominate members to the executive council? More importantly, what sort of checks and balances will they have to ensure that their own leaders do not fall victim to the same corrupt practices that are and were practiced by some of the BN MPs and state assemblymen?

How will the opposition leverage its position in the parliament to push through real change in key areas? Will it be able to find agreement between themselves and work with the BN, which still has a majority of parliament seats, to push through comprehensive electoral reform, for example?

Can the opposition deliver its promise to decrease or stop fuel prices from increasing, especially given that huge cost of the oil subsidies which will continue to increase as oil prices increase? Will the opposition pressure the BN to conduct local elections and give up its power to appoint municipal and local authority councillors in the states which it controls?

In addition, can the leaders of the opposition parties work show that they can work together as a viable ‘coalition’ of sorts and find common ground on national policy? This is important if they are to show that they can not only deny the BN a two-thirds majority but also win enough seats to form a government on their own.

Will PAS strive to implement ‘hudud’ in Kedah as it tried to do in Terengganu after 1999 or will it adopt a more pragmatic approach and focus on its pre-election promises of providing a free education for all and alleviating poverty? Can the DAP reign in some of their more ‘extreme’ demands and co-exist with PKR and PAS? Can PKR effectively bridge some of the gaps between DAP and PAS now that it is the largest party in the opposition?

What role will Anwar Ibrahim play in the opposition? Will he stand in a by-election in Permatang Pauh once he is eligible to run again? How hard will he push in certain ‘sensitive’ areas such as his promise to abolish the New Economic Policy and replace it with a more equitable system of wealth redistribution or helping the poor?

These are but a few of the hundreds of questions and challenges that the opposition will face in the coming weeks and months.

One thing is for certain, if the opposition doesn’t get its act together, look for the same voters who voted against the BN to turn their backs on the opposition in the next election.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University. His areas of interests are in ethnic and electoral politics.