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.

Politik Yesus

“Adakah Yesus Politikal? Satu Perspektif Perjanjian Baru" oleh Dr Lim Kar Yong
Pensyarah Pengajian Perjanjian Baru, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia

Mukaddimah Bahagian 2 Bahagian 3 Bahagian 4 Kesimpulan

Mukaddimah

Saya teringat membaca kenyataan seorang paderi injili yang berpengaruh bahawa gereja tidak sepatutnya melibatkan diri dalam politik. Menurut paderi ini, misi, tenaga dan pelaburan gereja bukanlah untuk membersihkan korupsi masyarakat, tetapi untuk menginjili masyarakat. Malang sekali, pendapat ini juga mencerminkan banyak di kalangan kita. Adalah malang sekali apabila pengajian tentang Yesus diadakan di bawah pengaruh ajaran gereja, ianya diadakan melalui rangka teologi gereja tersebut. “Pemahaman rasmi” tentang Yesus adalah baginda adalah Anak Tuhan yang telah mati di kayu salib untuk penyelamatan manusia.

Pemahaman ini juga menganggap bahawa Injil dan kitab-kitab lain adalah bersifat keagamaan dan harfiah semata-mata. Meskipun pendekatan teologi ini adalah selaras dengan pengakuan iman ortodoks, pendekatan ini hanyalah mencerminkan perspektif yang kurang tepat tentang Yesus – perspektif yang saya tertarik untuk sifatkan sebagai proses pelembutan “Yesus spiritual”. Inilah Yesus yang dikatakan oleh Scot McKnight, “disifatkan hanya sebagai guru spiritual, seorang yang hanya berminat tentang kehidupan keagamaan dalaman dan disiplin keagamaan individu”

Pagi ini saya berharap untuk memikirkan semula pemahaman kita tentang Yesus. Merujuk hasil kajian tentang Yesus dalam Sejarah (Historical Jesus) dan perkembangan kaedah social-scientific dalam pengkajian Perjanjian Baru, kami berharap dapat berefleksi tentang persoalan “Adakah Yesus itu Politikal?”. Atau dalam kata lain, wujudkah ruang dalam iman kita untuk Yesus sebagai politikus, di samping Yesus sebagai guru agamawi.

Sebelum kita bermula, mungkin adalah baik untuk saya mendefinisikan maksud “politik”. Dalam kajian sejarah silam, menurut Aristotle, politik difahami dengan ertikata yang luas di mana objektifnya adalah untuk merealisasikan idea kehidupan ideal dalam sesebuah masyarakat di satu-satu bandar. Di samping itu, politik juga boleh difahami dengan maksud yang sempit sebagai seni memperoleh dan mengekalkan kuasa. Saya lebih suka berefleksi tentang Yesus Politik dalam ertikata yang luas.

Politik bagi saya bermaksud, hal-ehwal umum, kerajaan dan sivil. Dengan definisi “politikal”, saya tidak memaksudkan bahawa Yesus menubuhkan parti politik atau melancarkan pemberontakan terhadap Rom ataupun Kota Yerusalem. Dengan definisi “politikal”, saya mencadangkan untuk menerokai Yesus dalam sejarah sebagai seorang yang mempunyai misi kepada negeri Israel untuk memanggilnya untuk bertaubat, dengan amaran hukuman Tuhan yang mendatang.

Jadi two persoalan yang ingin saya terokai adalah:

1) Betapa banyakkah kesedaran yang ditunjukkan oleh Yesus dalam misi-Nya kepada Israel, sebagi misi politik?

2) Apakah persepsi orang ramai terhadap Yesus sebagai politikus melalui ajaran-Nya dan perjuangan-Nya?

Kerana kesuntukan masa, saya mencadangkan untuk menerokai 3 aspek dalam kehidupan dan pelayanan Yesus, dan mengakhirinya dengan implikasi kepada Gereja pada hari ini.

1. Kesedaran diri Yesus terhadap misi-Nya
2. Mesej dan Ajaran Yesus
3. Aktiviti dan Perjuangan Yesus

..............

Pendahuluan Bahagian 2 Bahagian 3 Bahagian 4 Kesimpulan

.

Terus baca di Cahaya Nusantara

Vote Wisely

Christian Federation of Malaysia: As our nation prepares for the coming elections, we call on all Christians to be conscious of your responsibility as good citizens and to exercise your right to vote. Do familiarize yourselves with biblical principles on issues central to you and our nation, information on candidates and programmes of the various political parties. Pray for discernment and foresight.

In order to cast votes responsibly, we invite you to prayerfully CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

A. What the bible says about our primary concerns

Based on the opinion poll commissioned by The Star newspaper, the cost of living, social issues, crime rates and illegal immigrants are central to the concerns of the survey participants. As Christians, we are also concerned about issues which God is concerned about.

In the Bible we learn that God is righteous and just, merciful and loving. Whilst he has given us freedom of choice, he wills a good life for all human beings in a society that is spiritually and morally grounded.

God desires peace and goodwill among all people. In and through his love, we are called to cultivate neighborliness, and promote harmony built on mutual respect.

The threat to God's creation is apparent today. God has called humans to act as responsible stewards. The protection of the resources of the earth is for the benefit of all God's creation.

B. Political Parties: Their Policies And Delivery of Promises

Assess the political parties on the basis of their policies and promises, their stand on various issues related to justice and fair play, citizens' rights, national unity, economic development, protection of the environment and welfare of those who are sick, disabled and poor. Is there integrity, honesty and efficiency? Have the
parties delivered on their promises? Do their political views and policies reflect God's standard and Christian values?

C. Candidates

Examine carefully the ability of candidates, their standard of accountability, integrity, values and leadership skills. Pay attention to their past performance and for their stand on issues related to constitutional rights, civil liberties and the freedom of religion. Have they been consistently accessible and available?

MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO PRAY for candidates in your constituency, the issues herein highlighted and the outcome of the General Elections. Set aside time to pray daily. Organize and participate in local church prayer programmes. We owe to God, ourselves, our future generations and our country to exercise responsibly our privilege to pray and our democratic right to vote. We aspire with all Malaysians to live in a nation, where all citizens may enjoy freedom, love, justice, peace,
stability and economic prosperity.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia joins all other Malaysians in expressing the wish that the coming ELECTIONS WILL BE FAIR and there will be no attempt by politicians to publicly misrepresent or miscast any particular issue, or subject any community to unfair and adverse publicity for the purpose of political gain.

MAY GOD'S SPIRIT GUIDE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU to make wise decisions in casting your votes. May the results of the elections be fair and representative of the will of the people of Malaysia, trusting that God's purpose will always prevail above the affairs of human beings.

Grace and peace to all. Thank you.

Bishop Paul Tan Chee Ing, SJ President
Bishop Datuk John Lee Vice President
Rev. Dr. Thomas Philips Vice President
Rev. Eu Hong Seng Vice President

Christian Engagement in Politics

By Ong Kian Ming (Source: Church.com.my)

Politics? Mention this word in polite Christian company and you’re likely to elicit two kinds of responses - Cynicism, disdain and condescension on the one hand and apathy, ignorance and indifference on the other. The sanitized and white washed walls of the Malaysian church seem too pristine for politics to have any relevance in its midst. And yet, can we be true to our calling as Christians to be ‘salt and light’ to the world if we continue to ignore an area that affects so many aspects of our lives?

Locally, municipal councilors and state assemblymen ensure that rubbish is collected, water is flowing, and drains and roads kept clean. Sometimes they can make a difference whether a dioxin-spewing incinerator is built in our backyard or somewhere less hazardous. Nationally, MPs and ministers are responsible for good governance, political stability, economic development and social welfare. On the religious front, protection of the constitution safeguards our freedom to assemble, to worship and to express ourselves. Yet, we often take these things for granted.

Cynicism that leads to criticisms without action or indifference that discourages positive engagement will result in the continuation of the status quo – where politics is untouched by possible ‘salting’ influence of God’s people.

Why do Christians in Malaysia fear to engage themselves in this arena? Marvin Wong, in his recent book 'Between Friends,' argues that the Malaysian church has remained passive about politics because Christians fear being persecuted. Christians fear sharing the truth, or standing up for the minority, if this means going up against the ruling elite. ‘The result of this is a church that tends to engage with the government only in narrowly defined spheres, namely areas that directly impact itself,’ writes Marvin. ‘But a continuation of this trend will eventually destroy the church’s witness to ‘the world’ and her credibility to speak on behalf of others for truth and justice.’

Indeed, in my own church, which had a negative encounter with the law during ‘Operasi Lallang’ in 1987 where one of our pastors were arrested under the ISA, any talk of political engagement is quickly toned down and the presence of Special Branch officers and the heavy hand of the law often cited as reasons for caution.

The first step to encourage positive engagement in the political arena is to raise the level of awareness on the need for such engagement. And I hope that some of the examples used in the first part of this article have at least tickled your curiosity to think and pray more on this issue.

But perhaps I can afford to be a bit more optimistic when I say that the level of political consciousness among Kairos readers is slightly higher than that of the normal Malaysian Christian. Perhaps the next question that many Kairos readers are pondering is this: ‘How can I make positive contributions and engage in the political arena?’

Great question. There are more ways than people initially reckon to engage constructively and positively in the political arena in this country. (I defined political engagement in this article as engaging with any government authority be it at the local, state or federal level) Indeed, with the proliferation of new technology, the channels open to us to engage has increased to our advantage.

Firstly, we can start positive engagement in our respective workplaces where possible. Many of us work in jobs that require us to deal with government departments and sometimes even politicians. What kinds of standards do we demand of ourselves and of our government counterparts in our engagement with them? Do we acquiesce to the under the table ‘demands’ in return for a speedier processing of our applications or do we stand firm in obeying the letter of the law? Are we tempted to gain an unfair advantage over our competitive rivals in bidding for government projects? How we behave when we deal with government officials is a direct reflection of how much we are ‘salting’ their world.

Some of us might be civil servants ourselves in positions to control how government expenditure is channeled and how government policies are designed in our respective departments. How do we use or abuse these opportunities? Do we take hold of this chance to put in place structures and policies that ensure transparency, good governance, responsiveness, efficiency and checks and balances?

A Christian brother who is a senior civil servant in a policy making arm of the government showed me a plan to enlist the residents in a particular municipality in a major Peninsular Malaysian town onto a website aimed at increasing the responsiveness of the local authority to problems in that area such as clogged drains, fallen tree branches and potholes. If this pilot works, it would drastically improve the service levels currently provided by the municipal councils and local authorities in our areas. Note that this salting effect does not seem to have any obvious ‘spiritual’ contribution to God’s kingdom. Rather the effect is to bring the local community and the local authority closer together.

Two particular professions need to be highlighted because of their unique position in engaging with government actors – lawyers and journalists. Both are in a unique position to bring up cases where injustice has occurred, where abuse of power has taken place, where good corporate governance has not been followed and the list goes on. They can act as checks and balances on the different arms of the government machinery. They can lobby on behalf of those whose voices will not normally be heard. But to do so in the context of Malaysia where there are some existing constraints will require much Godly wisdom and courage. I am encouraged by the example of some Christian lawyers who have not been afraid to work on apostate cases, who speak out for good corporate governance and to stand up against injustice where it has occurred.

Secondly, we can get more involved in the affairs of our local communities to improve our living conditions by cooperating with and keeping accountable our local service providers such as Indah Water, Alam Flora and our local municipalities, just to name a few. Christians should not restrict themselves to the four walls within the church building but should venture out to serve in their ‘Rukun Tetanggas’ (RTs) and their Resident Associations (RAs). I am encouraged by the example of the president of my own Resident Association who is a brother in Christ. He works actively in his own church helping children with learning disabilities and also works tirelessly to look after the needs of the residents in his area by engaging with MPPJ, the local police as well as the local political representatives.

Thirdly, we can voice our own opinions on issues that concern us as individual citizens and as Christians. I observe some familiar names in the letters section of the New Straits Times, The Star and online newspaper Malaysiakini.com whom I know to be brothers and sisters in Christ sharing their opinions on a diverse range of topics from teaching Science and Math in English to the state of tourism in Malaysia to human rights and many others.

I am seeing more and more Christians coming out to share their views in an unapologetic and unashamed manner. More seem to be aware of their rights as citizens and are not afraid to voice them out, many of them through well written and well thought out letters. The recent ban on the Iban bible (which has since been lifted) prompted a barrage of letters on the Malaysiakini.com website criticizing the move. The proliferation of emails, and the Internet has also allowed ordinary citizens including Christians to organize themselves in cyberspace. I set up a petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/BibleBan/petition.html as a means to make more Malaysian Christians aware of this issue as well as giving them a channel to voice their concerns. In one week, the number of signatories had increased to 1500. By sending out emails to friends and through yahoogroups, news about this petition spread overseas prompting many Malaysians living overseas to sign up and share their views.

The proliferation of ‘blogs’ or online journals has also made it easier for Christians to post their views cyberspace on issues that concern them (http://www.blogger.com). Yahoogroups allow special interest Christian groups to exchange information on the latest news updates, prayer points and organize meetings online.

Fourthly, we can join NGOs in areas of engagement which we feel most passionate about. These NGOs may or may not be run by Christians or organized along biblical principles. These can range from social concern (Malaysian Care, Malaysian Aids Council) to human rights (SUARAM, HAKAM, ERA Consumer) to women’s issues (AWAM, NCWO) and so on. Kairos itself is a Christian NGO that tries to provide resources for people to think about how to engage with wider society. NECF too provides resources and research in areas and policies that affect the church and beyond.

Fifthly, we can take the step of joining political parties and engage in the political process directly. It is not possible for everyone who joins political parties to be state assembly representatives or Member of Parliament nor should Christians go into the political process thinking they can only contribute if they are YBs. Christians who enter into the political process should have their eyes wide open. They should constantly examine their motives on why they feel called to contribute to the political process directly. They should be serving a wider agenda, not only of their own narrow political interests or that of the party that they belong to. That agenda should be God’s agenda or what He has impressed on these individuals to do for Him in their respective political parties.

I’m encouraged to see committed Christians such as Lee Hwa Beng (MCA), Tan Kee Kwong (GERAKAN), Teresa Kok (DAP) who are involved in the political process as either state representatives or MPs straddling different political beliefs. I’m also encouraged to see a crop of younger Christians who feel called to serve God in this area.

Sixthly, and lastly, we should continue to uphold our political leaders in prayer. We should pray that God would continue to give them wisdom in the administration and running of the country. We should not just restrict ourselves to praying for the leaders in government i.e. the BN although the burden of running the country sits heaviest on them. We should also pray for the political leaders in opposition including PAS (which runs the states of Kelantan and Terengganu), Keadilan and the DAP for them to exercise their wisdom in their role as opposition representatives.

And if you are convicted of the need for Christian engagement in the political arena, pray too that God will show you how he wants to use you in this area.


About the author:

Ong Kian Ming currently works for a non-profit think tank that does work in nation building. God willing, He hopes to do his PhD in political science in the US next year.


注：原载于二零零三年八月份《Kairos》双月刊，经同意转载。

Election: Christian Perspectives

Last Sunday, we had a sumptuous satay night at Meng's place... It feels like another cozy cell group meeting, except for the guests speakers who came to share with us. It was casual yet inspiring, perhaps a sign of growing sociopolitical awareness amongst urban Christians.

Check out the following conversation from Caffe Latte CHAT (And you won't wanna miss Jacksaid's response) and Kar Yong's response.

ACCORDING to the Malaysian Census 2000, Christianity in Malaysia is practised by 10% of the population, the majority being in Sabah and Sarawak, where they make up 40% of the population in the two states.

In the urban areas of Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, Penang, Ipoh and Johor Baru, the profile of a typical Christian is one who is middle-class, English-educated, professional, conscious of issues, articulate and critical. And they will certainly play a crucial role in the coming general election.

There is no single Christian group that can claim to represent all the Christians in Malaysia but the major denominations include the Roman Catholics, Methodists, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, and independent charismatic churches.

Church groups like the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM), the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Malaysia, and the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) are the constant voices that speak out on Christian issues in public.

In this session of Cafe Latte Chats, we bring together Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, Subang Jaya assemblyman Datuk Lee Hwa Beng, Balakong assemblyman Datuk Hoh Hee Lee, secretary-general of the National Christian Fellowship (NCEF) Malaysia Rev Wong Kim Kong, and Council of Churches Malaysia secretary-general Rev Dr Hermen Shastri to ponder on the issues that are of concern to the Christian community and how these will impact on the general election

Christian perspective on the elections

Chun Wai: The typical profile of a Christian in an urban area is likely to be middle-class, possibly English-educated and one who is very conscious of issues. Datuk Lee, Datuk Hoh and Teresa fit into this profile. We are beginning to hear of more churches organising activities and dialogues relating to the general election. What are the churches doing about the elections?

Kim Kong: The general election is very important for all citizens, Christians included. The government is one of the institutions ordained by God for a very definite purpose to do good, to maintain law and order, as well as ensure what is right for the well-being of the nation.

Most churches will pray about the elections. Christians look for spiritual guidance as to what is God’s plan for the nation. It is inevitable for pastors to preach on issues relating to good governance like justice, righteousness, fairness and moral principles.

Chun Wai: Some believe this election will be a very tight fight between the BN and the opposition, especially for the urban votes. Are churches being courted by both sides?

Hermen: I have not heard of political parties going to churches but I have heard of churches wanting to have dialogues with political leaders. The churches have taken it upon themselves to raise issues that are close to their hearts.

Chun Wai: Has the NECF been courted by political parties?

Kim Kong: NECF did not initiate any dialogue with political parties. However, Christians involved in politics have been extended the opportunity to meet with pastors and Christian leaders. Just a few weeks ago, an MCA contingent came to meet 100 over pastors. There was also a question-and-answer session. We continue to maintain an open door policy.

Chun Wai: Teresa, maybe you can share your experience as an MP from the DAP.

Kok: Not only in the past few months. All this while, we have been concerned about subtle religious persecution issues. We take the initiative to meet with the religious councils, especially when (former Prime Minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared Malaysia as an Islamic country. Sad to say, when I approached pastors back then, some of them said it was the job of the NECF and they did not want to meet us. They did not want to be involved in politics. I said it was just a closed-door dialogue but they still refused.

Chun Wai: Was it because you are from the opposition?

Kok: I think so. This is the kind of phobia for some pastors. However, times have changed. More pastors are now politically conscious of the present situation. Some of the charismatic churches I attended even hold special sessions to pray for every segment of the administration. So I think this is an encouraging sign.

Lee: To answer directly to Teresa, MCA’s view is that Malaysia is not a theocratic Islamic state. It is a secular state with Islam as the official religion. The Catholics have always been politically conscious, but lately the Methodists and the rest have also become more aware. We in MCA have taken cognisance of this.

Chun Wai: Does being more politically conscious mean being more anti-establishment?

Lee: Not really, but Christians realise it is their duty to vote. They will look at the candidates and choose those who come closest to their Christian values.

Hoh: I never consider the church as a specific group of supporters. I treat them as I will the others in my constituency. If they need help, I try to assist. I am very careful not to bring the church into politics and I do not want the church to be involved directly.

Politics from the pulpit

Chun Wai: In one particular church in Petaling Jaya, we have received feedback that the person concerned had been bringing up strong political views which some in the congregation perceived to be anti-government. And sometimes, the members feel uncomfortable because when they go to church, they want quiet time with God to unload their burdens, but they end up hearing political views. Does this kind of orientation fit in?

Kim Kong: I think the Bible is very clear – the church has to be apolitical and not be involved in the political process directly. The church is a neutral institution; we cannot take any political inclination towards any particular party or candidate. However, the biblical value of good government can be taught.

Hermen: In my 25 years in the ministry, I have been exposed to churches here and in the world councils. Notwithstanding what Rev Wong has said, I think church comprises human beings and human beings are caught in the social context, and much of the politics of the day are reflected in the social context. They always look after their own interests and everything is communal here. Urban constituencies more exposed to a modern way of life will be more interested in engaging different parties.

Chun Wai: In Malaysia, politics have always been quite partisan and even emotional at times. While the church may agree on certain issues, there’s always the question of approaches that can divide the congregation. For example, the pastor can be very anti- or pro-government, and the congregation is made up of people with various political affiliations and they may not be too happy with the stand taken by the pastor. Will that create division in church?

Hermen: You just take one issue, let’s say our response to a certain concern. And then, you will find in the church some will say get involved, others say don’t. They are no different from the rest of society.

Chun Wai: Teresa, you are a Catholic and Catholic churches are known to be more vocal, please share your experience.

Kok: We are duty-bound to speak up for justice. If you can’t speak up, can’t act, at least pray for the situation. I used to attend mass in Petaling Jaya and during the community prayer time, the priest always has no choice but to bring certain issues into prayer, and certain religious words banned, you have to pray for that. And ISA being used, you pray for the detainees and the families. And we pray for press freedom, religious freedom, for independence of the judiciary, pray for the Prime Minister so that he has the wisdom to rule the country – that is all for the good of the society.

What I also find interesting is that the priest also prays for Chua Soi Lek, so that he can have reconciliation with his family. All these, you can say they are political messages of prayers, but it is our duty to pray over what is happening in our country. People might think this is political. But, in fact, for me, it is not. It is our duty as Christians to bring out all these messages to act, and to pray, and participate in the restoration of the wrong things that are happening in the country.

Chun Wai: But when certain approaches are taken, do you feel that sometimes this particular church can be seen to be anti-government? Will it help at all?

Kok: I have heard that some parishioners had left that parish and they go to other Catholic parishes because they don’t like the priest to talk about or pray like this. But it has also encouraged parishioners to be more socially and politically concerned.

Lee: I think you have to differentiate between current issues and also party issues. There is nothing wrong for a church to talk about or pray about issues of the day. But I don’t think there is any church that will say, oh, I support the MCA or DAP. Church leaders have to be neutral on the pulpit but on the ground, if he or she supports a political party, or take part in a rally, or attend a pro-government activity, I think he or she has that right.

Chun Wai: But Datuk, if pastors, whether they wear their collar on Sunday, and after that, never wear their collar, should they be involved in politics?

Hoh: Definitely not, because it can be very sensitive for both sides. But let’s say it is a social programme like a charity and they help as individuals, that is a different story.

Chun Wai: Rev Wong, in Sabah and Sarawak, it is very common for pastors to be involved in politics. I think there are quite a number of pastors in PBS. Why do you think it’s different in Sabah and Sarawak?

Kim Kong: They are slightly different in terms of political engagement because of the social fabric of the community. They are more conscious of the political process because their social economic status compels them to be more politically orientated.

As a result of that, pastors being much more exposed and educated, the chances for them to alleviate the social condition are much higher compared to Peninsular Malaysia. As a result, some of them engage in politics but there is a very clear demarcation, in a sense that if you have to be involved in politics, you have to resign as a pastor.

Then, the second issue is, Christians or people in general need to distinguish between political parties and the Government. I may meet the Prime Minister or minister, but it does not reflect that I am meeting the Umno president or the MCA president. I think there’s a need to distinguish between the role of the Government, of the Prime Minister and their role as the presidents of the political parties.

Chun Wai: Teresa, can you tell us about the DAP fielding a pastor in the election?

Kok: This is a pastor from Sabah, Pastor Jeffrey Kumin. I was introduced to this pastor and every time we pray together and he’s the only pastor who is willing to pray for me and the DAP … (panel laughs). My party approached him and he agreed to stand as a party candidate.

Christian concerns and needs of churches

Chun Wai: The number of Christians has risen to around nine to 10% of the population, even larger than the Indians at about 6.3%. Why is the voice of Christianity more subdued than other religions?

Kim Kong: The church’s main concern is spiritual rather than political. Also, the church, as a whole, does not have a common political agenda to bind them together. I think the separation between the state and religion is a very clear doctrine of Christians.

Hermen: I think we have to complement that with the reality of the Catholic church which has a strong presence and has always made its position known. If you read their Herald (the Catholic newsletter), it is different from the other Christian newsletters as they raise issues like pro-life, migrant workers and a host of other things, which are part of their agenda.

Chun Wai: Let’s talk about the needs of the Christians, what they would like to see done, and what is being done.

Lee: Freedom of religious practice is always paramount. Number two, places of worship have always been an issue. Under our existing guidelines, when we approve any project, we have to allocate places for mosques and suraus. Two years ago, the Cabinet came up with a decision that any project more than 50 acres must provide places of worship for non-Muslims as well. It is a good step but some go round this directive by proposing less than 50 acres, so the ruling is not effective in this aspect.

Hoh: Youths today are facing a lot of problems. If we Christians can step up and solve this problem and help society, this is good. As for education, we can see the Chinese are very concerned about education. Christians can also be involved in raising funds, providing scholarships. These are some of the things we can do.

Kok: The concern is the missionary schools. When crosses are taken down, for instance, this has become an issue; also, the Bahasa Malaysia documents and bibles. When I attend campus student gatherings, their prayers and songs are all in Bahasa Malaysia. When the Government interferes so much over the language issue, it creates some kind of unhappiness in the Christian community.

Why are not many Christians involved in politics? I think we have many good quality, educated Christians but they are involved in evangelical activities. They think it’s godlier. Also because of their background, they are more educated, upper middle-class people, they don’t want to dirty their hands because getting involved in politics also means getting your name tarnished, and your hands dirtied. There are also Christians who ask me to leave politics and get involved in more spiritual work.

Chun Wai: Dr Hermen, in all these issues that have cropped up, when you speak to the leadership and dialogue with the Prime Minister, they are very fair. The problem starts at the lower level, when one or two officers start to implement rules that make the cases complicated

Hermen: I think the only way to get through to this, when the down line becomes problematic, is to deal with the issue as an issue, not as a religious one. They would want to make every issue religious, that’s their problem.

For example, the case of the confiscation of books at MPH. These are Christian books in English with pictures of Moses, Noah and all that. This one unit within Internal Security says you cannot show a picture of Moses because it is sensitive to Islam. This is not an Islamic book. I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister to look into this matter.

Chun Wai: Do you agree that when these bureaucrats start imposing these rules according to their religious interpretation, it shows the politicians in power are actually affected?

Hermen: Yes, correct.

Kok: I think the Prime Minister should interfere. He has the Islamic credentials and he is a moderate Muslim. He needs to speak up.

Chun Wai: In conclusion, the Christians make up a substantial chunk of votes in the elections and these are issues of concern to them. In the battle for hearts and minds, their voices and their votes certainly matter.

The Christian and the General Election: Core Issues

OHMSI Dialogue: The Christian and the General Election (Core Issues)
Date: 26 Jan (Sat)
Time: 9.00am – 12.30am
Place: St Paul's Church Hall, Jalan Utara Kecil, Petaling Jaya (across highway from Amcorp Mall)

Speakers:
Dr Irene Fernandez, Executive Director, Tenaganita
Dr Datuk Denison Jayasooria, Executive Director, Yayasan Sosial Strategic
Mr Lim Guan Eng, Secretary General, DAP
YB Loh Seng Kok, MP for Kelana Jaya
YB Dato Dr Tan Kee Kwong, MP for Segambut

Moderators: Andrew Khoo & Tricia Yeoh

Registration: As there is limited seating space of 200 seats, registrations will be on a first come first served basis (based on your online registration time sequence). All participants are required to register electronically via www.OHMSI.net.

A free will offering will be taken during the event to cover organizing costs of the event. DVD recordings of the event will be made available for order and purchase on the event day.

Peace In Asia

An example of mission-as-peacemaking in Japan by Rev Wong

“Article 9 of Japan Constitution states:
(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce was as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

It is heartwarming to see Japanese Christian leaders as well as other religious groups in Japan stood their ground against the revision of Article 9 in their constitution. There is an attempt by the Japanese government to move in the direction to make amendment to Article 9. Already revision of textbook had taken place to portray Japan as a victim instead of being the victimizer in the Second World War. China and Korea protested vehemently to the distortion of history. These are the two nations, which had suffered the most during the brutal regime of Japan.

At the consultation which was organized by NCCJ (National Christian Council of Japan), delegates from Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, India, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Germany, UK, USA, Australia, and Japan listened to key note addresses and panel presentations and unanimously stood in solidarity with the majority of Japanese not to revise Article 9. Any attempt to revise Article 9 will pose as a threat to regional security and peace. Peace can never be achieved through military violence but only through promoting a culture open to patient dialogue and diversity that promotes justice, equality, and respect.

Transformation of society involves active engagement with national agenda. Although Christian population in Japan is very small but they are active in political and social engagement.

An elderly Japanese (probably in his mid 80s) spoke about the wars with deep sadness and remorsefulness. He obviously had gone through the pains of seeing the Japanese soldiers brutally killed and raped the victims of the wars. I could sense the great guilt carried by the Japanese Christians on behalf of their nation"

Read the complete blog post here

Islam Hadhari: Developmental framework

National policy must aim to embrace all
by Tricia Yeoh

For the first time in Malaysia, a religious framework has been instituted within a national socio-economic development plan. Islam Hadhari was introduced in the Ninth Malaysia Plan as a "comprehensive and universal framework for the nation".

Indeed, Islam Hadhari is interwoven into many chapters, promoting "a progressive developmental outlook" and "a moral society with strong religious and spiritual values." This has stirred a wave of interest in Islam Hadhari: what it is, its implications, and how Malaysians should react to it.

Islam Hadhari literally translated means Civilisational Islam, a theory of government based upon the principles of Islam as derived from the Holy Quran. It seeks to emphasise development consistent with the central tenets of Islam. In particular, ten fundamental principles have been outlined and this includes faith and piety in Allah, a just and trustworthy government, and freedom and independence to the people.

This initiative has been very much a brainchild of current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who introduced the concept in 2004, several months after his ascension into premiership. This step was taken to project a moderate Islam, perhaps as an attempt to soften the ex-Prime Minister's rather hard-line declaration of Malaysia as an Islamic state three years earlier. A new and fresh ideology might have been deemed necessary for his administration. Interestingly, we are the sole country promoting Islam Hadhari as national policy, which means that its definition is based purely upon one interpretation of Islam - Malaysia's.

However, it has also been emphasised that Islam Hadhari is not a new religion or mazhab (denomination). According to the official Islam Hadhari website, it is an effort to bring the ummah back to the fundamentals as prescribed in the Quran and the Hadith. This piece does not seek to delve into the theological or philosophical aspects of Islam Hadhari, but to explore its practical expression in Malaysian society.

Multiracial and Multireligious Malaysia

Malaysia: Truly Asia, the tourism slogan, is a Malaysian reality as seen in its major religions represented by Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, and Sikhism. In such a diverse and multicultural society, the call for harmony has always been a commitment of the government. National unity is of prime importance, with a range of policies implemented to this end, from educational to national language and national service policies.

The introduction of Islam Hadhari as a universal framework for national development implies that it applies to all Malaysians. The question is this: does it contradict or complement the government's efforts at promoting national unity? The answer lies not in mere rhetoric, which unfortunately has been one of the criticisms of Islam Hadhari, but in its actual fleshing out of policy into practice.

One obvious indicator of whether Islam Hadhari will work constructively towards national unity or not is the public's response. It will therefore only serve to strengthen national solidarity if, and only if, all Malaysians alike receive it with welcoming arms.

A non-Muslim can only appreciate the Muslim point of view if three elements are accepted. First, that Islam Hadhari should be advocated, since it combines fundamental elements of true Islam with modern development. Second, Islam is holistically applicable in all spheres of life, private and public. The Quran and Hadith certainly provide clear principles for this purpose. Finally, Islamic values can and should be assimilated into all levels of society.

What then of the non-Muslim's response? Are Islam Hadhari's principles really universal in nature? The first of these is "Faith and piety in Allah". Adherents of religions that do not preach Allah would be uncomfortable with this requirement.

For the sake of argument, assuming these ten principles are indeed universal and sound, how realistic is it that they can be translated into universally accepted practices? This is the real point of contention.

Cause for Concern?

That non-Muslims increasingly find it difficult to reconcile a sole religion as the basis of socio-economic development is a given. Whether or not these concerns are justified is another question. A spate of recent incidents has served to perpetuate some fears.

In October 2005, a non-Muslim student complained that she was barred from her university convocation because she refused to wear the tudung. Early this year, a directive was issued for all policewomen, Muslim or not, to wear the tudung for official ceremonies. The failure of some girls to wear the tudung resulted in their removal from a school netball team. There have been recent incidents of Hindu temple cleansing in the Klang Valley, bulldozers completely obliterating 100-year-old deities. Local authorities want to prosecute couples for public indecency (holding hands) on the count this is un-Islamic. A forum discussing the rights of religious freedoms as held in the Federal Constitution was recently disrupted.

It is interesting to note that all these have taken place after the Islam Hadhari concept was introduced by Pak Lah himself in 2004.

I started with the premise that for Islam Hadhari to be considered constructive towards the government's national unity efforts, it should be acceptable to all Malaysians. Although its principles may ensure Malaysia's multiracial society will benefit, its implementation process has begun to stir some anxiety.

If recent cases listed above are examples of the actual expression of Islam Hadhari, suffice to say it will not be well received by the non-Muslim public.

If, however, these are not good examples, then greater effort must be taken by the government to ensure it truly intends for Islam Hadhari to live up to its name as a civilisational and progressive Islam.

The problem in Malaysia is that most issues, including religion, are politicised for vested interests. Islam Hadhari should not be yet another tool to gain political clout. Unless the government can circumvent this, I cannot see how Islam Hadhari will get an all-round approval. It needs to seriously consider how to cater to the 40% non-Muslim public. Their responses cannot be disregarded. This is detrimental as it forms the basis of socio-economic development for the next four years.

Both the principle and practice of any unifying policy must receive equal affirmation from all races in Malaysia.

If Islam Hadhari in principle is something whose values all Malaysians alike can readily accept, this will be a tool to unite the country's diverse peoples. However, if this cannot be equally translated into an all-encompassing set of practices, it is potentially divisive in nature and must be rectified urgently.

The writer is a research analyst with a policy institute. The views expressed are her own. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com

Hospitable Society

Feasting and care for the poor have been polarized in contemporary culture. If you’re a “conservative,” you’re in favor of free trade, consumption without guilt, festivity without concern for those who can’t join you, who probably deserve their poverty anyway. If you’re a “liberal,” you renounce festivity because other people are hungry and how dare you eat when someone else isn’t.

The Biblical prophets combine a promise of festivity with severe denunciation of greed, luxury, and oppression. But they combine the two seamlessly by emphasizing hospitality. The promise is a feast like the feasts of the Pentateuch, where the widow, stranger, and Levite are not forgotten but included as welcome guests.

Against both “conservative” indifference and liberal asceticism, the Bible presents the ideal of the hospitable society.

- Peter Leithart

A Christian Social Vision for Nation-Building

By Dr Ng Kam Weng, Kairos Research Center

A Christian Philosophy for the Common Good

“The Church must exercise prophetic witness towards wider society and to government,” exclaimed the young man as he urged his friends to join a candlelight vigil in front of the High Court to express their concerns over a recent High Court judgment that was seen to be in conflict with fundamental liberties.

I can sense the earnestness of this young man and other young people like him who are willing to fight for social justice. They challenge the older generation not to remain indifferent out of cynicism towards authorities who enforce unjust policies that make life difficult for the common people. These two groups demonstrate two opposing tendencies among Christians on how to relate to wider society. Some Christians retreat into their spiritual ghetto so that authorities will leave them in peace. In effect, these Christians compromise their ideals of justice and end up supporting the status quo.

Other Christians exploit the gospel as a tool for social activism, if not as an ideological weapon, to condemn anyone who does not share their views for being de facto, on the side of the oppressors. It was not too long ago when some radical theologians reduced the saving work of Christ to mean nothing more than political liberation. In this case, anger and self-righteousness led to a distortion of the gospel. Given these competing approaches, the urgent question that Christians need to be answer is: in what way is the church to present a prophetic witness to authorities?

Sober realism should alert Christians to the tendency of the state to become an embodiment of the collective egoism of dominant tribes in a nation. Such states will not take kindly to any criticism from minority groups and idealistic social activists, especially when political contestation becomes intense. The state will certainly hit hard at social activists, agitating for political equality and social-economic justice, with its arsenal of police power that ranges from intimidation to arrests and imprisonment.

If Christian social engagement were merely one of following cues from wider society, albeit cues from recognised experts, it may be wondered why the church needs to get involved in the name of Christ. Furthermore, without sustenance from a deep Christian spirituality, it is doubtful if Christians can sustain a long-term witness in the face of threats and intimidation. As such, Christian social engagement needs a biblically-informed and well-thought out social vision that includes concrete benchmarks of social justice and democracy. Christian engagement that is based on informed moral convictions will persevere in the face of adversity.

One fundamental category that has helped Christians devise a comprehensive framework for political engagement is the concept of ‘Covenant’. Michael Walzer correctly captures the social character of the covenant: “The covenant, then, represented a social commitment to obey God’s law, based upon a presumed internal receptivity and consent. It was a self-imposed law, but the self-imposition was a social act and subject to social enforcement in God’s name” (Michael Walzer, The Revolution of The Saints, pp. 56-57).

Read on for the entire article

Between Romans 13 and Revelation 13

This is an ecommentary, reproduced here in full, from Tan Soo Inn at Grace@Work.

"We must obey God rather than human beings!"
(Acts 5:29 TNIV)

eCommentary: Between Romans 13 and Revelation 13

Some of my Christian friends in Malaysia are caught in a dilemma. The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH), is calling for a peaceful rally to be held this Saturday, to press for reforms in the electoral system. [Note: Bar Council's response is here]. The police have refused to give a permit for the rally citing various legal reasons. BERSIH has appealed against the decision. There has been no news as to whether the appeal has been successful at time of writing.

Some Christians are sympathetic to the concerns of BERSIH. They want to see changes in the electoral process that would help elections to be more "clean and fair." But they are not sure if they should take part in a rally which has not been permitted by the powers that be. Citing Romans 13: 1-7 some feel that they should not.

Others argue that the powers of the state are not absolute especially when they deny citizens basic rights like the right for peaceful assembly. Therefore many Christians are asking WWJD? What would Jesus do? The better question perhaps would be "what would Jesus have me do?"

Let me state up front that I haven't received any direct word from the Lord. All I know is that seeking to follow the Lordship of Christ in a fallen world means that Christians often need wisdom to discern between various biblical injunctions. On the matter of the relationship between church and state, Christians have to take seriously the biblical material found in both Romans 13 and Revelation 13.

Commenting on Romans 13:1-7, Dennis Hamm, SJ, writes:

"Paul was indeed making the case here that normally civil authorities are servants (knowingly or not) of divine providence. Obedience to such officials was a way of loving one's neighbour as oneself and fostering the order necessary for harmony in society."
("Faith's Call to Justice", The American Catholic Weekly, July 31, 2006, p. 2)
But in the same article he also warns against "a passive and uncritical attitude towards public officials." He points out the danger of such an interpretation by reminding us that during the rise of Nazism in Germany, some pastors urged their churches to cooperate with Hitler and his agents on the basis of Romans 13. "Hitler was, after all, a legitimately elected official" (Hamm, p. 2).

The situation in Revelation 13 however is very different from the one in Romans 13. Nigel Wright points out that Revelation 13 "acts as the counterpoint to Romans 13. The author (of Revelation 13) refers to Rome and its persecution of the saints, and reveals the beastly character of human power systems. In accordance with the nature of apocalyptic literature, the author describes here the potential nature of all human power. All governments have it within them to be idolatrous and to oppose the good." ("The Church and 'God's Servant' the State, Part 1", Anabaptism Today, Issue 7, October 1994, p. 3)

In Revelation 13 there is no call to submit to the civil authorities. Instead believers are called to be faithful to Christ even if it costs them their lives. The church is never called to violent resistance. But there is clear teaching about the need to suffer if need be, when being true to one's Lord means coming up against a state that is now in opposition to the concerns of the Lord.

Therefore, the Christian's default position should be to support the state, seeing it as "a power ordained by God for the preservation of order" (Wright, p. 5). However, quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dennis Hamm reminds us that to be good Christian citizens also "includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice (our) just criticism of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of community" (Hamm, p. 2-3).

In the light of passages like Revelation 13, Douglas J. Moo interprets
Romans 13:1-7 in this way:

"...Paul's demand that Christians submit to government means simply that they recognize government's rightful place within the hierarchy of relationships established by God, a hierarchy at whose pinnacle is God. When, therefore, government usurps its place, and commands us to do something contrary to our ultimate Lord, we are free - indeed obligated - to disobey. This view may, however, unduly weaken the meaning of 'submit.' Perhaps the best solution, then, is to view 13:1-7 as a general statement about how the Christian should relate to government, with exceptions to this advice assumed but not spelled out here."
("Romans", New Bible Commentary, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994, p. 1153)
So, should Christians attend the BERSIH rally if the police permit is not forthcoming? In this and in many other issues, I will say again "ask the Boss." He has promised to give us wisdom when we need it (James 1:5). Therefore the church should come before the Lord for a time of discernment. The Living Christ is in our communities and speaks to us through His Word and through His Spirit. We need to be confident of His presence and His leading and seek His mind together.

Still, this side of heaven we "see in a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12) and different Christian groups may come to different conclusions on this matter. We need to be gracious enough to accept and love those who, in trying to follow Christ, come to different conclusions from us. What we can do is to encourage one another to be faithful to obey Jesus as He calls us to "deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him" (Luke 9:23). And to be faithful in preaching the gospel.

Ajith Fernando's recent article in Christianity Today [BK's note: excellent "back to basics" article!] is timely. While he applauds evangelicalism's present commitment to societal involvement, he warns that the pendulum should not swing too much away from our duty to proclaim the gospel. He says:

"I will do all I can to encourage people to live the Christian life in
society. But I will also follow Christ's example in placing before Christians the fact of eternal damnation and the glory of eternal salvation. And I will challenge them to follow the agenda of Jesus, who 'came to seek and to save the lost' (Luke 19:10), reminding them of the advice of Jude, who said, '... save others by snatching them out of the fire' (v.23)."
Some of us have been convicted to take part in BERSIH's rally. But we should all be clear that the ultimate solution to humankind's problems is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And in our commitment to share the gospel we must be prepared to stand alone.

Your brother,
Soo-Inn Tan

See also Brian's earlier post on Jesus and Politics Primer

I Am For The N.E.P.

by Tan Kong Beng ("Saya Sokong DEB" terjemahan Keropok Lekor)

Next year it would a quarter century since I came before an interview panel consisting of the then Acting IGP, the Deputy IGP and several other Commissioners of Police who only had one question for me. They asked me for my views on the New Economic Policy. The policy had been running since 1971 with the expressed intention to eradicate poverty among the poor in Malaysian society.

I was forthright with my opinions on the policy. I declared then that I supported the policy in its stated objectives but thought that the implementation of it was something to be desired.

I gave them some examples of the wrong implementation of the policy courtesy of my
poli-sci and development profs at USM. After that we spent a couple of minutes on other mundane things of life and before I knew it the interview was ended. A couple of weeks later I was called for a positive-vetting interview and then later I received a letter asking me to report to Pulapol (Pusat Latihan Polis) for service in the Polis DiRaja Malaysia.

In the aftermath of the 1969 KL race riots, the government of the day promulgated the New Economic Policy – NEP – with the double-prong aim of “poverty eradication regardless of race” and “restructuring society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function”. The framers of the policy thought to create the conditions for national unity by reducing resentments among the ethnic communities due to socioeconomic disparities.

The NEP policy is associated with the First Outline Perspective Plan (OPP) for 1971–1990 and its target was to reduce poverty from 49% in Peninsular Malaysia in 1970 to 16% in 1990. The actual poverty rate in the peninsula in 1990 was 17% however the national rate was slightly higher. Through the NEP we have done well. But more can still be done.

I think the NEP has served the nation well in its stated doubled-pronged aim but what we have seen in practice is that it has been implemented with the tendency to favour one community over other communities as if only one community is poor and is in need of help.

Of late, there have been voices raised to get rid of the policy. But I disgree with such opinions. I still believe that the NEP in its truest aspiration was for poor Malaysians. It was to give them a leg-up so that they can be a success and to enter into the mainstream of society if we provided them with the financial resources and opportunities to do so.

Perhaps I am influenced by my own limited experience. I have experienced the negative side of the NEP but I have also seen its positive work. In one year that I was able to stay in campus, my room-mate was from Kedah and his father was a poor padi farmer who would not have otherwise been able to support his son’s tertiary ambitions if not for the NEP.

Then much later in the late 1980s, I was privileged to work with Orang Asli people and I saw that the NEP was not reaching such communities. If it was not reaching the Orang Asli people in the late 1980s then it was probably not reaching the majority of the other poor Malaysians in our urban towns and cities and across the seas to our brethren in Sabah and Sarawak.

I do believe that we should continue to support the twin aims of the NEP and work on better implementation plans so that those who are poor can be helped and that our society truly can be re-structured so that no ethnic group controls sectors of our economy but all communities contributing to the welfare and well-being of all Malaysians.

Happy 50th Merdeka for all of us celebrating the formation of the Federation of Malaya and Happy Malaysia Day on September 16th when we celebrate the 44th anniversary of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia with our friends in Sabah and Sarawak.

Kong Beng is a church Elder and fulltime worker with a church in Subang Jaya. He is also a director of OHMSI.

Was Jesus Political?

OHMSI, the hearts and mind "think-and-act" tank will be officially launched on the 15th of September 2007 at the PJ Gospel Hall Jalan Gasing, PJ from 10.00am to 12.00noon.

Topic: “Was Jesus Political?”
Moderator: Rev Dr Hwa Yung
Speakers: Dr Lim Kar Yong, New testament Scholar, STM.
Dr K.J.John, Executive Director, OHMSI.

Commentators: Rev Dr Hermen Shastri, General Secretary, CCM.
Brother Goh Keat Peng, Former General Secretary, CFM
Dr Beth Baikan and others

For more details, contact K.J.John, PhD, Executive Director,

Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI)
6 Jalan SS 1/29,
Kampung Tunku,
47300, Petaling Jaya, MALAYSIA
Email: kjjohn@ohmsi.net