Dear Micah Mandate,
I am writing this to you in response to both Mr. Goh Keat Peng’s article “We do not take such money” and Rama Ramachandran’s “Of two minds regarding the Sibu by-elections”.
I wish to make this clear. I was not upset at Mr. Goh, Rama, or my friends who alerted me on Facebook regarding Mr. Goh’s article, over whether it was wrong or right to receive the money. I was upset at the methods through which justice was thought to have been upheld. It was, quite simply put, unjust. And it was unjust because it was a method that did not recognize the fact that it was a blatant display of lording privileges.
1. What privilege is.
What is privilege? In anti-racist and anti-sexist discourse, privilege refers to whatever advantages that you may have come from certain aspects of your identity that places you in a (usually unfair and unmerited) position of benefit, or privilege, over others.
I’ll use a simple example: one evening, I drove to Damansara Uptown to look for a vegetarian restaurant (it was either a Wednesday or a Friday, and being Orthodox Christian, the tradition is that I should be taking vegan meals on those days). Because it was just after work, there were not enough parking spaces and I had to park at the other end of the block of shops where the restaurant was located. Then I walked towards the restaurant.
That act of walking alone, which only took several minutes of my time, involved several aspects of privilege and the lack of it. Firstly, I was able-bodied. This was a kind of privilege that placed me at a great advantage over those who were physically disabled. For the vast majority of able-bodied human beings, walking in Damansara Uptown is not a problem at all. It is a normal occurrence. But for someone physically disabled, Damansara Uptown is a nightmare. The five-feet ways are often interrupted by steep steps without any texture to help blind walkers differentiate where they are. The heavy traffic along the roads make any form of travelling along them, especially by a disabled person, physically dangerous. This is the reality for people with disabilities that they have to face every day. But because they are not part of mainstream, normal society, their needs often do not even cross the mind of able-bodied people who are privileged to experience the act of walking in Damansara Uptown.
Secondly, I am female. Since it was already after sundown, I had to be wary of people who may be attempting to commit crime. The threat of criminal harm is something more real to those of the female sex than those who are male. This is the privilege many men experience for being men: they are less likely to be physically attacked by criminals by virtue of being men.
Thirdly, I am a middle-class Malaysian. The act of driving to Damansara Uptown to search for a restaurant is one that I can afford to participate in because of the privilege that my wealth and social status offers me. If I were an Indonesian maid earning a few hundred ringgit per month in the Klang Valley, going to a restaurant to enjoy a vegetarian meal would be a luxury beyond my affordability.
Privilege is something one experiences due to identification one has through being the right (or wrong) gender, sexuality, race, religion, political conviction, income bracket, language spoken, and various other matters that shape our identity as human beings. Privileges cannot be removed entirely from society. But individuals within a society can re-examine the privileges they have and minimize the injustice caused by them.
2. West Malaysian opposition supporters lord their privilege over East Malaysians. Often.
As a Sarawakian living in the Klang Valley, I have experienced numerous instances when West Malaysian privilege is blatantly expressed. I have witnessed someone categorizing me as Malay, before my eyes, when I am (at least from my father’s side) Iban. There have been numerous instances when, after telling people that I am from Sarawak, people immediately respond: “So how do you find Malaysia?”. People in government offices do not recognize me as Bumiputra, and I have to take information from my MyKad to prove that I am one. Even well-meaning Malaysian endeavours eventually practice this kind of invisibility: sometime ago, there was an Internet movement called “We support the right for all Malaysians to call each other Macha: Malay Chinese Indian!” – needless to say, I never joined it.
Why does this happen? This is why: a great portion of popular understanding of what makes the Malaysian identity is automatically equated to the West Malaysian experience.
But the kind of lording of West Malaysian privilege is never more telling than when West Malaysian Pakatan Rakyat supporters attempt to gain ground in Sabah and Sarawak. Our two states were ‘marked’ as the states that gave Barisan Nasional victory, despite the fact that a large number of rural citizens in West Malaysia voted for Barisan Nasional as well. In light of this, West Malaysian Pakatan Rakyat supporters have developed a narrative where to vote for Pakatan Rakyat automatically means a vote for justice and moral righteousness, whereas a vote for Barisan Nasional means consenting to oppression and evil. This narrative is imposed on East Malaysia, whether or not the political patterns in Sabah and Sarawak are similar to those of West Malaysia or not. To make matters worse, I have encountered more than a few situations where, when discussing crucial issues of human rights (and I’m talking about the right to a home, the right to basic education, the right to receive sufficient nutrition, and the right to not be raped by one’s oppressors), Pakatan Rakyat supporters have said that Sabahans and Sarawakians ‘deserve’ the treatment they are getting if they do not vote for the Pakatan Rakyat candidate.
So it should be no surprise that I completely lost my cool when I encountered Mr. Goh Keat Peng’s article. The association with West Malaysian lording of privilege was too strong.
This was unfair on my part, since Mr. Goh Keat Peng was probably not looking at the political factors and a number of people associated with the Methodist denomination have said that the churches receiving the money were ‘well-established’. But it is difficult to not interpret these kind of things as West Malaysian lording of privilege when it happens so often.
But even IF there was none of that intended and none of that present, the manner the discussion took place was nonetheless still unjust.
3.Only people privileged enough to use the Internet frequently are able to participate in this discussion.
Ideally, the construction of a democracy is not just about knowing when to accept money from politicians, and certainly more than just voting for ‘the right candidate’. It’s also about the development of human minds, so that those minds are able to make informed decisions for themselves, at liberty.
The fact that no one participating in the discussion – and I include those who were forwarding it via Facebook – never once asked, “Am I being fair to those accused? Am I giving them a chance to speak for themselves? Am I interested in hearing what they have to say?” bugged me more than the acceptance of the money. At the very most, accepting the money belonged to a morally grey area – the same way that I, when working as an employee at the University of Malaya, received an insanely high bonus right before the General Elections in 2008.
One can argue that by right, this shouldn’t be the practice in elections, and I agree. But I was not interested in pursuing that topic from the beginning, and I am writing this not to pursue that topic, either.
The fact is that we should never allow a culture of Christianity in Malaysia to function on the principle of laissez-faire. Someone on Facebook asked me if Christians could be able to engage in debates about matters such as these without ending up judging each other.
But that is precisely my concern. Of course debate and discussion can happen. But the debate will happen only among Christians who have the privilege that enables them to participate in it. On a space like the Internet, that debate will be limited to:
- Christians who are proficient in English (middle-class urban Christians),
- Christians who are able to access the Internet, usually regularly (middle-class urban Christians, again), and
- Christians who may be users of a particular service on the Internet (eg. Facebook) (middle-class urban Christians, usually young).
In this sense, almost any discussion about Christianity happening on the Internet is going to be unjust. Consider how much theology is discussed only in English and how much of the most robust debates happen via online means (Internet forums are some of the best places to get a quick learning of Christian theology). This cannot be avoided entirely because the Internet is the fastest and cheapest way to disseminate ideas.
But because it is the fastest and cheapest way to disseminate ideas, then we should be mindful of the potential injustice that comes through it. Consider this: the incident happened in Sarawak, where internet connectivity can be poor even in urban areas. It involved Chinese-speaking churches. We do not know the median age group of the church congregation there. The matter, however, was a subject of discussion by West Malaysian Christians disseminating information mostly in English, via political blogs and Facebook. The person from whom I heard the news from was a young woman in her twenties.
We have to be careful about using the Internet to propagate false information and rumours. Secondly, we have to be careful when the Internet can be used to bring disrepute to another human being. If there is a fellow Christian congregation, say those churches in Sibu, that are the subject of controversy then we should be careful to not tarnish their good name and reputation unless absolutely necessary: anyone who has been involved in the running of a church knows how difficult it can be to answer to so many voices and how money is always a source of controversy.
And finally, we should attempt, as much as possible, to be as inclusive as possible – the limits of the discussion should be stretched to allow as many Christians in Malaysia from as many walks of life as possible to participate with ease.
What happens when this is abandoned? The result is laissez-faire Christianity: the voice of Christianity in Malaysia determined and dictated by those who have the wealth, power and influence to make use of the means to disseminate their ideas and influence others – even the power to influence the condemnation of fellow Christians. At a global level, we see how this works out: Christian Zionism receive a wide and uncritical audience for several decades because many Christians around the world were influenced by those in the United States and the United Kingdom. The rights of Palestinian Christians and their voices were often drowned out, and have only been very recently recognized.
4. God designed hierarchy for a reason
The ancient Christians did not function in a situation of laissez-faire Christianity. There was a hierarchy – present already in the New Testament church – which eventually developed into a more extensive hierarchy involving bishops, archbishops, deacons, and degrees of priests and prebysters. This formed a system of check-and-balance: the priest or pastor was responsible for a parish and answered to a bishop, and the bishop answered to the figure of authority above him, and so forth. Accountability was maintained through this hierarchy: if a layperson suspected that their priest or pastor erred, they could contact the bishop, and if there was reason to suspect the bishop erred, a synod of bishops could be arranged. A rough guideline for church administration, which later developed into Canon Law, was often used. This ensured as little abuse of influence as possible.
Different denominations today practice different forms of hierarchy, and some denominations do not even have a clear hierarchy. Whatever the church government one’s denomination subscribes to, it is important to recognize that accountability must happen within the church government, not in disregard of it. If we trust that God calls certain individuals to lead His flock, then we should trust their authority to make decisions. Without this acknowledgment there can only be anarchy in the Church.
Lastly:
Some may argue that the situation in Malaysia is too urgent for us to bother about playing fair and playing by all the rules, and that it is more important to oppose the injustices of government than to ensure that justice is actually happening within our conduct. After all, can we seriously think about getting an inclusive debate if certain politicians have no qualms of manipulating voters through what many consider to be voting bribes?
I reject this stance.
If Christians – if human beings – are unable to recognize and unwilling to recognize the kind of injustice they commit either consciously or subconsciously, through often subtle means such as being ignorant of the privileges offered by being the ‘right’ gender, race, statehood, income level, political convictions, and yes, sexuality (even in Christianity!) then any kind of democratic government we will have is doomed to be a farce. The elected government is not the foundation of democracy, the development of people is. If democracy is about giving voice and empowerment only to people who can afford to, then we might as well give up the project of democracy completely.
There can be no proper representation of peoples if issues of privilege are never seriously addressed.
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
May 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Catalina, pls try not to complicate the issues which you seemed intent of diverting.
Whether a person is male/female, East Malaysian/West Malaysian, Christian/Muslim/Free thinker, or PR/BN supporter, the issue of integrity is unaffected by these factors. As a Christian, you know that God is no respector of persons and He is the same yesterday, today and tommorow.
So can you clearly answer the following question, which the nation is asking: Is it morally right for the 5 Sibu church leaders to accept the money which is taxpayers money under the electioneering circumstances?
It may be legal, but is it morally right?
Everyone is free to have an opinion and perhaps, Mr Goh and other writers could have been more tactful by givin the church leaders the right of response. But that does not mean we have no right to discuss it. It is after all tax payers’s money. If i knew where the money is goind, perhaps for missions or to build hospitals, then I may be able to understand better.
May 25th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
regardless whether it is sibu, selangor, shah alam or kuching, if money offered in such circumstances, with that kind of public speeches made by offeror, the timing, whether it were monetary aid applied long before or not; east or west malaysian, privileged or not as passionately explained by Catalina and compassionately understood, we each have to declare our stand; i would still be disturbed if i think my bishop is administering the wrong instructions after i have worked things through with my Christ-given conscience
applying it to other daily areas of our lives: would i put my signature to the dotted line to launch a project in the public delivery system i know to be dubious after much homework, all the time with my superior dangling his pressure over my head with impending jeopardy to my pay, position, kpi dll ?
what mr Goh declared and is urging is for us to make a stand as christian citizens in a land that is going through much turmoil and testings we cannot afford to delegate anywhere else but to ourselves to go through the fires of these trying and purging times…it is in our hands in obedience to our Almighty God whether these fires become refining as Job claimed for their outcome
May 25th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Jeremiah:
Firstly, I am not saying that we shouldn’t discuss it. I’m saying that we shouldn’t discuss it in such a way that we drown out or overrule the voices of those involved in it.
I’m not complicating the issue, I’m raising an important point. Privilege underscores everything that we do in life. We cannot even begin talking about what integrity is, if the methods we use to seek ‘justice’ are themselves unjust.
As for whether it is morally right to receive the money, I’ll let the pastoral letter from the Bishop of the Methodist Church explain the relationship between government and religious bodies in Malaysia. This letter was sent to all the churches under the Methodist denomination. I will quote a section of what he said, since he did not mention whether it is permissible* to share the entire letter in public or not:
(*editor: deleted. since permission is not given the contents of the letter should be treated as private.)
In fact, while many people speaking up have said that it has nothing to do with Pakatan vs. BN, the facade is very quickly blown away. The only people who have such serious issues with this, that they are willing to condemn their brother or sister in Christ without even bothering to hear their side of the story, have all been vocal Pakatan supporters.
May I remind fellow Christians that churches, in both East and West Malaysia, have done things that are ethically grey with regards to responses to politicians as well. Didn’t Metro Tabernacle church receive money from the Prime Minister after the church was burned? Didn’t some churches in West Malaysia receive assistance from Muslim NGOs offering to protect some churches from attacks, despite the fact that some of these Muslim NGOs were themselves involved in anti-Christian rhetoric?
May 25th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
gapstander:
Ultimately, we need to respect that democracy is not about getting people to ‘join your side’. It’s about empowering people so that they can make informed decisions for themselves. Sometimes, people will not make the decisions that you are comfortable with — but that’s what empowering people is about. A democracy that does not accept that we have rights as individuals to make our own moral decisions isn’t a democracy at all; it might as well just be a dictatorship. A healthy democracy is not about everyone thinking the same thing, together, as a group. A healthy democracy is where each individual has a voice, a representation, and the intelligence and information to make decisions.
If you think that you cannot have received the money, then by all means, more power on you. However, the churches do have a right to decide what to do with the money.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Thank Sis Catalina for giving much of her time writing a long article. I am a West Malaysia who have been working in a Church in Kuching for 4 years in the early 1990s. I experienced a cultural shock. I didn’t feel I was working in Malaysia soil as my whole family of four did go through much hassles getting work visas.
The 4 years of stay enabled me to know the insecurity of Sarawakians over the insurgence of West Malaysians working there or opening up of business opportunities. Business visas are renewable 6-monthly and working visas annually.
Owing to the troublesome procedures many working class have gone back to Malaysia and West Malaysian business investments were pulled back. Those day in the early 90s, Sarawak, esp Kuching, Sibu and Bintulu were rather prosperous. But 20 years later today there were not much improvement. Instead, on the reverse, Sarawak was declining!
Why? Since investments from outside are negligible, progress will be in stagnancy. The lack of working opportunities have forced the younger generation to flee the land. Many of them landed in West Malaysia. It shows that Protectionism is a Killer to Progress.
Instead of thinking that the outsiders were robbing their rice bowls, they should welcome the immigration of the West Malaysians. Sarawak is the largest state in Malaysia, yet it has the lowest population per sq. meter. In the theory of economies, economy growth is directly proportional to mass population.
No, I am not blaming the Sarawakians for rejecting the West Malaysians. They get used to their slow lifestyle, and many don’t see the necessity of change. For 47 years BN has successfully taming them into gratefulness over a peaceful living environment.
Sarawak is the riches state in Malaysia yet the people are poorer than the West Malaysians. Due to more than half the population don’t own computers and even have no assess to newspapers, I could see there are obstacles in causing a change in the land.
That is why bribery during election times could always be practiced. As regard to the money given to the four Methodist Churches, since they were urban Chinese Churches, and I supposed that knew much about what is happening in Malaysian politics. I am sure that the Christians read about the corruptions BN involved. And they should know how Government Institutions like Judicial Courts, Police Forces, MACC, Media, etc have been manipulated by BN as their effective machinery to achieve their goals. As such, I believed that Churches should not take such money. Just ponder for a while. Why was it given during a by-election time? Why was a regular allocation of funds to Churches unheard of in the past?
Sis. Catalina should not mix up with the money given to Metro Tabernacle. This is entirely a different matter. Something happened, and the Government felt good to contribute to the losses.
But whatever means the 4 Churches are going to spend the money, it does not make the them justified. Whether they are used as building funds, evangelism funds, social funds or whatsoever, they are just secondary. Sis. Catalina shouldn’t divert from the main focus, that is, as long as the money was given at that very peculiar time 0f by-election, the giver has an abnormal motive. Ask ourselves a question: If there was no by-election, would the money be given?
May 27th, 2010 at 1:47 am
Please allow me to contribute the following observations and views
to this discussion
Having read both Mr Goh’s article and Catalina’s response in the form of this article as well as her other postings, I find a strange disconnect between the two.
I commend Catalina for articulating a cohesive and well-thought out
argument.
However, I choose to differ with her on several points. It appears to me in humble opinion that Catalina has misjudged the main intent and argument of Mr Goh’s piece.
Catalina’s central argument is that it is unjust to criticize the Sibu churches in this forum (internet) as it unfairly canvasses pressure against them without giving them the right of reply. She argues that the fairer course of action would have been to privately communicate these concerns through the church hierarchy (Bishop, or CCM)or to the churches themselves.
Having read Mr Goh’s piece, it seems clear that his main intent was to criticize the practice of vote buying and to condemn the govt for this practice. In no way did he suggest that the Sibu churches had invited this attention, or had actively canvassed for these gifts. Nowhere in the piece did he accuse the churches of having any ulterior or hidden motives in taking the money.
The flow of his argument goes like this:
#1 Vote buying is wrong: and neither BN or PR should practice this.
#2 There is a danger that the reputation of the church (as a whole, not just the specific churches in question) may be sullied if the public at large perceive us (whether rightly or wrongly) as being willing propaganda tools in the political war. Mr Goh, then goes on to provide examples of what some bloggers had been writing in response to the news of these donation to illustrate the perceptions of some.
Note that his argument was about the reality of perceptions among the public; he did not argue that the 4 churches were complicit with the govt or had done anything sinister or corrupt in applying for the funding.
#3 In general the Christian community as a whole (CFM is mentioned) should develop a clear stand on this issue so that it is clear to the wider Malaysian population that while the church will engage with govt (whether BN or PR) and will accept the financial resources it is due, it will not be willing participants in politicking.
#4 He then gives his personal plea to the church to give the money back. Not because they had committed any act of wrong; but as a powerful statement to the Malaysian community that we are not indebted to any govt.
His message is NOT “repent, give back the money, because taking it was an act of evil”: rather his message seems to be more “this is my appeal to you, giving back the money will enhance the people’s image of the Christian community in this country”
In my opinion, the act of Mr Goh in writing this letter/call/article and posting this on the internet is a morally legitimate and JUST act. I disagree with Catalina that this was unjust or unfair.
Firstly, it doesn’t put undue spotlight on the 4 Sibu churches: I guarantee that the news story of them receiving the money already put them in the national spotlight. I know there were not seeking this spotlight; but this was the reality the moment the PM made the announcement. Many non Christian bloggers were already commenting on this: surely it was an important for some Christians to also add their voice.
Secondly, it did not significantly add pressure on the churches to return the money. That pressure was already there before this article came out. I personally know members of 2 of the 4 churches and I can tell you that many of the members have already been putting pressure on their church leadership regarding this issue: in fact many members are unhappy about why they were not consulted by the church leaders concerning this issue. The level of debate on this issue in Sibu town itself is far more intense than anything we generate here in semenanjung. (I know it is unfair of me to expect Catalina or other readers to be aware of this: I am not blaming anyone: just shedding light on the context)
Thirdly, I think it was important that such debates/views are expressed in public (rather than behind the closed doors of church councils: I should mention that I serve on one of the national Methodist Councils myself) because it is not just a local church issue: it is something that affects all of us as Christians in Malaysia: not just the Methodist Church. As members of churches we should be exposed to different view points on Christian (healthy) engagement in politics (and where we should draw the line) so that we can voice our opinions to our various church leaders. I’m glad that Mr Goh’s article was read by many Christians and Non Christians alike because it represents how some of us (not all of us) are thinking and it is good for our non Christian friends to know that there are a diversity of viewpoints within Christian circles. (for some strange reason most of my muslim friends seem to think that most Christians are pro BN; perhaps because of high profile Christians like Francis Yeoh and Vincent Tan)
Since Mr Goh’s article was really targeted at the Christian community at large, using the internet was certainly a legitimate channel and platform.
I agree with Catalina that the internet is limited to certain classes. I hope Mr Goh’s
article would be published in a medium more readily accessible by others. But surely we cannot blame Mr Goh for not being able to control his circulation scope. Like all writers and bloggers, we use whatever space that is available to us.
While I accept Catalina’s argument that we should respect the church leaders authority (ie Bishop, council etc etc) I am of the opinion that you can except the power of the church authorities to make decisions, while at the same time encouraging free and open debate among the general church population. The two are not incompatible. Mr Goh was not suggesting that we start a petition to force the leaders to give back the money.
Catalina also (indirectly) makes the assumption that Mr Goh has made no attempts to communicate with the Methodist leadership; and I know this to be untrue.
I would like to end by saying this.
Having read both Mr Goh’s and Catalina’s articles I found myself in the very strange position of being able to associate closely with both their general orientations.
While I disagreed with Catalina’s critique of Mr Goh’s article,
I agreed with many of her arguments.
For example, I strongly agree with Catalina’s arguments concerning the way West Malaysians lord, bully and condescend when dealing with East Malaysians. I take her comments about how we often lack understanding of the East and presume too much.
I especially liked her examples of the plight of Palestine against the might propaganda machinery of the jews. It struck me because Mr Goh Keat Peng has been one of the few outspoken Christian advocates for Palestinian rights (a position that has often put him at odds with most Christian mainstream leaders).
I also liked Catalina’s argument on the tyranny of the previleged. How the mighty rule the poor and weak. I like the way she thinks about the world, her perspective of justice.
It is ironic that if both Catalina and Mr Goh were to meet, I know they would probably agree on most issues with regards to social justice.
Those of us who know of Mr Goh’s many years of full time work with organizations like Scripture Union, FES, GCF, CFM, World Vision (In Timor Leste) will know that he has devoted most of his life to fight for the weak, the forgotten, the ones with no voice. He has often taken unpopular stands, gone against the flow. More recently his decision to openly speak out in support of the opposition (way before it became popular after Feb 2008) was in my mind an act of courage because it was the minority opinion among Christian leaders in West Malaysia. It was an act that led to many sacrifices including regular harassment by authorities and even arrest. This was certainly not a populist stance, but a stance of a man of principle (whether you agreed with his political affiliations or not)
Perhaps that is why the accusation that Mr Goh has “lorded previleges” by writing an article of conscience sits uncomfortably with many of us.
May 27th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Catalina/readers,
I believe the wider perspectives of the whole issue have been quite reasonably discussed by CL’s and other commentators.
As you may know, Malaysia, like other countries during these perilous times, is going through spiritual battles that show up in political and religious tensions in recent years.
I understand why Pakatan supporters are passionate about their values of justice and integrity. By the same token, I do not condone YBH Anwar Ibrahim’s past tactics of getting MPs to switch seats to gain a parliamentary majority. That kind of approach has sown some backlash many months later.
But the debate about the 4 Sibu churches receicing the funds should be taken one step further: Assuming they (including the Hulu Selangor school) decide to return the money, would it be wise to return it to the government who will most likely unwisely give it away again at the next by or general election?
Why not put the money in a special anti-vote buying fund so that whenever any party (BN or PR) tries to buy voters’ loyalty with any amount, the fund will be activated to make a counter offer, which may be smaller but sufficient to make a statement to the whole of Malaysia?
We can call it the 1Malaysia-Anti vote buying fund managed by independent trustees comprising a cross section of religious and secular committe members. Meanwhile, the churches in West Malaysia can try to raise money to help those 4 methodist Sibu churches finance their needs.
My suggestions are just ideas that seek to go above the partisan and religious heat of the issue. I have always believed in a third force in Malaysian politics and that it resides in us (bloggers and activists)keeping both BN and Pakatan Rakyat in check so that they truly serve the interests of the people.
It would be a mistake to give the impression that Malaysian Christians are mostly supporters of PR or BN. We are not neutral but politically aligned to the vision of the rainbow nation, one where unjustified privilege based on race and position is mitigated by love for our fellow citizens.
May 31st, 2010 at 1:41 am
Wow! why so complicating! CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION!
June 2nd, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Reading the debates on the acceptance of the Methodist Churches in Sibu grants made by the government during the by-election troubles me. I felt more comfortable reading the mixed responses of Malaysiakini readers. I was surprised by the unanimity of the responses of the (presumably Christian) readers on The Micah Mandate and discussions in the Friends-in-conversation email group in support of Goh. I felt especially troubled when brave and eloquent Catalina has to debate with a whole group of seemingly sympathetic Christians who disagreed with her. Perhaps the Malaysiakini readers’ mixed perspective correspond more with my instinctive, pragmatic response to the issue.
I feel compelled to say something, not because I think that my point of view is right, but that I feel bad about hiding behind the comfort of keeping silent watching the courageous few speaking against the current on my behalf. I have to ask myself why I did not feel as indignant as many of the readers.
I would like to clarify in the first place that I agree that in an ideal situation, the churches should just refuse the grant and send a political message. On this, I agree with Goh that after all, the Church who preaches a high moral standard should conduct itself accordingly. I take my hat off for such stand by any community leaders.
But is it wrong to accept the grants?
We all agree that the timing of the grant was not innocent. It is clear for all to see. A joke I share with a friend is that the best gift an elected representative could impact to his/her constituency is to die, sadly. This reflects clearly the ubiquity and long drawn practices of the government in abusing its advantage of incumbency during elections. It was only during election time, for instance, that Chinese education could get substantial grants from the government to supplement building funds for some already approved but yet to be built new Chinese schools due to lack of funds or for the maintenance or renovation of their schools. This is despite the fact that vernacular language primary schools are recognised as an integral part of the national education system. It is indicative of how unjust and morally wrong the way current political system dispenses public funds.
But is it wrong for the minority to accept such grants which is rightfully their due even if the giver’s motivation is morally dubious? How should a Christian minority respond to such a situation?
Leaders of the Methodist churches had clarified that the acceptance of the grants was made without any strings attached, and that they have gone through due processes in applying for the grants before the election was anticipated. After all, these grants are not for their personal use but for the community under their care.
I believe that there are acts which are clearly morally wrong. But there are also circumstances in which certain acts lie in the grey area, which requires deliberation based on wisdom. We could of course disagree with such decisions, but we should be careful to judge or condemn others. It is so easy to take a moral high ground regarding others without our own lives being scrutinised based on the same high standard. As Jesus said, “Let those who are sinless cast the first stone.”
June 3rd, 2010 at 7:47 am
Helen,
Someone emailed: “99.99% of the comments in Mkini were not for the Bishop.”
[If you are reading this, please let me know!]
I then looked at the responses in Mkini. My impressions:
1. My correspondent’s comment is not far off the mark.
2. The TMM discussion is more WM vs EM than Mkini.
3. The TMM replies are longer and show more reflection before submission.
4. The TMM writers better understand church/congregational processes.
5. The Mkini writers show a better grasp of election laws.
Thank you for communicating your impressions and your comments.
Rama
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:02 am
Peter, when you want something but you know deep down you should not have it, the way to do so is to make it complicated. This is what you must do if you are a christian. Christians cannot simply say, “I don’t care, I want to keep the money”. They have to make it appear OK. Most times we know how to answer the deeply philosophical question “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is …” But we can obfuscate (good word, eh? sounds all learned) the matter by saying, well, ideally we should conclude it is a duck but we are hungry here (we are always hungry, right?) and we want to eat, after all, was it quacking like a duck two weeks ago? Who knows if it will walk like a duck tomorrow. Anyway, does it really matter? If I kill it to feed my family (good motive what) does it matter if it is a duck?
See, by now you have forgotten the question and why you were asking it in the first place. Now for the killer punch: Is it wrong for a hungry man (never mind that I have enough every day, I can always do with more and the other village always seem to have more) to kill this creature which rightfully mine – it’s in the jungle, belongs to everybody eh? – whose identity is morally dubious? Good eh? You think your Jesus can answer this ah?
So Peter, you have a lot to learn. CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION? That’s the moral high ground. Maybe you can afford to be like that but some of us can’t. Jesus said, “Let those who are sinless cast the first stone” – that will shut you up.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
to not cast that stone is directed to us lest we fall to pharasaical tendencies of selfrighteousness and putting on an outer form of religion which is exactly that, looking good on the outside but morally and spiritually corrupt and bankrupt on the inside (this is not so hard for the self to work out for ownself, humankind being created intelligent and with freedom to choose)
to not cast that stone is not a licence to continue in sin if we truly want to follow Christ and take his words seriously
nor are his words taken out of context just to slam another with whom we can’t agree
theMM has always been a place where care and concern for the things that really matter has a forum, to reason out things, not according to the popular ways of the world but precisely, Christ’s – the hard and narrow way
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I thank ramanathan,gapstander and hobbes to care to response to my response.
Ramanathan, I must say that I read the responses on both websites last week and wanted to respond then. But I did not get to do it and by the time I did it yesterday after again being prompted by another email message on the issue on Friends in conversation, there are many more responses which appeared since on Msiakini, which I did not check. I believe that the earlier responses I have read have since been removed, because I cannot find them anymore. As it is I would not say that the responses on TMM is worse than that of Msiakini. Thanks for the correction. By the way, I am not sure whether Josh Hong has a better grasp of election laws. I tried to read it online after reading his article.
For Hobbes and gapstander, I just want to say that it is so easy to misjudge others and their intention. I have no share in the allocation, neither am I a Methodist even though I am from Sibu. I don’t even have the desire to convince you but as I said and I want to say again, I just felt compelled to respond and say my piece. If I stick my neck out, it is not to make myself feel or look good. Don’t you think it is safer to keep silent if the current is against your opinion? If you don’t find it acceptable, so be it. We have better to agree to disagree. But don’t put down others just because they don’t correspond to your moral high ground. Morality is for oneself to live, not to impose on others – I am sure you would say this loud to those Islamist zealots who want to impose their moral standards on others, including their own fellow Muslims. If I think that it is NOT corruption to accept the money given the specific circumstances, let it be God who would be my judge. Remember the parable of the servant who was released of his debt and then pounded on his debtor? He was in the end judged by the same standard as he used on his debtor. If you feel that my example of casting the stone is meant to shut you up, I must be a very poor strategist as it obviously backfired.
June 3rd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Dear gapstander, I believe that we can have a multiplicity of ways to interpret and be challenged by the message of a gospel story. When I cited the example of Jesus’ saying about casting stone, I think I was more thinking of the attitude of the crowd who judged the prostitute in a narrowly legalistic and non-charitable way. Yes, according to the law, she should be stoned to dead. But Jesus didn’t care about sticking to the letter of the law. What is more important to Jesus was love.
Yes, I agree that Jesus’ way can be a hard and narrow way. But it doesn’t mean that we alone know best THE way. You may disagree with me, but I believe that holy spirit works even among non-Christians.
I admit that I am not a theologian or biblical specialist but that’s how my faith makes sense to me. I didn’t mean to slam anybody who disagree with me. In effect, I described the readers of TMM as “sympathetic”.
June 4th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
be at peace, dear helen – didn’t mean you when i say ‘slam’
June 4th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Helen, I apologise for the sarcastic tone of my previous comment. I was quite upset at the comments I have read (not yours alone) but I don’t do outrage as well as Catalina. Let me just make myself clear and I will leave it at that.
An election ought to be a (somewhat) fair fight between the candidates and the parties they represent. The man went to Hulu Selangor bearing all sorts of gifts. Not out of his own pocket, or his party’s. But from government funds – your money, as many commenters love to point out. Let’s not talk about the law, just commonsense – is this an abuse of his position? Is this wrong? His party won by a slim margin. Would his party have won without the largesse? How do you think the election was won? Now the man goes to Sibu, once again bearing gifts, among which were grants to 4 churches in Sibu. I’m sure you have also viewed the video and the infamous “I’ll help you if you help me”.
The question is: Is this right or wrong? Is this bribery or not? Is this corruption? Whatever you wish to do with the grants is one matter, but am I standing on moral high ground when I conclude that what the man is doing is wrong, bribery and corruption? This is what I meant when I wrote “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is …”. If you disagree with me please don’t tell me. Let me remain in my fantasy.
If you say, as many cynics do, “yes, it is corruption but take the money and vote your conscience” – I would have had a lot less problems. You do what you do with your eyes wide open. The problem is that in trying to justify the keeping of the grant, the church leaders, as you yourself have mentioned, tried to whitewash what the man had done. And, in my view, so did many commenters. This (I think) is why Peter cried out “Corruption is corruption!” This is not a matter of condemnation or throwing stones. It is not moral high ground. It is being able to tell right from wrong.
What should the churches do? I think instead of applying our considerable intellect to answer the question “Is it wrong to accept such grants…” we should be asking “what is the right thing to do?” In the former, our eyes are on the money. In the latter, our eyes are on Christ. In all honesty, I don’t think the answers to the latter are very hard to arrive at.
June 4th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Dear gapstander and Hobbes,
Thank you for your gracious gestures to make peace. I appreciate it.
June 5th, 2010 at 12:51 am
What a wonderful thing it is to belong to the family of God!
We recognize that we all deserve to be stoned, but God chooses to accept us “just as we are” because we know and confess we are far from perfect – and seek to be better – including through engaging in dialogue with our brothers and sisters whom we haven’t even met face to face.
Hallelujah! Lord, break me, melt me, mould me. Make me a servant who reflects your glory. As Calvin put it, “I am but a worm, but make me a glow worm.”
I so look forward to meeting these my brethren, whether here or in heaven. Help me to affirm, learn or disagree respectfully, because I want to be more concerned about your glory than about my comfort.
June 5th, 2010 at 1:22 am
There has been some very healthy engagement in the Micah Mandate lately, with genuine civil respectful disagreement and yet an attempt to truly understand beyond the surface.
It’s called the “Witness of disagreement” – how we disagree and the way we treat those who disagree with us on some issues. somehow beyond all that we are bonded by out faith and a vision for a better future is more central.
June 9th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Helen, I think Mkini won’t remove those comments. Check older letters.