I am exhausted. I have thought deeply about why the EO6 were detained, why they might have been detained for much longer and why they have now been released.

I am relieved because I can take a rest from spending two hours a day attending candle-light vigils and an average of two hours a day writing about the EO6.

I am thoughtful because I want to review what I have learned in the last thirty days and build on it. Here are six key thoughts:

1. Salam Perjuangan. Salam, is from the Hebrew root Shalom, which means ‘peace.’ It’s one of the Arabic words in the greeting Salamalaikom. Perjuangan means ‘struggle.’

   UMNO leaders use Perjuangan to ‘remind’ the majority Malays of the ‘Malay struggle’ for progress. It’s an open secret that ‘progress’ is a euphemism for Ketuanan Melayu, Malay Superiority and ‘takut Cina,’ or ‘be afraid of Chinese dominance.’ (About 90 % of the civil service and the armed forces in Malaysia are ethnic Malays. The wealth gap between rich and poor Malays is enormous.)

   PSM (Socialist Party of Malaysia) members say Salam Perjuangan when they meet and when they depart. The PSM use Salam Perjuangan to remind their members of the people’s struggle for justice and equality.

2. Zalim. Zalim means ‘cruel.’ This was one of the words chanted at candle-light vigils. The chants were ‘EO zalim’ and ‘Police zalim.’

   I’m not normally a person who uses strong words. I’ll admit to not chanting zalim on the first day. I needed to think about it. From the second day onwards, I too chanted zalim. I decided to do so after thinking it through.

   The EO, Emergency Ordinance is cruel. It allows separation of loved ones from their families for days – with no end in sight – on mere ‘suspicion,’ devoid of substantial evidence. It’s a tool of repression. If the EO is not cruel, what is?

   Are the police cruel? Are all (Norwegian) Christians terrorists? Are All (Arab) Muslims terrorists? To say the police are cruel is a sweeping statement. Yet, the colour of the present police force is cruel. There have been too many unanswered, unpunished deaths in custody. There are too many videos of police wrong-doing. There are too many reports of wrong use of force.

   A Royal Commission recommended the creation of an Independent Police Commission to allow citizens redress against wrongful treatment. The police resisted; the government, under former PM Abdullah Badawi, caved in.

3. Mansuh. Mansuh means destroy, but in context is better translated ‘repeal.’ Those at the candle-light vigils chanted ‘Mansuh EO’ and ‘Mansuh ISA’ (Internal Security Act).

   Like zalim, mansuh is a strong word and because I want people to take me seriously, I only use a strong word if I support the full force of the word.

   The question confronting me was “what do I think ought to be destroyed?” It was easier to rephrase the question as “what do I think out to be repealed?” But I could not evade the question of what should be destroyed.

   I think anything which promotes or enables injustice should be destroyed; in this instance, the means of destruction is a repeal. I want some sections of the EO and the ISA repealed – and I want the government to declare there is no emergency in Malaysia: which is what we tell foreign diplomats and journalists.

4. Common goals. When we have common goals, we can work together despite our differences.

   One of the EO6 detainees said a police interrogator pointed out that the PSM leadership is a group of Indians lead by a Malay – this is true. The detainees also spoke of recalling what Dr Nasir Hashim, the PSM president, had taught them about being detained. The recollections helped them be strong while being taken away, while being isolated and while being interrogated.

   When we gathered together at the candle-light vigils, we had common goals.

   We wanted haughty Malaysian leaders to stop acting like tyrants. We wanted the immoral detentions – of members of the opposition, by the ruling coalition – to end. We wanted politicians and policemen to respects human rights: freedom of assembly, right to legal representation, right to liberty, right to decent treatment, right to judicial review.

   We were Chinese, Indians, Malays, East Malaysians. Young and old. Loud and reserved. Rich and poor. Titled and belittled. We stood together. We won.

5. Interrogation. Despite the Americans confession of guilt and their published examination of the use of ‘unacceptable’ interrogation methods at their facilities in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, I’ve thought little about ‘right interrogation.’

   Examples of ‘wrong interrogation’ abound in the case of the EO6. They were interrogated with the goal of proving they were leaders of BERSIH, the movement for free and fair elections, although the true leaders issued statutory declarations that the EO6 had nothing to do with organizing the march on 09 July. Since there was contrary evidence, the police ‘interrogation’ turned into ‘badgering.’

   Th EO6 were isolated – under a law which allows for never-ending detention without trial – to ‘psychologically disorient them’ before they were questioned.

   The EO6 were asked questions unrelated to the charge under which their liberty was denied.

   We live in the shadow of Teoh Beng Hock, who died as a result of interrogation.

   It seems our police force has learned nothing about interrogation. It seems the police are operating as if Teoh Beng Hock’s life – and that of many others – was a pimple on the methods of interrogation, not a cancer.

   We live in the shadow of terrorism. Are our police capable of conducting ethical interrogations which will result in useful information and, eventually, convictions?

   I wonder if have interrogators who will be able to find evidence to convict Khir Toyo (Balinese mansion) and Ling Liong Sik (Port Klang Free Trade Zone)? We all know that in a civil society confessions obtained under duress cannot be admitted as evidence. So, do we have the capability to punish those who rob us?

6. People power. The detention of the EO6, and the spirit of the Malaysian Socialist Party – cultivated and strengthened over many years of hardship – has shown us we have power to bring forth change. Even Hisham can be shamed.

   I confess that if Dr Jeyakumar had not been one of the EO6, we would not have risen as we did. Dr Jeyakumar is an example of faith – a long obedience in the same direction. He, and his wife Rani, set their lives to helping the poor; they are known for humility, fairness and compassion. Some of us disapprove of some rude foreign socialists like Hugo Chavez, but we will not hold them against Dr Kumar and the PSM. We know our own UMNO-BN ‘champions of democracy.’

It’s been a wild ride. It’s time for a short rest. Then, it’s time to learn from Saras, 58, activist for justice and equality, PSM deputy chairperson. She’s not retired. She’s hard at it. It’s time to learn from Arutchelvan, the fearless man who kept us going and helped Hishammuddin see the light. It’s time to learn from Nalini who kept us chanting. It’s time to learn from Dr Nasir Hashim who was worthy of being detained under the ISA and strengthens others to stand up against injustice and inequality.

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

So what is the EO? It’s the Emergency Ordinance. What does that mean? It’s a law enacted on 16 May 1969, three days after the race riots in Malaysia which left 190 people dead. What kind of law? A law which allows the government to deny people their basic human rights. Which rights? The right to freedom, the right to fair trial, the right to legal representation. For how long? Forever.

The EO is the type of law which countries may enact, from time to time, for limited durations, to deal with situations when speed is essential. Such laws may be required in times of dire threat to national security. Such laws may be required when action must be taken quickly to prevent public disorder. Such ‘derogation of basic rights’ may be necessary when the available numbers of policemen, investigators and prosecuting officers can’t cope with the demands of fairness to persons who are suspected of being a threat to public order.

Preventive detention – including the denial of visits by family and lawyers – may be necessary to prevent a suspect from sending signals to co-conspirators.

In Malaysia, the decision to detain someone under the EO is not made by a court or a judge. It’s made by the police and – after 60 days – by the Home Minister. By law, they may make the decision on the sole basis of suspicion. All they have to do is ‘suspect’ you are a threat to national security. No evidence is required. No court may conduct a judicial review of the reasons for ‘preventive detention.’

The EO detainee has only one avenue for challenging the reasons for his detention: the detainee may make a representation to an Advisory Board, composed of persons nominated by the government. The Advisory Board does not have preset meeting dates; it meets on an ad hoc basis. The Advisory Board can only make a recommendation to the Minister for Internal Security (Home Minister); the Minister is not obliged to heed the recommendation. According to some reports, the Advisory Board has disagreed with the Minister only in 2 % of the cases it has heard.

A judge may hear a suit of habeas corpus – an appeal to a court to release a prisoner – but only to review whether the procedural aspects of the detention complied with the law.

The courts have set aside detention orders on the following grounds: (1) the detainee was not informed of the reason for arrest, (2) no police officer attended the habeas corpus hearing to explain why the detention should continue, (3) the detainee’s lawyer was not informed of the date of meeting of the Advisory Board and (4) the detainee was not represented by counsel during the hearing.

Detainees can, and often have been, re-arrested when they leave the court. For this reason, detainees have little motivation to spend the RM 20,000 or so it costs in court and professional fees to apply for habeas corpus.

A succession of Home Ministers have used the EO in a most grievous way: there have been cases where persons have been re-arrested under the EO after being tried and acquitted by the courts of crimes under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). This is contemptuous disregard both for judges and for detainees.

This is how ‘preventive detention’ often works: a person is arrested under the CPC. After 3 days the police still don’t have sufficient evidence to prove a charge against the detainee. So they ask a magistrate to issue a detention order, good for 15 days. 15 days later they still don’t have sufficient evidence. They then go to another magistrate with another ‘charge’ and get a fresh detention order. They do this several times. Some call this ‘chain smoking.’

After getting several magistrates to issue detention orders, the police still don’t have sufficient evidence which will hold up in court. So they choose not to travel along the normal avenue of honourable justice, i.e. determining guilt on the basis of a fair trial, considering only permissible evidence (versus fabricated evidence or confessions produced under duress). They choose instead to go down the road of dishonourable action – they invoke the EO: either because there is no honest evidence, or because they lack the competence to gather evidence.

The EO allows up to 60 days detention without directly involving the Home Minister. After 60 days, the Home Minister can issue a remand order for 2 years – which can be renewed ad infinitum. There are known cases when persons have been detained for eight years. There have also been deaths in custody.

There are many documented instances of the use of the EO. The case of Samsudin is well known. This is a summary of Samsudin’s case prepared by Human Rights Watch:

“Samsudin was taken to nine different police stations in four states and detained, without access to counsel, for 143 days under successive detention orders by the Malaysian police. He was then detained under the EO for sixty days and banished to a remote village for two years under restricted residence. None of the government’s allegations against Samsudin were tested or proved in court. His punishment was simply ordered by the government.”

Notice the EO allows the Minister to order internal banishment. A person who is banished is usually taken to a remote place and left to fend for himself. The person is not provided with any means of getting started: no accommodation, no job, no allowances. Also, the person is required to report to the local police at least once a week, in addition to remaining at home usually from 8 pm to 6 am.

Even those who are taken as prisoners during wars or who are tried for war crimes have the right to fair trial, with the support of legal counsel – and may only be convicted by a duly appointed court: they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not so under the EO.

In 2005, a Malaysian Royal Commision recommended the repeal of the EO. The Commission said the EO is “undesirable because [it denies] the individual his personal liberty without a right to trial in an open court as provided for in Article 5 of the Constitution and in the International Bill of Rights. This right is among the most precious that the individual has and it must be protected.”

Every candle lit for the EO6 in the public protests around Malaysia daily is a message for the Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Ismail Omar and the Home Minister, Dato’ Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, that they are not gods. Will you help them see the light?

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

For ‘a long time,’ this man had been at Bethesda, a pool outside Jerusalem. There were five shelters around this pool, and in these shelters were large numbers of blind, lame and paralyzed people. These people were waiting. They were waiting to enter the pool ‘when the water is stirred.’

The stirring occurred occasionally; randomly, not at set times. The cause of the stirring was uncertain; many believed it was the work of an angel. The result of the stirring was certain: when stirred, the water had special healing power: the first person to enter the water would be healed.

The authorities had built shelters to house people so they could wait for ‘the moment’ and take advantage of it. The authorities had not put in place a system to enforce the rule of ‘first come, first served;’ there was no queuing system. You may have waited for years, but someone who arrived at Bethesda just ten minutes before ‘the moment’ and got in the water would be healed, while you would still be waiting.

Many Bible commentators have suggested explanations for why the stirring occurred at random times, why not everyone was healed, etc. It is not my purpose to discuss Bethesda. I want to focus rather on the events involving the invalid of 38 years.

On a Sabbath day, the Messiah came to the pool. In those days, the Sabbath was very highly regulated. You were not allowed to work on the Sabbath. Even the distance you were allowed to walk on the Sabbath was limited. If you did not abide by the rules, you would be hauled up before judges, and you would be punished. [Some Jews observe the same rules even today.]

The Messiah came up to the man who had been unable to walk for 38 years. He asked the man whether he wanted to be healed. The man didn’t answer directly. He said there was ‘no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going in, another steps down before me.” (v 7)

Was the man indirectly saying the authorities had not put systems in place to assure ‘first come first served’? Was he indirectly complaining about unfairness?

The Messiah said to the man: “Get up, take your bed and walk.” And he did.

The Messiah was no ordinary man. Christians and Muslims agree He was born of a virgin and He performed many miracles. He was wise. He knew what the consequences of any action would be.

When the Messiah spoke a word, it was powerful, for it was the word of God. He knew that if He commanded the man to walk, the man would walk. He did more than command the man to walk. He commanded the man to take up his bed (the symbol of no-work), and walk; on the Sabbath, the day of no-work, the day when taking up the bed was unlawful. It was civil disobedience.

Everyone knew that it was unlawful, AND that the authorities would take action: you didn’t have to be God to know that. That was the character of the authorities who ruled Jerusalem.

The inevitable happened. The authorities (“the Jews”) said: “It is the Sabbath and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed.” The man said he had been healed (of a 38 year disability) through the instruction to take up his bed and walk. They then asked him to identify the man who told him to do what was forbidden by the law. He could not, because the wise Messiah had not revealed His identity to the man.

Later, the Messiah met the man in the Temple, and gave him further instructions. Now that the man knew who had healed him, he told everyone – he wanted to give credit where it was due, and help other people obtain healing. The identity of the physician became known.

The physician Himself was challenged by the authorities. His answer to the authorities was “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” He was really saying to them, “your rules are wrong; it’s okay to do good on the Sabbath; don’t apply rules blindly.”

For the patient, the result of the healing was freedom from disability. For his physician, the result was a death sentence: “This was why the Jews [authorities] were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (verse 18).

In these times when the Malaysian authorities have disabled a reputable physician and his co-workers, I can’t help feeling that the healing atBethesda is relevant for us.

Dr Jeyakumar has noticed some policies presently promoted and implemented by the authorities will make healthcare less accessible to the poor. As an elected Member of Parliament, he wants to make medical services available to more people, more fairly. The authorities are responding. Sounds familiar?

*****

[Inspired by chapter six, His Compassion: Jesus the Troublemaker, in Dr Vishal Mangalwadi’s book Truth and Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations (Seattle: WYWAM, 2009).]

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

Where were you on Sunday 09 March 2008? I was at a Sunday service, a gathering of Christians declaring they believe in God, confessing their sins and renewing their commitment to live in ways which please Him. I was a first-time guest (not speaker).

Even a first-timer like me could see the program and the mood was not typical. The program included testimony. ‘Testimony’ is a common feature in services of worship at many churches. The worship leader often introduces ‘Testimony time’ by saying “come and share what God has done in your life this past week.”

Usually a small number will come up to ‘share.’ They will tell of how God helped them, they will tell of results. They will thank God for bringing them safely or successfully through some life experience. It could be they were not injured in an accident or they passed an exam or their scheduled scan showed there was no remission of the cancer.

It was not so on 09 March. After some prodding by the pastor, several people came up. They shared their experiences as Polling and Counting Agents the previous day.

They spoke of the ‘last minute’ calls they got, to help because others had backed out at the last minute. They spoke of the challenges they faced in doing their work to minimize ‘spoilt votes,’ ‘stuffed boxes,’ ‘phantom voters’ and other election frauds on Saturday.

They shared their excitement not just about the results, but about their acceptance of the call: to do something to minimize frauds, to be watchmen who prevent injustice.

They spoke of tiredness, thirst and hunger; sleeplessness, for they stayed up to monitor vote counting late into the night. They shared examples of incidents which showed their exertions prevented falsehood and resulted in a fair election at their polling centres – sometimes expressed through the victories of opposition candidates.

Do you recall where you were on 09 March 2008? Please bear with me.

The question came to mind when I was researching Dr Michael D Jeyakumar, a member of the EO6 (Emergency Ordinance 6) detained by the police on 25 June. The 6 have not been found guilty of any offence, but are being treated most cruelly: kept in solitary confinement; handcuffed and blind-folded when moved; called not by name, but by number.

On 25 June, the police detained Dr Jeyakumar to investigate him for ‘attempting to wage war against the Agung;’ he was arrested under section 122 of the Penal Code. When the remand order expired on 30 June, the police still had no evidence to charge Dr Jeyakumar. So the police invoked Section 2(1) of the Emergency Ordinance and extended Dr Jeyakumar’s detention for 60 days. News reports say the police allege Dr Jeyakumar “is involved with foreign elements and has subversive tendencies.”

On 09 March 2008, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu planned to be at a grand bash in the Sungai Siput Convention Hall to celebrate his 72nd birthday. There were garlands aplenty. The garlands had been bought not only for his birthday, but also for his expected win – for the 9th time – in the election for the parliamentary seat of Sungai Siput. It was a safe seat, previously held by another MIC stalwart, Tun V.T. Sambanthan, since 1959.

If, on 09 March 2008, you were reading the STAR, you may have read this:

In 1999, Dr Jeyakumar first ran against Samy Vellu; he got 12,221 votes (39 %), but lost by 5,259 votes. In 2004, Dr Jeyakumar ran again against Samy Vellu: he got 8,562 votes (28 %) and lost by 10,235 votes. In 2008, Dr Jeyakumar again contested the 49 year entrenched UMNO-BN seat; he got 16,458 (50 %) votes and won by 1,821 votes.

[What my friends observed in the 2008 elections permits me to infer what happened in the 2004 elections: Spoilt votes? Phantom voters? Stuffed boxes? It is not impossible that similar frauds occurred in some constituencies in 2008.]

Samy Vellu is surrounded by multitudes. He moves freely. They call him – in hushed tones – ‘Datuk Seri,’ they even kiss his hand.

Dr Jeyakumar is alone, in a cell. He is moved. They call him – gruffly – not by name, but by number. They handcuff and blind-fold him when they move him.

What has Dr Jeyakumar done?

Dr Jeyakumar has dedicated his life to the service of others. He has served the poor and the rich alike. He served as a doctor in government hospitals for most of his life. He has worked in both rural and urban areas. He has improved (and saved) the lives of thousands. His friends testify of his gentleness, reasonableness and humility.

He has won grassroots support. He has analyzed the root causes of poverty in Malaysia, he has published papers and books. He sought office as a Member of Parliament not in order to make himself and his friends rich, but in order to enact legislation to eradicate poverty and injustice.

Despite losing the elections twice – in an UMNO-BN entrenched constituency – he kept serving the people, us. Dr Jeyakumar and the EO6 are members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia (Parti Sosialis Malaysia, PSM).

Why is our government perpetrating this injustice against Dr Jeyakumar and the EO6? Our government, which encourages the UMNO-backed racist, Ibrahim Ali. Our government, which denies the rampant police brutality on 09 July 2011, when even the 76 year old, peace-loving national laureate, Samad Said took to the streets.

Last night I was again at the vigil for the EO6, in Kuala Lumpur, outside the HQ of the Malaysian police. It had rained heavily; it continued to rain. I arrived late, wondering how many would show up despite the heavy traffic, heavy rain and the long awaited Friday evening to be spent with friends and family.

There were a hundred people there, sharing umbrellas: young and old, male and female, outspoken and silent. These people get it. They know the gravity of the injustice being perpetrated. They know silence means complicity. They want to see justice done. They demonstrate they take this seriously, and expect the government to do the same. By their actions, they are putting the government on notice: reform or we will boot you out.

What does the treatment of Dr Michael D Jeyakumar, 56, a humble servant of the people, say about us? How much longer will Dr Jeyakumar and the EO6 be treated unjustly? Do you hear a call? Will future ‘testimony times’ – not only in churches – include more sharing about ‘calls’ and about justice?

Will you put your representatives on notice that if they don’t release the EO6 now, you will vote them out? Will you remind them that on 07 March 2008, many didn’t see the signs of an impending defeat? Will you be silent in the face of injustice?

*****

I am not a socialist. I am not against everyone in the police or in UMNO-BN. I believe people and parties can and will change. I believe in reform. With those qualifications, I invite you to visit the PSM website. Learn what they stand for, what they have done and what they are doing. Learn what’s happening to the EO6. Learn how you can help build a nation which allows challenges to powerful, entrenched politicians who use brute force to keep themselves in office.

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

The next day I wrote No Sticky Notes, Just Sticky Thoughts. [I didn’t post it on my blog then. I was new to blogging. But I sent it to The Micah Mandate and it was published.] This is how I ended that piece:

The Teoh Beng Hock session was followed by an appreciation of Yasmin Ahmad. I came away with this thought: a vision of a better Malaysia has already been described by her; listen and watch until you become infected. Become a person. Care about persons. Challenge wrongs.”

Since that ‘first’ essay, I’ve written over a hundred. When people ask why I write, I say I was radicalized by Teoh Beng Hock’s death, just as St John, disciple of Jesus the Messiah, was radicalized. I got that insight about radicalization two weeks after my sticky notes trauma. I got it from the pastor who prepared The Message, a fresh translation of the Bible. In Eugene Peterson Says There is no Avoiding Politics, I wrote:

“Peterson believes God gave St John the Revelation – and the command to write it as a book – in response to St John’s prayerful agony over the persecution and politically motivated deaths of some of his church members. With Peterson as guide, we perceive that the Spirit enabled John, the apostle-pastor, to see things in the light of heaven and to hear truths in the voice of God. John was thus equipped to help people through the wickedness they face daily.”

[I do not claim for my essays the authority of St John. Here, I am merely explaining – mainly to myself, but partly in response to questions from others – my journey as a Christian. I’m trying to figure out why I feel what I feel and do what I do.]

At the vigil for the EO6 (also called PSM6), I made a new friend – whom I discovered is a published author in Malaysia. We talked about why we were there; our conversation mostly focused on Dr Michael D Jeyakumar, one of the EO6.

We both consider Dr Jeyakumar an exemplary politician: one who manages to achieve a right balance between (a) exerting himself to help the poor find food/security, and (b) exerting himself to enact laws to removes structures of injustice.

We told each other stories which show Dr Jeyakumar’s transparency, e.g. he and other PSM elected reps declare their assets each year: reps from no other parties do this. We told stories which show Dr Jeyakumar’s humility, e.g. he prefers to be addressed ‘Kumar,’ not ‘YB,’ doesn’t pull rank, doesn’t ask others to do what he can, etc.

We smiled broadly when we learned both of us had independently concluded that detaining Dr Jeyakumar is as ridiculous as detaining Mother Teresa.

This is the man the government says is a subversive? Dr Jeyakumar’s track record is so good, the case will never go to trial – because there will be no end of character witnesses who will rise UP to speak up for this dearly loved respiratory physician and his family who expend themselves for the sake of others.

My purpose in this post is to clarify my thoughts, to say at least tentatively, why I attend the candle light vigils – an illegal act in Malaysia. Why do I deliberately disobey the law? Why do I do it repeatedly? Why do I encourage others to do the same?

I have previously said how much I love the work and words of the activist, philosopher and theologian, Dr Vishal Mangalwadi. I find these of his words helpful in explaining my radicalization and my attending the candle light vigils:

Dr Mangalwadi placed those words in a chapter titled The Holy Spirit: The Spirit of Truth and Power, which he ends with a section titled Prayer: The Source of Power. In that section, he recounts a year of violence planned against him by police officers and by politicians from both the ruling party and the Communist party. He’s still alive. He attributes this to the power of prayer. He concludes:

I attend the vigils because I have been radicalized by the Messiah. My attendance there is my verdict on the abuse of power. My standing there is my running away from the cowardice which permits evil to reign. My presence there is power for others.

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

Why use tear gas and water cannon? Why not just arrest those who choose the path of non-violent civil disobedience to protest against immoral laws and practices?

I suppose it will be argued that the police should use all available means to protect themselves. I have no quarrel with the (armed and trained) police protecting themselves. They too are citizens; they too have families; they too have rights. It is for this reason that only they are permitted to be armed – not other citizens.

I suppose it will be argued that using chemical weapons and brute force produces fast results: citizens can be dispersed rapidly and ‘normality’ returns quickly. I see merit in minimizing disruption. I see also the need for ‘advantage’ when a smaller (though armed and trained) number is pitted against a larger number: when people are made to flee, only those who are weak and those who stand their ground need to be arrested.

I suppose it will be argued that rapidly ending ‘situations’ – including (armed and trained) police paralyzing and wounding citizens – reduces the risk that policemen will listen to their helpless victims and disobey orders. Using chemical weapons and brute force eliminates any possibility of dialogue and assures the policemen will follow orders.

But the whole notion of (armed and trained) police dispersing crowds using chemical weapons and brute force, whether powerful jets of water or beating with sticks, seems immoral IF the citizens do not resist arrest. Should police shoot those who surrender?

My review of eye-witness testimonies, photos and videos leads me to believe there was pre-meditated intent to deploy chemical weapons and brute force. I suppose this is not surprising, for Malaysia has a track record for deaths in custody: just think of Teoh Beng Hock and Saravanan. Also, our police are trigger happy – they think their role is to execute instant justice: just think of the sad results of car chases.

It appears only the (armed and trained) police used weapons on Saturday. I am not aware of anyone being charged with using weapons during Saturday’s civil disobedience.

Citizens participated because they were ready to be arrested; they wanted to flood the lock-ups. If the police had told them to either disperse or present themselves to be arrested, they would have formed orderly lines and presented themselves to be arrested.

But the police – under the direction of UMNO-BN and in particular the Prime Minister Najib and the Home Minister Hishammuddin – appear to have been directed to display force. It appears the government wants to show it can and will use (armed and trained) police to deploy chemical weapons and brute force to quell civil disobedience.

The police actions were designed to create unforgettable memories of the consequences of exercising freedom of association in Malaysia. The police were instructed to disperse the citizens, not by arresting them, but by applying chemical weapons and brute force against them. This the police did. They followed orders.

Now the policemen and their wives, their children and their parents are seeing the pictures, videos and eye-witness accounts of what they did. The policemen are listening to the spin coming from their superiors and from Najib and Hishammuddin. The policemen are in distress; they are turning to prayer and confession.

Brutality is not normal, even for policemen and the Federal Reserve Unit. The use of (armed and trained) police against common citizens wounds the consciences of policemen, causes them nightmares and confuses them about right and wrong. They know continuing on this path will make them worse husbands, fathers, and children.

It will become more and more difficult for the police to follow orders – orders to attack unarmed, untrained citizens using chemical weapons and brute force instead of arresting them and delivering them over to magistrates for trial and punishment.

Friends, spare a thought for policemen. They and their families are also suffering.

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

I say “something like” because I could not take notes; we were sitting elbow to elbow and I could barely move. Such was the crowd which showed up at the Sunday afternoon event at which Dr Ranjit Singh was one of several reputable speakers.

For my purpose in this post, it doesn’t matter whether my recollection of what he said is factually correct. His point is that the history books in use now are written from a Muslim perspective; the authors of all the history books in use now are Muslims.

Does the faith or worldview of the author of a history book matter? Would a non-Muslim author feel obliged to say “according to Christians?”

If your answer to the second question is “no” or “maybe,” you appreciate the dilemma faced by the Muslim author.

It’s a real dilemma, because many aspects (facts) about the uniqueness of Jesus are acknowledged by both Christians and Muslims, but their conclusions about Jesus are different.

Muslims and Christians agree Jesus was born of a virgin. Muslims and Christians agree Jesus was sent by God. Muslims and the vast majority of Christians agree about the miracles ”Prophet” Jesus performed, including raising people from the dead.

Muslims however have a problem saying Jesus founded Christianity, because according to them that was neither the intent of God nor of Jesus. And, though Muslims believe Jesus was crucified, they think Jesus neither died on the cross nor was resurrected.

Therefore, according to Muslims, Christian faith is founded on “facts” which are false. So how can a Muslim author say Christianity is founded by Jesus?

I appreciate the dilemma. There are even some non-Muslims who say Christianity was founded by the apostle Paul. In my opinion, they fail to take sufficient account of the fact that Paul was blindingly called by God to stop persecuting Christians and to become one. And that Paul was one of many commissioned by Jesus to preach His message – the core of which is His crucifixion, resurrection and coronation as King. [There is also evidence the first leader of the early church was apostle James, the brother of Jesus.]

Even those who are familiar with Jesus sometimes do not recognize the Christ.

Bible-reading Christians know the disciple Mary failed to recognize the resurrected Lord at his grave; the two disciples on the Emmaus road failed to recognize the resurrected Lord even during a long walk and conversation; and several others failed to recognize Jesus – though there was always an “aha” moment and the truth dawned.

There are many historical facts which attest to Jesus as the founder of Christianity.

People from the same era as Jesus were in no doubt that Jesus founded Christianity.

If you asked Christians of the time – some of whom were fed to the lions because they refused to call the Roman emperor “Lord” – they would have said they were subjects of Jesus the Christ.

If you asked the Jews and the Romans who persecuted Christians, they would have told you Christianity was founded by Jesus. There are Christian and non-Christian archaeological and documentary evidences to support this assertion.

Professional historians labour to weigh the facts and draw a fair conclusion, i.e. they interpret the facts. History is not just about facts, it’s also about interpretation, e.g. there’s little value in knowing what happened in Malacca in 1511 if there is no discussion of why and how it happened – and the evidence which, CSI-like, supports the conclusion.

The study of history should include discussion of whether the factors which most likely “caused” that event have recurred and may recur again.

Christians are a people of the book, a book of history – for much of the Bible is history.

Those who do not read the Bible are often shocked at the things recorded in the Bible – deception, incest, murder, rape – not just by “bad guys” but often by “good guys.”

The Bible is a fine example of honest history. Any Bible reader can easily tell whether a history book is “honest.” Any history of anyone or any period in which everything is black and white, good or bad, is propaganda.

In History Through the Eyes of Faith, the American historian Ronald A Wells says:

“Honest means more than merely telling the truth in factual terms but also telling the truth in all its ambiguity and complexity. Honest history differs from ideological history, in which the story comes ‘out right,’ according to the writer’s values. While history is usable in understanding ourselves, if we approach history mainly to find a ‘usable past’ with which to support an ideology or to advance a program, then we have not really studied history. There are some times when ‘our side’ does the wrong thing and ‘their side’ the right.”

Wells recalls the insight of historian George M Marsden drawn from the sketch which appears above. You’ve probably been shown it while being taught the importance of careful observation and listening. Do you see an old lady or a young lady?

Most people see the old lady first; some see the young lady first.

Upon closer observation – often someone has to go up to the image projected in front of the class and point it out – everyone realizes both ladies are there.

That’s an “aha” moment, a moment of insight which changes our perception of what reality is really like. The moment comes not through argument but through seeing.

People who believe in a God who is sovereign have a different perspective from those who do not. People of faith believe there is more to things than first meets the eye.

Problems occur when people of faith fail to be generous and humble, when they think only they have the truth: when they forget or ignore the fact that even within their own communities there is diversity of opinion.

That’s why it’s important not to have only people of one faith write textbooks. It’s important to present facts which may support alternative views, and allow students to weigh the evidence, debate and arrive at fair conclusions.

Though I am a Christian, I am not concerned about saying “according to Christians.” I simply ask that I be given the leeway to safely say “according to Muslims.”

Dr Ranjit has “called on the government to change the methods of teaching history to be geared towards active participation and live debates rather than memorizing and regurgitating facts.” I support his call.

Malaysians, have you signed the petition calling the government to review the history syllabus?

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

Here I will provide a brief summary of what Christians remember about Christ every year on Maundy Thursday. Then I will discuss what it means for my engagement in politics.

The Gospel reading for Maundy Thursday is John 13: 1 – 17, usually headed “Jesus Washes His Disciples’ Feet.” This passage describes what happened at the passover meal. Verse 1 ends with “he now showed them the full extent of his love.”

The extent includes Christ, the God-man, submitting to the Romans and being horribly treated, humiliated and finally killed; in this post, I will focus on the foot washing.

In those times, homes had no bathrooms. If you were invited to a dinner, you would go to the public bath, have a good bath, anoint yourself and trudge on the dusty road to the dinner venue. When you arrived, the host would have a servant, or the lowest ranking person, ready to wash your feet. Then you would go sit on the floor with the rest of the party without dwelling on what others think of your dirty feet.

None of the guests would stoop to wash the feet of the others’; to do so would be to declare they considered themselves the least amongst those present.

Position was important: the guests would even be thinking about the order of seating at the meal. Who would be next to the Master? Who would be given the greatest honour? [At the meal, the places next to Christ were probably occupied by John and Judas.]

Christ had a splendid robe – a seamless one which may have had “tassels” signifying the wearer was a rabbi, a man to be treated with honour. Christ took off his classy robe and put on a towel, just like a slave. Christ went on to wash the feet of the disciples.

Christ did this to challenge the selfish ambitions of the disciples: we know (see Mark 9:34 and Luke 22:24) that while Christ was thinking of the last hours before his crucifixion, his hand-picked disciples were thinking about who would be greatest amongst them. They were thinking of greatness; he was thinking of servanthood.

Christians believe that Christ’s sacrifice obtained forgiveness and acceptance with God once and for all. Some ask why we constantly ask God for forgiveness – as we do in every service of worship. An answer can be provided by analogy.

When we recognize and submit to Christ as Lord, we are “bathed” and enter into relationship with Him. To remain in open, non self-conscious friendship with Him and others of His choice, we have to be constantly cleaned of the dirt we accumulate daily.

We declare that He, the generous host, recognizes our filth and concern. He comes to each of as Servant, to “wash our feet,” before we enter into His home to be refreshed.

When we repeatedly ask to be forgiven, we’re admitting all our feet are dirty AND cleaned by none other than Christ.

When we see other disciples, we should see Him washing their feet, just as He washes ours. We should also recall that like the twelve disciples, we do not know which disciple will betray the Master. [And, like Peter, we have to stop protesting and instead consent to being cleaned by the Servant-Master.]

“Maundy” is derived from the Latin root, mandatum, which means commandment.

The commandment is recorded in John 13: 14 “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet.” And in John 13:34-35 “A new command I give to you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

As a Christian, I recognize all are made in the image of God. I recognize I am called to love and to encourage disciples of Christ. I recognize we have differing points of view. I recognize all are accepted in God’s family, and Christ, Lord of all, has made Himself Servant of all my fellow disciples.

As a human, I am called to recognize good and evil. As a Christian, I am called to treat people as blind and sick; and as sighted and recovering. As a church member, I recall that Christ does not check my party affiliation before washing my feet and inviting me in.

There is diversity amongst the disciples; some are more wrong than others.

Those who are willing to engage in passionate dialogue will have observed Maundy Thursday.

Whether they are rich or poor, educated or not, corrupted or not, the One who has invited them waits to wash their feet. He has issued a Law, and asks us to remind each other: “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

How will Christians on both sides of the UMNO-BN divide engage each other about Sarawak, the Alkitab, Pembela and a host of other issues? Will we be passionate? Will we be respectful? Will we be indecisive? The world is watching.

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

That scene from my childhood came to mind when I saw a video about Rumah Nyawin, a 12 door longhouse near Bintulu, with 120 residents.

On 04 January 2007, hundreds of uniformed officers from the Land and Survey (L & S) Department and tens of policemen arrived. Bulldozers and chainsaws were deployed.

The longhouse was demolished. The residents were weeping. Some, just made homeless, gathered to pray. Rubble remained. Soon they were living in tents.

The presentation was designed to grab the emotions. I wept.

I stewed in my anger for a week. Then, I did some research.

On 04 October 2006, the Government of Sarawak issued a 30-day eviction notice to the residents of the longhouse. The basis was that the land belonged to the state, and the state had given the land to MARDI (Malaysia Agriculture Research Institute).

The tuai rumah or headman was 49 year old Nyawin Ganing. After the demolition and eviction, Nyawin accepted the help of Borneo Project, Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA) and other non-government groups to organize against the eviction.

Nyawin instructed the law firm of Baru Bian to apply to the High Court to set aside the eviction order.

30 days later, the expected demolition and eviction did not occur.

When queried, the Bintulu L & S Department said a decision would be made by their superiors in Kuching. Their verbal response was that a court decision would be sought.

Since the courts were notorious for delays, especially in land matters, the residents took this to mean that no action was expected for years. They were relieved.

It didn’t happen in November. It didn’t happen in December. It happened in January. According to the residents, it began without notice, at 8 am, on 04 January 2007.

Before the demolition and eviction the L & S Department and MARDI attempted to negotiate a settlement with the residents, through the headman, Nyawin.

Some say each “door” of the longhouse was offered five acres of land in return for surrender, but either the headman or “a minority” in the longhouse had refused.

So matters came to a head. In two hours, the 20 year old longhouse was demolished.

The residents sheltered under tarpaulin during heavy rains.

They lived off charity. Their land, their livelihood, had been taken away from them.

In April 2009, the NST carried a report which mentioned the Rumah Nyawin demolition and eviction two years earlier.

Nyawin Ganing was featured, campaigning for Malcolm Mussim Lamoh, a BN candidate.

Nyawin was speaking to residents of a “new longhouse,” to indigenous people who had been relocated in order to make way for the Batang Ai Hydro-electric Dam.

Nyawin said that after the demolition and eviction, he was asked to meet the Chief Minister of Sarawak, Taib Mahmud, because “He wanted to hear my people’s grievances.”

The article did not report the interval between the demolition/eviction and the meeting.

Nyawin left happy two days later because the outcome was that “we were given a 2.5 hectare piece of land to rebuild our longhouse and 240 hectares of land for farming.”

Nyawin said the New Rumah Nyawin is situated 24 kilometres from the original site, has 16 doors and a tarred road leading up to it.

Nyawin asked: “What more can we ask for?”

Had my emotions been messed with? Should the video have included at least some mention of what eventually happened?

I know about attention spans; saying everything needs space and time. I know stuff is produced for an immediate purpose, and is not updated for lack of time or urgency.

The facts of the case raise many questions, not the least of which are:

1. When there is political will to “bring development,” how do you acquire land?
2. Who owns the land in Sarawak? On what basis can a state claim to own land?
3. How do people without written records prove their rights over land?
4. How is a longhouse headman “legitimately appointed?” What are “minority rights” within a longhouse?
5. How do we protect against selective re-telling of stories? [I doubt the “good ending” would have occurred without public local and international shaming of the authorities – by NGO’s and by “opposition” groups.]

I’m glad I watched the video. I know my conscience is intact and I can tell right from wrong.

As I consider the vast gap between the rich and the poor in Sarawak, and as I consider the character of the UMNO-BN government, I continue wishing for change.

There is a very high level of poverty.

UMNO-BN politicians are incredibly wealthy. Not just Taib Mahmud and his immediate and extended family; all of them.

UMNO-BN politicians don’t care about justice; they trample over the rights of citizens; they ride rough-shod over the populace.

UNNO-BN is pushing for a verdict of suicide in the Teoh Beng Hock case.

UNNO-BN interferes in the ability of elected representatives to function effectively.

UMNO-BN bends to the will of bigots in groups like PERKASA.

UNNO-BN leaders are busy acquiring and displaying wealth.

UNNO-BN refuses to accept prior agreements with respect to Bibles.

UNNO-BN leaders say respected Christian leaders are arrogant and belligerent.

UMNO-BN refuses to respect the “unique status” of Sarawak in the 18 point agreement.

UMNO-BN politicians… okay, enough already.

I put the jambu tree side-by-side with the demolition and eviction on 04 January 2007. I ask myself, who are the ants? The indigenous people or the UMNO-BN government?

What more can we ask for? This is all I ask for:

A government built on justice, not greed or speed. A government which “does the right thing” because it wants to, not because it’s been found out and shamed.

What do you ask for?

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

Well, her reasons were many. Not least amongst them is that in under three weeks, there will be a state election in Sarawak, and there are signs the natives are restless.

The natives appear restless for many reasons, not least of which are (1) the alleged rapes of native women and girls by employees of timber companies, (2) allegations of immense wealth accumulated by the Chief Minister, Taib Mahmud, over a reign of 30 years, (3) numerous reports of destruction of the jungles of Sarawak which are amongst the last remaining equatorial forests in the world, (4) construction and proposed construction of large numbers of dams and hydro electric power stations, (5) denial of land rights to the native people, (6) allegations of police siding the rich against the poor, and (7) widespread knowledge that if the ruling coalition – Barisan Nasional (BN) – loses Sarawak, they are likely to lose all of Malaysia: and risk exposure of their misdeeds.

Kuching, the capital of Sarawak, is about a two hour flight from Kuala Lumpur, across the South China Sea. The two East Malaysian states, Sabah and Sarawak, are very different from the states in West Malaysia, also known as the peninsula (semenanjung).

On the peninsula, race and religion are big factors in the formation of political parties, and in electioneering. Political arithmetic in the peninsula includes terms for four racial “groups” and three “religions.”

On the peninsula, the four racial groups are Malays, Chinese, Indians and “others.” The three religions are Islam, Christianity, and “others.” Muslims are represented by two political parties: BN and PAS. Christians are represented by the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the “others” are represented by The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism. (MCCBCHST).

The land area of East Malaysia, at 198,847 sq km, is 50 % more than the land area of the peninsula (132,090 sq km). The coastline of East Malaysia (2,607 km) is 26 % longer than the coastline of the peninsula (2,068).

The land area of Sarawak alone is just 5 % less than the land area of the eleven states in the Peninsula. Sarawak, with 2.5 million people, is the thirteenth most populous state/territory in Malaysia. [The smallest is Putrajaya with 65,000 people; the largest is Selangor, with 5 million people.] Sarawak alone is the size of West Malaysia!

Eighty percent of the natural forests of Sarawak have been destroyed – the timber has been “harvested.” Most of the cleared land is used for hydro electric schemes and oil palm plantations; the remainder is being replanted with non-native tree plantations to be pulped into paper. Sarawak also has/had huge petroleum reserves, which have been “harvested.” Sarawak gets 5 % royalty on the petroleum which is used for infrastructure development in the state but which suffer leakages: siphoned by corrupt politicians.

I heard a strange story of dams and power generation in Sarawak. There is hardly any industry in Sarawak, yet the state government wants to keep on building dams – purportedly to export to other countries, though to-date no customers have been located. According to current plans, Sarawak will have twelve enormous dams by 2020! Sites have even been identified to build more dams, to bring the eventual total to 52 dams.

Natives are being denied ownership of their native customary rights (NCR) land. Some estimate that over three hundred land-grab cases are pending in the courts. Apparently the government claims 1.5 million square kilometres of land is “Native Customary Land,” but is unable to provide a rational explanation for why only twelve percent of the overall land area is considered native land. Rich timber and oil plantation tycoons obviously have a vested interest in the answer.

27 ethnicities are represented in Sarawak. There are probably an equal number of cultures, lifestyles, religions, economic structures and governance models – for much of the native population lives in longhouses with headmen. Some generalize and say the population comprises Iban (34 %), Chinese (26 %), Melayu/Melanau (27 %), Bidayuh (10 %), Orang Ulu (6 %).

Many of the voters in Sarawak are difficult to reach, because of limited means of communication and transportation. The road network is very limited. Travel between cities and longhouses is generally in four wheel drive vehicles, on lumber tracks. Arduous ten hour journeys are not uncommon. Mobile phones do not work in many rural parts of Sarawak. Access to the internet is limited; in any case, most poorer, rural voters are not internet-savvy. Disseminating information is thus difficult and must be achieved through means which are very different from the norms in the peninsula.

Fuel for vehicles is not only more expensive, but also more inaccessible, as fuel has to be transported upstream, often on boats, and the consumer has to pay the price.

“Fair competition” in elections is thus difficult to assure when there is an entrenched ruling party which has handed out favours and can withdraw support at any time. [Favours typically include land grants, timber grants, concessions, loans.]

There have been reports that in the past, during campaigning, entrenched politicians have told owners of remote petrol stations NOT to sell petrol or diesel to opposition politicians. Also, the ruling coalition can buy up the seats on flights. Both these actions severely limit the ability of opposition politicians to meet their constituents. Add to this the access to helicopters which are available to politicians who are in office!

The Chief Minister of Sarawak has been in office for thirty years. He is enormously and ostentatiously wealthy – lately there have been numerous news reports about this. Please see: www.sarawakreport.org. While he and his family shop in New York, Hong Kong, London and Melbourne for the latest luxuries; much of the rural population cannot even buy a five kilogram bag of rice at one go. Academics have estimated the unofficial poverty rate in Sarawak to be about thirty percent.

One Sarawakian joked with me that they Sarawak has a Thief Minister, not a Chief Minister. [Some have estimated that Taib and his family own over one hundred and fifty companies in Malaysia alone (foreign companies not included) and has wealth amounting to several billions of ringgit.]

Am I interested in Sarawak? I am now. Are you?

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts