1. Vision for a successful and secure Malaysia

A prosperous and successful Malaysia is a given with its people living in peace and security. What strategies and plans do you have to help make this possible? How will you help enhance economic growth, invite investments, grow our human capital, ensure security? Will the Government ensure the economic success of our country by appointing competent and capable Ministers in the relevant portfolios, not just rewarding political loyalty?

2. Stewardship of the nation’s resources

What kind of budget would you craft each year? How do you balance the budget? Will you be short-sighted, pawning our country’s future for today‘s short-term gain? Or do what it takes to preserve, plan and manage for the long term good of all? How will you educate our people who are our primary asset? Will you encourage and nurture excellence in our institutions of learning at all levels?

3. Diversity and Inclusion

Are you for championing the rights of any 1 race or are you issues-based, seeking the common good of all. Is Malaysia for all Malaysians or is Malaysia for a particular race? Will we accept, appreciate and value the strengths and uniqueness of each other and blend it together into 1 melting pot of inclusive, creative and diverse society? Will you accept a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious Malaysia and guarantee freedom of practice and expression within the context of a mutually respecting society?

4. Justice and fair-play, respect for the rule of law

Will you administer the rule of law fairly, equally and without fear and favour? Or is there one rule for the ruling class, another for the rest? Will you be fair and just to all peoples in our land, whether the haves or the have-nots? Will those in Government courageously encourage the independence of the judiciary, the fairness and professionalism of the law enforcers?

5. Corporate and personal integrity

No personal aggrandisement. Will you walk the talk and talk less and do more? Will you practice humility and adopt an attitude of service to the people? Will my leaders demonstrate good values, behave rightly and be a role model to the people?

6. Respect for human dignity

Will you ensure that human dignity and respect for each other be protected at all times? No stooping to gutter politics, give people the democratic space for open, honest dialogue, abolish laws that prevent, subvert this respect? Respect the rights of the minority even if we disagree with their practices.

7. Transparency, meritocracy and good governance

Will you be above board in your dealings? No cronyism, no undeserved special privilege. Will you say No to corruption in any form, give credit where credit is due and practice meritocracy as the basis for doing business? Will the best and most qualified company/individual be given the job?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in ihe manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s. real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestion~ ingly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome ihis complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with ihe workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from ihemselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and iheir adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing hisjob behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying iu power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

The smaller a dictatorship and the less stratified by modernization the society under it, the more directly the will of the dictator can be exercised- In other words, the dictator can employ more or less naked discipline, avoiding the complex processes of relating to the world and of self justification which ideology involves. But the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically, the more individuals must be connected to them from outside, and the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse. It acts as a kind of bridge between the regime and the people, across which the regime approaches the people and the people approach the regime. This explains why ideology plays such an important role in the post-totalitarian system: that complex machinery of units, hierarchies, transmission belts, and indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways the integrity of the regime, leaving nothing to chance, would be quite simply unthinkable without ideology acting as its all-embracing excuse and as the excuse for each of its parts.”

(extract from Václav Havel, The Power of the Powerless, 1985 (that is, four years before the Revolution which ended communist rule).)

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

George Michael, to put it mildly, always has sex on his mind. In 1987 in his hit single I Want Your Sex – a song which was banned in Malaysia for unsurprising reasons – he told the world that:

Now this is strange. One one hand, he says that sex is ‘natural’, which implies some kind of biological essentialism. On the other hand, he says it’s ‘best’ when it’s one on one which implies some culturally constructed standards to judging what kind of sex is better or worse i.e. sex cannot be entirely natural because in nature there are no ‘better’ or ‘worse’ kind of flowers, is there?

So we’ve got two groups. First are those who see sex as purely natural and biological - the essentialists. The second group views sex as fluid and whatever the world says it is i.e. as socially contingent.

The first group would express surprise at why anyone would question the ingrained natural-ness of sex, as in, isn’t it OBVIOUS that as mammals we were ‘built’ to copulate? The second group would point to things like foreplay, like courtship, like group sex, like dressing for sex, like ‘making love without sex’ (or the opposite, passionless intercourse) and dare the first group to deny that culture is a critical component of sex.

If sex is complicated, politics is worse.

There is a view of politics, the popular one, whereby it’s nothing more than power-plays, manipulative rhetoric, money games and damned lies. Politics here is viewed as entirely contingent upon vested interests, completely without principle and there are in a sense no truly sincere, caring and Other-centered political acts. This is usually the stance taken by those who, for instance, refuse to vote or want to have anything to do with politics and political parties.
 
This first view also hints at why it’s often difficult to get people ‘involved’ in civil activism, political rallies or even voting. These folks believe that politics is nothing but ‘hot air’ i.e. without substance and concerned ultimately about the self-indulgent gratification of individual politicians. Do these people, then, not care about issues like ISA prisoners? I submit that it’s unfair to claim they don’t. I believe they are not indifferent to suffering lives – they are simply indifferent to political channels as a means of dealing with this suffering. If called upon to help, they’d be faster in giving funds to the families of the prisoners than casting a vote against the incumbent government that jailed them.
 
The second view, on the other hand, sees politics as being sustained by genuine principles. Political action is a fight for true justice, real human rights and so on. With the exception of the “other” unjust party, this view sees its members as being involved in something real, something irreducible to pragmatism and partisan strategies. Paradoxically, this view is self-consciously adopted by both civil activists and partisan groups i.e. both sides (even when berating the deceptions and lies of each other) will never cease affirming that they themselves are doing something of true substance, that they represent rock-hard fundamentals of the good and that it’s not crap and turtles ’all the way down’.
 
So here we have it. Politics as sheer contingent, tactical manoeuvring. And politics as a representative of universal absolute truth and goodness. Politics as fancy facade versus politics as firm foundation. (The paradox of Malaysian politics is that almost everyone who cares believes that View #1 is dominant but we tell each other View #2 will win somehow…).

But how about a third view? What if we recognise that in politics, there is a criss-crossing and overlapping between purity of ideals and the contingency of action which gives rise to something BEYOND the first two views? This is to say that the first and second views are always and already tainted and ‘haunted’ by each other and that therefore politics is a continually failed attempt to negotiate this fundamental deadlock. What if politics is just the name for the fracture arising from any attempt to resolve principles to pragmatism? What if the truth of politics is that we are dealing with a domain that is constituted by distortion and failure? That non-resolution of the universal and particular, of Universal Good and Particular Selfishness, not only resides within politics but that politics is this very non-resolution itself?
 
This other way of thinking about politics is helpful in a few ways.
 
One, we can give up the idea of ‘absolute justice’ and anchor political efforts in the act(ion)s of constructing justice. These could involve keeping serious conversations alive about what justice consists of for the community and how best to achieve these i.e. the act of construction always involves “building from scrap” which is a difficult job and hopefully will take away attention from parties constantly playing up their nobility and slamming the failures of their competitors. 
 
Agreeing that the idea of the Good is a radically contingent thing also facilitates discussions on when, for example, street rallies are good, when it should be curtailed and the conditions whereby people can decide. It also helps us to be honest about why secret video-recordings of politicians are bad without entirely removing the need to ’spy’ on conversations which are fostering personal gain at the expense of the community.

All this is another way of saying that if we recognise the futility and pointlessness of debating about ‘fundamentals’ we can get to work on the here and now. If we stop window-dressing party concerns, we can let Yes be Yes and No be No.
 
Secondly, we can be honest that our favoured political parties simply aren’t as non-partisanly pure as they claim i.e. we can drop the facade (of non-partisanship) without fear because we could recognise that there was nothing to hide anyway. This way attention can be put on the issues themselves independently of whether it’s partisan-related or not. This would both relieve and challenge political parties. E.g. Pakatan spokesmen needn’t waste their breath divorcing BERSIH from being linked to their agenda yet at the same time they must take seriously Barisan concerns about the rally and put aside (the usually instant) accusation that it’s nothing but party talk. Likewise, the government can come clean with cases like the PSM6 and drop the outrageous charges of sedition or conspiracy and stop acting primarily to derail the opposition.

In this sense, honesty of such a radical kind is a double-edged sword which raises the bar for all parties and which can only create long-term benefits for the people.
 
Thirdly, votes and winning election seats can be put into perspective as hardly the be-all and end-all that many make it out to be without jettisoning it as significant for the future. It can be graciously recognised that, despite the non-participation or non-registration of eligible voters, the common good isn’t being ignored and that non-voting does NOT equate to apathy. The obvious corollary here is that both pro- and anti-election groups can work together to serve their community rather than hurl judgments at each other.
 
Like George Michael’s steamy insistence, I Want Your Sex, perhaps politics can be the domain of pure willing and desire (towards a helpful vision of a caring and just community) which leaves aside unfruitful categories or perspectives which claim an illusory higher around over everybody else. When our public foundations and private interests are exposed and rendered unstable, maybe then we’ll focus on something else: a hopeful vision of the future spurring action in the now. Surely this can’t be a bad thing for those of us who have good things on our minds, be it sex or politics.

In this Holy Easter celebration to mark the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus’ resurrection is also an occasion to renew the Christian vow of faith in truth, hope and love.

Christians regardless of skin colour have prayed for peace and prosperity. Christians have also prayed for wisdom and compassion in our leaders. Most important of all, Christians pray for truth to guide Malaysians in our daily affairs.

All religions celebrate these common values of truth, unity in diversity, freedom of choice and peace. We must seek truth from facts and not allow sentiments to be ruled by blind emotion.

To all Christians, I wish you a very happy and blessed Easter.

If we are to be one united nation, we must learn to share, we must believe in equality and equal opportunity. We must believe in justice.

Stop the characterization of the Holy Scriptures by the Home Ministry as threats to national security and public order. Stop restrictions on the right of Christians to use any language to worship. Stop the stamping of Malay bibles which is an act of dishonouring the Holy bible.

We need to change. Change for the better. To change is difficult but not to change is fatal. We need a change of mindset of treating every Malaysian as facing common problems and aspirations. We must celebrate our differences and our diversity.

We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin.

We must have the courage to change.

Malaysians are ready to embrace change; change for the better. Malaysians no longer want to live under a situation where freedom is curtailed, human rights infringed, and abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement are rampant.

In the recent Sarawak state election, Sarawakians have decided that enough is enough. Sarawakians want good governance, end to corrupton, empowered by democracy, equal opportunity and justice for all.

Just as Easter signifies a renewal of life, faith, and hope, love can drive home a victory against ignorance, fear and oppression.

Let us fill our hearts with faith, hope and love by discarding those with racial prejudices and hatred or who preach the language of violence and division. Then only can we realise the ideals and aspirations in the Malaysian Constitution of forging one nation.

LIM GUAN ENG

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

Yet at this point I will not do things that will put me face to face with death. At least from the comfort of my home I have no desire to stir myself to join demonstrations agitating for the downfall of an oppressive regime. Perhaps it is because I have not experienced the oppression that those in Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt and Libya experienced. Perhaps it is the gulf between what I am experiencing and what I may have to put myself through to do what is right.

But that does not explain Shahbaz Bhatti who has the choice between a comfortable life and doing what is right, despite the problems and danger he will have to experience. What tilted him to choose to continue his work despite the enormous odds against him? It is not like there is a likelihood that there will be substantial change that he can accomplish. His colleagues in government would not even give him the security and protection they themselves enjoy. Yet his focus is not on the outcome but the fact that what he is doing is right and fleeing to save himself only gives victory to those who do evil.

Into this mix came news of a friend whose cancer has re-emerged. And all the anxieties that will surround him and his family. The truth is that we will never be free from death and decay this side of heaven. Even though we try to sanitize it, life can be quite ugly. It is not quite something to cling on to for its own sake.

Perhaps Bhatti was blessed with clear sight that since death and decay is something we cannot escape then we should take that out of the equation as we consider doing what is right and what is wrong, and whether we want to join the battlefield between good and evil. Perhaps, as Goh Keat Peng hinted, my paralysis is the death and decay that I need to be free from.

This is my prayer for you all as we come to the close of Biblical Challenge.

The ultimate aim of all that we ask of Jesus in his name should always be that THE SON MAY BRING GLORY TO THE FATHER.

We often greet people with the words ‘God bless you’ (GBU). This verse gives us one indication as to whom God blesses.