Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
1. Church is non-partisan, but we'll keep the money, 28 May 2010
by Bishop Hwa Yung
Many of our church members are aware of the reports in the media that the government made grants to four Methodist churches in Sibu, on the eve of the recent parliamentary by-election. The Council of Presidents discussed this matter at its May 25 meeting.
Pending fuller deliberations on the matter by the General Conference Executive Council at its upcoming meeting, we wish to issue a pastoral letter stating the following:
1. First, the giving of grants to religious bodies for the advancement of religion, as well as to other bodies like schools, etc, is a government responsibility. To receive such is a citizen's right. After all, the money given is actually taxpayers' money.
Indeed the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities. In so far as the money was given to the churches this time round, it can be said that the government is trying to right a past wrong.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that this is not the first time the government has given such grants. Further, our churches are not the only recipients. Other religious groups also received similar grants.
2. However, as the public at large has pointed out, the problem with the grants made in this instance is that of timing! They were given on the eve of a closely fought by-election and therefore perceived to be manipulative and highly questionable. Some people have therefore urged the churches involved to return the money.
3. The Christian church is concerned about morality and politics. Nonetheless, it cannot take sides in party politics for various reasons, including the fact that there are Christians on both sides of the political divide.
Furthermore, the church must also guard against being perceived as being used as a tool by political parties, whether those in government or those in opposition. In light of the above, rejecting the grants given by the government in this instance is not necessarily the solution, because it could be misinterpreted as a rejection of the government in favour of the opposition.
Clearly we are caught in a delicate dilemma, which has been forced upon us.
4. The Methodist Church in Malaysia respects the right of the leadership of the four churches to decide on what to do with the grants given, in accordance with the conditions pertaining to them. At the same time, the General Conference Executive Council, which includes the bishop and all the presidents, will work with the churches concerned to resolve the matter wisely.
5. Meanwhile, we would like to urge all our pastors and members to refrain from making any comments on the matter so that it does not get blown out of proportion. Instead, let us take seriously the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:16, which is particularly significant in our present context.
'In the same way, let your light shine before all men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.'
When we truly live in this manner, we will go a long way to fulfil our Quadrennium theme, 'Spreading Scriptural Holiness, Transforming the Nation.' May the peace of the Lord be with all of you!
・The writer is chairman of the Methodish Church's Council of Presidents.
2．BN church grants: Receiver is slave to the giver，31 May 2010
by Allen Tan
The issue of the RM1.75 million grants to four Methodist Churches in Sibu during the recent Sibu by-election has resulted in much discussion among both Christians and non-Christians. Methodist Church executive council Bishop Rev Hwa Yung has admitted that they were now caught in a dilemma.
What shall they do with the money then? To take the money, the Church is seen as accepting bribes. To return it, the Church is seen as taking sides with the opposition. There were members in the four Churches who made complaints that they were not consulted when the leadership made the decision of taking the money.
It is true that the grants were from the taxpayers' money. It is also true that this was not the first time the government has given such grants. And it is also true that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities.
However, regarding to 'the government is trying to right a past wrong', I beg to differ from this thought. Firstly, the government was very hasty in making the move and it was a last minute one to beat the deadline of the by-election campaign.
Secondly, why was there no Church being selected in the Hulu Selangor by-election which took place two weeks before the Sibu one? The answer is not hard to perceive. Because more than 50% of the voters there in Sibu were Christians. And added to that, news revealed that most of them were standing on the side of DAP, the rival.
There is nothing wrong to ponder for a while, 'What if there was no by-election in Sibu, would the grant be also offered?”
The four Churches did put up an advertisement for acknowledging that the grants were taken. The leadership felt justified claiming that Christians should always be grateful for goodness received. By doing so, the Church should not claim that they are non-partisan.
In future, will the Church advertise again when a rich member gives a big offering to the Church? Did not the leadership know that the advertisement would have some impact on the Christians in their choice of support? By doing so, the Church leadership cannot claim that the grants were unconditional. Now only the Holy Spirit can check the motive behind the move.
This is a proof that why is it so important that the Church does not fall for the vote-buying election campaign tactic. The receiver is slave to the giver.
I think the four Methodist churches should make the time for to their members for a dialogue. The leadership should listen to their opinions. An unwise move will cause a split among the flock.
What has transpired to the four churches should not be seen as an isolated case. We should see the larger picture that it is affecting the Christian community in the country as a whole. The brethren in Sibu are not alone.
RM1.75 million was a lot of money. I am sure that not many churches have ever received such a lump sum in one go. I do not dare judge that the taking of the grants was a result of greed. But I would visualise that if out of the blue, such a lump sum was granted, the matter of 'right and wrong' would slip from one's mind unawares.
Excitement would overshadow conscience. And lo and behold, indeed the excitement was only short-lived when rumors and criticism flew all over the air. Suddenly the recipients realised that they were caught in a dilemma.
Over the past 47 years (for East Malaysia) or 53 years (for West Malaysia), vote-buying have been the practice by the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN). BN has been abusing the treasury's funds for its political campaign.
If the Christians agree that this practice is an unfair electoral game, will we still condone sucha malpractice? Instead of putting in an effort to correct the wrong, we participated in the wrong.
Discouraging the Church from participating in malpractices does not mean rejecting the kindness of the government. We need to convey to the government a message. We tell them Malaysia needs to move on to greater maturity. If we aspire to squeeze into the row of advanced nations in the year 2020, then we must first start off with a fair and transparent electoral system.
Asking the Church to reject 'grants during election periods only' is a move to put this kind of abuse to an end. If there are more and more people say 'no' to it, we will see a better Malaysia soon.
Lastly, as regard to the Metro Tabernacle Church which received RM500,000 in contribution after the church suffered arson, the incident was an entirely a different matter. That church should be happy to take the money.
In that case, a mishap suddenly took place, and the government was genuine enough to chip in with the money to help cover the loss. Thank you, Mr Najib Razak, our prime minister for that.
3. Bishop, what is the message being sent out?, 31 May 2010
by Shanker
I refer to the letter by Bishop Hwa Yung, Church is non-partisan, but we'll keep the money.
Bishop, I understand the predicament the Malaysian church sometimes finds itself to be in. Granted, the church wants to remain non-partisan in matters of politics. But the church cannot adopt a similar attitude when it concerns morality and corruption, which you also observed in your letter.
Jesus made a stand against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who were not only religious leaders at that time, but also had political links. John the Baptist lost his live not when he was preaching the gospel, but when he stood up to condemn the immoral act of King Herod. Many of the Old Testament prophets were similarly persecuted when they spoke up against the abuse of power in their time.
You therefore need to ask this, that at the end of the day, what is the message being sent out when the church accepts the grant on the eve of the by-election?
Yes, this is not about which side of the political divide one is in. This is about what is right, and what is wrong. If the Pakatan team also abuse their position/power, you can be rest assured that I and many other Malaysians, will also require them to be accountable.
It just so happens that the person who approved your cheque, has unresolved allegations hanging over his head besides the many other scandals and abuse of power that until today, he has deemed fit not to account himself for.
The church must ask, what does God feel about this? So once again, you need to ask yourself, what is the message being sent out to this corrupt government when the church accepts grants - even though it may be entitled to such payments - on the eve of the by-election?
Further, this particular by-election has shown evidence of just how corrupt the present government is, when you have the PM stating, You help me, I help you'. That must surely take the icing for the most blatant and arrogant act of corrupt vote-buying in recent times.
Not content with issuing Class F contracts, or with attempts of buying over voters with a million-ringgit cheques; the whole world can now see the grin accompanying the offer, on YouTube. I wonder if Barack Obama is now silently regretting having a photo op moment with this person.
Now, is that something that we, as a nation, must be proud of?
But that was the purpose that followed the grant. The same with the allocations for the Chinese school in Hulu Selangor and the issuing of Class F contracts at Kuala Terengganu.
It's called vote-buying, despite the fact that most of the recipients were entitled to the funds in the first place, though I'll hold my reservations on the Class F contracts. You see, you cannot convince any Malaysian worth his salt otherwise.
And now my fear is that this present corrupt government will get the impression that churches too, can be easily bought. Just supply them 'grants' on the eve of a by-election. You know very well that is how Umno thinks.
I will stand along side with you, if next to accepting the grant, you also criticise the present government for their wanton abuse of power and corrupt ways. So much so that we are now projected to go bankrupt in nine years time.
I will stand alongside you if you criticise the present government for justice that continues to be denied for Altantuya or Teoh Beng Hock.
I will stand alongside you if you ask for justice for Aminulrasyid Amzah.
I will stand along side you, if you ask for the perpetrators of Port Klang Free Zone or those involved in the VK Lingam debacle to face the full weight of justice.
Will you? I hope you will, because if not, all that the church would have done is to say 'thank you' to a corrupt government. So Bishop, once again I ask, what kind of message is the church sending out?
(End)
