The below is the latter half of my previous selective collection of postings from "The Micah Mandate", a Malaysian Christian website. (Lily)
The Micah Mandate（http://www.themicahmandate.org）
(1) Serialization & stamping of AlKitab: How to respond? (Part 1), 06 April 2011
by Joshua Woo Sze Zeng
On 16th March 2011, it is reported that the thousands detained AlKitab at Port Klang and Kuching were serialized and stamped ‘For Christians Only’ without the permission from or consultation with the Church and the importers of these holy books. The Christian community in Malaysia was puzzled over it.
Approaches to this issue come in various ways. Here is one that is based on earlier reflections and conversations afforded by friends, which may be helpful to clear some fog that has clouded the matter. Besides, this attempt hopes also to assist those of us who are still trying to articulate for ourselves responses that are informed and relevant.
Here we go.
The initial inevitable question that we need to answer is whether did the Home Ministry desecrated the AlKitab?
Many have said ‘yes’, while many have also said ‘no’. We can find intelligent, sincere, and God-loving Christians on both sides.
Two major organizations, Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), recognized the Home Ministry’s defacement of the AlKitab as ‘desecration’.
Generally the affirmative side thought that desecration has taken place for the simple reason that the act of stamping on the AlKitab with a legally confining message that was theologically disagreeable and serializing them were done without the permission of or consultation with the respective religious community.
Those who don’t see it as a ‘desecration’ dissented in various ways. I would like to highlight three that are significant, together with some comments on each of them.
First, some think that the AlKitab, particularly the Perjanjian Baru (New Testament), doesn’t attach the concept of holiness or sacredness to places or objects since the worship of God is conducted in the spirit and truth (John 4.23).
I would like to point out several passages in the New Testament that attach holiness (Greek: ‘hagios’) to places, objects, and even the human body (I will be using ‘holiness’ and ‘sacredness’ interchangeably):
1.The Corinthians were told that their physical body was the holy temple of God (1 Cor. 3.17, 6.19). The dating of the First Letter to the Corinthians falls in the 50s A.D.
2.Paul, in Romans 1.2, considers the scriptures as holy. Probably the “scriptures” that Paul was referring to were the Old Testament books (perhaps including some inter-testamental literatures and some circulating accounts of Jesus’ ministry like Mark’s Gospel). The dating of this letter is usually in the late 50s or first half of the 60s A. D.
3.In 1 Timothy 4.5, dated to about 60s A. D. or later, Paul considered that things can be made holy by the word of God and believer’s prayer. This was the notion that material objects can be sanctified (Greek: ‘hagiazetai’).
4.The author of the Gospel according to Matthew attached sacredness to location (“holy place” in 24.15; “holy city” in 27.53). If these passages were written in the 60s or 70s A.D., that means the Christian community still considered sacredness as tied to location even 30 years after the resurrection and ascension of Christ occurred.
5.The Second Letter of Peter goes further. The author of this letter attributed holiness to a mountain (2 Pet 1.18). Given that this letter is generally recognized to be written in the second half of first century A.D. (if not later), this shows that the Christian community was still affixing the concept of holiness to places 40 to 70 years after the Pentecost (in the early 30s A.D.).
These passages testify to the fact that the founding members of the Church and their immediate successors did attached the concept of sacredness to places as well as to objects in the first century Church’s life. This suggests that the Christian worship of God in spirit and truth does not contradict the practice of affixing sacredness to places, objects, and even the human body.
Second, Some have pointed out that there isn’t explicit passage in the Bible, especially the New Testament, that clarify what kind of action done on the scriptures can be classified as ‘desecration’.
In our attempt to understand whether the AlKitab has anything to say on how to recognize an act as ‘desecration’, we have to avoid two fallacies.
The first one is ‘semantic anachronism’. This happens when we read the present meaning of a word into the same word that was used in the past.1 This means that we cannot be too readily assume that the word ‘desecration’ in the Bible is semantically identical with how we are using it in the present.
The second fallacy is ‘unwarranted overspecification’. This occurs when we read a word or text in a too specific and limiting way that is not demonstrable from the text itself. 2 Therefore we should not understand the word ‘desecration’ as a technical term referring only to a list of specific actions unless it can be demonstrated of such technical usage in the text.
The word ‘desecrate’ is generally understood as treating a perceived sacred place or object with “violent disrespect”, according to http://oxforddictionaries.com.
Now we have to ask if the people in the biblical times had such a concept? If yes, was there degree of intensity within the concept, for example ‘desecration’ is the worst type of disrespect, while ‘defilement’ is less intense, and ‘profane’ is the least? If yes, then does each degree amounts to technical specificity with rigid overt demarcation?
By surveying through the Bible, we find that the language of disrespecting holiness is more elaborate in the Old Testament. Basically there are two groups of Hebrew words that convey this sense: (1) ‘khaw-lal’, which literally means to wound or dissolve, and (2) ‘taw-may’, which means profane or pollute, especially in a ceremonial or moral sense.
The Septuagint (LXX), an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, commonly translated ‘khaw-lal’ with ‘bebeloo’, while ‘taw-may’ with ‘miaino’. Nonetheless there are exceptions. For instance the ‘khaw-lal’ in Exodus 20.25 is rendered into a variation of ‘miaino’.
In the New International Version (NIV 2011), ‘khaw-lal’ is usually translated as ‘desecrate’ while the ‘taw-may’ as ‘defile’. However, there are occasions where these two translations switch with each other. For instance, ‘khaw-lal’ is translated as ‘defile’ in Exodus 20.25 and Ezekiel 7.22, while ‘taw-may’ is translated as ‘desecrate’ in Deuteronomy 21.23 and 2 Kings 23.8.
‘Khaw-lal’ is used with reference to people (Leviticus 21.15, Ezekiel 28.16), altar (Exodus 20.25), sanctuaries (Leviticus 21.23), Sabbaths (Isaiah 56.6), God’s name (Proverbs 30.9), and other things that have been set aside for God (Leviticus 22.15).
‘Taw-may’ is used in reference to people (Leviticus 11.44, Ezekiel 20.30), land (Deuteronomy 21.23), holy places (2 Kings 23.8), and God’s name (Jeremiah 7.30). This word group is seldom, if any, used to describe the violation of the Sabbath. It seems that only the ‘khaw-lal’ word group is applicable to Sabbath. This is most obvious in Ezekiel 23.38, where both word groups are used side-by-side: “At that same time they defiled (‘taw-may’ [Hebrew]; ‘miaino’ [LXX]) my sanctuary and desecrated (‘khaw-lal’ [Hebrew]; ‘bebeloo’ [LXX]) my Sabbaths.”
The NIV’s New Testament has the Greek word ‘bebeloo’ translated as ‘desecrate’, which in the LXX is a direct translation of ‘khaw-lal’, while the ‘miaino’ familial words are translated into a few variations such as ‘pollute’ (Jude 8 ) and ‘corrupt’ (Titus 1.15). The other words used in the New Testament is ‘koinoo’ which is translated as ‘defile’ in Matthew 15.20, Mark 7.15,and 7.23.
‘Bebeloo’ is used on the temple (Acts 24.6), people (1 Timothy 1.9), and Sabbaths (Matthew 12.5), while ‘Miaino’ and ‘koinoo’ are used generally referring to the body or person.
There may be degree of intensity for each word groups, yet we don’t know for sure at the moment. The biblical text itself doesn’t seem to provide a clear distinction between ‘desecration’, ‘defilement’ and ‘profane’.
No doubt some of them are commonly identified to certain kind of holy objects like ‘khaw-lal’ on Sabbath. Yet this does not eliminate the inclusiveness of the word’s identification to only that particular item. Therefore it is difficult for us to systematically categorize all of them neatly.
Nevertheless we are still able to recognize that all the word groups connote the same overlapping allusion: disrespectful act that is carried out on things that are perceived as holy by a community.
On this matter, we can see a shared pattern in both the Home Ministry’s defacement of the AlKitab and the disrespectful treatments of religious items instigated by the ancient people. The two events involved intrusive deliberation in handling sacred places, objects, or human person without regarding the objects’ respective custodian.
Given these conditions, it is valid to render the stamping and serialization of AlKitab as either ‘desecration’ or ‘defilement’ in a way that avoid semantic anachronism and unwarranted overspecification.
Third, Christians are not unanimous on whether the AlKitab is ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’ (even though the book is undeniably important to the religion and individual Christian’s discipleship). Some think that the Christ, the incarnated Word of God, contained within the Bible is ‘holy’ instead of the printed book. Therefore the defacement cannot be perceived as desecration on behalf of the entire Christian community.
The two comments above have demonstrated that the tradition of affirming places, objects, and human body as sacred was widely practiced in the first century A.D. We find that the Church, as evidenced in Paul’s letter to the Romans, acknowledged the scriptures as holy (Romans 1.2).
When we move beyond the first century, we find that this tradition has been transmitted to the subsequent generations of prominent leaders in the young Church, namely the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene authorities from the second to the fifth century A. D.
In their writings, the scriptures were explicitly stated as ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ or ‘divine’:
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book 7 Chapter 16).
Tertulian (On The Flesh of Christ, Chapter 20).
Hippolytus (Against Noetus, Chapter 9).
Athanasius (De Synodis, Part 1.6; Against the Heathen, Part 1.1, 3; Letters to the Bishops of Egypt, Chapter 1.4).
Hilary of Poitiers (On the Trinity, Book 3.2).
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 4.17; 5.12-13).
Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection).
Augustine of Hippo (On the Good of Widowhood, 2; On the Nicene Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
On top of these, many doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Book of Concord, the Theological Declaration of Barmen, the documents produced at the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, and the Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council all acknowledge that the AlKitab is either holy, sacred, or divine.
We see here that the community of Christ’s first disciples, the Apostolic and Church Fathers, and the various official Churches’ statements affirm that the Christian scriptures are holy.
All these testimonies suggest that the denial of AlKitab’s sacredness belongs only to a marginal segment of the universal Church that contrasts the accepted ethos of the ecclesial community.
This also shows that the recognition that the person, Christ, testified within the AlKitab as sacred does not prevent the scriptures being held sacred by the Church throughout the ages. The Church through its appointed leaders and official doctrinal statements have been affirming the sacredness of Christ and the sacredness of scripture side-by-side all along without seeing any tension in between.
The tradition of affirming the AlKitab as holy is deeply embedded in the way the Church sees the scriptures. However, this does not guarantee individual Christians to treat the Bible with utmost reverence by reading and studying it diligently, or prevent them from not doing so.
The AlKitab is primarily a book identified with the Church rather than the individual Christian, and serves as an essential symbol of the religion. Hence the holiness of the Bible is not dependent on the conscience of the Christian individual but on collective identification that goes beyond the individual.
Just as the affirmation of the sacredness of Christ does not deprive the sacredness of the AlKitab, the individual Christians’ denial of the sacredness of the scripture similarly does not diminish the book’s identification as primarily with the Church and its service as an essential symbol of Christianity.
If this is true, then any intrusive act that officially impinges on the holy AlKitab without the consultation and permission of the Church, the representative of the religion, is not merely defacement but desecration.
————–
1 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (USA: Baker Books, Second Edition, 1996), p.33-35.
2 Ibid, p.115.
(2) Serialization & stamping of AlKitab: How to respond? (Part 2), 08 April 2011
by Joshua Woo Sze Zeng
Prayer does not only lead us to understand and focus on the issues that we face. Ultimately prayer is an expression of a world where dangers, threats, risks, difficulties, and struggles, be it big or small, do not have the final say, even though they are often portrayed to be otherwise.
The one who has the final say is of course God. The Church, which is situated within the world, by praying to God, is communicating the hopeful message that it is not the world’s destiny to give itself away to persecution. In the face of persecution, Christians are called to “pray for those who persecute.” (Matthew 5.44)
This post explores the connection between our prayer and response to the unjust detention and desecration of the AlKitab by assuming the urgency and necessity of prayer.
We shall start by asking a general question on how should ‘prayer’ be perceived?
A Christian’s prayer is necessarily a reflection of Jesus Christ’s approach to prayer. It is this feature that identifies a prayer as Christian prayer, and not any other prayer.
When we pray, we are approaching God by the authorization guaranteed by Christ. Therefore each prayer that is sealed in Christ’s name is an invocation of Christ’s authority. And given that there are some things that Christ authorizes and some that he forbids, it is therefore the task of the praying Christian to discern what to pray for before he or she prays.
Without discernment, prayers simply become empty babbling. Prayer that is authorized in the name of Christ should not be empty babbling but discerned aspiration.
Christians must not allow prayers to be domesticated by the lack of discernment. Hence we don’t pray according to whim. In order to discern over what to pray for in any given situation, the praying Christian must turn to Christ, the one who authorizes their prayer.
From the 4 accounts of Jesus’ life in the New Testament, we know that Jesus prioritised prayer. He was concerned not only the content of prayer, but also the method of praying. (Matthew 6.5-8) In fact, he has given the disciples what has came to be called the Lord’s Prayer, which has since served as a model prayer for the Church.
The tradition of discerning our prayer is carried down and emphasised by apostle Paul, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding.” (1 Corinthians 14.15) Discernment characterizes Christian prayer.
It is certainly right to call upon Christians to pray when the Malaysian Churches are confronted with legal and political threats as how it has always been. But this isn’t very informative. One is still left without knowing what to pray for.
In this complex situation, how then should the Church’s prayer goes along with the call to love and pray for those who persecute?
Matthew 5.44 is often quoted as an injunction for Christians to love and pray for the enemies. Some have drew implication from this passage to discourage self-defence or active pursue of preventive measure through legal and political means.
Others take it to mean that Christians are called to be indifferent over the possible harm or to downplay the severity of the inflicted damages.
Some who think that the Church is purest during persecution would see the present crisis as the opportunity to reinforce the constitutional inferiority and vulnerability of the Christian community by discouraging any legal and political restorative measure.
These Christians are convinced that Christians become better Christians through persecution. Hence, for this sake, they prefer Christians to suffer. By discouraging a real possible solution that could eliminate the persecution, they will Christians to suffer.
It seems that the sight of those who follow this interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on ‘loving and praying for enemies’ has proved to be so narrow that they fail to see the detention, serialization and stamping of the AlKitab is but the tip of a much deeper problem, which is the perpetual suppression of the minority’s rights in Malaysia.
The root problem, as we witness in through the AlKitab issue, is the lack of political will on the part of the government to protect the rights of the minorities.
Some Christians to some extent are as guilty for retreating from or being apathetic about securing equality for all citizens regardless of religion and ethnicity in the past. Hopefully the current issue may shake off the myopic scales off these Christians’ eyes.
Hence to pray only for the release of the confiscated AlKitab without also praying for the rectification of the deeper problem is to pray without discernment.
In my view, to interpret Matthew 5.44 as an injunction for Christians to retreat from active defence and rightful demand is too presumptuous and narrow.
Concerning this passage, we need to bear in mind two things. One, the passage doesn’t specify how to love one’s persecutors and how to pray for them. Two, the current issue concerns a much wider public than the members of the Church.
Besides, to confine the matter as one that only concerns the Christians is really not taking the Church’s agency as God’s people seriously. As Tan Soo Inn provocatively wondered, “Has the church been stirred to merely speak up for her own concerns or are we committed to being agents of the Kingdom of God, speaking up on behalf of all deprived of their basic rights?”
For Christians to have a discerned aspiration is to see beyond the walls of the Church, that the matter concerns not only themselves but also other communities. Hence, to understand Christ’s teaching about loving and praying for the enemies need to take this into account and formulate its application accordingly.
Matthew 5.44 does not exactly tell us how to love and pray for one’s enemies. Neither does it prevent Christians from pursuing the matter through legal and political means.
Reflecting through this proviso and the situation that the Malaysian Churches are facing, to love and pray for the enemies can best be expressed through embodying a sustain employment of the Christians’ constitutional rights to engage in the official and public domain with utmost civility, respect, humility, and courage.
To love is to acknowledge the frailty of the persecutors and the real power struggles and challenges that they face. To love is also to recognize that such struggles take time and extended efforts to settle. Finally, to love does not neglect the constant openness on the part of the Church for reconciliation and prolong relationship with the parties (not necessarily the government) responsible for the crisis.
While being empathetic towards the persecutors, the Church cannot compromise its mission in securing the protection of the constitutional rights of the minorities nor retreat from civic engagement and obligation as God’s agent in the world.
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (1 Timothy 2.1-2)
The faithful community has been practising this prayer for the past thousands of years. Therefore it is only right for Christians to also pray for emancipation from the current predicament that the communities in Malaysia are going through. One may find appropriate guidance to pray for the Church and the nation in the recent online petition endorsed by 34 leaders of the Christian community.
“To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world.” (Karl Barth)
(3) A call for patience and careful consideration, 08 April 2011
by Administrator
7th April 2011
The statements of regret and appeals for forgiveness expressed by the Government of Malaysia with respect to the impounding and stamping of the Bahasa Malaysia Bible, the Alkitab, resonate deep within the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM).
As a body that brings together a wide cross-section of the Christian community in Malaysia, we know about the sinfulness of man and have experienced the forgiveness of God. As such, we receive these expressions with all the sincerity with which they are offered.
We believe the Government’s proposals represent a basis for further dialogue and engagement towards a viable long-term and comprehensive solution.
As such, CFM feels that this process ought not to be hurried. Its constituent bodies are currently undertaking their own internal consultations prior to responding collectively to the 10-point resolution proposed by the Government.
We call for patience and perseverance, and continued prayer and quiet reflection, as we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in our deliberations.
Yours sincerely,
Bishop Ng Moon Hing
Chairman and the Executive Committee,
Christian Federation of Malaysia
(4) Fact sheet on Alkitab controversy, 12 April 2011
by Administrator
By Rev. Fr Michael Chua
APRIL 11, 2011 — The recent government offer was released to the public on April 2 evening. The headlines of the news in some mainstream media appear to imply that the issue has been resolved. This fact sheet seeks to clarify the Catholic Church’s present position and future course of action.
Has the matter of Alkitab been resolved?
No. Since, this is a new offer from the government, the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) would need to meet and deliberate on this matter. In respect of the last offer from the government (March 22), the component bodies of the CFM, namely the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM) and the Catholic Bishops Conference (CBC), engaged in wider consultation with their leaders, both from peninsula as well as from Sabah and Sarawak. On March 31, CFM issued a statement rejecting the offer of March 22 to have the Alkitab stamped with the words “For Christianity” and said that any solution needs to be tied to wider issues concerning religious freedom, e.g. use of religious words (“Allah”), display of symbols, places of worship.
Have all restrictions been removed in the government’s latest 10-point formula?
No. No restrictions have been imposed on the import, publication and distribution of the Alkitab in Sabah and Sarawak whereas some restrictions have been imposed for the situation in Peninsular Malaysia. In other words, the government’s latest proposal provides a two-standard policy — one for east Malaysia and another for Peninsular Malaysia.
The reasons cited by the press statement of Senator Idris Jala are that this two-standard policy reflects the size of the Christian community on both sides of the South China Seas. As, Muslims are the majority in Peninsular Malaysia, such restrictions have to be imposed.
What are the restrictions imposed on the copies in Peninsular Malaysia?
The word “Christian Publication” (Penerbitan Kristian) and cross will be printed or stamped on the cover.
In fact, the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) has already been stamping these bibles with the wording and cross since 2005, pursuant to an agreement between CFM and the government. After a long period of harassment, detentions, imposition of unilateral conditions by government, the CFM came up with this proposal in 2005 and presented in to the then-Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who accepted it. Subsequently, a letter from the Home Ministry was issued to confirm the government’s acceptance of this proposal.
But the agreement of 2005 was only honoured by the Home Ministry in one shipment. Thereafter, additional restrictions and conditions were imposed which eventually led to a series of detentions and finally the two-year detention of 5,100 copies of the Alkitab in Port Klang in 2009.
Please note that there is no legal jurisdiction for the stamping or imposition of conditions on the Alkitab. The above detentions, proscriptions and imposition of conditions have been done at the administrative level, often citing one reason or the other.
What happens now?
The CFM would have to meet to decide on this latest offer, after extensive consultation with all stakeholders. We are not sure when this will take place.
How should the “silence” or delay in decision-making be interpreted?
The silence of the leadership should not be interpreted as a lack of action. Perhaps, the following explanation can be given:
Due to the gravity of the issue and its relation to other matters concerning religious freedom (Herald case, use of the word “Allah”), wider consultation is required. Leaders would also need to consult their own constituents, lawyers and advisers.
There is no hurry for us to come up with an answer for the government’s latest offer, even thought the government seem to have a dateline (Sarawak election on April 16). We should not be dictated by the timetable set by the government but rather the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our deliberations.
Our Christian leaders and bishops are asking all the faithful to act in solidarity with the CFM’s last position and keep this matter in prayer, especially before the Blessed Sacrament.
Rev. Fr Michael Chua is the Interreligious Affairs (AMEIA) for the Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur and ecclesiastical assistant in the Archdiocesan Ministry of Ecumenical.
(From The Herald on April 10, 2011.)
(5)Dishonouring the name of Jesus, 14 April 2011
by Peter Young
1. Dishonouring the name of Jesus.
The state elections in Sarawak will be taking place on 16 April 2011. A week prior to this, the following sms (text) has been circulating throughout the state.
”In Sabah and Sarawak, under BN, Christians can worship freely, can print and import Bibles without restrictions whatsoever. No stamps, no
serial numbers. Opposition are spreading all sorts of rumours and lies. Pls forward to 5 fellow Christians, in the name of Jesus!”
It must be pointed out that the Christian Federation of Malaysia has not yet agreed to the government’s so-called ’10-point agreement’.
The opposition on Sunday 10.04.2011 convened a press conference in Miri saying in effect that the Alkitab issue remains unresolved until Appeals Court case on “Allah” is withdrawn.
2. Honouring the name of Jesus.
Perhaps a prayer concerning the issue of Bahasa Malaysia Bibles would be more honouring to the name of Jesus.
“Heavenly Father, we thank you that the impounding and desecration of the Bibles has now ceased. We pray that the importing of the Bibles into Malaysia, its printing in Malaysia and its distribution throughout Malaysia may be carried out without any restrictions.
We also pray that a final conclusion concerning the issue of Bahasa Malaysia Bibles may soon be reached. We ask all this IN THE NAME OF JESUS.”
(6) 10 point solution to Alkitab issue: a critical appraisal , 14 April 2011
by Administrator
by HC Nga
Against the backdrop of the Sarawak State Elections where polling is scheduled on 16-4-2011 the BN Government hurriedly issued the 10 point solution to the Alkitab Issue. Whether the 10 point solution is a mere election bait to fish for votes or a genuine effort to restore the constitutional rights of the Christian community is anyone’s surmise and conjecture. One Christian leader considered the 10 point solution as a “statement of regret and appeal for forgiveness”; that remark would appear to be a presumptuous perception of an over zealous leader to appease the political leader of the day. As a matter of fact the 10 point solution did not contain any such “statement of regret and appeal for forgiveness”.
It is a pity that the Christian community in Malaysia lacks leaders with the courage and caliber of Micaiah who dared to speak the truth to the King rather than what the king liked to hear (1 Kings 22:14). Far too often we have leaders who resembled the King’s messenger who cajoled Micaiah to speak like one of the other prophets who gave ill advice to the King. Perhaps the CCM Youth is more discerning and did a far better job in its statement dated 8-4-2011.
If indeed the Government is serious about restoring the constitutional rights of the Christians why is the appeal in the Herald case not withdrawn? Why are the restrictive gazettes and orders made pursuant to the Internal Security Act 1960 which adversely affects the Christian community not repealed with immediate effect? The 10 point solution is silent on various other matters like the conversion issues, the banning of books with religious themes such as Islamic Politics brings times of Muhammad by John Glubb; Now You Can Know What Muslims Believe by Ministries to Muslims; What Is Ahmadiyah Movement by Mirza Bahiruddin Mahmud; Tasawuf in the Quran by Mir Aliudin; Secrets of the Koran: Revealing Insights Into Islam’s Holy Book by Don Richardson; and Women in Islam by Margaret Speaker Yuan, the denial of places of worship and the ban on the use of certain words including Allah.
In the face of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution which stipulates that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law” how can the Government discriminate against the Christians in Peninsula Malaysia? On what constitutional basis is the Government imposing the word “Christian Publication” and the cross on the front cover of the Bible.
If Ali, Ah Chong and Arul can call their earthly father “Bapa” respectively without confusion to themselves or to their respective father (who will undoubtedly be able to recognize the voice of his own son why should our law makers think that the adherents of the different who choose to call their heavenly father “Allah” would suffer confusion! One would have thought that logically all mankind belongs to the Almighty Creator (called “Allah” in some religions) but since when has the Almighty God become the exclusive possession of any nation race or creed?
The Almighty God has given man a free will to choose whether to accept or reject Him as his God; why do we need any legislative barbed wires around one’s choice and practice of one’s religion? Is the Omnipotent God too helpless to deal with those who abuse His Name or misbehave themselves that He should require mortal assistance especially in the form of man made legislations? In the “Rubaiyat” the famous Persian poet and astronomer, Omar Khayyam wrote:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it
Isn’t it time for the Christian leaders to speak up and forewarn the Government that “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the living God”. (Heb 10:31) and the warning encapsulated in Prov. 29:1-2 which reads:
He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.
The Nation stands at an intersection of her destiny and political restructuring. The people of Sarawak especially the Christian community of the Foochows and Dayaks must rise to the occasion and speak loudly on April 16, 2011 with their votes for a better Malaysia. The verdict of Sarawak will determine the fate of Putrajaya. Exercise your vote with wisdom.
(7) 10-point solution ad hoc and short-term resolution, 14 April 2011
by Administrator
CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA
(PERSEKUTUAN KRISTIAN MALAYSIA)
14th April 2011
The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) takes note of the Prime Minister’s letter dated 11 April 2011 in relation to the collective decision of the Cabinet on the 10-point solution to address the Alkitab or Bahasa Malaysia/Indonesia Bible and other related issues.
We consider the 10-point solution to be an ad hoc and short-term resolution to the two consignments of Alkitab which have been impounded at Port Klang and the Port of Kuching.
We reiterate that the Bible is our Holy Scripture and it is our right to read, study and pray with it in the language of our choice as freedom of religion is enshrined under our Federal Constitution.
The 10-point solution deals with the impounding of the Alkitab but not with the prohibition of publications containing the word “Allah”. The root cause of the problem of the impounding of the Alkitab lies in the following:
1.The 1982 prohibition of the Alkitab and the 1983 prohibition of the Perjanjian Baru under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) on the grounds that the Alkitab is prejudicial to national interest and the security of Malaysia.
2.The 1986 administrative order prohibiting the use of the term “Allah” in Christian publications on the grounds of public order and prevention of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.
3.The Garis Panduan of the Bahagian Kawalan Penerbitan dan Teks Al- Quran of the Ministry of Home Affairs prohibiting the use of the word “Allah”.
In this regard we refer to item 9 of the 10-point solution which reiterates the Government’s commitment to address religious issues. The Government, therefore, should take immediate steps to remove the root causes by revoking the orders made under the ISA and the administrative order and to amend the Garis Panduan to remove the prohibition.
The “one country two policies” approach is confusing and unacceptable. We look forward to working with the Government to address other long standing issues affecting the Christian community including the relevant provisions in the State Enactments.
Yours sincerely,
Bishop Ng Moon Hing, Chairman and the Executive Committee,
Christian Federation of Malaysia
(8) Let us be fair to both sides, 15 April 2011
by Goh Keat Peng
As reported in The Star, 15.04.2011
KUCHING: The Association of Churches Sarawak has expressed regret that DAP, PAS and PKR leaders held a press conference on the association’s meeting with them Thursday concerning the Bahasa Malaysia bibles issue.
ACS secretary-general Ambrose Linang said the breakfast meeting was held behind closed doors after the leaders agreed to the association’s request not to hold a press conference regarding it.
“Our association received an invitation from Selangor state executive councillor Teresa Kok to have a breakfast meeting with the leaders of these opposition parties and agreed on condition that political issues would not be discussed as we are non-partisan.
“Shortly after the meeting we left. However, we were disappointed to learn that these leaders held a press conference later,” he said when contacted by Bernama.
Ambrose said the association would study the statements made at the press conference, and if there were political elements, it would issue an official statement. (Bernama)
As clarified by YB Teresa Kok, 15.04.2011, 1.30 am
Association of Churches Sarawak (ACS) whacked Pakatan Rakyat (PR) as reported by Bernama. My response when asked by The Malaysian Insider on this is: We have agreed to have a closed door meeting and not to have press conference with the church leaders but we were never asked not to disclose issues that were being discussed to the media. In fact even if we (PR) don’t have a meeting with ACS, all leaders in the Pakatan have been saying all these issues in our political rallies and meeting the people sessions during the elections campaign. We just repeated the same thing when we met with ACS leaders.
However, we appreciate the meeting with ACS leaders and we understand their situation. I believe they are under tremendous pressures and that is why they made such a statement (as reported in Bernama).
We were told not to allow the media to come in to take photos and to make our meeting with ACS a closed door meeting. We have done that.
But how can we not speak to the media after the closed door dialogue session when the media were waiting outside? All the church leaders have seen the presence of the media when they arrived and they have seen us not allowing the media to enter the room to take pictures too. It is understood that we will have our own press conference after meeting them and reiterate our stand on issues related to Christians and churches.
My take
I am laying the Bernama report and YB Teresa Kok’s response side by side for Christian leaders to have their respective two perspectives because during this Sarawak elections campaign, the playing field has not been level. On TV and the printed media, the Malaysian public have not been given more than perfunctory coverage of the opposition campaign and statements; it has been pretty much only the BN campaign that has been relayed by the mainstream media.
On the PR-ACS meeting, despite Bernama’s prompt objective or insistence to report ACS’ unhappiness about PR’s press conference after the meeting, in fact whatever PR said of the meeting at the press conference was not reported in the mainstream media. So what is there to object to? Even the Bernama report about this meeting only carried the ACS’ reaction to the press conference held by PR and that too because Bernama specifically asked for a comment from the ACS secretary.
And what do we as a Christian community in Malaysia find so wrong about PR taking up the issues which CFM and MCCBCHST have been raising? The main message PR has declared on this issue is that short of the attorney-general withdrawing the appeal to the High Court’s ruling on the “Allah” issue permitting Herald to use the word, the problem will remain regardless of the so-called government’s 10-Point solution. Quite frankly, if PR has not voiced these sentiments, the Sarawak elections campaign and the Sarawak voters will only have the federal government’s side of the story. How will this benefit the Christian community?
I am taking the trouble to communicate this especially to Christian leaders because I hear the voice of anguish in Teresa Kok’s 1.30 am phone message to me. In a democracy, the voters must have the prerogative to decide who they want to be their representatives in the next state legislative assembly. That can only happen when voters have the opportunity to hear both sides’ story.
The Christian Church can only be heard and seen as being truly non-partisan during an electoral process when it treats both sides of the campaign equally. Pardon me if I am wrong but I did not see this equal treatment in Sarawak this past week.
(from http://ongohing.wordpress.com)
(9) MCCBCHST: Let us work together towards a harmonious, judicious and united Malaysia, 07 May 2011
by Administrator
Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism
6th May 2011
MCCBCHST is concerned by the statement issued by Dr Yusri Mohamad on behalf of Muslim NGO’s that lslam’s position in Malaysia is under siege.
How could lslam’s position be under siege when all public institutions and other Organs of Government are under the control of Muslims? We Quote ZAID IBRAHIM (Malaysia Today: 291 41 2011 ; www.zaid untu krakyat.com).
…Even without recent “unity call”, the Malays are in complete political control. More than two-thirds of the cabinet is Malay….more than two-thirds of Parliamentarians are Malay or Bumiputra. The Sultans are Malay. All except one of the Menteri Besars and Chief Ministers are Malay Bumiputra. Eighty-five percent of Civil Service is Malay’ including the diplomatic Corps and the educational and judicial services. The Armed Forces and Police are composed primarily of Malays. Rela Members are mostly Malay.
….Government-linked companies (GLCS) such as Maybank, Petronas, Telekom Malaysia, TNB, Khazanah Nasional, PNB, Media Prima, Felda, Sime Darby and many others the vast majority of which are owned by the Government and managed by Malay-Bumiputras? The G-20 group of largest listed GLCS alone possesses RM353 bilion (around half) of the market capitalization of the entire Bursa Malaysia”.
We are further amazed to read that the designation of a Non-Muslim affairs exco in Penang is unconstitutional and threaten’s lslam’s position. There is no prohibition anv where in the Federal Constitution aqainst the desiqnation of a Non-Muslim affairs exco. ln fact, currently most states under Barisan Nasional have Non-Muslim Affairs Committees to address religious, places of worship, burial grounds and other issues faced by the Non-Muslims.
ISLAM’S POSITION
The MGCBCHST is not aware of any person or body having questioned lslam’s position as enshrined in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution.
ARTICLE 3(1) provides that lslam is the religion of the Federation and concludes with “…other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”
ARTICLE 3(4) provides that “Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of the Constitution….” This means that Article 3 does not extinguish anything else in the constitution. Professor Shad Faruqi (STAR: 31512011 page N51) stated:
”…Further, Article 3 (on lslam) does not extinguish anything else in the Constitution. Article 3(4) provides that “Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution. This means that Articles 3 cannot be employed to challenqe the validity of a druq traffickinq law on the qround that some of its provisions were Un-lslamic (Che Omar Che Soh (1988). Nor can Article 3 be relied on to trump any other constitutional provision, whether on fundamental rights or system of parliamentary government…”
Thus, one cannot use the position of lslam as the religion of the Federation to question other’s rights. It has to be based on the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
Therefore, fundamental and other rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution cannot be over-ridden by Article 3 and some such rights are:’
Article 4(1) -”This Constitution is the Supreme law of the Federation…”
Article 8(1) -”All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”.
Article 11(1) -”Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and subject to clause (4) to propagate it”
Article 153 (1) -”The legitimate interest of other communities” most of the time ignored.
Article 153 (9) -Which prohibits restriction of business or trade solely for Malays is also totally ignored.
The MCCBCSHT reiterates and accepts unequivocally the Position of lslam as the religion of the Federation as provided for by Article 3. We note however that Article 3 cannot be used to challenge any other constitutional position.
The MCCBCHST therefore calls on Dr Mohamad Yusri and the Muslim NGO’s to work together with all citizens towards a harmonious, judicious and united Malaysia.
Reverend Dr Thomas Philips
President
MCCBCHST
(10) Authorities must take action against irresponsible, baseless and provocative reporting, 08 May 2011
by Administrator
Media Statement
A national Malay language daily, Utusan Malaysia, today (7th May 2011) carried a report under the headlines “Malaysia negara Kristian?”, (Malaysia, a Christian country?) where it was alleged that Christian leaders (paderi-paderi or priests/pastors) who at a closed door meeting in Penang had vowed to make Malaysia the official religion of Malaysia and to install a Christian as its Prime Minister. It was further reported that a meeting was to take place this evening at the Catholic Christian Centre (Pusat Kristian Katolik) in Penang and a public lecture will be organized tomorrow.
On behalf of the Catholic Bishops of Malaysia, I would like to categorically refute the allegation that such a meeting had taken place or will take place in a Catholic venue in Penang. It is clear that this reporting is baseless and highly irresponsible as the reporters and editors of the above newspaper have not taken any reasonable steps whatsoever to verify the allegations made by anonymous bloggers. Furthermore, this report comes after the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), one of the organizers of the above meeting, having refuted the claims of those bloggers and the same was carried on online media. The NECF has further clarified that this meeting only covered the topic of ethical leadership and had no treasonous agenda as alleged by the bloggers and news report.
It is clear that such reporting has the effect of creating religious disharmony, inciting hatred and heaping odium on Christians. We therefore call upon the authorities and the police to immediately make a thorough investigation of this matter to determine the source of these insidious, provocative and malicious lies and to take the necessary action against those who seek to threaten the multi-cultural and multi-religious harmonious make-up in this country.
We, Christians constantly pray for good governance by political and civil authorities. We also teach our people to be God fearing, law abiding citizens and conscientious decision makers based on justice which is reflective of moral and divine laws. In the recent statements of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) regarding the Al-Kitab issue, we had always reiterated our commitment and readiness to dialogue and work together with the government and all parties for a just and reasonable solution. It is clear that our position has never been treasonous nor have we advocated hatred, antagonism or animosity towards any religion or groups of persons.
I continue to call upon all Catholics, Christians and all Malaysians to pray, dialogue and work together to strengthen national
unity and harmony. May God bless our leaders with a firm vision and the courage and strength to uphold and realise it.
Tan Sri Datuk Murphy Nicholas Pakiam DD
Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur
President, Catholic Bishops of Malaysia
7th May 2011
(End)
