The below is a continual selective collection from the Micah Mandate. Please refer to my previous postings dated 8 May 2011 and 9 May 2011 respectively. (Lily)
The Micah Mandate (http://www.themicahmandate.org)
(1) Bearing false witness, 09 Mai 2011
byTK Tan
When I read the statement by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur on Utusan’s “story” about the alleged plot by some pastors to make Christianity the official religion of Malaysia, I thought to myself, “Well, that’s what you get when you play hardball with BN.” With blatant lies they will paint your as a treasonous bunch with an insidious agenda to put a Christian prime minister in Putrajaya. They will whip up a storm of anger against your in the name of both religion and race, never mind the truth.
A few weeks ago, just after the Sarawak election, the Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Dato’ Haji Muhyiddin Yassin defended Utusan Malaysia by saying that it represents the voice of the Malays and that voice needs to be heard. It is difficult to say how many Malays Utusan Malaysia speaks for, but clearly Muhyiddin counts himself as one of those Malays that the views of Utusan represent.
And so when Utusan trumpets a front page story that the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, the NECF, and several DAP leaders including Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, have without qualification characterized as without a shred of truth, I wanted to see if this time Muhyiddin will distance himself from the newspaper. So far as I can ascertain, no. In the meantime, the UMNO Sec-gen advised Malaysians not to be influenced by hearsay but says nothing about those who trumpet hearsay. The Prime Minister, who is in Jakarta, calls on ALL GROUPS to calm down and stop exploiting the issue, suggesting that an investigation should be carried out first. So to the Prime Minister what Utusan says needs to be investigated, never mind what all these other people say.
So I am left with little to doubt that this story, as Muhyiddin says, represents the view of Malays like himself, Najib and the UMNO Sec-gen. If there is any further doubt, it is dispelled by the fact that Utusan is owned by UMNO.
Make no bones about it, when you play hard ball with BN they train their guns on you and shoot you down, figuratively speaking of course. What I mean is that while you play by the rules, they don’t. Even truth is expedient. A reporter who just reported the truth gets thrown into jail under the ISA. A politician accused about some matters about a mosque gets thrown under the ISA bus, EVEN WHEN THE MOSQUE OFFICIALS SAID THE ACCUSATIONS WERE FALSE. Interestingly it was Utusan who published those accusations.
That’s what you get when you play hard ball with BN. You can take that as a warning, a cautionary statement not to play hard ball with BN. Or you can take that as a fact, that this is indeed the character of BN. And as I thought about it, it is the second view that became relevant.
We need to ask ourselves, what kind of people run our government today? What kind of people seek to destroy lives and stoke unrest with lies and innuendos? Are we comfortable that these people hold immense power over our lives, and they are the ones entrusted with the future of our country?
What about the alternative? Anwar Ibrahim, who has suffered much under the hands that run the present government, whose health has been gravely compromised, but who still soldiers on. What do you think motivates him? What about old stalwarts like Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh who have been in politics for decades, reaping little benefit but much abuse. What motivates them? Or new leaders like Lim Guan Eng and Khalid Ibrahim, and Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the former MB of Perak? Or even Christians in politics such as Ngeh Koo Ham, someone I know from university days, Teresa Kok, Hannah Yeoh, or even Dr Cheah Wing Yin? Would they be a better alternative?
Would these be better people to entrust the future of the country to?
My personal conclusion as I thought about the escalating damage that is being caused by people bent on holding on to the reins of power is that I’ll do nothing to provoke and I will not respond to provocations. At the end of the day it is the ballot box that will decide. And it will be there that I will respond.
(2) Stirring up evil, 16 May 2011
by Peter Young
Whatever transpired at a dinner held at the Red Rock Hotel, Penang on Friday, 6th May 2011 – whether during discussion or prayer time – it could never warrant the front page story in Utusan Malaysia on Saturday, 7th May 2011. Under the headlines “MALAYSIA – A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?”, it was claimed that the Democratic Action Party (DAP) was conspiring with Christian leaders to replace Islam as the official religion of Malaysia and to pave the way for a Christian to be Prime Minister. These claims were made on information received from two blogs.
Naturally, Christian leaders, and this includes the executive committee of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, have denied these claims. The leaders commented that not only were the claims unfounded and untrue, but they appear to be aimed at creating division and social disharmony in multi-ethnic Malaysia.
It could be said that the article in Utusan Malaysia was STIRRING UP EVIL. The following five references are just a small selection of what the Bible has to say about STIRRING UP EVIL:
Proverbs 6:16-19, New International Version
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Proverbs 10 : 12, New International Version
12 Hatred stirs up conflict,
but love covers over all wrongs.
Proverbs 15 : 1, New International Version
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Mark 15 : 9-11, New International Version
9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
Acts 13:49-50 (New International Version)
49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.
STIRRING UP EVIL should be replaced by THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT.
Galatians 5 : 22 – 23 (New International Version)
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
(3) Selangor passes two key reform bills, 18 May 2011
by Tricia Yeoh
Policy reform can be draggy and laborious, but once in a blue moon you get a sudden windfall – and this makes it all worth the wait. In the March 2011 Selangor State Legislative Assembly sitting, two significant things took place. First, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Enactment Bill (Selangor) 2010 was tabled for the third and final time, thereby creating Malaysia’s very first FOI Enactment (whether at state or national level). Second, the state assembly also passed an amendment of the National Forestry Act 1985 to require public inquiry before any de-gazetting of forest reserves.
For policy-making junkies, these two pieces of legislation should be considered stellar. The processes by which they were finally produced are also equally fascinating, which will be explored in this piece.
Freedom of Information Enactment 2010
The idea of having a FOI Enactment is not new in Malaysia. More than five years ago, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim (now the Selangor Menteri Besar) mooted the idea of pushing for such an Act at the national level. I was one of about a dozen civil society individuals he invited for lunch at the Lake Club, Kuala Lumpur, back in 2007, to discuss the possibility of such a campaign. He was also interested in the campaign for local elections, which I will write about in a later column.
Although it was not conceivable at the time, he did make a commitment to the NGOs then to make the FOI the first reform legislation to be passed, once given the mandate to form any government. Looking back, it does weigh in as an achievement of the state government. But the process was not always a straightforward thing.
First, an executive councillor was placed in charge of a taskforce. Elizabeth Wong was the selected Exco-in-charge, and set up the taskforce with both government and civil society representatives. The Coalition for Good Governance (CGG), a vocal coalition of NGOs based in the Klang Valley, was an active participant in meetings and discussions. It also undertook the task of preparing the first draft legislation. Some members of the CGG that invested much time and effort included the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the Malaysian Bar.
Next, the legislation was revised several times including having it vetted by the State Legal Advisor before it was officially signed off at an Exco meeting. This final version, originally drafted in English, was then translated into Malay and ready for submission as the Executive’s proposal tabled at the Legislative assembly.
The bill was tabled for the first time on 14th July 2010 and was then sent to a FOI Select Committee, which conducted extensive research, meetings and public inquiries. This was the first time the Selangor State Assembly formed a Select Committee to examine a Bill, demonstrating a level of thoroughness not previously displayed.
The Select Committee, chaired by Shaari Sungib, originally consisted of six members: four Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons and two Barisan Nasional assemblypersons. However, neither of the two from Barisan attended any of the meetings and public inquiries. This was a golden opportunity for them to demonstrate their willingness to put aside political differences and work towards solid policy and legislative reform. Nevertheless, it is understood the sessions were lively and productive.
Finally, after nine months, feedback and suggestions from NGOs, members of the public and civil servants were taken into account in order to improve the existing Enactment Bill. These discussions were healthy and crucial in ensuring especially public servants were aware of the reasoning behind it, as they would be key implementers eventually. The first draft was heavily criticised by the NGOs and this period was a valuable opportunity for those issues to be addressed.
Some of the recommendations adopted from the Select Committee include i) allowing local councils and government-owned entities to be covered under the Enactment; ii) changing the Appeals Board into the State Information Board; and iii) adding the penalties to include obstruction to access to information.
However, there are certain limitations to the Enactment. For instance, its jurisdiction extends only to State Government bodies and not to Federal bodies. Selangor (and all other states) houses numerous agencies that are essentially seconded from the Federal Government. Although Selangor pays for their employee salaries, they are not subject to enactments passed by the State Assembly. It is important for the public to note the difference between the two, as people may have expectations that these agencies are unable to deliver.
Several challenges may be in place. For example, Selangor will also have to avoid having the Enactment declared ultra-vires to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has in fact stated that the FOI would be in contravention of the Official Secrets Act 1972. Second, training for civil servants and a process of public education will be essential in keeping the execution process smooth. For decades Malaysian society has been used to a culture of shrouded secrecy, and this now introduces a new culture of openness and transparency in public administration.
Finally, there may be chinks in the Enactment that will only be known upon implementation. At these times, the Enactment – meant to be a dynamic and living legislation – will possibly be improved based on recommendations from the State Assembly. Most important is that the process has begun, where Penang has also followed closely behind by tabling the first reading of its FOI version in November 2010.
Amendment to the National Forestry Act 1985
The State Assembly also passed a historic amendment to the National Forestry Act 1985 (Section 11). Selangor is the first state to make public inquiry compulsory before a forest reserve can be de-gazetted. The public will now be able to give their opinion, suggestions and constructive criticism before forest reserves are de-gazetted. Elizabeth Wong as the Exco in charge of the state’s Environment portfolio, tabled it in the same March 2011 sitting.
In her speech to the Assembly, she stated that thousands of hectares of forest reserves were cleared without public knowledge from 2000 to 2007. For example, the Kota Damansara Forest Reserve was de-gazetted several years ago during the Barisan Nasional state government to make way for a luxurious residential area. It was only when the Pakatan Rakyat government took over that this land transfer was cancelled.
She emphasised the importance of forest reserves as ensuring environmental stability through the supply of clean water, good quality air, mitigation of floods and soil erosion, biodiversity sustainability, and a source of herbs and natural medicines.
This is another display of openness and transparency as it encourages public participation in policy decision-making. Following this amendment, public dialogue sessions will be compulsory, advertisements of which will be placed on public signboards and newspapers. Notice will be given early enough to ensure residents and NGOs attend these meetings and provide their opinions.
Under Section 74(2) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, forestry is under state governments’ jurisdiction, which means each state is empowered to formulate laws and policies pertaining to the forestry sector. In this instance, the Selangor government has worked closely with its Selangor State Forestry Department and it is the latter that will implement this policy in the future.
What Reform Means
The Middle East is going through a revolution, with great public demands for change. And often when such change takes place, expectations are sky-high. This was the case in all Pakatan Rakyat states after March 2008. The more difficult task is to get into the nuts and bolts of policy reform, managing expectations, pushing for the administration to oil itself more quickly and efficiently.
And although it is not everyday there is positive news to report, this month was a particularly proud one for the folks of Selangor. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) will showcase Selangor’s FOI Enactment on its newsletter’s front page, a boost for Pakatan Rakyat globally.
As society begins to warm up to truly reformative measures within the Pakatan states, it is hoped that the culture of accountability and good governance will permeate all stakeholders. Sarawakians go to the polls this weekend and although this is yet a dream, perhaps one day they will vote for true reform.
(4) History Books: Seeing the two ladies, 23 May 2011
by Rama Ramanathan
Last week I learned from a Sikh that the textbook in use now in Malaysian schools (Form 4) says something like “according to Christians, Christianity was founded by the Prophet Jesus.”
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?
(End)
