Bagan Pinang: The Politics of Political Defeat

It may exist in the ether somewhere. I hope it does, though I'm not holding my breath.

You know, that letter cum article published quicktime after the Pakatan defeat at the hands of Barisan in Bagan Pinang? The one where we read of top Pakatan leaders (maybe even the PAS candidate Omar himself) and/or pro-Pakatan writers:

• congratulating Isa and BN on the victory and pledging to work with him for the welfare of Bagan Pinang's community (maybe even mentioning specific projects which could benefit from experts in the Pakatan camp)
  
  
• focusing more on what Pakatan failed to do (and the resources and steps they can take in the future, this one comes close but lacks depth; this one is certainly better) than on how unfair Barisan's victory was (and/or how it's 'really' a defeat in disguise)
  
  
• providing firm reasons why Pakatan remains the right choice instead of why Barisan is the wrong one (I'm sure what Pakatan stands for is as important as what it stands against, but let's face it the former isn't exactly what's always being shouted from the mountain tops, eh?); Lim Kit Siang's call to go back to the drawing board is surely a move in the right direction, although I doubt he needed the parting shot about UMNO's inability to stop corruption (which sounds like an euphemism for, "I hate to lose" given that it doesn't add value to anything and certainly won't change anybody's minds)
  
  
• NOT making sweeping statements like "BN endorses corruption because Isa was corrupt" which not only sound fallacious (like "Pakatan endorses party disloyalty because Anwar enticed 31 Barisan folks to switch camp") but also smacks of pot-and-kettle mentality (like Chelsea complaining that Manchester United players are exaggerating the impact of fouls committed on them - yeah, and the Blues are what? 100% honest-to-referee-and-God saints?? )

The Pakatan-oriented reactions to Bagan Pinang have to be such that it doesn't illustrate yet again the nature of the game we know as Malaysian politics. The game has its unique rules of engagement : Heads you're corrupt, Tails I'm correct.

You can bet your Malaysia Kini subscription that had the situation been REVERSED (e.g. had Pakatan fielded a popular candidate with a controversial history because all other means were exhausted), you would certainly hear Lim Kit Siang, Anwar et al talking about how politics is complex and flexibility is needed to make progress, how we're a "maturing civil society" and we can't always think in black-and-white, how (a'la Najib) we need to put aside dark histories and focus on the future, how we mustn't succumb to political insinuations about the character of candidates who "have the people's trust" and - you get the point.

In any other scenario where the loser slams the winner for winning, we'd call it 'sour grapes'. But in a Malaysian bi-election, we call it 'fighting corruption'.

Rules of Engagement

It's taken me a while to finally say it, but I know now that politics and advocacy isn't my thing; anything but the mildest and lowest-profile forms of social activism is unlikely to appeal to me. Because something about the 'posture' and 'rules' required in socio-political activism feels somewhat incongruous with what I understand to be the Way of Jesus Christ.

If you're playing football, it makes absolutely no sense to ask why you have to protect the goal, control the midfield, beat the offside trap, seek protection from the referee, score more goals than the opposing team and so on. To even question tenets like this suggest you're either playing a different game or you're playing for charity.

Likewise in the political domain. Here the virtually non-negotiable rules of engagement I've noticed are as follows:

• never give credit to the other side even if they're doing a good deed - find a reason to be suspicious (and if that fails, raise more questions)
  
  
• condemn virtually every dubious statement/action made - show your anger fast (and don't forget to turn the volume up); shoot first, solve the original issue later (if at all)
  
  
• never raise questions about the leaders and methods use by the side you favour (or, at least, never raise these publicly)
  
  
• never apologise - but demand apologies for every possible hint of an insult made
  
  
• never speak in a reconciliatory way or tell your side to be more forgiving (this almost sounds like an alien language - which is why the Martin Luther King, Jr.s' and Gandhis' are so rare among political leaders)

Try it. Take some of the above and do the opposite. Seriously.

Do it a few times. You can bet your voting form you'll be singled out for 'fixing' some time soon (regardless of which 'side' you're on).

I don't deny that some of the above is necessary in a (very real) world of political abuse, suppressed freedoms and neglected injustices. I decry, though, the idea that we have NO CHOICE but to accept this as the primary way of bringing about change.

Maybe one day a leader will come along and offer something so radical and true I'll know for sure that's the way to go. I thought Jesus Christ offered a new way of 'doing politics'. Whilst Jesus certainly wouldn't condone the abusive use of the Internal Security Act, I'm not sure He'd be pleased with the above 'non-negotiables' either which seem to contradict not only the "Love your enemy" command but also the one to "Love your neighbour as yourself".

Alas not enough Christians think so. Most question whether Jesus' talk of radical love and reconciliation applies to political scenarios, though almost all are sure that to be 'prophetic' does not include forgiving one's enemies and praying for them.

I confess I still don't understand. Again...I thought Jesus Christ offers another way of political activism. Maybe I'm wrong. But for now I'll keep on listening. Hoping. Waiting.

One and Another

One targets the enemy and seeks to shame him; another reaches out to him and prays for him.

One condemns those who promote hatred; another hates condemnation as a modus operandi. One rejects physical violence; another eschews all forms of violence (especially the dangerous verbal kind, Matt 5:22).

One makes demands for freedom; another rejects demand-making. One shouts for justice; another pleads for mercy.

One is accusatory; another is reconciliatory. One is quick to judge the powers that be; another is quick to employ the power of forgiveness.

One is defined by protest; another protests the lack of a more positive definition. One aims to be loud; another realises volume is an illusion.

One is a raised fist; another an extended heart. One is of this world; another of...an other.

Why Didn't Judas Simply POINT At Jesus?

Because if writers like Kester Brewin and Peter Rollins are half-right, our famous traitor meant to re-join the disciples. He needed a device to betray Jesus without letting the disciples know that he was the traitor.

But I'm running ahead of myself.

Imagine a group of Pakatan folks idling away at Starbucks, seething at the growing injustices in the country, feeling wave after wave of hopeless and despair because nothing remotely like Sept 16 happened. Anwar speaks less nowadays. The I.S.A. remains 'under review'. The Selangor Exco is being unjustly targeted by MACC and the country is going to the pits ad infinitum.

Suddenly one of them has an idea : The only way out is via revolution. The violent, people-driven and justice-restoring kicking down of a rotten door!

If this is true, then what the people need is a SPARK to set everything off. A spark in the form of, say, Anwar being kidnapped by Barisan Nasional goons?

Then again, why wait?! Why not 'manufacture' this precise scenario which would trigger off massive (and I mean massive!) protests, both locally and internationally, leading to BN's downfall.

Break the camel's back once and for all.

In essence, why not "betray" Anwar in order to make his (and the people's) dream come true? Why not wear a pro-BN t-shirt, kidnap Anwar, mess him up a bit and shout anti-Pakatan slogans? And whilst we're at it, why not 'leak' messages implicating someone (anyone!) from the Cabinet? When the government has fallen, why, just rejoin Pakatan. No one ever needs to know it was us.

Here's the thing: Could this be more or less what Judas was up to? Could he have wanted to give that irreversible nudge to the revolution he believed Jesus needed to save Israel? Could he, in fact, be the most committed and pro-active of all the disciples towards the victory of God? Could he be the one who most truly understood that Jesus' mission was one of peace and sacrifice and thus decided to correct his Master's thinking?

Was Judas simply being downright honest in his denial that he was the one to betray Jesus? (See Matt 26:25) His mission wasn't betrayal but fulfilment.

Doesn't this make better sense of Judas' sudden remorse when Jesus was condemned? Isn't Judas' reaction better understood as that of a man shocked by the (totally unexpected) consequences of his actions? Why would a traitor greedy for money who got exactly what he wanted feel sudden guilt? If betraying Jesus was his plan all along, why throw away the money and hang himself? (see Matt 27:3-5)

Isn't it more coherent to see that Judas believed he was doing the right thing by creating a scenario whereby Jesus would be captured thus triggering the revolution that everyone wanted? (You can almost bet 'one of Jesus' companions' was blood-thirsty in his de-earing of High Priest's servant, but guess what Jesus did? see Luke 22:50-52).

The Judas kiss, therefore, wasn't quite an act of evil cloaked in tenderness; it was really a camouflage mechanism so Judas could identify Jesus and deflect suspicion from himself.

Finally, Jesus' words (see Matt 26:52-56) at his arrest also appear cryptically meant for people like Judas who saw no other way to usher in the victory of God apart from violent means:

• "Put your sword back in its place, for those who draw the sword will die by the sword." (This simply isn't the way)
  
• "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (Trust me, if this was the way I can and would've walked it)
  
• "Am I leading a rebellion...?" (Have I looked like the kind of guy who would march with swords and spears against the High Priest or Rome?)

Penny for your thoughts - are the above phrases relevant for Malaysian politics, you think?

Would You Bring Your Children to the KL Street Rallies?

I don't think so. Why not? Because you realise there's a very strong likelihood that things could get ugly (even in a place as peaceful, sensible and mob-effect-free as Kuala Lumpur). You also realise that should the police's water-cannons and chemical bombs injure your child, it is you who are primarily responsible, not the police.

Being a reasonable person, you do not move your vulnerable loved-ones into a danger-zone, regardless of the blame-games being played by all parties involved. You wouldn't even move your precious vehicles into that area.

But here's the catch: For some folks in the KL area, they do not have the luxury of choosing to stay away. For them, their children and their property, they can only pray that the stones, batons and cannons hit other targets. For them, they face the risk of danger, danger which wouldn't exist if not for two factors:

1. The trigger-happy crowd-hating police
   
2. The demonstrators and those who organised it

You need BOTH these items to take place for third-parties to be put in harm's way.

Last weekend, some children were ridiculously hand-cuffed and shoved into a police van. In my view, they were lucky: They could've been seriously injured or could've died (would anyone dare dispute this?)

If any children (or even adults) had died, whose fault would it be? Whilst the police would take heavy flak, can anyone deny that the organisers of the demonstration (plus anyone who actively called for the people to march) have to take some direct responsibility as well? Can the Opposition really wash their hands of any death or injury, especially now when the Malaysian PM has already allowed the use of stadiums to voice their protest?

Things get even worse if the injured/dead belonged to families who did NOT wish to participate but were simply 'around', either because they live or work there. Imagine I'm a father whose daughter was hit by some chemical-laced juices or a stray rock, or who has to replace some smashed building windows. Do you think I would care ONE JOT about the following responses?

• "The police started the violence"
  
• "There should've been adequate crowd control"
  
• "We cannot let the government take away our freedom of speech and restrict the use of public spaces"
  
• "We are marching against injustice and oppression"

I'm not sure many victims would care. My children and property have been compromised/damaged because the battle against injustice must get BBC/CNN air-time and its combatants are committed to lofty ideals of universal rights (at the expense of local safety).

The 'street vs stadium' debate isn't just about venue. It's about how we fight against evil (personal, systemic or otherwise) and the casualties we're willing to accept - or couldn't care less about.

The above remains fiction. Let's hope we have the sense to make it stay that way.

Jesus & His Political Peers

The message yesterday...

View more presentations from Alwyn Lau.

Many Routes to Justice : A Menu

("Oh, you're an A4/M8 person? I'm A2/M7")

It should be safe to say that awareness of (and outrage at) political injustice and oppression is growing, what with the recent case of Teoh Beng Hock's death NEAR, if not AT, the hands of the MACC. It also shouldn't be too unsafe to say that whilst many people want to get involved, not many know how.

Partisan politics isn't for everyone and even the term civil advocacy can't quite shake-off the partisan baggage.

Attending virgils and rallies are exciting but let's face it a stadium (let alone the front lawn of a police station or a government building) can only contain so many people. Furthermore, gatherings can't be a daily affair. Not only that, but if everyone focused exclusively on political repression or corruption, many other issues would be neglected.

So here's a menu (for lack of a better word) for the way the 'average person' can get 'involved' (that's two loaded words too many, eh?).

("If A1/M3 is out for you, why not try A1/2?")

The Areas one can focus on (in order of perceived importance in Malaysia right now):

1. Governmental justice (everything from the I.S.A, racial tension and money politics to rigged elections, unlawful arrests and mysterious tragic deaths)
2. Health / Education (e.g. H1N1, teaching in English, etc.)
3. Religious Harmony (the 'Allah' issue, Muslim conversions, etc.)
4. Social (e.g. drug addiction, poverty, domestic violence, immigrant welfare, indigenous lands, etc.)
5. Environment (e.g. deforestation in Borneo, carbon sinks, replenishment of fisheries, alternative energy, etc.)
6. Corporate Social Responsibility (ensuring MNCs' tow the line with respect to all the above)

It's tempting to say that the six items overlap (and it's hard to doubt they do) but the point remains that often we can only specialise on one, or at most two, areas. Any more and we lose focus.

Next, the Methods could include (in order of popularity - debatable, of course):

1. Use online social networking media (e.g. facebook, blogging, etc.)
2. Use traditional networking media (e.g. conversations[!], teaching/preaching, etc.)
3. Participate in events (forums, rallies, vigils, etc.)
4. Give money
5. Pray (probably the most under-rated "political activity" around)
6. Join a political party
7. Make distinct lifestyle choices / habits (e.g. refuse to buy Brand X or patronise Outlet Y(
8. Make distinct business decisions
9. Enter the industry / domain (e.g. healthcare, education, etc.)
10. Work with an NGO (and do all kinds of things from distributing pamphlets to feeding the poor to rebuilding broken homes)
11. Take the scholarly route (a'la Farish Noor)

Again, certainly people can (and do) engage in two or more methods regularly, but if the issue is that not enough people are getting involved, then laying down the options might help and encouraging people to engage in just ONE of the above ought to suffice as a start.

The challenge, if we can accept something like the above, is to see every node to be as critical as any other. E.g. being a 'A3/M5' person needn't be any less important than the more popular 'A1/M3'.

Whatever combination chosen, we would be doing at least four things: learning, persuading, sharing and acting.

Creative Peace-Making, Pt.2

Micah Mandate uploaded the second part of the creative peace-making series. This one's entitled Redeeming the Rules of Engagement.

Another vigil, more arrests

You'll hardly get a clearer look at the process:

This is Malaysia where, of late, cops hand-cuffing folks standing around with candles has been a popular media event.

If you're into business, you might want to ask yourself if you could spare some funds organising think-tanks or influencing politicians to take the concerns of these protesters seriously. It'd be good to ponder how the business community has played a role in Malaysians politics and - who knows? - you may find your own organisation located along the chain somewhere.

If you're in education, try to spend a third of the next class talking about this e.g. why is this happening? what can the 'average student' do? what can families do? what's in store for Malaysia's future?

If you're leading a Bible study or giving a sermon, it would help to integrate whatever Scriptural passage you're looking at with the socio-political situation in the country. Ask the youth, the ladies fellowship, the seniors, etc. on WWJD about (reasonably) blatant political manipulation of the kind that's been happening in Perak.

If you're a non-Malaysian surfer browsing around, I hope you can share/link this to people on your contact-list. It's by no means as exciting as the chaos happening in other parts of the world, but you could help play a small role in making people aware and thinking (and praying?) about Malaysia.

Peace-Making on Micah Mandate

I thank the Micah Mandate editorial team for agreeing to upload one of my pieces on creative peace-making, and I hope the conversation proceeds helpfully.

Democracy

Democracy is a strange ball of wax, more talked about and fought for than actually practised and desired, IMO. For if the 'will of the majority' is what we're really after then political democracy would be the exception to the rule of our lives.

Consider:

• democracy is not sought in the family (especially Asian families) - here its seniority first
  
  
  
• democracy is not sought in corporate organisations (even today, peer reviews are rare) - here its meritocracy, qualifications and seniority
  
  
  
• democracy is not sought on the road or in the airport - here it's first-come-first-served or the 'will of the bold' (especially if you're driving a Kancil challenging a truck carrying trees)
  
  
  
• democracy is not sought in restaurants, cinemas or parks - here the customer is either momentary king ('will of the dollar') or visiting pawn ('will of the venue manager')

• democracy is not sought in the classroom or the educational institution - age, role and qualification (and the syllabus) decide

• democracy is not sought in cyber-space (although one could argue that cyber-space is a new kind of democracy) - here technology, connections and conversational skill top the list, and ideas that spread win (a'la Godin)
  
  
• democracy is not sought in the Bible(!) - it wasn't present in the OT nor the NT nor church history nor churches today; needless to say, here the will of God reigns (or should)

For (almost) all of the above, democracy would be a destabilising and frightening event, even if its 'alien-to-Asia' origins were accepted (there's a strong argument that Japan is a sad case of Western institutions being imported and off-loaded onto Japanese culture in the name of modernisation, without the accompanying spirit of individual liberty, see Michael Zielenziger's book, Shutting Out The Sun)

For some of the above, democracy is outright blasphemy.

So is politics a whole new world altogether, somewhat unrelated to the way we run the rest of our lives? Or is it the domain of democracy which allows other institutions to remain non-democratic?

By all means, take injustice, greed and manipulation down. But raise up the banner of democracy? I'm no longer very sure - are you?

[The above means no disrespect to those fighting hard right now for the rights of minorities and the marginalised (notice how 'minority' and 'marginalised' are almost at odds with the definition of democracy?). We certainly need more people like them; the very issue in fact is whether a 'liberal democracy' would be the best system to cater to the needs of those whose needs are not being met.]

Nizar's Open Letter to Zambry

Dear Zam,

How are you? Are you enjoying our latest round of political dancing? I confess I'm not.

Something's been burdening me lately. We've been at each other's throats for almost a quarter of a year now (and last week was absolute stress-release, wasn't it?). Our parties aren't giving in at all - yours in the name of the Sultan's word, mine in the name of the State laws. It all makes very interesting news reporting, loads of blogs and Web chats are fueled and the conversations are very vibrant - and in some strange way I think this debacle is contributing to the growth of cyber-cognizance in the country! - but, Zam, something is wrong.

I don't know about you, I find that through all this fighting the Perak-ian people are suffering. Of course both are our parties have been SAYING this but our continued partisan battles suggest we may not entirely BELIEVE what we say.

Certainly, our two parties are blaming each other for the situation but - and I'm not sure why this idea didn't arise earlier - is it possible that we get together to work out at least 2-3 major 'partisan-independent' policies for the rakyat whilst we wait for the Courts to decide our case?

(Immediately one of my aids said this was impossible if the political structure hasn't been confirmed; my response was that if we can be so imaginative in our conflicts, should our imaginations fail us in our benevolence?)

Also, I believed you compared yourself to Gandhi and Mandela. Though I may have my slight reservations, I'd like to hold you to that claim and ask that we embrace the courageous will of these two leaders in reaching out to those who opposed them.

What I'm saying is: Why are we channeling all our resources against each other instead of cooperating with each other, at least a bit? Can't we love our State enough to put our grievances and differences aside, at least for a week so something can be implemented? And surely it would be a great day for Malaysia when our two parties can pause in our battles so the most needful can be blessed?

Please understand: I am NOT saying that I've received an epiphany and now completely absolve the BN of what I perceive to be the party's gross injustices. Let's be very honest that both our parties have quite a few closeted skeletons and we've got lots of growing up to do.

And yet in my heart of hearts, I'm starting to feel that I can choose to be preoccupied with something a little bit more helpful e.g. working with a rival for the sake of the people, 'giving up' my rights so at least one or two key projects can be agreed upon and the work of building the state can continue.

I supposed it has dawned upon me that fighting for what I believe to be right can easily become an excuse to fight for the sake of winning. In the end, the losers are the people. And so I choose their welfare, even if this welfare is delivered by a rival political party. 

I have told my public relations guys to ensure this gets out to the entire party and all the major newspapers; I will even speak to Lim, KS and Mr. A about this. Honestly, it's been too long. I want the people to be happy and to be supported in the work of building their lives. So - whilst we still have our serious differences - I am extending this branch for us to work (at least temporarily) to get something helpful off the ground.

I thank you for considering this and I wish you the very best.


Your fellow Anak Bangsa Malaysia,

Niz

Charting Faith & Politics

Based on conversations with friends and activists alike, I’ve tried to classify the Christian response to politics into three dimensions. Whilst this may be over-simplifying, it could be said that the Christians in Malaysia have:

• spent the first few decades of its existence in ‘Model A’ (understandable, given its relative infancy and the struggle to grow)
  
• only in recent years grown to appreciate and embody ‘Model B’ (especially the Web 2.0 generation being empowered by real-time social networking, coupled with stark exposés of the murky side of Malaysian politics)
  
• almost no familiarity with ‘Model C’ (except through history books?)

The following chart is thus presented in the hope that Christians will understand each other more, seek to appreciate the good in the other perspective and in so doing ‘sharpen’ one another (as iron and iron does).

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Illustrations & Maps peacemaking Malaysia

"Recycle for Justice" - Gentle Protest via Automatic-Stabilisers

(This continues the 'creative peace-making for Malaysian Politics' series started here)

A few months ago, there were massive morning jams on all roads leading Kuala Lumpur because the government decided to put police roadblocks on the day of earlier-mentioned Pakatan Rakyat events happening in the city. Police stopped and checked numerous cars for questionable items and in so doing caused bottlenecks all over.

But here's the interesting part: The authorities did this as a reaction to PR plans. Conceivably the road blocks would NOT have occured if Anwar & Gang didn't declare they were going to have gatherings and such.

The bottom line here is that the problem of (unusually) heavy jams in the morning was suddenly a function of Anwar & Co.'s announcments, and for the sake of smooth traffice, Pakatan had to stop making announcements in such a way that the authorities acted to check cars. It is undeniable that more than a few pro-PR voters were hoping for a change of method.

BN had thus - unknowingly? uncaringly? - created an 'automatic stabiliser' to counter Pakatan's plans.

How can these be turned against the government, in line with creative peace-making and reconciliatory protests? What actions be taken such that the moment BN tries does something questionable, wheels are set in motion in such a way to make BN itself wish they hadn't done what they did?

Some ideas to illustrate the point:

• for every week someone is in ISA, can a certain percentage of the populace reduce their use of electricity and/or office phones (and in some way 'punish' the government via lower revenues for Tenaga / Telekom?)...this may also be an act of suffering 'on behalf of the prisoner'
  
• for every time a candlelight virgil is violently broken up, could more (dark-coloured?) flowers be bought and sent to Dato' so-and-so or selected Cabinet Members? (could this be a gentle, non-sarcastic act of protest which would ALSO encourage more greenery AND make certain members of high-society slightly more uncomfortable with the, say, hundreds of flowers suddenly showing up on his doorstep?) furthermore, proceeds can go to charity funds - again this is a form of 'suffering for the injustice in a way which benefits the unfortunate/under-privileged in society [a huge effect is that our protest is comingled with aid for the poor, so our attentions can never waiver into protests for protests' sake]
  
• for every illegitimate arrest made, can X amount of money be withdrawn from MayBank (or some other government-supported financial institution)and channeled to a pro-Pakatan NGO? or into a Tabung for the families of the imprisoned? Similar action can be applied to government-supported restaurants, tour companies, insurance companies, hotels, media, etc. [the point is that illegitimate action starts to beget self-damaging consequences for the ones in power]
  
• for every instance of brute-force, can 1 million "We-Forgive-You-Because-You-Can-Change" emails be spammed to all members of the parliament? [this would be 'forceful' without being 'rude']
  
• for every Pakatan MP ousted draconianly (e.g. Gorbind Singh), can we employ our global connections to ensure that all Malaysian embassies abroad receive something like the above?

Likewise, what can be done as gentle form of protest which IN ITSELF is fruitful? Instead of wearing black (which unfortunately doesn't 'help' society all that much), how about:

• "Recycle for Justice" programs?
• "Plant a Righteous Tree" projects?
• "Feed the Hungry to Starve Oppression" campaigns?
• "Lights Off to Dim Corruption" initiatives?

This way the acts themselves serve as salt for the earth and aren't MERELY acts of protest. Also, organisations like Malaysian Care and World Vision can be easily roped in.

Note that the above has to be consistent with the principle of creative peace-making and radical reconciliation posted earlier. These ideas are a way of BOTH voicing our dissent towards political injustice AND blessing our communities WITHOUT making dissent the virtual be-all and end-all of our efforts.

A Politics of Creative Peace-Making & Radical Reconciliation

(Go here for Part 2)

I wish to offer an analysis of what’s cool and not-so-cool about our present advocacy movement, after which I’d like to submit some action-alternatives.

Here goes. What’s FANTASTIC about the present civil / activist / Opposition movement?

• Its passion for justice and righteousness
• Its giving a voice to the oppressed, marginalized, prisoners, etc.
• Its call for Malaysia (and churches) to ‘wake up’, not be indifferent but to be cognizant of the reality of political darkness
• Its creative use of the media and events to generate conversation and raise awareness
• Its holding the government accountable
  

Next, what are the strongest points of CAUTION about the involvement of Christians within this movement? IMO, its the tendency to identify the Church’s missional calling for justice with that of Pakatan Rakyat, all of which leads to:

• A minimizing of cruciformed ways of approaching politics and power (the cross of Jesus – i.e. the Son of God up against the full force of human politics – is silenced and rendered almost irrelevant in the discussion)
• A questionable use of shaming / ridiculing / rhetorical / condemning tactics against the incumbent government i.e. a tacit identification of a high ‘smear index’ with transformational potential
• A movement publicly defined and recognised by reactive protest and anger (not much else, regardless of the actual written manifestos)
• A never-ending sense of victimization and frustration created by the all-encompassing focus on the crimes of the incumbent government (none of which helps the ‘vicious cycle’ emerging in Malaysian politics)
• A sense of alienation between Christians on both sides (a Christian voting BN has coffee with a Christian voting PR - what do they talk about?)

What follows are ideas and suggestions towards reversing the problematic points WITHOUT affecting the great stuff. I have to emphasize that I'm writing primarily to Christians (or those who believe that the message of the Bible should guide our lives and communities).

The below is thus an elaboration of ideas I previously presented at the Revolution of Hope (ROH) conference, grouped along four themes:

1. Creative Peace-Making / Radical Reconciliation
2. Automatic-Stabilising / ‘Productive Protesting’
3. Relationship-Building (forthcoming)
4. Clarity and Primacy of a New Vision (forthcoming)
   

A. Creative Peace-Making / Radical Reconciliation

“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:17-21)

“Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you…If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?” (Matthew 5:44-46)

• Let the FIRST AND LAST WORDS out of our mouths be full of respect and kindness even in the face of oppression
  
• Since we expect the police and authorities to do over-the-top things, instead of preparing to ridicule them, we should plan in advance to creatively communicate a message of hope, forgiveness and reconciliation; this necessarily requires TRAINING and DISCIPLINE as it’s “only human” to retaliate when slapped
  
• Leaders and participants can decide BEFOREHAND to balance comments about forgiveness and care with comments of disagreement and dissent ; with the goal that even the mainstream media begins to see and report a ‘difference’
• Leaders can regularly preach forgiveness and the dignity of all ( i.e. state clearly whilst they decry the unjustified arrests, they also care about the integrity and dignity of the police and for that reason civil enforcement should be reformed
  
• Perhaps - in addition to candles - virgils can include refreshments and cakes for the police? Perhaps - in addition to the colour of mourning - we can wear the colours of hope?
  
• Events can be organized to redefine political ‘strength’ as not merely the ability to ‘stand up’ against bad guys but to do what the bad guys cannot do i.e. actively seek reconciliation
  
• Blogs, twitters, and media should be used to nurture communities of forgiveness, support and reconciliation, NOT create demanding communities of condemnation, un-forgiveness and sarcasm (Eph 4:26!)
  
• We can plot events of gentle "protest without protest" which look hard for the good in people, even the ‘bad guys’ (e.g. on May 13^th every pro-PKR supporter should say one good/kind word to a BN person or a policeman or an FRU member, and make that a movement)
  

The ultimate goal is to slowly create a change of heart in members, to point to a better (albeit more unnatural) way of protesting, to ‘release’ PR from the sense of victimization (i.e. instead of seeing FRU-like action as shameful obstacles, they see it as ‘raw material’ for even GREATER manifestations of human solidarity / reconciliation).


As per Martin Luther King, Jr.'s message to the whites who were lynching his people and treat the blacks as sub-humans:

"We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you.”

I would like to BEG that even if you find any of the specific points above 'non-sensical' (or even an affront to the whole purpose of the advocacy movement) that you at least CONSIDER the 'heart' of the proposals (please take a look at the Cross before you object and ask yourself if it's at ALL 'relevant' to politics and how it should/must be).

If you are someone actively involved in the advocacy movement, then - unlike me - you can do so much more with the above. What's best is if you can use your own creativity to come up with like-spirited ideas.

To rephrase another famous sermon extract of King, Jr.: “If you will protest courageously, and yet with dignity and Christian love…historians will say, ‘There lived a great party – Pakatan Rakyat! – who injected new dignity into the veins of Malaysian civilisation.”

Throwbacks / Objections (to be addressed forthcoming posts):

1. What about the victims? Doesn’t the ‘love-your-enemy’ approach dis-empower our voices? You do not tell an abused wife to ‘love her husband’, do you?
   
2. The Opposition movement is a mix of Christian and non-Christian members – to insist on this approach might create confusion/alienation, etc.
3. In the book of Revelations, John calls Rome a 'beast' - doesn't this show that harsh words by Christians against oppressive governments are fine?
4. What about 'prophetic action' (and didn't Jesus fire away at the Pharisees, too?!) and wouldn't your recommendations mitigate against that?

The Vicious Cycle of Malaysian Politics, Pt.2

Ruckus and chaos reigned at the Perak State Assembly. I'm sure we'll be reading and seeing more of it.

Whilst my emotions are somewhat arrested by the fact that the newborn son of some good friends is battling high fever at Pantai Hospital as I write, I can't deny a sense of sorrow as I read Facebook conversations, the Malaysiakini reports, the mainstream media and so on.

So there we had it all again:

1. BN flexes muscles


2. Opposition protests, shouts patriotic slogans, expresses 'surprise' and 'shock' at injustice being done, etc.


3. Police arrests protesters, more BN muscle flexed


4. Pro-opposition folks decry arrests and expresses 'omigosh' at how bad things are


5. Police arrests more folks and (even) some prominent Opposition members


6. Pro-opposition folks shout louder, exalt any Opp member who challenges the authorities, ridicule authorities, protest more at injustice


7. Mainstream media highlights points in favour of BN, every other kind of media expresses shame and anger at the government; both parties blame/condemn/ridicule each other


8. Ad infinitum...so the cycle goes on and on (for the world to see, even)

Does anyone else notice the cycle? Do Malaysians want it to stop? Assuming we do NOT wish it to continue, do we truly want alternatives? (I think it's necessary to ASK if alternatives are sincerely sought after, because I have a strong suspicion this isn't the case...)

Or are we content to continue doing things the way they've always been done, simply because we can't "let the bad guys get away with their crimes"?

For the past quarter of a year, the state of Perak has been paralysed because two parties have refused to either admit any wrong-doing or cooperate on a peaceful solution, both claiming the legal high-ground, both hurling accusations at each other.

So much energy, passion and resources. Devoted to continuing the cycle. For that, I'm ashamed.

The Vicious Cycle of Malaysian Politics

Four thoughts:

1. If 19 out of 20 comments we make about the government, the police, the authorities, etc. are negative, rhetorical, filled with guilt-finding and betray a 'hermeneutic of accusation', why would we be surprised if they reacted with more violence, more guilt, more oppression (which further fuels our condemnation, spurring them to crackdown on our protests, thus creating a never-ending spiral)? If we're aware of this vicious cycle, dare we play a role in stopping it?

2. If we TAKE DELIGHT at catching 'bad guys' at their worst, then wouldn't it be poetical that they will behave in a way which best 'delights' us? Since their notoriety drives so much of our conversation and media content, we should ask ourselves if we really want them to change(?), for wouldn't that be unbearable? (What else could we talk about if not their crimes?)

3. We either believe people can change or we don't. If we believe the 'bad guys' CAN change, do our words and actions reflect this? How could they reflect it more? Have we told and encouraged them that we believe in them? On the other hand, if we believe they CAN'T change, then why keep flogging a dead horse? Or does the flogging give the illusion of civil empowerment?

4. We can EITHER a) nurture the victim's capacity to imaginatively use all of his resources and will-power to overcome the situation and (maybe) even gain an extraordinary compassion for his oppressor OR b) focus exclusively on the fact and nature of the oppression (which may be the worst form of victimisation as it 'surrenders' power to the oppressor, paralysing alternatives other than expecting him to change).

We can't do both.

As A Country

My aisle-seat co-flyer made this remark to me on the way back from Penang a few weeks ago. We were talking politics and government and he mentioned, in some semi-theological way, that whoever's in the hot seat will ultimately represent what we, the Malaysian people, want.

No matter how many people fire away at the present administration, the present Cabinet depicts us. No matter how many vote for the Opposition, whatever majority the government has is a mandate given by the entire nation. No matter what our civil grouses, our MPs' are an extension of who we are.

Consider the objections:

• "Money politics rule the day" - but this only underscores the fact that politicians cannot win without the business community, and who would the country's industries rely on? Not its voting / consuming public? (Raja Petra Kamarudin makes a similar, if more bombastic, point!) 
  

• "Incumbents still win because the rural, 'less-educated' or mainstream-media influenced people are still voting for them" - but hmm doesn't this sound like an insult? "You only vote X because X has blinded you to its corruption"; are we suggesting that the majority of voters cannot think for themselves? Or, worse still, are we saying that to support the incumbent is a sign of _________ {fill in your favourite political putdown}? Or could it reflect an ungenerous lack of imagination in that we cannot fathom how a politically informed and civil-minded person (let alone good Christians!) could ever vote contrary to the party we'd select?

In a word, isn't it simpler and truer to say that our leaders are there because we AS A COUNTRY (warts and all) want them to be there?

I would actually say: Not quite so simple. But nevertheless, the issue is still worth exploring, especially in line with the idea of a "thinking public" (a term someone introduced to me today, ostensibly referring to those who 'know' how manipulative and controlling the ones in power are - as opposed to the "non-thinking" public which doesn't?).

A/(S)hamed But Forgiven (Concluding Thoughts to 'Hidden Cameras')

It's surely safe to conclude that Elizabeth Wong was a victim of political manipulation. Against such tactics, all should take a firm stand. The body (both male and female) cannot - in Jojo Fung's words - be a battleground for political power. Part and parcel of a life lived abundantly has to be the sacralisation and guarding of personal privacy against malicious forces.

Having said that, even Wong's most ardent defenders cannot deny the partisan influences on their views and outrage. Hence, the absence of a similar intensity when condemning (if at all) those who filmed Chua Soi Lek in secret.

Whilst I personally don't think there's anything immoral preferring one political party over another (to me it's like preferring Manchester United over Chelsea - a deeply passionate affair, I know), I think too often the selectivity of our judgments betray the unevenness of our standards, easily inviting the arbitrary.

Secondly, the Wong affair further establishes the permeability of that hairline between public and private life. For someone of Wong's stature, this incident was a painful reminder that private life for high-profile individuals is a function of what the media does not know i.e. everything is potentially public. The cost of political status is a reduction of the private into the public sphere, from nothing so burdensome as a cam's click.

In light of this, barring the presence of photographs, the mere fact that Wong had a relationship with a married Muslim man constitute a ticking political PR bomb (not least in a place like Malaysia!). At the risk of sounding a hundred degrees below zero, PKR and Wong herself should've been more careful (or did they doubt such tactics may be employed?).

Thirdly, consistency requires me to say that if I've got a problem with my daughter (who professes Christ as Lord) seeing a married Muslim, then I can't say I'll be happily disinterested if my MP with a like profession is doing likewise. What I'm saying is that Jesus' firm (albeit tender-hearted and mercy-filled) admonishment, "Go and sin no more", is a consideration my conscience ignores in vain.

Is the idea of absolutes in sexuality taboo in our time and age? Are Biblically-oriented sexual norms anachronistic? I would imagine, given the pervasiveness of hidden cams, the volatility of the human creature (this 'mortal coil', all credit to Sharon Bong for this Shakespearean dash) and the importance of human dignity, sexual absolutes become all the more absolutely critical.

Elizabeth Wong was wronged - let's be clear on that. And yet there would've been no problem at all had that particular relationship not existed or another less questionable one been in place. Consider: Nobody (with a clear political motive) condemned the photographs per se. It was the illicitness implied by the pictures which called forth the storm.

Has her body been used as a pawn on a devious chess game? Yes. Those who cast stones (and even those who cast at the casters) need to look at the mirror of their own hearts. But, more than ever, so does Wong herself - and anyone seeking a healthy sexuality in (possibly) the wrong places. (Notice that the idea of a 'wrong' presupposes an exclusive kind of rightness, but if all forms of sexuality are right this implies no chance of trespass - which in turn renders all manner of trespass dangerously possible).

Following on this Christian perspective (and yes I know I've betrayed my norms), the key to enriching the public/private divide remains, if I may humbly submit, with that good'ol Biblical notion of love. As with the New Testament case-study on eating food sacrificed to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8), the private practice of eating has to be subordinated to the public concern with ensuring that our brothers 'do not stumble'.

For all potential Eli Wongs' (and this would include leaders of all stripes), this could be worth bearing in mind. It's not entirely about what we want to do with our lives; it's also of how those who love us and need us are nurtured by the way our lives are conducted.

Morality (public and private) must be determined by a godly agape care for one another. The community treats the individual lovingly, the individual behaves/responds in kind and the synergy escalates and, like the spirit all round, thrives.

When an individual loves only himself and values his freedom over the sensitivities of the people, immorality - almost by definition - is slowly birthed. But when a community, via its leaders, decides to tightly fortress the proclivities and desires of men and women, seeking its gains to the extent of the welfare of individuals, then fascism reigns.

(Having said this, one wonders if it's meaningful to speak of a community gone overboard with policing/control without highlighting the autocratic tendencies of key individual leaders. Doesn't the immorality of the many boil down to that of the few?)

I wish to end by saying, that in true Christian community fashion, we need to reach out to victims like Wong, restore them back to unashamed wholeness and by doing so tell those still holding stones that we are a forgiven and forgiving people on account of a cruci-shamed Forgiver God not shy to call us His friends.

Hence, we're once ashamed but never more.

Flashing the Feminist Finger (Shamed But Not Ashamed, Pt.3)

In my view, Sharon Bong (a feminist and literary expert) gave the best presentation of the day. It dealt with a sensitive / scandalous theme in a way which forced her listeners to question their own assumptions about what was 'basic' and 'natural'. I've no ingrained affinity for feminism, but when someone can both hint at polarities and abuses of power and challenge cherished traditional cores, my ears (naturally) perk up.

Quoting from Martha Nussbaum's Hiding From Humanity, Bong first discussed the idea of public shaming: Why do people get a 'rush' from this? Why have our communities believed in, and thus propagate, its use?

Bong then shared her personal experiences about being a prefect in school and how the school authorities publicly caned a student who littered and made her wear a 'litter-bug' plaque.

She also listed the impact of the public shaming of sex offenders: the erode human dignity, create divisions and promote branding (not in the glamourous Marketing sense but in the ugly caste-like sense) and entrench social hierarchies.

At this point, I suppose almost everyone was nodding. We were tacitly all in agreement that 'public shaming is bad'. But hang on: How many of us feel that V.K. Lingam was not shamed enough? How many of us have cracked cute one-liners about our DPM's (alleged) back-door sexual preferences (and are hoping for more lurid details)? How many of us would LOVE to see certain members of the incumbent government publicly shamed? Or can we draw a fine line between 'illegitimate shaming' (master-minded by political leaders) and 'necessary exposés' (performed by subversive writers)?

And as Andrew Khoo remarked later, why the surge of anger when Elizabeth Wong was shamed but less so in the case of Chua Soi Lek's cam-corded romp in a hotel room? The elephant(s) in the room are that i. Chua was a member of the incumbent government and Wong was from the Opposition and ii. Chua was a man, Wong a woman. (I'll be straight-up here and say that's how I felt about it emotionally. Yes, it disturbs me).

Quite unexpectedly, Bong then suggested that the phenomenon of the single women in charge of sexuality was a threat to our male-dominated society. Why? Because it subverts traditional views of family and marriage with all the phallocentric(?) biases that these institutions reflect. The sexually active single woman, in a word, was a walking flashing feminist finger to male power.

How this 'plays out' in the case of Elizabeth Wong is uncertain yet (because of that?) bizarre: Does Bong mean to say that Wong's condemnation by the BN was in part a reflection of our male-dominated society striking a blow for traditional family values? Now, isn't that exactly what the likes of Toyo were saying? But would this mean that those of us who opposed Wong's condemnation are (somehow) against traditional family values?!

The plot thickens.

Throughout it was clear that Bong was making a hard pitch for the sexually marginalised. She half-challenged Wong defenders if they would've remained so if

• Wong's photographs were taken with her consent
• Wong did not have a good track record as a politician and
• Wong was gay.
  

This, really, was to make us question the extent of our commitment to victims of public shaming and condemnation and how this commitment was bounded by our views of what's sexually acceptable, 'normal' and so on.

The recent episodes of OuYang Wen Feng, pastor of Malaysia's first openly gay church and trans-sexual Jessie Chung could prove insightful in examining the consistency and dependencies of our judgments. How would we feel if they were to say that, despite all the condemnations they've received (especially from traditional Christians and Muslims), that they too were 'shamed but not ashamed'?

Next - Andrew Khoo (or go to start of series).