Latest on use of word "Allah"

If a Malaysian High Court ruling stands, Roman Catholics here can resume using the word "Allah" as their translation for God in their local language.

The court on New Year's Eve overturned a three-year-old government ban that prevented the Catholic Church from using the term Allah in its literature. The Arabic word has been used by various faiths in this Muslim-majority nation for centuries, and the church argues that it is the only suitable way to denote God in the Malay language.

Read the whole thing.

Litany of complaints

I was at a dinner tonight, and as is fairly common at such occasions, conversation soon turned towards the injustice located in the structures of Malaysian society. There was the litany of complaints directed at our education system, corrupt bureaucracy and so on.

I've been thinking about why I usually feel a little uncomfortable whenever the floodgates open. OK, so part of it is probably that by nature, I'm not a happy bunny when it comes to conflict. I like the still waters, not the grand rapids, thank you very much. Maybe I'm guilty of apathy. But I do believe that to pretend that all is well, to be tidak apa about the wrongs that the innocent suffer, the way that so many crooks seem to get away with their abuse of power, is wrong, plain and simple. It's also probably fair to say that in context, the 2008 political tsunami notwithstanding, such talk arises perhaps because there is a feeling that we need to be woken up from our general malaise. We can't maintain the status quo forever. So such conversations are full of heat and light.

And yet. Here are a few reasons why I feel unsettled whenever such talk occurs among Christians (btw, this isn't necessarily true of tonight's conversations; they simply sparked the thought):

1. These conversations sometimes have the whiff of self-righteousness around them. Look at how rubbish everything else is. It's as if the taint of sin has affected everything and everyone apart from the one pontificating away. We feel justified by the way we remain above the fray. The purity of our motives. Surely there must be a humbler way to express our anger and sadness at the way the current system is broken.

2. These conversations are often tinged with cynicism. Things will always be this way. It's better to send our children away. I'm like, whatever happened to God bringing all things in heaven and earth under Christ? Whatever happened to God putting the world to rights? Maybe again, by nature, I'm an idealist, a romantic, a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy, but it seems to me that Christians have the gospel - good news - the good news that shouts "Jesus is the crucified King!" and calls on us to turn from sin to the living God. And that should shape our responses to injustice.

3. These conversations lose sight of God. My immediate point above suggests that sometimes we act more like fatalists than theists. We forget God is on the throne. He does care about what goes on in his world, not just churchy things. He can effect change, and he loves to use his people to do it. And although contemporary Christianity sometimes shun the image of God as judge, it's actually good news, because it reveals our God is just; the bad guys aren't gonna get away with it. But our God is a merciful God as well. And this is great news, because to our horror, we discover that actually, we are more like those we condemn than we care to admit. We too are in need of mercy, and in view of God's mercy, we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, not the other way around.

O Lord, the next time we are tempted to recite from the Book of Common Complaints, help us to remember instead the Lord's Prayer. For there we find nourishment in remembering who our Father is, strength as we ask for his kingdom to come, and humility as we acknowledge our need for forgiveness. Then maybe we can go out into the world and shine like stars in the universe, as we hold out the word of life.

Myth-busting

Unsurprisingly, quite a few introspective "state of the nation" pieces coming out.

There's an outsider's perspective, from a decidedly secularist viewpoint: The myth of a moderate Malaysia, originally published in Forbes. I get the sense that the piece is more about his larger point that religion is best subordinated to modernity, with Malaysia as his prime example, rather than Malaysia itself. But it's an interesting piece nevertheless, since it probably is representative of the beliefs of many of the urban, upper-middle class, Malaysiakini-reading segment.

Another myth to come under attack is that of the monolithic community. This is a piece I'm generally happy to agree with.

I've also gone back to read my post from over a year ago - Race meets the Malaysian church, in conversation with my friend WN, who incidentally is trying to think through what it means to be a citizen at the moment over at his blog. And I don't think there's anything I'll change from that post.

Religion and the public square at Veritas

I was at the Veritas Forum at Oxford University on Thursday Night. I very nearly didn't go, as I was quite tired and I knew I had a pretty full Friday coming up. But I didn't really want to let my inviter down, and besides, the topic was a good one: the role of religion in the public square. The speakers were Rabbi Dr Naftali Brawer, Head of Jewish-Muslim Relations for the Chief Rabbi of the U.K., Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who's currently at the forefront of the debates regarding the future of the Anglican Communion, and Professor Tariq Ramadan, who teaches at the University of Oxford and whom you see regularly quoted in the (British) media.

As you can imagine, the debate was pitched at a pretty high-level, and it took supreme effort on my part to concentrate. I didn't take any notes either, so I'm afraid there won't be any blow-by-blow account of the evening here! But it was certainly interesting. I was especially intrigued by Tariq Ramadan. His opening statement (all the speakers were given 5 minutes to make one) was essentially a lecture in hermeneutics, where he went on for a little bit about the need for context. He also distinguished between two authorities - here I lost him a little because either he was mumbling or my seating position wasn't great for the acoustics - but it seemed to me like he endorsed some version of a public/private split. I can't remember the exact phrase now, but he did have some pithy statement on the relationship between principles and ethics; basically, he defended his right to believe while accepting the need to negotiate with rival traditions in the public square.

But his biggest point, which he repeated throughout the evening, was the need to be consistent with one's own values. And after setting such a high standard for himself, he failed to meet it, it seemed to me. On the one hand, he would uphold "universal values" such as equality, but on the other hand, he would revert to some form of social constructivism at points. The other thing I struggled with was figuring out how distinctively Islamic Professor Ramadan's position was. I knew he belonged to the reformist camp within Islam, but I don't remember him quoting the Quran even once, or using Islamic doctrine as a springboard, although Bishop Nazir-Ali, more than once, invited him to do so. In some ways, I almost wonder if his views could have come from a secularist, although that's probably overstating it, and I'm sure Professor Ramadan would insist he is working within an Islamic framework. For him, the thing most needed in the Muslim world was simply more education. By contrast, both Bishop Nazir-Ali and Rabbi Dr. Brawer were not afraid to use the Torah/Talmud and the Bible as sources for their reflections, as they should. I don't think I was the only one who thought so, during the Q&A, a Muslim student in the audience challenged Professor Ramadan to show how his views were part of mainstream Islamic thought. (Obviously, I have insufficient knowledge to make a judgment).

Dr. Brawer was arguably the clearest of the speakers, but also the least interesting, as he didn't really say all that much. Bishop Nazir-Ali, I thought, acquitted himself pretty well. Although there was a point in the discussion where it was all about just war, and I wasn't sure if that was just a tangent. Towards the end of the evening, we got an especially sharp disagreement on what constituted "Judeo-Christian tradition" and its impact on European civilisation. Professor Ramadan insisted that the contribution of Islam to Europe must not be overlooked, whereas Bishop Nazir-Ali defended the Judeo-Christian tradition as necessary to provide the necessary undergirdings for Europe as they cope with the challenges of the future. To put it another way, Bishop Nazir-Ali thinks that we need a Judeo-Christian foundation if we want an increasingly plural society to remain inclusive. (Nazir-Ali had earlier made a distinction between civic and religious pluralism, which I think is an important one)

Like I said, it was a sprawling discussion, and certainly quite academic, so I'm not even sure if I represented anyone fairly! But this continues to be an important topic, especially as mainstream commentators are beginning to recognise that God is back on the agenda.



† Expand post

New Cabinet

The Malaysian Insider has a breakdown of Prime Minister Najib's new cabinet.

Political analyst Khoo Kay Peng says elsewhere that it lacks the wow factor, but truth be told, it was hard to see how Najib could ever find that elusive magic wand. Unless he installed lots of unknowns, but he would probably have ended up with a "what?!" factor instead. Or invited PAS to form some sort of unity government (joke!!!). I wonder if there's a bit of a talent gap in the next generation of politicians? The Cabinet could definitely be trimmed some more - I've always been baffled by the existence of the Federal Territories Ministry.

All in all, nothing all that surprising. We haven't seen the end of the aftershocks from the political tsunami of March 8 just yet.

...and a note on Perak...

Certainly a low point in Malaysian politics.

No more Obamamania

I think Obama is going to win. He was always going to be the favourite, and I was convinced he would be Bush's successor a month ago, where I just didn't see anything other than some out-of-the-blue event which could inspire a McCain comeback.

Which is fine. I don't really know if I would have voted for him or not, but I think Obama is a decent man and for all his inexperience at executive level, he seems capable enough to me, even if I can't endorse his pro-choice stand. That he is the first black man to become US president should be applauded. And I'm not an American citizen, so in one sense it doesn't matter.

For me, the only tiresome thing about this election is the hyperbolic rhetoric used throughout. It's as if the fate of the entire world hinges on whether Obama gets elected or not (be it the redemption or end of civilization as we know it, depending on which side you're on). Please, people, have some perspective.

I would have preferred it if more people simply said things the way these two have. Obama, like all government leaders, needs prayer, and we know that God works good in all things. God, remember him?

Pick-a-veep!

This made me laugh.

After my deep and wide-ranging survey of the political landscape, which took all of 5 seconds, I think Obama should pick either Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

For McCain, I think Condi Rice is the most capable, but she suffers from being too closely tied to the Bush administration.

Live from the Dewan Rakyat

Part of the parliamentary sessions are being broadcast live for the first time in Malaysian history. Here's the first 10 minutes from yesterday's proceedings. It doesn't quite have the sharp verbal barbs often exchanged in other leaked Youtube videos of the Dewan - it's pretty sedate actually - but it's nice to know that our Parliament isn't always the Malaysian version of the WWE!



There's also a new Malaysian Christian initiative for public interest advocacy:
The Micah Mandate

Blurb from their website:
The MICAH MANDATE website is the result of the concerns and aspirations of a group of Christians who are praying that all Malaysians in general and Christian Malaysians in particular will be more constructively engaged in matters of social conscience, public service and nation building rather than to only remain in comfortable armchairs criticising other people and institutions. Actual involvement will better shape and clarify our thinking and our doing. In the process, we will meet and relate with others of all walks of life and learn to live and work together to build a better neighbourhood and a better world. (FAQ)

Race meets the Malaysian church

[Context: This is an edited version of a piece in which I interact fairly extensively with my friend Wai Nyan’s reflections on race-based politics. In it I attempt to modify some aspects and build upon his post and in doing so hope to encourage all of us to reflect more on the subject. This post makes no pretence at being definitive or exhaustive, not that I could do that anyway. Wai Nyan has seen an earlier draft, and encouraged me to put it online. Blame him. :-p]

My friend Wai Nyan asks the question, ‘Is race-based politics dying?’ and offers a few brief reflections. I suspect that his reflections are shaped by a desire to respond to those “who say that race-based politics should be eliminated but in the very same sentence, mock the Malays...” and those of similar attitudes. Therefore, his intended audience and purpose is quite different from mine; where he sought generally to correct, I was looking for further elucidation. That needs to be taken into account: writing a disciplinary report to the parents of the naughty kid in your class is obviously different from writing an extended essay for your college professor! So I was looking for some nuance in a post that was not necessarily meant to be read that way.

WN’s post reminded me of a D.A Carson piece where he reflects on racism with reference to the church in particular, and I managed to track it down and reread it. Five Steps for Reconciliation on Sunday at 11 a.m, adapted from chapter 4 of his book Love in Hard Places, represents Carson at his best. He suggests five things we need to keep in mind:

1. Know the history of the problem
   
2. Recognise our mutual culpability
   
3. Consider your church’s neighbourhood
   
4. Consider the real gospel tensions
   
5. Think biblically and theologically

On history and terminology
I want to use Carson’s suggestions as a jumping-off point. I think that first of all, to "know the history of the problem" is to know a little about the word 'race' itself. When we use the word, we normally mean a particular grouping of people based on certain physical characteristics, shared culture and perhaps also area of geographical origin. However, sometimes people go beyond that, and link these inherited physical characteristics to inherited moral, intellectual or behavourial qualities. This is certainly true historically: the history of colonialism reveals that frequent distinctions between the "civilized" and the "barbarians" were often made with these assumptions in mind. Antisemitism is another obvious example. I’m no expert, but as far as I can tell, no respectable geneticist today will tell you that there is an inherent link between “race” and genes. That sounds weird to our ears at first – surely Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Lin Dan are completely different? It is true that their body shapes, hair and so on are different, and that this is based genetically. Nevertheless, it is only a very small part of us. The mix of melanin, the substance that controls our skin colour, is tiny, and everyone has the same genes that control skin colour! Caucasians could in theory be as dark-skinned as Africans. (I remember first reading about this as a kid in the Bookworm series from Singapore and being very tickled about it). It turns out that a tall person and a short person is probably more different genetically than a Malay and Chinese of equal height.

Does that mean 'race' doesn’t exist? No, we can still talk of race, but we just can’t ground it in purely biological terms. Rather, we use it as a convenient way to classify complex groupings of people with shared physical appearances, cultures, ancestry et al., and all this is bound up with questions of religion and geographical location and so on. It can be very difficult, even impossible to clarify where the exact boundaries are. Where do we draw the line where somebody belongs to a certain race and not the other (or when one qualifies as “mixed”)? The recent blooper where the Chief Minister of Perak mistakenly referred to Sikhs as Bengalis neatly illustrates this, and also shows the very real hurt feelings that can arise.

Generally, we do need to think more about what we mean by 'race', and particularly because it is relevant to, if only in a tiny part, "knowing the history of the problem" in Malaysia. In 1970, Tun Dr. Mahathir, the strongman of Malaysian politics, wrote The Malay Dilemma, where he, among other things, lamented the racial inferiority of the Malays and explicitly linked it with defective genes. This is just not a tenable position. There were also places in the book where he framed the discussion in terms of competition with other races. I don’t know if Dr. M would still defend those views in 2008, or how influential the book continues to be today, but there was no doubt that his book had a significant impact on the psyche of the Malays then and has helped frame the discussion not in altogether helpful ways.

Of course, Dr. M was also building on racial stereotypes inherited from our colonial masters and earlier intellectuals who depicted the Malays as an indolent people. The colonial administrators also played the divide-and-rule game and helped create a racially segregated society and also boosted a collective identity among various people groupings. It is also helpful to remember that as Malaya, which was already populated by various peoples, began to move towards independence, communal groupings were formed – UMNO, MCA etc. – and when they banded together as the “Alliance”, the predecessor of today’s BN, they faced the paradox of appealing to communalist sentiments to pander to their various bases while at the same time trying to present a united front, downplaying perceived threats from the other communities.

Now this is only a very small representation of the various complicated issues at hand. I am actually very reluctant to comment at length because I am quite aware of my own ignorance of these issues. All I really want to show is that it’s really important to try to understand why the situation as it exists today comes about. It’s also why I want to quibble slightly with some of the ways WN frames his discussion. I’m not sure, for instance, if it follows that identifying simply with the phrase “I am Malaysian” leads to CNY, Deepavali or Hari Raya being discarded or our various ancestral histories etc. being disposed of (if that was even possible). I get that this is a rhetorical strategy on his part to show two extreme positions – one where we merely emphasise our lot with no care for others and one where there is a flattening out of diversity, before he goes on to chart a better third way: love. I agree with the rejection of these two positions and the third way, and hopefully this will be evident later on this post.

But I think how we speak of these positions are important. Here, I would prefer to talk in terms of cultures or ethnicities – diverse cultures do exist, and they can all exist under the rubric: “I am Malaysian”. This might sound like mere semantics, but I don’t think so. I feel that we just cannot be loose with our talk if we are to challenge erroneous assumptions about race. Malaysia is a place of cultural diversity, and we can be thankful for that. And we do need to talk about problems of race and racism, as WN acknowledges. But WN implicitly ties CNY, Deepavali and Hari Raya with notions of racial essence, by suggesting that a singular “Malaysian race” means that these celebrations become a thing of the past. But Deepavali and Hari Raya are religious festivals which are celebrated by all kinds of people groups all over the world! True, the socio-cultural conditions in Malaysia are such that to be Malay is to be Muslim, and to be Indian is (mostly) to be Hindu, but this is not a link that is set in stone the way, say, being right or left-handed is. So I would have preferred him to use different terminology or examples.

Carson suggests that we also ought to "recognise our mutual culpability", by which he means that we need to acknowledge that racism often comes from both sides of the divide. WN rightly draws our attention to our hidden racism here; we, whatever colour we are, alll too easily often cast ourselves as collective victims. Yet we all have been guilty of perpetuating the problem at some point. Although he is addressing the black/white divide in America, Carson’s words have applicability cross-culturally and are worth quoting at length here:

" True, slavery is the sin of the powerful, not the weak; and very often racism follows the same pattern. But if racism is defined in terms of exclusion, then racism occurs wherever anyone is dismissed or disowned or demeaned or stereotyped for no other reason than his or her race or ethnicity. Doubtless many white racists think that African-Americans are intrinsically prone to violence, not too bright, and more of the same; but many an African-American finds it hard to imagine that "Whitey" can ever be trusted or should ever be given the benefit of the doubt. It may be useful to draw an analogy. If materialism is the exclusive sin of the rich, then only rich people can be materialistic. But if materialism is the passionate love of material goods, such that God himself is deposed, then poor people may be as horribly materialistic as the rich."

Continued (part 2)


† Expand post

Two books

Some amateur jottings on two recently read books...

The Wondrous Cross, Stephen Holmes

Holmes is both a Baptist pastor and lecturer at the University of St. Andrews, and has been labelled as one of the most thoughtful young British theologians by others. Using recent debates regarding the atonement in the UK as a starting point, Holmes defends penal substitution but argues that we need many complementary descriptions to describe salvation, or as Scot McKnight has put it elsewhere, "stories of the Story". As such, his book reads more like positive statement rather than a defensive reaction, although he does not shirk from engaging various objections to a penal substitutionary understanding of the cross.

Written for the layperson and a model of brevity at only 130 pages, Holmes starts by reviewing the biblical material on the cross in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, before moving on to how the atonement has been viewed throughout history. He then paints a mutifaceted view of the cross before defending the "story" or "metaphor" of penal substitution, and ending with how we should speak of and live under the cross.

There is a lot to like in this book. Its length means that it is not offputting to the average churchgoer, and Holmes is like a patient, laidback teacher with no axe to grind. He is also very restrained in many of his conclusions (sometimes too restrained!), frequently showing how the language of the Bible and of the early church fathers lead to the ways we can understand the cross without necessarily being over-dogmatic about it. Holmes is not afraid to invoke "mystery" and his overriding concern is finally, to move us to worship rather than complete understanding (although he does not pit the two against the other). His emphasis on the many stories/models/metaphors of the cross is to be welcomed as there is some grain of truth in the charge that some evangelicals emphasise penal substitution to the exclusion of other models. Other highlights include his dismantling of the common myth that the tradition of penal substitution started with Anselm and his discussion of God's identification with us.

Its very brevity can also be a weakness however. His 2 chapters on the biblical text often leaves the reader wanting more. And while he explains that he leaves out references because the book is for a general audience (i.e people like me!), it means that one has to take his word for it in the historical section. Finally, Holmes argues that the story of penal substitution needs to take a backseat in today's culture, which has largely lost any notion of sin and guilt. This is a wrong move, I think, whereby the surrounding culture has been allowed to take the upper hand over the biblical material. The images Scripture uses of the cross are surely not arbitrary and cannot be so easily tossed aside in the name of contextualization, for losing the story of penal substitution could have distorting effects on the other stories. He is surely right in his reading of today's culture, but I think the right move therefore is not so much to relegate penal substitution to the periphery, but to find creative ways to express this afresh, as well as to interweave it with the other stories. (See for eg., Romans 3:21-26 and Colossians 2:13-15)

Nonetheless, this is an ideal book for many who have perhaps vaguely heard and been disturbed by some of the discontented rumblings over the atonement in recent years. I will also continue to recommend Mark Meynell's Cross-Examined as the best introductory book on the cross.


Evangelicals in the Public Square, J. Budziszewski

J. Budziszewski, a well-regarded professor of government and philosophy and also known to many as Professor Theophilus (formerly of Boundless, now at TrueU), examines evangelical political thought in the 20th century through 4 key exponents: Carl Henry, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer and John Howard Yoder. His main task is to open the door for more sustained reflection on a specifically evangelical political thought. This is followed by rejoinders by four scholars, each of whose area of expertise is on one of the four men above.

Budzizewski starts off with an opening chapter where he outlines the distinctives of an "evangelical" political theory. All political theories must satisfy the criteria of having an orienting doctrine (a guide to thought), a practical doctrine (a guide to action) and a cultural apologetics (a guide to persuasion). He then gives us some principles derived from the Bible, before noting that Scripture does not give us a comprehensive doctrine of politics. As such, he argues, this needs to be augmented by an understanding of general revelation and natural law.

He then provides an overview of the thought of the four aforementioned thinkers, showing where he agrees and appreciates them and then critiquing them, often from a specifically "natural law" perspective. As I do not have any background in political theory and very little idea on the specific issues at play, I did find this hardgoing at times, although Budzizewski is a clear communicator and provides very helpful explication. I learnt more about Kuyper's sphere sovereignty, for instance, and saw where Yoder was going off-base more clearly. This book is not a substitute for reading the primary texts themselves, such as Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism or Yoder's Politics of Jesus. However, I can imagine it being a very illuminating commentary if read alongside them. Although the United States obviously provides the backdrop for a lot of the discussion, this did not prove to be a hindrance.

The rejoinders are a bit of a mixed bag. The respondents agree with some of the thrusts of Budzizewski's portraits and critiques and disagree with others. William Edgar's rejoinder on Schaeffer is particularly strong and easy to follow, and David Weeks on Carl Henry is also competent. John Bolt's response on Kuyper is quite dense, while Ashley Woodiwiss on Yoder is just too short.

I picked up this book hoping to learn a bit more about an evangelical approach to politics. Budzizewski's opening essay is very good and accessible to anybody and I am sure I will be looking it up from time to time by way of reminder. The overviews are helpful if you're looking for a historical approach and have already have some grounding in the questions of politics being discussed (eg. the place of the state or the limits of civil liberty). Those looking for something more systematic and introductory will still glean helpful bits here, but will be less likely to be find this book ideal. Nor will those looking for specific proposals on public policy be likely to turn to this book as their first port of call.

So I did learn a bit from this book, but I wasn't quite the right audience for it!


† Expand post

Elections: facts, figures, quotes

With thanks to Malaysiakini and Malaysia Votes.com.

Barisan Nasional only gained about 51 percent of the popular vote from the 7.9 million ballots cast on Saturday.

However, it took 63 percent of the seats contested - or 140 of 222 seats in Parliament.

Interestingly, its peninsula-wide popular vote was only 49.79 percent, which effectively means that the opposition received the majority vote in this part of the country.

The New Straits Times said the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition - made up of 14 race-based parties - achieved 51.2 percent of the popular vote after support from ethnic Chinese plunged from 65 percent to 35 percent.

Backing from the smaller ethnic Indian community plummeted from 82 percent to 47 percent, while the number of Malays, who form the coalition's bedrock, fell from 63 percent to 58 percent.

The youngest candidate was PKR’s Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, who is 26. He defeated Seri Setia incumbent Seripa Noli Syed Hussin.

The largest majority was won by DAP’s Teresa Kok against BN’s Carol Chew, by 36,492 votes in the Seputeh parliamentary seat in Kuala Lumpur.

The smallest majority was just 14 votes for BN’s Hamdi Abu Bakar who beat Abu Bakar Haji Hussain of PAS in the Pengkalan Baharu state seat in Perak.

Prominent blogger Jeff Ooi - whose campaign was done online and funds were raised through his website - won the Jelutong parliamentary seat in Penang for DAP.

Other bloggers are Tony Pua (DAP, Petaling Jaya Utara parliamentary seat), Elizabeth Wong (PKR, Bukit Lanjan state seat) and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (PKR, Seri Setia state seat).

The full team from the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry all lost in the polls.

All top MIC leaders were wiped out - president, deputy presidents, two vice-presidents, women's chief and youth chief (one of the three vice-presidents, KS Nijar, did not contest).

"Prior to the elections, Barisan Nasional had kept on telling people to show their dissatisfaction through the ballot box. Now they have really shown it." - PPP president Datuk M. Kavyeas

"In the years to come, convincing younger voters to support a party purely on communal grounds will become tougher. A two-party system seems likely to evolve from the outcome of this general election. The first page of the new Malaysian political era opens today." - Wong Chun Wai, Star editor-in-chief.

"The race-based system is breaking down. The government is not looking so representative... and may have to re-engineer itself to be much more cognisant of this shift in the way people are voting" - Johan Saravanattu, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Saravanamuttu said the dominant Umno, which leads the coalition, would have to do a radical rethink about how it could become more inclusive to face the new challenge posed by PKR.

Silliest comment of the day goes to former Information Minister Zainuddin Maddin:
"It is not that they love PKR or PAS more that they voted against me.

The Chinese showed their resentment because of the economic backlash they often complained about. So, PAS and PKR should not be overly proud of their win (in Kedah).

The people may have to pay a price for their decision."
Completely missed the point.

"It’s also significant because the revolt is very multi-racial, and it’s taking place in urban areas throughout. But in the remaining states, some of the old patterns (of voting) remain, which means that the ‘tsunami’ (of change) has not reached the entire country. Sabah and Sarawak, meanwhile, seem to be on a trip of their own and are rather unpredictable.

The other significant thing is that (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim had his ear to the ground better than any other political analyst. He was the only one who thought that something like this could happen. He was most astute in reading and understanding the Malay mind. He read it correctly...

This demonstrates that we are moving into a middle ground that needs to be consolidated. This middle ground has candidates who are very conscious about bridging the gap and about being non-racial. All said and done, the BN has racially-exclusive component parties but now we have political entities which are actually multi-racial in composition and orientation."
- Dr. Francis Loh, political scientist, USM

"The fact that so many independent candidates and so many new faces have come to the fore shows that the Malaysian public has grown weary of the old faces, the old discourses and the old mode of politics in the country. We are now a more complex and plural society than before and we need to forge a new politics that reflects this diversity and pluralism.

We need and want a new Malaysian politics where merit, equality, fairness and accountability prevail. The Malaysian people will no longer tolerate empty promises, discredited politicians, bankrupt politics, cronyism, nepotism and abuse of power. The Malaysian nation wants the country back. We will no longer surrender our future to politicians and elites alone."
- Dr. Farish Noor, Malaysian public intellectual, author of The Other Malaysia

"In the lead-up to the election, the trend with the ethnic Indian and Chinese electorate was a huge protest vote against the BN. There was substantially less fear of an Islamic state. Within the Malay ground, the original assumption was that the Malay electorate was with the BN. Malay support for the BN was comfortable at the point when the election was called.

From the dissolution of Parliament till nomination day, the bickering and horse-trading between Umno candidates started the erosion in Malay support. During the campaign period, the erosion increased because the BN’s communication strategy was out of tune with the electorate. In the final days of campaigning, there was further erosion because the BN went on the attack. The attack on Anwar and the belated attempt to go on an offensive further pushed the Malay electorate away from the BN.

Malay support for the BN is split. In a lot of areas, the support for the BN was not much more than 55%, while in places like Kelantan, the BN support from the Malays was much less. Of course, internal and local factors also come into play. Then on polling day, Malay turnout rates were lower than expected."
- Ibrahim Suffian, programmes director of Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research

"Finally, a word for Umno. It would be foolish to write them off as a spent force. They'll still be running this country, and if they are smart enough, they'll retool, haul themselves into the 21st century and remain a potent force.

If they don't resort to any hanky-panky in the coming days, they'll deserve praise for respecting the country's democratic system despite all the ills that have diseased this grand old party."
- letter to Malaysiakini

"The challenge for the opposition in the coming months and years is a huge one. There will be many more ways to fail in this challenge than to succeed.

The parties have to be always vigilant, honest and humble. Their members will not be exempt from frequent visits by the demons of human weaknesses.

But the same people who have put them there can as easily reverse the decision if they should betray the faith. Checks and balances are essential for any system of government.

Whatever their political persuasions may be, Malaysians will benefit from the change. Let us all get down to hard, honest work."
- Yeo Yang Poh, former Bar Council President


† Expand post

Malaysia's coming of age

I've been away for the last couple of days and have only just got back, and am very, very tired so pardon the incoherent ramblings below. I just needed to write this while it was still fresh.

Anyway, wow. I knew I was only going to hear election news a day late, so it was with some anticipation when I logged onto the Net. And I'll be honest - I was not expecting this. BN denied 2/3 majority, not one, not two, but 5 states fallen to the Opposition. Wow. Succint recap here. (For my non-Malaysian readers, I realise this might all be rather remote for you, but it's a big deal for us :))

Let me tell you what I expected. That BN were going to lose some seats was a given. While the rumblings of discontent has been there for a while now, it was really the emergence of Hindraf that made me see just how bad it was. For the very first time, the Indians were not going to be a reliable voting bloc for the BN. Still, I was very cautious with my projections, having heard premature cries of triumph before. I expected MCA and Gerakan to do pretty badly, so seats in places like KL and Ipoh and Penang would be hit. I expected PAS to retain Kelantan. I thought that if the opposition won an additional state, it would be a bonus - maybe Terengganu. I thought BN would lose 2/3 majorities in Penang and possibly Kedah and Selangor. And I expected one or two bigwigs to go, such as M. Kavyeas (OK, I was 100% certain Kavyeas would lose) and Datuk Seri Samy Vellu. For MCA and Gerakan to be completely wiped out in Penang, for PKR to actually win Selangor, that was all totally beyond my imagination. In my defence, MalaysiaKini's editor Steven Gan had sounded a similarly cautious note, and hey, even the DAP leaders were stunned by the margin of their victory!

Stepping back for a moment, let me just tell you two stories. The first was a few years ago, when I was interning at a local paper. Shadowing a journalist, I had gone to attend a closed-door meeting where a speech was being given by the BN's top guy in Sarawak. To my astonishment, what followed was a smug, self-satisfied speech which included inflammatory racialised comments and a palpable sense of "I'm the one in power, I'm the one who gets to call the shots". That he could make such a speech in full hearing of journalists only served to magnify how much control he held. The journalists at the paper I worked knew that it was pointless filing a report that contained all the details of the speech because the senior editors would just kill it. The second story is during my Oxford days, when Anwar Ibrahim was invited by the Asia Pacific Society to deliver a talk. In the days leading up to the event, government scholars were sent emails warning them to stay away or face the consequences. I am not a government scholar - they probably don't even know that I exist! - so I had complete freedom to go and listen to Anwar personally. Even more shocking, however, was when Anwar came to give a talk in London. In a clear act of intimidation, officials of the Malaysian Student Department actually came to the venue and began to silently take photos.

Add to this little anecdotes the macro stories of electoral ink shenangans, tales of corruption and so on, and I am willing to say that I'm very happy with the outcome of this election, to say the least.

Other thoughts. Firstly, this election result is historic because psychological barriers have been broken. The conventional wisdom has always been that BN is just too powerful to be denied a 2/3 majority. Instead, an entire generation has seen it done for the first time, and so are given fresh impetus to believe that they can make a difference. Just as important is that it means that the BN hoodoo of May 13 is now dispelled. Some BN leaders like to hold May 13 over our heads and warn of a repeat should they lose. Thankfully, it appears that Malaysia is starting to show signs of finally moving beyond that.

Secondly, a Chinese swing was predictable. The Indian swing was expected. But actually, the massive number of losses sustained by BN showed that Malays were voting for the opposition too. In other words, it appears that Malaysians, as a whole, were fed up with the government, and not just minorities. This is a good sign, not because Malays are voting for the opposition, but rather, it shows that communitarian politics had taken a backseat to issues which Malaysians had legitimate gripes about.

BN was too complacent, and Abdullah Badawi misjudged the ill-feeling on the ground. This is amazing considering that 4 years ago, he was seen as a welcome relief to the bullish Dr. M. Here was a kinder, gentler man, known as Mr. Clean and seen as a consensus-building politician. Today, he is the man whom voters find easiest to project their anger on. What happened?

BN often likes to dismiss bloggers and such by pointing to the "silent majority", whom they see as backing them. For the first time ever, this election shows that the "silent majority" has very clearly gone against them. Let me offer up Bandar Kuching as an eg. This is a DAP stronghold which nevertheless fell to the BN in 1995 thanks to the popular former Kuching mayor. DAP reclaimed it in 2004 after the BN had put up a candidate whom no one wanted, not even BN's own supporters. This time, they put up a bright young lawyer and BN loyalist who had strong grassroot ties and was seen as capable of giving the DAP a fight. In another election, he probably would have. Not this time, he was crushed comprehensively. This is not, I don't think, through any fault of this particular candidate, but that the "silent majority" had already made up their mind, regardless of candidate. This scenario was replicated elsewhere in the country.

Anwar not having a seat to contest was a blessing in disguise for the Opposition. He could criss-cross around the country, helped provide a focus to their national campaign, and possibly did more damage than if he had been contesting. Another factor that cannot be discounted was the incessant criticism of Dr. M, whose endless barrage must have worn down some of BN's defenses.

It's interesting to note the emergence of young guns this time around. I used to occasionally read Nik Nazmi's writings when he was a student at King's, now he's sudddenly an MP for PKR! I had told Wai Nyan, where Tony Pua (Oxford) was contesting, that I had a favourable view of his work at Education Malaysia. I was quite surprised to see a figure floating around somewhere than Malaysia's demographic had gotten younger, and the truth is, there are many bright and educated people who are well-informed, and as long as the BN fails to reform itself, will inevitably gravitate towards the Opposition. Another bright young guy, who didn't contest this time around, was the Harvard-educated Nat Tan, who works for PKR.

I'm actually glad that DAP and PKR now have the opportunity to govern a few states, if only for the experience. The most important thing to remember is that they have to be given time. They're new at this, and you can be certain they'll have problems. As long as they show a willingness to learn, to try their best, and not fall prey to shortcuts, this will be invaluable for their leaders. Lim Guan Eng's, Penang's CM-designate, press conference was encouraging at sounding all the right notes (see below). Cautioning against lavish victory parades was another welcome (and canny) move.

As for BN? Well, hopefully, this will prompt some soul-searching. Malaysia will benefit from a reformed BN. Gerakan's Dr. Koh has been gracious in defeat, and Ku Li's honest appraisal is encouraging as well. Please, UMNO, don't opt for the ostrich approach. Pak Lah, please admit that this was indeed a vote of no-confidence, and be willing to reform the system. You'll be more respected for that. Malaysia is showing signs of being more willing to discuss issues of race and religion more openly. By all means, be cautious, but lose the authoritarian approach. There are signs of hope.

I'll like the Opposition in Parliament to adopt some semblance of a shadow Cabinet, as in Britain and Australia, now that they've got the numbers. I think it's a useful practice and helps with accountability.

I guess finally, as a Christian, I can be thankful that God's hand will not slip, and I know that whatever happens, we can trust in Him. Our hope does not lie with political reform, but with the saving grace of God through Jesus.

I'm completely shattered, so I need to pause here.


Lim Guan Eng's press conference



† Expand post

Christians and political engagement summary

Sorry about the recent abundance of posts on politics recently; I guess in light of recent events in Malaysia, Malaysian citizens have been more active in engaging with the public square. Afraid this is another one. Thanks for bearing with me!

Wai Nyan has written a thoughtful, pithy post on democracy. I think he's right - we do tend to elevate the status of democracy to that of saviour, which it isn't of course, and it can easily spill over into self-indulgent praise. But as the Bush Administration is no doubt aware, liberal democracy doesn't happen to be the answer to everything. It is God who directs the future. Anyway, I left a comment simply summarising the various positions of Christians towards political engagement, and I thought I'll put it here too. However, I don't actually know that much, so feel free to correct where I've gone wrong in my descriptions. Below is my comment, slightly modified.

'One of these viewpoints is principled pluralism, which is a fairly mainstream position of many Christians, especially those that lean in favour of democracy. I believe (might be wrong) they argue that the basis for this is natural law, so God has revealed to everyone a general standard of righteousness - murder is bad, human equality should be pursued etc., and so society/legislation can be founded on such grounds. This has been criticised along the same lines as you have, I think, sin - putting me first - gets in the way of natural law, and the standards laid out are arbitrary. For instance, Rowan Williams in his recent lecture proposed "human dignity" as the benchmark, and someone might ask, but how do you define that?

There is another version of principled pluralism, I think, which does not use natural law as its foundation, but argues for "Christian principles" to be established and therefore able to influence society. This I think, is the "neo-Calvinist" version. It firmly affirms God as ruling over all things, but feels that the Fall means that a "Christian" government can easily lead to some sort of religious tyranny. Consensus-building is favoured over imposition.

There’s the Anabaptist take, which argues for a radical separation between church and state, and to be indifferent, not to social justice, but to influencing legislation. It’s primarily about being a "witnessing community".

And then there’s the Reconstructionist/theonomist view, which I think you’re slightly leaning to. (There might be differences between the two, but if so, I don’t know what they are). They criticise those who are "principled pluralists" for not recognising that the state can never be neutral, and that laws are better explicitly grounded in the Bible, not just a "vague" notion of "natural revelation". They would argue that "if Jesus is Lord" then surely this includes legislation as well. Those who are really radical might promote even the enforcement of OT laws (though I imagine the application of this is much more sophisticated than “don’t eat shellfish!”). Democracy and "rights language" is an idol that needs to be rebuked. This is more of a minority viewpoint though. As you can imagine, the idea of a "Christian nation" is too much for many to stomach, similar to how a lot of us react when we hear "Islamic state"...

I think the Catholics also put forth some different ideas, but I haven’t the faintest clue what they are (or maybe they’re the natural law guys?). Lutherans might also see things differently, not sure about that...

These are all simplistic versions, and they probably overlap at various junctures. Basically, how you view the relationship between law and gospel, what you think of the end times (will things get better? worse?), and the related question of how Christians should approach culture all seem to have bearing on how you think Christians should engage politically.'

The neo-Calvinist approach naturally appeals to me, probably because I've been influenced by neo-Calvinist writers in relation to engaging culture. Wouldn't have a clue on defending my position though.

12 hours of blog fame

Well, this blog had about 12 hours of fame after my previous post got linked by Malaysiakini. I had the highest number of hits ever, but I expect things to return to normalcy today. :) Would have been nicer still if they had been directed to a post like this one.

And if my blog stats are any indication, Malaysiakini's readers are overwhelmingly from KL.

And for a light-hearted take on the elections (sorry non-Malaysians for the in jokes):

Malaysian election web goodies

Update: More links added. [Waves at everyone coming from Mkini]

Yeah, I know it's a lot of posts today, but wanted to try to separate all of these out:

For those who don't know already, Malaysia Votes is a pretty helpful website for a closer look at election issues and political analysis. I recognise one of the names from the Sun.

And there's an interesting if critical opinion piece in Malaysiakini on the (non-?)role of Christians in Malaysian politics.

Plus The Centre for Public Policy Studies, an independent, non-partisan thinktank is probably worth a look - I haven't though.

Malaysian Media Monitors Diary, run by Aliran and CIJ.

DAP unshoots foot, PAS takes 2 steps forward, UMNO unleashes anti-kafir kafir. Interesting election short stories, and an unabashed plea on behalf of the opposition.

Malaysian elections, vote wisely!

Snap! It's an election. Farish Noor does a great job summing up the political situation heading into this election. Sadly, although I am eligible to vote for the first time in my life I wouldn't be able to exercise it this time round.

I was looking for the link for this particular eCommentary from Tan Soo Inn but it doesn't appear to be up. So, here are his thoughts on how Malaysian Christians should approach the elections:

Commentary: Vote!
By Soo-Inn Tan

I had already planned to be in Kuala Lumpur in early March. Even if I hadn't, I would have made sure that I voted in the coming Malaysian general elections. I had long decided that the salt and light mandate (Matthew 5:13-16) meant that I was to live out kingdom values in every sphere of life. I have always been clear that this involved my participating in the political life of the country.

I have no illusions about the ability of politics to save the nation. The fundamental problem of humankind is sin. And as James Houston, citing Dallas Willard, reminds us, human institutions, "cannot change the human heart. That is why Jesus did not send out his disciples to change governments or even to build churches, but to change hearts."
(Joyful Exiles, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006, p.87)
The growing political awareness of Christians in Malaysia should never distract us from our ongoing task of preaching the gospel.

However the bible does see civil authority as an institution sanctioned by God to govern the people with justice (Romans 13:1-7). Therefore it is incumbent on Christian citizens in a democracy to participate in the choosing of the people that will make up that authority, to help ensure that those who take office will be people who will govern with justice.

Richard Bauckham roots this aspect of our Christian duty in the work of
Christ Himself:

"Because the Kingdom of God ... embraces the whole of human life, and because (Jesus) identified in love with human beings whose lives were affected by political structures and policies, his mission impinged on the political along with other dimensions of life."
(The Bible in Politics, Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989, p.142)

Few of us may be called to impact the political process directly by joining political parties or by standing for office. But we all can pray (Ephesians 6:10-20; 1 Timothy 2:1-7)). And we can vote.

What criteria should guide our choice of whom to vote for? There is no direct teaching from Scripture but I can think of three criteria that may be helpful --- character, competence, and convictions.

My first criterion is character. Does the candidate have a servant heart? Is he or she running for office because he or she genuinely wants to serve the people? Or does the candidate use political power for personal gain? Is this a person of integrity? Does he really care for the welfare of all communities in his constituency? Is she a person of integrity?

My second criterion is competence. Does this person have the ability to do the job he or she is running for? The candidate may be a nice chap but can he or she get the job done? Does the candidate have a proven track record of successful governance at other levels? If the person has been in office for a few terms already, what is his track record?

My third criterion is convictions. What political convictions does a candidate espouse? Often that means taking a long hard look at the manifesto of the party the candidate represents. Carefully study the positions of the various parties --- the National Front, DAP, Parti Islam, Parti Keadilan Rakyat etc. Which party/alliance has an approach to governance that is closest to a biblical worldview? Issues that should concern us would be issues like human rights, religious freedom, abuse of power, corruption, justice, servant-leadership, and a concern for the weak and marginalized.

Proverbs 31:1-9 is one of the few passages that seek to give advice to those in political power. Bauckham, in his analysis of the passage, points out that the passage:

"...focused on the notion that political power is a responsibility to be exercised for the sake of others, especially those most in need of help and protection, not a privilege to be enjoyed for the king's own advantage." (Bauckham, p.44)

Of course it is very possible that, after taking a long hard look at all the candidates through the lens of the above three criteria, you find that none really qualify. Does that mean we should not vote? No, I believe there is still something constructive we can do - we can vote for the lesser of evils.

Speaking about the American context, but with wisdom applicable to us, James W. Skillen writes:

"Obviously the voter must try to select the better of the two candidates as judged by how they will fill the office. The voter's decision might be little more than a choice for the lesser of evils, but a vote must be cast."
(The Complete Book of Everyday Christianity, edited by Robert Banks & R.
Paul Stevens, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997, p.1091)

I fear that some of us are too idealistic about the choices we have this side of heaven that we easily become cynical. Cynicism breeds apathy and we end up not voting, thereby throwing away an opportunity to be part of godly influence in the world.

Biblical realism means we know that we are in this for the long haul and that our final hope is in the second coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore we are not discouraged by the imperfections of the present situation and continue to do what we can, trusting that the Lord will take the "five loaves and two fishes" of our efforts and use it for His purposes.

Biblical realism also means that I will accept that Christians may end up with different convictions as to how best to serve the Kingdom of Christ in the political sphere. Some believe that the only realistic way to work for change is to keep on chipping away from within the present ruling alliance. Others will feel that the only way to be true to their consciences is to join an opposition party. Frank and honest debate between the groups can and must take place. But both groups need to be charitable to each other as an expression of their common allegiance to the same Lord.

And it is because we believe in the sovereignty of our Lord that we will not be anxious, either before the elections or after. But we want to be faithful to our Lord. Therefore we will pray. And we will vote come March 8.

---

NOTICE: Dr Ng Kam Weng of Kairos Research Centre will speak for 1 1/4-hr and take questions for 45 minutes. He will speak on the
(1) Bible and politics,
(2) the nature of Malaysian politics and
(3) issues in the coming general election.

Date: 23 Feb, Sat,
Time: 3pm-5pm
Venue: TTDI Gospel Centre,
20 Lrg Datuk Sulaiman 1,
Taman Tun Dr Ismail,
60000 KL
Invite your church members and friends. FOC.


A short Christian Federation of Malaysia(CFM) voting guide.

You can also check out my tentative reflections a while back - Jesus and Politics: A Primer, which also has some other links you could check out.

For another even briefer outline about why Christians should care about politics, here you go.


† Expand post

Rowan Williams and Islamic law/secularism

Been trying to get my head round the hoo-haa surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury and his supposed statements about introducing some element of sharia law into the British system. This is especially interesting as a Malaysian since of course, we do have some form of a parallel legal system which has, nonetheless, been creaking under the strain of apostasy cases in recent years. It’s fairly impressive too that the Bearded One has managed to unite (some) conservative and liberal voices within the Anglican communion to speak out against him, outraged not a few Muslims, earned a gentle reprove from the Prime Minister’s office and even reportedly caught the Queen’s attention. All in a day’s work then...

Anyway, decided to attempt to read his lecture today before reading all the surrounding commentary. Rowan Williams is, of course, renowned as one of the world’s most gifted and dense academic theologians, even if he is rarely in concert with evangelical sympathies, so I expected this to be hard going. I remember reading somewhere that this lecture only had 132 sentences. Considering the lecture is over 6000 words long, that roughly works out to 47 words per sentence!

Some quotes from his lecture; me trying to make sense of it after every - :

“Even when some of the more dramatic fears are set aside, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about what degree of accommodation the law of the land can and should give to minority communities with their own strongly entrenched legal and moral codes. As such, this is not only an issue about Islam but about other faith groups”

– the issue, as also shown by the title of the lecture: Civil and Religious Law in England.

“my aim is only, as I have said, to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state, with a few thought about what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom.”

– bold mine, what he’s hoping to achieve in this lecture (very important to set his lecture in context!)

“If shar' designates the essence of the revealed Law, sharia is the practice of actualizing and applying it...”

– spirit and letter of the law?

“Thus, in contrast to what is sometimes assumed, we do not simply have a standoff between two rival legal systems when we discuss Islamic and British law. On the one hand, sharia depends for its legitimacy not on any human decision, not on votes or preferences, but on the conviction that it represents the mind of God; on the other, it is to some extent unfinished business so far as codified and precise provisions are concerned. To recognise sharia is to recognise a method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts rather than a single system”

– sharia has as its basis a doctrine of revelation from God, but this is not expressed in a simple code of regulations, rather it works itself out according to certain a priori principles. Hmmm, does this mean that he’s going to argue that sharia therefore has the ability to adapt in the light of differing socio-political contexts?

“Both historically and in the contemporary context, Muslim states have acknowledged that membership of the umma is not coterminous with membership in a particular political society: in modern times, the clearest articulation of this was in the foundation of the Pakistani state under Jinnah; but other examples (Morocco, Jordan) could be cited of societies where there is a concept of citizenship that is not identical with belonging to the umma. Such societies, while not compromising or weakening the possibility of unqualified belief in the authority and universality of sharia, or even the privileged status of Islam in a nation, recognise that there can be no guarantee that the state is religiously homogeneous and that the relationships in which the individual stands and which define him or her are not exclusively with other Muslims. There has therefore to be some concept of common good that is not prescribed solely in terms of revealed Law, however provisional or imperfect such a situation is thought to be. And this implies in turn that the Muslim, even in a predominantly Muslim state, has something of a dual identity, as citizen and as believer within the community of the faithful.”

- Being part of the umma or a Muslim disciple isn’t synonymous with citizenship. State not the same as being a mosque/church/temple, government not imams. Principled pluralism? i.e government must recognise Muslims are not just citizens, they are other things too, members of a certain faith community. State’s jurisdiction is not total.

“It also occurs when secular government assumes a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity. There is a position – not at all unfamiliar in contemporary discussion – which says that to be a citizen is essentially and simply to be under the rule of the uniform law of a sovereign state, in such a way that any other relations, commitments or protocols of behaviour belong exclusively to the realm of the private and of individual choice.”

- oooh, being sneaky here. Secular govts often say something along the lines of “you’re free to do anything you want in private, so long as it doesn’t break the law/harm others”. But RW seems to be implicitly questioning, is it as simple as that?

“If the law of the land takes no account of what might be for certain agents a proper rationale for behaviour – for protest against certain unforeseen professional requirements, for instance, which would compromise religious discipline or belief – it fails in a significant way to communicate with someone involved in the legal process (or indeed to receive their communication), and so, on at least one kind of legal theory (expounded recently, for example, by R.A. Duff), fails in one of its purposes.”

- Wah, this is getting pretty philosophical. Actions cannot be so easily separated from intentions or being (ontology)? Context is important – why someone does what he does and under what circumstances need to be taken into account, but the law has not always been successful at distinguishing this, since it is often more concerned with only the mere action/behaviour. In this case, RW seems to be saying, more attention needs to be paid to the religious identity of a person, or at least not treat him merely as an individual, but a certain member of a faith-community. Although he isn’t saying that this is like a “get out of jail free card” – “oh, because my Muslim sensibilities dictate that I believe and therefore do this, so you can’t ordinarily enforce law X against me!”

3 potential objections:
1. “it leaves legal process (including ordinary disciplinary process within organisations) at the mercy of what might be called vexatious appeals to religious scruple”
– eg. what if a Muslim employee refused to handle a book of Bible stories? Is she just being overly fussy? RW’s answer, establish some sort of authority to distinguish between uninformed prejudice/nonsense and which is serious business.

2. “recognition of 'supplementary jurisdiction' in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women.”
- i.e isn’t it now easy to have a convenient excuse to do some really nasty things and defend myself by saying, hey, stay out of my business, you don’t understand the complex cultural-religious workings here? Won’t it be worse for eg., for women who might have enjoyed better rights without such a jurisdiction? RW’s answer: “no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights.”

“In the particular case we have mentioned, the inheritance rights of widows, it is already true that some Islamic societies have themselves proved flexible (Malaysia is a case in point).”

– Just had to point that out since he mentioned Malaysia... :) Interestingly, he goes on to mention the far harder case of apostasy, and as far as I can make out, speaks in vague terms about some form of “basic ground rules”, acknowledges its complexity, and doesn’t really deal properly with this objection.

3. “supplementary jurisdictions is simply incoherent if we want to preserve the great political and social advances of Western legality”
- i.e everyone is equal before the law. RW’s answer, Aiyah, not so easylah! “But this set of considerations alone is not adequate to deal with the realities of complex societies: it is not enough to say that citizenship as an abstract form of equal access and equal accountability is either the basis or the entirety of social identity and personal motivation.” Back to the point that as human beings, we are not just citizens, but our identities are rooted in loads of different things – we are members of a family, of an ethnic group, of a religious group etc.

- At this point his lecture gets really, really dense as he tries to answer this particular objection. Not quite sure I get it at all, but he seems to be saying that instead of adopting the public/private distinction of the law which I mentioned earlier, it needs to be seen more dynamically, in constant conversation with various communities to make sure that they don’t become so isolated and take the law into their own hands while respecting their diversity. To do so, he appeals to the basis of “human dignity”.

“But to return to our main theme: I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework.”

- so this is what he’s really trying to deal with, rather than simply “let’s allow Sharia law into Britain!”

I gave up on the last 750 words or so, but just quickly scanned through for his conclusion:

“In conclusion, it seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment. But as I have hinted, I do not believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law.”

Some thoughts
If I were listening to rather than reading this lecture, I would never have understood even 10% of it! No wonder he was so widely misunderstood, and I understand that RW owned up to “obscurity of expression”. Although I should also mention that I see some commentaries that dispute that he was misunderstood, rather, he was understood but still received a negative reaction. For eg., see this New Statesman commentary. The writer makes a great point – third paragraph from the end – about why a Christian leader, in light of his own beliefs about the revelation of God, would therefore support a legal system in which he must consider misguided and illegitimate. That does present a problem for the concept of principled pluralism (which, btw, although I have never done any thinking on stuff like this, is, I suspect, my subconscious default position). The same writer suggests that Williams real attack is on secularism, which I think is a fair enough point. He takes that negatively, but obviously, I don’t.

The other thing I don’t get is that Williams seems to assume throughout the lecture that some form of liberal sharia law would triumph rather than a “primitivist” (his word) version. How will that happen? And why would Muslims of any stripe want to listen to a Christian bishop on this point anyhow?

Still, this lecture highlights the complexity of the discussion, encompassing as it does everything from questions of assimilation/integration/national identity/multiculturalism, and I haven’t even included the legal and religious dimensions yet!

Finally, I know that this is an academic lecture and all, but RW didn’t seem to offer a distinctively Christian approach. Not that I mean he has to pepper his quotes with Scripture references, but simply that, given his role as the leader of the Anglican Church and not as a jurisprudence specialist, surely there might be more biblical reflection? No one would have been offended, if anything, it would be expected from a guy who heads up a church comprising of millions and millions of Christians.

---

• Rowan Williams and sharia: A guide for the perplexed - This is regarded as the best and most detailed breakdown of the lecture.


† Expand post

Cray on being disciples and citizens

via an anonymous 2nd century Christian. (Quotes galore this past week as I have nothing inspired to say and there're plenty of wiser and more inspired people around!) :-)

"All things have been created through [Jesus] and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together (Col. 1:16-17). So the question of dual citizenship cannot be resolved by dividing life into a sphere where Christ rules and another where we operate according to different principles. Discipleship is to be lived out in every dimension of life. The Christian term for citizenship is in effect, public discipleship.

This can bring Christians into conflict with their societies, when the values of society and the values of Christ's kingdom conflict. But it does not set Christians over against their societies, as public discipleship seeks the common good, in the light of the kingdom of God. This was beautifully expressed in the best-known section of the second-century Epistle to Diognetus.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity...But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives...To sum up all in one word— what the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world. "

 -  Graham Cray, Disciples & Citizens: A Vision for Distinctive Living, pp.22-23

Language, Power and the Malaysian Christian

One of the most stimulating blogs I’ve read lately is by local writer Chuah Guat Eng. Her passion mainly revolves around Malaysian literature in English, and she’s obviously very conversant with all the related issues surrounding the topic.

She has a particularly fascinating post asking "Is there a future for Malaysian literature in English?" Now I realise that litblogs and so-called “literary” topics isn’t really many of my readers’ cup of tea, but bear with me for a second, especially as I think it has bearings on issues beyond the merely “literary”. Beginning with the story of the founding of Rhino Press in 1997, a small Malaysian press dedicated to publishing “young Malaysian writers”, Chuah finds herself asking the question: “But why did they all write in English?” True, English is the linguistic fountainhead one must draw from to survive in today’s global city, yet paradoxically, in the borough of Malaysia this wellspring is not located at the centre but on the margins. She then proceeds to explore the biographies and histories of these various writers, all of whom were among the first few generations of fairly well-off Malaysians to have had their entire school education in the Malay medium. The answers these writers gave were varied, but Chuah thinks the crux of the matter boils down to moving beyond the straitjacket of a uniform national identity and the tired binary oppositions of us versus them (in this case, Asian/Eastern versus the Mat Sallehs*). These are writers who no longer feel the need to address this identity crisis (which is perceived as an illusion anyhow) but to get on with engaging with current socio-political realities: democracy, human rights, social justice. The post ends on a sobering note – Rhino Press, far from being further along the road to fulfilling its vision, now publishes cookery books. The hand of the free market was probably just too strong.

During my brief time struggling with the arcane subject of postcolonial studies at university, I was for the first time really asked to consider what it meant for me, a Malaysian Chinese, to speak, write, and think in English. Of course, I had already experienced some discomfiture whenever I communicated with my mainly Chinese-speaking relatives since I don’t speak Chinese very well. Such a question, of course, also throws up a host of other questions and assumptions, including seeing language as political, as having power. One of the results of colonialism is that aspects of the colonial culture are superimposed on that of the colonised, the obvious example here being the English language. Frantz Fanon, who is one of the early major figures in postcolonial studies, provocatively says: "Colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the questions constantly: ‘In reality, who am I?’". The language we speak influences the way we view reality. Fanon takes the rather radical position that to take up the language of the colonizer is to accept the world and standards of the colonizer, and I suppose, he implicitly presupposes some semblance of oppression. This is a form of what is commonly known as the "hermeneutics of suspicion".

To illustrate this, imagine writing a story which uses Manglish, with all the lahs and so on in it. Is the writer, then, breaking some sort of grammatical rule by not adhering to "standard" English? Should the writer even adhere to this standard? How will this translate to English-speaking cultures? This also helpfully shows that there are always aspects of culture that don’t translate well. I know for example, that many Malaysians find it difficult to find the appropriate English word for perasaan or manja. Similarly, a British friend of mine who has been learning Mandarin mentioned what a great phrase ma fan is – saying that although it could reasonably be translated as “annoying”, it doesn’t quite capture the full semantic range/ connotations of the word. Of course, this is also what often happens in Bible translation as well, sometimes it can be extremely hard to fully capture all the foibles or nuances of what was originally written in Hebrew or Greek.

I’m not bright enough to constructively engage with all of the above. Nonetheless, all these complex issues regarding the politics of language are interesting and I would say, important, in light of today’s political situation in Malaysia. Political scientist Farish Noor talks about "the other Malaysia", that is, the many elements that make up Malaysian society that is denied a voice in the official apparatus or machinery, but that is increasingly hard to contain, hence the appearance of Hindraf, to take one obvious recent example. Similarly, the brand of rhetoric practiced in Malaysia is too often couched in racial and communitarian terms. The government-controlled English media in Malaysia, for instance, plays up the Islamisation bogeyman whereas the Malay media spins the very same issue in a much more populist fashion. Of note is the recent controversy over "Allah", while seemingly trivial on one level, is also symptomatic of deeper cracks in Malaysian society.

Is there a sense, then, that Malaysian Christians can redeem the language, learning not to use terminology inappropriately? Not to capitulate to ways of speaking which inflames, and to lend a voice to the voiceless? Language is a gift from God. One might say it is an essential part of our humanness, what separates us from animals. Also, I would say that God himself models how we should use language since he is a trustworthy God who speaks truly. He also speaks humbly, since the words he gives to us contained in Scripture is both divine and human. At the same time, unlike us, God speaks with complete authority, but not in an oppressive manner as the colonizers do, but as the omniscient God who sees knows all languages, all cultures and all reality. (I haven’t been able to work out the implications of this to the immediate matter at hand but I’m sure there's something there). I know my friend Wai Nyan has not been at all impressed with some of the language used by the Malaysian "underground" (sorry, felt the need to be cool there), and while I think he has been a little too quick and harsh to question motives and a little over-generous to the government, I understand the thrust of his concerns. Language and culture are closely linked, and we surely must seek to use language in a redemptive sense if we want to have any impact on culture.

Just as importantly, I think, are the missiological implications. I remember once how a Western missionary observed that he found mission work in Singapore, a country where English is widely spoken, more difficult than in a non-English speaking country. A language spoken in common can actually serve to conceal cultural and worldview differences rather than reveal them. A word could have different connotations to different people. The word "Asian" here in Britain for instance, primarily denotes those who come from the Indian subcontinent; I suspect the same word used in America or Australia tends to denote a person of Chinese, Japanese or Korean origin. That is the impetus behind Bible translations, for having the Word in your own language can be massively empowering. As I’ve mentioned earlier, there are some words which are difficult to translate and to have it in your own language could be quite a gift and allow them to function and reflect better on their own contexts and cultures. I think Westerners (and to be fair, not just Westerners) may overlook this factor. Although perhaps not for me, so thoroughly embedded am I in the English language! Yet it is precisely that the English I speak is dual, both a "standard" English and Manglish, which illustrates the need for further reflection.

This post has taken a life of its own – I’m sorry that I’ve rambled on a bit. It certainly took on directions I didn’t expect! Hope it made some sort of sense. In any case, please feel free to comment and correct any unintended heresies I might have spouted.

*white men; generic term for Caucasians. Could be taken as slightly pejorative! Which in itself illustrates the point of this post really.

P/S In case I get misinterpreted, I should of course say that the hermeneutics of suspicion and those who see oppresive power discourses in everything have taken things too far for a Christian to accept.


† Expand post