Rest Stop Thoughts

Hindraf's Civil Suit over Tamil Schools

2012-02-11T23:13:00.000+08:00

Thisweek Hindraf filed a case against the Prime Minister, Najib and hisdeputy, Education Minister Muhyiddin. It's all about Tamil schools. One of the petitioners is Manoharan Malayalam, an elected stateassemblyman in Selangor.

Hereis what I think P.Uthayakumar and Manoharan Malayalam wantthe High Court to do:

Order the government of Malaysia to provide full financial aid to all 523 Tamil schools nationwide; 'full' means “provide as much funding to each Tamil school student as provided to each student at a national school.”
Order the government of Malaysia to gazette 10 acres of land, with titles, for each of the 523 Tamil schools.
Order the government of Malaysia to set up an 'elite Permata Kindergarten’ in each of the 523 Tamil schools.
Order the government of Malaysia to set aside RM 200 Million to establish a Fully Residential Junior Science College – like Maktab Rendah Sains for Bumiputera - to take in all 1,191 seven A's UPSR top Tamil school scorers in 2011.
Order the government of Malaysia to set aside RM 300 Million to establish a Tamil school Teacher Training Unit of the University Malaya 'adjoining the Frasers Hill Tamil school,' to train 1,000 graduate Tamil school teachers per year.
Order the government of Malaysia to establish one fully residential Tamil school in every district especially for the Indian poor.
Order the government of Malaysia to award RM 55 Billion to “ex-Tamil school students who had been the victims of UMNO state sponsored and private sector racism and segregation, etc.” for 55 years.

[Theabove is my interpretation of some garbledtext on HRP's website.]

Iand many others respect Mr Manoharan Malayalam, whois a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP). He has the courageof conviction. He was incarcerated for 514 days under the InternalSecurity Act – under false charges. [Similar things can be saidabout Mr Uthayakumar, but my focus here is on an elected assemblyman who needs to work for all, not just Indians.]

Nevertheless,I think he will have a tough time explaining the present law-suit tomembers of his constituency, Kota Alam Shah. Explaining the law-suitwill be an uphill battle not only with non-Tamils, but also with manyTamils.

Iwould not be surprised if the DAP drops Mr Manoharan at the nextGeneral Election.

Thereare many, including Malays, who believe the two lawyers have a point:Malays were given a leg-up through public policy initiatives, whileTamils were not.

Somemay even go so far as to say that Tamils were suppressedthrough public policy.

Thestate of poor Tamils in Malaysia today is due in part to theirisolation in estates, their exploitation by planters and decadeswithout a national minimum wage policy.

Thedepth and width of the Tamil poor in Malaysia is due also todispossession from the land – after years of exhausting labourunder abject conditions, they mostly 'retired' with nothing. Andthey had to vacate the dilapidated quarters in which they lived whileserving their masters. This embittered subsequent generations.

Whatrole did Tamil schools play in all this?

Schoolsfor Tamil children had to be in rural areas, because that's where thepoor Tamils were. Education was in Tamil because they didn't intendto settle down in Malaya. Later, they made the choice to becomecitizens. Their isolation, poverty and probably their sense of karmakept them – and their children – where they were.

TheUMNO-BN government didn't give aid to enable Tamil children to travelto and stay in residential schools (just as the British provided aidto Malays in Malaya and just as the government continues to do forBumiputras in both West and East Malaysia today). The government andthe planters were happy to allow Tamils to be exploited.

Whenplantations went from rubber to Oil Palm cultivation, whenmechanization was introduced and when foreign workers were preferredover Tamils, the Tamil time bomb exploded. This is the power whichHindraf harnessed and which brought down UMNO-BN in the 2008 GeneralElection.

Youwould have noticed that I speak of Tamils, not Indians. Those whopush for Tamil schools forget that not all Indians in Malaysia areIndian (or Jaffna) Tamils.

Malayalees,Marathis, Punjabis, Telugus, etc. didn't set up their own schools,though some did go to Tamil schools out of convenience. This ismainly because fewer of them were labourers in the estates (Tamilsbrought their relatives to work in the estates; non-Tamils were keptout so that fluency in Tamil would be adequate to supervise estateworkers. Estate labourers were mainly Tamils, though there were someTelugus also.)

Weare now in the 21st century. There are still lots of rural Indians,but their dream is to be like their city cousins. Their future isn'tin Tamil; their future isn't in Malay their future is in English.

Ibelieve the time has come to take the Tamil school bull by the horns,to say, “time's up, let's find another solution.”

Tamilschools now are mainly fishing grounds, nurseries and show groundsfor politicians: any child in a Tamil school is a sacrifice to enablesome to make it in politics; Tamil schools are places for photoopportunities for politicians when they hand out 'goodies' to thepoor who show up for a nutritional meal of mee hoon and currypuffs.

Thesolution is not to perpetuate Tamil schools and the politicians whosurround them; the solution is to provide education and otherservices to the poor, and to develop plans to reduce the number ofTamil schools and to move Tamil school teachers into nationalschools, into retirement or into other professions.

Andwhy aren't entrepreneurs starting private Tamil schools? Schoolsthat exist for the sake of the children, not for politicians to gainmileage. Schools that have excellent teachers and produce graduateswho will make the nation proud. Could it be there is no market forTamil schools?

Incidentally,it is hard to say who's Tamil. I suppose someone will propose this definition: “speaks Tamil habitually, wears Tamil clothes andpractices Hinduism.” No prizes for guessing who inspired thatdefinition.

Ido not think the way to beat UMNO-BN is to use UMNO's tactics; it maybe a way to shame them – if they are capable of being shamed. Ithink it better to rise above the base instincts of UMNO. I hope theHindraf court case is thrown out quickly. The courts have betterthings to do.

Racist Umno, Hindraf and the Indian Poor

2012-02-07T17:39:00.002+08:00

Is Umno racist? No, says ZaidelBaharudin. Is Uthayakumar of HINDRAF aracist? No, saysIraiputtiran. What do you think?

There is a kind of racism which iseasy to identify objectively. It’s thekind where the coloured person has to call the white person Sir or Ma’am, aswas the case until about fifty years ago in the USA when legislation was introducedto force change.

In the USA, until the enactment of theVoting Rights Act of 1965, most African Americans, on account of their race,colour or literacy, could not vote. Theycould only vote after the Federal government took over several aspects ofregistration of voters and administration of elections.

Race is important in most of Asia. Forinstance, ‘the Chinese,’ who constitute less than 4 % of the population in the Philippines and in Indonesia, control over 60 % ofthose economies. [The figures are accuratefor the beginning of the 21^st century.] In Indonesia, the Chinese are often attacked; it is legitimate to expect the government to 'prevent' rioters from attacking the Chinese.

In Malaysia, Malays pay 10 % less thannon-Malays for properties; Malays have greater access to Initial PublicOfferings of stocks in public companies; Malays have more opportunity to beeducated with public funds.

Is there some kind of racism atplay? One Oxford dictionary defines racism thus:

“Racismis the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics orabilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferioror superior to another race or races.”

So, according to some, there’s noracism in Indonesia, Malaysia or the

Philippines

They argue that the observedimbalance in wealth between races (with total disregard for disparities withinraces) is due only to good family values.

According to them, the Chinese are wealthy and ‘close’because the memory of famine and poverty made them more anxious about futuresecurity than about present enjoyment. [Some say thisis less true of young Asian Chinese, who are often bananas, i.e. yellow outsidebut white inside, and so the dominance of the Chinese will erode over time, without any legislative or public policy efforts.]

Many have argued that Malays areusing political power to ‘make corrections’ for past errors – some put theblame on the British, others put the blame on ‘aggressive Chinese’ and ‘lazyMalays.’ They also imply that Indiansand those of other races are sidelined in the play-off between the Malays and the Chinese.

The reality is that we are able to link the control of capital with race: some races have more access to capitalthan others. Recognizing the linkage between race and poverty may well increase the likelihood of reducingthe income gap between the rich and the poor. Does this mean we’re stuck with race?

If a party (Umno) or group(Hindraf) bases it’s policies on race, isn’t it racist?

There is of course a falseassumption of homogeneity. The Chinese,of whom there are over 1.5 billion, are not homogeneous, e.g.Malaysian Chinese could be speakers of one of the following dialects: Hakka,Hokkien, Cantonese, etc. Though,the writing is the same, speakers don’t understand each other!

The Chinese have many clans, e.g.,Johor is sprinkled with Lee Foundation halls and there are Khoo Kongsi’sin Penang. Additionally, there are differences in religion, e.g. Daoism, spiritism,Kuan-Yin-ism, etc. Yet they share Confucian ideals, as Lee Kuan Yew never tires of reminding us.

Despite the differences, itis possible to speak of ‘the Chinese, those from the Middle Kingdom’ – elsethere would not be so much analyses of their (often good) businesspractices – though many are no longer fluent in Chinese.

We may also observe that neitherthe Malays nor the Chinese in

Malaysia

are homogenous in their political leanings. Both Malays and Chinesecan be found in the DAP, Gerakan and PSM. Despite Baharudin’s casuistry, UMNO exists in order to promote the perjuangan (war)of the Malays.

In the case of Indians, the lackof homogeneity is more pronounced; even Ghandhiji admitted it’s acenturies old problem. The separation ofPakistan and continuinginsurgencies in Punjab and Simla are inescapable proofs.

Also, an Indian could be a Tamil, Telugu, Marathi or Sindhi, etc; I've heard there are over seventy unique systems of writing in India. The variegations continue: the Tamil could bea Brahmin-Hindu, Nagarathar-Hindu, Pariah-Hindu, etc; he could be Saivite or Vaishnavite. Or a Buddhist, Christian, Jain, Muslim, Sikh, etc.

There is not one “Indian” race,despite what we say by mandate on forms and do in the formulations of policies andstrategies. People are ‘Indians’ simplybecause their ancestors can be traced to a vast sub-continent, not because theyare similar. In terms of variety, Indians are more like aboriginals than like Chinese or Malays.

Economic and social dataindicates there are a lot of Indian poor. And in Malaysiawhere power is so race-centred, Indians have been least successful inorganizing themselves politically.

It is astonishing how many Tamilnewspapers there are in Malaysia:Nesan, Nanban, Osai, Murasu, Thinamani, etc – each supporting differentpolitical groups. There are so many‘Indian’ political parties, Sangams or clubs, e.g. Telugu groups,Tamil groups, Malayalee groups, Mar Thoma groups, Sikh groups, etc.

[Malaysian Sikhs areloathe to admit a predicament: they will not say they are ‘Indians,’but they delight in the fact that the Prime Minister of India is a Sikh!]

There is an Indian problem ofpoverty in Malaysia. Hindraf never tires of reminding us of it; Umno-BN nevertires of exploiting it through giving hand-outs and through corruptingpotential leaders and silencing trouble-makers.

How to solve it?

I do not believe the economicimbalance can be solved through ranting and raving about race, like Hindraf and UMNO-BN do. I think we have to shift the discussion toeconomics, good neighbourliness and, like in the USA, appropriate legislation.

The questions are, what should thelegislation be, who will draft it and who will pass it? [And what about Tamil schools which have thesupport of UMNO-BN politicians and Hindraf, but do not have a supply of graduateteachers?]

PKR’s buku jingga and some DAP,PKR and PSM politicians give me hope much progress will be made in reducing Indian poverty during my lifetime.

It's time to return to the question: Are Umno and Hindraf racist?

I say Yes: not in the sense ofinherent superiority or inferiority, but in the sense of framing policies inorder to win racial support, rather than framing policies to establish andsustain human rights irrespective of race, colour or literacy.

Additional Note:

You may wish to read myshort piece, TheUnavoidable Realities of Race in Malaysia.

Discovering Submariners On Eternal Patrol

2012-01-29T23:23:00.000+08:00

USS Pampanito (SS-383) Launched 12th July 1943

If we were asked to name a heroor heroine other than a family member or mentor, we would probably choose someone who is either a ‘saviour’ or an ‘achiever,’ because we are so leadership and achievement oriented.

Our ‘heroes’ are people like Obama(many voted for him because they thought he could walk on water), Putin(seriously, many Russians love him), Paris Hilton (poor little rich girl),maybe even Mother Teresa. The ‘cool’people will name the iconic founder of Apple, Steve Jobs (overlooking the fact thathe was often a tyrant).

When we think of war, we think invery negative terms. We think ofwater-boarding of detainees, soldiers urinating on ‘fighters’ and of policemen brutalizingprotesters. Seldom do we think of menand women who fought to give us the security we enjoy.

Those thoughts flooded my mindwhen I visited the USS Pampanito,a World War II submarine moored in San Francisco. It isnow a museum, complete with veterans who serve as docents and answer questionsfrom over 100,000 visitors per year.

Prior to my visit, the only ‘experience’I had with submarines is what I got from movies, the most famous of which is The Hunt for RedOctober, based on a novel with the same name by Tom Clancy. Did you know the novel was published by the USNaval Institute Press?

My other ‘knowledge’ aboutsubmarines was from TV series such as NCIS and JAG. Movies and TV series are focused on story and plot,with the submarine being little more than the stage upon which we are thrilledand inspired. What I had was ‘virtual’knowledge, gained in the context of entertainment.

Touring the USS Pampanito – with anexcellent audio narrated by those who served on it, and interspersed with actualwartime recordings – changed my perspective. Listening to the audio and interacting with good docents within theconfines of the submarine made me think about technology, timing and terror.

Sleeping right over a torpedo

For the first 18 months of US submarinewarfare, there were very few ‘kills’ by submarines, due to problems with torpedoes. Torpedo guidance technologywas sufficient for the torpedo to leave the submarine and strike the target atthe right spot. However, after a torpedopierced a ship’s armour, it often would not fire.

There was finger-pointing betweendesigners and submariners over who was responsible for the failures. Some things simply don’t change!

It was eventually determined thatthe issues were design-related.

Following the ‘manuals’ wouldresult in (1) torpedoes travelling about ten feet lower than intended; (2) thefiring pin on the contact exploder (one of two firing mechanisms) failing toactivate and (3) the magnetic exploders (the second firing mechanisms) causingthe torpedo to fire before striking the ship.

These problems were mainly due tothe torpedoes not being adequately tested before they were used in warfare. Someone decided it was too expensive to testthe torpedoes. The docent said eachtorpedo, weighing about 1.5 metric tons, cost about as much to build as it costto build a ‘good’ house (US 9,000 in 1942 dollars).

The failure to test a sufficientnumber of torpedoes under carefully specified and controlled conditions (‘designverification’) created much friction between departments in the armed forcesand caused a loss of morale amongst submariners.

The cramped quarters, poorventilation – the air was always stale with body odour and diesel fumes – andpoor noise-proofing were other factors related to technology which struck me. Enlisted men and their officers – and all whoserve on submarines are, to this day, volunteers – accepted the conditions andpersevered.

Bunk over 'skinny' shower & toilet

The men didn’t return to base forup to 70 days, and lived under constant fear of death. The source of fear included the knowledge thatwhen a torpedo didn’t fire after impact, spotters on the target could track thetrail of bubbles released by the exhaust of the torpedo’s (steam!) propulsion systemand locate the submarine!

Similar problems were faced by theGermans and the Japanese. In wartime,there was no time to ‘perfect’ designs through testing, detection andcorrection.

Ironically, the problem with thecontact exploder pins was solved by machining the pins from metal recoveredfrom propellers of Japanese planes shot down at Pearl Harbour! A light, high-strength aluminium alloy wasrequired.

There was no time to develop a newmaterial. Something already existing hadto be used. Talk about recycling! [This is a quality engineer’s nightmare: notbeing able to test and accept the material before allowing it to be used in acritical component!]

Water Desalination Plant (Distillation)

There was little water on board; itwas necessary to continuously desalinate water. Four toilets served 80 men. Spacewas so limited, the men kept their clothes under the sheets on their bunks, someof which were directly above torpedoes. [Imaginethe challenges of having women on board submarines today.]

The technology was so unready thatmany submarines and their crews never returned. I can vouch for the truth of the following text, which you can find here:

“Thedecisive role played by the Silent Service during WW II is often overlooked, orthe significance of their contribution is not fully understood.

TheSubmarine Service represented only 1.6% of all Navy personnel during the warbut they accounted for over 55% of all Japanese ships sunk, including one-thirdof the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Submarinerspaid a high price for this accomplishment, however, with the highest percentagecasualty rate of any branch of the service, almost 23%.

Fifty-twoU.S.submarines were lost during WW II with over 3,500 men. Many additional men werelost either from gunfire or tragic mishap.

Itshould always be remembered that these men were all volunteers.”

Submariners have a way ofreferring to those who don’t return from service. They are said to be “on eternal patrol.” Who are your heroes?

My Response to Hindraf's Withdrawal from ABU

2012-01-26T13:36:00.000+08:00

Hindraf,the Hindu Rights Action Force, has withdrawn support from ABU, theAnything But Umno movement which is galvanizing the nation.

Hindrafleaders say PKR is as racist as Umno.

Hindraf decided to withdraw from ABU because of what happened in Klang onSaturday, when UMNO-aligned thugs violently disrupted aHindraf-ABU event.

Accordingto Hindraf, PAS and PKR leaders who were seated on the stagesilently watched over the fracas, and did not immediately condemn theinterruption. [I do not accept this; I saw a video of Haris Ibrahimadjourning the meeting.] Hindraf also says the organizers did notprovide adequate security; apparently Hindraf doesn't consider itselfone of the organizers.

Hindrafleaders say they will support Pakatan in the next General Electiononly if Pakatan “endorses in writing Hindraf's 18 point demands andgives it's word that it will implement all the demands when it comesto power.” [I disagree with some of the 18points; some are wrong in principle, others are not actionable.]

Iappreciate Hindraf leaders. They are trying to organize andrepresent a fragmented, dejected segment of the Indian community who have been exploited by many, including the MIC.

As they undertake this difficult work, Hindrafleaders are faced with a dilemma.

Toimpress and mobilize their constituency, Hindraf leaders must showbelligerence, the characteristic of the very Tuansand Mandores whom they deign to deplore. Yet, to gainpower, Hindraf leaders must show an ability to collaborate withothers outside their fold.

ABUhas a principle: anyone who's not for my enemy is my friend. So ABUis willing to collaborate with race-based Hindraf, to oust race-basedUMNO.

Hindrafhas a principle: anyone who's not for their 18 points is not forthem. Their all or nothing rule cripples them when they attempt towork with others.

Hindrafis missing the point that we are where we are because of UMNO. If Hindraf cannot agree with this, they will not gain power to dogood.

Thegenius of ABU is that there is one clear message. The message whichworked in 2008, thanks mainly to Hindraf, can work again(despite what Raja Petra Kamaruddin says).

Hindrafhas another problem: Hindraf leaders sense that at the next Hindrf-ABU event, their followers willbecome unruly.

Unrulinessis inevitable because Hindraf leaders energize their followers withanger about past and present injustices, not a vision of a justfuture and plans to achieve it.

Iadmire Hindraf leaders because they seek to speak in the corridors ofpower for those who are voiceless. They keep before us thecontributions of Indians to Malaysia. They speak for themarginalized. They are willing to go to jail for their beliefs andactions.

Idislike Hindraf leaders because they spout venom – they are likePerkasa's Ibrahim Ali.

Theybase their calculations on race. And, to draw supporters, they usethe language of 'loud reason,' which drowns out the voices of othermarginalized people. A strategy of 'quiet shaming' is not in theirtoolbox. They say the time for patience is over.

Hindraflacks a principled, focused, charismatic leader to galvanize andalign followers: too many chiefs, not enough Indians. Can you namethe leader of Hindraf?

Becausethe leaders do not share one voice, Hindraf isn't a movement in asingle direction; presently Hindraf is an assembly of splinters.

Hindraf'swithdrawal from ABU is not a reflection on ABU. It's a reflection onHindraf.

A Pilgrim's Meditation After Attending a Wake Service

2012-01-25T00:20:00.001+08:00

Iwas at a wake service in Subang Jaya tonight. I don't know why theycall them wake services. I don't think it's because they think wewill wake up the body in the coffin. I don't think it's because westay awake beyond normal hours. I think it may be because we arelike the wake behind a moving boat, the ones left behind.

AsI grow older, I don't know what makes the passing of someone we careabout so hard: the fact that he or she has left or the fact that weremain.

Ibarely knew Richard Wong Pak Choy. He departed this world about 6.30am on the second day of the Lunar New Year. He was aged about 52.

Iknow very well what Richard Wong dedicated his life to. He supportedhis family. His wife Lim Swee Bin in particular. In doing good. Inrevealing injustices. In promoting and supporting actions to bringabout justice. Especially in East Malaysia.

Thanksto that couple's commitment, I became engaged in some way withSarawak. I know there are many nay-sayers. Some East Malaysians saywe in the Peninsula shouldn't talk about things we don't understand.

Well,my friends worked hard to understand. They worked hard to help meunderstand, at least some bits. My first blog post to go viral was“AmI Interested in Sarawak?” It was a post which I wrote from theheart. I wrote several more pieces on Sarawak after that. I hope Icontributed in some way to the results of the election in Sarawak: myposts were carried on many sites, including several run by EastMalaysians.

Iam troubled by the passing of Richard. I am troubled becauseperpetrators of injustice – people I wish were dead – are stillstrutting around and gorging themselves. Richard however is gone,leaving in his wake his family, friends and acquaintances like me.

Iwept when I heard the news. I remembered this life is noteverything. This life is just a journey. We are pilgrims. We canfocus on our own comfort and safety, or we can make this world abetter place for our neighbours, as we journey to meet our maker.

Iwas glad I did not have to find words to comfort my sister tonight. I was glad we live in the wake of others who have gone before us. Iwas glad they have written songs which remind us who we are, who Godis, and who we can be.

Myspirit soared when I heard the words of the first hymn: “Glory tothe Lamb.” I remembered that death is not always defeat. Deathcan be victory. Because the Lamb, Christ, is on the throne. He's onthe throne because he died.

Mycourage was further enhanced when I heard the words to “What aFriend we Have in Jesus.” I know He lives, I know we who are Hisfollowers will share in His resurrection. I know neither Richard norI need to fear death.

Deathfor us is not just an exit. It is an entrance. It is an entranceinto the presence of God. It is an entrance into a moment when wehope to hear our God say to us “Well done, good and faithfulservant.” (Matthew25:21)

Wecannot remove the mystery from the Christian life. We know it's notwhat we do that gets us into a comfortable presence with God; we knowit's not about good deeds outweighing bad deeds. We know, because wecan't put values on each of our deeds, and we can't keep count.

Howdo you value helping a blind person cross a street? How do you value notcheating on taxes? How do you value risking your own life to save another's, e.g.jumping into a raging monsoon drain to save a child? And how canyou be sure you've counted everything?

Wewho seek to follow Christ are confident we will enter the presence ofGod. But we will not enter with confident arrogance. Rather, wewill enter with a great sense of our own failures, trusting only inGod's mercy: and hoping that we will hear the “well done” becausewe were good stewards.

Richard'sdeparture, and all other departures, remind me that life is fleeting. And that our calling in life is to be good stewards. Our calling isto use what has been given to us to serve God and neighbour. Ourcalling is to be good servants.

Atthe service my wife recognized an elderly man. She thought he hadserved time under the Internal Security Act. We live in a time whenthe reward for standing up for justice is imprisonment without trial. Sometimes that's what leads to the “well done.”

Wake Services are 24/7. Am I awake? Am I a pilgrim? Am I a good and faithful servant?

Jonah, Jesus and Us

2012-01-22T17:01:00.002+08:00

Jonahwas the most successful prophet ever, if you measure successaccording to whether people treat a prophet's words as an 'oracle,' aword from God.

TheBible book of Jonah is unlike any other prophetic book in the Bible. The other prophetic books have many, often long, oracles. Howeverthe book named after Jonah represents him as a one trick pony.

Thereis only one record of an oracle by Jonah. Jonah 3:4b: “Anotherforty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” [Jonah had been toldearlier that God was responding to Nineveh's wickedness.]

TheNinevites uniform response to Jonah resulted in his words beingproved false: forty days later the city was NOT overthrown. TheNinevites public admittance of their corruption, and their resolve tochange, caused God to change his mind.

Theirrepentance was lead by their king and his nobles (Jonah 3:7). Godrelented, just as Jonah had expected (Jonah 3:10). Nineveh was notpunished, not overthrown.

JewishJonah was a reluctant prophet, because he was no theologicalneophyte.

Whenthe word of God concerning non-Jewish, (Assyrian, enemy) Nineveh cameto him, he knew what could happen. He knew God doesn't want anyoneto perish; he knew God is delighted when anyone turns from other waysand chooses the right way. He knew if the people of Ninevehrepented, God's response would be relief and joy. [John3:16-17]

Jonahis an important reminder to us that God's purposes are not just forindividuals. God's purposes are also for nations. The prophets spokemainly to nations. Judgment came to nations. And God did judge:Sodom and Gomorrah are the most famous examples.

Thefirst lectionary reading for today, Jonah 3:1-5, 10, sheds light on Mark 1:14-20, Mark's report of Jesus calling his first disciples (the gospelreading for today).

Concernfor righteousness (the opposite of which is corruption) is acharacteristic both of God and of those who wish to honour Him. JohnBaptist, also a prophet, equally detested 'unrighteousness.' JohnBaptist called out the corruption of many, including King Herod, byname. The state responded by arresting him.

Marktells us Jesus called His first disciples AFTER John Baptist wasarrested (by an earthly kingdom). In the same breath, Mark tells usJesus said 'the kingdom of God is at hand.'

Inthe New Testament, there are over a hundred references to theKingdom. The Kingdom, prophesied long before (e.g. Isaiah52:7), was often in the mind of Jesus.

AFTERmentioning the Kingdom, Jesus called the first disciples, whohappened to be fishermen. Jesus said to them: 'follow me,' and saidhe would make them 'fishers of men.'

Jesuscalls disciples to enter the Kingdom, and to become workers who willbring others into His Kingdom. But this doesn't mean all who respondto the call to follow Jesus have to stop doing whatever they weredoing when he called them. After all, we know He had many disciples,but only a small group went with Him everywhere.

Thevast majority of those who are called are called to remain where theyare. But all are called to change. We are called to stop seeingthings – including religion – as a means of making things easierfor ourselves as individuals or families. Instead, we are called tosee ourselves as instruments.

Theapostle Paul reveals the mind of God in this matter:

“Do notpresent your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, butpresent yourselves to God as those who have been brought from deathto life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.” (Romans 6:13)

That'sus. We are instruments. We can work for unrighteousness(corruption), or we can work for righteousness. We can be like theNinevites before they heard God through Jonah, or we can be like themAFTER they heard God.

Whenwe are surrounded by so much corruption (MFC; Justice in shambles;police brutality; exploitation through failure to pay minimum wages;widening gap between the rich and the poor; overpayment for purchasesin the public sector, e.g. defence spending; immoral detention, e.g.EO6; detention of Bibles; raiding of Christian premises, etc.), weneed to remember both Jonah and Jesus.

Wewho are called by Jesus often act worse than Jonah.

Jonah,to his credit, understood the mercy of God and the power of God'sword in His time: he knew people could repent and please God. Hisproblem was that he preferred them to be blasted than to be blessed.

Wewho are called by Jesus to be God's children and subjects of HisKingdom don't seem to have Jonah's faith in God.

Ourproblem is that we seem incapable of going beyond cynicism. We seemmired in pessimism and hopelessness. We seem unwilling to trust thepower of God's word, unwilling to speak truth to corruption,unwilling to believe people – even our national leaders – canrepent and give joy to God.

TheKingdom needs to be as central in our thinking as it is in God's. Donald Bridge provides a helpful introduction to the 'Kingdom of God':

"[It's] notgeographical, describing a patch of ground (like the United Kingdomor Great Britain). It is a concept-word (like democracy, socialismor Africanization). But it is more than a vague ideal. The phrasemeans the rule of God. WhereGod has his way there his reign or kingdom is."

AsAbraham Kuyper once put it, there is not one cubic inch which doesnot belong to God. Corruption has no right to be in His Kingdom,which is everywhere. Righteousness must overcome corruption; we arethe instruments who can make it happen. To do this, we must stay,not flee.

Wecan learn from the Anti-saccharites, Englishwomen who, as part oftheir endeavour to eliminate slavery, did everything they could tomake visible the link between sugar and slavery. They did everythingthey could to get people to boycott sugar. They did this knowingmany big companies would lose their profits, many pensioners wouldlose their incomes – which came from investments in sugarcompanies.

Theywere followers.

Theywere people who didn't leave the work or the places they foundthemselves in when they heard the call 'follow me.' They understoodthey had to change. Their first loyalty had to be the King of theKingdom. They became instruments of change, instruments who wouldfight corruption.

Theywould be like fire prevention and fire fighting equipment.

Theywould remain in place, but they would know their purpose and actaccording to it: prevent fires; detect fires; fight fires. Keep theenvironment right for sustained righteousness, don't allow corruptiona foothold.

Theywould be people who would change the environment just by being there.

Theywould be like Phua Seng Tiong who reformed a notorious,gangster-ridden school in Jinjang. They would make it clear what wasacceptable and not-acceptable around them. [Read more in page 124 ofBarefoot Leadership by Alvin Ung.]

Followers of Jesus don't think only geographically when asked the question "Where are we now?" We think instead of where we are in relation to the complete realization of the Kingdom of God: where garbage collectors and doctors are treated with equal dignity; when all are equal and there is no need to discuss the 99%/1% divide and huge income disparities, because there aren't any.

Followersof Jesus have a special appreciation for the last book of the Bible,the book of Revelation. We especially recall the tree of life in the garden which isincluded in a portrait of the fulfilled Kingdom. The leaves of thetree are for the healing of nations. Nations. NATIONS. (Revelation22:2)

Based on a sermon preached at Bangsar Lutheran Church on Sunday 22 January 2012.

Interpreting the chart: The bottom 40 per cent of households have an average income of RM1,222 per month whilst the top 20 per cent households earn an average of RM8,157 per month. 58 per cent of households earn less than RM3,000 per month. (In 2009, the Federal Territories Minister recommended that any urban household with less than RM3,000 per month would be considered poor)

The Evangelist who Esteemed Gandhi & Inspired Martin Luther King Jr

2012-01-15T12:39:00.000+08:00

Eli Stanley Jones (1884 – 1973), aChristian evangelist who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, was deniedre-entry to

India

in 1948 because he said Indians had the moral right to independence. He later wrote “It was a privilege to be keptout of

India

on that issue. I believed fundamentallyin the method and motive of the struggle for political independence.”

Stanley Jones was an ‘evangelist’ becausehe dedicated his life to convincing people that Christ was more than anordinary man, and so should be believed and obeyed – not just personally, butalso in the political realm.

You are probably familiar with theterm ‘pastor,’ but not ‘evangelist.’ The following political analogy helps explainthe difference between an evangelist and a pastor:

“Everypolitical party or movement has “big voices” that articulate especially wellthe views of the movement, and also “local leaders” that organize and directthe work of the faithful in particular districts…. These [“big voices”] arepersuasive, and are invited to address rallies around the country to motivateparty-members and to win people over to the movement. The local leadership ofpolitical movements are state and county office-holders as well as partychairman and precinct captains. The party could not succeed without both thebig voices and the local leaders. The Christian movement finds its big voicesin the evangelist, and its local leaders in the pastors.” [Flanders,cited in William W Combs,The Biblical Role of the Evangelist, DBSJ7 (Fall 2002), 42]

Stanley Jones wrote a book aboutGandhi titled Mahatma Gandhi:An Interpretation (1948). [Dr Martin Luther King Jr is reputed to havesaid that it was this book which inspired him to adopt non-violence.] Stanely Jonesloved Gandhi and stood by him even when it wasn’t the popular thing to do:

“Ihave believed in and have loved Mahatma Gandhi through the years in spite ofdifferences. I have stood in sympathy with the Mahatma and have expressed thatsympathy during the years when to do so was to open one to the charge of . . . theoff-center defending the eccentric.” (5)

Stanley Jones expressed his dismaywhen he felt Gandhi was misrepresented:

“Thereis a book out entitled What Does Gandhi Want?, picking out the inconsistenciesin his statements during the years. It is a microscopic examination, thoroughlydone, but in the end the real man is lost. After you have looked at him througha microscope, you have to look at him through a telescope to get the total man.For he stands against a background of the ages and must be interpreted withthat background to get the full stature and meaning of the man.” (5)

Stanley Jones pointed out a false criticismof Gandhi:

“Aprominent man from the West has fastened on two statements made by Gandhi in YoungIndia: “Its [Hinduism’s] worship of the cow is, in my opinion, its uniquecontribution to the evolution of humanitarianism. Finally the discovery of thelaw of varnashrama [caste system] is a magnificent result of theceaseless search for truth.” “There,” says this critic, “Mahatma Gandhi haspicked out cow worship and caste as the unique contributions of Hinduism. Whatshall we think of a man like that?” (5)

“Andyet when you look at the Mahatma through the years, you see that it is not theworship of the cow but the worship of God that has gripped him, molded him, andmade him. He says that “the cow is a poem of pity, and to protect her standsfor the protection of the whole dumb creation.” Thus interpreted it turns outto be different from cow worship. He says so: “The present ideas of cow worshipand varnashrama are a caricature of what in my opinion the originalsare.” As for caste he so explains it that he explains it away; and in his lifehe breaks all the rules of caste, transcends them, adopts an outcaste as hisdaughter, and in the end does more to break down the system of caste than anyother man, living or dead. In the Mahatma caste just didn’t operate, no matterwhat he said about it. He was a man out-growing constantly the literalinterpretation of his words. He reconciled and transcended inconsistencies inhimself.” (6)

Stanley Jones and Gandhi lived ina time when power lay in communal (“race-based”) parties, just as it does todayin Malaysia:

“.. . religious conversion could be used to build up one’s own communal power andincidentally to undermine the political power of the other community, whichmeant that the political power of the Hindus was jeopardized by conversions,especially mass conversions. For thirty years I lived at the nerve center ofthat clash. It has left scars on me. Again and again I found myself disagreeingwith the Mahatma in his positions. For ten days he and I opened our hearts toeach other in the early morning hours at the Sabarmati Ashram. There were deepdisagreements. And yet something held me to him amid those disagreements.” (7)

Stanley Jones commitment to hisMaster did not prevent him from expressing high regard for someone who did notshare his religious beliefs:

“Iam still an evangelist. I bow to Mahatma Gandhi, but I kneel at the feet ofChrist and give him my full and final allegiance. And yet a little man [Churchill’sderisive description of Gandhi], who fought a system in the framework of whichI stand, has taught me more of the spirit of Christ than perhaps any other manin East or West. This book is a symbol of my gratitude.” (8)

I stand in awe of Stanley Jones asmuch as I stand in awe of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. How about you?

Vilification & Veneration or Issues and Influence?

2012-01-10T23:32:00.001+08:00

Anwar has been acquitted andfreed. Najib, Rais, Muhyiddin and otherspoint glowingly to the outcome of the trial; Anwar and “the opposition” point bitterlyto the fact of the trial.

The top job is at stake. The office of Prime Minister is so powerful,many want it. Najib has it, Anwar wantsit – as do Muhyiddin and others.

My friend Chris asked whetherAnwar, like Neo, is “theone?” Najib tells us he’s theone. UMNO-BN tells us Muhyiddin’s theone. Pakatan tells us Anwar’s the one.

We all want saviours, people whoset things right. Americans thought it wasObama (after Bush). Iraqis thought itwas Saddam. Some Koreans think it’s Kim III.

We want leaders who ‘get’ what theproblem is, who know what to do, who can do it. We want leaders who can see clearly, act wisely and bring real change.

Some want careful study beforeaction: they want the infinite number of possibilities to be weighed, and “theright decision” made. Others want speed– Chinaexecutes perpetrators rapidly: a man poisons people; the state kills him. Rapidly.

Not everyone will be happy all thetime. Decisions must be made. Fairly. Najib’s track record is part of the public record.

Teoh Beng Hock died during Najib’swatch; no one has been held responsible. BERSIH 2.0 and Ambiga were attacked, vilified. Perkasa gained traction. Pak Lah’s decision not to form a PoliceCommission was upheld. The E06 were mistreated. Two honey pots (Saiful & a callgirl) wereused to vilify Anwar. Najib’s in charge.

Sex, cow and pig heads, racistprincipals and history-as-propaganda gained prominence under Najib’swatch. The MFC/Wanita UMNO scandal iscondoned. The civil service was bypassedthrough Pemandu. A Senior policeofficer’s career was ruined through a staged trial (thankfully a judge acteduprightly). Najib’s in charge.

Najib used the resources of thestate against Anwar. Anwar should neverhave been charged for Sodomy II, let alone vilified by the apparatus of thestate and of UMNO-BN. Utusan runs riotand vilifies non Malays and Christians. Najib’sin charge.

Mahathir has re-surfaced underNajib’s watch. Muhyiddin runs riot. Hishammuddin re-writes the peaceful assemblybill into a no-assembly bill. Khir Toyoenriches himself, makes false allegations: an elected rep. and a journalist aredetained. Cronies are appointed toPETRONAS, whose accounts remain state secrets. Najib’s in charge.

Perak was re-taken by Barisanthrough the machinations of Najib. Somewould say he exercised the same skills in the case of Saiful/Anwar.

That’s the problem. We think it’s all about Najib, and we lookfor someone to compare him with; someone on ‘the other side’; Anwar. We forget the other UMNO-BN elected reps. whocondone all these things by their silence.

It’s really about UMNO-BN; Najibwas only doing what was good for the leaders of UMNO-BN. It’s really about the power struggles withinUMNO. It’s really about UMNO leaders losing patronage benefits in Selangor, Perak and Penang.

It’s about the collapse of MIC,MCA, Gerakan. It’s about the rape of Sarawak under Taib. It’s about the whole country recognizing the leaders enrichedthemselves, and have to continue enriching their cronies in order to remain inpower.

We have good things to say aboutPAS and DAP. There are leaders of thecalibre of Tok Guru, Khalid, Karpal, Kit Siang and Guan Eng. Men who’ve been to prison for the cause, justlike Anwar. There are also results.

The DAP has turned Penang around: evenMalay contractors in Penang approve of theDAP. Selangor has stood it’s groundagainst the Federal government, re. water treatment and supply. Both Selangor and Penanghave Freedom of Information Acts. There is actual proof of acting upon beliefs not exclusive to any race or religion.

Anwar has been acquitted and freed. Now that the attempted perversionof justice has failed, let’s get real about Anwar.

Anwar was groomed by Mahathir tobe his successor. The only reason Anwaris not Prime Minister today is because he was impatient: he wanted to oustMahathir, he didn’t want to wait for Mahathir to hand over the reins.

Anwar was Prime Minister inwaiting while multiculturalism was eroded through state-sponsored racism via BiroTata Negara, citizenship-in-exchange-for-votes, falsification of history,favouritism for Malays, etc.

Anwar played a part in allthese. PAS and DAP contended with himbefore. Now they’re with him becausethey know he has insights which can help topple UMNO-BN. And he has the leadership and politicalskills to keep disparate parties together.

I believe in repentance: a turningaway from previous ways. An alcoholiccan only reform if he admits he’s done wrong, needs help. It’s no different in politics.

Some say after his incarceration,Anwar changed. What wrongs has headmitted? Has he confessed? Has he admitted guilt? Has he said what paths he will no longerfollow? Is he transparent?

I am sharing these thoughts notbecause I’m against Anwar. I have greatadmiration for him.

Anwar has stood against thegreatest odds, he deserves a place in history. His family has stood by him; his wife and daughter have enteredpolitics – and given a good account of themselves. He has many friends who stand by him.

I am sharing these thoughtsbecause I sense we’re so desperate to be rid of Najib and his cronies, we’re atrisk of failing to look at Anwar critically. It’s just a matter of time before unpleasant truths about Anwar arerevealed. [This is what MCLM has been saying. This is what RPK has been saying.]

Both Najib and Anwar are fightingfor the top job. They are veryfocused. Najib will make deals: rememberSibu?. Anwar will make deals: rememberthe kisses in Taiwanto turn princes into frogs? Najib hasthe power of the state to show Anwar’s foibles. Anwar has the power of the ABU sentiment to find and show the cracks in Najib’s façade.

We need to stop focusing on individuals. We know we are focusing on individuals when our responses swing between vilification andveneration: we either defame and abuse or we exalt and applaud. That's an indicator of our political maturity. The great good that has happened in the post-Mahathir era is the emergence of strong civil society groups: BERSIH, GMI, SABM, Tenaganita.

Anwar has been acquitted and freed. We need to continue to think in terms ofissues and influence. We as individuals and groups need to setaside time and resources to influence our leaders, through activism. It’snot about Najib and Anwar. It’s notabout saviours. It's about us. It's about how serious we are about change. We deserve the nation we get.

RPK's Use of the 4 Letter Word in his Mingguan Interview

2012-01-07T11:51:00.000+08:00

Inmy last piece I said MCLM (Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement)candidates concluded RPK made a U-turn in respect of MCLMfielding candidates. Malik Imtiaz, Sreekant Pillai, NeduchelianVengu (and Haris Ibrahim) quickly distanced themselves from MCLM. Here, I want to examine why I think they distanced themselves, and why I think there's a race factor also at play.

Iknow nothing about Sreekant and Neduchelian. I am not acquaintedwith Imtiaz and Haris, but I know something of what they have doneand are trying to do. I admire them and wish them well. I hope whatforced them to make their decisions is the dimension of theinterview which makes me fume.

Ibegin with a caveat: I do not follow RPK; I don't know the progressof his thought and relationships. So I'm reacting to the singleinterview reported by Mingguan on 01 January 2012.

RPKused that Malay 4 letter word several times. Yes, I mean 'Cina.'

RPKlinked the Chinese in Malaysia to the Chinese in mainland China. Hedid this through a deft use of Deng Xiaoping's oft-quoted remark: “Idoesn't matter if the cat is black or white, all that matters is thatit catches the mice.” RPK said Deng intended this to be understoodas “prosperity has priority over forms of government, i.e.communism or democracy." RPK added: “that's what the world'slargest race desires.”

[Note:I suspect RPK meant to say Deng was alluding to capitalism, notdemocracy.]

RPKsaid all the Chinese care about is a strong economy, and governmentnon-intervention in their businesses; he said “the Chinese” onlycare about projects, money, business. He said this is the reason whythe Chinese in Selangor are not happy.

That's stereotyping of the worst kind. That's akin to saying “he'sroyalty, so he's inbred and an imbecile.” That's akin to saying“he's Malay. He's lazy.” That's akin to saying “he's Indian. He's a drunkard.” The “Chinese” section of the interview reminded me of this passage from the pen of the patron saint ofPerkasa:

“Racesare differentiated not merely by ethnic origin, but also by manyother characteristics. . . . The Jews for example are not merelyhook-nosed, but understand money instinctively. The Europeans arenot only fair-skinned, but have an insatiable curiosity. The Malaysare not merely brown, but are also easy-going and tolerant. And theChinese are not just almond-eyed people, but are also inherently goodbusinessmen.”

Mahathirbin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma
(Petaling Jaya: FederalPublications, 1970), 84.

So,does RPK have the same patron saint as Perkasa (and Umno)? If so,has he added a patron saint? Or has he been hiding his patron saintall along? More importantly, does he have other patron saints aswell, e.g. Che Guevara? This is the dilemma for those who care aboutthe influence of RPK.

Wecould say that Malaysians are constantly being formed, deformed andreformed by our racial origins and leanings, knowingly andunknowingly. [I've borrowed a phrase from Walter Brueggemann.]

Peoplelike me didn't choose to be born here. We are here because of worldevents which occurred during the lifetimes of our grandparents oreven earlier: famines, political and economic instabilities in Indiaand China, the unwillingness of Malays to work for the Britishcolonists, and the decision of the colonists to encourage immigrationto Malaya.

Ourancestors fought the British and gained independence for Malaya: justlook at who's memorialized in Tugu Malaysia, our war monument inKuala Lumpur. In the process, our ancestors gained citizenshiprights for themselves and their descendants – us.

Wehave nowhere else to go; we have no desire to call anywhere else ourhome. Our ancestors died for this country, built the infrastructure,developed the commerce; we want to live together, to share commongoals, to be good neighbours.

Tomany of us, “Race is so yesterday,” as an SABM (Saya Anak BangsaMalaysia) t-shirt puts it. This is not to say that we do notrecognize ethnic realities. We recognize there is a need to putright wrongs which have been done in the name of race – a primaryreason we are attracted to ABU, Anything But Umno. We recognize thata country needs to be governed, and that progress needs to be guidedthrough legislative and administrative acts. We recognize thehistorical factors at play and the economic imbalances which must becorrected.

Weknow it's a hard journey, with many compromises en-route: becausewe're all human and we need to keep moving, not remain in deadlock. We know politics is not a matter of black and white, everyone happy,always. We also know racial profiling is wrong.

WhenRPK broad-brushed the Chinese in his interview with Mingguan, did hespeak from his heart? If he did, he's plain wrong. There's no twoways about it.

RPKeither failed to notice or chose not to notice that many Chinese areactive in NGO's: with no commercial benefit to themselves, and muchto the disappointment of their parents. He also failed to noticethat many parents in Malaysia are challenged by their children'snon-racial orientation: even the patron saint has his troubles.

Iapplaud Haris, Imtiaz and others who have distanced themselves fromthe current version of RPK, without denigrating him. RPK hasopportunity to recant; if he does, and proves to be sincere, I amsure his friends will return to him. I congratulate Malaysia forhaving come to this stage in political development; there really iscivil society here!

What to Make of RPK's tryst with Mingguan?

2012-01-05T23:00:00.002+08:00

Truth be told, I didn’t pay muchattention to Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK). Occasionally, when people sent me links, I read his posts on MalaysiaToday. He always had a bone to pick, andgenerally had data to support it.

He’s a magnet for whistleblowers. I speculate this is becausehe’s royalty, hobnobs with political and social elites (he’s a name dropper), cultivateshis image by sassy dressing, hires canny lawyers and writes well.

I don’t follow his blog because Idon’t care for coarse language; I’m suspicious of people who augment facts andinterpretation with the language of rant. However, that doesn’t change the fact that if I’d been more ‘awake’ atthe time of his incarceration under the ISA, I would have protested hiswrongful detention.

He’s Che Guevara, proudly royal. Go figure.

Anyhow, I have a lot of admirationfor him. According to myfriends-in-the-know, he’s done a lot for Malaysia, fearlessly calling aspade a spade. He’s got loyal admirers,even those he’s just failed continue to stand by him.

Thanks to Mingguan Malaysia’sediting out of RPK’s coarseness, I’ve bothered to read what RPK said in hisinterview with Mingguan, a Malay language broadsheet owned by UMNO and infamousfor promoting racism. As I reflected onwhat he said, it occurred to me that he’s doing what Mahathir did.

There came a time, under Badawi,when Mahathir was ‘blacked out’ by the mainstream media. Mahathir’s response was to move to the onlinemedia. RPK says he’s been ‘blacked out’ online. So he’s moved tothe mainline. (!)

And RPK’s got what he wanted. He’s getting attention. He’s being heard and discussed, even by thelikes of me.

I wonder who’s responsible for thelopsided presentation and interpretation of facts in the interview. Is it RPK or is it Mingguan? I’ll just cover a few of them.

In-fighting. RPK points to infighting in Pakatan’scomponents. DAP vs DAP. PKR vs PKR. PAS vs PAS. My response is: where isn't there infighting? UMNO? MCA? MIC? In West Malaysia? In East Malaysia? Fights even occurin religious groups and NGO’s. And yes,fights occur in MCLM, caused by RPK himself. Just like us, politicians don’t walk on water. Get used to it.

Integrity. RPK says some candidates Pakatan wants tofield lack integrity: he’s referring to corruption. He says UMNO gets it: UMNO is going to fieldbetter candidates in the next elections. [But the evidence to-date, when you consider the candidates UMNO fieldedin Penang, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, etc.isn’t convincing.] Integrity is hard toassess: does anyone remember the early, glowing reports about Khir Toyo,hand-picked by Mahathir? It’s what aparty does when someone is exposed that counts. We are now in Cowgate!

Let's not forget the party whip when it comes to voting. It’s NOT just about voting for individuals. It’s ALSO about voting for parties. At least for now.

Anything But UMNO. RPK says, in effect, we must not jump fromone UMNO to another. But what is itabout UMNO-BN that makes our bile bitter? Isn’t it racism? I am utterlyopposed to UMNO-BN because all their calculations are race-based. They don’t want to build bangsa Malaysia; theywant harmony based on acceptance of ranking of races: Malay, Chinese, Indian,Others. Is Pakatan another UMNO-BN? Whathas Pakatan said about Utusan and Mingguan? [I do not deny there are race-based claimants in Pakatan; perfection takes time.]

Anwar. RPK says it’s not about Anwar. He’sright. But Anwar is like Biko in Soweto long ago, RPK sometime ago and Dr Jeyakumar and Co. not so long ago. They are points of focus about injustice. I don't care whetherAnwar did it with Saiful. I docare about justice and fair trials – including being given notice andopportunity for a defendant to contest evidence to be used against him.

Anwar’s successor. RPK says the opposition is too dependent uponAnwar. He rightly asks about succession. Who will succeed Anwar? Yet, should we not also ask which is a worseproblem to contemplate: Najib’s successor or Anwar’s? Is it any better on the UMNO-BN side? Muhyiddin of school principal fame? Hisham of cow head fame? Khairy of Guan-Eng’s-son fame?

RPK’s role in PKR/Pakatan. [Azmin is reputed to have asked ‘Who is RPKto tell us what to do?’] RPK reminds ushe invented the term ‘Anwarista,’ people who will stand with Anwar. RPK played a big role in mobilizing the publicover the injustices perpetrated against Anwar by Mahathir and Co. However, RPK left the fold and the innercircle. He couldn’t agree; he left; otherscontinued. And will continue. But RPK has a right to speak – as a citizen .. . and a royal. Azmin should respond toRPK, especially a man with the profile of RPK.

Voters returning to UMNO. RPK says voters will return to UMNO. He says the Chinese will return to UMNO. He says, in effect, the Chinese turned awayfrom UMNO because of his advice, his saying things would be better withoutUMNO. But it’s not been so; he impliescorruption has increased. Yet there is aFreedom of Information Act. And hefocuses on Selangor – which includes Hasan Ali and a Sultan. Why not Penang? Also, Chinese voters remember Teoh Beng Huat’sdeath and the failure to prosecute the alleged petty corruption. Chinese also rememberwhat UMNO-BN is doing to Christians – mainly Chinese.

Eskay and Anwar. What RPK has to say about Eskay is troubling. According to RPK, Anwar liedwhen he said he did not know Eskay. Iwonder whether RPK has offered to provide a sworn affidavit about this. [Perhaps he thinks it’s enough that he’sprovided Anwar an opportunity to sue Mingguan for libel?]

Is it about Anwar or is it aboutthe people? RPK says Anwar is mobilizinghis forces and the people to assure his own freedom, not the national interest. But Anwar remains in Malaysia, facing charges, while RPK is inself-imposed exile in the UK,avoiding prosecution. Also, shouldn’tAnwar defend himself? Isn’t Anwarsetting an example of standing up and fighting – for justice. Have we forgotten the overthrow of previousverdicts?

[Due to space constraints, I will not discuss the ABU,Anything but UMNO program; suffice to say that RPK has certainly put MCLM in anodd position. Another very importantpoint RPK makes: in 2008, BN won 55 of 57 seats in Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan. Expectpoliticians from Sabah and Sarawak to strutlike peacocks! RPK also says Anwar should be fixing things in Malaysia, not travelling abroad; and that Anwar has failed as adviser to Selangor.]

I admire RPK. I admire the loyalty he draws from the likesof Art Harun and Haris Ibrahim: I’ve read their candid posts about adamant RPKover the years.

I’ve recorded my own responseto the RPK interview. Now, I turn to others’ responses. Some accuse RPK of doing a U-turn. I think he has, with respect to saying MCLMwill not field candidates – MCLM’s candidates agree with me.

But has RPK done a U-turn aboutUMNO-BN? Is he encouraging people tovote for UMNO-BN? I don’t think so.

I think he’s saying to non-UMNO-BNfolks: be more critical of Anwar and his friends, tellthem what you see and think; shapethem. Tell them the great importance ofbeing different from UMNO-BN. Tell themyou want integrity; tell them you want an end to corruption; tell them you wantaction, now.

When I see the comments many havemade online, I am disappointed. RPK hasspoken about many subjects. He’scoarse, but he’s earned the right to be heard. He’s mixed up, he’s not grown up, he’s hard totalk to, etc. But he’s got a point. We have to think about many things, not just whethera person is black or white. It's about issues, weighing, debating and taking sides; not about people.

We’ve also got toremember RPK is a political activist with an agenda. He has people he likes (whowants to be his friend?) and dislikes (Azmin! Ezam!), people he wants out and peoplehe wants in. UMNO-BN is as wary ofhim as Pakatan is.

This is just another chapter. Mahathir left UMNO. He rejoined. Judges were sacked; judges were compensated. Strange things happen in politics.

9 Lessons 9: What does Old John say it Means?

2012-01-04T18:24:00.001+08:00

The 9^th and finallesson (John 1:1-14)is made up of the first fourteen verses of the gospel of John. John’s gospel is unlike those of Matthew,Mark and Luke. John’s gospel is aninterpretation of the facts about Jesus, by an old man who had once been a companionof Jesus; one of the twelve whom Jesus chose and trained to continue the workhe began.

A professor who spent his life studyingand teaching the gospel of John says:

“[John’s]purpose is to nourish his readers in their devotion to the historic Person, andall his efforts are directed to that end. But he regards his inspiration as given him chiefly in order that he maymake clear, in language which religiously minded Gentiles, as well as Jews, canmake their own, the deeper implications and the ultimate or permanentsignificance of the revelation brought by the Lord, as these were understood bythe Church (according to tradition that of Ephesus) in, and no doubt for, whichhe wrote, towards the end of the first century. And he does so, not by a repetition of the words which he heard long agoin Palestine,but by a restatement of them designed to reveal their meaning.”

R H Lightfoot (edited by C FEvans),
St John’s Gospel:A Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956), 5.

John’s first sentence, “In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”echoes the Bible's first sentence, “In the beginning, God created theheavens and the earth.” After years of pondering thescriptures, Christ’s life, the life of the church and his own life with God,John reveals the mystery: Jesus was before the beginning depicted inGenesis.

We could think of John as having ponderedthe 8 previous lessons:

Disobedience in the garden of Eden and God’sresponse: which explains why life is the way it is (Genesis 3: 8-15; 17-19);
God’s choice of Abraham and promise to him that allnations will be blessed through him (Genesis 22: 15-18);
God’s promise that His Kingdom, an enduring empirewithout imperialism will be established (Isaiah 9: 2; 6-7);
Isaiah’s vision of the restoration of thetranquillity and joy of Eden,through a relative of King David (Isaiah 11: 1-3a; 4a; 6-9);
The angelic pronouncements of the birth of Jesus, “GodSaves” (Luke 1: 26-35;38)
The beginning of a new era of history in a cave in Bethlehem (Luke 2: 1; 3-7);
The reports of shepherds and the reminder that it’snot about the witnesses but about the truth and a long stream of witnesses (Luke 2: 8-16);
The curious case of the wise men, to show us wisdomis not about what we know but about what we choose (Matthew 2: 1-12).

It’s as if John pondered the above– and much more – and concluded that reality is not what it seems. Christ was not a political casualty. To the contrary, the events of His life(including those beyond the 9 readings) were according to plan. The crucifixion was in fact a coronation, ofthe King of the New Kingdom.

John concluded there was only one wayto explain the work, death, and resurrection of the Christ, and ofthe work of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church. He concluded there was a supreme, active, attractive mystery. He concluded it would be an enduring mystery. He was right. There are still disciples today.

In his first verses, Johnintroduced words which recur in the historic formulations of the church and are still heard globally: life, light, glory, truth. These words are key to understanding Jesus, even as we go beyond the 9 lessons. Myassessment of Jesus is the same as John’s. As Dr Lightfoot said, John’s direction nourishes my devotion to Jesus,my Lord and my King.

9 Lessons 8: The Curious Case of The Wise Men

2012-01-03T17:53:00.002+08:00

The 8^th lesson, Matthew 2:1-12 tells of wise men from the East who saw a star and understood it meant anew King of the Jews had been born. Easterners,not the chosen people, not those in the ‘Holy Land,’perceived God’s timing. They got it before the Jews did.

The ‘wise men,’ from the East, whowere religious leaders and advisers to kings in their own lands, travel eitherto curry favour with the-child-who-would-be-King or to mess with the mind ofthe non-Jew who was at that time ‘king of the Jews,' or . . .; they arrive about 2 yearsafter Jesus was born.

These ‘wise’ ambassadors were mostlikely members of a large party which travelled along a trading route; we don’tknow how far they travelled. ‘DatukSeri’s’ of their time, they carried gifts, and were conspicuous. So what they did next was inevitable.

They went directly to the rulingtyrant king, Herod: non-Jewish Herod who had got himself appointed “King of theJews” through currying favours; paranoid Herod who knew everyone was out to gethim. [After Herod killed two of his ownsons and his own wife, purportedly to assure he remained on the throne, EmperorAugustus is reputed to have said that it was safer to be Herod’s pig than to beHerod’s son.]

The ‘wise men’ ask Herod where theking-to-be is: it’s like Ambiga asking Najib when Muhyiddin will usurp hisposition as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Herod turns to his own ‘wise men,’Jewish scholars. They know what thescriptures say. According to theprophets who spoke centuries before, the king-to-be will be born in Bethlehem. Crafty, opportunistic Herod now commissionsthe Eastern ‘wise men’ to go find the infant, so that he too “may come andworship him.”

The Eastern ‘wise men’ leave Herodand journey to Bethlehem.

The star re-appears. The ‘wise men’ find the child. They ‘worship’ Him. They give His parents very expensive, gifts; giftsthey will never use; gifts of fragrance given to peasants in a home infusedwith the stench of animals.

The ‘wise men’ are now warned in adream. They are not to do obey thetyrant King’s Command. They are not toreturn to Herod. The ‘wise men’ sneakaway.

[Surely Herod’s party had themtrailed? Were the spies shaken off? In any case, Bethlehem was small and the party wasconspicuous; so how could Herod’s party not know where the entourage from theEast found the King? Matthew is silent.]

What’s Matthew trying to tell us? I think this passage distills Matthew’smessage:

“.. . with their mixture of influence from paganism, astrology, and JewishScriptures, it is doubtful that the Magi [wise men] knowingly come to worshipJesus in recognition of his incarnate nature as the God-man. They most likely desire to worship the ‘kingof the Jews’ in a way similar to how leading figures from a subservient countrypaid homage to the king of a ruling country. The Magi are giving rightful homage to Jesus as the promised ruler toarise in Israelbut their worship is far more than even they intended.”

Michael J Wilkins, The NIVApplication Commentary, Matthew
(Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 2004), 96.

There’s something in the 8^threading which is too easily missed.

King Herod didn’t fear attack fromthe West: he bought his kingship from Romeand knew his Roman masters were happy with him. Bt Herod did build fortresses and did keep armies along the Eastern Border,for he feared invasion. What did hethink the Eastern ‘wise men’ really wished for the king-to-be?

Non-Jewish Herod didn’t fearrebellion by his own, Jewish, ‘wise men’, for they were daily being enriched byHerod. Matthew’s silence is deafening:he doesn’t tell us the Jewish ‘wise men’ tried to protect the Promised Jewish Saviour. Politically and economically, the Jewish‘wise men’ preferred the tyrant. John ismore explicit: “He came to his own, and his own people did not receivehim.” (John 1:11)

Wisdom is not about seeing orlearning or debating. It’s aboutGod-directed choices.

9 Lessons 7: Shepherds. Shepherds? Shepherds!

2012-01-02T09:20:00.000+08:00

The7^th lesson (Luke8-16) recounts the appearance of angels to a group of shepherds,their response of fear and their discovery of the infant in themanger. God's choice of shepherds and Luke's recounting of it is a'crazy' fact about Christianity.

Iknow it is politically incorrect to speak of other religions. Butanyone who loves his neighbour will share any truth which heconsiders important, and sometimes the best way is to makecomparisons. So, I invite you to consider the testimony of the primehuman mover of your religion – be it Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism,Islam, Sikkhism or whatever – against what I have to say aboutChrist.

Christhas prophecies, angelic accreditation, testimonials by magi(usually translated 'wise men' but could mean astrologers, sorcerersor magicians) and shepherds.

Shepherdsof His time would score zero in polls about honesty. Theirprofession was so disreputable they weren't even allowed to bewitnesses in court. They were chosen to be Christ's witnesses. Crazy, isn't it?

Whatare we to make of the Christ? The earlier readings, some from about3,800 years ago, spoke of Him in unmistakable ways: he would be born,to a virgin, would save many, would reign forever. Yet it seems Godhas no PR skills. The saviour of the world was born seemingly out ofwedlock; his witnesses were not 'credible;' he was crucified by thepolitical, military and religious authorities. Saviour? Crazy!

Let'stalk about shepherds. Until some time before the birth of Christ,shepherds had a good reputation. One of the most-loved psalms isPsalm 23, where God is portrayed as shepherd and His people areportrayed as sheep. King David was a shepherd – a good one whoprotected his sheep from lions, etc. Christ himself said “I am theGreat Shepherd” and taught about the difference between good andbad shepherds.

SoI ask myself, in 2012, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: why did God chooseshepherds to be witnesses to the birth of the Saviour of the world,the King whose reign will have no end? Why are we told not theirnames, but what they did for a living?

Isuspect it's to remind us we are impressionable people. We arepeople who are eager to respond to the present and prone to makingsweeping statements. We condemn people according to their occupationor profession. We generalize.

Oneof the most shocking conversations I've ever had was with a Seniorexecutive of a Public Company in the United States. When I asked himabout politics, his response was that all who are involved inpolitics should be strangled. As far as he was concerned, there wasnothing good to be said about politics.

Oneof my more popular articles is about the police in Malaysia. Afterthe brutality many of them showed during the BERSIH March on 08 July2011, I pleaded that we do not treat them all as bad. Many missed mypoint. Many will miss the point about shepherds being amongst thefirst witnesses to Christ. Professor Beyreuther says of shepherds:

“Ina time of poor pay, shepherds were suspected, perhaps often rightly,of dishonesty. The pious were forbidden to buy wool, milk or meatfrom shepherds. Civic privileges (the functions of judge andwitness) were withdrawn from them as from the tax collectors. 'Noposition in the world is as despised as that of the shepherd'(Midrash on Ps 23).'”

ColinBrown ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology,Volume 3 (Michigan: Zondervan, 1992), 568

Todayin Malaysia, which occupation is considered most dishonest? Membersof which occupation do you think the pious should not deal with? Ifyou could ban members of one occupation from giving witness in court,which occupation would it be? Today, in Malaysia, which is the mostdespised occupation?

[Somesuggest the shepherds of Lesson 7 were devout ones. I can understandthe sentiment, but I do not think it necessary; it is not consistentthe Messiah's reputation as 'the friend of sinners' – includingprostitutes and tax collectors.]

Theangel said to name the infant “Jesus,” which means “God saves;”this includes the act of recovering.

PerhapsGod chose shepherds to be the first witnesses to alert us there isnothing He cannot recover. It's not just about the character of thewitness, e.g. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary from the previouslessons. It's also about the truth of the miracle birth, asprophesied; and about responding: fearing, believing, telling.

Perhapsit's also because we're not to be believed because we are viewed as good; weare to be believed because what we say is well-attested truth. Wemerely repeat what the angel said to the shepherds: “For unto youis born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ, theLord.” (Luke 2:11)

9 Lessons 6: The God in the Cave

2011-12-30T19:16:00.001+08:00

The hands that had made the sun and stars
were too small to reach the huge heads of
the cattle. Upon this paradox our faith is
founded (G K Chesterton)

Thesixth lesson, Luke2:1-7, is about pregnant Mary, the mother of Jesus and herhusband Joseph travelling from their town of Nazareth to Bethlehem,the city of David and while there giving birth to the Messiah. Thereason they went is worth pondering.

Theywent because they were obeying a government order about a census. Acensus is about counting people and finding out information aboutthem. In the Middle East of Jesus' time, census were not done bygovernment appointed census agents visiting people's homes. No. Theonus was on people. They had to obey the order to return to theirhome towns, where they had family and property, and register. It'slike declaring your income and assets for tax purposes – and wastypically done every fourteen years.

Itwas enough for the head of the family, Joseph, to go. But it wasboth Joseph and pregnant Mary who went. Why? It was probablybecause it would have been difficult for Mary to stay in Nazareth,enduring tongue-wagging. Leon Morris describes it thus:

“Weshould perhaps reflect that it was the combination of a decree by theemperor in distant Rome and the gossiping tongues of Nazareth thatbrought Mary to Bethlehem at just the time to fulfill the prophecyabout the birthplace of the Christ (Micah5:2). God works through all kinds of people to effect hispurposes.”

LeonMorris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According toSt. Luke (Leicester: IVP, 1974), 84.

Joseph,a descendant of David, returned to his home city, Bethlehem, the cityof David. He returned with his pregnant and possibly friendlesswife, also a descendant of David, also from Bethlehem.

Theyreturned to a proud city, with many inhabitants who not only weredescendants of David, but also their relatives. There is littlereason to believe Mary gave birth 'urgently, as soon as theyarrived.' Scholars have also pointed out there is little reason tobelieve they went to an inn: the Greek word Luke uses is kataluma(guest room, the word used for the upper room in which the Messiahcelebrated His last passover), not pandocheion (inn, the wordused in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

Weneed to remember that in the Middle East hospitality was and is asacred duty, and that we're talking here about a pregnant woman andher husband visiting their relatives. Is it possible that none wouldcome to the aid of a woman about to deliver a child?

Josephand Mary were probably in a poor relative's home, a home in which theguest room was occupied by other visiting relatives. Therefore itwould have been more private for Mary to birth and nurse the child in'the cave at the back of the house.'

[Homesof that time often had two covered floors. The lower floor was foranimals – especially those which were sick, pregnant or valuable. The upper floor was for the family. The manger (feeding tank), wherethe infant was laid, would normally have been in the lower floor, ona raised area. Mangers were sometimes made of wood, so it's likelythe manger was moved into the living room. More here.]

AsI ponder the 6^th reading, I recall the hospitality shownin India. I recall the times when my mother and I visited herancestral home, and guests would arrive, be housed and be fed. Mats would be rolled out, pillows would be distributed, people wouldgo to sleep. The next day, the mats and beds would be put away. All would be fed with whatever we had, for as long as they stayed; or over-stayed. It helped that everyone was okay with carbo and roots.

Irecall the hospitality I have received, and I am grateful. I recallthose who have been the subject of gossip, whether for actions theyinitiated or not. I hope I will behave toward them as I believe therelatives of Joseph and Mary behaved toward them. I hope I belong to a community of 'unshockable friends' which is "obvious, even scandalous, as friends of sinners." [Ray Ortlund]

Ireflect on the mystery of it all: the decree of a Roman Emperor, thegossip of relatives and neighbours, and the culture of hospitalitywere part of the story of fulfillment. God is always at work. Thereis always a big picture: and we need Lukes' to show it to us.

Irecall GK Chesterton's first paragraph in a piece titled The God in the Cave:

“Thissketch of the human story began in a cave; the cave which popularscience associates with the cave-man and in which practical discoveryhas really found archaic drawings of animals. The second half ofhuman history, which was like a new creation of the world, alsobegins in a cave. There is even a shadow of such a fancy in the factthat animals were again present; for it was a cave used as a stableby the mountaineers of the uplands about Bethlehem; who still drivetheir cattle into such holes and caverns at night.”

9 Lessons 5: Fear, favour and the unexpected

2011-12-26T14:05:00.000+08:00

The5^th lesson, Luke1:26-38, tells of the angel Gabriel speaking to Mary, the motherof Jesus. Who are angels? Hans Bietenhardsays:

“[Inthe New Testament,] the Jewish concepts of the OT are taken over. Angels are representatives of the heavenly world and God'smessengers. When they appear, the supernatural world breaks intothis one. Because God is present in Jesus, his way on earth isaccompanied by angels. At his coming again they will be at hisside. As Son of God, Jesus stands indisputably above the angels.”

ColinBrown, New International Dictionary of New TestamentTheology
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), Vol 1, 102.

Angelsare servants of God; Gabriel spoke for God. He said to Mary, ateenage virgin engaged to Joseph, that she was to become pregnant ina supernatural way. He spoke to Mary independently of Joseph, herparents and relatives.

Maryknew her pregnancy would endanger her; Mary knew people would say shehad sex outside marriage; Mary knew they might even stone her.

MereMary, an unknown, unproven, just-teenage girl in the frowned upon, lowlytown of Nazareth (see note below), recognized God's command. Mary acted like a servantshould. She accepted God's choice for her. Her response wasunlike that of old Zechariahsix months earlier.

PriestlyZechariah, an upright, Godly sixty-something male, while serving Godat the Temple in the holy city of Jerusalem, also had a messagefrom Gabriel: Zechariah and his his post-menopausal wife, Elizabethwould have a son.

Unlike Mary, Zechariah asked for proof the message was true. Itwas strange proof he got: he was made a mute till Gabriel's wordscame true. Mary was given voice to praise God in the themagnificat, the Song of Mary(Leon Morris notes that Luke's is a singing gospel; the magnificat isthe first song Luke records).

Mary'schild is named as Gabriel instructed: Jesus, which means “TheLord is salvation.” The woman's seed, the one who will defeatSatan (the 1^st lesson), the one to be born of a virgin(Isaiah 7:14), will be born to this virgin, Mary.

AsI ponder the 5^th lesson, I am struck by two key words.

Thefirst is 'fear.' Before Gabriel could deliver his message toZechariah and to Mary with confidence that they could process what hewas saying, he had to calm them by telling them not to fear. Do we experience fear when we utter theword “God”? When we say things like “OMG”, do we drainGodness from God?

Thesecond is 'favour.' I'm sure Zechariah and Mary prayed for God'sfavour: but is that all they prayed for? When we consider Mary'sSong (and Zechariah's prophecy, Luke1:67-79, after his son's birth), do we wonder about balance in our own prayers for favours: how much for us, how much for others andhow much for the nation?

Godacts in unexpected ways. Out of Mary came the one whose reign willnever end. Zechariah and Elizabeth birthed John, a prophet who wouldrestore prophecy not only to Israel, but to the world. Alan Storkeysays:

“Oftenprophecy was fiercely critical of the nation's people and rulers andregarded as 'unpatriotic.' It was a tradition of searching rigor,pointing out wrongs, self-indulgence, shallow principles, andinjustice. Prophecy did not pander to the people. If the focus issolely on the enemy and defeating the colonial power, there is lessspace for reflection on God's words of judgment and accountability. For whatever reason, the great external critique of politics on God'sterms, really the source of much human healing, was silenced. Yetaround the birth of Jesus comes a restoration of the prophetictradition, but now among the little people. Anna, Simeon, Zechariah,and Mary herself prophecy. Finally John is to become the greatest ofthe prophets, the one who will midwife the rebirth of politics onGod's terms.”

AlanStorkey, Jesus and Politics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 63

Mary,Zechariah, John. Their Godliness included fear and favour. Theirservanthood included having their lives taken in new directions. Howabout me? How much of the supernatural breaks into my life? Do Ineed angels?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"[The words Nazareth and Nazarene] have essential undertones of dissociation and at the same time contempt. The best commentary one can refer to is Nathaniel's rhetorical question to Philip, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' (John 1:46). At all events, for all the witnesses, Jesus' origins in Nazareth are a sign of his lowliness. Nobody understood this as well or emphasized it as unmistakably as John, when in his account the description of Jesus as Nazoraios found its place in the inscription for his cross on the initiative of the Roman procurator (19:19). Here finally, so to speak, the reader's attention is once again drawn to the fact that Jesus' origins in a place without status or prestige in the surrounding world formed a glaring contrast to the claim with which he had appeared before them." [K H Rengstorf, in Colin Brown, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), Vol 2, 334.]

9 Lessons 4: Articulating the Good Life & Shaping our World

2011-12-22T11:18:00.001+08:00

JamesSmith, a Christian philosopher, explains why a vision of “the goodlife” is important:

“Humanpersons are intentional creatures whose fundamental way of'intending' the world is love or desire. This love or desire –which is unconscious or noncognitive – is always aimed at somevision of the good life, some particular articulation of thekingdom.”

JamesK A Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and CulturalFormation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 62.

Whatis your vision of a good life? Is it a secret vision or an expressedvision? A personal vision, a family vision, an ethnic vision, anational vision or an international vision? Are the elements of thevision mainly to do with your own needs and desires, or of otherstoo? Who has articulated visions of the good life? Has God? Is itachievable on earth?

WhenI consider the commentaries, statements and proposals of Malaysianpublic leaders, editors and columnists, I infer their vision of thegood life is defined by purchasing power. Their goals seem primarilyto be defined by measures of the ability of all sectors of society topurchase capital (e.g. homes, cars, cows), consumables (e.g. rice,clothes, magazines) and glitter (e.g. designer labels, jewellery,gadgets).

Politiciansfrom UMNO-BN always mention peace and security. Just two weeks agothe Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Muhyiddin Yassin, in a speechgiven in Camberra, Australia, brought up again the spectre of the May13 race riots. The title of his speech is telling: BalancingEconomy and Equity: Malaysia's Key Challenge in Transformation. In his (Malay) vision, the good life is characterized by the primacyof Malays over others.

Politiciansfrom other camps stress justice and human rights. In their rhetoric,the most important event in Malaysian history is not 13 May 1969. It is 8 July 2011, the day of the BERSIH protest in KualaLumpur: the purpose of which was to mobilize citizens to name andshame UMNO-BN for denying citizens the right to free and fairelections. They will also point to 03 March 2009, whenthe Ipoh state assembly met under a tree because UMNO-BN deniedthem use of the State Assembly Hall.

AsI meditate on the 4^th lesson, Isaiah11: 1-3a; 4a; 6-9, I remind myself of the Christian vision of thegood life, as laid out by Isaiah, a prophet of God who spoke over2,700 years ago. In his commentary on the book of Isaiah, GeoffreyGrogan says:

“[Isaiah]gives such a manifold presentation of Christ. . . . a study of thebook in its wholeness presents a view of [Christ] that is mostmajestic and moving, . . . The NT [New Testament] writers recognizedIsaiah's special importance, quoting from and alluding to itfrequently. Many of its verses and phrases have passed into commonuse in literature. For example, there are seventy quotations fromIsaiah in the Penguin Dictionary of Quotations and Handel [. ..] used much of Isaiah's language in the Messiah.”

FrankE Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol. 6, Isaiah –Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3

Ithas often been pointed out that the Christ spoke most often of theKingdom of God, which is essentially the Christian vision of the goodlife, the goal of history. In the 4^th lesson, Isaiahspeaks of Christ the King and His Kingdom.

Itis a vision of life springing from a tree stump; not of weeds, but ofa great tree. This is an apt picture, for when the new Kingof the Jews was born of David's line, in David's city ofBethlehem, David's dynasty had been without royal power for nearly600 years. The new King is said to spring from the stump of Jesse,not David, because at that time, David's name had as much dignity asParameswara of Malacca has in Malaysia today.

Thepoint is that the King comes on the scene in God's time, by God'sSpirit. And the ruler's defining feature is his dependence anddelight in God, seeing and doing as God does, based on seeing withinpeople and events, not just based on externals like human sight andhearing. His bias is not to the poor or to the rich, but to God, whois just. This is a key characteristic of the Christian vision of thegood life: justice is supreme.

Howdo you judge the government of the day? You judge it according towhom those in authority prosecute, and what the courts decide.

Ironically,in the good life, there will be no decisions by which to judge thegovernment of the day, for in the good life, there will be no enmity,no fighting over resources, nothing but 'dwelling together in peaceand harmony.' It's a goal we can and must aim for, but it's a goalwe will never achieve this side of heaven.

Isaiahsays that in the good life, people will not be fractious and violent;instead, good neighbourliness, 'dwelling together.' will be thedefining characteristic of society. He says the world will be sodifferent – with non-aggressive, vegetarian lions and playmatesnakes – that we will not view others as competitors and eveninfants will be able to lead us: we won't need leading, for we'llalways do what is best for our neighbours.

Howcan such a change happen? Well, it requires a revolution, oneinitiated by God, one which requires a radical way of recognizing andworshipping God. It means becoming Christ-followers. Pastor-theologian-professor N T Wright puts it this way:

“Whenwe speak of 'following Christ,' it is the crucified Messiah we aretalking about. His death was not simply the messy bit that enablesour sins to be forgiven but that can then be forgotten. The cross isthe surest, truest, and deepest window on the very heart andcharacter of the living and loving God. . . . And when therefore wespeak . . . of shaping our worlds, we do not – we dare not –simply treat the cross as the thing that saves us “personally,”but which can be left behind when we get on with the job. The taskof shaping our world is best understood as the redemptive task ofbringing the achievement of the cross to bear on the world, and inthat task the methods, as well as the message, must be cross-shapedthrough and through.”

quotedin Smith, 164.

Iconsider Christ, born in Bethlehem according to promise, in the midstof a seemingly hopeless society. I consider Christ through the eyesof Isaiah who went before him. I consider Christ through the passageof centuries which have passed since his birth, life, crucifixion andresurrection. I pause. I consider where I am, I consider those whorule over me. I consider my idea of the good life. I consider myneighbours. I judge myself.

DoI have the courage to intentionally articulate my vision of theKingdom?

Malaysian Indian Political Transformation: What Next?

2011-12-20T11:59:00.001+08:00

Thereare many times when I've been somewhere or done something without aclear sense of why. Last night was one of those times. I attended ameeting of about 150 people at an auditorium in Kuala Lumpur. Afancy auditorium with padded seats, a venue often used for theperformance of plays for audiences of the rich, famous and wannabees. Only this time the performance and the crowd was very different.

Ithought I was attending a meeting of NGO's to hand-over a memorandumto Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto leader of the government inwaiting, the Barisan Alternatif, comprised mainly of the politicalparties PKR, PAS and DAP.

Theseare my perception of them: PKR is held together by Anwar Ibrahim, aformer UMNO crony who was forced out and is kept out by UMNO-BN'sjettisoning of the Malaysian justice system; PAS is an assembly ofpeople who are struggling to live out Islam in national life; new DAPmembers and veteran leaders know race-based politics is history.

Itturned out the event was staged by the Makkal Sakthi (People Power) party, which is either anoff-shoot or a break-away from HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force), depending on whom you talk to.

Iwas in KL during the HINDRAF march in KL in 2007, but I was notamongst them. I confess with shame that I was entertaining myself with satellite televisionwhile they were blasted with chemical laced water, blinded by teargas and bruised by baton-wielding policemen directed by the UMNO-BNgovernment, which included the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC).

Myembarrassment over my lack of knowledge of HINDRAF-raised issuessurfaced during a conversation with an Indian taxi driver inSingapore. His knowledge shamed me: I, a 'successful Indian' livingin KL, knew less than he did about what bothered Malaysian Indians tothe extent of staging a large protest in KL.

Embarrassment of another kind infused melast night.

AsI looked around, I saw the men and women were, as Mma Ramotswe wouldsay, traditionally built. I saw no signs of gym memberships, noevidence of exercise regimes, no emblems of dietary controls. Therewere no designer bodies in this version of the 99 %.

Physiquesaside, there appeared to be essentially two groups of people. Onegroup was lean, dark and dressed in ill-fitting clothes: people wholive by the sweat of their brow, do not speak English and are at themercy of owners of capital.

Theother group looked like they supervise people, own small businessesand/or quit MIC. They seemed like Indians who rarely wear T-shirts,rarely go out without patent leather shoes and are never withoutracial lenses.

MuchTamil was spoken at the meeting – and much fluency in Malay wasdisplayed. Topics included Tamil schools: how the number of Tamilschools has dropped from a peak in the 800's to today's low 500's;INTERLOK, the novel which says many Indians came to Malaysia ascoolies; gangsterism due to the government's failure to formulateand implement socio-economic policies to uplift Indians. [Some of my INTERLOK-inspired posts are here, here and here.]

Peoplewere angry over the marginalization of Indians through the teachingof edited versions of history. They were outraged that 'approved school history textbooks,' do not admit the long history ofIndian influence in Malaysia. One speaker pointed out 3 waves ofIndian influence: under the Pandya dynasty, the Chola dynasty (bothof which were imperialistic South Indian 'royal families') and theBritish.

The3 R's under the British was brought up: not reading, writing andarithmetic, but rubber, roads and railways. There was anger thatmany whose families laboured for generations in the rubber estatesdon't even have a home in which to live. [I have blogged about why Indians came to Malaya here and here.]

Isat there thinking about my alone-ness in that gathering. Theaudience was missing my segment of the population of MalaysianIndians. It was quite a contrast with the Pakatan Rakyat (People'sAlliance) delegation: two of the six were Indians. One was NSurendran, a Human Rights lawyer and deputy chairman of PKR; theother was Professor Ramasamy, Deputy Chief Minister of Penang andstalwart member of the DAP.

Isat there thinking about the 'success' of Surendran and Ramasamy,members of parties which are not race-based. These men are beingcourted by race-based Makkal Sakthi.

Isat there thinking about how speakers from the floor responded tothings said and presented by the organizers. One speaker lambastedthe Makkal Sakthi leaders for the absence of Tamil on the '10 Points'cards handed out to all who attended. [I do not know if he waspacified by the explanation: the ten points were 'fresh,' therehadn't been enough time to translate them; in any case, the pointshad been elaborated in Tamil during the meeting by speaker afterspeaker.] Another speaker railed against the first of the 10 points,which wants the government to treat Indians as a minority group.

Isat there thinking how hard it is to be a community organizer, as Iwatched people respond to the chairman's invitation to ask questionsrelated to the ten points. All wanted to make a speech or air acomplaint. I cannot recall one relevant question.

Isat there thinking how deeply entrenched race-based thinking is inMalaysia, and I wondered whether there is a need to have race-basedpolicies. This is what Makkal Sakthi wants Pakatan Rakyat to includein their manifesto for the 13^th General Election (Ihave resisted the urge to make any corrections):

To adopt the United Nations Minorities Protection Act 1948 and include Indians under this
To from a Special Indian Economic Policy under the Parliament
To plan a roadmap to make all Tamil schools as fully aided by 2015 and allow new primary and secondary school based on the population need of area.
To adopt a Standard Exam for University/College entrance for all student regardless of race.
To formulate a special Indian Youth Empowerment Policies
Formation of Ministry of Minorities Affairs and Ministry of Non Muslim Affairs under PMO.
Fair representation in Policy Making and Decision at Govt and GLC.
To drop Interlok book from school and realign the syllabus in teaching the correct history.
A special grant to Indian NGOs in providing more enrichment programs
To ensure the grant of scholarship and study loan based on merit and need.

Icontinue thinking about how so many Malaysian Indians are in denialover the caste system – which is openly acknowledged in India andis treated as important in match-making even amongst MalaysianIndians: for me at least, caste was one of two unacknowledgedelephants in the auditorium; the other was the unwillingness of Sikhsto identify themselves as Indians – this was skimmed over by one ofthe speakers.

Ironically,while multitudes of Malaysians agitate for the expansion ofteaching English, minority Indians push for Tamil: and a Tamil whichthey want to freeze! [One speaker lamented that Indian parents allowtheir children to address them as 'mummy' and 'daddy;' I was temptedto shout out that this is a common practice in India today.]

Thanksmainly to the extreme racism of UMNO-BN, the majority of Malaysianshave woken up to the evils of race-based politics and are moving tonon-race based parties. Makkal Sakthi is going in the oppositedirection.

Muchas I disagree with race-based politics, I do wonder if Makkal Sakthihas a point. If we want to bring about real change and build anation of good neighbours, we have to make evidence-based decisions. And if the evidence points to weaknesses amongst certain races due topolicy, isn't it only right that we make corrections?

ThePKR responders were gracious. They didn't say yes to all the'demands.' They said some were already aligned with their policies,others were 'good starting points, need to be debated.'

Thedebate rages in my mind. As a Malaysian Indian, what's my role inall this? What's yours?

[ThePakatan Rakyat 'panelists' were Dr Siti (PAS), Ronnie Liu (DAP), ProfRamasamy (DAP), Nurul Izzah (PKR), Surendran (PKR).]

9 Lessons 3: An Empire without Imperialism

2011-12-18T14:43:00.002+08:00

Athletesknow the importance of visioning. Have you seen the focus in the eyesof skiers as they await the signal to start the race? Have youimagined what they're thinking?

Intheir minds eyes, athletes see what's happened, before it happens.They feel the cold snow, the crisp wind, the loud cheers; thecloseness of the obstacles, the contours of the land, the elapsedtimes on the clocks. They thrill in their position, their prize,their victory.

It'slike that with prophets in the Bible when they tell of what's goingto happen. They speak in the past tense about events which won'thappen for many centuries.

Thereis a certain addictiveness about Bible study. I once heard an old manspeaking in a crowded church. All of us sensed he knew the Bible likeno one else we'd ever met. When someone asked him how much time hespent studying the Bible, his answer was modest: 'a lot.' He couldhave said “all the time.” He was addicted to Bible study.

Manywho read the Bible become addicted when they recognize the patternsin the Bible, and just how different the Bible is from any otherliterature they've read. This is especially so when they read thewords and works of prophets.

Manywho are named in the Bible are called 'prophets,' a title for men andwomen who had a special calling from God to speak in His name: towarn them to change their behaviour, and to tell them of what wouldhappen in the future.

The3^rd reading is taken from the 9^th chapterof the book of the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiahwas born about 2,800 years ago. Over the centuries, thousands havestudied and researched Isaiah. Today, those who write about Isaiahare aware of many potential challenges to what they say. Biblestudents are careful to separate truth from speculation, as you cansee in this snippet about Isaiah:

“Accordingto Jewish tradition, he was of royal blood; . . . but there is nocertainty about this . . . he prophesied under [King] Uzziah(791/790 – .. .), Jotham . . ., Ahaz . . . and Hezekiah (. . . – 687/686 BC). .. He was called to be a prophet . . . in 740/739 BC; his lastappearance which can be dated with certainty was . . . 701 BC (or c.688 BC, if we . . . ) Tradition has it that he was sawn asunder inManasseh's reign . . . but the reference is dubious and the traditionappears to have no sound historical basis.”

TheIllustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, (Leicester: IVP, 1980), 698

The3^rd readingis Isaiah 9:2;6-7:

“(2)The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those whodwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. . . . (6)For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the governmentshall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called WonderfulCounselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (7) Ofthe increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, onthe throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and touphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forthand forevermore.”

Bible-addictspause to praise God as soon as they read thewords darkness and light; these imagesrecall the divine fiat, the power of God's word, makingsomething out of nothing in the first lines of the Bible. Isaiahwishes us to know that the initiative in what follows is all of God.God has done something!

Isaiahis like the athlete. He speaks in the past tense of something far inthe future. He knows it will happen. He's focused. He reports it ashaving happened.

Ifyou recall thefirst lesson, you will recognize the child as the woman'soffspring, the one who will defeat Satan (Genesis3:15). That's why the charge against Jesus – the reason he waskilled – was his claim to be King of the Jews (John19:19). That's why Christians say the crucifixion is thecoronation of Jesus. The Kingdom of God is not like any other.Commenting on Isaiah 9:7, one Bible scholar (addict?) says:

"Hiskingdom will increase and occupy progressively allspace until he rules over all. Government (misra)is princely reality, actual executive rule (see verse 6). Thequalities which he perfectly embodies will not suffer loss or changeby maladministration. Solomon, the man of peace, established histhrone, in accordance with the appalling final directions of David,in savage bloodshed (1 Kings 2), but now as the princely rulespreads, peace spreads. It is an empire indeed, butthere is no imperialism, there is rule but no exploitation, ratherthe endless sharing of his own perfect 'fulfillment' in bringingthose under his rule to perfection."

AlecMotyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: IVP,1993), 103.

Imperialismis "the creation and/or maintenance of unequal economic,cultural, and territorial relationships, based on domination andsubordination."

What'sdifferent about God's Empire (Kingdom)? What are we thinking when wepray "Your Kingdom come?" What does our praying mean forthose who rule over us?

The3^rd lessonconfronts me with many questions. Am I running a race, like theapostle Paul (2Timothy 4:7-8)? Am I as focused as Isaiah the Prophet? Am I soconfident of victory that I can speak of the peaceable, extensiveKingdom of God as already accomplished?

9 Lessons 2: Blessing Others through Illogical & Absurd Obedience

2011-12-11T23:47:00.001+08:00

Thesecond of the nine 'lessons' is a record of God's promise to Abrahamafter he obeyed an “illogical and absurd” command issued to himby God.

Abrahamis the earthly father of the Jewish race and of the nation of Israel.This belief can be traced to the Bible book of Genesis, the oldestcomplete manuscript of which is contained in theLeningrad Codex, dating from about AD 1008.

WhenAbraham was 75 years old, God told him to uproot himself and travelto a land God would show him. God said “. . . I will make of you agreat nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so thatyou will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him whodishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earthshall be blessed.” (Genesis 12:2-30) Abraham obeyed, with his wifeSarai.

Abrahamand his nation-to-be were to be a blessing to others. But the Bibletells us, in the very next chapter, that Abraham became a curse tothe people of Egypt. This happened because Abraham and Sarai deceivedthe Pharoah into thinking beautiful Sarai was Abraham's sister, nothis wife, and therefore fair game for Pharoah. The result: Godafflicted Egypt with great plagues. [Who would make up such a story?Why?]

Muchis recorded about Abram; suffice to say that Abraham prospered anddid much that pleased God and his neighbours. Genesischapter 15 tells us of God speaking to Abram in a vision,promising him a son, and that his offspring would live in the landwhich later came to be called Israel.

Thestory continues of Sarai and Abram becoming impatient with God andmaking their own plans to have a child. Sarai asks Abram to father achild by her servant, Hagar. Thus is born Ishmael, to an 86 year oldfather.

WhenAbram was 99 years old, God spoke to him again, confirming theearlier promises and telling Abram that henceforth he was to be knownas Abraham, 'the father of a multitude of nations.' God tells Abrahamto circumcise all the males in his company, as a sign of God'spromise (covenant). God also changes 99 year old Sarai's name toSarah. God says post-menopausal Sarah will bear a child within theyear. Abraham obeys.

Muchhappens. Abraham does much which is pleasing to God. But againAbraham lies and says Sarah is his sister, not his wife. This time toAbimelech, king of Gerar. Sarah must have been very attractive.

Godspeaks to Abimelech in a dream: “Yes, I know that you have donethis in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you fromsinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. Now then,return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray foryou and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that youshall surely die, you, and all who are yours” (Genesis20: 6b-7). [This is not the only time the Bible records God speaking to non-Hebrews.]

The Bible records that Abimelech and his people were healedafter Abraham prayed for them. Abraham's service was essential; he had learned to bless.

Isaacwas born just as God had said. Sarah gloated; she took it out onHagar and Ishmael. To keep the peace, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmaelaway, after receiving assurance that God would prosper them. Ishmaelwent from near death in the desert to 'become a great nation,”thanks to God's miraculous intervention (Genesis21:8-21).

Theabove is the background to the 2^nd reading, Genesis22:15-18. Abraham had morphed from being a self-guided,independent man to being a God-obeying, dependent man. He had becomea blessing to others because he had begun to live a life of obedienceto God. He had become a man of faith, a man who trusted God.

Abrahamnow trusted God to the extent of doing the most horrid thingimaginable. He obeyed God's order to kill his son Isaac and burn himas a sacrifice. The moral and theological horror of Genesis22:1-14 is described thus by Bible Scholar Bruce Waltke:

Kirkegaardwrestles with this text and finds God's command illogical and absurd(irrational). An old man's only son is like a staff or cane to theold man. It is a sad thing when an old man's staff is left behindafter his death but much sadder when the staff is taken away and theold man left.

Howillogical is God's request of Abraham to break his staff! How absurdto ask Abraham to negate the reality that had reversed his years ofdisappointed hope. How morally questionable to ask Abraham to violatea moral law that will later become the sixth of his famous TenCommandments, “You shall not take innocent life.”

.. . the command teeters on the edge of morality. We are left with theinexplicable and exacting realization that faith demands radicalobedience. Abraham is asked to behave in a way that isillogical, absurd, and, to say the least, nonconventional from thehuman perspective. Within the biblical world view, however, suchradical behaviour proves the true nature of biblical faith.

BruceWaltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 306

Atthe last minute, God stopped Abraham. God said it was a test ofhis faith, a test of his obedience. God said Abrahampassed. God then pronounced the blessing: “. . . in youroffspring shall all nations of the earth be blessed.”

Thefirst lesson is that God expects me to strive to be on His side,confident of victory. The second lesson is that God desires allnations to be blessed – through the total, devoted obedience ofeach of His servants, according to the example of Father Abraham.

DoI hear the echo of verse 16, “you have donethis and have not withheld your son, your only son,” in the recordof another event which happened – also in Jerusalem – about 1,500years later: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his onlySon, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternallife”? (John3:16)

WillI allow the echo to continue in my own life? Will I drown allvoices but His? Will I obey, even if it seems illogical and absurd?

9 Lessons 1: An Uneasiness that Gnaws Like an Aching Tooth

2011-12-10T11:51:00.001+08:00

InDecember, Christian churches worldwide hold special services torecall and celebrate the birth of the Christ, a child born to aJewish virgin; a child who, in his adulthood, revealed himself to bethe Promised One, the Messiah, the Christ.

Aspecial Christmas service called the Festival of Nine Lessons andCarols was compiled in 1880 by a bishop in England. The nine'lessons' are short readings from the Bible describing the fall ofmankind, the promise of the Messiah and the birth of Jesus.

This'festival service' has been held at King's College in Cambridge,England, since the end of World War I, in 1918. The BBC hasbroadcast theKing's College service since 1928 – every year except 1930;it's been carried worldwide since the 1930's.

ThisDecember I've decided to meditate on each of the nine readings.

Thefirst passage is from the first 'book' of the Bible, Genesis. I put'book' in inverted commas because Genesis is better thought of as thefirst section of the first book of the Bible, the Pentateuch. Also known as theTorah (Law), the Pentateuch was compiled about 3,500 years ago.

Thefirst reading, Genesis3:8-15; 17-19, is in the introduction (prologue) to thePentateuch. The introduction, in chapters 1 to 11 of Genesis,consists of 'ancient records and traditions, which serve not only tointroduce the main themes of the narrative but also to relate them toGod's purposes in the world of fallen mankind, of divided nations andof a created order which was originally good.” [The Lion Handbookto the Bible.]

Thereading tells of God going walking in the garden of Eden, calling forAdam, the first man, and his 'wife,' Eve, whom God had made as an'equal' companion for Adam. Adam says he's hiding, because he'sashamed he's naked. God 'deduces' Adam has eaten fruit from the treeof 'the knowledge of good and evil' which God told him not to eatfrom.

Ina brief conversation with God, Adam blames Eve who blames 'theserpent' (whom we know from the context is Satan, the Devil). It'sthe familiar 'he said, she said, he said' conversation we've allencountered in situations involving wrongdoing.

Thefirst couple caved in to temptation. They were deceived. TheLion Handbook says:

“Theserpent questions what God has said, then calls God a liar. Thewoman has to set the enticing fruit, the desire to have knowledgelike God himself, against God's plain command. The decision isdeliberate, and fatal. Man has disobeyed God, rejected hisauthority, chosen to go his own way and become a 'god' himself.”

PaulBorgman, a Professor of English, after many years of teachingGenesis, says:

“Somehow,into this world of no-fear and all-joy a very wise serpent hasinsinuated himself. The serpent discovers, and works to advantage,the most subtle and sophisticated anxiety known to the human species. This is the fear that, no matter how well endowed I am with allmanner of personal and environmental good, it is not enough. Someoneelse has it better, or isbetter; an uneasiness that gnaws like an aching tooth.” [PaulBorgman, Genesis: The Story we Haven't Heard (Downers Grove: IVP,2001), 28]

Theconsequences are severe. God pronounces curses on the earth, Adam,Eve and Satan. There will be warfare even in the garden – plantswill be hindered by thorns and thistles; animals will devour eachother. Man will have to toil for food; Eve will be prone todomination by her husband. Death and decay enter the story.

Therewill be a state of warfare between mankind and the devil, who willhave it hard too. But there is a tantalizing glimmer of hope, a hintof what God has in store for mankind. The text says one of thewoman's offspring will one day defeat the devil.

Thetext says we are living in the midst of war, with an enemy constantlyagainst us. The rest of the Bible, and Judeo-Christian teachingthrough the centuries, is clear: the wise will take this to be awarning to be eternally vigilant, to listen to God (who still callsand wants to be our friend) rather than to the tempter (who stillinsinuates and whispers). The discerning will join those who workand wait for the coming Messiah.

Meditation:Am I wise and discerning? Do my thoughts and actions reflect what God has said about why life is the way it is, and about the return of the Messiah?

UMNO in the Fierce Light of Day

2011-12-07T18:17:00.001+08:00

I am restless. I slipped into this condition when I startedobserving the UMNO General Assembly last week. The word which best describes the theme, tone and thrust of theassembly is racism (of the Malay superiority variety).

I shudder when I think of UMNOleaders: Prime Minister Najib; deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin; Home MinisterHishammuddin; de facto Law Minister, Nazri. They spew racism. They speak as if Malay means UMNO. They methodically attack other Malay parties,PKR and PAS, saying the latter will sell their racial privileges.

Meritocracy. Many years ago I believed fear of meritocracywas the primary engine of UMNO’s racism. In Malay Dilemma, probably the most racist book I’ve read, our formerPrime Minister, Dr Mahathir even suggested Malays are dim due to inbreeding!

Mahathir, of course, has beenproved wrong. Malays now dominate thecivil service, the judiciary, the armed forces and the majority of large Malaysianpublic companies. You don’t dominate bybeing dim. You dominate by using powerand threats.

Egotism. Prior to the UMNO assembly, I thought the primaryengine of UMNO’s racism was egotism, i.e. a grand sense of self-importance,with boastfulness.

What did they boast about?

They boasted about remainingentrenched, sustaining the ‘special position’ of Malays, maintaining ‘national security’and retaining Islam as the official religion (as if it was ever under threat); boastswhich are more implied than spelt out. The venue, dress, food, cars, etc.helped reinforce the wealth of UMNO leaders.

They mainly demeaned ‘theopposition’ – many of whom were elected by citizens despite the whole machineryof the state being directed against them: the media is flooded with stories ofphantom voters and the trading of citizenships for votes.

They ignored the good news fromSelangor and Penang: freedom of informationacts, transparency in awarding contracts and few prosecutions for corruption despitethe outpouring of police investigation resources against small-time ‘crimes.’

Unlike Mahathir, I have never believedMalays are dumb and lazy. Whenever Iencounter anti-Malay rhetoric, I recite the names of the best people I haveworked with: many of them are Malays. Some Malays have reformed long-brokeninstitutions: some government departments now provide great service.

I also point to the leaders ofUMNO: just look at their success. Lookat their cars, clothes, jewellery, mansions, weddings, etc. UMNO can boast of enriching many!

What is the primary engine of UMNO’sracism? Is it fear of meritocracy? Is it egotism? Or is it something else?

Terror. I think it’s terror. Terror ofbeing found out. Consider this: In Perakand Selangor, when BN lost the majority, they destroyed evidence beforedeparting: files went missing. Soonafter ‘the opposition’ took office, many misdeeds became public.

UMNO even protects those who puttheir hands in the kitties of charities. Do you remember the misappropriation allegations against the UMNO-BNwives who were the charity organization, Balkis? Do you wonder why Khir Toyo remains free tostir up distress? It’s because many moreToyo’s will be flushed out if the ship sinks!

I think the root of myrestlessness is this knowledge: Desperados will do desperate things. They’ve created a Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly Bill. They are making oaths in the name of Allah. They are terrified; therefore things will get worse before they get better.

I am restless. Some say it’s because I’m not sufficientlykind-hearted; I’m too focused on the wrongs; I should think more about the goodUMNO has done, the stability we have. I disagreewith them because I am driven by another engine.

The black South African ArchbishopDesmondTutu described the white English parish priest Trevor Huddlestonas the greatest influence in his life. Huddleston wrote of why he refused to see good in the bad, and why heopposed every race-based thing:

“Itis always possible, I suppose, even in the most vicious enactments of the mostvicious governments to see elements of potential good. But Wilberforce would never have succeeded inabolishing slavery if he had listened to the arguments of kind-hearted butwrong-headed slave owners. No advancecan be made against prejudice and fear unless these things are seen asirrational and brought out into the fierce light of day. There is no room for compromise orfence-sitting over a question such as racial ideology when it so dominates thethought of a whole country.” [Trevor Huddleston,Naught for Your Comfort (Glasgow: Collins, 1956), 17.]

I too will oppose everything thatis race-based. I will name and shame allracists.

I am not free of anxiety,impatience and restlessness. But I amconfident I am on the winning side. It’sjust a question of endurance.

[Incidentally, I do not believeUMNO has a monopoly on racism.]

Does Arabic Garnishing Change UMNO's Taste?

2011-12-05T06:21:00.001+08:00

Ican understand members of a fringe group of Muslims promoting the useof Arabic perhaps because they believe God desires the world tospeak Arabic. I can understand religious teachers, ulama,using Arabic to expound the Koran and teach right conduct.

Butwhat am I to make of the use of Arabic words by leaders of race-basedUMNO? Do they think people will believe UMNO-putras are good Muslimsbecause they use Arabic words? Do they forget we associate Arabicgarnishing with Gaddafi, Osama and Saddam?

Atthe UMNO general assembly last week, Najib, Muhyiddin and others usedmany Arabic words, including redha (acceptance), qada(destiny), qadar (fate), rezeki (sustenance) and bai'ah(oath of allegiance).

Ibegan pondering the use of Arabic words by UMNO leaders when Ilearned about Muhyiddin leading 2,700 UMNO delegates in a bai'ah(oath of allegiance) to Najib on Saturday. According to newsreports, this is what he said:

"Letus stand together in the spirit of unity and solidarity, honesty andsincerity, confidence and determination in winning the solid supportof the rakyat for the sake of our party's victory.

"We,the UMNO people, pledge to close ranks, promote brotherhood,eliminate disputes, avoid jealousy and feeling of envy, and to placeparty interest above self-interest.

"We,the UMNO people, pledge to be loyal to the party by giving our fulltrust and solid support to the president to lead us to a handsomevictory in the next general election."

Surprisingly Malaysiakini did not mention Muhyiddin's use of God's name.

[According to FMT, the oath included "We the UMNO people, swear to work hard and diligently, in a proper and planned manner, to fight a holy war in sincerity in the name of Allah s.w.t. to ensure victory for UMNO and the Barisan Nasional in the 13th general election.].

Muhyiddin also urged delegates to accept “as God's will”(redha) if they or their allies are not selected as candidatesin the next election: it seems they are to treat Najib and Muhyiddinas God's representatives. Is this in accord with Islam?

Muhyiddinis reported to have mentioned rezeki (reward) in the samesentence as redha.

"Everythingis determined by God; if one is not selected as a candidate this timearound, it is ordained. You have to accept it (redha) andshould not be disappointed as being redha will be rewarded,maybe not in the form of rezeki (sustenance) this timearound."

Doesthis constitute open acceptance (redha) that UMNO delegatesseek public office for the sake of material reward? Perhaps this iswhy there has been talk of UMNO delegates being given seniorleadership positions in Government Linked Companies (GLC)?

Howdoes Muhyiddin think UMNO is going to win “the solid support of therakyat” if UMNO folks are running for office in order toenrich themselves, ala Shahrizat?

IfNajib and Muhyiddin are serious about gaining support, they should bepresenting the results of their tenure in office in relation to thevoice of the rakyat; they should be talking about nationalunity, inter-racial and inter-religious harmony; they should betalking about the corrupt who have been made examples of, e.g. thebig fish involved in the PKFZ scandal, Khir Toyo and his mansion,Shahrizat and NFC.

Theydon't because they can't. These examples don't exist. What doesexist is PERKASA fanning the flames of hate. And custodial deaths –in particular of Teoh Beng Hock, grilled to death. If UMNO wants tobe viewed as more than a grouping of sham Muslims, they should betalking about how they are opposing hate and attacking injustice.

Icringe when American politicians display their 'Christianity,'whether by association, e.g. arranging photo opportunities withMother Teresa, or by claiming to be 'born again.' I cringe when'Christian politicians' in Malaysia tell us of their 'calls' and aresilent about their 'stands' on account of their being 1God beforethey are 1Malaysia or 1Party.

Iam not a Muslim, but I know faithful Muslims who put people first;who measure their own worth according to their treatment of theiroppressed neighbours; not according to the wealth they accumulatethrough pledges of allegiance to mere humans.

Iam confident there are many Muslims who will agree with me that UMNOwith Arabic garnishing tastes just as bad. Will reformers arise withinUMNO? Will BN component parties help the reformers?

Najib Sends UMNO to War (against whom?)

2011-12-03T09:14:00.001+08:00

Ifyou had to choose one word to describe the UMNO General Assembly inKuala Lumpur this week, what would it be? If, as a planner of theGeneral Assembly, you could have chosen the theme of the meeting,what would you have chosen?

Ilooked to UMNO’s mouthpiece for guidance in answering the secondquestion. The New Straits Times (about which I have writtenpreviously),in Najibset serious tone to win poll,provided the answer to the second question.

Thecommentary, accompanied by a picture of 3 women in red UMNOheadscarves, reported the glowing responses of Kak Midah (“a socialactivist”), Fauziah Kenanga (“Kak Midah’s friend”) and RoziMohamed (“Vista Villa Apartment Wanita chief”) to UMNO supremoNajib’s speech.

Whatan interesting group to focus on!

Isthe focus on women a sign of UMNO’s concern about the reliabilityand ability of UMNO men to work for votes? Is this a sign that UMNOis anxious about unity amongst its women, lead by Shahrizat who losther seat at the last election, was rewarded with a Ministership andis now evoked by the sight or smell of cattle?

Idid not digress. Other than Najib, the only ones whose comments arereported in the NST commentary on Najib’s speech are those threewomen.

KakMidah said she “would include Najib’s messages in her manyprogrammes.” Fauziah “feels that the party president is sincere,basing it on Najib’s body language, intonation and facialexpressions, in his calls for the party members to unite and move asone in facing the enemies.” Rozi said Najib’s “historicalfacts serve as a reminder to the younger UMNO ‘warriors’ of thefighting spirit of the country’s forefathers.”

Accordingto the NST, the theme is war. What historical facts were used toexcite these women’s warrior spirits?

Najibcited Usama as an example of doing what the boss directed! Okay, notOsama bin Ladin but Usama bin Zaid, though it’s not hard to imaginehow Osama got his name.

Usamawas appointed by ‘the Caliph’ (the NST chose not identify him asthe Prophet of Islam). I discovered that Usama asked to fight inbattle when he was only 10 years old, that he first fought in battleat age 17, and at age 20 was appointed leader of an expeditionaryarmy to fight the Syrians, who were ‘Christians.’

Najib’sspeech was about war and enemies. The women got it. Or did they? Did the rest of Malaysia get it?

Najibis the Prime Minister of Malaysia, a multi-racial, multi-religiouscountry which is trying to bring back many who left for countrieswithout race-based policies.

In2011, in the enflamed brightness of arsonagainstchurches, in the threatening din of Perkasa’sstrident anti-Christian propaganda, the Prime Minister offered asrole-model a warrior called Usama. Do you get it?

ThePrime Minister encouraged UMNO members to think of those who do notvote for his party and alliance as enemies. What does this mean forgood neighbourliness? What does this mean for civil servants,investors, judges, Sultans?

Therhetoric at the UMNO general assembly – of a party which claims tohave 3.8 million members – is an endorsement of PERKASA. It’s adeclaration of how the ruling coalition will continue to treat thosewho do not agree with it’s policies.

Iam deeply disappointed. Where are the dissenting voices in thecomponent parties of BN? Where are the voices of Atheist, Buddhist,Christian, Hindu, Indigenous, Muslim and Sikh politicians? Who willstand up and speak for the human race?

Theone word I would choose to describe the UMNO general assembly is“desperate.” UMNO lacks leaders who can take them away from thecyanide of race to the honey of unity. UMNO leaders are so desperateto retain power and enrich themselves; they are maniacallymanipulating the masses. And their coalition partners are silent.

IfI could have chosen a theme, it would have been “good neighbours.” How about you?

Will ROFA be UMNO-BN's Last Roar?

2011-11-29T00:32:00.001+08:00

UMNO-BN has begun the process of railroading into law a Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly Act (ROFA) – which they are calling the Peaceful Assembly Act (PA 2011). ROFA is patently about further limiting the avenues for people to provide public, proportionate feedback to national leaders.

UMNO-BN’s reasons for the Act areobvious: thanks to the REFORMASI, HINDRAF, Abolish ISA, V T Lingam and BERSIH street protests, the warts in the UMNO-BN government’sautocratic, patronage-based form of government have been glaringly exposed; therefore, UMNO-BN reasons, street protests must be banned. [I do not have space to discussion the role of protests in publicizing the PERAK constitutional crisis.]

Public outrage over the wrongsdone to Anwar Ibrahim – including selective, false prosecution and witnesstampering – prompted many REFORMASI street protests.

The result was the breakaway of asignificant portion of UMNO and the formation of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR),and Pakatan Rakyat, the Opposition Alliance. Street protests were one of the tools used to reveal the abuse of powerby UMNO princes – who can forget the charges against Anwar were amendedmultiple times?

The results of the HINDRAF streetprotest include Thaipusam becoming a national holiday and UMNO-BN’s loss ofit’s two-thirds majority in the 2008 General Election. The consequences of this are enormous: thepresence of a significant opposition in state assemblies and in parliament hasmade ‘tough questions’ more frequent and has revealed much embarrassinginformation about UMNO-BN.

The abolish ISA (Internal SecurityAct) street protests brought into the public eye the abuses of the ISA. More people learned that people are often detainedfor political reasons, on fictitious charges. One example: HINDRAF leaders were falsely accused of being agents of SriLankan Tamil Tigers.

The V T Lingam street protest revealed to thecommon man that his perceptions of the judiciary are also shared bylawyers. And, it helped the public seethat not all lawyers are as bad as they are made out to be: the march revealedthere are some upright lawyers. As Isaid to one lawyer after the march, a criteria many now use for selectinglawyers is “did he or she join the VT Lingam march?”

The BERSIH street protests have resulted inthe formation of a Parliamentary Select Committee – a most rare event in Malaysia. If not for the BERSIH street protest, the public wouldhave a lot less knowledge of the Election Commission: how it is supposed towork, how it has actually worked and how it proposed to continue. It’s use by the government to manipulatevotes and voters is now public knowledge.

I have focused on street protestsbecause these were previously permitted under the Police Act, but are now expresslyforbidden under the Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly Act (ROFA), whichdefines a street protest thus:

“streetprotest” means an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specifiedplace and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose ofobjecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes;”

Article 2 (a) of ROFA has this tosay about street protests:

“Aperson commits an offence if he organizes or participates in a street protest.”

There are many other things wrongwith the Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly Act. These include prohibiting non-citizens fromorganizing or participating in assemblies and bringing or admitting personsfifteen years or younger to assemblies.

I fail to see why foreignersshould not participate in protests which draw attention to their exploitationby persons in power, e.g. police and immigration officers who collude in thetrade in humans; employers and agents who make false promises and/or abusetheir (foreign) workers, etc. I also failto see why parents should not bring their children to protests: PAS members oftenbring their children to ceramahs.

My family and friends are wondering if this will be the last roar for UMNO-BN. We are committing to participate actively in GE13 to expose and minimize cheating in the next Election, and to help remind all voters about the arrogance, belligerence and corruption of UMNO-BN.

To us, UMNO-BN's unholy haste in enacting ROFA is the brazen challenge of a beast. Will this be the beast's last roar?

Socialism & the Church: The Proletariat & the Elect

2011-11-26T09:18:00.001+08:00

Atthe meeting I wrote about last week, there was discussion about who theproletariat are in Malaysia today. One speakeroffered a contentious answer: the proletariat are the 2.5 millionforeign workers in our population of 28 million.

It'scontentious because voters expect political parties to championcitizens first and humans second.

If you belong to a political partywhich puts first the right treatment of the most oppressed, in this casethe resident, low-wage, menial-job foreigners, you belong to a partywhich will not win power. [I hate 'menial,' but it seems appropriatehere.]

That'sthe dilemma of democratic politics. You have to win votes in orderto gain power and make changes. To win votes, you have to makecompromises.

That's one of the reasons why churches can never function as political parties, and why theynever take any one side – other than God's – for any length oftime. You cannot have a Republican church or a Democratic church, a Barisan church or a Pakatan church. This is not to deny that there have been and may continue to berace-based churches: these are pimples, not vast expanses.

InSocialism, the Church and the Poor (London: Hodder &Stoughton,1908), P T Forsyth reminds us that Christ's call is not to theproletariat, but to the elect:

“Thecall of Christ was not to a proletariat, or even a public, but to anelect. He must always act on the world through a Church when it is aquestion of saving society. His whole action and teaching was of thesifting and not the effusive kind. It had a stringency [lackingflexibility] which has almost quite vanished from many favouriteforms of his religion. His parables winnowed out those fit to hear,His course of action selected those worthy to follow. And it allended in his being left quite alone. He could not lead or keep amass movement. A highly, swiftly popular gospel may imperil hisword. True, his glory was that to the poor the gospel was preached. But it was to an ethical poor, not to the literal, the economic,poor. (61)

Forsyth,the pastor-theologian reminds us we are prone to forget the gulfseparating social-justice seeking Christians (whom Forsyth considersnormal) and socialists. He reminds us the social centre of thechurch is the communion table, and from this springs – or shouldspring – our every outlook on life. He reminds us that fundamentalChristianity springs from the Cross, not the Sermon on the Mount,which non-Christians, and even many Christians, are prone to focuson.

Forsyth, an activist for workers rights, encouraged workersto form unions and to accept that unions could be more effective thanchurches. He says:

“'.. . Tell those who do not think it worthwhile to join their unionthat the public will not believe that they believe in their own caseuntil they do.'

.. . Then they will not need to exploit the church for purposes whichare less its object than theirs, less public than sectional, less forthe whole than for a class. All the democratic principles ofChristianity make for them. All the trend of society under thespreading influence of these principles is in their favour. But thatis quite a different thing from saying that the Church which promotesthese principles is committed to champion their cause in a particulareconomic issue, when their own combination could effect much more,and be backed by far more intimate knowledge of her position than theChurch could have. Had the men no union, it would be different.

Iremember giving offence by preaching on the men's side in thedockers' strike because they were helpless. They had no union, wereonly struggling onto their feet, were receiving so much less than aliving wage, and had not developed the leadership that the unions nowhave with so much strategic skill.” (44)

WhenI meditate on OWS, the arrogance, brutality and corruption of theregime in Malaysia, and the piercing cries against injustice, Iwonder how churches and the Church should respond. I wonder how towork with non-Christians without losing my identity.

I'm meditating on Forsyth: “Your [good news] is ideal Humanity withChrist as it's champion and servant. Mine is the Christ of God withHumanity as His witness and servant. . . . You contend for yourideas, I for your Lord.” (55)

That'swhere the stringency comes from.

Thanks to Jason A Goroncy, You can download PDF versions of many of Forsyth's articles and books here.

Some Impressions of Socialism and Socialists

2011-11-22T09:36:00.001+08:00

Towhat do you compare socialism? This weekend I heard many speakerspresent socialism as an economic system which is an alternative tocapitalism. Is that an obvious comparison?

Malaysiansand Americans generally think socialism is exemplified by theSoviets. They remember what used to be known as the United SovietSocialist Republic (USSR) – until 'democracy' arrived and somestates 'gained independence from tyranny.'

Thevast majority would therefore consider democracy the alternative tosocialism.

Thosefamiliar with the United Kingdom know the British labour party issocialist at it's core, and that it functions in a country with aparliamentary democracy, monarchy and a state church. They know thedifference between socialism and capitalism is the answer to thequestion “who owns the means of production?”

Theyalso know socialists favour higher taxes on individuals and oncorporations and they favour government ownership of large companiessuch as those who provide electricity, water, telecommunication,health and transport services.

Conversely,capitalists like to sell state-owned companies to the private sector,believing competition and the profit motive will result in the mostefficient use of resources, i.e. least wastage and lowest cost. [Ilived in the UK when Maggie Thatcher got to work.]

It'soften alleged that capitalists favour minimal government interventionin business. This is only partly true, for I have found that bigbusinesses favour some regulation. In their opinion, regulationsprovide customers an assurance of quality and also act as a barrierto the entry of other players.

Inthe public mind, capitalists are associated with Wall Street, richbanks and a free press; socialists are associated with statebureaucracies, empty banks and gag orders.

Ifasked to name 'famous capitalists,' in the public sector I wouldoffer Chiang Kai Shek, Lee Kuan Yew, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher,Abraham Lincoln; in the private sector: Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs,Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Kuok, Ananda Krishnan.

Namesof 'famous socialists' come to mind less easily; the ones that pop upare often considered communists: Lenin, Pol Pot. Socialists say thisis because the media, owned by capitalists, deify capitalists anddemonize socialism.

Somespeakers showed they adore Hugo Chavez and some other Latin Americanleaders.

Ifound it surprising that none of the speakers named Europeansocialist leaders.

Howabout ClementAttlee (1883 – 1967), the British Labour Prime Minister underwhose watch the National Health Service was created, utilitycompanies were nationalized, public housing was created and manyBritish colonies were granted independence?

Thespeakers presented socialism as an economic model which couldsubstitute for today's 'failed' economic model, capitalism.

Thereasons why capitalism is said to have failed were not clearlyexplicated by comparison between capitalist and socialist countries.

Asthe focus was Malaysia, we were reminded of (1) the gap between richand poor; (2) rampant corruption; (3) nepotism; (4) cronyism; (5)privatization of the health service. These are indisputable facts;but are they the inevitable results of capitalism?

Thepro-socialism speakers stressed there is not one model of socialism,but many. They also stressed it's important to tailor the form ofsocialism to the political realities of the country in which it isproposed to be exercised.

Conversely,capitalism was presented as homogenous. The impression was alsogiven that history is linear. Isn't history cyclical, with periodsof success and failure?

Somespeakers (including Dr Michael D Jeyakumar) seemed willing to admitcapitalism has delivered results; none spoke of 'the currentdilemma of capitalism' as something cyclical. To them, bad outcomesare the inevitable end-state of capitalism.

Whatare the indicators of good outcomes in a country?

Someindicators were touched upon: number of deaths of children beforethey reach the age of 5 years; average life expectancy; the gap inincome between the rich and the poor; percentage of the populationliving below the poverty line; having the right to form trade unionsand be heard; free access to healthcare; freedom of assembly; nodiscrimination; justice for all; etc.

Nodata was shown comparing the results for 'capitalist' countriesversus the results for 'socialist' countries.

WhenI think of 'capitalist' countries, I think of Bangladesh, Hong Kong,Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan,Thailand.

Muslimshave a large voice in in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan; it'stherefore hard to say whether their societies are the result ofeconomic or Islamic policies.

WhenI think of 'not capitalist' (whether socialist or communist)countries, I think of Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar,Philippines, North Korea.

I struggle to classify Indonesia because of Sukarno, Suharto, the armedforces, treatment of Chinese and Christians, new-found growth, etc.

But,even without looking at indicators, I think it's clear: the 'notcapitalist' countries don't have much to boast about. And, the poorin the capitalist countries, even if there are large incomedisparities, may be better off than in the 'not capitalist'countries: this is probably the conclusion of tourists from mainlandChina after visiting Malaysia.

Somespeakers pointed out common falsehoods about 'socialism.' They said,contrary to what's widely believed, socialists are not 'againstreligion and God.' This is true when socialists in power, such asthe labour parties in much of Europe, allow capitalist parties tofunction freely and thrive: even to the extent of winning at the nextelections.

Theyalso pointed out a common objection capitalists raise againstsocialism is that there is less creativity under a socialist regimebecause everything is done by the government.

Thespeakers said that's not true. They pointed out the Russianswere first to put a man in space, and that many weapons were inventedin Russia during the cold war era – including sophisticatedaircraft, submarines and weapons.

Theyeven noted that advances in similar industries in capitalistcountries are funded by the governments anyway. One speaker remindedeveryone that the internet is a creation of the U.S. armed forces. THEREFORE (!) government ownership of the means of production doesnot lead to a lack of creativity. This inconvenient fact was left unsaid:it's capitalist-paid taxes, advertisements and mobile employees thatkeeps things going!

Theysaid nothing of dissidents, gulags, LADA cars, aircraft safety, etc. Lack of competition explains why low standards of performance are accepted as normal.

OnceI audited a factory in Moscow which makes liquid soap. It used to bestate-owned. It was sold to a crony. His family made up most of thesenior management. It was the shoddiest operation I have ever seen. The materials, equipment and products were prone to contamination. When I pointed this out to the factory manager, he railed at me. Hereminded me that Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, was Russian.

Auditsend with close-out meetings. When I arrived for the meeting, myRussian colleague pointed to the factory manager who had just arrivedin his Mitsubishi Pajero. I took a photo of the Pajero and showed itas the first slide in my presentation.

Iused it to illustrate that Russians have voted against their owntechnology: nobody wants a LADA. [If you want a great learningexperience on why academics tell students not to depend on Wikipedia,do some research on LADA.]

Russianshave discovered that capitalist competition produces better products:Japanese automobiles and electronics have edged out General Motorsand Phillips. If the Russians wanted to do business with my Americanmultinational, they had to get better!

Ididn't say it, but they knew what I meant. Their socialism got themto where they are through protectionism and cradle-to-grave statepatronage. Now if they wanted to put our global name on theirproduct, they needed to get and keep the best people.

Iwalked away from the socialism seminar thinking there arestill many passionate, admirable idealists. These socialists have great goals –poverty eradication, representing the oppressed, challenging existingsystems, fighting corruption, etc.

Butthey have picked the wrong models. They would do better to offer Europeansocialism as a counterpoint to popular images. Fidel Castro and hisstar pupil, Hugo Chavez may be doing some good, but their images areset in stone as obstreperous: noisy dictators who denigrate andotherwise harm those who oppose them.

The Apostolic Errors of Politicism and Pietism

2011-11-13T06:04:00.001+08:00

I'vecontinued to read – slowly – John Stott's commentary on Acts. I've been struck by his discussion of one question and one action ofthe apostles in the first chapter of Acts.

First,"Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"(Acts 1:6)

Stottremarks that the Messiah must have been dismayed by this question. The apostles whom he had selected and trained for 3 years missed thepoint. They still thought ofthe kingdom in earthly, nationalistic, political terms. [I takecomfort in their thickness.]

Christianspray 'your Kingdom come' very frequently, as this is included in theLord's prayer, the only prayer the Messiah taught those who wouldfollow him. What are some essential characteristics of this Kingdom?

The Kingdom is spiritual in character. It is not territorial, it cannot be found on any map, e.g. like the Kingdom of Bhutan. It is not about re-establishing a monarchy, it's not about liberation from a colonial yoke: the Messiah disappointed many because he didn't seek to overthrow the Romans. It is about loyalty to God before Kings and (even) elected representatives of the people.
The Kingdom is international in it's membership. This is one of the reasons why Christians don't make pilgrimages like Jews used to and Muslims still do. Stott notes with approval Johannes Blau's distinction between the teaching of the Old (OT) and New Testaments (OT): in the OT, the nations come in to Mount Zion (Isaiah 2:2-3), while in the NT, people go out and make disciples.
The Kingdom of God is gradual in its expansion. The apostles, like us today, were impatient; they wanted things fixed now, 'at this time.' The Messiah's answer (Acts 1:7) amounts to this: “It is not for you to know the critical moments and the seasons of God's plan.” Some things are simply not for people to know; yet, they (and we) are called not to inaction, but given power to make disciples.

Sothe apostles displayed a politicism,a desire to be activists whose goal is to rapidly establish perfectconditions on earth. The Messiah's response was to focus them onspirit-empowerment and internal change: a slow process with noterritorial compromises, for as AbrahamKuyper (a former Dutch Prime Minister) said, every square inch ofcreation belongs to Christ.

Second,the apostles displayed a pietism. When Jesus ascended into the sky, the apostles continued lookinginto the sky (Acts 1:11). It was an experience designed to assure,to teach and to mobilize; not to crystallize. Stott says:

“Therewas something fundamentally anomalous about their gazing up into thesky when they had beencommissioned to go to the ends of the earth. It was the earth not the sky which was to be their preoccupation. Their calling was to be witnesses not stargazers. The vision theywere to cultivate was not upwards in nostalgia . . . but outwards incompassion to a lost world which needed him.

.. . We need especially to remember that between the ascension and theParousia [return of Jesus], there stretches a period of unknownlength which is to be filled with the church's worldwide,Spirit-empowered witness to him. We need to hear the implied messageof the angels: 'You have seen him go. You will see him come. Butbetween that going and coming there must be another. The Spirit mustcome, and you must go – into the world for Christ.” (51)

Thebeauty of the Christian scriptures is not in poetic form (though somesections are highly poetic), or in the geometric forms of the script. The beauty is chiefly in the patterns the eye of faith can see. [And in prophecies and their fulfillment.]

Stottwonders whether it's fanciful to observe that Luke begins his gospelwith the temptations of the Messiah after His baptism: the Messiahturned away from false ends (seeking his own glory instead of theFather's) and means (using the assistance of Satan). And he beginshis second book by showing how the apostles “had to turn away fromboth a false activism and a false pietism” before receiving thepower of the Spirit at Pentecost. What do you think? Is thisfanciful?

AsI observe Christian activists around me, I wonder if we are undertakingour earthly responsibilities with heavenly enabling. Are wecommitting the apostolic errors of politicism and pietism?

What Should be Different about Christians?

2011-11-09T22:48:00.000+08:00

Oftenchoosing the title is the last thing an author does before releasinga work to the public. What title would Luke have chosen for hissecond book?

Peopleoften think of Luke's first book as 'the life and worksof Jesus,' since it begins with Jesus' birth and ends with Hisascension (return to the Father).

Thisnaturally leads people to think of Luke's second book as 'the work ofthe apostles and the growth of the church.'

Stottobserves that some Bibles title the second book 'The Book of Acts;'some title it 'The Acts of (the) Apostles;' and some title it 'The Actsof the Holy Spirit.'

Stottsays the last was popularized by A T Pierson inhis 1895 commentary of the same title, which he ended with this'stirring challenge:'

“Churchof Christ! The records of these acts of the Holy Ghost have neverreached completeness. This is the one book which has no properclose, because it waits for new chapters to be added so fast and sofar as the people of God shall reinstate the blessed Spirit in hisholy seat of control.” (33)

[DanaRobert's biography of Pierson is called OccupyUntil I come: A T Pierson and the Evangelization of the World, see picture.]

Thatcertainly stirred me! In all my activism, let me not forget theimportance Christ places on adding members to the church, and the central work of His Spirit in empowering witnesses and attracting new disciples.

Whileseeing merit in the proposals both for inserting 'Apostles' and 'TheHoly Spirit' in the title, Stott's choice is what he admits is cumbersome: “The Continuing Words and Deeds ofJesus by his Spirit through his Apostles.” (34)

Bythis choice of title, Stott asserts a critical point: Jesusdied; Jesus is alive; Jesus is continuing His work.

Thechurch properly understood is the continuing work of the Christ who,after the resurrection and ascension, moved from being the Christ ofhistory to the Christ of glory. This is how Stott puts it:

“Jesusspoke [to the 11 apostles] of the Spirit coming upon them and givingthem power to be his witnesses. In Charles Williams' notable words,he departed 'scattering promises of power'.

Itis important to remember that his promise that they would receivepower was part of his reply totheir question about the kingdom. For the exercise of poweris inherent in the concept of a kingdom.

Butpower in God's kingdom is different from power in human kingdoms. The reference to the Holy Spirit defines its nature.

Thekingdom of God is his rule set up in the lives of his people by theHoly Spirit. It is spread by witnesses, not by soldiers, through agospel of peace, not a declaration of war, and by the work of theSpirit, not by force of arms, political intrigue or revolutionaryviolence.

Atthe same time, in rejecting the politicizing of the kingdom, we mustbeware of the opposite extreme of super-spiritualizing it, as ifGod's rule operates only in heaven and not on earth.

Thefact is that, although it must not be identified with any politicalideology or programme, it has radical political and socialimplications.

Kingdomvalues come into collision with secular values. And the citizens ofGod's kingdom steadfastly deny to Caesar the supreme loyalty forwhich he hungers, but which they insist on giving to Jesus alone.” (42, re-paragraphed)

Iam left wondering: how does the church in Malaysia todaydemonstrate that it is loyal to the Christ more than to the world,while yet loving the world?

Anotherpassage which caused me to think deeply:

“Luke'sfirst two verses are, . . . extremely significant. It is noexaggeration to say that they set Christianity apart from all otherreligions. These regard their founder as having completed hisministry during his lifetime: Luke says Jesus only began his.”

Stottquotes with approval Bishop Lesslie Newbigin on the church:

“TheChurch is the pilgrim people of God. It is on the move – hasteningto the ends of the earth to beseech all men to be reconciled to God,and hastening to the end of time to meet its Lord who will gather allinto one. . . . It cannot be understood rightly except in aperspective which is at once missionary and eschatological.” (44)

Iattended a great service on Sunday. It was the 7 am service at a church in Petaling Jaya. It included a sectionduring which my in-laws, who are in their eighties, were honoured onthe occasion of their 65^th wedding anniversary.

Ourfirst song was BlessedAssurance, which has the lines: “This is my story, this is mysong, praising my savior all the day long” and “Perfectsubmission, perfect delight.”

TheChristian's favourite story is never the story of his or her own life– or of children or grandchildren or ancestors, or possessions. Our personal stories are just strands in the fabric of God's story. The most told story is of Jesus and his activity in directing andgrowing the church. The hymn Blessed Assurance is all about theMessiah and a life of faithful submission, proclamation and invitation.

Iwas glad to see large numbers of Chinese and Indians, and a handfulof foreigners. One race was missing. I wondered if we were reallythe church. Can any regular gathering of religious people - whether in churches, mosques or temples - claim perfect submission to God if certain races are clearly missing?

Thisis the second post from my reading of

JohnStott, The Spirit, the Church and the World (IVP, 1990)

Christians are Legally Innocent and Morally Harmless

2011-11-07T11:42:00.000+08:00

In memory of John Stott who died this year, I'm reading hiscommentary on the Bible book of Acts, which, together with the gospelof Luke, makes up about onequarter of the New Testament. [Stott's book, see picture, was published by IVP in 1990.]

As is customary with him, Stott begins by explaining why he isadding to the already immense number of books on his chosen subject: he wants to discuss what it means to us today. He lists fourteen 'mainquestions' which he says Acts raises for us, today.

Itemsin his list which caught my attention include the economic sharing ofthe first Christian community in Jerusalem, racial prejudice, thecost of Christian unity, motives and methods in evangelism and therelationship between church and state.

Lukeis the only non-Jew who contributed to the New Testament. In the“stylish Greek” of a cultured person, he wrote both the gospelcalled by his name and the book of Acts. Both books are dedicated toTheophilus, who may have been “a specific Roman official who hadheard anti-Christian slanders.” (26) He wrote as a historian,diplomat and theologian-evangelist.

Historian. Luke can be thought of as a historian because he explicitly tells ushe set out to investigate the facts (truths) and record them. Thisis demonstrated by his (1) accounts of historical fulfillment of OldTestament prophecies, (2) interviews with eyewitnesses, (3) carefulinvestigation, (4) writing a well planned account and (5) express desireto assure Theophilus that what is written is true. [see Luke 1:1-4]

Lukeconducted his research in the places where the events took place. Heprobably interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus: Luke's stories of theconception of Jesus and his infancy are told from Mary's perspective.

Stottpoints out that “professional historians and archaeologists havebeen among the most doughty defenders of his reliability.” Hecites the 1963 conclusion of Sherwin-White, a respected Oxford-basedhistorian: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity isoverwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity evenin matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians havelong taken it for granted.” (25)

Diplomat. Luke can be thought of as a diplomat because of what he chose toinclude and exclude, e.g. “He tells us about Peter, John, James theLord's brother and Paul, but nothing about the other apostles, exceptthat James the son of Zebedee was beheaded. He describes the spreadof the gospel north and west of Jerusalem, but writes nothing aboutits progress east and south, except for the conversion of theEthiopian. . . .” (25)

Lukeshows deep concern about the way the Roman authorities viewedChristianity. He took pains to demonstrate Christians “are neitherseditious nor subversive, but on the contrary legally innocent andmorally harmless . . . they exercise a wholesome influence onsociety." Stott explicates Luke's political apologetic:

“Lukerepeatedly makes three points of political apologetic. First, Romanofficials were consistently friendly to Christianity, and some hadeven become Christians, like the centurion at the cross, thecenturion Cornelius, and Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus. Secondly, the Roman authorities could find no fault in either Jesusor his apostles. Jesus had been accused of sedition, but neitherHerod nor Pilate could discover any basis for the accusation. As forPaul, in Philippi the magistrates apologized to him, in Corinth theproconsul Gallio refused to adjudicate, and in Ephesus the town clerkdeclared Paul and his friends to be innocent. Then Felix, Festus andAgrippa all failed to convict him of any offence – three acquittalscorresponding to the three times Luke says Pilate had declared Jesusinnocent.” (26)

Anotherway in which Luke was a diplomat was in his portrayal of both Peterand Paul, the two main leaders of the early church, as equallyapostles of Christ “with the same commission, gospel andauthentication.” [We must recall that racism is not new: it wascommonplace amongst Jews who thought they were more pure than othersand amongst Romans who even had different laws for non-Romans.] Stott elaborates:

“Itis evident that [Luke] gives prominence in his story to Peter(chapters 1-12) and to Paul (chapters 13-28). It seems very probableas well that he deliberately presents them as exercising parallelrather than divergent ministries. The similarities are remarkable. Thus,

bothPeter and Paul were filled with the Holy Spirit (4:8 and 9:17; 13:9);

bothpreached the word of God with boldness (4:13, 31 and 9:27, 29);

bothbore witness before Jewish audiences to Jesus crucified, risen andreigning, in fulfillment of Scripture, as the way of salvation (e.g.2:22ff. and 13:16ff);

bothreceived visions which gave vital direction to the church'sdeveloping mission (10:9ff.; 16:9);

bothwere imprisoned for their testimony to Jesus and then miraculouslyset free (12:7ff. and 16:25ff.);

bothhealed a congenital cripple, Peter in Jerusalem and Paul in Lystra(3:2ff. and 14:8ff.); both healed other sick people (9:41 and 28:8);

bothexorcized evil spirits (5:16 and 1618);

bothpossessed such extraordinary powers that people were healed byPeter's shadow and by Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons (5:15 and19:12);

bothraised the dead, Tabitha in Joppa by Peter and Eutychus in Troas byPaul (9:36ff. and 20:7ff.);

bothcalled down God's judgment on a sorcerer/false teacher, Peter onSimon Magus in Samaria and Paul on Elymas in Paphos (8:20ff. and13:6ff.); and

bothrefused the worship of their fellow human beings, Peter that ofCornelius and Paul that of the Lystrans (10:25-26 and 14:11ff.)” (28, reformatted)

Theologian-evangelist. After a few lines appreciating the 'critical method' of redactioncriticism, Stott reminds us that Luke, like the other writers of thebooks of the Bible, had a purpose in writing. He “conscientiouslyselected, arranged and presented [his] material in order to serve[his] particular pastoral purpose.” (29) He cites the paragon ofLucan scholars, Professor I Howard Marshall:

“Lukeis bothhistorian andtheologian, and . . . the best term to describe him is 'evangelist,'a term which, we believe, includes both of the others. . . . As atheologian Luke was concerned that his message about Jesus and theearly church should be based upon reliable history. . . . He used hishistory in the service of theology. . . . We believe that thevalidity of his theology stands or falls with the reliability of thehistory on which it is based. . . . Luke's concern is with the savingsignificance of the history rather than with the history itself asbare facts.” (30)

Stottexplains that Luke was a theologian of salvation, a central motif inLucan theology. In the Gospel, salvation was accomplished. In Acts,it's proclaimed. Stott brings this out by reference to the NuncDimittis,the Song of Simeon (Lk2:29-32).

Salvationis noafterthought,it had been planned and promised for centuries. Salvation is grantedbyChrist. Salvation is offered to allpeoples.

“Jesusis the Saviour of the world; nobody is beyond the embrace of hislove. In his Gospel, Luke shows Jesus' compassion for those sectionsof the community whom others despised, namely women and children, thepoor, the sick, the sinful and the outcast, Samaritans and Gentiles,while in the Acts Luke explains how Paul came to turn to theGentiles, and describes the gospel's triumphal progress fromJerusalem the capital of Jewry to Rome the capital of the world.” (31)

[Ido not have space to explain 'salvation.' Vinoth Ramachandra does agreat job here.]

InMalaysia today, racist Malay groups and seemingly ill-educatedMuslims are braying against Christians. UMNO, PAS and PKR are makingpolitical calculations: they all seem to think guaranteeing the rightto choose one's faith is incompatible with achieving their values andgoals; they will be explicit when they perceive they have most togain.

JAISraided DUMC; the Sultan of Selangor is no Theophilus; some Muslims –within each party – want other Muslims to close their eyes, earsand hearts to Others' beliefs and contributions to society; someMuslims want more laws against apostasy.

DidLuke succeed? What's different about 'the Romans' then, compared to 'the Malays' today? What would Luke write now? To whom? With whatfocus?

Occupy Wall Street and Breast Implants

2011-11-05T07:53:00.000+08:00

Thisweek, while responding to FB comments about my last post, I reviewedmy reaction to ventures like OCCUPY. I realized I am angry, likemany of my friends.

Ishare the anger of the occupiers over injustice in our world. And I amsaddened because occupiers think those who don't see eye to eye withthem are inept.

One pro-occupiercommentator actually said a (sympathetic) non-occupier was'inept' for suggesting occupiers send representatives to a debate.

Theoccupiers value 'non-hierarchical organizing' or leaderless groups.

Mylife experiences lead me to believe groups can do good or harm.

Structure is important for determining outcomes: size matters; everyone can't speak always; there must be agreed rules; experts must becalled; the credibility of 'experts' must be validated; there must bemarshals.

Oneof the best things about the way we work these days is teamwork –which often means participative decision making. One of the worstthings about the way we work these days is participative decisionmaking.

Yearsago, the management guru Peter F Drucker helped me understand myfrequent frustration with 'teamwork.'

Hepointed out that for teamwork to work, not everyone can have votingrights, e.g. a patient on the cutting table expects the surgeon tolead and everyone else to follow.

Earlyin my career, I often organized and facilitated meetings. Idetermined who should participate. I helped the team arrive at thatelusive thing: consensus.

NowadaysI usually attend only opening and closing meetings. When listeningto teams during closing meetings, I keep in mind the story of breastimplants in the US.

Doyou know the story? [caveat: I work in the medical deviceindustry; my organization does not produce any implants.]

Womenall over the world have been having breast enhancement for a longtime. In the 1940's Japanese prostitutes had paraffin injections inorder to attract American soldiers.

Inthe 1960's two plastic surgeons in Texas invented the first siliconebreast implants and in 1962 the first silicone breast implant surgerywas performed.

Itwasn't until 1976, 14 years later, that new breast implants becamesubject to pre-market approval (PMA) for safety and effectiveness bythe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Implants designed before1976 were allowed to remain in production and in the market.

Bythis time, Dow Corning, 3M, Baxter and Bristol-Myers had made andsold millions of silicone breast implants. Surgeons worldwide hadmade many happy.

In1977, Dow Corning was successfully sued by a woman who claimed herruptured implants and subsequent treatments caused her pain andsuffering.

Fiveyears later, in 1982, the USFDA proposed that breast implants beclassified as Class III devices: manufacturers would have to provethe implants are safe in order to keep them on the market.

In1984, a jury (in my book, a 'team'), persuaded by the testimony of'experts,' decided Maria Stern's systemic auto-immune disease wascaused by her silicone breast implants.

In1988, 11 years after the first successful lawsuit, the USFDAclassified the implants as Class III devices and gave manufacturers 3years to produce valid scientific data to prove their devices weresafe and effective.

In1991, in July, Dow Corning submitted 329 studies to the USFDA. Inthe same month, a jury decided to award USD 5.4 million to BrendaToole: her 'expert witnesses' said she had an increased risk ofdeveloping autoimmune diseases.

Twomonths after receiving the studies, a panel of USFDA scientists saidthey could not conclude whether the implants were safe or harmful!

Anadditional two months later, in November, the USFDA's General andPlastic Surgery Panel reviewed all the safety data submitted by allthe manufacturers. This panel, composed of a very broad range ofexperts, industry and consumer groups, also concluded the data wasinsufficient to decide either way!

Onemonth later, a jury awarded USD 7.3 million to Mariann Hopkins. Theytoo were persuaded by 'experts' that her connective-tissue diseasewas linked to her ruptured silicone breast implants.

Thefollowing month, (January 1992), the USFDA and the manufacturersagreed to voluntarily stop distributing and implanting until thepanel reviewed new information.

Onemonth later, the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel concludedno link had been established between autoimmune disease and breastimplants. The panel recommended limiting the use of implants, andthat all recipients be enrolled in scientific (epidemiological)studies to assess the risk of auto-immune disease.

NOTETHIS: Juries made awards BEFORE scientific proof of linkage wasavailable.

TheUSFDA accepted the panel's recommendation. The epidemiologicalstudies began.

Elevenmonths later, before the scientific study results were available, ajury awarded Pamela Jean Johnson USD 25 million. 'Experts' hadtestified there was a causal link between her implants and herconnective-tissue disease. Both the expert witnesses and her lawyersadmitted her symptoms amounted to 'a bad flu.'

InJune 1994, 17 years after the first successful lawsuit, 32 yearsafter the first implant and many jury awards later, thehighly respected, independent Mayo clinic published the results ofthe first epidemiological study on breast implants.

Thestudy, published in the highly respected New England Journal ofMedicine, found no increased risk of connective-tissue disease inwomen with silicone implants.

In1995, the American College of Rheumatology said there is 'compelling'evidence that the implants did not cause the diseases.

Alsoin 1995, Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy. This pioneer in so manyuses for silicone could no longer bear the burden of the decisions byjuries.

Onemonth later, The Harvard Nurses Epidemiologic Study was published inthe New England Journal of Medicine. The study found no increase inrisk of connective-tissue disease in women with silicone implants.

ByDecember 1995 more than 20 studies and abstracts had been publishedin the US and internationally. All failed to support a causalrelationship between silicone breast implants and auto-immunediseases.

In1996, judges began dismissing breast implant lawsuits. They ruledthat lawyers could present evidence that silicone implants causeddisease, because such claims were scientifically invalid.

In1997, 20 years after the first jury award, the AmericanAcademy of Neurology, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute,and others supported the scientific conclusions. In 1998, twoScandinavian studies concluded likewise.

IN2006, 14 years after stopping widespread usage, the USFDA approvedtwo silicone-gel-filled implants, with the condition thatpost-approval studies must be conducted to characterize the long termperformance and safety of the devices.

Today,the USFDA website says:“There is no apparent association between silicone gel-filledbreast implants and connective tissue disease, breast cancer, orreproductive problems. . . ” [Summary of Key Findings, #6]

Many wrong decisions were made by people who meant well, some of whom just believed every big corporation is evil. It's not always so. It takes time, careful study and reflection to arrive at effective answers and solutions. I stick with what I said before: Until I see real leadership emerge, I will prefer to work in other corners.

Istarted by stating the occupiers preference for unstructured groups,and touched on the blessing and the curse of teamwork – which isreally groupwork.

When you consider the story of breast implants, which groups do you think made the betterdecisions? The juries or the panels? Why? Should those who wonawards give them back? Why?

Iam coming to a better understanding of why I still will not join theoccupiers.

[Myfriend Chris, a social scientist, blogged very senstively hereabout my last post. I recommend you read it. I wrote my summary of the breast implant story using this source. ]

Occupy Wall Street: the Two Lazaruses

2011-10-29T20:08:00.001+08:00

“Weare Wall Street. It's our job to make money. Whether it's acommodity, stock, bond or some hypothetical piece of paper, itdoesn't matter. We would trade baseball cards if it wereprofitable.” Those are the first 4 sentences of a 'flier [seephoto] dropped on Occupy protesters in Chicago,' according to a poston FB.

Acouple of friends shared the post. One commented 'Don't occupy, getan occupation.' Another said 'A sober reminder that we should justget on with it if we want to revive the economy and the world insteadof squatting angrily all over the place.” One friend, as aresponse to these comments, provided a link to an article about the99 % and the 1 %.

I'mnot quick with comments.

Ithought of the Lazaruses in the Bible: (1) Poor Lazarus and how hewas treated by a nameless rich man; (2) Rich Lazarus over whose death'Jesus wept' before restoring him to life.

Thestory of the first Lazarus is in Luke 16:19-31. [It's astonishing how much the Christ spoke about money. Lukechapters 15 and 16 have several stories the Christ told his disciplesand others to teach them about money.]

Inthe parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the Christ tells of a bad,rich man who ignored good, poor Lazarus who lay at the gate of hishouse. Even the dogs licked the sores on the body of poor Lazarus,to give him some comfort; the rich man did nothing.

Inthose days there were no state run welfare services. The rich wereexpected to care for the poor; expressed love for God and neighbourwas the accepted summary of the Old Testament. Who could be more ofa neighbour than the one who lies at the doorstep? Also, almsgiving(tzedaka in Hebrew, zakatin Islam) or gifts to care for the poor, was an establishedpractice. The rich man didn't lift a finger to help Lazarus.

Inthe parable, poor Lazarus dies and is received in the afterlife byangels, with rejoicing. Later, the rich man dies. The rich manenters into perpetual torment – not just physical, but alsoemotional: he sees what's going to happen to members of his ownfamily, who continue to live as he did, blind to God's expectationson how we use our wealth.

Sohardened was the rich man's heart that even in the afterlife hewished to treat Lazarus as an errand boy: to go to his – presumablyrich – brothers and tell them to so order their lives that theymight live in the knowledge of judgment day.

Therich man ignored the gap between himself and the poor in this life. In the afterlife, he wished he had invested his earthly life better;he wished other 'rich' would do better; all that was left for him waseternal knowledge that he had not lived a God-pleasing life.

Thestory of the second Lazarus is in John11:1-37. This is a record of an event. It's about Lazarus, sister of Mary and Martha. It's about Lazaruswhom the Christ loved: “³⁵Jesuswept. ³⁶Sothe Jews said, “See how he loved him!” [Bible trivia: John 11:35is the shortest verse in the Bible.]

Thisstory is relevant because the family of Lazarus, from thecontext of the story, is rich: Mary poured expensive perfume uponthe Christ's feet, they had a big house, etc. This story is important because, as Professor Lightfoot puts it:

“IfLazarus had not died, his sisters would not have witnessed the Lord'sconquest of death, the last enemy [1 Cor 15:26], and therefore theywould not have experienced the final and fullest revelation of God, aconquest requiring and indeed only achieved by the death of His Son;for it should always be kept in mind that in this gospel the Lord'sdeath is presented as due, above all else, to His gift of life toLazarus.

BecauseLazarus lives, He died.”

[RH Lightfoot, St John's Gospel:A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1956), 219].

Theimmediate result of the Christ's returning life to rich Lazarus(verse 44), was the chief priests and Pharisees decision to kill theChrist. The conclusion of their immediate council meeting was: fromthat day on they made plans to put the Christ to death (v55).

Icome back to the photo and comments which sparked this piece. I amglad that the occupiers have set off conversations, even if they areoften no more than one-liners. I value the opportunity to join thisconversation.

Christiansare people who have experienced resurrection, and are thereforeunable to respond without reference to a Biblical framework. Themost obvious way is to consider what God in Christ would have us do. We begin – as I have sought to do here – with scripturalreflection and try to frame our responses with reference to thescriptures.

Ido not think either Lazarus would condemn people because theyare rich. I think they would condemn – it's a 99 % word – peoplefor the way they become and remain rich. I think that's a validgripe on the part of the 99 % toward the 1 %. [I am not going todebate the numbers, I treat them as symbols.]

Butthe 99 % also need to consider what they would do if they were the 1%. What changes in behaviours are they expecting? What proposalsare they making? What do they think governments should do? Weshould be thinking about all these things. Christians in particularshould be thinking about how they can work towards a more justdistribution of wealth in society.

Manyof today's Christians don't reflect on the Kingdom of God. There are many who think of the Christ as only a personalsaviour: this is impossible for those who pray the Lord's Kingdomprayer with understanding. Waldron Scott captures well theKingdom theme which runs through the Christian story:

“Ofprime importance is Jesus' conviction that the Kingdom isfor the poor, and that thearrival of the Kingdom is the beginning of a radical reversal in theworld order, a restoration of justice.

Jesusown story of the rich man and Lazarus is meant to dramatize this anddoes so vividly. “Son, remember that you in your lifetime receivedyour good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now heis comforted here, and you are in anguish” (Luke 16:25). This isfurther demonstrated in the text Jesus chose for his inaugural sermonin Nazareth:

TheSpirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me topreach
the good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaimrelease
to the captives
and recovering of sight tothe
blind,
to set at liberty those who are
oppressed.
Toproclaim the acceptable year
of the Lord.
(Luke 4:18-19)”

[WaldronScott, Bring Forth Justice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 86.]

The99 % are unwise to take aim at the 1 % who are rich becausethey are rich. The fact is, the 99 % wish they were more rich thanpoor. The issue is unequal distribution of wealth and perceived preferentialtreatment of the rich (and God has a bias to the poor).

Theannoying thing about 'the occupiers' is that they are not organizinginto political parties. To reach their goals, they have to develop amanifesto and get behind it with political action. Until I see realleadership emerge, I will prefer to work in other corners.

The1 % who are rich should be thinking about how they got their riches,how they will keep their riches, and how they will gain more riches. Hopefully it will be without jettisoning justice.

LeonMorris says of the response of the Jewish leaders (the 1 %?) in John11:36:

“Asalways the Jews fail to enter into the mind of Christ. They take Histears to be no more than a mark of the love He bore to Lazarus. Theydo not discern the deeper reason.” [Leon Morris, The GospelAccording to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 558.]

Iresolve not to be like the Jewish leaders of the first century. Iresolve to discern 'the deeper reasons.' Patiently.

JAIS, Pharaoh and the Magicians

2011-10-22T18:36:00.000+08:00

TheSultan of Selangor issued a pressstatement on 10 October 2011 concerning the Selangor IslamicAffairs Department (JAIS) raid of a dinner held at Dream CentreComplex on 03 August 2011. Dream Centre is the home of DamansaraUnited Methodist Church (DUMC), a Christian church. The statementpertains to a subject I have written about previously, hereand here.

The statement, inthree pages, includes this passage (composition errors are in theoriginal):

“Basedon the investigations by JAIS, there is evidence that there wereattempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims but that theevidence obtained would be insufficient for further legal actions tobe taken. Therefore, after carefully deliberating the report by JAISand after obtaining advice from religious authorities and legalexperts, We are in agreement that there would be no prosecutionagainst any parties.”

I'mhaving trouble understanding the statement, which I suppose wasprepared by JAIS. In the interest of brevity, I will focus on thepassage I have quoted.

'Attempts.' Apparently JAIS has evidence that on multiple occasions,[unidentified persons] sought to 'subvert the faith and belief ofMuslims.' The statement is silent about the religious affiliation/sof the alleged subverters.

'Insufficientevidence.' This is perplexing, especially after the claim thatthere were 'attempts.' I wonder what constitutes 'sufficient'evidence. Is it the consistency and verifiability of the evidence? Or is it the paucity of the evidence? Or is it the manner in whichthe 'evidence' was obtained? [The latter seems unlikely since thestatement says “the actions of JAIS were correct and did not breachany laws enforceable in Selangor.”]

Myreading of the statement reminded me of a cartoon I once saw. It's ascene in a weather bureau. One weatherman says to another: “Ifigure there's a 40 % chance of showers, and a 10 % chance we knowwhat we're talking about.”

DRNg Kam Weng has provided an excellent reflection on the statement. His piece is titled “JAIS-DUMCRow: Sultan not properly informed.” Dr Ng is very gracious.

Thestatement reminded me of the Pharaoh and the magicians in the Bible.

Accordingto the NIV Illustrated Bible Dictionary, the Egyptian 'magicians'were “learned in sacred writings, rituals and spells, trained inthe 'House of Life' (temple 'schools' where this and other literaturewas composed, copied and taught); Egypt's greatest magicians were thechief lector-priests.” I venture that Pharaoh's magicians parallelthe 'religious authorities and legal experts' in the statement.

Exodusis the second book of the Bible. Chapters 7 to 10 of Exodus tell ofthe signs and plagues (7:8– 10:29) which God used to cause Pharaoh to release the Hebrewsfrom their enslavement and abuse in Egypt. We are told of theresponses of the magicians to the miracles. The magicians 'copied'the miracles performed by Moses.

Considerthis:

“Mosesand Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded. He raised his staff inthe presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the water of theNile, and all the water was changed into blood. The fish in the Niledied, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians could not drinkits water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt. But the Egyptianmagicians did the same things . . . ” [Exodus 7:20-22, NIV]

Alsoconsider this:

“Thenthe LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron, ‘Stretch out your hand withyour staff over the streams and canals and ponds, and make frogs comeup on the land of Egypt.’” So Aaron stretched out his hand overthe waters of Egypt, and the frogs came up and covered the land. Butthe magicians did the same things by their secret arts; they alsomade frogs come up on the land of Egypt. [Exodus 8:5-7, NIV]

JohnDurham, writing in the Word Biblical Commentary on Exodus, notesacerbically:

“Theaction of the learned men of Egypt, by which still more frogs wereadded to the frog infestation can hardly have brought any cheer tothe befrogged Pharaoh or his court. . . . it is significant . . .that the Egyptian wizards make no attempt to reducethe effects of Yahweh's acts; they can indeed only multiply them.”[page 104]

Themagicians demonstrated their 'power' by multiplying the troubles ofthe Egyptians!

Itappears that the present authorities and experts are no moreeffective than their Egyptian predecessors.

Theyhave even hopped on the academic, Dr Aziz Bari, a highly regardedlegal expert who merely suggested the statement was 'unconventional.'

Theyare also encouraging, even promoting rallies like the 1 MillionMuslims against apostasy: which I am glad to note has been verypoorly attended.

TheBible does not tell us what Pharaoh did to the magicians. What doyou think he did?

Occupy Wall Street and Trinity Church, Wall Street

2011-10-16T05:23:00.000+08:00

This morning, I walked along Wall Street. I was surprised to see lots of policemen and barriers, but no protesters. The police were present to deter protesters from ‘taking over’ the street and thereby disrupting business.

The policemen may not realize that any tremor on Wall Street reverberates across the world. The policemen are in fact helping to minimize shocks to economies around the world.

I overheard a conversation between a policeman and some Americans from out-of-state. They asked the policeman where the protesters were; they said they weren’t there to join the protest, just to watch.

The policeman told them the protest was in Zuccotti Park. They asked him for directions. The policeman’s response was awkward, though he did eventually give them directions.

Policemen would like for the protest to end; they would like to stop working around the clock, come rain or shine. Today they even had to endure a strong, chilly wind. [Of course, the protesters did too.]

Policemen would like to go home to their wives, take their kids to the parks, to watch football. They would like to relax and not worry about looking bad on tv – there are cameras everywhere, eager to portray the police in a bad light.

[It’s ironic. Tourists turn to the police for directions, and feel reassured when they see policemen. Policemen are generally polite. New York City is teeming with tourists and with police. The police were keeping order at the entrance to the World Trade Centre Memorial, where I saw hundreds lining up today.

At Rockefeller Park I saw a memorial to policemen who died serving the city on 9/11.]

Yesterday I told some colleagues that I planned to visit the protesters. They tried to dissuade me. They said it wouldn’t be safe. They said it would end badly. They said I shouldn't get into a situation where I might have to explain, my presence to the police. They said we should all ignore the protesters.

I explained my reasons for going to the protest. I told them I wanted to see for myself what was going on, because I don’t believe the news. I also told them many of my friends are sympathetic to the protesters. And that I would be safe.

I told my colleagues I think tv networks prefer to report bad news, because it gets people’s attention. I wanted to take the opportunity to find out whether the impression I have gained from media portrayals is reflected on the ground.

I am glad I went. I now have a better perspective on what’s going on. Zuccotti Park is a small space, with many ‘obstacles’ in the form of flower beds. I saw about 200 people.

I was surprised by some things I saw. One young woman was praying intently at an eclectic shrine someone had improvised. A group was assembled in a circle, their eyes closed, apparently praying.

There is no single, recurring message.

People open up pizza boxes, write catchy messages on them and then hold them up so others can photograph them and have talking points. Some examples:

Wall Street steals futures. Unite!
This is not a protest. This is an affirmation of the vitality and idealism erupting underneath the present American nightmare. “I contain multitudes. . . Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. Walt Whitman.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson.

It’s peaceful; the people camped there are eager to keep it peaceful; some community spirit has formed.

There are home-made signs, for example this one which says:

GREETINGS TO ALL. WHILE AT LIBERTY PLAZA

Our cause and our security depend on everybody respecting certain protocol (sic) while at liberty plaza.

SOBRIETY. Liberty plaza is a sober zone. Being intoxicated in Liberty Plaza is inappropriate, and weakens our mission in many ways. Be sure to uphold this culture of sobriety in yourself and others.
RESPECT OTHERS AND THEIR PROPERTY. Respect and care for yourself and your own belongings. Respect others and their belongings. Regard Liberty Plaza as a home we are sharing.
LIBERTY PLAZA and its FLOWERS. Keep it clean. This Plaza and these flowers are important to the community. Our ability to uphold the beauty of this park well represents our commitment to a better world.

I saw many people, young and old, going about with brooms and pans, cleaning up. There is no shortage of cleaning tools and equipment!

When I walked on Wall Street, I noticed that at one end there is a church building. I discovered it’s the home of Trinity Church, one of the oldest churches in the country, and one which claims as members many American revolutionary, government and business leaders: there’s a graveyard there.

While visiting the building, I took the opportunity to use the men’s room. There was a young man at the wash basin, wiping his torso. I concluded he is one of the people camping at Zuccotti Park; perhaps even a member of Trinity church.

I was glad the church has not turned away these new radicals who see themselves as an ‘eruption underneath the present American nightmare.’ I hoped Trinity church knows how to accept, challenge and sustain all who come through it’s doors. It has to minister not only to those who have chosen to live in community at Zuccotti Park, but also to those who labour on Wall Street.

I hoped Trinity church would have found ways to be true to it’s name, which reminds us that community is at the heart of God’s will. I was captivated by the Iona Cross which marks the grave of Rev Robert Ray Parks, a former minister of Trinity church.

I recalled what Dr Philip Baker said last week about the Iona Cross: the circle reminds us we are called to live at the intersection between the world and the Christ.

According to a tribute I found, Rev Parks once said a priest should “be able to talk to anyone across the social spectrum, from those who command little of society’s respect, to figures of power and wealth.”

I did some web searches. I found God has in fact given such priests to Trinity church. On the church’s website, I found a sensitive piece which includes this:

“The protesters represent one end of a larger spectrum, intentionally exposed, and like St. Francis, they are choosing extreme action to make a point. They are the injured knee with torn ligaments that is screaming in unbearable, inarticulate pain. The knee doesn’t know how to fix its tear, but it knows how to draw attention to a problem that affects the whole. They have drawn attention by the means they have.”

The Rector of Trinity Church, Rev Dr James H Cooper has also provided remarks on the same website. I applaud his approach, which is embedded in these lines:

“As a prayerful community with a deep history of relationships in Lower Manhattan, Trinity continues its pastoral outreach and welcomes any of those involved in the ongoing situation to parish spaces. Many protestors have found the opportunity for rest and revitalization in Charlotte’s Place, Trinity’s new neighborhood center, and have expressed deep appreciation for the hospitality there. We welcome any of those involved in the protest for pastoral care and reflection.

With its long history, Trinity is also a place where meaningful conversations between people with divergent viewpoints can happen. We also offer our meeting spaces to groups for conversations and forums on issues of public concern.”

I am eager to join my prayers with the people of God in New York City. I had planned to go to Times Square Church, but now I think I will go to Trinity Church.

Note:

Today, Mrs Parks was at the 11.15 am service. I went up and said hello to her. She's a lovely lady, springhtly for her age.

I mentioned the Iona Cross which marks her husband's grave (the inscription has her name and birth date with a space for her departure date). I explained I had recently learned about the significance of the circle on the cross.

She told me there was an Iona Cross at the camp where they first met, and later she and her husband decided their grave stone would be an Iona Cross.
I am thrilled to have met her!

I was also very happy that Dr Cooper was the preacher, and the text was 'Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.' In his sermon Dr Cooper re-iterated what he said in the post on the church's website.

He spoke of the name by which the Anglican Church is sometimes known, the 'via media,' the middle road: which brings together conversations on all sides of an issue, to bring harmony.

I liked the analogy he used. He said though Anglicans are relatively few in number - considering the size of worldwide church - they strive to be like the little bones in the ear which keep the whole body from stumbling.

At the end of his message, a group seated at the back clapped for some time. Those in the pews in front of them - about 90 % of those present, did not clap.
But everyone clapped after the choir finished rendering a song. The acoustics were so bad I could not make out the words of most of what was sung today - both by the choir and by the congregation.

Mma Ramotswe, Karoshi and Occupying Dataran

2011-10-04T07:51:00.000+08:00

MmaRamotswe, the traditional-sized founder of the No. 1 Detective Agencyin Botswana once said “If you can afford a servant, you shouldemploy one. How else will people have jobs?”

WhenI read that several years ago, my ears were fresh from hearing thehorror of a young 'communist' language-student from China over howshe was served a drink at the lounge in the P.J. Hilton. Thewaitress had knelt, to place stuff on the low coffee table. My youngfriend thought the hotel required the waitress to do somethingdemeaning.

Jobsfor Servants

When,occasionally, I accompanied my mother on her visits to India, aretinue of day-servants would show up – a woman to clean house, awoman to fetch water from the village hand-pump, a woman to cook, awoman to do the laundry; a man with a bicycle to do general errandsand a man with a car for the tortuous work of visiting relatives.

Myfamily never had servants in Malaysia, and I didn't know how torelate to servants. To this day I'm not comfortable asking servantsto do things for me – there's a part of me which thinks 'servantwork' is demeaning. But many of my friends have servants. Of course'servant' is politically incorrect. You're supposed to say 'maid.'

Despitemy personal discomfort over servants, a few months after reading MmaRamotswe, I decided she was right. I woke up this morning thinkingabout her.

Jobsin General

I'vejust returned from visiting several factories and offices in Suzhou,Shanghai, Tokyo and Singapore. I met government officials, as wellas people who work for my company.

Ifelt again the strong winds that drive nations and industry.

Governmentswant investment, they want the creation of jobs, good jobs. Shareholders want good returns on their investment – much of whichis for their retirement. They don't want to lose their shirts asthey did with ENRON.

Managersare hired and rated on the basis of how much waste they caneliminate.

Wasteis often about getting people to do more in the same amount of time. For factory workers whose pay includes 'productivity incentive,' thismeans: every year each 'unit of manpower' (i.e. person) has toproduce 5 % more gloves or 3 % more tons of paper or 1 % morecylinders of gas in order to qualify for the monthly or annual bonus.

Productivitygains can be got through changing the way people work. Changing thelayout of work benches and the flow of materials often enableselimination of people whose job is just to move things ('non valueadd') rather than to change things (value add), e.g. moving a sheetof cardboard versus folding it and changing it into a shoe box.

Productivitycan also be got through mechanization: one machine with oneoperator/shift and one mechanic/week can make as many shoe boxes asthirty people.

IndustrialEngineers and organizations who employ them pat themselves on theback for 'eliminating boring work,' and are silent about eliminatingwork.

It'strue not just in factories, but offices too.

I'vehad no administrative help for the last fifteen years. I book my owntravel and hotels, I prepare my own expense claims, I write and printstuff myself, I do my own photocopying. If I need stationary, I goto a store and purchase it – either by signing for it or by payingcash and submitting an expense claim later.

Thereduction or elimination of administrative help in offices wasindustry's response to the economic problems of the eighties.

Deathby Overwork (Karoshi)

Theconsequence of improved productivity is often overwork – includingby people like me whose work is not just to remain employed, but alsoto keep others employed. I've retrenched people once. I never wantto do that again.

Butthere are dark, wilfully ignored secrets.

Toyota,the darling of industry, Toyota which taught us low costmanufacturing (through Lean Production) and superb quality (throughempowering people) has a dark secret in Japan: Toyota has beenprosecuted and found guilty for Karoshi.

Karoshiis death from overwork. It's such a big issue in Japan that there'sa karoshi hotline and a law which widows and children can useto compel an employer to support them just as their husband or fatherwould have.

On30 June 2008, Toyota was found guilty of having an employee whocommitted karoshi. The 45 year old chief engineer wasorganizing worldwide manufacturing of the Camry hybrid sedan. According to the Labour Bureau of Aichi prefecture, his death byheart attack was due to working nights, weekends and travelling toomuch.

Thatwasn't the first karoshi at Toyota.

In2007, a court had ruled against Toyota in the case of Kenichi Uchino. In 2002, Mr Uchino, 30, a quality-control manager at Toyota,collapsed and died. He had worked more than 80 hours/month ofovertime for the previous six months – mostly for no pay.

Accordingto government figures for 2007, the most common reason forwork-related suicides was overwork (672 of 2,207). Readmore here.

[Caveat:I am an admirer, proponent and teacher of the Toyota ProductionSystem. I am merely pointing out what MUST NOT be emulated, and MUSTBE reformed. Let it also be noted that I am by training an engineerand I work in quality.]

TheOccupation of Public Spaces

Latelymany have sent me links to stories about the occupation of WallStreet, Dataran, etc. In my last post I said I will not be amongstthose who occupy Dataran.

I'mtrying to separate the signals from the noise.

Ithink the occupiers see themselves as being at the bad end of greed. I think they see opportunity for camaraderie. I also think theybelieve that no matter how hard they work at 'real jobs,' they willnot be able to make a difference: and they become prickly.

Whatthey point to in Malaysia – and the world generally – isrelentless promotion of temples of efficiency which have repeatedlyfailed to build community.

Changedoesn't come from without. Change comes from within. It's not aboutexternal infrastructure-based transformation programs. It's aboutwillingness to accept slower growth and openness to debate about thekind of society we want – not what one political party tells us weneed.

Dowe believe we can bring about change, even and especially in ourworkplaces? Can we be proponents of principle-based practices,including providing employment, keeping people employed and notover-working them?

MmaRamotswe is a fictional character created by Alexander McCall Smith,Emeritus Professor of Medical Law at the University of Edinburgh.

Pearl Harbour, the Arab Spring and Malaysian Churches

2011-10-01T11:36:00.000+08:00

“Ifear we will awaken a sleeping giant,” said Admiral Yamamoto whendiscussing the proposal to bomb Pearl Harbour.

Until7 December 1941, the United States was not in the war, although therewere Admirals, Generals and politicians who anticipated the war andbegan preparations – with very limited budgets. After PearlHarbour, the U.S. was very much in the war.

'Awakeninga sleeping giant' is a powerful and useful metaphor for describingthe united urgency for vengeance against the Japanese.

But,the fact is, except for the (failed) defence of the Philippines andoccasional forays in the Pacific, the U.S. initially focused onGermany, not Japan.

Themetaphor needs to be augmented, because the way in which the Giantwas directed, mobilized and functioned is as important as the factthat it was awakened.

I'vebeen reflecting on the Arab spring and the events set off by theself-immolation, on 4 January 2011, of 26 year old Mohamed Bouazizi,a street vendor in Tunisia.

[Bouazizikilled himself after enforcement officers confiscated his produce,cart and scales – allegedly because he did not have the requiredpermit to operate his business. Apparently he couldn't bribe theofficials, in accordance with established custom.]

Manycommentators called Bouzazizi and those who copied him, “heroicmartyrs of a new Middle Eastern Revolution.” The revolutions were intended to depose autocratic rulers – and it's not onlythe Middle East which is ruled by autocrats.

Yet,the 'revolutions' appear to have succeeded only in either spreadingand amplifying the brutality of resident autocrats, or in replacingone set of autocrats with another set – of less known and thereforeless predictable, less contained and more volatile autocrats.

In15 Stars: Three Generals Who Saved the American Century, ProfessorStanley Weintraub quotes an entry Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of theImperial General Staff (Great Britain), made in his diary on 8 May1943:

“Runninga war seems to consist in making plans and then ensuring that allthose destined to carry it out don't quarrel with each other insteadof the enemy.” [Weintraub, 165]

Thequarrels Sir Alan mentioned were to do primarily with disagreementsabout strategy between the Americans and the British. The Americanswanted to battle both in the Pacific – partly to appease theAmerican public – and in Europe, while the British wanted to focuson Europe. But there were also lots of quarrels within the warplanning offices of the various chiefs of staff, and amongstbattalion commanders in the field.

Whatwas required to keep the war effort moving in concert, wasleadership: supported by good information. [There were nosatellites, internet and good phone lines.]

Informationwas needed not only about the terrain of the battlefields, theweather, enemy location and preparedness, etc., but also about theofficers who would plan and execute the activities of war.

Inshort, to fight a war, operations centres – with staff andequipment – were needed. Most of all, leadership was needed.

Inthe armed forces, there are clear lines of command. Any subordinatemust obey his commander's orders – provided they are not illegal. Even Generals are subordinates, e.g. Eisenhower and MacArthur wereMarshall's subordinates.

Thetrouble with leadership is that you only get it with leaders. Andleaders come packaged with egos and a tendency to see things fromtheir perspective only.

Weintraubtells of an occasion when MacArthur sent his aide, Colonel Philip LaFolette, to meet Marshall in Washington, to lobby for resources tosupport the war in the Pacific.

Marshall'smeeting with La Folette at the HQ ended at 9.00 am, at which time thedaily world briefing for Marshall commenced. The briefing providedthe latest status of the war, including troop and equipmentmovements, status of battles, knowledge about the enemy, etc.

Marshallinvited La Follette to sit in. La Follette accepted. After thebriefing, La Follette left,

“abandoningwhat remained of MacArthur's mission.

Only'after the peace' did La Folette see Marshall again and asked, then,'Did you keep me back there purposely to see that?'

Theupdate had 'changed his whole state of mind the minute he saw theenormity of what was going on and what its requirements were and whatthe demands were. He began to see the picture in the light of thereal circumstances.'

Marshallwas amused.

'Idid keep him for the purpose, but I let it just fall into place . . .because if these fellows could see what the [global] thing is, theywould understand more what the impossibility was of many things theywere talking about.'” [Weintraub, 165]

Iattend BERSIH events. BERSIH's goals for electoral reforms, andmethods, are clear. It has a clear leadership team, with AmbigaSreenivasan as chief.

Isupported the movement to free the EO6: the goals and methods wereclear. There was a clear leader in S. Arutchelvan, and he had agroup working with him, not just in organizing vigils and visits, butalso in working behind the scenes: the Home Minister text messagedAru after the EO6 were released: 'over to you.'

Thereis only so much each of us can engage in. As a Christian, I do notbelieve I can learn everything I need to engage the world throughreading and listening to rational analysis alone. I believe there isanother reality, which is also a true reality.

Sometimesmy feet want to go and 'be in solidarity with others,' but an innervoice says 'no, you are to go to the prayer meeting instead.' It'shard to explain. Egos, self-knowledge and perspective have a lot todo with it.

DidPearl Harbour awaken a giant? Or did Pearl Harbour awaken people tolisten to leaders who focused the energies of nations? [Not all weredemocracies.]

Havethe Middle Eastern Martyrs and the Arab Spring awakened people tolisten to leaders who are focusing the energies of nations?

Theaim of the movement to occupy Dataran Merdeka, “to recover it as apublic space,” is a noble one. However, my legs will not be there.

Myfocus is to re-infect the church in Malaysia with passion for God'sKingdom: churches as outposts of heaven, generating praise, bringingpeace, pronouncing judgment and ending oppression; energizingindividuals, building networks and working for change.

InThe Politics of Discipleship, theologian Graham Ward says:

“Inthe United Kingdom, because of sustained church-state relations thatresisted the privatization of the Anglican religion, there hascontinued to be a tradition of critical intervention by the church inthe public sphere; one thinks of the Christian socialism ofArchbishop William Temple, for example, in the 1930s and 1940s. TonyBlair, in a speech delivered to a Christian evangelical group,testified that in Britain 'the churches are among the most formidablecampaigning organizations in history.' One might also consider, onthe wider European scene, the role played by the Catholic Church andChristian Democratic Parties in the establishment of the EuropeanUnion.” [Ward, 132]

Haveyou been to any war briefings lately? [Clue: 'p....r meetings.']

See also: http://lbo-news.com/2011/09/29/the-occupy-wall-street-non-agenda/

15 Stars, 5 Questions

2011-09-19T06:59:00.000+08:00

15 Stars: Three Generals Who Savedthe American Century, by Stanley Weintraub, is a book about Eisenhower,MacArthur and Marshall. Ten other booksby him, about war, are listed at the front of the book. 15 Stars was published in 2007, whenWeintraub was 78 years old. The blurbsays he was, at the time of writing, Professor Emeritus of Arts and Humanitiesat Pennsylvania State University.

I’ve read the first threechapters. I’m asking myself fivequestions.

1. Evaluating Performance andPotential

At work, it’s performanceappraisal time, and I’m especially struck by how different people rate the sameperson. When the Chief of Staff, George CMarshall was looking for someone to head war planning in Washington– after Pearl Harbour – he asked a trusted associateto give him ten names to choose from.

Brigadier General Mark Wayne Clarkwrote ‘Dwight D Eisenhower,’ and said if Marshallliked, he could write ‘ditto’ nine times beneath it. Major General Lesley J McNair wrote sevennames. Ike’s was the seventh. During the same period, Lieutenant General WalterKrueger asked Marshallfor a new chief of staff for his Third Army. Krueger asked for Ike, whom he said was someone “possessing broadvision, progressive ideas, a thorough grasp of the magnitude of the problemsinvolved in handling an Army and lots of initiative and resourcefulness.”

Earlier, General Douglas MacArthurhad a different view of Ike. Weintraubsays:

“Servingfourteen of his thirty-seven years in the army under both men, Eisenhower wasan assistant to MacArthur – invisible, and painfully aware of going nowhere –and then deputy to Marshall,who rocketed him to responsibility and to prominence. In seven years with MacArthur, labouring inthe arid peacetime vineyards, Eisenhower earned a promotion of one grade, frommajor to lieutenant colonel . . . In seven months under Marshall – under the vastly alteredcircumstances of global war – he earned a constellation of stars and a majorcommand.” [page x]

The appraisal says lots about theenvironment, the assignments, and the boss – not just the person beingappraised. I’ve been told many timesthat the most common reason people quit is the boss. In the armed forces, they can’t quit!

Question 1: What’s the true valueof performance appraisals?

2. Unprepared for War

In the 1940’s, there was muchopposition to spending money on soldiering and weaponry. There was little will to spend on budgets forthe armed forces. And, there was muchacrimony over which branch of the armed forces would be funded.

A few weeks before Pearl Harbourwas bombed, the Louisianawar games had ended. This passage well illustrates the extent ofparsimony:

“Troops in training were literally throwingeggs, and even rocks, to simulate grenades, and using firecrackers whenavailable, to hoard the live ammunition husbanded for a futurebattlefield. Eisenhower’s tanks hadoften been trucks with signboards reading ‘tank.’ Many rifles had been sawed-off broomsticks. .. [vehicles] often had to be refuelled from roadside stations, the gas paid forout of Patton’s well-padded wallet, as were replacement bolts he purchased fromSears, Roebuck.” [Page 2]

One of the reasons why Pearl Harbourwas so badly hit by Japanese bombers was that the US planes didn’t do muchreconnaissance. This was because thecommanders did not want to use up their scarce stocks of fuel and didn’t wantto cause wear and tear on the planes, as they had no spares to fix them.

Post PearlHarbour, one of the key challenges forthe United Stateswas setting up a Military Industrial Complex to produce the weapons, equipmentand supplies needed to wage war. Thiswas an area Eisenhower had prepared for: in 1927, while at the Army War College, he had writtena paper on industrial planning.

It was hard to justify militaryspending, especially after the depression years of the 30’s. But when war came, military spending wasessential – and had to be rapid.

Question 2: What’s the ‘rightlevel’ of military spending?

Truth is the First Casualty in War

When PearlHarbour was hit, the true extent ofthe damage was not revealed to the public – the extent wasn’t even known to US Generalsin far away locations, e.g. MacArthur in the

Philippines

. Thus, MacArthur continued to ask for,continued to be told, and continued to believe, that he was going to beresupplied, etc. – when in fact the Navy didn’t have the ships to supply him.

MacArthur himself was prone tomaking up stories. Through his courtingthe media, he built up an image of himself as defender of Bataan in the Philippines. Yet, in truth, he had been in Bataan only for a fraction of one day. [page 41]

MacArthur kept much of the truthabout what happened in the Philippinesfrom his commanders in the

United States

For instance, MacArthur reportedthat a major landing by the Japanese at Lingayen had been thwarted, that mostof the invasion fleet had been sunk and that the beaches were littered withJapanese corpses. It was all lies: a Lifephotographer, Carl Mydans, visited the beaches and found nothing of the sort;there had been no battle. (page 26).

MacArthur had ardent supporters inthe press and amongst politicians. TheAmerican public needed heroes. It wouldnot do to tell them that MacArthur had botched the defence of the Philippines.

So Marshall himself created astory. He persuaded President Rooseveltto award MacArthur the Medal of Honour. To find ‘justification’ for this award, Marshall radioed MacArthur’s chief of staff“to transmit your recommendations and supporting statement with appropriatedescription of any act believed sufficient to warrant this award.” (page 58)

Question 3: When is itappropriate to spread disinformation?

The Importance of Strategy

There were two major ‘bad guys’during World War II: the Germans and the Japanese. The theatre of war was two oceans, vast distances apart.

At the beginning of the war, theAllies had very limited resources. Whereshould they focus their resources? Wouldstriking Germany be moreeffective than trying to hold, e.g. the Philippines? Should the UStherefore just stop supplying the troops in the Philippines – which would lead tosevere hardships and death for US servicemen?

And what about the importance of entertaining the population with success stories? How to get the leaders of the variousbranches of the armed forces – both in the US and in the UK – to agree on which‘small battles’ to choose and win, for propaganda purposes? Consider this:

“Rooseveltpresided over a nation now addicted, since Pearl Harbor,to newspapers and the radio. No furtherembarrassing reverses in the Pacific were likely, but no serious movementagainst the Japanese either. And wherewas the war being taken to the Germans? Marshall recalledruefully, about an operation he deplored, that he had “failed to see that theleader in a democracy has to keep the people entertained. That may sound like the wrong word, but itconveys the thought.” To keep Congressand the electorate in a positive frame of mind to support the costs of atwo-ocean war, Roosevelt had to show visibleprogress somewhere.” (page 73)

Choosing a strategy is not easy; it's one of the key things leaders must do.

Question 4: How do we balance‘keeping people entertained’ with ‘doing right?’

How does one evaluate a life?

Was MacArthur, the man to whomEmperor Hirohito surrendered, a hero, a demi-god? The evaluation of MacArthur by Weintraubbegins with WWII, when he was 61 years old, and is mainly uncomplimentary.

The Wikipedia entry for MacArthur (click here) tells usmuch more.

When MacArthur entered West Point, hazing was still practiced. He and Ulysses S Grant III were singled outfor ‘special hazing,’ because they were both sons of Generals, and theirmothers were living in luxury at a nearby hotel: yet, he downplayed his ownhazing. He graduated top of his class of93 at Westpoint, while also playing on the baseball team.

He was much decorated for variousfeats of bravery during several wars. Atage 39, he became Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point.

At age 47, he became president ofthe US Olympic Committee, which was responsible for preparing the US team for the 1928 Summer Olympics in Amsterdam.

The Wikipedia entry says much,much more.

I was surprised to learn fromWeintraub (page 16) that MacArthur, though not church-going – and a Free Mason– spent 10 minutes a day reading the Bible.

Question 5: How do I evaluate alife? [e.g. Jala, Najib, Mahathir, me. . .]

====

Mark 8:36

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit hissoul?

Forgiveness and the Kingdom of God

2011-09-11T18:10:00.000+08:00

Peterasked the Messiah a question about forgiveness. He asked how manytimes to forgive. He suggested seven times. He didn't say why. Hedidn't say what to do after the seventh time. The Messiah didn't batan eyelid. The Messiah said seventy seven times – or so somethink; others think the Messiah said seven times seventy times; someeven think the Messiah said seven hundred and seventy times. Whatever. They all agree the Messiah's answer was: there's no limitto forgiveness.

Ashe was wont to do, the Messiah told a story. I like ClarenceJordan's version of the story. In the Cotton Patch translation,the Messiah says the Kingdom of Heaven is like when Big Businessmancomes to town to settle accounts with his servants. Lousy Bum comesalong and says he will pay back an enormous debt – millions uponmillions. He will. Big B is amused by Lousy's naivety. Big Bpities Lousy. Big B does the extravagant thing. He writes off thedebt. Lousy leaves.

TheMessiah continues. Lousy goes off and finds Small Man. Small owesLousy a paltry sum compared to what Big B just wrote off for Lousy. The Messiah doesn't say why Lousy went after Small. I suppose itmight have been because Lousy wanted to show he could still getmoney. Or maybe he still wanted to try and pay back Big B. Anyhow,since Small couldn't pay, Lousy puts Small in debtors prison.

Wordabout what Big B did for Lousy and what Lousy then did to Small getsback to Big B. It was a clear case of Lousy not showing mercy. BigB summons Lousy. Big B gives Lousy a shelling. Big B sends Lousy todebtors prison. The Messiah ends by telling his hearers: “This ishow my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive yourbrother from your heart.” (Matthew18:21-35)

Thestory I have just re-told is at the end of chapter 18 of the gospelof Matthew. The whole chapter is about life in the church, about howChristians are to relate to each other. It's also about the Kingdomof God – which Matthew prefers to call the Kingdom of Heaven,partly because he was not comfortable saying the word God too often. God, after all, is a real being, one who is just and holy: so we mustbe careful with His name.

Matthew'susage also emphasizes that God's Kingdom comes down from above, andhas to be understood as we are taught it by God, not by world kingsand politicians.

Peterthought he was being generous: the 'correct' answer according to thereligious teachers and leaders of the time was three. The Messiahsays 'there's no limit.' But the Messiah didn't stop there. He usedthe opportunity to speak about God's Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. He spoke about what it means to live in the Kingdom of Heaven, in thereign of Christ. And, in the Bible, it's a given that those who arein the Kingdom will know they are, by their strong inner desire toparticipate in the life of a church.

What'sso unique about the Kingdom? Well, the King of the Kingdom is noordinary King. He is also the SufferingServant, the Son who endured life on earth, kept Himself free ofsin and went as a lamb to the slaughter on the cross. It isobedience to Him that makes people able to receive unlimitedforgiveness and thereby become acceptable to God and gifts to theirneighbours.

Today,when people preach the gospel, they often focus on heaven. Theyspeak of becoming a Christian as the way to be sure of going toheaven. Yet, a close reading of the Bible shows that the focus ofthe Messiah (Jesus), the apostles and the early disciples was notheaven. It was the Kingdom of heaven, here on earth. This is nosurprise when you consider the model prayer the Messiah taught hisdisciples – the most often prayed Christian prayer:

“OurFather in heaven, hallowed by your name, your kingdom come, your willbe done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And leadus not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, for yoursis the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.” (Matthew6:11-13)

Theword 'kingdom' occurs twice, as do the roots of the words 'forgive'and 'debt.'

Accordingto the gospel of Mark, the first message the Messiah preached was:“The time has come, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believethe good news.” (Mark 1:15) The main concern of the Messiah was topronounce the coming of the Kingdom, the reign of God. Theologiansoften call it the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God.

Thisis how CarlF H Henry, discusses the relationship of church, Kingdom andworld:

“Onthe frontiers between the unregenerate world and the kingdom of Godthe Christian community is entrenched to proclaim the gospel and toclarify the dual destinies that confront the whole human race.

TheChurch is not the kingdom but prefigures the kingdom as its nearestapproximation in the collective history of humanity.

Indaily association with the coming King, this new society ofnow-regenerate moral rebels is entrenched on the Rock against whichthe gates of hell cannot prevail.

InChrist, the kingdom's frontiers are being extended, not as fixedboundaries but as continually reflected in the thoughts and actionsof a new society. Not by the new society's political or culturalactivism per se, but only through obedience to the ruling head of theregenerate Church does the body fulfill its mission.

Insteadof contriving to impose theonomy on a rebellious world, which in anyevent is dying in its sins, the Church should strive rather to be aradiant Christocracy wherein Christ rules the obedient new society bythe Scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Where the Spirit enlivensthe new community, there the kingdom's incursion is manifest,transforming once ungodly individuals into a holy fellowship.

Thekingdom is a community-nourishing reality in which the people of Godshare citizenship by invitation of the King.”

Inany discussion of the Kingdom of God, we must keep the tensionbetween the “it's here” and the “it's not yet here.” Christianslive in expectation of the return of Christ, an end-time, a day oftriumph and of reckoning – of settling of accounts. Christians arecalled to be salt and light, people who are active members ofsociety, doing good to others and calling others to do good. CarlHenry says:

“.. . the new society is divinely obliged to witness to the world andto teach the nations all that Christ has commanded. The new societyis to publish worldwide the criteria by which Christ at his return inpower and glory will judge the human race and all the nations. Inher own lifestyle, moreover, the believing Church is to exemplifywhat spiritual and moral obedience really requires and is to exhortthe world to conform its legal structures and social enterprises, aswell as its interpersonal life, to God's revealed will. . .

“.. . Yet the new society nonetheless holds citizenship in two realmsand has express political duties on earth, duties that it should ofcourse pursue more vigorously than does unregenerate humanity amongwhich the new society continually moves, even if its own life andbeing are essentially supernatural. Not fulfilling public dutycarries the high cost of almost inevitably being ruled over byauthorities whose convictions are more alien than necessary to theoutlook of the new society.”

[CarlHenry's paper, Reflections on the Kingdom of God, from which theabove quotations are taken, can be found here.]

Thechurch is a family. As in all families, there will be disagreements. I believe the Messiah had this in mind when he taught us the modelprayer. We are to call God, Father, and we are to remind ourselvesof forgiveness. Forgiveness we need, and forgiveness we get when weforgive others, from the heart.

Ifwe are not willing to act in the world, to change it for the better,to curb evil, we will be Christians in name only – and an insult toour Christ. Also, we recognize that we are not called to be partisan– some of us will be pro- the ruling party, others will be against.

Wecannot choose those who belong to our churches. They are chosen byour common Father. We can only recognize His desire: the expansionof His reign, the alignment of legal and social structures to hiswill. We can choose to honour Him by working with Him to achieve Hisgoal, working for the good of our neighbour and the honour of ourGod.

Andwe do all this under the cover and the practice of never-endingforgiveness.

[Expansion of a portion of a message preached at Bangsar Lutheran Church on Sunday 11 September 2011.]