I was shocked and dismayed, while in the US, to read that \”32 English bibles have been seized by the customs department.\” Although they have now been released, this \”new habit of the heart\” raises some very key and important questions about how ordinary government officials see their role in public life.
Is it the duty of the Customs Department to \”police morality\” in this country? Or, have they now become the \”new customs and traditions department;\” thereby evolving a duty and responsibility to police the morality of who reads \”bibles?\” To do so they have to seize 32 copies of English Bibles, with a clear evidence of a letter from a Parish Priest about the purpose for them being brought into the country. And, it had everything to do with customs and traditions of Christians who see the bible as a sacred book; the contents and not the physical book alone.
Or, maybe the Customs Department feels they have to do it on behalf of the Ministry of Internal Security’s book division? What is the legal basis for a customs officer to do that? Was it because taxes were not paid? Was it because it is a banned item? My real question revolves around the ‘locus standi’ for the public agent to do what he or she did? Or, is it simply \”a new habit of the heart or soft despotism?\”
To quote from Wikipedia: Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by self-interest might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called \’hard despotism\’) in the sense that it is not obvious to the people. In a soft despotism, people may have the illusion that they are in a democracy, when in fact they have no influence in the government. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the \”habits of the heart\” of its 19th-century populace. {quote from Alexis de Tocqueville\’s book Democracy in America }
To me, a retired government officer, I find this astounding that a junior officer of the public services can \”simply create ‘new laws and rules’ outside the jurisdiction of the customs department\” and raise anger, confusion and mischief amongst our multi-racial population with a total disregard for the Rukunegara principle of the rule of law and guarantees of the Federal Constitution. Is it therefore the clear objective of government to allow their agents to \”administer whims and fancies\” as the rule of law? Or, are we really tended towards a \”new habits of the heart\” of one group of people and aimed at frustrating the freedom faith and practice of the religious liberty already enshrined in the Constitution?
‘Righteous anger’
Frankly, I was therefore not surprised but somewhat concerned to read the tone of the Council of Churches Malaysia’s (CCM) statement regarding the matter. The general secretary of the CCM issued a statement which among others said the following: \”We want to state categorically that the Bible is Holy Scripture for Christians. No authority on earth should deny Christians the right to possess, read and travel with their Bibles.\” This particular issue was not related to a personal bible but a box of 32 bibles being brought into the country. Nonetheless, obviously, in Christian terms, this response can be considered almost like \”righteous anger.\”
Christians, who make up about 2.6 million Malaysians, have a right to take umbrage on this matter, because this comes closely after the recent efforts to \”ban the use of the pre-Islamic word for God, \”Allah\” in the Bahasa Malaysia bibles. The CCM represents all mainstream protestant churches including all Methodist, Anglican and Lutheran churches. My guess is that they make up about 30-40% of all Christians in Malaysia. So, when the general secretary speaks, he speaks on behalf of this community of Christians. It will do the government good to listen and hear their frustration and not ignore it.
The very next day, the Chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM), Bishop Paul Tan issued an even stronger statement. The central thesis was that on the matter of \”their faith and practice\” the Christians in Malaysia are answerable only to God. His concluding statement was very telling. \”In the run-up to the national elections, it is important for the churches to be convinced that the policy of the Barisan Nasional guarantees religious freedom and would not tolerate any actions that undermine the religious rights of all citizens of Malaysia.\”
The CFM is the federation of all Christian Churches in Malaysia; making up the three component expressions, namely the Catholics, Protestants and Evangelical Christians. All these make up the 2.6 million Christians in Malaysia. I believe there are at least 2,000-6,000 congregations of Christians throughout Malaysia. To understand the significance of the numbers, in case it is lost to some, even Umno only has 3,000 delegates at their general assembly from about three million members. But I do not think that even Umno has as many branches on the ground. In short, this army of Christian peace-makers is always ready to march once the command is received from their Lord and God for the sake of standing up for justice in this world. Their priests, pastors and elders are merely representative stewards of both this faith and grace of God already expressed in their Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, I would think it is important that the government does not take this matter lightly. In fact, although theologically the Christians cannot start a ChristRAF (in the spirit of Hindraf), it would be important for the government to talk and listen to the views of the two Christian ministers in cabinet before this matter gets really out of control, and every \”zealotry public agent\” thinks that they have a religious duty for policing morality.
God-given freedom
While I am fully aware that Christians in Malaysia will never probably from a political party, I hope and pray that the government will not take this fact also lightly when it comes to issues related to Christian rights, duties, responsibilities and responsible action. Individual Christians are called to be responsible citizens and to respect every government in power. But that does not mean that Christians will tolerate abuse of their rights, and especially related to the freedom of faith and worship. They believe this is a God-given freedom of conscience and no human can deny that freedom to worship their one true God. Therefore Bishop Paul Tan’s warning is relevant.
Maybe a timely reminder for all concerned is the actions and statements of Cardinal Sin in the Philippines which directly led to the fall of the former President Marcos. Two million six hundred thousand Christians do translate to about 800,000-1,000,000 votes in this coming general election, assuming all are registered to vote. On the average, this may be about 10-15 percent in most urban constituencies or even up to 30 percent in all the constituencies of Sabah and Sarawak. That size is bigger than even the MIC. Unless the Barisan government does not really care about Christian votes, it would be prudent of someone at the very high level to clarify this issue before the general election. Failing which, I will not be surprised if the pulpits throughout the country begin to address this issue as a matter of administrative injustice, much like in the Lina Joy case. Christians believe that final justice always belongs to God, and they will always pray towards the realisation of this end but are allowed and encouraged to stand up of issues of conscience, against any unjust authority.
This issue of what values constitute public space civility, was also the substance of a presentation I attended at the Trinity University Conference in Los Angeles on \”God and Governing.\” Leading and well known sociologist Dr Os Guinness argued a full blown thesis of \”the case for civility for even a country like America\” which already practices clear separation of the church and state, at least in forms! Although his entire argument was for the American case, this British gentleman made an excellent and brilliant argument for the same globally. He compared the three experimental histories of good governance by the French, the British and the Americans.
And his conclusion was that diversity requires a public space democracy which is founded on religious and civil liberties which are already enshrined in the American 1st Amendment, most fully described in the Williamsburg Charter of 1988. And, to support his case, he quotes from President John F Kennedy’s commencement address at the American University in June 1963:
\”So, let us not be blind to our differences – but let it also direct our attention to our common interests and to means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.\”
In the final analysis, our challenge in Malaysia too is whether we can make \”our world safe for diversity?\” We started on the successful management of our diversities with a clear and unequivocal agenda for national unity 50 years ago through our Merdeka Constitution as our primary social contract. But, in the recent past, our country seems no more a safe place for diversity. All religious minorities are being marginalised by unbecoming actions of religious zealots in public service, without a constitutional mandate for them to do so.
To me, this general election is only about this one single issue, \”Will there be a continued tolerance for a freedom of conscience in Malaysia?\” Increasingly, and to our dismay, very frequently, many religious zealots are making \”administrative rules and laws based on the habits of their hearts, without any regard for the Federal Constitution.\”
For this reason alone, as I have said before, I will elect to vote against the government of the day unless they come out with a clear and unequivocal statement that Malaysia is not an Islamic state in the ideological sense of the concept but rather a state run alongside good and universal religious principles which form and inform all our public space civil values. Currently, I sadly note that even Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, has gone against his father’s statement that we are a secular state. I find this unacceptable. May God have mercy on Malaysia!
