I CANNOT BE NEUTRAL ABOUT ISSUES OF MORALITY

As a Christian, I cannot keep to my seat, or shut my mouth and stay neutral over issues of morality.

So I emerge today from my several months of silence and non-involvement to say that what transpired yesterday is immoral, unacceptable and unconscionable.

Why was a witness being held for questioning for ten hours and only released at 3.45am?  What kind of case is it and what is the urgency of the case in question that the witness had to be deprived of sleep and forcibly kept awake till 3.45am?  Was the nation deemed to be in grave danger had the witness in question been sent home at a respectable time and asked to report again for questioning the next morning? The nation could endure long years of waiting over so many other much longer pending cases involving so much more public money and have much greater weight in public interest but this particular case could not wait for the next morning when the witness in question would have been fresher and better rested? What kind of interrogation was he subjected to on the fateful night without end? Why was it that a witness had to be isolated from his lawyer and forced to be in the sole company of officers with no other neutral person/s present? Because he was in the sole company of officers who were interrogating him, how would his side of the story be ever told? And how would, why should the officers in question be trusted when they tell the nation what actually transpired during that fateful night the witness lost his life? There were no other witness/es present so how would these officers in question clear their own involvement or clear their own names in this sad story?

Isn’t it true that a medical doctor should carry out the examination of a patient of the opposite sex in the presence of at least one other person? This is a wise procedure so that should any allegation of wrongful conduct be raised against him or her, the doctor would have some neutral testimony to defend him or her.

There have been too many instances of contravention against natural justice in this country involving the agencies and instruments of state. There have been too many victims. The neutrality of these instruments of state is questionable.

I CANNOT REMAIN NEUTRAL ABOUT ISSUES OF MORALITY.

This is not about partisan politics. I expect my friends from both sides of the parliamentary divide to speak up. I expect to hear from all political parties and all who hold public office at all levels to speak up. I want especially to hear from Maximus Ongkili, Bernard Dompok, Lee Hwa Beng, Loh Seng Kok who publicly profess the Christian Faith to speak up.

I expect the churches and the church leadership to speak up including those I know personally such as Hwa Yung, Ng Moon Hing and many others.

Of course all of the above persons should state their own views and even fault my manner of speaking or reasoning. But silence is not an option. Leaders do not have the option of keeping their opinion to themselves. They must lend their voices to voices which have been silenced.

A young life has been lost on the very eve of his wedding. Siblings, parents, colleagues and a fiance are in inconsolable grief. WHY SO? WHO WILL BE NEXT?

 

WHAT IT TAKES TO TURN THE NATIONAL AGENDA AROUND

 

The stakes are very high. It is a fight to the finish. The battles have commenced. The gap between victory or defeat is narrow.  This is not for the faint-hearted. Only the brave will endure and persist. Never before has the nation come to this point in its 51-year history when the battle to substantially change the national agenda come so close to realisation. Many now believe that the goal is at last within reach. To say that fundamental change in key national policies is now possible is no longer easily dismissable. This is no longer laughing matter.  The unthinkable is now being entertained in many minds.

 

Yet this is not about utopia and silly notions in some elusive wonderland. There is no magic wand that can be waved to bring some magical results about. To win the battle for desirable change, we need serious-minded sturdy MPs who will stand by their conscience and be ruled by ethical standards that will not be moved or dissuaded by bribery, threats and present dangers.

 

Forty such MPs to be precise are needed. Who would stand firm by their principles and say “Enough is enough!” against bad governance, unjust laws, abuse of state resources and institutions, and race-based politics. Forty good MPs, that is, backed to the hilt by millions and millions of ordinary Malaysians who will stand by them and boost their resolve.

 

This desirable change for the nation is not about dates. It is not about when it will happen. It is about how it will happen. It can and will happen when this formula is accomplished: 40 conscientised MPs + millions of conscientised ordinary Malaysians must come together and take their stand and make their stand count.

 

Politics is always about numbers. Today, the numbers have narrowed to the point where we can afford to dream that desirable change is within reach. When 40 conscientised MPs cross the parliamentary divide, or 40 conscientised MPs vote against their party whip at the next opportunity when parliament reconvenes, or when snap elections are called giving Malaysian voters an early chance to make their desire for change known- or whatever formula presents itself so that the will of the people can again be tested-  this will happen.

 

Will this ever happen or will it yet again be a case of “so near and yet so far”?

 

Just days ago, the powers that be used the Internal Security Act (ISA) to blatantly take away from under our very eyes three conscientised Malaysians who wrote, spoke and acted for desirable change. Two of them remains in detention without trial. We let this happen. So when the cross-overs, etc., don’t happen, don’t blame Anwar Ibrahim, RPK, Teresa Kok, Nik Aziz, Hadi Awang, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng. They didn’t let us down. They have in fact done all they could do for us. We the people let ourselves down.

 

If I don’t take my stand, who else can I , should I, might I blame?

 

 

MY STAND

Yesterday they took two of my friends from ten years back. Teresa Kok, a committed Catholic Christian, used to visit me regularly in my TTDI office when she was still uncertain about her political journey. RPK, a committed Muslim, and I were together in the early days of the reformasi movement which eventually gave birth to KeADILan. (I have been told that last night earlier TV clips showed me together with him when news of his arrest was telecast. If so, I am honoured.)

 

I am on my knees for them and the poor Sin Chew senior reporter (and un-named others who will be taken in). I want all who know me to know that I am honoured to know RPK and Teresa.

 

I am honoured to be aligned with the new politics (not just after March 08 when things looked good and it has become respectable and fashionable) but right from the very start when things looked dismal and pitiful for the opposition; when many Christian friends said things about me. As a Christian I don’t follow man’s dictates. I exercise my conscience before God. He alone is my Judge. He knows where I am wrong or where I am right. He alone can forgive and restore me. But I know that this side of heaven, I have no luxury of choosing between moral absolutes, only between the lesser of two evils.

 

I have made my choice more than ten years ago and I have come to terms with my choice. In the case of individual politicians, I have given prayerful support and counsel to several across the parliamentary divide; I will always be a honest friend to politicians on either side. But in the case of political philosophy and praxis, I am solidly Pakatan Rakyat. 

 

In the face of the ongoing ISA operations, I make my stand clear and unequivocal. Let it not be said that I am ashamed of my KeADILan roots. There has not been nor will there be any hedging on my part. I have taken my stand for better or worse. My friends (or foes) have a right to know where I am. This is no place or time for neutrality on the principle issues of the Malaysian Agenda. Neutrality in partisan politics is fine but Christians cannot continue to sit on the fence or worse still in their armchair. Now we have all got to respectively decide where we stand on the issues which will not just affect today’s Malaysia but your children’s Malaysia. 

 

I now write my personal blog here where I speak my mind and share my thoughts without reference or approval from anybody else.

 

Thank you.

Warmly,

Goh Keat Peng

 

 

ARE WE SAYING THAT MPs ARE WITHOUT SOUL AND CONSCIENCE?

 

Poor things. To hear people talk about them, our Malaysian MPs must have no soul or conscience to speak of. They ran for public office under a partisan political banner. Once elected, they are being whipped into a narrow corridor of interest reflecting only their political party’s wishes. By the party’s wishes, we are not necessarily talking about the tenets and spirit of the party’s elections manifesto which promise voters what the party will do, win or lose. It is not always about such lofty and noble things. There are times when MPs are being expected to serve the self-interest of certain key party leaders when they table legislative bills which sometimes seem more calculated to advance their own leadership agenda than the wider good of the people.

Each time a vote comes up in parliament, the Party Whip dictates which way MPs are to vote. Their personal conscience don’t come into the equation. MPs must vote the way their party decides not how they think and feel about an issue.  So, for instance, if the powers that be urgently want a DNA legislation or an amendment to allow the Elections Commissioner to serve an extra six months in office, as long as they have a majority of MPs in the House, such a law will be passed. The Party Whip is effective in guaranteeing such results every time.  

Thus, in today’s political climate when there is much talk of late about morality, let it be said that not all things that are lawful are necessarily moral. Neither is there absolute morality in anything that involves human beings. For all our noble ambitions and wish to occupy the moral high road, the choice is not between two moral absolutes but the lesser of two evils.  

Simply because the powers that be have the legal means to do what they purpose to do does not mean that what they have done is always moral. Are legislations that brought about such draconian laws as the ISA, OSA,  and the like morally justifiable?

How is it that MPs or ADUNs who otherwise are people-friendly, intelligent and reasonable would vote to whittle away religious freedom including that of their own respective religions? The answer is the Party Whip. They are required to vote the party line.

I don’t say that an elected official is always free to vote whichever way is to his or her liking. Some regard must be given to party stands otherwise why stand for elections under a particular party? However, in critical times, a human being including the MP or ADUN must vote his or her conscience. That is the moral thing to do. As a voter, who or what do I vote for? Is it 100% for the party? My own answer is NO. I also voted for the candidate as a person whose demeanour, personal stand and instincts are trustworthy. Would I vote for an MP or ADUN who votes blindly 100% along party lines? Absolutely NOT. How can I trust someone who never stands up for anything but his party and is never capable of standing up at times to what his party wants and thereby exercise his personal conscience?  

These days there is so much talk about the morality (or immorality) of parliamentary cross-overs. The argument goes like this: if the MP is elected under the banner of a partisan political party, then he or she is duty-bound to stay with the party in whose name he or she has been elected an MP. It seems a very reasonable argument. But in effect it is one more nail in the coffin of the MP’s personal conscience.

What March 08 and August 26 have ushered in is that there are new choices for the Malaysian nation and new thinking on the part of Malaysian voters. A new political realignment is in process. Clearly there are unconscionable acts being committed by the powers that be which I don’t wish my MP or ADUN to endorse. Nor should bigotry from any quarter be condoned.

So now, my MP or ADUN wants to cross over to the other side. I have no problems if others come up with the best moral means available whereby my MP or ADUN can complete this crossover. Let those (many of whom are my friends) who have the correct formula come forward. Anything which is workable will be welcome. But don’t let anyone condemn my MP or ADUN for wanting to crossover. Only he or she can discern his or her own conscience. He or she has the right to exercise that conscience. Especially in this case whereby the whole force of the weaponry which the powers that be possess will be trained on him or her. I for one will admire the person’s courage, moral resolve and love for nation to take that long, lonely road leaving a sitting government to a still unknown future.

What this great crossover will do is merely to ensure that a sitting government will fall. This in itself is worth achieving because it sends a message to the incumbent as well as all future Malaysian governments that you cannot fool all the people all the time.  It does not beg the question as to how and when and who will form the next government.

Of course I know whom I want to form the next government because I support their agenda for the nation. But the formation of a government is a second step. I am writing about the necessary first step and that is that sufficient numbers in the right mix of MPs will courageously say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and exercise their consciences to step out of the old politics into the new politics.

I think some encouragement for them will be in order. 

 

CIVILISING OUR POLITICS

My merdeka wish is for civility to infuse, enlighten and become the political culture of Malaysia. Going by what the nation saw and heard in the recent by-election, shame and disgust filled me and thoughts of merdeka could not have been further from my heart and mind. A free nation cannot have its top politicians and national leaders behave this way. 

 

This low-class, low-down, x-rated campaign does not articulate merdeka. It does not represent Malay culture and religion. It is not Malaysian. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

 

This kind of campaign conduct is shamelessly and irresponsibly based on racist sentiments, malice, character assassination, hearsay, and even faulty theology. More than maligning the rival for which it was intended,  such a campaign also adversely affects national unity as well as the good name of the country. It must be totally and completely rejected and denounced for the cheap politicking that it is.

 

Ironically, this awful kind of campaigning favoured neither the slandered nor the slanderers. Some observers may argue that both sides were guilty of the same practices and that both sides should be responsible to clean up their act. That is fair.

 

But election campaigns do make a difference to how voters make their decisions as to which candidate they would vote for. Otherwise why campaign at all? Therefore, I believe that the result of the recent by-election does reflect to a substantial degree how the respective campaigns were conducted. It is not rocket science, but in this sense, it is clear to me that the side which only won one-third of the votes cast did far more negative and sub-standard campaigning than the side which won two-thirds of the votes.

 

How did one side win two-thirds of the votes? How was their campaign different so as to achieve such a substantially different result? Among other reasons, to a good extent, the voters must have felt that the eventual winners were much more positive and had promoted an agenda which they could embrace and which they believe would lead to desirable change. This was reflected in the extraordinary burst of jubilation that followed the announcement of the results. True their numbers were boosted by outstation supporters but the locals celebrated the end result and it was obvious to the rest of the country that that was the result they wanted. There is ample evidence that that was the result that substantial numbers of people in the rest of the country also wanted.

 

May it be that this will prove to be the watershed for the civilising of Malaysian political culture. For this to happen, all sides must take stock of their handiwork at the recent by-elections. For their own benefit, they need to take a long and hard look at their conduct and learn from their mistakes in order to put up a more civil show and a classier act from here on. Henceforth, they should aspire to win elections by the quality and superiority of the agenda they propose rather than by unfairly running down the character of their rivals with unproven allegations.

 

Their demeanour in parliament must be of a much higher standard. They must focus on critical issues of nation-building, just policies and good govenance beneficial to all the people rather than insulting one another and worse still, insulting the intelligence of their voters.     

 

This will do the nation proud. This is what the rakyat deserves. This is what merdeka should bring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOVING ON NEUTRAL?

Life is about involvement. Yes, there is legitimacy in leisure, rest, sleep, even standing still. But only in the context of work and involvement. When Jesus said, “Come unto me … and rest”, he was speaking to those “who labour and are heavy laden”.

 

In the face of this, it is curious to say the least why the Christian leadership in Malaysia seems so slow, reluctant and unwilling to address issues of nation-building, social justice and governance. Why is it that Christian leaders feel that silence seems always to speak louder than words?  

 

Yes indeed it is written in the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is “a time to keep silence”. And in a sense, many leaders, and members of their congregations and other human beings in general, wish that at times they had kept their views or words to themselves. But in the biblical text this is immediately followed by  “a time to speak”. It is never meant to be a matter of “either or”. There is a time to keep silence and a time to speak.

 

Granted there is a risk. One can speak wrongly in terms of timing, tone, and content. In speaking out on something, for sure one can be misunderstood or one’s saying can be taken out of context or misquoted. But then there is also risk involved if we always keep silent. Silence can also be interpreted or misinterpreted.

 

In fact, the Christian leadership in the country has been so pronounced and prolonged in their silence that the signal is sent out LOUD & CLEAR to Malaysians of the various faiths and communities that the Christian Church is uninterested in the affairs of state, in lending its voice to issues of good governance.

 

In fact, other Malaysians have noted that the Christian churches are only interested in looking after themselves: their places of worship, building renovations, their rights, their bibles, what words they can use, and their burial grounds.

 

In fact, in pleading its understandable non-partisanship in politics, Christian churches have seemingly also held its peace and would not care to speak on critical matters concerning the equitable distribution of the nation’s resources, the status of state institutions, the state of the judiciary.

 

In the peninsula, we will soon be observing our 51^st year of independence. Shortly, the auditor-general will be publishing its annual report. Will Malaysians get to hear words of wisdom and maturity from Christian leaders? Will there be Christian voices coming from recognised leaders instead of more of the same from small fry’s such as myself? Where are the John the Baptists of today? Where are the voices in the wilderness?

 

Why the silence? Are we Christians saying a Christian voice on national issues is insignificant, unimportant, unnecessary? Is preaching within church walls all that Christian leaders are called to be doing? It is alright if what the Christian Church says is eventually rejected by Malaysians out there. Better to be heard and rejected than not heard from at all.

 

Yet some churches feel the injustice when the home ministry sent show cause letters to Herald, The Catholic Weekly and Catholic Asian News (CAN) faulting them for not keeping strictly to narrow religious themes. But what is the use of a licence to speak if on the whole Christian leaders do not wish to speak and hasn’t been speaking in the first place? This terrible silence only gives credence to the home ministry’s interpretation that the two Catholic periodicals are the exception not the norm of Christian practice. Therefore they could be isolated and dictated to with inappropriate state attempts at defining what is Christian and what is not.

 

I, small fry though I am, dare say that in the main, today’s Christian churches keep silent because they fear to offend those who seemingly have power over them. I dare say that Christian churches keep silent not necessarily just through understandable prudence but that we have become cowards. I dare say that Christian churches no longer serve as conscience of the faith but may have tended to become pleasers of men.

 

There are times when we are called upon to be silent for the sake of God’s kingdom. That I am afraid is not the same thing as hesitation to speak for our own sake.

 

The neutral gear is engaged to keep the vehicle from unintentionally moving when it is inappropriate for it to move. The Christian Church cannot move on neutral. Neutrality is a strategy. It is intentional. It should not become a hiding place. Or an excuse to stay still or keep silent for an indeterminate period of time.

 

We need men and women leading churches to have the courage to engage either the forward or reverse gear to effect desirable movement for God’s sake and the sake of the poor and voiceless whom God has sent us to. 

 

We also need men and women in the churches to tell their church leaders to get off their comfort zones and start acting as Christ’s ambassadors and speak the truth sometimes in righteous anger but always in love. For Christ’s sake speak up and state your stand!

 

 

 

 

 

 

NINETY YEAR OLD SHOWS THE WAY

Out of his ninety years, twenty-seven were spent in prison. Yet he emerged as leader of his people who were themselves collectively imprisoned in their own country for forty-six years.

“In my country we go to prison first and then become President.”

What was the likelihood of this happening? Yet it did happen this way. And the world could only watch in wonder and admiration which lingers till this present day. Individuals and countries draw hope and courage from this amazing story of one human being’s “LONG WALK TO FREEDOM”.

In his long journey and mission, he stood his ground and remained steadfast in his philosophy when time and again he was made to face the powers that be.

“Whatever the sentence Your Worship sees fit to impose upon me for the crime for which I have been convicted before this court may it rest assured that when my sentence has been completed, I will still be moved as men are always moved, by their conscience. I will still be moved by my dislike of the race discrimination against my people. When I come out from serving my sentence, I will take up again, as best I can, the struggle for the removal of those injustices until they are finally abolished.”

“The time comes in the life of any nation when there remains only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defense of our people, our future, and our freedom.”

Freedom was his constant call.

“There is no such thing as part freedom.”

“Only free men can negotiate; prisoners cannot enter into contracts.”

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

“As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

For this cause, he was prepared to go and to remain in prison. For this cause, he was prepared to die.

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the … people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

He could have come out of prison in understandable rage, harbouring thoughts for vengeance. Instead, reconciliation and common destiny was his vision and mission.

“I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all! I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I therefore place the remaining years of my life in your hands.”

He could have heaped the entire blame on just one section of the population. Instead, his message was on equal blame, equal responsibility.

“I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.”

Far from sowing discord, the agenda and tone he set as the nation’s leader is peace and harmony. The way to realise this is education.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

“Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.”

“And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.”

And he himself has been the living model of this.

He understood his leadership role.

“I always remember the axiom: a leader…is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.”

He promised neither a quick fix nor an easy solution.

“There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.”

THANK YOU KIND SIR. HAPPY 90th BIRTHDAY!

“We must use time wisely and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.”
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela