Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Christianity's Image Problem

Tuesday, Oct. 02, 2007

Christianity's Image Problem

By David Van Biema

It used to be, says David Kinnaman, that Christianity was both big and beloved in the U.S. — even among its non-adherents. Back in 1996, a poll taken by Kinnaman's organization, the Barna Group, found that 83% of Americans identified themselves as Christians, and that fewer than 20% of non-Christians held an unfavorable view of Christianity. But, as Kinnaman puts it in his new book (co-authored with Gabe Lyons) UnChristian, "That was then."

Barna polls conducted between 2004 and this year, sampling 440 non-Christians (and a similar number of Christians) aged 16 to 29, found that 38% had a "bad impression" of present-day Christianity. "It's not a pretty picture" the authors write. Barna's clientele is made up primarily of evangelical groups.

Kinnaman says non-Christians' biggest complaints about the faith are not immediately theological: Jesus and the Bible get relatively good marks. Rather, he sees resentment as focused on perceived Christian attitudes. Nine out of ten outsiders found Christians too "anti-homosexual," and nearly as many perceived it as "hypocritical" and "judgmental." Seventy-five percent found it "too involved in politics."

Not only has the decline in non-Christians' regard for Christianity been severe, but Barna results also show a rapid increase in the number of people describing themselves as non-Christian. One reason may be that the study used a stricter definition of "Christian" that applied to only 73% of Americans. Still, Kinnaman claims that however defined, the number of non-Christians is growing with each succeeding generation: His study found that 23% of Americans over 61 were non-Christians; 27% among people ages 42-60; and 40% among 16-29 year olds. Younger Christians, he concludes, are therefore likely to live in an environment where two out of every five of their peers is not a Christian.

Churchgoers of the same age share several of the non-Christians' complaints about Christianity. For instance, 80% of the Christians polled picked "anti-homosexual" as a negative adjective describing Christianity today. And the view of 85% of non-Christians aged 16-29 that present day Christianity is "hypocritical — saying one thing doing another," was, in fact, shared by 52% of Christians of the same age. Fifty percent found their own faith "too involved in politics." Forty-four percent found it "confusing."

Christians have always been aware of image problems with non-believers. Says Kinnaman: "The question is whether to care." But given the increasing non-Christian population and the fact that many of the concerns raised by non-believers are shared by young Christians, he says, there really is no option but to address the crisis.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Zimbabwe Archbishop resigns


Church in the World
15 September 2007

Ncube steps down over adultery allegations


Pius Ncube has resigned as Archbishop of Bulawayo two months after being accused of adultery.
In a statement issued on Tuesday he vowed to remain in church leadership and to continue speaking out against the suffering caused by President Robert Mugabe's regime. He said that his resignation was tendered to the Vatican in July, but made public only when it had been accepted. He is standing down because he fears the Church's image would otherwise suffer when he appears in court in connection with the adultery accusation.

"Today the Vatican will publicise their acceptance of an offer I tendered to them in July," the statement read. "I wrote to the Pope about a state-driven attack not only on myself but also the Church in Zimbabwe. It is important that I must face this case in court as Pius Ncube and avoid having the Church's image tarnished. I remain a Catholic bishop and will continue speaking on issues that sadly become more acute by the day in our country."

The statement was read out at a press conference in Bulawayo by Essie Ncube (no relation), chairman of the Archbishop Pius Ncube Solidarity Coalition. Neither Bishop Ncube nor his lawyer attended the event; the bishop is reported to be out of the country, possibly in South Africa. He has kept a low profile since allegations against him were made by Onesimus Sibanda, a man aligned to the ruling Zanu-PF party, of an affair with his wife Rosemary. Mr Sibanda is suing Bishop Ncube in the civil courts, alleging that he committed adultery with his wife, who worked in Archbishop's House. Bishop Ncube has said that he cannot comment directly on the allegation because the matter is sub judice.

Bishop Ncube hopes to find fresh opportunities to work with the poor either "within the Church" or "within the civic movement". A brief statement from the Vatican said Pope Benedict XVI had accepted Bishop Ncube's resignation under the article of church law that says a bishop should retire if he is ill or if "some other grave reason" has made him unable to fulfil his office. The Pope has appointed Fr Martin Schupp, an ex-provincial of the Missionaries of Mariannhill, as diocesan administrator for the time being.

Sources close to Bishop Ncube say he has funding from donors to cater for his welfare as well as costs for his legal battle. It is understood that he is under no immediate pressure to leave the archbishop's residence although he is expected to do so in due course.

Suspicion surrounds video footage that appears to show the bishop in compromising positions with Rosemary Sibanda, as well as other women. Supporters of the bishop say the footage was put together by the state media, the intelligence service and Mugabe's office.

Over the years the Vatican has seemed reluctant to support the archbishop openly in his fierce criticism of President Mugabe, who is a Catholic. Just nine days before publicly accepting the church leader's resignation, the Pope transferred his nuncio in Zimbabwe - Archbishop Edward Adams - to the nunciature in the Philippines. Archbishop Adams' reassignment after five years in the African post was not abnormal, although the timing saved him from being brought into the fray surrounding Archbishop Ncube's departure. There is currently no nuncio in Zimbabwe

Friday, September 7, 2007

Mother Teresa

Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007

Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith

By David Van Biema

Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."


Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."


The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.


And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."


That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week break in 1959 — never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" Says the Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America and the author of My Life with the Saints, a book that dealt with far briefer reports in 2003 of Teresa's doubts: "I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented." Recalls Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light's editor: "I read one letter to the Sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity], and their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to the way people understand her."


The book is hardly the work of some antireligious investigative reporter who Dumpster-dived for Teresa's correspondence. Kolodiejchuk, a senior Missionaries of Charity member, is her postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials. (Thus far she has been beatified; the next step is canonization.) The letters in the book were gathered as part of that process.


The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. Teresa's may be the most extensive such case on record. (The "dark night" of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45 years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John's context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early 1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work. Kolodiejchuk produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act.


Two very different Catholics predict that the book will be a landmark. The Rev. Matthew Lamb, chairman of the theology department at the conservative Ave Maria University in Florida, thinks Come Be My Light will eventually rank with St. Augustine's Confessions and Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain as an autobiography of spiritual ascent. Martin of America, a much more liberal institution, calls the book "a new ministry for Mother Teresa, a written ministry of her interior life," and says, "It may be remembered as just as important as her ministry to the poor. It would be a ministry to people who had experienced some doubt, some absence of God in their lives. And you know who that is? Everybody. Atheists, doubters, seekers, believers, everyone."


Not all atheists and doubters will agree. Both Kolodiejchuk and Martin assume that Teresa's inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn't there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work. But to the U.S.'s increasingly assertive cadre of atheists, that argument will seem absurd. They will see the book's Teresa more like the woman in the archetypal country-and-western song who holds a torch for her husband 30 years after he left to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returned. Says Christopher Hitchens, author of The Missionary Position, a scathing polemic on Teresa, and more recently of the atheist manifesto God Is Not Great: "She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself." Meanwhile, some familiar with the smiling mother's extraordinary drive may diagnose her condition less as a gift of God than as a subconscious attempt at the most radical kind of humility: she punished herself with a crippling failure to counterbalance her great successes.
Come Be My Light is that rare thing, a posthumous autobiography that could cause a wholesale reconsideration of a major public figure — one way or another. It raises questions about God and faith, the engine behind great achievement, and the persistence of love, divine and human. That it does so not in any organized, intentional form but as a hodgepodge of desperate notes not intended for daylight should leave readers only more convinced that it is authentic — and that they are, somewhat shockingly, touching the true inner life of a modern saint.


Prequel: Near Ecstatic Communion

[Jesus:] Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? ... You have become my Spouse for my love — you have come to India for Me. The thirst you had for souls brought you so far — Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse — for me — for souls? Is your generosity grown cold? Am I a second to you?[Teresa:] Jesus, my own Jesus — I am only Thine — I am so stupid — I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish — as You wish — as long as you wish. [But] why can't I be a perfect Loreto Nun — here — why can't I be like everybody else.[Jesus:] I want Indian Nuns, Missionaries of Charity, who would be my fire of love amongst the poor, the sick, the dying and the little children ... You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?— in a prayer dialogue recounted to Archbishop Ferdinand Perier, January 1947


On Sept. 10, 1946, after 17 years as a teacher in Calcutta with the Loreto Sisters (an uncloistered, education-oriented community based in Ireland), Mother Mary Teresa, 36, took the 400-mile (645-km) train trip to Darjeeling. She had been working herself sick, and her superiors ordered her to relax during her annual retreat in the Himalayan foothills. On the ride out, she reported, Christ spoke to her. He called her to abandon teaching and work instead in "the slums" of the city, dealing directly with "the poorest of the poor" — the sick, the dying, beggars and street children. "Come, Come, carry Me into the holes of the poor," he told her. "Come be My light." The goal was to be both material and evangelistic — as Kolodiejchuk puts it, "to help them live their lives with dignity [and so] encounter God's infinite love, and having come to know Him, to love and serve Him in return."


It was wildly audacious — an unfunded, single-handed crusade (Teresa stipulated that she and her nuns would share their beneficiaries' poverty and started out alone) to provide individualized service to the poorest in a poor city made desperate by riots. The local Archbishop, Ferdinand Périer, was initially skeptical. But her letters to him, preserved, illustrate two linked characteristics — extreme tenacity and a profound personal bond to Christ. When Périer hesitated, Teresa, while calling herself a "little nothing," bombarded him with notes suggesting that he refer the question to an escalating list of authorities — the local apostolic delegation, her Mother General, the Pope. And when she felt all else had failed, she revealed the spiritual topper: a dramatic (melodramatic, really) dialogue with a "Voice" she eventually revealed to be Christ's. It ended with Jesus' emphatic reiteration of his call to her: "You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"


Mother Teresa had visions, including one of herself conversing with Christ on the Cross. Her confessor, Father Celeste Van Exem, was convinced that her mystical experiences were genuine. "[Her] union with Our Lord has been continual and so deep and violent that rapture does not seem very far," he commented. Teresa later wrote simply, "Jesus gave Himself to me."
Then on Jan. 6, 1948, Périer, after consulting the Vatican, finally gave permission for Teresa to embark on her second calling. And Jesus took himself away again.


The Onset

Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated
In the first half of 1948, Teresa took a basic medical course before launching herself alone onto the streets of Calcutta. She wrote, "My soul at present is in perfect peace and joy." Kolodiejchuk includes her moving description of her first day on the job: "The old man lying on the street — not wanted — all alone just sick and dying — I gave him carborsone and water to drink and the old Man — was so strangely grateful ... Then we went to Taltala Bazaar, and there was a very poor woman dying I think of starvation more than TB ... I gave her something which will help her to sleep. — I wonder how long she will last." But two months later, shortly after her major triumph of locating a space for her headquarters, Kolodiejchuk's files find her troubled. "What tortures of loneliness," she wrote. "I wonder how long will my heart suffer this?" This complaint could be understood as an initial response to solitude and hardship were it not for subsequent letters. The more success Teresa had — and half a year later so many young women had joined her society that she needed to move again — the worse she felt. In March 1953, she wrote Périer, "Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started 'the work.'"


Périer may have missed the note of desperation. "God guides you, dear Mother," he answered avuncularly. "You are not so much in the dark as you think ... You have exterior facts enough to see that God blesses your work ... Feelings are not required and often may be misleading." And yet feelings — or rather, their lack — became her life's secret torment. How can you assume the lover's ardor when he no longer grants you his voice, his touch, his very presence? The problem was exacerbated by an inhibition to even describe it. Teresa reported on several occasions inviting a confessor to visit and then being unable to speak. Eventually, one thought to ask her to write the problem down, and she complied. "The more I want him — the less I am wanted," she wrote Périer in 1955. A year later she sounded desolate: "Such deep longing for God — and ... repulsed — empty — no faith — no love — no zeal. — [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction — Heaven means nothing — pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything."


At the suggestion of a confessor, she wrote the agonized plea that begins this section, in which she explored the theological worst-possible-case implications of her dilemma. That letter and another one from 1959 ("What do I labour for? If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true") are the only two that sound any note of doubt of God's existence. But she frequently bemoaned an inability to pray: "I utter words of Community prayers — and try my utmost to get out of every word the sweetness it has to give — But my prayer of union is not there any longer — I no longer pray."


As the Missionaries of Charity flourished and gradually gained the attention of her church and the world at large, Teresa progressed from confessor to confessor the way some patients move through their psychoanalysts. Van Exem gave way to Périer, who gave way in 1959 to the Rev. (later Cardinal) Lawrence Picachy, who was succeeded by the Rev. Joseph Neuner in 1961. By the 1980s the chain included figures such as Bishop William Curlin of Charlotte, N.C. For these confessors, she developed a kind of shorthand of pain, referring almost casually to "my darkness" and to Jesus as "the Absent One." There was one respite. In October 1958, Pope Pius XII died, and requiem Masses were celebrated around the Catholic world. Teresa prayed to the deceased Pope for a "proof that God is pleased with the Society." And "then and there," she rejoiced, "disappeared the long darkness ... that strange suffering of 10 years." Unfortunately, five weeks later she reported being "in the tunnel" once more. And although, as we shall see, she found a way to accept the absence, it never lifted again. Five years after her Nobel, a Jesuit priest in the Calcutta province noted that "Mother came ... to speak about the excruciating night in her soul. It was not a passing phase but had gone on for years." A 1995 letter discussed her "spiritual dryness." She died in 1997.


Explanations


Tell me, Father, why is there so much pain and darkness in my soul?— to the Rev. Lawrence Picachy, August 1959

Why did Teresa's communication with Jesus, so vivid and nourishing in the months before the founding of the Missionaries, evaporate so suddenly? Interestingly, secular and religious explanations travel for a while on parallel tracks. Both understand (although only one celebrates) that identification with Christ's extended suffering on the Cross, undertaken to redeem humanity, is a key aspect of Catholic spirituality. Teresa told her nuns that physical poverty ensured empathy in "giving themselves" to the suffering poor and established a stronger bond with Christ's redemptive agony. She wrote in 1951 that the Passion was the only aspect of Jesus' life that she was interested in sharing: "I want to ... drink ONLY [her emphasis] from His chalice of pain." And so she did, although by all indications not in a way she had expected.

Kolodiejchuk finds divine purpose in the fact that Teresa's spiritual spigot went dry just as she prevailed over her church's perceived hesitations and saw a successful way to realize Jesus' call for her. "She was a very strong personality," he suggests. "And a strong personality needs stronger purification" as an antidote to pride. As proof that it worked, he cites her written comment after receiving an important prize in the Philippines in the 1960s: "This means nothing to me, because I don't have Him."

And yet "the question is, Who determined the abandonment she experienced?" says Dr. Richard Gottlieb, a teacher at the New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute who has written about the church and who was provided a copy of the book by TIME. "Could she have imposed it on herself?" Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves. Gottlieb notes that Teresa's ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. Both he and Kolodiejchuk are fascinated by her statement, "I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before." Remarks the priest: "That's a kind of daring thing to say." Yet her letters are full of inner conflict about her accomplishments. Rather than simply giving all credit to God, Gottlieb observes, she agonizes incessantly that "any taking credit for her accomplishments — if only internally — is sinful" and hence, perhaps, requires a price to be paid. A mild secular analog, he says, might be an executive who commits a horrific social gaffe at the instant of a crucial promotion. For Teresa, "an occasion for a modicum of joy initiated a significant quantity of misery," and her subsequent successes led her to perpetuate it.


Gottlieb also suggests that starting her ministry "may have marked a turning point in her relationship with Jesus," whose urgent claims she was finally in a position to fulfill. Being the active party, he speculates, might have scared her, and in the end, the only way to accomplish great things might have been in the permanent and less risky role of the spurned yet faithful lover.


The atheist position is simpler. In 1948, Hitchens ventures, Teresa finally woke up, although she could not admit it. He likens her to die-hard Western communists late in the cold war: "There was a huge amount of cognitive dissonance," he says. "They thought, 'Jesus, the Soviet Union is a failure, [but] I'm not supposed to think that. It means my life is meaningless.' They carried on somehow, but the mainspring was gone. And I think once the mainspring is gone, it cannot be repaired." That, he says, was Teresa.


Most religious readers will reject that explanation, along with any that makes her the author of her own misery — or even defines it as true misery. Martin, responding to the torch-song image of Teresa, counterproposes her as the heroically constant spouse. "Let's say you're married and you fall in love and you believe with all your heart that marriage is a sacrament. And your wife, God forbid, gets a stroke and she's comatose. And you will never experience her love again. It's like loving and caring for a person for 50 years and once in a while you complain to your spiritual director, but you know on the deepest level that she loves you even though she's silent and that what you're doing makes sense. Mother Teresa knew that what she was doing made sense."


Integration


I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness — for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus' darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a 'spiritual side of your work' as you wrote — Today really I felt a deep joy — that Jesus can't go anymore through the agony — but that He wants to go through it in me.— to Neuner, Circa 1961


There are two responses to trauma: to hold onto it in all its vividness and remain its captive, or without necessarily "conquering" it, to gradually integrate it into the day-by-day. After more than a decade of open-wound agony, Teresa seems to have begun regaining her spiritual equilibrium with the help of a particularly perceptive adviser. The Rev. Joseph Neuner, whom she met in the late 1950s and confided in somewhat later, was already a well-known theologian, and when she turned to him with her "darkness," he seems to have told her the three things she needed to hear: that there was no human remedy for it (that is, she should not feel responsible for affecting it); that feeling Jesus is not the only proof of his being there, and her very craving for God was a "sure sign" of his "hidden presence" in her life; and that the absence was in fact part of the "spiritual side" of her work for Jesus.


This counsel clearly granted Teresa a tremendous sense of release. For all that she had expected and even craved to share in Christ's Passion, she had not anticipated that she might recapitulate the particular moment on the Cross when he asks, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The idea that rather than a nihilistic vacuum, his felt absence might be the ordeal she had prayed for, that her perseverance in its face might echo his faith unto death on the Cross, that it might indeed be a grace, enhancing the efficacy of her calling, made sense of her pain. Neuner would later write, "It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus' passion." And she thanked Neuner profusely: "I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness. "


Not that it didn't continue to torment her. Years later, describing the joy in Jesus experienced by some of her nuns, she observed dryly to Neuner, "I just have the joy of having nothing — not even the reality of the Presence of God [in the Eucharist]." She described her soul as like an "ice block." Yet she recognized Neuner's key distinction, writing, "I accept not in my feelings — but with my will, the Will of God — I accept His will." Although she still occasionally worried that she might "turn a Judas to Jesus in this painful darkness," with the passage of years the absence morphed from a potential wrecking ball into a kind of ragged cornerstone. Says Gottlieb, the psychoanalyst: "What is remarkable is that she integrated it in a way that enabled her to make it the organizing center of her personality, the beacon for her ongoing spiritual life." Certainly, she understood it as essential enough to project it into her afterlife. "If I ever become a Saint — I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven — to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth," she wrote in 1962. Theologically, this is a bit odd since most orthodox Christianity defines heaven as God's eternal presence and doesn't really provide for regular no-shows at the heavenly feast. But it is, Kolodiejchuk suggests, her most moving statement, since the sacrifice involved is infinite. "When she wrote, 'I am willing to suffer ... for all eternity, if this [is] possible,'" he says, "I said, Wow."


He contends that the letters reveal her as holier than anyone knew. However formidable her efforts on Christ's behalf, it is even more astounding to realize that she achieved them when he was not available to her — a bit like a person who believes she can't walk winning the Olympic 100 meters. Kolodiejchuk goes even further. Catholic theologians recognize two types of "dark night": the first is purgative, cleansing the contemplative for a "final union" with Christ; the second is "reparative," and continues after such a union, so that he or she may participate in a state of purity even closer to that of Jesus and Mary, who suffered for human salvation despite being without sin. By the end, writes Kolodiejchuk, "by all indications this was the case with Mother Teresa." That puts her in rarefied company.


A New Ministry

If this brings You glory — if souls are brought to you — with joy I accept all to the end of my life.— to Jesus, undated

But for most people, Teresa's ranking among Catholic saints may be less important than a more general implication of Come Be My Light: that if she could carry on for a half-century without God in her head or heart, then perhaps people not quite as saintly can cope with less extreme versions of the same problem. One powerful instance of this may have occurred very early on. In 1968, British writer-turned-filmmaker Malcolm Muggeridge visited Teresa. Muggeridge had been an outspoken agnostic, but by the time he arrived with a film crew in Calcutta he was in full spiritual-search mode. Beyond impressing him with her work and her holiness, she wrote a letter to him in 1970 that addressed his doubts full-bore. "Your longing for God is so deep and yet He keeps Himself away from you," she wrote. "He must be forcing Himself to do so — because he loves you so much — the personal love Christ has for you is infinite — The Small difficulty you have re His Church is finite — Overcome the finite with the infinite." Muggeridge apparently did. He became an outspoken Christian apologist and converted to Catholicism in 1982. His 1969 film, Something Beautiful for God, supported by a 1971 book of the same title, made Teresa an international sensation.


At the time, Muggeridge was something of a unique case. A child of privilege who became a minor celebrity, he was hardly Teresa's target audience. Now, with the publication of Come Be My Light, we can all play Muggeridge. Kolodiejchuk thinks the book may act as an antidote to a cultural problem. "The tendency in our spiritual life but also in our more general attitude toward love is that our feelings are all that is going on," he says. "And so to us the totality of love is what we feel. But to really love someone requires commitment, fidelity and vulnerability. Mother Teresa wasn't 'feeling' Christ's love, and she could have shut down. But she was up at 4:30 every morning for Jesus, and still writing to him, 'Your happiness is all I want.' That's a powerful example even if you are not talking in exclusively religious terms."


America's Martin wants to talk precisely in religious terms. "Everything she's experiencing," he says, "is what average believers experience in their spiritual lives writ large. I have known scores of people who have felt abandoned by God and had doubts about God's existence. And this book expresses that in such a stunning way but shows her full of complete trust at the same time." He takes a breath. "Who would have thought that the person who was considered the most faithful woman in the world struggled like that with her faith?" he asks. "And who would have thought that the one thought to be the most ardent of believers could be a saint to the skeptics?" Martin has long used Teresa as an example to parishioners of self-emptying love. Now, he says, he will use her extraordinary faith in the face of overwhelming silence to illustrate how doubt is a natural part of everyone's life, be it an average believer's or a world-famous saint's.


Into the Light of Day

Please destroy any letters or anything I have written.— to Picachy, April 1959
Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa's rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was "I want the work to remain only His." If the letters became public, she explained to Picachy, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."


The particularly holy are no less prone than the rest of us to misjudge the workings of history — or, if you will, of God's providence. Teresa considered the perceived absence of God in her life as her most shameful secret but eventually learned that it could be seen as a gift abetting her calling. If her worries about publicizing it also turn out to be misplaced — if a book of hasty, troubled notes turns out to ease the spiritual road of thousands of fellow believers, there would be no shame in having been wrong — but happily, even wonderfully wrong — twice.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

Apologetic South Korean hostages return homeBy Jack Kim

The Star Online
September 2, 2007


ANYANG, South Korea (Reuters) - Nineteen South Korean Christian volunteers held hostage by the Taliban in Afghanistan for six weeks returned home to an uncomfortable welcome on Sunday, thanking their government for saving them from death.

A senior Taliban leader told Reuters Seoul had paid $20 million for their release. The South Korean government denies paying any ransom but has been criticised internationally for striking a deal through direct negotiations with the Taliban.

Released South Korean hostages arrive at Incheon Airport in Incheon, west of Seoul, September 2, 2007. (REUTERS/Kim Jae-Hwan/Handout)"We went to spread God's love and carry out his wishes," freed hostage Lyu Kyung-sik said after arriving. "All of us returned from the being on verge of death and have been given our lives back."

The hostages, with their heads bowed, looking sombre and some fighting back tears, stood behind Lyu as he made a brief statement at Incheon airport outside Seoul. He stood between framed pictures of two other hostages shot dead by the Taliban.

"All of us owe a big debt to the country and the South Korean people," said Lyu. "When thinking about the trouble we have caused them, it is proper for us to bow deeply and ask for your forgiveness."

The six-week standoff gripped the country, leading thousands to join candlelight vigils praying for a safe return.

But many harshly criticised the suburban Seoul Saemmul Church that dispatched the group for having a naive world view and putting their government in a bind.

Web sites of the country's main Protestant groups and largest Internet portals have been flooded with messages saying the group and church were to blame for ignoring government warnings and making an ill-advised mission to an obvious danger spot.

RANSOM AND MISSIONARIES

The hostages were whisked away to a hospital south of Seoul where many collapsed into the arms of waiting relatives, who cheered when the group entered a reception room. A few of the group, overcome by emotion, had to be carried out of the room.
They were then admitted for medical checks.

Ryu Haeng-sik, the husband of one of the hostages who cared for his two daughters while his wife was in captivity, said: "The kids love having their mother back."

Seo Jeung-bae was reunited with a son and daughter. "I was given back the two children I had lost. By holding them in my arms, I now know it's real," the smiling father said.

The South Korean government said it had only agreed to pull out a small contingent of military engineers and medical staff and to end South Korean missionary work in Afghanistan in return for the release of the hostages.

It had already planned to pull all its non-combat troops out before the hostage ordeal.
When asked if a ransom had been paid, Kim Man-bok, head of South Korea's spy agency, said at the airport: "There was none at all."

Taliban insurgents kidnapped 23 South Koreans in mid-July. They killed two male hostages as initial negotiations stumbled and last month released two women captives.
The hostages, mostly women, had flown from Dubai where they had stopped on their way home from Afghanistan.

They have spoken of living in constant fear, split up into small groups and shuttled around the Afghan countryside to avoid detection.

South Korea is the second largest source of Christian missionaries, after the United States, with an estimated 17,000 abroad. For many Korean churches, the number of missionaries they send abroad is a reflection of the strength of their congregation.

Some church leaders said they would rethink their overseas missions but a leading group said the Afghan ordeal had only strengthened its resolve to send more missionaries overseas, even if it meant taking over negotiating hostage releases from the government

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


Merdeka – a non-Malay perspective

Dr Chris Anthony
Aug 14,
07 4:38pm


As the nation prepares to celebrate its 50th year of independence, are all communities equally excited and grateful for the developments that have taken place over the past 50 years? Let us reflect to see the direction we are heading.

All citizens alike have contributed greatly towards achieving our independence from the British and subsequently in fighting the communist insurgency that followed. Despite our diverse origins, we considered the nation as our motherland and together shared a common brotherhood. In the spirit of that brotherhood, we together formulated the Federal Constitution which was to be the guide for the peaceful coexistence of subsequent generations.

We have come a long way from being a poor underdeveloped agricultural country to today’s highly prosperous industrialised one within a short span of 50 years. This is due to the hard and dedicated labour of all citizens. In the process of achieving this rapid socio-economic development, we have also given way to the emergence of a number of undesirable situations that have begun to threaten the very foundation on which our nation had been built on by our forefathers.

When we were young, we had friends from all races. We studied, played, ate and even prayed together. We cherished the pleasant times we had together as children. Those who performed well in examinations were allowed entry into local public universities without a fuss.

We served the rakyat in the remote areas of
Sabah and Sarawak and in the dangerous border areas of Kelantan, Perak and Kedah. The thought of racial or religious differences never crossed our minds at any time. That was the spirit of our training in schools and colleges those days.

We worked hard to help bring the country to its present elevated state but unfortunately today, we are now being seen as threats to the very institutions we strived for. We are repeatedly reminded that we are a ‘kaum pendatang’. It is ironical that our forefathers who actually came from elsewhere did not feel they were a ‘kaum pendatang’ but we and our children - born and bred here - are constantly reminded so.

Although we are legitimate citizens, paying taxes, we are denied our rights to education at public institutions, employment in the civil service and armed forces and opportunities by government-linked businesses. We are being increasingly marginalised from the mainstream of development. The Federal Constitution is being ignored and our rights enshrined in that sacred document are being blatantly denied.

In recent times, even our freedom of worship is being impeded. Millions of taxpayers’ money is spent on building mosques, ‘suraus’ and religious schools but only a negligible amount is allocated for the building of churches and temples. Not only we are not allowed to erect places of worship but even the existing such places are demolished indiscriminately.

Islamic values are being slowly assimilated into the civil service, armed forces, schools, sports and into fact into every facet of public life. This is causing anxiety and uneasiness among the non-Muslims who form a significant 40 percent of the population. This is slowly but surely excluding us from all these institutions. We have no qualms about syariah laws but there is real fear that soon it may be the supreme law of the land for all.

Now, on the brink of our 50th anniversary we are once again reminded that
Malaysia as an Islamic state. This declaration comes from none other than our deputy prime minister himself. When we try to air our displeasure, all such protests are banned. Even cabinet ministers are forbidden to discuss the issue. How are we to solve our problems if we are forbidden to even discuss them?

The vast majority of Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are busy with their lives, slogging away to make ends meet. They are least interested as to whether the country is a secular or Islamic state. All they want is peace and freedom to practice their religion in the way they see it fit. They want others to respect and not belittle their religion. In fact, that was the way it was and that is the way it should always be.

A truly independent nation should fulfill the aspirations of all her citizens alike. No distinction should be made based on ethnicity, religion, political alienation or socio-economic status. It must meet the following criteria:

  • A parliamentary form of government based upon the concept of one person, one vote. All groups must be proportionately represented.
  • Rights of the minorities must be assured and protected. Their language, culture and religion should be respected. There is a need to emphasise on universal moral values that are shared by all religions.
  • The rule of law must be upheld at all costs. All trespassers must be dealt with fairly without prejudice of favouritism. An independent police and judiciary force are of utmost importance.
  • Eradication of poverty should be above race and religion. The poor from all communities should be equally entitled to special assistance.
  • True meritocracy must be employed in the recruitment to the institutions of higher learning, public service, police and armed forces.

Based on the above criteria are we really independent? For the ordinary rakyat Merdeka will only be meaningful if he and she has a decent job, decent food, proper shelter, proper transport, affordable health care, reasonable education for the children, freedom to worship, an independent justice system, and a safe and secure environment for him and his loved ones.

Above all, he needs to be appreciated and respected for his contributions to his country, however meager they may be. In short, he needs to be treated as a legitimate citizen and not as a stranger or an alien in his own land

Until these can be achieved, Merdeka will not and have any meaning for the ordinary man on the street. To him it will just be another public holiday to witness the various celebrations that have been lined up.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Good governance

2 August 2007

'Towards a decent social order for all Malaysians'

Good governance TI praises Raja Nazrin's advice to get rid of corrupt officials
An excerpt from the inaugural lecture by Raja Nazrin Shah, Raja Muda of Perak, to commemorate the legacy of Professor Syed Hussein Alatas on July 31, 2007, in the Islamic Arts Museum, Kuala Lumpur.


The lecture was titled "Towards a decent social order for all Malaysians."
Before I begin, let us observe a moment of silence in memory of Allahyarham Professor Dato' Dr Syed Hussein Alatas. I invite Muslims in the audience to offer the Al-Fatihah for his soul and the souls of all those who have passed on before us.


2. I am delighted to be able to present this lecture on the legacy of Allahyarham Professor Dato' Dr. Syed Hussein Alatas. For more than five decades, Alatas was one or Malaysia's leading intellectual lights. He was a role model and inspiration to many and i include myself amont them. He was more than a pioneering Southeast Asian social scientist. He was a public intellectual whose ideas and influence touched many fundamental aspects of Malaysian life. He wrote on subjects that resonate deeply within society. He was far from the "useless sociologist" that he claimed to be in this matter, at least, he was completely wrong. The many glowing tributes' that have been published since his departure, both within and outside the country, are clear evidence of this.


3. The truth is that Syed Hussein Alatas made a great impact during his lifetime. He continues to do so today through his writtings and through those whom he influenced. Alatas was not only a brilliant academic. He was also a public figure who believed deeply in this country and did what he thought was right even if it cost him dearly. He never hesitated from speaking the truth.


4. Alatas' work has substantial, indeed, profound, implications for a decent social order for all Malaysians. This lecture will focus on thre themes that Alatas felt most compelled to write about and which are as relevant today as they ever were.


The first was religion, especially islam and how it was positive force in development
The second was how Asian needed to be mentally liberated from colonial and western patterns of thinking. He was an ardent believer in Asians being able to think independently and creatively for themselves.


The third theme was creating the conditions for good governance, particularly the eradication of corruption. He regarded the scourge of corruption to be the most damaging in developing countries.


5. Alatas wrote on other subjects as well, on history on Malaysian politics and in his own field of sociology. The scope of his work was very wide and his output remarkable. He published more than 16 books and over 50 articles and papers during his lifetime.


6. Schooled in the European tradition. Alatas was also equally familiar with the writings of Islamic scholars. This added a dimension to his analysis that was rarely available to most western social scientists. Whether conducting a penetrating analysis, constructing an intricate argument or the pen and his mastery of language meant that he was capable of conveying the most nuanced thoughts and arguments.


7. As with all good scholars, he was fiercely independent of mind. He refused to be subservient to any foreign imposed epistemology or to neglect his intellectual roots. He could take on and take apart western scholars and eastern politicians alike with devastating critiques. At the same time, Alatas was fair-minded. He was not an ideologue. He thought about issues rationally. He was prepared to acknowledge the importance of the contributions of those he disagreed with provided they had merit.


8. He was proudly Malay, paassionately Muslim and yet persistently multi-racialist. He believed in non-communal politics, an ideal he shared with his illustrious uncle, Dato' Onn Jaafar. He knew how strong the retrogressive forces at work in society could be. He was a rare breed of man in his day and rarer still in this day and age. I will now turn from the man to the first of his great themes, namely, religion.


Religion, Islam and Development


9. The world view on Islam in the West has been tainted by past prejudices when little was know about it. Exacerbating the current situation are books on Islam written by non-Muslims. I am reminded of the comment by Schopernhauer, "What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than it says about Paul".


10. The tendency to give islam fictitiously antagonistic and anti-modern qualities is unmerited and unwarranted. It would have been all too easy to become angry at the unfair allegations launched at the Muslim world ana to repay hatred with hatred. While an emotional response of some kind could be understandable, it also runs the risk of being counterproductive. One hardly demonstrates the superior nature of one's religion by taking actions that contradict them. This is something that the radicals of all religious stripes, and not only those who are Muslim, have failed and still fail dismally to comprehend.


11. Alatas'response to the unjust views about Islam was to be committed, alongside others in the Muslim world, to inter-civilisational dialogue. At the tender age of 26, he founded and edited a journal entitled 'Progressive Islam', which was dedicated to "the promotion of knowledge concerning Islam and Modern thought". Two years later, in 1956, he published a small booklet entitiled 'The Democracy of Islam'. He demonstrated to Muslims that they have nothing to fear, either doctrinally or intellectually, to anything that the West had to throw at them. They could be as knowledgeable and confident as any in the western world.


12. His defence of Islam comprised not just in appealling to Quranic authority. He drew on Greek, Roman, liberal and even socialist thoughts. He was able to soundly cite little-known historical events and well-known historical authorities. And because he was familiar with the world's major religions, he was able to rationally deconstruct the popular arguments against Islam to show the underlying myths and fallacies. Through dialogue, he was able to engage western intellectuals, inform them, make them reconsider their arguments and eventually earn their respect.


13. Today, there are those who think that the interest of the Islamic world is somehow advanced by being insulated and isolated from the west. They think that they can gain appreciation and admiration by mantra-like repetition of religious doctrines. And where Islamic civilisation in the past loved knowledge and produced great scientific and technological breakthroughs, the present appears to be marked by a sad lack of ability and an even sadder lack of interest.



14. Many Muslims today consider themselves under siege to such an extent that their only option is to escape into "other-worldiness". When they respond to provocations. It is to lass out with displays of heated emotion rather than coool reasoning minds. Little do they realise that the less rational the discourse and the more coercive the reponse, the greater is the extnt to which Islam's authority and power is undermined. If Islam has to be defended by force rather than reason. I would submit that there is something fundamentally wrong about our interpretation of it. Such responses are by those who lack the knowledge and self-assurance of Islam's fine intellectual and discursive tradition.



15. As a sociologist, Alatas showed that Islam is not opposed to progress but is inherently compatible with capitalism and modernisation The qualities that were supposedly part of the capitalist spirit such as a strong work ethic, frugality time management rational thinking and most importantly the concept of a 'calling' by the Almighty were all "strongly pronounced in the Islamic ethic" The application of scientific knowledge to all aspects of human life is also compatible with Islam. These include objectification of nature, rationally, empiricism, critical and inquiring thought and emphasis on systems procedures. If some Muslims do not demonstrate their economic proficiency, he argued, it was not due to Islam. Rather, non-religious factors were at work. If Islam were to blame, one would find Muslims everwhere devoid of economic success. This is clearly not the case.



Mental Liberation


16. The second of Alatas themes is that of mental liberation. In his seminal work, 'The Myth of the Lazy Native', he analysed colonial capitalism and the way the natives of Malaya, the Philippines and Indonesia were portrayed. He then comprehensively deconstructed the accounts which stereotyped their poor racial qualities. He argued that it was the colonial system that produced the observed behaviour. The natives of these countries were no more nor less hard working than any if the surrounding political, economic and social environment were the same.



17. The visible effects of colonialisation have been studied and are relatively well know. What had been much less examined, however, was the way that colonial ideology was held in place the invisible yet pernicious effects that it exerted on thinking. Colonial ideology required that the ability of the natives be lowered in order to justify foreigh powers taking and holding on to the reins of power. Thus, they were typecast as being unable to fulfill proper economic functions by reason of their nature.



18. Even more damaging than the typecasting was the insidious effects on thinking. Colonialism created a total schema or what i like to refer to as a "thought regime" which dominated the way people understood and spoke about subjects. Words, concepts and supposed cause-and effect realationships were all canstructed to suit the purpose of the colonialists. What was particularly annoying was that colonialists then accused the local populace of becoming addicts.



19. As a result, intellecutal thinking became "captive" to the prevailing thought regime. It became bound by colonial language and assumptions, imitative and non-creative. This was something the communists also understood very well. From an early stage, they imposed social order throgh such means as mass propaganda campaighs, the decimation of intellectuals and so called "re-education" programmes, all in order to impose the desired worldview. History was rewritten to favour the political order. Facts were omitted or misrepresented to shape collective social consciousness. Language itself was subverted to serve the regime.



20. The recognition that minds can held captive to particualar worldviews was an important step in the intellectual development of former colonies. Not only didi countries have to be decolonialised politically, they had to be de-colonialised in terms of mindsets. Having achieved freedom we need to be careful not to fall back into set patterns of thingking which serve narrow interests and stife the sprit of inquiry, creativity and ultimately, change. Entrenched interests, of course, generally prefer the status quo. They do not appreciate being challenged by new ideas and new ways of doing things. And change is essential if countries are to develop holistically.



21. The one group Alatas turned to was intellectuals, which he believed woudl serve as an antidote to two widespread 'poisons' in developing countries.
The first of these poisons were those he called 'fools' - persons who were educated but yet unable to provide any creative solutions to the problems of the day or to demonstrate high standards of behaviour and performance. According to him, developing countries lag behind others when a large number of fools determine the interest of the nation. 'They usually just follow the line of least resistance.



The second poison was 'bebalisma*3 - a general attitude of ignorance, indifference and idolence 9or dislime of work). It makes society non-anticipatory, non-thinking, non-rational and non-contextual. No priority is given to the things that really matter and no embarrassment is felt for mistake and shortcomings.



22. The concept of the fool and bebalisma stuck a chord with the Malaysian public. Who, after all, does not have a favourite personal story of clownish bureaucracy or of bebalism? The stakes, however, are much higher. "To lack intellectuals," Alatas said,d "is to lack leadership" "Our national problem', he said, "should be tackled with intellectual justice, not with exploitative ignorance" intellectuals possess the ability to pose, define and analyse problems and propose solutions.



Good governance


One of the great themes in Professor Syed Hussein Alatas' work is known in today's parlance as 'governance'. He fought tirelessly to elevate integrity and justice in society and to correct social ills. The battle against corruption received top priority. His books on the topic were published from as early as 1968 Four of his publications were exclusively devoted to the discussion of this social illness. He drew attention to the debilitating effects of corruption on the human condition.



Corruption is mankind's most deadly social disease. It is a disease than can undermine good governance, weaken institutional foundations, distort public policy, compromise the rule of law and constrain the economy. If not nipped in the bud, it is like a cancer whose deadly cells multiply rapidly and pervade the body politic. Once corruption becomes widespread, there is the danger that corrupt acts will no longer seem immoral and unlawful - just business as usual. In Syed Hussein's terminology, it can even become 'an industry' in itself.



A society where corruption is rife is one where the actions of an unprincipled minority have detrimental consequences on the welfare of the majority. The interests of a minority override the interests of the majority. It curbs competitiveness to the detriment of economic and social development. It leads to tremendous misallocation of resources. The cost of doing business becomes unacceptably high. Investors shy away. Incomes fall. Jobs are lost, People suffer.


Corruption exists because of man's enduring desire for personal gain.The monotheistic religions believe that even the first humans, Adam and Eve, were bribed - by a serpent. As the story teaches, the consequences for humanity were colossal. History has shown how a culture of corruption can lead to the fall of empires and the destruction of civilsations. Unfortunately, societies have not always learned from their own sufferings. Greed can be so rife that lessons from history often go unnoticed.



This is why values, and principles based on integrity and soical justice, as enaunciated by Syed Hussein, are crucial. Mental attitudes and values are what shape a nation's development Strengthening processes, systems and institutions can only be effective if a strong value system exists as the foundation.


In addition, the environment in which corruption takes place has to be conditioned to keep it in check.

The starting point is with the nation's leaders. Figures in authority must be chosen for their integrity first and qualifications second. They must take personal ownership in bringing out a decent social order, and they must be held accountable if they do not achieve it. Those with a chequered past or clear evidence of questionable morality should be prevented from taking office. There should be zero tolerance for corrupt practices.



There must also be concrete anti-corruption measures and management practices based on efficiency, transparency and accountability. This is the second leg. Unnecessary and complex regulations and licensing requirements should be pared back or else simplified in order to discourage under the table deals. The award of contracts should be fairly and transparently administered. Oversight agencies and appeal processes should be in place to ensure that discretionary power is not abused. It goes without saying that an anti-corruption system must be functioning and effective.



Syed Hussein was right when he observed that there was no leader or any developing country who had not adopted an anti-corruption platform. Those who could be taken seriously, however, were very few.


The third leg of good governance is the mobilisation of public opinion. Syed Hussein placed great store on the power of public outrage. He believed that if you awakened society's consciousness to the ills of corruption and gave cases of corruption widespread pubilicty, it would generate such an adverse reaction the the government would be forced to take action. Complaints and protests may be irksome, but they should be treated as welcome and constructive feedback.



Syed Hussein's work has many implications for a decent social order for all Malaysians. Before going into some of them, let me do what the good Professor would have done, and that is to define exactly what the term 'social order' means. While there are many competing and complementary definitions, the one I choose to use is simply this: A social order is one where formal and informal social institutions, customs and practices determine and reinforce what are acceptable and unacceptable social norms and behaviour in society. The former include class, ethnic, religious, kinship and intellectual influences.



A decent social order would be one where the social factors mentioned above produce social norms and behaviour that are fundamentally efficient, productive and just. Not only that, I would add that the idea of decency implies standards that are more than minimally adequate but which correspond to the highest international levels. What does all this mean in concrete terms? What characteristics or traits would a decent social order in Malaysia have? Let me quickly summarise five of them.



First, if Malaysia is to have a decent social order, it cannot be characterised by social fragmentation and polarisation. The social order must be one that leads to cohesion within and among communites. There must be horizontal equity whereby all Malaysians in equal circumstances are treated in exactly the same way.



Second, the social norms that a decent social order produce would lead Malaysians of all races and religions to engage one another with absoulte civility and respect. Coercion and overt and covert threats of violence as a means of attaining political, economic and social ends would never be sanctioned. The only legitimate way to take into account differences and resolve problems is through dialogue and negotiations.



Third, Malaysians would feel a deep-seated sense of ownership over the problems of the country. They would be motivated to take decisive action and to make whatever sacrifices that are necessary for the good of the country. There would not be the high degree of indifference and apathy that there is at present. There would not be the tendency to escape from the challenges confronting the country or to apportion blame.



Fourth, only Malaysians who are capable, hard working, bold and scrupulously honest would be allowed to serve in positions of responsibility. Those who are inefficient, incompetent and most importantly, corrupt would be held in absolute and utter contempt by society. In this regard, the fight against corruption would be the first priortiy in the Malaysian development agenda. It would be recognised that corruption ensures that no decent social order is possible. Actions to ensure a corruption-free society would be unrelenting.



Fifth, the public would have a high degree of trust in the pillars of state, the executive judiciary and legislature, as well as the civil service and police. Those appointed to these institutions would be the best the country has to offer. They would never allow respect for their office to be compromised in anyway, preferring to resign rather than let it fall into disrepute. At all times, the rule of law would prevail.



In short, a decent Malaysian soical order would be one that is based on inclusiveness and accommodation as opposed to marginalisation and discrmination.

Problems that are of racial or religious origin would be resolved in ways that demonstrate the best aspects of race and religion rather than driving Maysian away from each other. Indeed, if Malaysia professes to be an advanced country, it had better be prepared to meet a higher standard of behaviour and morality. Anything less and it runs the risk of being declared a shameless sham.


Perhaps Syed Hussein's most important and enduring legacy for a decent social order for all Malaysians - one that underscores all five points I have mentioned - is his insistence on values and morality as a basis for public dicourse and action. Without these, development will not lead to the social uplifting of all Malaysians. Instead, it will result in rampant corruption, extreme elltism and perilous social inequlity.


40. In her tribute to Alatas, Dr. Deborah Johnson concluded as follows; "Perhaps posthumously and in thelight of the distance that the passage of time brings, the work of an intellectual such as Syed Hussein Alatas may receive the balanced, critical attention that will affirm his contribution to crtique of 'fools', Alatas would possibly have been even given more public honour. Far more accolades have been heaped on those who have done far less. This presumes, however, that wealth, prestige and position were what he wanted. His life and his work show otherwise.


NOTE: Prof Syed Hussein died on Jan 27, 2007.



TI praises Raja Nazrin's advice to get rid of corrupt officials Giam Say Khoon

PETALING JAYA (Aug 1, 2007): The electorates should initiate monitoring systems to keep tabs on the performance of their elected representatives, said Transparency International-Malaysia chairman Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.


When contacted, he said it was a splendid advice to the people from the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, in his first lecture titled Towards a Decent Social Order for all Malaysians yesterday, to commemorate the legacy of the late Prof Syed Hussein Alatas, a sociologist and intellectual..


Raja Nazrin said in his lecture that people with a chequered past or clear evidence of questionable morality should be prevented from taking public office.

"Figures in authority must be chosen for their integrity first and qualifications second," he said.
Navaratnam, who also attended the lecture, said Raja Nazrin's advice will help the people resolve not to vote for corrupted or officials with dubious track record.
He said the monitoring system can scrutinise all candidates put up by political parties for the coming general elections.


"The simple system will ensure greater integrity, transparency and accountability from all political leaders who want to serve the country," he said.


Asked whether it would be too late to set up such system, Navaratnam said it is not difficult to get two or three enlightened and service-oriented people to set up a website and ask the people to post their complaints and record the contribution and malpractice of their elected representative (assemblyman or Member of Parliament).



Navaratnam also hoped Raja Nazrin would help encourage the movement and urged all Malaysians to register and vote for the right leaders.

Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections chairman Abdul Malek Hussin said the election watchdog welcomed Raja Nazrin's statement.

He said it is important to have people with outstanding quality and personality to lead the country, but the elected representatives or candidates are selected by political parties.
"Clearly, there are political parties that do not support electoral reforms, check abuses of power (by the leaders) and used money politics to win elections. The people must therefore be able to access the background of candidates to make an informed choice during elections," he told theSun.


Abdul Malek said the media should play the role to provide the information but it becomes difficult during the elections as the mainstream media will be used by the ruling parties while opposition media will also be used by the opposition for their propaganda.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

A Comedy of powers

Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia Today
26 July 2007


Yes, guilty as charged. I have stolen this line from Shakespeare. But I can’t help it. What better way to describe the eight hours I spent under interrogation at the Dang Wangi Police Station yesterday other than it was a comedy of errors? By the way, before I go on, I have received more than a thousand phone calls, SMSes and e-mails from well-wishers and supporters. I have not found the time to reply to each and everyone yet so I hope you will forgive me for my rudeness. I am certainly touched by the concern and the messages of support posted in Malaysia Today’s blogs. From the bottom of my heart, and with sincere humility, I thank you all and promise you that the fight for more freedom in Malaysia shall continue come hell or high water.

I received a call from the police at 8.00am yesterday that they want to record my statement on the police report lodged by an ex-Selangor Menteri Besar with two Muhamads in his name. I saw the phone call coming and was not only expecting it but was hoping that they would summon me for interrogation so that I can expose this entire episode for the farce that it really is. In short, I pushed their hand with the ‘See you in hell Muhamad son of Muhamad’ article so that they would be forced to make their move on me.They wanted me in at 10 but I told them I can only make it at 11.

I wanted to update the website first in case my visit to Dang Wangi ends up a two-week stay.According to the press reports, the police report made against me was with regards to an article I wrote on 11 July 2007 that they regard as insulting the Agong and Islam. By the way, in case you did not know, Malaysia does not have a king so please stop referring to the Agong as King. Agong does not translate to king. Agong means supreme and it merely means he is the Supreme Ruler of the nine rulers, a sort of ‘first amongst equals’ situation.I brought along two shopping bags of four copies of the Quran in Arabic, English and Bahasa Malaysia, the Salasilah or family tree of the Selangor Sultanate, and an ‘approved’ version of Selangor’s history written by Buyung Adil. I could of course have also included Joginder Singh Jessy’s, DJ Tate’s and Winsted’s versions as well, but I thought the Buyung Adil version, which is in Bahasa Malaysia, would be less strenuous on the more simple-minded.T


he police informed me that my interrogation was not about my article of 11 July 2007. In fact, on 11 July 2007, I never wrote any article. I did on 8 July though and again on 13 July, but never on 11 July. According to what the newspapers reported, I was alleged to have insulted the Agong and Islam, so the purpose of the two shopping bags of books was to debate Islam and the Agong with those who were about to interrogate me. But they did not want to talk about any of my articles. They only wanted to talk about some of the comments in the blogs posted by Malaysia Today’s readers.I told the police I refuse to talk about the comments in the blogs. I did not write these comments so I refuse to talk about what I did not write. I only want to talk about what I wrote and defend myself against charges that I have insulted the Agong and Islam.


But no, the police did not want to talk about my articles. They only wanted to talk about the comments in the blogs.I told the police I still refuse to talk about the comments and if therefore they want to charge me for sedition under the Sedition Act then go ahead. I banged the table with my fist and shouted, “Charge me! Charge me now!” The police said that they do not wish to charge me yet but only to take my statement. I can refuse to reply if I wish or reply that I do not know anything. But they have no choice but to take my statement because a police report had been made against me.It boggles the mind that they MUST take my statement barely two days after the police report against me was made whereas they do not feel they MUST do anything on the hundreds upon hundreds of other police reports made the last ten years or so since 1998. Take, as one example, the police report made by four Umno delegates to the Kubang Pasu AGM last year alleging that they were each bribed RM200 to not vote for Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.


Malaysia Today published copies of these police reports. One of the Umno delegates who made the police report was subsequently beaten up in his house in front of his family. He made a second police report on the beating and even fingered those who had beaten him up because he knew them personally. Again, nothing was done. So this MUST take your statement once a police report has been made against you is as truthful as I am still a virgin.When that ex-Selangor Menteri Besar with two Muhamads in his name went to the Dang Wangi Police Station on Monday to lodge his police report, he did not have any details to support the allegation that Malaysia Today had insulted the Agong and Islam.


He was told that the evidence to support this allegation must be attached to the police report. They then tried to get onto the internet to access Malaysia Today so that they could look for the evidence. But they did not know how to and could not find Malaysia Today.They then enlisted the help of a journalist from one of the Chinese newspapers who was there covering the event. Through the good help of this Chinese reporter, they finally found Malaysia Today and went through the comments in the blogs to find the evidence that they needed to support the police report.Malaysia Today was launched on 13 August 2004 and since then we have about 20,000 or so items with an estimated five million comments in the blogs. Looking for the evidence would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. We must note that at this point of time they had lodged a police report but lacked the evidence. They were now putting the cart before the horse. They now needed the evidence to support the police report.They finally found about a dozen or so postings amongst five million that looked strong enough to prove that Malaysia Today has insulted the Agong and Islam.


One was my own posting that said if you insult any race or religion then I would have no choice but to delete your posting and ban you from further posting comments in Malaysia Today. Another was by Indianputra who was appealing to Malaysia Today’s readers not to fight and argue as some people might take advantage of the squabbling and exploit it to divide the races. What we want is a peaceful country, argued Indianputra, so if we engage in a civil manner then we will be able to unite all the races. And so on and so forth. Basically, this was the evidence they were working on to prove that Malaysia Today insulted the Agong and Islam.I asked the police whether these postings are insulting the Agong, insulting Islam, and are trying to divide the races, or whether they are actually the reverse. The face of the ASP interrogating me turned red as he tried to explain that he was just doing his job and that he was ordered to take my statement.



I replied that the person who made the police report is a stupid person who can’t speak English. So what do you expect from someone like that? He can’t even understand comments that are appealing for national unity and instead interpret it as calling for racial strife.“Do you know that that orang bodoh ran away with the Sultan’s daughter and then denied it?” I asked the police. They just smiled. “Well, I am going to reveal this to the world,” I continued. “I am going to publish the letter he wrote to the Sultan where he denied he had married the Sultan’s daughter whereas he had in fact already secretly married her in Thailand. You tengoklah. I akan balun si bodoh tu habis-habis.”The police appeared amused at what I had to say although their only retort was, “Banyak maklumat kita dapat hari ini.”They then wanted to know the identity of those who post comments in Malaysia Today’s blogs.



I told them I do not know who they are but I do know that amongst them are 25 Umno cyber-troopers headed by Azalina and Norza. “Azalina?” they asked.“Yes, Azalina lesbian,” I replied.“Oh, Azalina Othman.” Apparently they know who I meant by Azalina lesbian.“I did not say Azalina Othman. I said Azalina lesbian. You are supposed to record everything I say the way I say it. That is what a cautioned statement under Section 112 is all about. Saya kata Azalina lesbian. Bukan Azalina Othman. You record what I say and I will sign the statement.”The second police officer stopped typing and scratched his head with a sheepish grin on his face. “Okaylah, I don’t want you to get into any trouble. Drop the lesbian and change it to Othman.”


The second officer continued typing while chuckling. He was certainly enjoying himself.I pointed out a few IDs that belonged to the Umno cyber-troopers and the second officer recorded them down. “How do you know they are Umno cyber-troopers?” the first officer asked me.“Because I have received information from inside Umno,” I replied.“You have people planted in Umno?”“Of course I do, and I bribe them to feed me information. I just slam RM1,000 onto the table and ask them to tell me everything and they sing like a canary. It is not that hard to buy information.”The four police officers in the room smiled and shook their heads in disbelief. “Can we record this in your statement?”“Of course you can. The reason I am telling you this is so that you can record it in my statement.



I want it on record that Umno is attacking Malaysia Today with 25 cyber-troopers and they are the ones who are posting racial statements. Sometimes they even masquerade as Chinese and whack the Malays and Islam. Then other cyber-troopers would respond and whack the Chinese. The Umno cyber-troopers are the ones behind this racial and religious bashing in Malaysia Today. Then they make a police report alleging that Malaysia Today insults Islam and stirs racial sentiments.”All this exchange was of course recorded as anything you say under Section 112 interrogation is recorded and you are made to sign the statement at the end of the interrogation. And you go to jail if you make a false statement.At the end of the eight-hour interrogation, I asked them whether we are finished and they said yes. “Okay, now I want to make my additional statement,” I informed the police.“Of course, we will ask you before we end whether you want to add anything more to your statement. That is the procedure.”“Okay, now I will make that statement.




Malaysia Today’s domain name is registered in the UK,” I told the police. When you click on the domain name malaysia-today.net you are sent to the server of the registered IP address in that domain name. Our server is in Singapore. But what you see is only the front page. Then you choose which item on the front page you want to read and you are sent to the blog. The blog sits in the US. When you post a comment it goes straight to the blog. For all intents and purposes, Malaysia Today is a foreign website and not a Malaysian website. We therefore do not come under Malaysian laws.”“Let me put it another way,” I told the police. “Sodomy is a crime in Malaysia and you can get sent to jail for nine years for the crime of sodomy even if you are a Deputy Prime Minister. In England, men can marry men and you will even receive a congratulatory message from the British Prime Minister. So, sodomy is not a crime in the UK and you do not go to jail.”“In short,” I summed up. “Your Sedition Act is valid only in Malaysia and not outside Malaysia.



So you cannot impose Malaysia’s Sedition Act on Malaysia Today which resides outside Malaysia. I can actually tell you to go to hell and that I will not waste eight hours answering all your questions. But I do not want you to think I am sombong so I was prepared to spend eight hours with you answering all your questions as I know you have a job to do and it is not your fault.”I knew this officer was under tremendous pressure because every half an hour he would receive a phone call from his OCPD as well as the IGP asking about the progress of the interrogation.



The top bosses were monitoring the whole situation and my interrogation was not a routine one at all. One senior Chinese officer who sat there the entire duration without opening his mouth revealed his true role when the only time he spoke was to utter the statement that I am trying to topple the IGP. That was what the police really wanted. It was payback time for the revelations of the links between the IGP and the Chinese organised crime syndicate.Umno, however, had other motives. It was not about Malaysia Today insulting the Agong or Islam. They did not even have any evidence of this until that Chinese reporter helped them get onto the internet and access Malaysia Today’s website. What they were perturbed about is my article in my column No Holds Barred on 8 July 2007 about the powers of the Agong.



If you read Article 150 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia -- which I have reproduced below -- you can see that the Agong has the power to remove the Prime Minister if the Agong perceives the Prime Minister as totally incompetent and a danger to the economic life and well-being of Malaysians. Of course, this has never been done before except in 1969 to address the problem of the May 13 race riots. But this does not mean it cannot be done, just that it has never been done or done only once in 1969.Note the key points in Article 150 such as: 1) If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied2) That a grave emergency exists3) Whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened4) He may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.5) A Proclamation of Emergency may be issued before the actual occurrence of the event which threatens the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation6) Except when both Houses of Parliament are sitting concurrently7) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that certain circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action8) He may promulgate such ordinances as circumstances appear to him to require.9) The Houses of Parliament shall be regarded as sitting only if the members of each House are respectively assembled togetherNow, Article 150 is very clear in that the Agong can interpret the situation as he sees it and take action that he thinks is befitting the situation.



Basically, it is his opinion and only his opinion that rules and he can act based on his opinion.When this article was first published on 8 July 2007, it sent shockwaves right through the fourth floor and right up to the fifth floor of the Prime Minister’s office in Putrajaya. They suddenly realised that if the Agong perceives the Prime Minister as incompetent and a danger to this country, then the Agong can remove the Prime Minister and appoint anyone he so wishes to replace the Prime Minister. It need not be the Deputy Prime Minister or any of the Umno leaders. In theory, it can even be the Agong’s gardener if the Agong thinks he is better than the Prime Minister and the best man to lead this country.



And that was when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi decided to quietly sneak out of the country with his entire family. They suspected that this article of 8 July 2007 was not a coincidence but was instead a hint that the Agong may act within his powers under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to sack the Prime Minister and replace him with someone better. The Prime Minister then summoned the IGP and the Director of the Special Branch to Australia to obtain feedback as to whether he is in danger of being ousted.Earlier, Abdullah had announced the extension of the IGP’s tenure on contract basis beyond 13 September 2007 when he is supposed to retire. Abdullah received a major blow yesterday during the Rulers’ Conference when the Rulers expressed displeasure at Abdullah's announcement of this extension without first informing them about it.



This was the Rulers’ very strong message to Abdullah that they are not happy with the way he is running this country.Abdullah is worried that Malaysia Today might be playing a role of ‘instigating’ the Rulers to sack him. They then sat down and came out with a plan to turn the Rulers against Malaysia Today by accusing Malaysia Today of insulting the Agong and Islam. They hope that by doing this the Rulers would get angry with Malaysia Today and be very grateful to Abdullah for putting Raja Petra in jail and in that same process protect and defend the image and dignity of the Rulers. In short, Abdullah wants the Rulers to think that Malaysia Today is their enemy while the Prime Minister is their friend. So, no need to sack Abdullah. Instead, put Raja Petra in jail. And with that Abdullah and his family can continue to live happily ever after as the First Family of Malaysia.



Abdullah is due back on 27 July 2007. According to his office, he may delay his return until the first week of August. Abdullah was hoping that by the time he returns on 27 July 2007, Raja Petra would be safely tucked away behind the high walls of the Sungai Buloh Prison and he can then request an audience with the Agong to inform the Agong how he defended the image and dignity of the Agong by punishing Raja Petra for the crime of insulting the Agong and Islam.But they sent a fool to undertake the job of assassinating Raja Petra. This ex-Selangor Menteri Besar with two Muhamads in his name botched the mission. Abdullah now has to rethink his strategy as well as the date of his return home. Would he still be walking in the corridors of power or would he have to stay in Australia and apply for PR status? Yes, we live in interesting times.


A certain Datuk from Abdullah’s camp phoned me last night and I told this Datuk to inform his boss that Raja Petra is bent on destroying Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and ensure that all that remains of him is a pile of dust. An Uncle to the Agong phoned me two days ago and said “Bodoh betul Mat Taib!”Round One: Raja Petra. But will I also win Round Two? I don’t know yet. We will have to wait and see. Time will of course tell. But what I do know, it is a fight to the death and I really do not care whether that will be me.



Article 150 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

(1) If the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency making therein a declaration to that effect.

(2) A Proclamation of Emergency under Clause (1) may be issued before the actual occurrence of the event which threatens the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that there is imminent danger of the occurrence of such event.
(2A) The power conferred on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by this Article shall include the power to issue different Proclamations on different grounds or in different circumstances, whether or not there is a Proclamation or Proclamations already issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Clause (1) and such Proclamation or Proclamations are in operation.
(2B) If at any time while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, except when both Houses of Parliament are sitting concurrently, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied that certain circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such ordinances as circumstances appear to him to require.
(2C) An ordinance promulgated under Clause (2B) shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, and shall continue in full force and effect as if it is an Act of Parliament until it is revoked or annulled under Clause (3) or until it lapses under Clause (7); and the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to promulgate ordinances under Clause (2B) may be exercised in relation to any matter with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws regardless of the legislative or other procedures required to be followed, or the proportion of the total votes required to be had, in either House of Parliament.

(3) A Proclamation of Emergency and any ordinance promulgated under Clause (2B) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, if not sooner revoked, shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such Proclamation or ordinance, but without prejudice to anything previously done by virtue thereof or to the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to issue a new Proclamation under Clause (1) or promulgate any ordinance under Clause (2B).

(4) While a Proclamation of Emergency is in force the executive authority of the Federation shall, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, extent to any matter within the legislative authority of a State and to the giving of directions to the Government of a State or to any officer or authority thereof.

(5) Subject to Clause (6A), while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force, Parliament may, not-withstanding anything in this Constitution make laws with respect to any matter, if it appears to Parliament that the law is required by reason of the emergency; and Article 79 shall not apply to a Bill for such a law or an amendment to such a Bill, nor shall any provision of this Constitution or of any written law which requires any consent or concurrence to the passing of a law or any consultation with respect thereto, or which restricts the coming into force of a law after it is passed or the presentation of a Bill to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for his assent.

(6) Subject to Clause (6A), no provision of any ordinance promulgated under this Article, and no provision of any Act of Parliament which is passed while a Proclamation of Emergency is in force and which declares that the law appears to Parliament to be required by reason of the emergency, shall be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with any provision of this Constitution. (6A) Clause (5) shall not extend the powers of Parliament with respect to any matter of Islamic law or the custom of the Malays, or with respect to any matter of native law or custom in the State of Sabah or Sarawak; nor shall Clause (6) validate any provision inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution relating to any such matter or relating to religion, citizenship, or language.

(7) At the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which a Proclamation of Emergency ceases to be in force, any ordinance promulgated in pursuance of the Proclamation and, to the extent that it could not have been validly made but for this Article any law made while the Proclamation was in force, shall cease to have effect, except as to things done or omitted to be done before the expiration of that period.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution:(a) the satisfaction of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong mentioned in Clause (1) and Clause (2B) shall be final and conclusive and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court on any ground; and (b) no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or determine any application, question or proceeding, in whatever form, on any ground, regarding the validity of- (i) a Proclamation under Clauses (1) or of a declaration made in such Proclamation to the effect stated in Clause (1); (ii) the continued operation of such Proclamation; (iii) any ordinance promulgated under Clause (2B); or (iv) the continuation in force of any such ordinance.

(9) For the purpose of this Article the Houses of Parliament shall be regarded as sitting only if the members of each House are respectively assembled together and carrying out the business of the House.