COMMENT Apparently, the people behind the Christians for Peace and Harmony Malaysia (CPHM) movement have difficulties in upholding social justice in a country where double standards are being used.

This is why social justice is never on its agenda, despite Christians being exhorted to “let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:24).

Peace, as defined by Jesus, is not what the world can give but deep-seated in our hearts, as uniquely endowed by him (John 14:27). It is synonymous to having peace in the eye of a storm.

In my opinion, if social justice is not upheld or seen being upheld through the political will of people in the corridors of power, at best CPHM would only be doing the firefighting.

The right-wingers in both Umno (in the likes of protesters in the recent Taman Medan protest and the group from Shah Alam who paraded with a cow’s head in front of the Selangor State Secretariat in 2008) and PAS (such as former Selangor PAS commissioner Dr Hasan Ali and former PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa), as well as NGOs such as Perkasa and Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) will continue to strike a nerve, and based on my gut feeling, CPHM will be seen as the ‘hero’ to smooth ruffled feathers.

Seeking to win votes, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has lost grassroots support in the past six years because he failed to do what needs to be done in the name of justice; therefore, any initiative which came out of him or people supporting him, would end up with brickbats being thrown at it.

Take the bull by the horns

I have raised the question of motive behind CPHM with its president, Rev Wong Kim Kong. Setting aside all the misgivings, CPHM has stated clearly that it is out of its scope to deal with the ‘Allah’ controversy or the confiscation of Malay Bibles (the Alkitab) and other Christian publications in Bahasa Indonesia, but is it not true that religious tension is often played up by groups that centre around these sensitive issues?

See where the contradiction is? On one hand is the attempt to promote peace and harmony which is well and good; on the other hand, when certain groups do not adhere to the federal constitution on the rights of the non-Muslims to practice their religious affairs without interference, CPHM says it is out of its scope to intervene.

In my opinion, the aggrieved parties would not buy into the smooth talk if their faith is being attacked, and Wong is supposed to defend under the federal constitution regardless of his position in CPHM.

Would the East Malaysians or Malay speaking communities in peninsular Malaysia for example, be willing to give up the century-old usage of the name ‘Allah’ in their Bibles? With due respect to all my Muslim friends, as far as I know both the late Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat and Pakatan leader Anwar Ibrahim, as well as international Islamic scholars, have said that ‘Allah’ is not the sole copyright for Muslims.

The name ‘Allah’ had in fact pre-dated the prophet of Islam, being an Arabic word that was used by Arab Christians during Prophet Muhammad’s time. Malaysia has a very unique situation that even others in the Islamic world cannot comprehend, which gives me the insights that the ‘Allah’ controversy has nothing to do with the religion itself, but the push for supremacy that was promoted by former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Prophet Muhammad never forbade the Arab Christians or the pagans from using the name ‘Allah’, did he? Until CPHM is prepared to take the bull by the horns, and the government is prepared to re-educate and help the Malaysian Muslim community to align itself with the international Muslim community, peace and harmony is nothing but what a senior lawyer describes as “appeasement (which) feeds the appetite of the recipient to keep coming back for more compromises from the giver!”

The lawyer further argued his point: “Peace and harmony are the result of upholding justice. Any peace at the expense of justice or compromises truth or sacrificing integrity will not be true lasting peace. It’s simply appeasement.”

Wong’s ( photo ) claim that Malaysia enjoys greater religious freedom that the United States, for example, is nothing but another whitewashing effort. As far as we know, the US has never banned the import of the Quran, but the new standard operating procedures (SOP) drawn up by the Home Affairs Ministry recently are a big disappointment to the Christian community.

It simply violates the rights of the non-Muslims as enshrined under the federal constitution. It further tries to divide Malaysia according to regions, yet we are talking about Satu Malaysia. Do you see now why we are sceptical?

The US prosecuted the quack pastor who threatened to burn the Quran, but Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali is let off when he threatened to do exactly the same thing. Wong’s comparison to the US simply does not hold water.

This is what irks most people - the double standards that are being exercised by Najib’s administration, which is why at a most crucial time when Najib is being attacked by his nemesis Dr Mahathir, most people remain apathetic. People were generally more sympathetic towards Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, when he was similarly attacked by Dr Mahathir - a lesson that should be learnt by all successors.

What Wong expressed through his speeches about current issues are no longer new, as propagandists have already been trying to change the people’s perception on two lines of arguments.

This is the reason why people are sceptical the moment they put all the bits and pieces together on what CPHM - its inception, philosophy and arguments - is really all about. It is unwilling to take the bull by the horns, but hoping to promote peace and harmony.

Two lines of arguments

First, there is the theory that is being floated around that the name ‘Allah’ was translated by a devout Muslim, Munshi Abdullah; therefore, a preferred name would be either ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Elohim’.

This not only undermines the rights of the Christian community in East Malaysia, as well as the Orang Asli in peninsular Malaysia, who have been using the name ‘Allah’ for more than two centuries; it also erases the original root word in the Hebrew name of God, which is El, Elah, Eloh, and Elohim, from where the Arab name for God is derived.

The second propaganda item which has been going around is the teaching of Paul in Romans 13, where it is argued that Christians must submit themselves to the human authority that has been ordained.

I am not the only one disputing such literal interpretation of the text. A Malay Mail columnist, Erna Mahyuni, has put it succinctly, “Taken at face value, it would seem that Christians must obey without question, fully submitting to any authority or government. But the thing about Christianity is how much it centres around Jesus and Jesus was certainly not a poster boy for submitting to authority.”

Scripture has to be interpreted within the context of the entire scripture. If Wong’s interpretation of Romans 13 is correct, then, it would make prophets like Elijah a great rebel, because he spoke against King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.

John the Baptist would be languishing in Hell, because he spoke against the sin of King Herod and did not submit to Herod’s authority. Throughout the entire Scriptures, there are countless of other examples of prophets of God who had to speak up against a wicked king.

So, how then did Wong interpret Romans 13? If he is saying that we should submit to the present government and maintain the status quo, then, it is something that goes against the entire teaching of the Scriptures about righteousness and justice.

In a democratic nation, unlike the Roman Empire, the people hold the key to power and an elected government is at the disposal of the people. Submission towards the authority is only in areas where we are told not to be involved in terrorism to overthrow any government of the day, but is there anything to stop us from holding a peacefully rally within democratic boundaries, especially when the present government fails to listen to the people?

However, Christians are supposed to be the salt of the earth. It is our duty to stop the rot in our nation. In a democratic nation, where the rules allow us to vote against a corrupt regime, it is our duty to therefore vote for change.

To add further, Paul’s instruction is clear: “Give everyone what you owe him; if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honour, then honour.” Emphasis is on the words, “if respect, then respect.” What happens if the prime minister is not worth the salt?

While I have no problem addressing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak as Yang Amat Berhormat protocol-wise and because of the office that he holds, Najib does not deserve my respect, or support, as a person based on his six years of poor track record.

If there is any prime minister that I respect, it is both the late Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. And from the opposition, it is Anwar who has stood his ground and Nik Aziz for differentiating the teaching of Islam from the political propaganda that we have to grapple with.

This is the sentiment on the ground, especially in the urban communities which is why, having realised that there is such a ‘disconnect’ between the federal government and the people of Malaysia, Najib has changed his strategies. As someone has suggested, “Is this the work of Uncle Lim (referring to public relations magnate Lim Kok Wing)?”

Even before the news flash recently, I believe Lim has been whispering into Najib’s ears about changing his strategy. CPHM, in my opinion, is nothing but an outworking of a bigger plan in place.

Tomorrow: Najib’s change of strategy

STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008.