The Walk to Free and Fair Election or into the Cage of Repression

by Regina Lim, 23 June 2011

 Photo: Fall of the Berlin Wall

This is the conundrum for every conscientious Malaysian citizen – to be or not to be ‘seen and heard’ by the government?  As a citizen living under the current BN regime, I feel like a little child in a household who is only seen but not heard.  A data in the national statistics: female, 37, ‘lain-lain’, and a blank for religion. I guess I’m statistically insignificant compared to the dominant ethno-religious groupings that the BN is so fond of categorizing to ascertain my voting preference. 

As an individual, I have my own stories of being queer and unwritten, like all individuals, we have our stories to tell, experiences to share and a future to build together.  The future that we envisage is one that will empower us as individuals, one that make us more aware about each other’s trials and tribulations, one that is more understanding and tolerant of who we are and how our stories relate to one another.  

In recent years the stories about public spending are fairly glum, not to mention our national credibility to showcase the most embarrassing trial of the century, Sodomy II.   Likewise the rights of those who are at the margins of society, equal access to education, training and health, even basic public amenities have not been fully realized.  These rights may seem intangible but they are elements that should provide citizens the necessary avenues to social mobility and better qualities of life.

When these conditions are not met, it reflects awfully bad upon the government that claims to represent the people’s interests, aspirations and hope.  When conscientious citizens and other civil groups stood up and voiced their concerns through peaceful protests, they have been put behind bars, locked away behind the infamous Malaysian gulag known as the ISA.  When groups tried to protest against other legitimate injustices, the police and the FRU would come crashing down upon defenceless individuals.  Repressive laws have now become the tool of the Executive to deny the voice of the people and I must admit these laws have prevailed to create fear and further suppress the rights of the citizens to assemble that are guaranteed under Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution.  

The blatant public corruptions, the erosion of civil rights and the threats of detentions are tell-tale signs of a government that needs replacing.  But the political change that we are hoping to galvanize has been denied, not because the people have failed to participate fully in the electoral process but because of the massive irregularities that have plagued the whole procedures of a proper and democratic election.

Hence the launch of BERSIH 2 becomes an important platform that puts pressure to the BN government to clean up the electoral procedures.  It is a peaceful and democratic plea to the BN government to ensure free and fair election for the country. But I can foresee the risks and possibility of arrests that individual citizens are exposed to, a script that we know too well.  For all the courage that the individuals could muster, the consequences of losing one’s freedom are real and indisputable.  

When this happens who would want to know the stories of those who are detained, the sacrifices they are willing to take, losing the comfort of home by walking straight into the cage of repression.  Not for the want of martyrdom but for a just cause that is worth fighting for.  Will they become just another data in the statistics of police detention? Female, 37, ‘lain lain’ and of queer religious belief, for example?  

When Ambiga said the rally is ‘not about me’, it implies a vocation that is free in spirit that no political party or politicians should exploit nor capitalize.  If it is to be non-partisan where we all come together as citizens to demand changes, then we should equally try to protect one another from the repressive laws of the current government.  Would it be too late to change the venue into a closed arena, so as to ensure 100% no arrest? Should the government come down hard on the peace loving Malaysians, would the professionals come forth and extend a lending hand to the conscientious citizens as a gesture of solidarity?  Should the concept of people’s power be left on the street, brow beaten by the police batons and decompose in the acidity of water cannons?

If we are to fight this just cause together, every conscientious citizen should try and contribute in whatever help possible.  If we can start being aware of the political significance of this rally, it will be the opportunity for various groups, individuals, professionals to come together and provide different levels of legal aid for the Tom, Dick and Mary that could face detentions. Political change comes with real commitments and solidarity, are we all ready?

Sex and the City of Muck: I say hey babe, take a walk on the wild side…

By Regina Lim, 5 May 2011

Sex, like politics, is a question of power and domination.  Don’t you agree?  Week after week, sordid images and descriptions of the Datuk Trio sex tape are taking over the content of the media, social networking debates and cyber blogging domains.  We can’t undo it; it is so difficult to ignore it, so let’s just talk about it, hopefully for the last time.  Whilst the main focus of the sex episode falls upon Anwar Ibrahim, the unfortunate victim of a vicious and mysterious political machination, I can’t help but notice how the woman in the tape has been dehumanized, objectified, categorized­ - as the Chinese prostitute or China Doll etc.  Maybe I’m wrong, maybe the woman has been empowered by it, who knows?  I want to take the focus back to the question of power and domination and relate this to the politicization of sex and human morality.  

Sex is a gift of nature.  It is a highly ticklish subject, a very personal and for some very sacred experience.  Sex is the source of life, we are created by its energy and we continue to live life on this cycle of creative energy.  Hence there is no way for human beings to be separated from sex, heterosexual or otherwise.  Nonetheless through the various establishments of institutions – especially the universal ideals of marriage and family - and belief systems humans somehow manage to isolate or even create an enmity toward ‘sex’.  This is especially true in the mainstream religious theology where the talk of ‘sex’ outside of the norms of pro-creation and marriages becomes a social taboo and at worst, a parody of our basic instincts.  

Caricaturing our basic sexual instincts has now become a popular discourse in our political culture.  Although it is not the most important bread and butter issue of the day, we are somehow sucked into the political vortex of popularising our dirty laundry at the national level. Whilst the Middle-East is experiencing the most significant political revolution in the history of the world, Malaysia triumphs in underwear politics.  I think Calvin Klein would happily use our underwear politics to advertise the latest derrière support for soggy bottom boys. Having said that, the Malaysian political culture has not really gained any progressive mileage on articulating the real issues that are making life difficult for citizens who do not belong to the mainstream perception of how gender roles should function.  

We live in a male-centred world where the dominant perception about gender roles and sexual mores are neatly constructed and sustained by the mainstream theological interpretation of the ideal of social order.  The popular culture is also responsible for perpetuating the myth of gender dynamics, in which men tend to think and women are generally an emotional machine. The separation of the mind from the heart becomes a popular explanation for why men behave differently from women, which generally goes unchallenged.  Then the Other sexualities emerged and increasingly, these people are treated as artefacts of modern social diseases, even women with wit and intellectual capacity who do not subscribe to the mainstream sexual norms are not spared from the pathological view of transgressing gender roles.  In this male-centred culture, these are considered the destabilizing factors in our so-called authentic ‘Asian’ Century. Anything wayward must be Western import, even liberal democracy.

So when these destabilizing elements are present in our society, those in power must reclaim the moral high ground.  After revealing everything sordid and humiliating about Anwar’s sexual instincts, those responsible for the distribution of the sex tape, aka Datuk Trio, tried to absolve their ethical misconducts by taking religious oath - Sumpah Laknat.  Surprisingly even the Prime Minister Najib Razak condones such act by stating that ‘Everybody has the right to Sumpah Laknat’

 

I do not claim to understand what this is all about nor to be interested in the content of the oath.  It just seems to me that the public recourse to religious oath-taking denigrates the moral force of any political argument validated on the grounds of religious convictions.  From Saiful to Eskay, I think the whole Sumpah affairs actually desacralized the places of worship in this city of Muck.  We have a justice system that is already jaded, a political system that actually encourages racism and intolerance, and now sacred places that are becoming legitimate laundry machines for those who failed to connect and have a sense of real understanding about ethics and moral issues in their political conducts or misconducts.  So when politics is replaced by sensationalism, the ethical content of political debates is then diluted.  What is there left to talk about politics but the inversion of the personal, the parody of the id - the ‘pleasure principle’ at all cost, the politicization of sex. I’d take a Walk on the Wild Side, so help me Lou Reed… .

Fear, Hostility and Conviction

By Regina Lim, 26 April 2011 

There is a parallel development that goes with the political insecurities of the BN government - the targeting of the ‘morally indefensible’ issues like sodomy, sex, and ‘sissy’ boys.  I don’t know if this phenomenon is accidental but these issues seem to crop up whenever the government is at the tipping point of losing its plot.  Take the issue of Anwar’s Sodomy Trial for instance.  The first Sodomy thunderstorm came at the height of political conflicts in 1998 between PM Mahathir and his supposedly trusted and very popular successor, Anwar Ibrahim.  How to undo the popular and a much needed moderate Muslim politician like Anwar in a country divided by ethnicity and religious beliefs?  Not much of political or financial hullabaloos could scandalize Anwar’s public credibility.  Hence the morally indefensible sin of having carnal intercourse with the same sex seemed to be the most appealing measure to destroy Anwar’s political persona as well as his moral stature as a Muslim public figure.  

In 1999, he was sentenced to six years in prison for corruption, and in 2000, to another nine years for sodomy. In 2004, the Federal Court reversed the second conviction and he was released. The Sodomy Trial no. 1 was at best, a homoerotic bubble designed to titillate the minds of the populace too caught up in the world of materialistic consumption and production -  after all the 90’s was the golden era of spend, spend, and spend.  The only downside was the lack of internet connection, and most of us had to rely on the main stream media that was only too eager to orchestrate and spin the public fear of moral decadence.  After more than a decade of supposed moral peace, out came Anwar again and the motley crew of successful candidates from PKR, DAP and PAS who unexpectedly smothered quite a lot of the hare brained BN politicians in the March 2008 General Election, doing a very good job of demolishing Pak Lah’s uninspiring lame duck premiership.  

In July 2008, Anwar was arrested over allegations he sodomised one of his male aides, and faces new sodomy charges in the Malaysian courts.  The impending Sodomy Trial no.2 however did not deter Anwar from being elected as an MP in the Permatang Pauh by-election in August 2008.  Whilst the trial is still going on, a sex tape implicating an ‘Anwar’ look-alike began to emerge on the day the Sarawak Legislative Assembly was dissolved.  There were even reports that the sex tapes were distributed in Sarawak to discredit the leader of the PR coalition.  It is debatable whether such sordid revelation had really tarnished Anwar’s image as a devout Muslim, but the fact remains that there is widespread fear and hostility against people who are ‘born this way’ ala Lady Gaga.

The most recent issue involves the Education Ministry’s policy to straighten 66 ‘sissy’boys in a camp at Besut, Terengganu.  This policy has attracted condemnation from activists and NGOs alike. Oyoung is particularly vocal against such unprecedented form of education that aims to ‘fix’ boys who tend to displayeffeminate behaviours.  There are others like the Joint Action Groupfor Gender Equality claiming that this latest government attempt is a gross violationof human right.  And surprisingly Datuk Sharizat Abdul Jalil, Malaysian women’s minister, is also critical of the antigay camp saying thatsuch policy actually violates the Child Act 2001 and should be abolished. 

I am particularly attracted to a comment on Mkini that was directed at Oyoung’s article, it reads, ‘No matter how you twist and turn, being a pondan or tomboy is not natural. Neither is being gay. So please don't bring your sodomism to our society. We can coexist but don't shove your ideas down our throats.’ There are so many layers of emotions – fear, anger, disgust, aggression and self-righteousness packed in a couple of sentences. 

In many cases of homophobic attacks on gay people, the element of dehumanization of gays is very saturated in the antigay rhetoric and the intense brutality that characterizes many hate crimes against sexual minorities are fairly consistent with the emotion of anger than fear.  The danger of not wanting to reveal their true selves out of the fear of being mentally or/and physically assaulted, is not an imagined fear, but the result of a real insecurity conditioned by the mainstream antigay perception.

In the contemporary research on sexuality and gender studies, there are three general arenas in which hostility based on sexual orientation need to be challenged and hopefully studied further.  The three arenas of antigay hostility include, in respective order - sexual stigma, hetero-sexism and sexual prejudice.  First, sexual stigma - such hostility exists in the form of shared knowledge that is embodied in cultural ideologies that define sexuality, demarcate social groupings based on it, and assign value to those groups and their members.  Second, hetero-sexism - these ideologies are expressed through society’s structure, institutions and power relations.  Third, sexual prejudice - individuals internalize these ideologies and, through their attitudes and actions, express, may either reinforce or challenge them.  

The third arena, sexual prejudice, is internal, inside a person’s head.  It cannot be directly observed and it must be inferred from overt behaviours.  Such behaviours might consist of mild, verbal and non-verbal expression ranging from discomfort to the manifestation of the extreme act of perpetrating discrimination or violence against sexual minorities.

These issues are big, not chewable in a day, but hopefully readers would seek further knowledge about why we need to challenge the injustices associated with antigay hostilities.  Are we prepared to challenge these injustices as believers and non-believers alike?   As for our political state of affairs, the plot-less game of moral panic continues and when this does not stop, someone, somebody’s child, somebody’s friend, could be a victim of physical and mental assault. 

只剩下問候

By, Regina Lim 19 April 2011

感情再深, 恩義再濃的朋友, 天涯遠隔, 情義, 終也慢慢疏淡. 不是說彼此的心變了, 也不是說不再當對方是朋友, 只是, 遠在天涯, 喜怒哀樂不能共享. 原來, 我們已是遙遠得只剩下問候, 問候還是好的, 至少我們不曾把彼此忘記....

I came across this posting from a friend and have been touched by it ever since.  The funny thing about the social networking site, Facebook, is that it seems banal and at times shallow to take it too seriously but then, strangely it works like an emotional machine churning out beautiful words and thoughts that strike a common chord.  

It reads, in my modest effort to translate and understand, ‘Friendship, no matter how deep, how gratifying will slowly run out of its depth.  That’s not because our hearts have changed, or we no longer treat the other as a friend.  Just that in real life, across the vast horizon, it is impossible to share the minutia of emotions.  It turns out that we could only leave a casual greeting or two, but greetings are good enough, at least we will not totally forget one another…’

This posting reflects deeply about friendship, about human relations dealing with the aspects of reason and unreason, about the time when life takes us walking, treading the lines between these two.  The heart begins to explore the multiple dimensions of madness, sadness, joy, ecstasy…like being drugged without the real chemical substances.  It exposes our deepest need for connection, in this world that is so alien to each and every one.  We are all so alone and the feeling of loneliness can be all consuming.  At times it can drive a person to want and seek companion for the sake of companionship, and sometimes taking one another for granted without realizing, without being aware of each other’s real needs.

Sometimes we forget that just being friendly is actually less demanding than fulfilling ‘neediness’.  The difference between friendship and friendliness is that the former becomes structured in relationship where certain ideas and norms start to constrain the conducts of the people involved.  Whereas friendliness is a state of being, of simply being friendly, regardless of what has changed.  It seems easy to say but it is a very difficult task to achieve.  It makes one think hard about what is left to salvage when your heart is broken, cheated or betrayed by a friend.  It is like reading a book, turn the pages casually the meaning will be lost, understand it deeply the heart will start to bleed.  When the heart bleeds, life becomes the work of art, not something static but it is dynamic, rises above the mundane, and goes beyond the trivial stuff.  Is it possible carry the weight of a bleeding heart and paint it on a canvass or make it into a beautiful poetry?  Do we have the human capacity to forgive and not to look back in anger?

A wise man once said, ‘A person who seeks friendship, love, companionship, out of loneliness is not going to find it. But if you seek friendship and love and companionship out of aloneness, you are a flooded river, a river in the rains. You can share as much as you want. And the more you share, the more you will have’.

聖經是“人為”又如何？

Joe 彭牧師,2010-10-23

星洲日報《活力副刊》刊登了《製造耶穌》作者巴特．葉爾曼問答摘錄後，引起了部份基督徒的不滿與不悅。但身為一名牧師，我反倒認為基督徒應該以更客觀的角度來看待此事。我相信真理會越辯越明。我們對信仰必須明明白白，不能迷信。而在瞭解真相的過程中，爭議是無可避免的。

我相信每一個宗教的經典都需要準備好迎接外來的挑戰。常做預備，是基督教的文化。如果有些宗教領袖不接受內部跟外來的挑戰，豈不成了宗教霸權嗎？就像在中世紀有些科學家說，地球繞太陽轉，而非太陽繞地球行時，當時的宗教領袖說：聖經是神所啟示的，聖經說：“地球永不動搖”（詩篇93；104：5；約書亞記10：13）聖經說一就是一，結果科學家不是被燒死就是被逼收回言論。

還有在20世紀初的和合本聖經，因奴隸制已廢除，所以譯者巧妙地將“奴隸”譯為“僕人”；英文聖經就較忠於原文，直譯“Slaves”。中文和合本的翻譯，讓許多閱讀中文聖經的基督徒產生誤讀，以為這些經文只是在論及老闆與工人的關係，無關奴隸制。從舊約到新約支持奴隸制的經文多的是：出埃及記21：2-6；利未記25：44-46；歌羅西書4：1；3：22；以弗所書6：5；彼得前書2：18-20（這是奴隸主最喜歡引述給奴隸聽的一段經文，不少奴隸主在主日聚會請牧師將這類的經文講給奴隸聽。）教會支持奴隸的原因是，因為聖經支持奴隸制。公元340初期教會的大公會議明言：“任何人如果教導任何奴隸不尊重和不侍奉主人，這是可咒詛的。！”這句話被教會不斷引用長達1400年。直至1890年，李奧八世才正式譴責奴隸制。這些都是我們的歷史，我希望教會不要忘記，且能引以為鑒，不要重蹈覆轍。

某些宗教的經典有更多類似的例子，但卻完全不容討論。至少我還可以在這裡討論基督教，說明了基督教的開明。即使聖經是“人為”的，那又如何呢？基督徒的信仰並不只是建立在聖經上，而是從生活中經歷上帝的愛。有些基督徒不是很懂聖經，有者甚至連字都不會看，但是他們有很好的見證。我認為《製造耶穌》這本書，並不會打敗教會，而是通過思辨過程，讓信徒更瞭解自己的信仰，也讓教會更為堅強。

Political Activism and Christianity

by Regina Lim, 14 April 2011

What’s in the name of being a Christian?  Why do people become Christians or in other words a believer of a particular faith?  A person is born into existence without prior idea or values attached to his or her mind, and life becomes a journey of learning how to relate to others and ideas held by society at large. However some of the norms and values of a society can be oppressive and these will not change unless the people living within the society challenge them publicly.  In many historical movements we learned about the works of pioneers who became the prime movers of revolution that effected meaningful changes for those who experienced social exclusion because of the mainstream values held by the society at large.  Slavery has existed as long as the human civilization but the systematic trading and the institutionalization of unequal bondage came about at the height of European colonialism.  This was by far the most tragic history of human exploitation that was systematically carried out at a massive scale, implicating several generations of discrimination upon the victims throughout the colonies.  It took many years and the courage of the few to challenge such exploitative the socio-economic practices and to instigate mental revolution against the injustices of slave trading.  William Wilberforce was a very prominent figure who fought against the injustices of the slave trade in the late 17^th century in Britain.  His courage to stand up for the victims of slave trade and actively campaigned for the abolition of slave trading was an inspiring truth about how faith played an important role in challenging oppressive norms and motivated a man to strive for justice for all.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade.  He began his political career in 1780 and became the independent MP for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton.   Wilberforce was persuaded to take on the cause of abolition, and soon became one of the leading English abolitionists.   He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the SlaveTrade Act 1807.  Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education and campaigned for the complete abolition of slavery. That campaign led to the Slavery AbolitionAct 1833 which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire.

The question remains, what does it mean to be a Christian? Is it about the personal consumption of religious scriptures and to accumulate the divine experience for oneself in this lifeworld? And to what purpose can such consumption of spiritualism entail if these religious knowledge are kept within the mental compartment of one’s life?  If we share these, in what form should we communicate? Do we spread the Gospel in the summary of good and evil, or can we make the Gospel a tool of interpretation, to make us more aware of the injustices around us?  Should faith play a role in motivating us to champion the cause of justice and equality to address the plight of those who are discriminated and oppressed?