BN church grants: Receiver is slave to the giver
The issue of the RM1.75 million grants to four Methodist Churches in Sibu during the recent Sibu by-election has resulted in much discussion among both Christians and non-Christians. Methodist Church executive council Bishop Rev Hwa Yung has admitted that they were now caught in a dilemma.
What shall they do with the money then? To take the money, the Church is seen as accepting bribes. To return it, the Church is seen as taking sides with the opposition. There were members in the four Churches who made complaints that they were not consulted when the leadership made the decision of taking the money.
It is true that the grants were from the taxpayers' money. It is also true that this was not the first time the government has given such grants. And it is also true that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities.
However, regarding to 'the government is trying to right a past wrong', I beg to differ from this thought. Firstly, the government was very hasty in making the move and it was a last minute one to beat the deadline of the by-election campaign.
Secondly, why was there no Church being selected in the Hulu Selangor by-election which took place two weeks before the Sibu one? The answer is not hard to perceive. Because more than 50% of the voters there in Sibu were Christians. And added to that, news revealed that most of them were standing on the side of DAP, the rival.
There is nothing wrong to ponder for a while, 'What if there was no by-election in Sibu, would the grant be also offered?”
The four Churches did put up an advertisement for acknowledging that the grants were taken. The leadership felt justified claiming that Christians should always be grateful for goodness received. By doing so, the Church should not claim that they are non-partisan.
In future, will the Church advertise again when a rich member gives a big offering to the Church? Did not the leadership know that the advertisement would have some impact on the Christians in their choice of support? By doing so, the Church leadership cannot claim that the grants were unconditional. Now only the Holy Spirit can check the motive behind the move.
This is a proof that why is it so important that the Church does not fall for the vote-buying election campaign tactic. The receiver is slave to the giver.
I think the four Methodist churches should make the time for to their members for a dialogue. The leadership should listen to their opinions. An unwise move will cause a split among the flock.
What has transpired to the four churches should not be seen as an isolated case. We should see the larger picture that it is affecting the Christian community in the country as a whole. The brethren in Sibu are not alone.
RM1.75 million was a lot of money. I am sure that not many churches have ever received such a lump sum in one go. I do not dare judge that the taking of the grants was a result of greed. But I would visualise that if out of the blue, such a lump sum was granted, the matter of 'right and wrong' would slip from one's mind unawares.
Excitement would overshadow conscience. And lo and behold, indeed the excitement was only short-lived when rumors and criticism flew all over the air. Suddenly the recipients realised that they were caught in a dilemma.
Over the past 47 years (for East Malaysia) or 53 years (for West Malaysia), vote-buying have been the practice by the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN). BN has been abusing the treasury's funds for its political campaign.
If the Christians agree that this practice is an unfair electoral game, will we still condone sucha malpractice? Instead of putting in an effort to correct the wrong, we participated in the wrong.
Discouraging the Church from participating in malpractices does not mean rejecting the kindness of the government. We need to convey to the government a message. We tell them Malaysia needs to move on to greater maturity. If we aspire to squeeze into the row of advanced nations in the year 2020, then we must first start off with a fair and transparent electoral system.
Asking the Church to reject 'grants during election periods only' is a move to put this kind of abuse to an end. If there are more and more people say 'no' to it, we will see a better Malaysia soon.
Lastly, as regard to the Metro Tabernacle Church which received RM500,000 in contribution after the church suffered arson, the incident was an entirely a different matter. That church should be happy to take the money.
In that case, a mishap suddenly took place, and the government was genuine enough to chip in with the money to help cover the loss. Thank you, Mr Najib Razak, our prime minister for that.
What shall they do with the money then? To take the money, the Church is seen as accepting bribes. To return it, the Church is seen as taking sides with the opposition. There were members in the four Churches who made complaints that they were not consulted when the leadership made the decision of taking the money.
It is true that the grants were from the taxpayers' money. It is also true that this was not the first time the government has given such grants. And it is also true that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities.
However, regarding to 'the government is trying to right a past wrong', I beg to differ from this thought. Firstly, the government was very hasty in making the move and it was a last minute one to beat the deadline of the by-election campaign.
Secondly, why was there no Church being selected in the Hulu Selangor by-election which took place two weeks before the Sibu one? The answer is not hard to perceive. Because more than 50% of the voters there in Sibu were Christians. And added to that, news revealed that most of them were standing on the side of DAP, the rival.
There is nothing wrong to ponder for a while, 'What if there was no by-election in Sibu, would the grant be also offered?”
The four Churches did put up an advertisement for acknowledging that the grants were taken. The leadership felt justified claiming that Christians should always be grateful for goodness received. By doing so, the Church should not claim that they are non-partisan.
In future, will the Church advertise again when a rich member gives a big offering to the Church? Did not the leadership know that the advertisement would have some impact on the Christians in their choice of support? By doing so, the Church leadership cannot claim that the grants were unconditional. Now only the Holy Spirit can check the motive behind the move.
This is a proof that why is it so important that the Church does not fall for the vote-buying election campaign tactic. The receiver is slave to the giver.
I think the four Methodist churches should make the time for to their members for a dialogue. The leadership should listen to their opinions. An unwise move will cause a split among the flock.
What has transpired to the four churches should not be seen as an isolated case. We should see the larger picture that it is affecting the Christian community in the country as a whole. The brethren in Sibu are not alone.
RM1.75 million was a lot of money. I am sure that not many churches have ever received such a lump sum in one go. I do not dare judge that the taking of the grants was a result of greed. But I would visualise that if out of the blue, such a lump sum was granted, the matter of 'right and wrong' would slip from one's mind unawares.
Excitement would overshadow conscience. And lo and behold, indeed the excitement was only short-lived when rumors and criticism flew all over the air. Suddenly the recipients realised that they were caught in a dilemma.
Over the past 47 years (for East Malaysia) or 53 years (for West Malaysia), vote-buying have been the practice by the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN). BN has been abusing the treasury's funds for its political campaign.
If the Christians agree that this practice is an unfair electoral game, will we still condone sucha malpractice? Instead of putting in an effort to correct the wrong, we participated in the wrong.
Discouraging the Church from participating in malpractices does not mean rejecting the kindness of the government. We need to convey to the government a message. We tell them Malaysia needs to move on to greater maturity. If we aspire to squeeze into the row of advanced nations in the year 2020, then we must first start off with a fair and transparent electoral system.
Asking the Church to reject 'grants during election periods only' is a move to put this kind of abuse to an end. If there are more and more people say 'no' to it, we will see a better Malaysia soon.
Lastly, as regard to the Metro Tabernacle Church which received RM500,000 in contribution after the church suffered arson, the incident was an entirely a different matter. That church should be happy to take the money.
In that case, a mishap suddenly took place, and the government was genuine enough to chip in with the money to help cover the loss. Thank you, Mr Najib Razak, our prime minister for that.
Comments