Category Archives: Uncategorized

When the constitution is not followed …

Uncategorized, ,

A motion to challenge former prime minister Najib Razak’s pardon has been filed to be raised at the Malaysian Bar’s annual general assembly tomorrow.

The motion has been filed by former Malaysian Bar president Zainur Zakaria. It states that the “incoming Bar Council, on behalf and in the name of the Malaysian Bar, challenges the legality of the said decision by the Pardons Board, by urgently instituting judicial review proceedings against the Pardons Board and Najib” (Malaysiakini, March 15).

It also stated that the Pardons Board is viewed as “acting ultra vires of Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and in contravention of the law, in reducing Najib’s jail sentence to half and his fine to RM50 million” as quoted in the same Malaysiakini report.

If the Pardons Board’s pardon of Najib is unconstitutional, it is only right that it is challenged in court and what is constitutional is clearly defined by the court and must be adhered to. The question, however, is whether the Pardon’s Board will abide by the court decision.

Already, we have a situation where a state government has defied a Federal Court decision and nothing is being done about it.

A challenge, similar to Zainur’s motion, was mounted against the PAS-led Kelantan government’s 18 syariah criminal code provisions. The Federal Court nullified 16 but early this month, the Kelantan state legislative assembly passed a motion to re-enact the 16 provisions in a clear defiance of the Federal Court decision.

This is a very serious contravention of the constitution but why is the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim keeping quiet about it? Isn’t it the responsibility of the federal government to make the state government conform to the laws of the land?

If the Kelantan state government is allowed to get away without complying with a Federal Court decision, what is the message that is communicated to the people? That the federal government is powerless to enforce the law of the land?

If the federal government decides to use force to make the Kelantan state government conform to the federal constitution, it would be seen as an abuse of power and make the unity government even more unpopular.

Besides, the Kelantan state government may dig in its heels and turn around and tell the unity government that it has no moral grounds to discipline the state when the constitutionality of the federal government itself is questionable.

As a response to Kelantan’s recent move, one voice expressed its concern. The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Taoism (MCCBCHST) yesterday called on the Attorney-General (AG) to intervene in the Kelantan case and act to uphold constitutional democracy.

Can and will the AG act without the backing of the government?

The people are witnessing what will happen when governments fail to act according to the constitution. This is just the beginning. If this trend of allowing political and religious expediency to trump the federal constitution continues it may lead to the eventual slide in the enforcement of law and order.

No one must be silent on this fundamental basis for law and order — complying with the federal constitution. Like MCCBCHST, people must speak up and demand that their MPs conform with the federal constitution. If MPs and government leaders do not, they must know that their parliamentary and state seats are not assured.

MPs and and political leaders must understand that they will first be held only to the federal constitution. If they fail to comply with the federal constitution, nothing else justifies.

When in doubt, follow democratic principles

Uncategorized

From the way our MPs conduct themselves in the Dewan Rakyat and as public servants, it is clear they have limited understanding of the federal constitution and parliamentary democracy, which is the form of government we practise.

The problem arises in the interpretations and especially when the federal constitution does not spell out the procedures or processes to achieve a democratic outcome.

In such cases, common sense should dictate that the best guide to making decisions is to fall back on the democratic principles on which our parliamentary democracy is formed.

If the MPs had followed the principles of democracy would we have had three unconstitutional governments? Would the current appointed prime minister Anwar Ibrahim have called for a confidence vote by tying the hands of the MPs through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)?

In a more recent case, would the incumbent prime minister have failed to attend the opening of the debate on the royal address at the Dewan Rakyat to move the motion of thanks to the king in which he also wanted to thank the previous king? Would he have requested for a change in the timing of delivering the motion of thanks from the Speaker, Johari Abdul?

Would the Speaker have complied and changed the order of the conventional practice to accommodate the prime minister’s request?

If the Speaker understood democratic principles, would he also have accommodated Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s motion — on behalf of the government — to suspend Bersatu’s Tasek Gelugor MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan from the Dewan Rakyat for six months for alluding to Anwar as being corrupt when Wan Saiful had already retracted his statement earlier at the request of the Speaker?

These questions are asked because there are doubts in the minds of the people as to whether the MPs are conducting themselves in some key areas according to the authority bestowed on them by the federal constitution to carry out their duties, and according to democratic principles to ensure the independence of the institutions they represent and respect the separation of powers.

So far, there are no attempts by the MPs to right the wrongs and until they do, the people can expect such lapses to continue to occur. These will become the norm.

There is no point in bringing such lapses to light again as there is no demonstrable will to act in accordance with the federal constitution and democratic principles. Until such a will emerges, there will be silence and the burden of suffering in silence will fall on the people while the leaders do as they please and get away with it.

The courts the next option?

Uncategorized, ,

Islamic party PAS’ reaction to the Federal Court’s decision to invalidate 16 of the 18 laws the party introduced in Kelantan to make its laws more Islamic is understandable. The optics of that decision is unfavourable to PAS.

It would seem as if PAS’s religious laws can be overturned by the apex court of the land, the Federal Court. That would make the religious party’s religious stand look powerless. That’s the optics; it’s not the truth.

The truth is that the Federal Court did not touch on any religious issue. It merely upheld what the federal constitution required: that state laws must not contravene federal laws. In Kelantan’s case, the 16 invalidated laws were already covered by federal laws and there was no need for similar laws with different sentences at the state level.

In PAS’ zealousness, it overlooked federal laws. Two Kelantan-born lawyers who saw the discrepancy took the issue to court and the said laws were overturned. A precedent has been set and concerned citizens in other states can also take state laws to court to get judicial clarification.

This case shows that when the people’s representatives act or fail to act in accordance with the constitution, they can be taken to court.

This has happened before when lawyers sought clarification in courts as to whether the previous king acted constitutionally when appointing the three prime ministers, namely Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob and Anwar Ibrahim, to form their respective governments.

Those cases were thrown out because the courts declared that the courts had no jurisdiction over the king. The lawyers made the mistake of seeking clarification on whether the king acted constitutionally when they should have queried whether the MPs acted constitutionally.

If the MPs and the political parties acted in accordance with the constitution, the king will have no choice but to act constitutionally. If they didn’t is there any point in scrutinizing if the king did while the MPs get off scot-free?

It is not the king who forms the government, the MPs do. So, whatever constitutional clarifications are sought by the plaintiffs, the defendants need to be the MPs, the political parties and the governments they formed — not the king.

The question that should be put before the courts for clarification is whether the MPs and political parties formed the current unity government (no point in questioning the previous two administrations as they no longer exist) in accordance with the federal constitution.

Such clarifications are needful to clear whatever doubts the people may have about the constitutional legitimacy of the current administration.

After the Federal Court judgements on Kelantan’s state Islamic laws, surely, the thought of seeking court clarifications on the constitutional position of the unity government must have crossed the minds of a number of people, perhaps, even the Opposition coalition, Perikatan Nasional (PN).

Article 43(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution states: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as prime minister to preside over the Cabinet, a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

Should PN or anyone else take this issue to court, the primary objective must be to ascertain if after the 2022 General Election, the prime minister-designate Anwar showed proof of support from the majority of MPs in the Dewan Rakyat to the king for him to be named as prime minister, and, subsequently, whether he and the political parties which joined him formed the unity government according to the federal constitution.

PN is considering legal means to annul the membership of six of its members who had declared support for Anwar in order to receive constituency development funding. They declared support for Anwar but chose to remain as Bersatu members to get around the Anti-hopping law. If Bersatu can legally annul their membership, the MPs will have to vacate their seats and by-elections will be called unless the six MPs take the matter to court.

Since PN is considering legal means to stop its MPs from declaring support for Anwar, it would not be surprising if the coalition has also considered taking legal action against the unity government to prove its constitutional legitimacy.

If it did and follows through, PN would be demonstrating exemplary leadership in ensuring conformity with the federal constitution. If MPs and their political parties had failed to act constitutionally in forming the unity government, then this government can not continue and why are the MPs keeping quiet about it?

If the government will not take pains to ensure constitutional fidelity, it is the responsibility of the Opposition — which is PN in this case — to take drastic steps if needed — like taking the government MPs and political parties to court — to restore a constitutional government.

Anwar claims he has majority support because of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) he signed with the political parties which joined him to form the unity government. The MoU demands that the parties ensure that their MPs do not vote against him. With that he did face a confidence vote but it was a farce because the MPs could not vote freely because of the MoU.

So, the MoU is another issue that may need the courts’ clarification as to whether it deprived the MPs of their constitutional rights. One of the architects of the Anti-hopping law, former Senate President Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, has said that political parties can take action under the Anti-hopping law against members who switch sides.

The laws need to be studied to see if there are grounds to challenge the MoU and likewise the legitimacy of the current administration.

PN is in the best position to undertake this grave responsibility to ensure that MPs act constitutionally. If it does, it will be showing it has the courage and will to serve the people according to the federal constitution and will earn the trust and respect of the people to govern with an unflinching commitment to the federal constitution. It would be a desirable next government.

Seeking a court clarification on whether this government was formed constitutionally will also serve notice to MPs that if they do not act according to the constitution, they can be taken to court.

The people have a right to know if the government of the day is constitutional and therefore legitimate. If the government will not prove it, then, it is the duty of the Opposition to prove it is or not. Failing to do so by government or Opposition MPs is simply a dereliction of duty.

Gong Xi Fa Cai!

Uncategorized,

Folks, don’t let the political climate spoil this Chinese New Year weekend! A lot of things have happened that we are unhappy about. Umno — though a small party rejected by the majority of its voter base — getting unjustifiable help from the government to return to power as evidenced by the “partial pardon” — which benefits no one — given to former prime minister Najib Razak is one of them.

It is the latest of all the other bad news we have been getting in these past four years. But, I’m told that the Year of the Wood Dragon 2024 is supposed to be a good one. The wood element associated with this dragon is expected to add creativity, flexibility and growth to the year.

I’m not into astrology but am always open to positive suggestions that could improve a situation or solve a problem. The notion of creativity that comes with this year of the dragon is, I believe, excellent food for thought.

Even at a personal level, creativity helps us solve problems without compromising our belief systems. Otherwise, we make things worse by justifying bad ways of solving problems by saying “no choice”!

At the political level, I’m hoping that our leaders and MPs learn from the mistakes made and find creative ways of solving national and political issues without compromising the federal constitution.

Finding creative solutions without going against the constitution is a characteristic we do not see in our leaders and MPs. Instead we see this chaotic, ad hoc and panic-prone way of doing things expediently rather than constitutionally which results in more problems than solutions.

So, I’m looking forward to a year of creative solutions!

The Chinese New Year reunion dinner must be over because I can hear as I write fire crackers going off sporadically in the night! No sound of the colourful burst of fireworks, yet. Late last night, a neighbour set off a lovely display of fireworks which I witnessed gleefully through my window!

Close to midnight, I intend to stay by my window and watch the night ignite into a myriad configurations of lights as fire crackers explode continuously all around.

I know I will wish that the exploding crackers would mute — just a little! But then, I know, I would ask, “Hey, what happened to the Chinese?! Why aren’t they frightening the ghosts off before the new year this year?!” I’ll miss the noisy welcome of the Chinese new year!

So, fire away, folks and light up the sky! Gong Xi Fa Cai, all!

Time for PN MPs to get serious

Uncategorized, ,

The Pardons Board’s decisions to commute former prime minister Najib Razak’s jail term from 12 years to six and his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million must be debated in the Dewan Rakyat.

While the people are glad that Najib didn’t get a pardon, Opposition MPs must question Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for the reason or reasons for bringing this case before the Pardons Board when Najib had completed only a year of his jail term. Shouldn’t the government have waited for a few more years or followed the convention of letting the felon serve at least one third of his/her jail term before applying for a pardon?

Conventions are useful to facilitate the smooth execution of justice when the law doesn’t spell it out. Why was it abandoned in this case?

A one-year fulfilment of a jail term may be too soon for a review for a pardon but a few years of serving a jail term would satisfy the need for retribution before consideration for a pardon. Such conventions should be followed and entrenched and not dismissed for the sake of political expediency unless for exceptional urgent national interests which the Najib case isn’t!

For the billions of Malaysian ringgit that Najib was supposed to be involved in, a RM210 million fine is a paltry sum. What was the point of making it easier for him to pay his fine by reducing it by nearly 75% when the Anwar government is on a witch-hunt to target very rich businessmen/women in order — it is alleged — to return “the billions they stole from the government”?

The motive behind the board’s move isn’t clear and in the absence of clarity appears unnecessary. There’s no pardon and Najib will only be released in 2028, so what was the purpose of the board’s decision now. What prompted it?

The people have a right to know why Najib’s application for a pardon was forwarded now and the only people who can expose this seeming farce are the MPs, particularly Perikatan Nasional (PN) MPs.

Not only must PN MPs raise this issue in the Dewan Rakyat, but they must raise all other issues to expose the unity government’s motives and especially to ascertain if these motives are aimed at upholding the federal constitution or compromising it.

Right now PN MPs stick to bread and butter issues in Parliament. They must now advance to constitutional issues to ensure that the government is adhering to the democratic principles on which our parliamentary system of government is formed.

This is the only way the people will know whether Anwar’s unity government is legitimate or not or corruption-free. And it will be through this way that PN will gain more support from the people.

Whether it involves the MACC, the Pardons Board, the Attorney-General or constitutional monarchy, PN MPs must lead the debates to expose the government’s hidden or private agendas.

PN MPs can no longer sit back passively and wait for the chance to speak up or act. They are fully aware what the unity government is up to and they can’t be silent anymore. They must reveal what this government is not saying or doing.

When they raise these issues in the Dewan Rakyat and generate enough discussion on them, it may encourage the disgruntled government MPs to do the same to show their supporters that they are on the side of the people.

This can only work to PN’s advantage. It is time for PN to stop sitting around and waiting for things to happen and, instead, go on the offensive. This unity government provides sufficient ammunition to backfire on them.

The solution? A confidence vote without the MoU

Uncategorized,

It should surprise no one that the unity government from day one has been faced with the threat of its removal. In fact, it should be welcomed for the simple reason that it is an unconstitutional government because its appointed prime minister has yet to prove he has the support of the majority of the MPs in the Dewan Rakyat as required by the federal constitution.

The MPs know it — except for the constitutionally ignorant ones — and so do all the discerning voters that Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim does not have majority support. Perhaps, he knows it, too, and he may have realised that he had made a mistake when he called for a confidence vote after he made all the political parties involved sign a Memorandum of Understanding that they won’t vote against him as prime minister.

Anwar won that vote with a two-thirds majority because all the MPs whose parties were bound by the MoU had no choice but to vote according to the party. Not allowed to vote freely according to the interests of the voters, because of the MoU, how can that confidence vote legitimise his unity government?

That is the crux of the problem. The point is this issue can be easily resolved. Quash the MoU and call for a confidence vote. That is the constitutional way of legitimising a government when no side has a majority — not the way Anwar went about forming the unity government.

If, indeed, it was a mistake, it can be rectified, as said earlier, without an MoU, and if Anwar himself calls for a motion for a confidence vote.

As it is, under Anwar, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has called previous premiers for questioning on corruption issues. It has also called former finance minister Daim Zainuddin who held office about 40 years ago for questioning also on suspicion of corruption based on the Pandora Papers.

These are serious allegations levelled at these former high-ranking officials. But with what authority is Anwar allowing these investigations when he does not have the mandate of the majority to do so? This can be considered as abuse of power of the highest order because he is acting without majority support and therefore imposing his will on the majority. That is not democratic but dictatorial.

The issue is not whether there was corruption in the dealings of these former public servants but whether Anwar has the right to be PM without majority support and to undertake such actions without the mandate of the people.

He can not hide behind the king for appointing him nor on the MoU for continuing in government as usual. Without a proven majority, he can not claim that he is leading a constitutional government.

The only solution now — even if it is more than one year too late — is to prove the validity of his government. If Anwar has reason to believe he does not have the support of the majority of the MPs — not political parties as it is the MP’s vote that constitutes support not the parties’ word or signing of an MoU — he should call for a confidence vote.

It is not fair of him to ask the Opposition to prove his validity when he knows their motion for a no-confidence vote may be rejected by the Speaker or relegated to the bottom of the businesses of the day and never see the light of day. In addition, because of the MoU, the Opposition knows they may not get the support of the MPs even of those who want a change of government.

Anwar knows all this. So, asking the Opposition to prove his validity is just a ploy because he knows they won’t win.

Anwar needs to show that he is serious about proving that he has the majority support of the Dewan Rakyat. He should prove it without an MoU. He himself has said that the Opposition doesn’t have the support to call for a no-confidence motion. So, he has nothing to fear.

By calling for a confidence vote, the prime minister will settle the issue of the validity of the unity government once and for all. Whether he wins or the Opposition wins, overnight there will be stability because a constitutional government would be formed. All these unceasing moves to topple the government will immediately stop.

If at all such a move is resorted to in the future it will be for very good reasons that MPs or a political party withdraws support. In the immediate future, however, there would be stability and a government will run unobstructed.

I may be sounding like a broken record. But the legitimacy of a government is found in its adherence to the federal constitution in our form of government. A precedent has been set when the process of forming a government when no party or coalition has a majority has been compromised. If it is not corrected now, unscrupulous leaders will use the precedent to justify establishing themselves as a PM and form an unconstitutional government which will be tolerated.

This can not and must not happen again. By paving the way for a confidence vote Anwar will be setting the example of how to prove the validity of a government. A law or an amendment in standing orders to allow for MPs to move a motion for a confidence/no-confidence vote to prove the legitimacy of a government can come later.

For now, Anwar can restore political stability by simply calling for a confidence vote without the MoU. And it should be conducted by ballot not a voice vote so that a majority even by one vote is recorded.

Kit Siang’s non-Malay PM hullabaloo

Uncategorized, ,

What really is the reason for the contention over DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang’s statement to a gathering of Malaysian students in London last November that a non-Malay could become a prime minister of Malaysia?

Why did that statement that is correct and which is stated in the Federal Constitution raise such a cloud of protests from the Opposition which represents the majority in the country by virtue of being the majority race, namely the Malays?

Article 43(2)(a) states: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri
(Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

This law does not state the race of the PM, so Yang Berhormat (YB) Lim was correct in saying that a non-Malay could become a PM; he wasn’t being seditious. So, why did it trigger such adverse reactions that a member of the public lodged a police report prompting the police to call him up for questioning?

Perhaps, it was because of an oversight on his part that he did not clarify the second part of the law which states the condition on which a non-Malay can become a PM. A non-Malay can become a PM if he commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament in the Dewan Rakyat. The majority of MPs represent the Malay majority and if a non-Malay can command their support, he/she can become PM.

The current reality, however, is that it is an unlikelihood that the majority of MPs representing the Malays would give their support to a non-Malay PM. That might happen in the future but now, unlikely.

The point to note is that an MP becoming a PM is conditional to him/her winning the support of the majority of MPs the majority of whom represent the Malay majority. In other words, no one — Malay or non-Malay can ever become a PM in Malaysia without Malay support. It must also be noted here that the majority support must come from the “members of the House” — the MPs — not political parties.

YP Lim did explain that the possibility of a non-Malay PM isn’t a current reality. Yet, it didn’t pacify his critics, mainly because he had written in his blog that “The Malaysian constitution provides for a Malaysian Dream and not a mono-ethnic dream as it provides that a non-Malay can (also) be a prime minister”.

The obvious question is: How can the Malaysian Dream NOT be a mono-ethnic dream when the majority of the MPs represent a mono-ethnic community?

Perhaps, YB Lim, looking through his ethnic lens, overlooked this reality and failed to communicate that in the Malaysian Dream the mono-ethnic dream is central or integral and will not be swamped by other dreams. This is the fear that his statement triggered and which resulted in such a chorus of negative reactions to his definition of the Malaysian Dream which excludes the mono-ethnic reality.

If he had conceded that in the Malaysian Dream other dreams would co-exist and thrive with the mono-ethnic dream, it would have made his stand less threatening. It would have shown his commitment to a Malaysian multi-culturalism that builds on the mono-ethnic dream and is inclusive of other dreams but does not attempt to overtake or set aside the mono-ethnic dream.

To a people who are still smarting from being forced out of a government — although they are the majority — through unconstitutional moves supported by the DAP, describing a Malaysian Dream which dismisses the mono-ethnic dream, comes across as a biased interpretation of the constitution to favour multi-ethnic dreams at the exclusion of the mono-ethnic dream.

In the context of the most recent experience of forming the unity government where an MP with minority support was appointed as PM — fully supported by the DAP — YB Lim’s statement conjures the possibility that a minority-supported MP could in the same way become PM by sidelining the majority representation of the Malays.

To a veteran politician such as YB Lim and doyen of Opposition MPs, it should come as no surprise that his statement of a non-Malay PM stirred up such stinging criticisms. No doubt, his statement shows his desire for a more inclusive Malaysia — and that is commendable! — but it also reveals an unconscious and unintentional, perhaps, lack of sensitivity to the Malays and their aspirations.

How then can the DAP, in the spirit of its Malaysian dream, claim it also represents the majority race which, in recent events, it failed to include? If it excluded majority representation when it was convenient for it to join the unity government, what guarantee is there that it would not also exclude other minority representations when it suits them?

Happy New Year, folks!

Uncategorized, ,

The past year politically and nationally has been a major disappointment. That sentiment is expected to be carried on into the new year. In fact, I predict it is going to be a very difficult year for parliamentary democracy in Malaysia.

It is the Members of Parliament who are the guardians of parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy-parliamentary democracy form of government which is our form of government. It is the MPs who shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that parliamentary democracy is upheld and practised without compromise in the country as it is parliamentary democracy which protects the rights of the people to self-govern.

The challenge will be to see if our MPs will fight for the people when parliamentary democracy is threatened in any way.

It would be interesting to see if and when our MPs would even be able to receognize when there is a threat to parliamentary democracy! Since the Sheraton moves in 2020, the people have not seen the ability of MPs to discern when there is such a threat and to act to avert it.

It was hoped that the 2022 general election would have changed that reality but that never materialised.

It is very unlikely that we will see our MPs act differently in 2024! If they do, it would be a miracle!

But then, I am a believer of miracles. So, let’s see what happens and whether our MPs will fight on our behalf or acquiesce to expediency or the forces the unity government is beholden to!

Politics and national issues aside, personally, I’m sure all of us have our own resolutions. My 2024 wish is for all our wishes to come true!

Happy New Year, all!

Merry Christmas!

Uncategorized

Imbued with the Christmas spirit — something that takes over me every December! — I have — without thinking — been greeting everyone this past week with a merry Merry Christmas! Those who visited me, met along the way, the baker, the shop attendants, the cashiers, the couriers who dropped off parcels at my door were all met with a cheerful Merry Christmas!

And, I was pleasantly surprised by their reaction. All — without exception — reciprocated with a smile and a nod in acknowledgement. Even the dour-faced among them dropped the gloom, their faces lit up!

Most of them don’t celebrate Christmas but they knew what the politicians and religious leaders apparently don’t know: that I wasn’t trying to convert them; simply including them in the merriment of the season. I doubt that their faith was diminished even a tiny bit by my Merry Christmas! They just enjoyed being included in the celebrating community.

You see, Christmas is inclusive; it isn’t exclusive only to Christians. Anyone can celebrate Christmas anyway they like. They don’t have to celebrate Christmas the way Christians do but there is no rule on Earth that says they can’t join in the celebrations unless some politician or religious leader somewhere comes up with an edict that they can’t, in which case the individual has to decide whether to follow the edict or not.

In Malaysia, however, celebrating Christmas should not be an issue. In Sabah and Sarawak, Christians form the majority and they celebrate Christmas without restrictions. The rest of us in Malaysia should get used to the fact.

So, folks, enjoy the season and extend the Merry Christmas greeting! But, let’s be sensitive too. If we know some people don’t want to receive a Merry Christmas greeting, let’s not express it to them. Some of us, for whatever reason, may not be celebrating Christmas, let’s stand with them, sharing whatever we can with them or mute our festivities according to our conscience. We will respect that, too.

We understand pain, trauma and tragedy. At Christmas, we sing about that, too. It’s what we call the broken Hallelujah! In spite of the suffering, we receive the hope the season offers.

So, folks, wishing you a happy Christmas week! Merry Christmas, all!

Why we sing ‘Peace on Earth’ …

Uncategorized,

Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men is one of the many refrains we hear in the Christmas season in December. Together with wreaths, glittering festoons, and the tinsel, ribbons, baubles and lights of Christmas trees, they create the merry ambiance in which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, Immanuel — God with us.

The Christmas decor is, of course, not what Christmas is all about. It simply creates the mood to celebrate what Christians through the centuries have known in our hearts with or without the decor — the hope that Jesus Christ, who we believe in, represents, and the result of which we experience firsthand that God, indeed, is in our midst. And that we celebrate unapologetically.

However, that does not mean that we close our eyes to the pain and suffering around us or turn a deaf ear to the cries of loss, despair and destruction that reach out to us. This, precisely, is why we celebrate. We are so fully aware of human reality and how unbearable it can be that we celebrate to send the message, all is not lost.

There is always hope, hope that drives us to push against the darkness of human mortality, of trauma and tragedy, and find a way out to escape or transcend it.

Some people, especially those who have been greatly moved by the suffering of the Palestinians in the on-going Israeli-Hamas conflict, have said that Christians should mute our celebrations of Christmas in solidarity with the Palestinians. While we are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians and to their supporters, we have to say to these critics that they have missed the point of Christmas entirely.

We celebrate not to gloat over the misfortune of others; we ourselves have suffered and know what it is like. We celebrate and invite them to join in our festivities to find a little respite, a little taste of joy, love, and acceptance, a little forgetfulness, and a little insight of hope to get going again.

Christmas is meant to refresh and help us find the hope to live despite the pain of human reality. So, not just in Palestine but everywhere in the world where Christians celebrate Christmas grandly, normally or simply, my hope and prayer is that those who are struggling with life will find a little relief in the decor, the spirit, the festivities, the warm homes and the songs of Christmas.

This is the season to hope for better things. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men and women …..