Engaging Campus Politics as a Christian Fellowship in University Malaya

Introduction  

            This paper is an indirect result of 3lang[1], the blog title of a loose group of independent Christian undergraduates who initiated this mission, in their own capacity, in University Malaya: “We are committed to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before God in our campus. Therefore, we will open our mouths for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute, and will judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. Only then, our campus can be cemerlang, gemilang and terbilang.”

            3lang’s focus on campus elections has given rise to many questions, struggles, and issues – apropos the place and role of individual Christians like us participating in campus politics and also the collective position of the Christian Fellowship in engaging the political arena at the university level. Thus, this is an infant attempt to sort out some of these issues systematically in the hope that by doing so, many who care to refine and critique this raw piece of work will find it a helpful punching bag in generating better models for Christian political engagement in campus.

Historical Development of University Malaya’s Political Scene

            Campus politics have to be understood against the wider backdrop of national political trends and development in Malaysia. One of the key persons who has played a vital role in shaping the political landscape of Malaysia and subsequently our universities is Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar Ibrahim’s involvement in student activism goes back to the late 1960s when he was a student leader in University Malaya. He led the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu and the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar-pelajar Islam in which he gained following from the Malay nationalists.  In the 1970s, he founded the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), a resurgence of young Muslim voice in the country[2]. 

            It was also at this time that the University and University College Act 1971 was first enacted and later enforced on the 30th April 1971 to curb student activism in various local universities in which Anwar Ibrahim played a key role. In fact, Anwar was detained under the ISA during this time due to his protest over certain goverment policies.

            Anwar’s close links with students were carried into his later political career, even up to the point when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. As one who has tasted and experienced the importance of student-support and academic backing, Anwar has continued to nurture support from the academia and students in his days leading to the country’s Premiership[3].         

            One of the landmark events in Malaysia’s political history is the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim as the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister on the 2nd September 1998 and as UMNO member on the 3rd September 1998 by his mentor, Mahathir, the then Prime Minister of Malaysia. Mahathir who was at the brink of handing over the Premiership to Anwar must have been somewhat forced to resort to this political assasination without fully foreseeing the consequences of this move.

            Not surprisingly, the political reprisal was unprecedented and alarming, at least to Mahathir. Anwar’s previous efforts in local universities began to bear fruit when students took a major role in organizing and participating in demonstrations against Mahathir’s apparent immoral and un-Islamic move against Anwar.

            The evidence of public disapproval of Mahathir, especially from the Malay population, was clearly manifested in the 1999 general election. The Alliance Party won only 148 seats, a drop from 162 while the Opposition (Alternative Front) doubled its size to 45 seats. The Alliance also lost Terengganu to PAS, only managed to secure one seat in Kelantan and allowed the Opposition to make inroads to Malay populated areas such as northern Perak and Kedah, ironically Mahathir’s own state.

            Mahathir must have already felt uncomfortable with the rise of student-support for Anwar and those sympathetic to him. Even during the 1999 general elections, new rules have been implemented to prevent the younger generation to vote. The resolve to remove this threat must have grown after the general elections.

            In 2001, the second round of crackdown was targeted at student leaders sympathetic to Anwar Ibrahim. In the month of July 2001, MPMUM president Mohamad Fuad Mohamad and another student leader from Mara Vocational Institute, Khairul Anwar were detained under the ISA with more arrest on students following that. Another student, Rapzan Ramli was expelled from the university under the UUCA after his release from custody for participating in anti-ISA demonstrations.

            On the 29th June 2001, Dewan Tunku Canselor (DTC) was razed by a fire and provided the government with a justification for continued crackdown on extremism among students and political foes. Around this time also, the pledge of loyalty or better known as the akujanji was introduced. This was seen as a political tool of those in power to stifle academic freedom, student activisim and political opposition. Mahathir himself signed the akujanji on the 6th March 2002.                 

The New Mandate and Campus Politics

            The retirement of Mahathir on the 31st October 2003, after ruling the country for 22 years, posed a tremendous challenge for his successor, Pak Lah to garner the trust and support of the Malaysian public. Pak Lah needed a new mandate not just from his predecessor but also, and especially, from the younger generation of students in the academia.

            The transition of Malaysia’s Premiership coincided with the transition of Vice Chancellor in University Malaya albeit a few months earlier.  Hashim Yaakob was promoted to be the 8th Vice Chancellor of University Malaya on the 1st April 2003. Given his good rapport with students, Hashim Yaakob was appointed to his position in order to secure a new mandate for the new Prime Minister in University Malaya. He was assisted by Razali Agus as TNC HEP who was an ex-Pengetua of 10th Kolej.

            Hence, it was in 2004 that pro-establishment movements won the campus elections in University Malaya after many years of losing to pro-student movements. This victory could also be attributed to the few assistant registrars that the TNC HEP roped into his department, who happened to be former students of University Malaya who were well accustomed with the political scene in campus.

            While Pak Lah’s reform measures of reducing redtape, rooting out corruption and promoting transparency have brought about hope that they will eventually trickle down to the campus level, recent outcomes of the various party elections hinted that change may be slower than expected. New leaders of the various component parties of the Alliance were the endorsement of old leaders who have been staunch supporters of the policies and rules of the Mahathir regime.         

            Given the inter-connectedness of campus politics and national politics, it is reasonable to say that the trends and characteristics of campus politics stemming from this stream of historical development will provide the landscape for our Christian engagement in the next few years or more.

Characteristics and Practice of University Malaya’s Politics

             One of the most important characteristics of University Malaya’s politics is that it has close correlation with the trends and development of Malaysian politics at large. Pro-establishment in campus is aligned with pro-government agenda while pro-student is often linked with pro-opposition factions in the country. The obvious attachment of the color blue to pro-establishment movement and green to pro-student movement brings to mind the colors of the Alliance Party and opposition party PAS. This close correlation has strong implications for other characteristics and practice of politics in campus.    

            Campus political parties run along racial lines, similar to the structure of Malaysian political parties. Pro-establishment movements come under the banner of MGMUM (Majlis Gabungan Mahasiswa University Malaya) which comprises two Malay component parties BKM (Barisan Kepimpinan Mahasiswa), BMB (Barisan Mahasiswa Bersatu), one Indian component party PBT (Persatuan Bahasa Tamil with close collaboration with Persatuan Hindu UM) and one Chinese component party GAM (Gabungan Aspirasi Mahasiswa)[4]. Similarly, pro-student movements unite under the banner of GMUM (Gagasan Mahasiswa University Malaya) which comprises a dominantly Malay Islamic party PMI (Persatuan Mahasiswa Islam) and a Chinese component party UMANY (University Malaya Association of New Youth)[5].

            Religion, more specifically Islam, plays a central role in the substance, tactics and rhetoric of campus politicking. The centrality of religion traces back to the days of Anwar Ibrahim’s Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM) and perhaps is an outgrowth of that era although the complexity of the development is more than the scope discussed here. Pak Lah’s push for a brand of moderate Islam labelled as Islam Hadhari is a clear indication that he recognizes the importance of having a religious foundation in confronting Pas’ brand of Islamic politics. In 2003, Islam Hadhari group was first set-up in University Malaya, which many viewed as an antithesis to the brand of Islam propogated by PMI. The reasoning goes, if Islam Hadhari is moderate, then PMI must be extreme. However, in a surprising turn of event, Islam Hadhari joined forces with pro-student groups in the 2005 campus elections.

               Due to the nature of national political parties intervening in campus politics, it follows that the practice of politics in campus takes place in an unlevelled playing field which lacks ideological commitment. The unlevelled playing field is attributed to the fact that even on a national level, the government has comparatively more resources than the opposition and moreover, the administration and hostels of University Malaya are controlled and funded by the goverment. This has caused both action and reaction from both pro-establishment and pro-student groups which are primarily partisan, not ideological.

            The partisan mentality which is rampant in our campus political culture creates a very suspicious and intimidating enviroment for the practice of campus politics. By suspicious, it means that anyone or any group sympathetic to any one issue propogated by one party is easily seen as supportive of that party and oppose to the other. Neutrality based on values and issues is difficult to implement. The intimidation factor comes into play with the various laws e.g. UUCA in place to curb student activism and regulations imposed on an administrative and hostel level. It must be noted here that the partisan mentality is deep seated in many of the students in that one party sincerely believes that the other party is bad without actually examining and verifying the facts. Another setback to this culture of intimidation is the breeding of a group of apolitical and indifferent undergraduates who will eventually step into the working world, hence the wider political context, not wanting to play an active role in civil discourses.

Challenges of the Christian Fellowship

            After tracing the historical development which leads to the present form of our campus political culture, some challenging questions facing the Christian Fellowship deserve some treatment here. How can the Christian Fellowship whose mission is to “be men and women who lived out God’s truth and be an impact on life” be faithful to its calling given the context of our political culture in such a time as this?

            The first question concerns the Christian duty to submit to authority cf Romans 13:1-7. The University and University College Act 1971 and the akujanji, which are products of the political development in our country, place a lot of limitations on what Christians can or cannot do in campus. What is our appropriate Christian response?

            Secondly, the Christian Fellowship has to work in a conflicting environment of indifference and suspicion. Should the Christian Fellowship encourage political activism in campus and why? Should the Christian Fellowship have political leanings in the face of partisan politics? How can the Christian Fellowship maintain its position in an environment of suspicion?

            Thirdly, what should be the collective and individual role of the Christian Fellowship in engaging campus politics in University Malaya?

            Christians in campus are not immune but are just as vulnerable to this partisan mentality as well. By bringing political differences into the fellowship, will it not jeopardize the internal harmony and unity of the Christian Fellowship? With an already fragmented world and divided society, how can the Christian Fellowship play a part as agent of reconciliation instead of being an agent of strife?

Engaging Campus Politics as a Christian Fellowship in University Malaya[6]

            I will not follow the order laid out in the previous section in addressing the challenges of the Christian Fellowship. Rather, I will present the model of engagement by pointing first and foremost to the character of God before proceeding to understand the other matters in the light of who God is.

            The attribute of God that ought to be highlighted here is His cosmological character ie the Triune God is the Master and Lord over the entire cosmos. When God has put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, He means all things, without a single exception, come under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Without exception then, the arena of campus politics is also subjected to the rule and authority of Jesus Christ, under the sovereignty of the cosmological God. Therefore, Christians ought to be present in living out the reality of the gospel even in this area.

            Just as we understand campus politics as subjected to the sovereign rule of God, so also must we understand that the authority in campus is ultimately placed there by the common grace of God. By authority, I refer to the university administration of all levels  as well as the laws and regulation enforced to govern the organic life in campus. Where there is no sin, there is no need for authority to exist since human beings can live in harmony with one another under the direct rule of God without any problem. However, the existence of sin has broken down our direct relationship with God and humanity tainted with sin will only end up in anarchy without the regulation from authority. As such, authority is the indirect rule of God to restrain sin and to maintain order as a consequence of the Fall. Ironically, this authority whose very raison d’etre is the existence of sin comprises of and must be exercised by sinful men themselves. Authority, therefore, is not sovereign but limited. Only God is sovereign and authority derives its legitimacy from God. A careful exposition of Romans 13:1-7[7] showed this to be true – that there is no authority except from God (verse 1). This authority exists to be a terror to bad conduct and give approval to good conduct (verse 3).          

             Therefore, we must submit to authority as long as authority submits to God in its purpose and functions. This also means that our submission to authority is not absolute but is limited by our absolute submission to God. In the context of University Malaya, there ought to be no blind allegiance to university administration laws, policies and regulations until we have examined them in the light of God’s word. It is not my intention to debate the UUCA and the akujanji here but suffice to say that there is a need for a critical evaluation of the place and usage of such laws in our campus, and that our disagreement with certain laws and regulations does not mean that we are disobeying Romans 13:1-7. Secondly, we have to bear in mind that the university administration is comprised of sinful people like everyone else. Even good laws can be abused. Therefore, the authority must be opened to check and balance in order to achieve good governance.

            In a certain sense it is true that the Christian Fellowship derives its legitimacy from the university based on university laws. But in another sense, the deeper nature and purpose of the Christian Fellowship again flows from the sovereignty of God and not the university administration. In this sense, the institution of the Christian Fellowship must be separated from the governance of the university for example the university administration has no legitimate right to dictate whether the Christian Fellowship should study the Bible or not. Likewise, the Christian Fellowship as a group must not endorse any particular political leanings. But this separation is an institutional one[8] and must not be misunderstood as having no influence at all over each other.

            One specific issue confronting the Christian Fellowship that maintains political neutrality but encourages members to participate in campus politics is that the diversity of political convictions among members in the face of partisan politics in campus may cause suspicion[9], or even misunderstanding, that the Christian Fellowship leans only to one side. To this, two things must be said. Firstly, the Christian Fellowship must be more intentional in clarifying its position internally and externally and ought to be constantly sensitive to this political culture in mapping out its activities and plans. Secondly, having said that, the Christian Fellowship must also be prepared to bear the consequences for standing up for a particular issue and because of that is accused of one-sidedness even when it is not.

            The collective role of the Christian Fellowship, therefore, is to remain neutral on political divides but united on moral issues informed by its statement of faith. On a collective level, the political participation of the Christian Fellowship must be seen in the wider picture of a worshipping, teaching, praying, sending and growing community. Our teaching should incorporate Christian worldview on campus politics, our prayer must extend to both sides of the political divide, and our worship together must transcend our political differences.

            On an individual level, there must be room for diversity in the Christian Fellowship’s sending out to the campus political arena. Diversity here means a diversity of roles and convictions. Some are called to stand for elections, some are called to play a supporting role, some are called to monitor the political development in campus, some are called to pray, some are called to teach, some are called to witness in the pro-establishment, some are called to the pro-student, and the list can go on.    

            The greatest danger for the Christian Fellowship, given that the partisan mentality can be carried into the fellowship and causes disunity, is also its greatest opportunity to model to the wider campus, and perhaps even to the wider Malaysian political scene, how Christians who proclaim the Lordship of Christ and the Sovereignty of God relate with one another albeit with different political inclinations. The Christian Fellowship is set to the task of modelling to the world a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation in that the greatest of political foes can kneel together in prayer for one another to the Triune God. At the feet of the cross, no man rules over another man but all stand equal in condemnation and grace. This is the danger that the Christian Fellowship must consider risking, and the opportunity we must consider taking.  

Conclusion

            There are many other areas I have not explored in this paper some of which are the role of keeping one another accountable in engaging campus politics and the severe lack of Christian participation and awareness in this area. I am sure there is much more. What I have done is that I have traced the development of University Malaya’s campus politics from the days of Anwar Ibrahim leading to its present day characteristics and practice and how this political culture presents challenges and questions for the Christian Fellowship to respond. I have then attempted to tackle some of these issues on a very amateur level based primarily on the Kuyperian model which is essentially reformed. My hope is that this piece of work will, at best, spark off the urgency for more organized thoughts in developing a more coherent model for the Christian Fellowship to engage with campus politics.