Ahok: Being the Change He Wants to See

Published in the Fiji Times 14th May, 2014

Last week I took part in an intensive comparative learning tour of Indonesia. It was an opportunity to learn about Indonesia’s journey towards democracy from 1945 under the leadership of Sukarno, the “New Order” under General Suharto from 1965 and the “Reformasi” which began in 1998 and is ongoing. Over the next few weeks I will share my reflections about what Indonesia has learned – the preconditions for democracy in their context, the process of dialogue, development of mechanisms for accountability, work towards interreligious tolerance and other transitions that take place along the journey, including the situation in Tanah (West) Papua. As we continue our own journey towards democracy, both pre and post September 2014, perhaps we may be able to learn something from Indonesia’s longer and more intense journey.

Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world, behind China, India and the United States of America with an estimated 253,899,536 (237,424,363 according to 2010 census) people living on its 17,508 islands. There are over 300 ethnic groups in Indonesia.95% of those are of Native Indonesian ancestry, the largest being the Javanese who make up nearly 42% of the total population. Indonesia is also has the largest Muslim population in the world (approx. 202.9 million) making up 88.2% of Indonesia’s population. With these statistics, I was surprised to learn that the Vice Governor of Jakarta, the capital and largest city of Indonesia, the most populous city in Indonesia and in Southeast Asia, was a triple minority. Basuki Tjahaja Purnama is ethnically Chinese, a Protestant Christian and from Bangka Belitung, a small province of islands to the east of the island of Sumatra.

I met Vice-Governor Purnama, commonly known by his Hakka Chinese affectionate nickname, Ahok last week, when he spoke to our Fijian group as part of our comparative learning programme. Striving to be an example of an agent of positive transformation, the story of Ahok’s political rise is an example of how social issues and not race or religion is important to voters in his context. Ahok, a geologist by profession (although he also holds an MBA) started as a businessman but shut down his quarry business because of the frustration of dealing with a corrupt bureaucracy in Bangka-Belitung. He entered politics to prove that political leaders can be chosen by the people based on their track record, accountability and work ethic.

In 2004, in a country where patron-client politics, locally known as money-politics is a reality, Ahok chose to run for local provincial parliament in a clean campaign. Rejecting the usual campaign method of putting up banners and handing out flyers with printed promises, he again handed out his private cellphone number so that people could contact him at any time.  Although that campaign resulted in only 93 votes, it was enough to get him elected. Just seven months into his term, he had gathered enough support to run for Regent or district head of East Belitung, a contest he won to many people’s surprise. That a Christian, ethnic Chinese councilman was able to become the head of a 93 percent Muslim-majority district can be attributed to his hands-on approach and close relationship with the people. During his term as Regent, he introduced policies such as ensuring free healthcare and education for the people. He cut the development budget put out to tender by 20 percent, to reduce corruption from rigged bids. He also slashed the administration’s travel budget by 80 percent from about Rp 1 billion ($215,278) a year. These savings were directed to health and education programs designed to guarantee that all residents had access to health care, to schools and build infrastructure in slum areas. He also began to document corruption in local politics.

In 2008 he founded the NGO, Center for Democracy and Transparency (CDT) to channel his personal donations to the poor. The Center is involved in social work that includes helping Jakartans with legal, education and health problems.

In 2009 Ahok took his “clean campaign” to the national level. He was successful and elected to Dewan Perwakilan Rakya, (People's Representative Council), one of two elected national legislative assemblies in Indonesia. His tough attitude against corruption did not help in a campaign against the incumbent governor when he tried to get support for senior citizens in the form of a $15 monthly allowance. Even when supported by Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid (Indonesian Muslim religious and political leader who served as the President of Indonesia from 1999 to 2001), Ahok lost due to what he claimed was cheating and a corrupt supreme court. Yet he still chose not to play the “money-politics” game.

“When it was suggested to me that by paying a bribe I could get the Supreme Court to rule in my favour, I asked my wife for advice,” he said during our meeting. “She in responded by asking me if I was Jesus’ disciple or Barabbas’ disciple. I chose to remain Jesus’ disciple in this political world. Unfortunately most chose the Barabbas way.”

In his first month as Vice or Lieutenant Govenor, Ahok confronted key issues related to traffic congestion, labor, and the bureaucracy. He successfully mediated a minimum wage increase, proposed incentives for street vendors to move to specified markets in order to reduce congestion, launched surprise inspections of government offices, and proposed installing closed circuit televisions to improve accountability.

For the sake of “truth-telling” – accountability and transparency, Ahok has his meetings filmed and uploaded on YouTube for the public to see. The YouTube broadcast of Ahok’s budget meeting with public works agency officials was viewed more than 1.3 million times in 2012. According to the Jakarta Post, while Ahok’s videos have been criticised by some as an unnecessary public humiliation of officials, “many Jakartans hoped that the YouTube video revealed a new reality in the era of multi-media and Internet technology, with secrecy, collusion, cronyism and conspiracy having no place in the public realm.” Ahok’s policy of uploading videos of his budget meetings and the work of his subordinates on YouTube has inspired the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to do the same with videos of corruption trials at the Jakarta Corruption Court. Even our meeting was filmed, although perhaps it was not important enough for YouTube.

Ahok still gives his personal number to all he meets, although now he has 13 blackberry phones which his interns (with whom he even shares his office space) help him manage.

“My policy is to obey the constitution, not the constituents, “he said. “My motto is: No bribery; justice for all, including minorities; follow the constitution and; be prepared to die for your values.”

Ahok’s commitment to be an actor for positive change is a lesson in leadership for us all.

“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity

Life's Journey

Published in The Fiji Times 9th June 2010 (Off the Wall with Padre James Bhagwan)

I always find birthdays more than just a time to celebrate the completion of another year on planet earth. While I enjoy the excitement in the build-up, the fuss and of course the presents (not as much as my children who expect presents on all birthdays not just their own), I prefer to see this time as my personal new year.

Last week I had the opportunity to "go to the mountain top" and take some time to reflect on my life's journey. In the cosmic order of things, I was blessed to spend time with men and women who were representing (as I was) member churches of the Pacific Conference of Churches in an ecumenical formation program organised and facilitated by the PCC and World Council of Churches.

The search for visible unity among churches in a region that is predominantly Christian is more than a divine directive (in John 17, Jesus prays that just as He and His Father are one, His disciples, and by extension, all followers will also be one), it is in my opinion key to peace and stability within the many communities who live in the largest ocean in the world.

The original vision of the ecumenical pioneers of the Pacific such as Reverend Setareki Tuilovoni of Fiji, Reverend Dr Sione 'Amanaki Havea, Reverend Vavai Toma was of a spiritual movement; confessing the Bible and theological reflection and enlightenment as its foundation but also one that engaged in the issues affecting God's people in the Pacific, in its day (the late 1960s and 1970s) independence movements and the issue of nuclear testing.

As we listened to the deep sharing by presenters at last week's seminar, Lorini Tevi the first woman and lay person to steer the canoe of the Pacific Conference of Churches and Reverend Akuila Yabaki of the Citizen's Constitutional Forum (an ecumenical pioneer in his own right) as well as those of leaders from the United Church in Papua New Guinea, Evangelical Church of New Caledonia and the Loyalty Islands, there was some consensus that to achieve the vision of these pioneers and to fully own the ecumenical movement in Oceania, we need to reclaim this Pacific understanding of ecumenism.

By the end of our time of sharing and learning we began to discuss what the direction of any future search for visible church unity may look like. We began by recognising that this type of sharing and learning for men and women, adults, youth and children as well as the elders of the community, clergy and lay people remains an core part of the mission of the church.

Our unity in walking together, working together, praying together and speaking with one prophetic voice is how we share the peace of God throughout our region by acting justly, being compassionate and walking humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). Faced with the challenge of climate change, and the various issues (environmental, social, political etc) as a result of continuous emphasis on development we are called as the church to accompany our people in the struggle for oceans of peace and rivers of righteousness (Amos 5:24) as we seek to identify and articulate the nature of development that we envision for the Pacific; and engage with regional issues.

The search for visible unity is not the search for uniformity but of unity in diversity. It is about recognising and understanding and even celebrating the different way we express our spirituality but also celebrating that which we have in common. Just as those who struggle for peace in communities broken by conflict and injustice understand that cheap peace will never be a lasting peace; so too as churches seek to heal broken relationships (over decades and centuries), there is an understanding that there is no cheap unity.

As I travelled to Suva on Saturday evening, I listened to the artist Seal, singing Sam Cook's "Change is Gonna Come":

"Then I go to my brother and I say, "Brother, help me please"

But he winds up knocking me back down on my knees

There've been times that I've thought I couldn't last for long

But now I think I'm able to carry on

It's been a long time coming

But I know a change is gonna come"

As I reflected on the state of Christian unity in Fiji, with the Fiji Council of Churches torn apart by mistrust and divided loyalties, and the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji reduced to a shadow of itself (having been used for political gain in the last decade) the Body of Christ in my own homeland cries out for healing.

How can we hope for religious tolerance and acceptance when we who profess to having been called to the "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2) are not willing to reconcile amongst ourselves?

Let's not treat the terms "peace" and "unity" merely as concepts that we like to preach about and wave like banners at a rugby match before discarding them if we lose the game. Peace is costly, unity is costly.

It costs us our pride, our arrogance and our assumption that we alone are the gatekeepers of truth and righteousness. Yet within each one of us, perhaps buried deeply, lies the yearning for community. All you who pray for peace, for unity, for healing are called to be agents of the change that we cry out for.

May the rest of your week be blessed with the revelation that each one of us is a child of God and belongs in the household of God.

* Reverend JS Bhagwan is a member of the Faculty at Davuilevu Theological College and the associate minister of Dudley Methodist Circuit in Suva. This article is the sole opinion of Mr Bhagwan and not of this newspaper or any organisation that he is affiliated with.

Email:padrejamesgmail.com

One Step at a Time

Published in The Fiji Times, Friday 4th December, 2009 (p12, 15)

In preparation for my sermon for this Sunday (7.30am Dudley Church, all welcome or listen to the broadcast at 10am on Radio Fiji One), I happened to come across some “Off the Wall” articles from the previous year. In an article written for New Year’s Eve 2008, I noted that the United Nations had declared 2009 to be the International Year of Reconciliation, calling on societies that have been divided by conflict to adopt reconciliation processes in order to establish firm and lasting peace.

Last New Year’s Eve, I invited the people of Fiji commit ourselves to playing our part in creating a firm and lasting peace in Fiji. It was a cry for us to renew our trust in ourselves and in others; to forgive and respect others. It was a call for a commitment that required no international monitors; a commitment in which you set the time line. It was a call to a commitment to which only you and God know that you are being faithful. Nevertheless it was a call to a commitment which everyone could make.

Less than a week away from the conclusion of the 16 days of activism for the elimination of violence against women and the commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the saddest realisations remains that the majority of people in Fiji, who consider themselves Christians find themselves struggling to accept their responsibility as agents of reconciliation and peace. Even though biblically, all Christians are called to commit to the message of reconciliation: “All this is from God, who reconciled himself to us through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,” (2 Corinthians 5:18).

On Wednesday afternoon I was walking through downtown Suva, when I noticed a commotion ahead of me. As is our habit in Fiji, I decided to “avorosa” and find out what the fuss was all about. Upon enquiry by those who had witnessed the whole event, I learned that a destitute woman, unkept and unwashed, had been refused entry onto a bus even though she had the required bus fare. Those to whom she turned, for a sympathetic hearing and in the expectation of support did not, in spite of their uniform, enforce her right to travel on the bus. By the time I reached the spot the bus had departed and the crowd was dispersing.

It occurred to me that perhaps we have missed a significant step in our attempts at reconciliation. We have thus far only looked at reconciliation between two major communities in Fiji. We have neglected to reconcile the various factions and divisions within those communities. Divisions based on religion, social status, economic situation, culture and perspective. How can we expect reconciliation between neighbours when there is conflict within the home? How do we successfully inculcate a culture of gender, racial and social equality when we continue to hold on to prejudice that has been ingrained over generations and that we are indirectly passing on to the next generation.

Perhaps we have been conditioned by the use of the word, “Division”. Our country is split into four geographical divisions for government administation. The Methodist Church has 51 divisions, including a Rotuman, a Rabi and an Indian Division. We are constantly divided by ethnicity, gender, age and sexual orientation. We are a people who have well and truly been divided and conquered. What is worse, we continue to divide ourselves.

I have come across a number of interpretations of “Reconciliation.” From the traditional, culturally-based rituals, to special events where groups perform items from a different culture, too often we rush through the motions. Observing protocols and rituals that only hold significance on the surface, with no lasting change made. This underlines the failure of superficial acts of public forgiveness in Fiji in the recent past which had no effect in terms of national reconciliation because the on most occasions groups petitioning for and granting forgiveness did not include wrongdoers, who were unrepentant or victims who were not willing to forgive. The symbolism in cases such as these proved to be empty.

The dilemma of forgiveness and justice is also an important issue. In his book, Forgiveness and Christian Ethics, Anthony Bash makes the point that forgiveness is a moral response to wrongdoing and that it is an interpersonal phenomenon, not possible on a corporate level. From a Christian perspective, understanding forgiveness as a moral ideal rather than a moral duty helps Christians in their struggle to forgive even the unrepentant and to find consolation when after striving to forgive, they find that they are unable to do so.

Forgiveness is an ideal; a moral response to wrongdoing. As a Christian, forgiveness for me is a response to God's grace and in participation of the ministry of reconciliation. Yet I recognise that forgiveness is also a struggle by victims who yearn for justice. After all it is very difficult for the oppressed, dressed in rags and with an empty stomach to forgive the well-dressed, well-fed oppressor. Ultimately, though, forgiveness is a core element of the greater good.

In our context the issue of forgiveness and reconciliation has been compounded by the fact that due to our pluralistic society, often the wrongdoer and the victim have different religious and cultural understandings of forgiveness, repentance, atonement and justice. This raises the question of how interpersonal or even any attempt at corporate forgiveness can take place between people who hold to different theologies and cultural practices.

Reconciliation is about restoration of relationship, not return to the status quo. Reconciliation requires repentance and forgiveness, which in turn requires an acknowledgement of responsibility and generosity of heart.

On Monday and Tuesday this week I was fortunate to attend a Retreat for Ministers, Pastors and Deaconesses working in the Indian Division of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma. Held at Nasikawa Vision College, the Retreat included sessions with Rev. Baek, a Methodist Minister from South Korea and an inspiring speaker. Late on Monday evening, I climbed up the steep hill that leads to the Vision College’s chapel. As looked out to the ocean and watched the waves crashing on the reef in the light of the setting sun, I reflected on the huffing and puffing that it took me to climb the many steps to reach the summit and the resulting view.

The goal of a reconciled and compassionate society of free and equal citizens may seem to many of us like the peak of Mount Everest, far away and seemingly out of reach. But with each step we get a little closer. Our personal commitment to taking a step forward at a time, no matter how difficult the terrain or how steep the climb, is necessary to achieving this goal. It is a goal that must be achieved collectively or not at all. There is no such thing as half of a reconciled and compassionate society of free and equal citizens.

May you continue to be blessed with light, love, peace and joy this Advent season.

Rev. Bhagwan is a probationary minister of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma, serving as Librarian/Assistant Lecturer (Theology & Ethics) at Davuilevu Theological College and as an Associate Minister at Dudley Methodist Church in Toorak, Suva.
All opinions expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinion and policies of the Methodist Church in Fiji or any organization that Rev. Bhagwan is affiliated with. Visit the Blog- http://thejournalofaspiritualwonderer.blogspot.com/ or email padrejames@gmail.com

4TH ESTATE UNDER SIEGE

Reflecting on the recent Fiji Human Rights Commission’s report on the media in Fiji by Mr. James Anthony, in the context of our continuing socio-political crisis under the current military regime, a worrying pattern seems to be establishing itself. The Media is often called the “4^th Estate” which refers to the role of the Media as the guardian of the public interest and the watchdog of the activities of the Government. The Media in this role of the 4^th Estate is an important component of the checks and balances which are an integral part of modern democracy. But if the Media is the 4^th Estate, what or who are the other 3 Estates?

The Estates General, originally established in France as the états généraux. First established in 1302, the Estates-General was a French legislative body comprising members of the three groups, or estates, of French society: nobility, clergy, and commoners. This model and variations of it was used in much of Europe from the 14^th to 18^th and 19^th Century.

The following explanation takes into account the role of the Estates General in the British bicameral Parliament on which Fiji’s democratic structure is based.

The 1^st Estate, known in early British Parliament as the Lords Spiritual were made up of the Clergy (Ministers of Religion). Senior clergy such as bishops held membership in the British House of Lords, the equivalent of Fiji’s Senate in the House of Representatives.

The 2^nd Estate, known as the Lords Temporal was made up of the Aristocracy were titled peers; High Chiefs in our context, who held hereditary membership in the House of Lords (Fiji: Senate).

The 3^rd Estate refered to the elected commoners; the masses, the workers; who were Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, which in our context is House of Representatives.

The Estates General bears striking resemblance to the “Three Legged Stool”(of Ratu Sir Lalabalavu Sukuna) or the “Trinitarian Solemnity” (of Rev. Dr Ilaitia S. Tuwere) of Lotu, Vanua and Matanitu.

Obviously the 4^th Estate, the Media was missing from the equation back in the 18^th Century and so it is only speculation as too what checks and balances it could have played during the failure of the Estates General, the ensuring French Revolution and the rise of dictator cum emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. However, even within the late 20^th and early 21^st Centuries one can still discern the pattern of oppression of the media by regimes around the world that use subterfuge to achieve its means and find a probing free press a major obstacle to achieving its intentions.

The killing of over a dozen journalists since former KGB officer Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 2000 and the process of squeezing critical journalism out of the public space in Russia through censorship and restrictive editorial control bears witness to the lengths governments are willing to go to muzzle the media. Reporters Without Borders describes the “revolutionary success” of Cuba under former leader Fidel Castro as ‘one of the worst predators of press freedom.’ The Cuban constitution states that. “Citizens recognize freedom of speech and press conform to the needs of the state.” According to reports, between 2003 and 2005 approximately 32 reporters had been jailed after being found guilty of “working with a foreign power to undermine the government,” which carries sentences up to approximately 30 years in jail.

Without a vibrant, free media, the very real danger exists of a society where the only version of events available to us will be the “official” version, given by the government.

If we look back on the way that events have unfolded over the last 15 months, it is possible to see that a systematic dismantling of these four Estates is underway. The conflict between the Military Junta and the Methodist Church, and the inability of the Fiji Council of Churches or the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji to offer any meaningful resolution to this tension, is symptomatic of the attempts to remove the influence of the Church (the 1^st Estate) in the political life of its people.

Similarly, the restructuring of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga / Great Council of Chiefs is an attempt manipulate or reduce the role of the hereditary aristocracy (the 2^nd Estate) of Fiji in the governance of this nation.

The Military Coup of December 2006 was a direct assault on the Senate and House of Representatives (the 3^rd Estate).

This new attack on the 4^th Estate, one of the key cogs in the mechanism of modern democracy, seen in the light of the attacks on the other three Estates, will do nothing for building a better Fiji. Even the previous/ousted government undertook an inquiry into the media. Reports and recommendations were made and a bill was drafted, including calls for a broadcasting standards authority and a revamping of the Fiji Media Council. The “Media Bill” received widespread opposition from many sections of society, who value independent and free media, and was eventually shelved.

It will be interesting, to say the least, given that the regime has stated that not all reports are adopted, which of its increasingly commissioned reports and recommendations will be adopted and implemented. That should clearly show whether those in power are focusing on building a better Fiji or merely dismantling parts of the Fiji that it feels threatened and challenged by. It will help those of us who call Fiji home decide whether the ‘End justifies the Means,’ or whether results gained by anguish and peril do justice to the means by which they were achieved.

(Note: this article was kindly published by the Fiji Times in June, 2008 - I think. I wasn't blacklisted by Ministry of Defence / Immigration ... )