By Bishop Hwa Yung

How can we produce a holy people who are strong enough to stand against the whole tide of corruption?

The Sarawak elections are over, but the central issue over which it was fought was the massive corruption in the state! This is only one of many high profile cases in our country. But the problem seems to be endemic in the private sector also. For example, a member of our church who deals in housing broker-age and mortgage loans tells me of the practice by bank officers of asking agents for a 1-2%, as ‘facilitation fee’ for a loan ap-proval. When I asked him whether it was only with some banks, his reply was that he faces the same problem at every bank he deals with in the Klang Valley.

In the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, Malaysia has been ranking in a middling position in the last 15 years. In 2010, it ranks in the 56th position out of a total of 178 countries surveyed, better than China (78th), Thailand (78th), Indonesia (110th) and Philippines (134th), but below Singapore (1st), Hong Kong (13th), Taiwan (33rd) and South Korea (39th). Unfortunately, compared with places Hong Kong, Korea and even Indonesia, all of whose scores have improved over past 10 years, Malaysia’s score has declined somewhat in the same period!

Commentators, especially from the west, have repeatedly noted that corruption, together with crony capitalism and nepotism, are the banes of most developing nations. Despite all the laws enacted in many countries against such practices, the reality is that these are often ineffective simply because the prevailing culture and underlying values work against them.

Some of the newer nations have had some success in dealing with this, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. But usually this is the result of the confluence of several saving factors. The first is the provision of laws and institutions which provides for transparency, and democratic checks and balances of power, many of which were put in place by out-going colonial powers. Second, the existence of good and strong political leadership is vital. Third, it helps if the country is small because things are much more easily monitored. And finally, corruption is less likely where higher levels of education and average national income are obtained. But not many countries have been so blessed. And so corruption remains a cancer eating away at the vast majority of newer nations!

But even where a government has been successful in checking corruption, it does not follow that the citizens are necessarily more honest and moral. Just ask the average Singapore driver what he does when he is caught speeding along the North-South Highway on this side of the Causeway! It is one thing to have laws against corruption that puts the fear of legal punishment among the citizens; it is another to bring about an inner moral change in the heart of man.

Clearly the answer to corruption is not easily found. But interestingly, there is a substantial group of intellectuals in China, known as ‘cultural Christians,’ who has been openly arguing that the answer to the needed changes in values is to be found in Christianity. Many of these are not believers themselves, but they see Christianity as providing the necessary moral framework for nation-building. One such is Zhao Xiao, a former government economist and now a professor at the University of Science and Technology, Beijing. He is well known for his views that if China is really to grow economically, the market economy as practised in the country must be imbued with integrity and built on a firm Christian moral foundation. He first came to prominence arguing this in an article titled ‘Market Economies with Churches and Market Economies without Churches’, written in 2002 (cf. http://www.danwei.org/business/churches_and_the_market_econom.php). Sometime in the course of his intellectual pilgrimage, he has also become a Christian.

But it is one thing to talk about Christianity providing the moral foundation for a nation; it is another for those values to be properly emplaced within that culture. Further, conversion to Christianity, even of the vast majority of a nation, does not ensure that this happens. If you doubt this, just look at the Philippines! In many western societies, Christianity has had centuries of history and culture has slowly evolved. But for many emergent nations, we do not have the luxury of such vast stretches of time. The Christian church, if she is faithful to the gospel call, cannot simply sit around and wait for such an evolution to take place. Are there models for cultural transformation from which something can be learned? I suggest that some aspects of British church history in the 18th and 19th centuries have a powerful relevance here. Other examples no doubt can also be found. But these are highlighted because they show that corruption can be consciously challenged and overcome.

In their book, Corruption in Developing Countries (1963; republished by Routledge, 2010), Ronald Wraith and Edgar Simpkins, point out that Britain in the 18th century was ‘as corrupt as any’ (p. 9) of the emergent nations Africa and Asia in the 1960s. Yet something happened and by mid-19th century, things had completely turned around! Victorian England was not only known for integrity and virtues, but was almost certainly the strongest nation on earth. In describing this change, Professor Harold Perkins asserted that, ‘between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical’ (Harold Perkins, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1969, p. 280). Leaving aside Perkins’ touch of cynicism, the point is that something fundamental had changed.

Wraith and Simpkins in their study examined various social and political contributory factors for the decline of corruption in England. Nevertheless, they also highlighted more elusive factors such as the growth of ‘the personal integrity of individuals’ and ‘the puritanical thread in the fabric of Victorian England’ which ran right through British society (p. 62). Where did these come from?

Historians have noted two keys Christian influences that acted together with others to bring these about. The first was the 18th century evangelical revival under John Wesley. This revival, which began around 1740, impacted largely the poor. Wesley’s stated goal was, ‘To reform the nation, especially the church, and to spread scriptural holiness over the land.’ The emphasis on holiness and moral living lay at the heart of Wesley’s pastoral concern, and the class meetings was the means by which the revival ‘spread scriptural holiness over the land.’ Wraith and Simpkins described the results as follows: ‘The Methodist movement and its aftermath coincided with the industrial revolution, and was more largely responsible than any other influence for the integrity ... of a large section of the working class.’ And it was this that gave to the emerging labour movement in the 19th century Britain ‘its stability, its thrift and its incorruptibility’ (p. 179f).

It is no wonder that Roy Hattersley, sometime Deputy Leader of the British Labour party, in his book, John Wesley—A Brand Plucked From Burning (2004), argues that Wesley was one of the great architects of modern Britain. The impact of his ministry was felt primarily in the 19th century. He writes: ‘Methodism en-couraged the working poor to be ambitious, industrious and respectable—the qualities which made them the indispensable backbone of industrial and imperial England.’ 

The other great Christian influence came from William Wilberforce and his friends in the Clapham Sect. (See e.g., Stephen Tomkins, The Clapham Sect: How Wilberforce’s Circle Changed Britain 2010). They were Anglicans who had been touched by the Wesleyan revival and strongly influenced the upper classes. Wil-berforce, in 1787, wrote in his journal: ‘God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.’ Over the next generation, both objectives were brilliantly accomplished, through a carefully orchestrated strategy and the use of innovative tactics to awaken the national conscience and reshape public opinion. Not only was slavery abolished throughout the British Empire after an epic parliamentary battle of some 45 years, but upper class morality was profoundly reformed.

Thus, it was the combined influence of people like Wesley and Wilberforce, together with the contributions of others, including the Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill, which brought about the moral reformation that England needed. Their efforts resulted in corruption being ‘virtually destroyed by the century’s end’ (Wraith and Simpkins, p. 182).

If the above analysis is correct, it would appear that the battle against corruption can be won if there is a committed group in any society working towards changes in culture and values. It is important to note that we are not here talking about the silly notion, propagated mischievously by some circles, of Christians taking over Malaysia. Even at the peak of Methodism’s growth, it never amounted to much more than 4.5% of England’s adult population. Moreover, the Clapham Sect, through which Wilberforce worked, was merely a small group meeting in a large house in Clapham, just outside London!

What may Christians learn from the above? First, there are many non-Christians who are also genuinely con-cerned about the cancer of corruption and the future of our nation. One of the major challenges to the church is to learn to work together with such, whether they are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, secularists, etc., and forge alliances with them in the public battle against corruption.

Second, sociological studies have shown that even a small percentage of a nation’s population can help reshape its values and culture. But the members of the group have to be fully committed themselves to reform. One of the great tragedies of the Malaysian church is that many Christians today themselves have been sucked into the systemic corruption of the nation, from the humblest member to some in the highest echelons of the political and business world! The general attitude is: ‘Apa boleh buat? If you can’t beat them, join them!’ But that will not do, if the church is going to play a key role to moral reform. Unless our hands are clean, what moral authority do we have in standing against corruption in our nation?

Here lies the greatest challenge to the Malaysian church. How can we produce a holy people who are strong enough to stand against the whole tide of corruption and immorality in our nation and the world today? This brings us back to Wesley. At the heart of Wesley’s agenda, was his determined effort to ‘spread scriptural holiness over the land.’ What did he do? He called men and women to flee from God’s judgment and wrath against all forms of ungodliness and corruption. He required all his followers to go into ‘classes’ or small group where everyone, without exception, was held accountable for their moral behaviour on weekly basis. Those who refused to change were asked to leave. Those who wanted to advance further in their spiritual growth were gathered into ‘band,’ wherein standards of accountability were even more demanding. (The best introduction to Wesley’s pastoral method is found in D. Michael Henderson’s A Model For Making Disciples 1997.) The result was the emergence of several generations of Methodists strongly marked by holiness!

Herein lies the challenge. Although many churches in our country are usingsmall groups in the pastoral oversight today, I know of no church using small groups that emphasizes the group accountability which was central to Wesley’s discipling process. Is it any wonder why holiness is so wanting amongst us today? And unless we recover afresh the genius of Wesley’s pastoral method, Christians will never be able to grow deep in holiness and, consequently, all talk about fighting cor-ruption will come to naught!