McGilvary Ecumenical Lectures

DEMOCRACY AND THE CHURCH

KWOK Nai Wang

MAIN ARGUMENTS

In the past three to four decades, the GDPs in most of Asian nations have risen considerably; but the gap between the rich and poor have widened even more so. This is mainly due to the lack of democratic institutions and more importantly, an absence of a genuine democratic culture.

Generally, without democracy, government authorities are unchecked, inefficient and corrupt. Nepotism is practiced. Without democracy, there is no regard of the rule of law, and hence there will not be fair competition. Without democracy, those in power tend to abuse their power and ordinary people will be suppressed and suffer. Most people will be marginalized and have no opportunities to participate in the social process and contribute to it. In the long run, without democracy, there will be social instability.

Democracy is more than a government elected by universal franchise, openly and fairly. Incidentally, only such a government will be transparent, respond to people’s needs, and accountable to the people it governs. Democracy is especially about people – people’s willingness to participate in public affairs.

It is unrealistic to expect those in power to promote democracy, which finally is about people’s concern and people’s rule. NGOs, especially the Christian Church have a key role to play in Asia’s democratic development.

But first, the Church must repent! For too long, the Church in Asia concentrated only to provide social services (relief and welfare, medical and health as well as educational services) to the needy. Along the way, it has to rely on the government and the wealthy business people to support. Unconsciously, not only in its function, but in its mindset, many churches in Asia have become an extension of government, and thus have lost their prophetic function.

The Church must maintain a critical distance from the government and big business. The Church must learn to stand alongside the poor and the powerless, listen carefully regarding their plight and try to articulate their aspirations. The Church must also be vigilant, keep a close watch on the decisions made by the people in power which might affect adversely the livelihood of the masses and speak up against them.

For whatever reason if the whole Church feels that it is inconvenient to fight for democracy at this crucial moment, it must permit and/or support Christians or Christian groups to do the job on its behalf. The Church must also ally itself with concerned groups who are concerned about building a democratic or civil society in their nation.

Some Asian churches are preoccupied with trying to preserve religious freedom, which might be an issue of their survival. But they must also be concerned about a wider scope of freedoms, particularly press freedom and academic freedom. Without these freedoms, religious freedom becomes meaningless or even impossible. Finally only when democratic institutions are in place will all these freedoms be possible.

Let us start the discussion with some experiences in Hong Kong. The question I was often asked by overseas visitors is: Hong Kong has thrived over the past four decades despite the fact that it did not have democracy. As a matter of fact, democracy has been absent throughout the colonial rule. But despite this, Hong Kong has done relatively well, at least economically. So why democracy?

It is therefore worthwhile to examine closely whether Hong Kong has really thrived as outsiders generally purported; and that it has done so without democracy.

As late as the early 1960s, Hong Kong was pretty much a centre for hundreds and thousands of refuges from the mainland of China. It was extremely crowded and poor. Its G.D.P. per capita was the same as that of the Philippines and Thailand.

However, 40 years later it has become one of the most vibrant world-class cities. Its G.D.P. per capita is now one of the highest in Asia (US$21,830 compared with Thailand’s, US$6,020, and Philippines’, US$3380 – World Bank August, 2000 figures). This was marvelous achievement. Especially, Hong Kong has done this without any democracy. So, why is democracy important for Hong Kong, and indeed for the rest of the world?

Yes, for the past 160 years, since the British took over Hong Kong and made it a crown colony in 1841, Hong Kong had not had any form of democracy. If, at times, especially since the 1970s, Hong Kong seemed to be rather open and free, it was because the colonial government was ultimately accountable to the British government in London – Britain is one of the oldest democracies in the world. In recent history, Hong Kong has had its fair share of problems and difficulties: the Japanese occupation and severe damage between 1941-45; the Chinese civil war, the total embargo imposed by the United Nations on China as a result of China’s participation in the Korean War in 1950-52, and the riots which lasted for six months in 1967. But in the end of the day, it was people’s overall attitude of hard-work and resilience which helped Hong Kong to get through. Of course, a relative efficient and clean civil service (especially after the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption or known as the ICAC, in 1974); the government’s laissez-faire, or least non-interference policy and its insistence of following the British style of rule of law, all helped. Last but not least, since the 1960s, Hong Kong had served as China’s only outpost, being benefited by China’s trade with the outside world; and the people of Hong Kong fed by China’s cheap food items and water, and clothed by China’s inexpensive winter coats and shoes, etc.

The form of government in Hong Kong was actually quite archaic. Fundamentally, Hong Kong then was run like a big business conglomerate by a group of rich and powerful business people.

This was how Hong Kong began in modern history. The British had long been wanting to trade with China, as China had been already the world’s biggest potential market in the 18^th century. Because of distance, Britain had to take over Hong Kong so that it could have a stepping stone to enter China. It did so by its military might in 1841 and again in 1860. A colonial government was formally established in 1843. Its purpose in the outset was to serve the British business people. Together they formed the ruling class. As Hong Kong became increasingly a vital entrepot at China’s doorstep, more and more Chinese from the mainland came to look for jobs. Since the majority had no intention to make Hong Kong their home, they would be happy to work hard and take whatever they were given. Hopefully after a while they would make enough money and go back to where they belonged. They never dared to challenge the rulers. The social atmosphere as well as the entire education system made sure that it was so.

However, this mindset changed after 1949. Most of the Chinese did not want to go back to the mainland as it was now under the control by a communist regime. As a matter of fact in the 1950s, Hong Kong experienced the biggest population increase ever. A million escaped communism and came to Hong Kong as refugees.

In the mid-1960s, the first generation of refugee children born in Hong Kong grew up. They knew only Hong Kong and considered Hong Kong as their home. Extremely unhappy about the rather oppressive and lopsided colonial government whose policies only favoured the rich, thousands of agitated youths took to the streets to express their anger. These riots lasted for half-a-year in 1967. Consequently, the government had to open up. A consultation model was adopted. The government promised to conduct wide consultations whenever major policies were introduced. District Offices and hundreds of advisory committees were established.

Then came the 1997 issue. According to the Sino-British agreement signed in December, 1984, Hong Kong was to be returned to China in July 1997. The paramount principles which China laid out included: "One Country Two Systems" (Hong Kong will not have to adopt the Chinese system, but can continue with its own system for 50 years), "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong" (China will not send an official to Hong Kong) and "High Autonomy" (with the exception of defense and foreign affairs, which are the responsibilities of Beijing).

Few people from Hong Kong had the illusion that China would allow Hong Kong to elect its own government, thus fulfilling the "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong" principle. Nevertheless, many concerned people in Hong Kong, since 1984, stepped up their efforts to ask for an elected government in Hong Kong (which included at least the Chief Executive and all 60 legislators to be elected by universal franchise). The crack down of students’ peaceful demonstrations by the Chinese army on June 4, 1989 has hastened this genuine quest.

Aside from political considerations, democracy may be the ultimate solution to the most serious social problems in Hong Kong, viz. the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Superficially, Hong Kong is one of the most modern and wealthiest cities in Asia. However, few dare to ask whether the 6.9 million people living in Hong Kong share at least a part of this affluence.

According to the January 2, 2001 issue of the Hong Kong Economic Journal in Hong Kong, 37.4% of the stock market was owned by ten families (the stock market is the tenth biggest in the world, with total value at more than US$619 billion).

On paper, every person in Hong Kong should pocket US$1,700 every month. But in reality only a tenth of the full-salaried workers earn that amount of money each month. According to government statistics in 1997 on the 10 percent of the population with the lowest incomes, each family had US$500 to spend each month. In 1999, the families in the same income bracket had only US$385 to spend. On the other hand, of the 10 percent of the families with the highest income, each had US$8,200 to spend every month in 1997. This figure increased to US$9,000 in 1999. In the meantime, prices continued to soar in the past 20 years in Hong Kong. Nowadays if the rich want to have a four-course meal with a bottle of fine table wine in a five-star hotel restaurant, they have to spend roughly US$200 per person; while 20 years ago, US$50 was sufficient. For a simple McDonald’s meal, in 1981, it was US$1, now it has jumped to US$2.

Indeed, the Gini-coefficient (an index measuring the gap between the rich and the poor in a particular area. It was a scale from 0 to 1 with 0 indicating no gap and 1 a maximum discrepancy in income) shows that the rich-poor gap in Hong Kong has continued to widen in the past 20 or so years, from 0.373 in 1979 to 0.476 in 1991. Today it is estimated to be higher than 0.532.

The most serious social problem in Hong Kong now is poverty. Almost a million adults live below the poverty line i.e. each has less than US$620 to spend each month. This is half of the median wage in Hong Kong. For the elderly (aged 60 or above), 80% live below the poverty line; and a fifth of the children, totally 355,000 under 12, also are considered to be poor!

Why is this so? Why is Hong Kong seemingly so very rich and yet so many people are so poor? It must be because of its public policies. As the rich and the powerful directly or indirectly control what and how public policies are formulated in Hong Kong, public policies certainly look after their own interests much more than the interests of the masses. For example, the high-valued land policy greatly benefits the land developers. Consequently all rich business tycoons in Hong Kong are related to the property business in one way or the other. Taxation is another example. The tax structure in Hong Kong is one of the simplest and lowest in the world, with a maximum salary tax of 15% and profit tax at 16%. This greatly favours the rich. The present government seems to be less committed to the poor. In its social services provided to the less fortunate, the government is trying to charge in accordance with costing.

The Hong Kong government claims that there is a safety-net called public assistance for everyone. But the assistance level is set so low that many do not care to apply. For instance, an elderly person has now only US$4 to spend per day for food. A simple rice-box meal costs at least US$2. Two college students have tried to live on US$4 per day for three days and they literally had to go to bed hungry every night.

Up to this day, the government in Hong Kong is for the few, because it is ruled by the few. Only a democratically elected government will have the well-being of the masses at heart and the problem of poverty as well as gap between the rich and the poor will then be solved. Until that day, the society in Hong Kong will remain relatively unstable.

Yesterday, Hong Kong was ruled by the few. The majority who came just for a living happily followed. It worked, because it was a relatively small entrepot. Today, it has become a highly complex metropolis where there are more than 6.9 million inhabitants (half of them were born in Hong Kong). Their full participation is of utmost importance.

The emigration problem in the 1990s (when one out of ten citizens of Hong Kong left for good in another country) indicated that Hong Kong suffered immensely as a result of, not so much a brain drain, but people having "everybody for themselves" mindset. This shows the future of any society, Hong Kong included, needs its people. People would only be takers, rather than contributors; care only for their own immediate benefits, rather than long-term societal welfare, unless they feel they have a meaningful part to play in their own society. Only democracy can enhance people’s sense of belonging and identity; and only democracy can enhance people’s genuine participation and contribution.

So far, our discussion has been centered around the Hong Kong experience. But these experiences are by no means particular. Most Asian nations/regions do share many aspects of the Hong Kong experience.

In the past two decades, up to the Asian economic meltdown in 1997-98, many Asian nations have become relatively affluent. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor has widened tremendously in almost every nation. Indeed poverty abounds. Today in the Philippines, of the 76 million people, 38% of them earn US$200 per year. For sure, most of the Asian economies reported a hefty G.D.P. growth in the 1990s. However, the majority of the Asian people have not become any richer.

One obvious reason is that Asia in general is being ruled by autocratic governments, or governments, though democratically elected, but not supported by a democratic culture. These governments as a rule are only concerned to promote their own interests much more than the welfare of the masses. By and large, Asian governments have worked hard to push their nations’ GDP growth; but cannot care less how the wealth resulting from this growth is to be distributed. To put it succinctly, Asian governments, as a rule have ignored the fact that genuine economic development is more than economic growth. It has also a great deal to do with the distribution of wealth. For if the wealth generated was pocketed only by a few people, the majority would remain poor. Moreover, for how long can the people remain indifferent when they experience they have no opportunities to share the affluence they help to create? Long standing grievances certainly will lead to social instability. It is in this regard that Asia is sitting on a time bomb. Asia needs to address this extremely serious problem immediately.

In order to achieve genuine economic development, Asia urgently needs a different kind of relationship between the rulers and the ruled; or those in public offices and the masses. The rulers must realize that their major role is to serve the people. The ruled must also realize that all of them have an awesome responsibility to contribute to the overall development of the world, particularly the society they belong to as well as the well-being of people. These are the fundamentals of democracy. In a democratic society, people are not only concerned to fight for their own interests, but the interests of others as well.

Democracy is the answer for Asia’s future. Without democracy, governments remain unchecked, corrupt and inefficient. Without democracy, there is not going to be the rule of law, hence no fair competition. Without democracy, rulers, especially those who command the military, cling onto power by using totalitarian means. Consequently people will suffer. Without democracy, masses of people will be marginalized. They will have no fair opportunities to participate in public affairs. As a result of lack of participation, the energies of the marginalized will not be released to the fullest for their own sake and for the sake of others.

Asia is desperately in need of full democracy – a democratic government supported by a democratic culture. Many government leaders as well as leaders from the business community in Asia argued that democracy is developed in the West and it does not suit Asia. Asia, with hundreds and perhaps thousands of years of history has its own way of doing things. Asia should take on its own course of development. But in reality, democracy is about people. It is about people’s full realization of their rights and responsibilities. Democracy means people’s rule. People are in charge of their own destinies. People are their own masters; so to speak. As such it is universal.

I want to underlie again that democracy is more than a particular form of government or the establishment of democratic institutions in a nation or region. It is about people’s awareness of their roles and responsibilities as well as their willingness to participate in enhancing the benefits of the whole community.

Regarding the actual form of government, each nation has to develop its own. France, Britain, the United States are the leaders of democracy in the world. Their governments are all different. For example, a total separation of the Executive (headed by the President) and the Legislature (constituted by the Senate and the House) in the United States is vastly different from the Westminster style of government as practised in the United Kingdom for well over 200 years.

Asia is the most populated continent in the world. Of the worlds’ five billion people, China has 1.25 billion and India has about 1 billion. How to introduce democracy in such big countries and in what forms so that such vast numbers of people are fully represented are no small matter.

It makes the matter a lot more complex when, in any big nation in Asia, people follow many different religions, from Christianity, Islam, Buddhism … to many forms of folk religions and animism. In China, for instance, there are five major ethnic groups (the Han people, the Moguls, the Tibetans, the Muslims and the Manchurians ) and hundreds of "minority" ethnic groups. Moreover, in most of the Asian countries, the collective far out-weights the individual. Sometimes the care for the family and the clan are more important than the care of individuals. How to turn all these assets in the introduction of democracy also requires a lot of work for those who are concerned.

We have to start with people, trusting that once people are given the opportunities, they will do well. In Asia, we have witnessed time and again that those in power do not trust the people. Often they have the "fathers know better" mindset. They presume they know what the people need. But in reality only people know what is best for them. Concerned people in Asia should spare no effort in trying to build a democratic culture. Asia will have to spend a lot of human and material resources in education, especially in human rights and political education, so that the upcoming generation will be more interested in public affairs and the welfare of the wider community. Asians are hard-working and intelligent. All it needs to be done is to stimulate them to think and live in wider horizons – not only interested in their own self-gain, but also keen to take up the much needed social responsibilities as well.

Political and civic education are carried out with the best effects if people are given opportunities to participate in the whole social process. They must be given equal opportunities to vote into office the politicians whom they think can represent them and must be able to monitor the performance of their government. As a matter of fact, this "learning through practising" process is what Asia needs the most in its efforts to revamp the whole education system.

In order to improve on the effective governance, governments in Asia should try their best to get a convincing mandate from the people they govern. This is also the minimum requirement of a democratic government: that it is chosen by people with periodically fair and free elections. Conversely, only a government elected by the people openly will have people’s interests at heart. Only such a government will stand on high moral ground: that it will make decisions which are good for the people rather than out of political or economic considerations. Only a democratic government is more likely to respond to peoples’ needs especially the needs of the weak and the young. Since a democratic government is accountable to the people, people will demand that it be made utterly transparent.

In order to avoid the monopolization of power by the few, or in that regard the tyranny by the majority, sufficient check and balance mechanisms must be installed in any democratic government. There must be an independent judiciary; and that the executive must be answerable to the legislature. A multi-party system is desirable. For when there is only one single party in the country and when check and balance mechanisms are absent, absolute power often backed by the military will emerge. When that happens, corruption and nepotism will become the order of the day. We have observed what happened in China. Up to this day, the constitution of China allows only the Chinese Communist Party to rule China. Chinese students in May, 1989 protested that their government was "corrupt" and "nepotic". What the students failed to realize was that the Chinese government had no way to respond to their demands. The students should have gone one step further: call for the end of the one-party rule in China. Unfortunately, of course, the authoritarian Chinese government could not even stand up against the widespread corruption and the princely influence in the entire nation as uttered so succinctly by the students. The leaders had to send in the tanks and soldiers with submachine guns to massacre those who gathered in Tiananmen Square in the early hours of June 4, 1989.

The press and the academic are two other vital bodies who can scrutinize the performance of their own governments as well as their neighbouring governments. So it is essential that in any democratic country, press freedom and academic freedom must be upheld at all costs.

Oftentimes in Asia, other than the politicians or generals from the military, business tycoons (rich and powerful bosses from the business community) are the strongest opponents to democracy. They believe that the more democracy, the more chaotic the society, hence there would be less business opportunities for them. The fact is democracy is good for their long-term interests as well. A society is truly stable only when the people have a purpose of living and when their interests are looked after fairly. On the other hand, when democracy is absent, people’s grievances can hardly be addressed by those in authority. This easily breeds violence and chaos.

Many countries in Asia have stepped up their economic reform. What leaders of these countries failed to see was that economic reform has to be supported by political or more pertinently, democratic reform. Leaders of governments in Asia have to start learning to trust their people. Furthermore, they have to find ways to empower their people, to get their people involved so that together they can solve the most acute problems facing their country.

One of the most deep-rooted problems in Asia is poverty. Leaders of many nations realize that if they do not solve this problem, sooner or later they will be toppled. So they are eager to introduce programs and projects after projects to try to alleviate poverty.

Some more enlightened leaders think that education is a better way to fight poverty. So they invest a great deal of resources in educating the youth from basic skills or vocational training to tertiary education. However, few Asian leaders believe or dare to admit openly that in order to solve the poverty problem, they have to change the entire political process. The voice of the voiceless must be heard. The poor must be empowered, and sufficiently supported so that they themselves become the primary players in solving the poverty problem.

Overall, people in Asia have suffered a lot. Most of this was due to the authoritarian rule within their own nation (some were also due to foreign invasions.) The feudal and closed regimes greatly suppressed their people and gave them no fair opportunities. Consequently, Asia was poorly developed in the modern times.

The rulers in Asia who ruled with iron-fists seemed to have given little chance to true democracy in Asia. But this can also be an asset. People in Asia seemed to have the feeling increasingly that enough is enough. Many have decided to fight for democracy in their homeland even if it means they have to pay a dear price.

The scientific and urban revolutions as well as secularization in the 20^th Century have awakened thousands of young intellectuals. They came to realize that it is their responsibility to take charge rather than to continue to rely on those who were in position of power. The tragic 10-year Cultural Revolution in China was caused by Mao Zedong, their supreme leader. Again on June 4, 1898, five people took charge of the destiny of 1.2 billion people. Was it not astonishing? Many Chinese believe that these tragic events have actually helped to awaken millions of Chinese who were still asleep.

Yes, to-day in Asia, more and more people have come to realize that the value of human lives is far more important than any government. The functions of the government should be limited. Government is there to take care of public affairs on behalf of the people. In sum, the major role of a government is to protect and enhance the welfare of its people. All public institutions exist to serve not their own interests but the interests of all people.

Asia’s development does not rely on a few rich and powerful people, but on the fuller participation of the people. Asia’s future will be bleak if it continues to rely heavily on, and controlled by, only a few.

For sure, those in power are not willing to give up their power and return it to their people. As a matter fact, many Asian leaders are so busy in trying to keep their job that they have forgotten to do their job properly. Therefore in the process of democratization, people must play their part. They must start to care, to fight for their own interests and particularly the interests of all. In this regard, non-governmental organization (NGOs), academics as well as the Christian Church have a key role to play.

In humility, we have to acknowledge that the Christian Church is not the only crusader of democracy in Asia or for that matter anywhere else in the world. But theoretically, it has the potentials to become an important democratic force.

In most Asian nations, the institutional Church is well respected and trusted. It has mobilized time and again the much needed ecumenical resources to contribute significantly in areas of relief, medical and health services as well as school education in many parts of Asia.

But in order to assist Asia to genuinely develop, the Christian Church must take one step further from its good public service record. In other words, over the years, the Church has done a lot to help the poor by giving them relief, school places and social welfare. Now the Church must go beyond the presenting problem by tackling the causes of problem or the root problem, so to speak. The Church must make every effort to help to get rid of the poverty problem in Asia.

I have touched earlier that, the poverty problem in Asia was basically due to an extremely socially imbalanced situation: the few monopolize the political as well as economic powers and subsequently enjoy tremendous privileges and wealth. The Church must speak up persistently, expose this social imbalance and the plight of the poor and the powerless.

Another way to stop the powerful from continuing to aggravate the situation and exploit the powerless is by keeping constant vigil. Accidents occur when people are not vigilant. Those in power often make decisions, which are only advantageous to them when people are not watching.

The core of the Christian faith means that all human beings bear the image of God. Because of this, every human being is precious. His/her inborn dignity must not be taken away by another person. Furthermore, Christians also believe that God specifically command people to take care of one another. In other words, every human being should take up the social responsibility and work for the common good.

While those in authority often despise the poor and the powerless, the Church trusts people, believing they have great potentials, not only to be kind and caring, but also have the capability to contribute to the common good. So the Church must stand on the side of the poor and the powerless and spare no efforts to empower them, by enabling them to be more alert and encouraging them to speak up. In following the teachings of Jesus, the Church has a special responsibility to care for the weak and the young. It is, therefore, mandatory to the Church to support all quests for the common good and democracy. In this way, the Church serves as a powerful moral force.

It is no easy task for the Church to confront the powerful. But Jesus did. The Church must follow Jesus’ footsteps to empty itself (Kenosis) so that the lives of others, especially those of the poor and the powerless may be filled. This is the meaning of sacrificial love. Indeed, this is the meaning of a fulfilled life; it is in losing your life for the sake of others that you find your life. It is in sacrificing your life that you are born to the eternal life. Sacrificial love is what is needed in Asia today. Sacrificial love is the most powerful force there is in the entire world. Sacrificial love can change things and make the impossible, possible.

Asia is a highly complex continent. Most nations are multi-cultural and racially mixed. Ethic conflicts are unavoidable. The Christian faith advocates that all human beings are brothers and sisters. Hence, the Church must promote a sense of tolerance and a sense of caring for each other despite the fact that they may be racially different and follow different religions. Tolerance of people and intolerance of injustices are the foundations of democracy. Democracy is at its best when in a society people tolerate and care for one another and when injustices are absent.

Before it can serve as the social conscience in Asia, the Church must repent. The Church must stop preaching one thing while does the opposite. For example, the Church often preaches the virtue of sacrificial love. Church leaders expect their followers to practise it while they themselves spend most of their energies in consolidating their positions, amassing power and influence for themselves. The Church often preaches democracy and yet the institutionalized Church is one of the most undemocratic institutions in the world. When the Church refuses to give women their rightful place in the Church, such as refusing to ordain them into the ministry; or when the Church rejects homosexuals, the Church is practicing serious acts of discriminations rather than the gospel or reconciliation and acceptance.

Many Churches in Asia have become a part of the establishment. In serving others, their interests and ambitions are actually being served. Consequently their major concern shifts. Instead of being critical of the establishment, the Church has become a defender of the status quo.

In order to recover its mission for the poor and the powerless, the Church throughout Asia must maintain a distance from the power structure. This is a declaration that it has renounced its role as co-suppressors to that of standing alongside the oppressed. This "détente" is also very necessary if the Church wants to remain sober.

Coming back to the case in Hong Kong: along with many traditions and customs, the British brought also the close Church-State relationship into Hong Kong. This enabled the Church in Hong Kong to obtain a lot of valuable resources (including especially the use of land) from the government. Because of government’s blessing and full support, the Church was able to build a phenomenal huge social service empire in the territory. In return, the Church in Hong Kong has helped the government by providing social services to those in need as well as serving as a stabilizing force in Hong Kong.

For example, before and especially after the turn of the century, the Church in Hong Kong has been operating some of the most elitist secondary schools (about 30 in number). These schools produced a great many elitists who eventually have become leaders in government as well as in the business community. It is therefore not too far from the truth by saying that the Church has helped to build and consolidate an elitist society in Hong Kong.

Besides the operation of some of the best known secondary schools, the Church in Hong Kong now manages more than 60% of the social work (under the Social Welfare Department), 40% of schools (under the Education Department) and slightly less than 20% of the hospitals (many are now government-aided hospitals). Because of this huge market share of social services, the Church in Hong Kong has actually become quite influential. Some evangelical churches have been approaching the clientele of these social services and engaging in proslytization. Consequently, the Church in Hong Kong experienced substantive growth in numbers of churches, chapels and gospel halls, as well as the number of members in recent years.

But the Church has to pay a dear price for expansion of their empire. Since social services in Hong Kong have become professionalized, they are very expensive. The Church has to rely almost totally on the government to finance its projects and the wealthy business people to top up the difference through their generous contributions, or donations from charitable organizations controlled by them. It was believed that in Hong Kong there exists a very solid power alliance. It was composed of senior government officials, leaders in the business as well as professional communities, and leaders from the major denominational churches. This alliance was nicknamed as "Unholy Alliance".

In aiding the government in serving the public, the Church can easily become an extension of the government. That being the case, how can the Church speak up against social injustices?

Fortunately, the Church is more than the institutional church. Realizing the inadequacies of the Church as a whole, many awakened Christians have gathered together to work on issues of justice, human rights and democracy. Sometimes, it is sad to see that these feeble but outspoken Christian groups were being marginalized or antagonized by the main body of the Church, thus making the job of these concerned groups even more difficult.

Christian groups, representing the more enlightened wing of the Christian Church has an important role to play. They keep on reminding the Church, especially its leaders, about the primary function of the Church, viz. to return human dignity to every human being. They also try to remind people, especially the rich and the powerful, about their social responsibility. Unless people give up the self-centeredness mindset, sooner or later all societies/communities will disintegrate.

If the Church is not convenient or available at the moment to join forces with the Christian groups or other concerned NGOs to fight for a more open and democratic government as well as a more democratic culture, at least it should support such endeavors. As the Church in Hong Kong runs so many schools, would it be nice if it should promote a full-scale democratic education in those schools?

With the exception of very few nations, Christian Churches have been firmly established in Asia. Though except the Philippians, Christians are in the absolute minority in their own nations. Nevertheless, their presence is generally felt. Now is the time churches in Asia should take a step outside their church buildings and use whatever energy they can muster to fight for full democracy at every corner in Asia. God willing, the Church in Asia can become one of the most vital catalysis towards the development in Asia, enabling the continent as a whole to become more just, participatory and sustainable.