Time Malaysians Moved On
(A version of this was first published in theSun on 10th August 2012).
The country was glued to their television and computer screens on Sunday night, where cheers of excitement and hope resounded across the streets. Some have congratulated Dato’ Lee Chong Wei for doing what no other Malaysian has been able to do, without having to say anything at all – unite our fragmented nation.
The badminton men’s singles was certainly reason to hope – we were that close to having won our very first Olympic gold medal. Despite some unsavoury tweets that criticised Chong Wei’s performance in comparison with China’s star player Lin Dan, suffice to say Malaysians were proud with the silver medal he returned with.
But the support he has – as with all other Malaysian badminton players when faced with any foreign opponent – is an analysis we continue to be fascinated with. The question we asked ourselves as children was, “Would you support Malaysia or China if they were playing each other?”, or “Malaysia or Indonesia?”, depending on our respective races. The fact that we are amazed by our unity is in itself something curious, since by now we should all have been sitting comfortably in our Malaysian shoes.
What does this say about our appetite for common ground? Quite a bit, but not quite enough.
The recent online debate about an upcoming film, Tanda Putera, is a case in point. Although not yet released to the public, already it has generated discussion on a subject few Malaysians have had the opportunity to read or study about. The 13th May 1969 riots were not covered within our history textbooks, and one had to learn about this through urban myths and whatever little literature there is out there.
For instance, I have only read Tunku Abdul Rahman’s book, “May 13 – Before and After”, as well as Kua Kia Soong’s “13 May: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969”, where both give varying accounts of what transpired on that fateful week leading up to the actual violence on the streets. There are official government records, and there are also documents parked within the Public Records Office in London.
The controversies surrounding the new film (which is directed by Shuhaimi Baba, of 1957: Hati Malaya acclaim) centre on the trailer, which has been made public on Youtube. One scene in the trailer shows a Chinese mob chanting anti-Malay slogans in the prelude to the riots. The film also purportedly depicts the Democratic Action Party (DAP) in a negative and unpatriotic light.
Without going into the details of the movie, as it is only slated for national release in September, this once again begs the question of interethnic unity. Researchers have long discussed methods of measuring such unity. A team at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Centre for Ethnic Research (KITA) developed an ethnic diversity index (EDI), for example, that would examine social cohesion and the social and economic value of ethnic diversity. Whilst at the Centre for Public Policy Studies, I embarked on a study to also look at how perception of interethnic unity (and religious harmony) influenced young Malaysians’ evaluation of national unity.
Certainly, Malaysia’s ethnic diversity is its greatest strength as it provides for flexibility and the ability to adapt easily to multiple environments. But it can equally act as a weakness if tackled irresponsibly.
The incidents of May 13th 1969 have never really been publicly discussed. There are two ways of dealing with the matter, if the film Tanda Putera is really to be screened in cinemas around the country.
The first option is to avoid the issue altogether without further discussion, letting ghosts of the past rest. This may be ideal since the incident happened so long ago, and only concentrated in certain cities of Peninsular Malaysia. But this is not very feasible, since the movie has already stimulated discussion online, and it would be futile to sweep what has been raised under the carpet – people will talk anyway.
The second option is to use this as an opportunity to have a calm and rational discussion of what happened in the past, approaching it with great seriousness in memory of the tragedy. South Africa in dealing with its wretched past set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (a court-like restorative justice body) after the abolition of apartheid. Malaysia may not need something as extensive as this, but certainly a measured and unbiased discussion on what happened may help heal some wounds.
However, in the final analysis, it is my hope that Malaysians of present and future generations will move on. It is no longer relevant to raise the past as warning signals. Rallying behind Lee Chong Wei, or national cyclist Azizulhasni Awang who also made it to the finals – or whichever national hero we choose regardless of race – ought to be testament to that. I’d much rather we cultivate the spirit of being Malaysian than return to the annoying reference of which race is more patriotic than the other. And with this firm philosophy in place, policies would then follow, which reflect this.
