31st August 2010 is coming to an end. And our country, Malaysia, is officially 53 years old. I have a thing or two to say about that.
My Views on History
As an history student, I do understand and appreciate the struggle that our forefathers went through the obtain for us independence and recognition as a sovereign country in the world. I respect the neo-left amateur historians for their efforts to put forth new facts in order to enrich our history approaching independence (Fahmi Reza, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Farish A Noor etc.). However, I cannot, in conscious and rational mind, accept their conclusion of forming an alternative view of history (and to them, alternative=truth), of Chin Peng and the Communists are legitimate fighters for independence, and current hatred for UMNO-BN today is biasly projected to the past and our forefathers were ridiculed as puppets for the British imperial-capitalists.
Now, to be fair, the British did wrong in banning the leftist, radical movements who were legitimately nationalist in nature. I'll give the leftists that. No historian would deny that. However, in Fahmi Reza's movie 10 tahun Sebelum Merdeka, it was projected as if the so-called elitist UMNO party pandered to British rule and was handed independence on a silver platter without any blood spilled. In my view, UMNO did demand for independence. But first and foremost, UMNO is a Malay nationalist party. One must first understand the feeling of nationalism among the Malays in 1946. They took it one step at a time. They fought on the platform of Malay nationalism, calling for Malays to have a sound basis in economy, in politics, in administration, in education of women, in education in general. Demand for political consciousness among the locals, and I mean proper consciousness, not a mob, was necessary before independence could be demanded. A similar view of gaining power for one's own community was also espoused by Malcolm X in his call for Black nationalism in the USA in 1965.
It is quite unfair that current neo-leftist history dilettantes, in their hatred for UMNO, push all of this aside and embrace the left-wing 'fighters', and put them in the same group as the Communist terrorists (yes, the communists used terror methods. They killed Malays in kampungs for 'working' with the Japanese; they used the race card and forced the Chinese to supply them in the jungles--even as they were barely surviving on monthly rations; yeah, nice way of fighting for the 'golongan marhaen', Chin Peng.)
One view that got on my nerve, admittedly, is one that states Malaysia as not having true independence because 'blood was not spilled, unlike real independent countries.' Clearly, this statement, coming from the youth of this country, is quite disturbing, not least because it makes one recall the worship and adoration of war deities of old, spilling blood and sacrificing to appease the angry ones. But was blood really not spilled? Not against the British, but certainly against the Communist terrorists. The communists were responsible for the most atrocious crimes against the Malayan citizens at the time, most infamous being the cowardly assault on Bukit Kepong Police Station in Muar in 1950, rightly called the Malayan Alamo (Clearly, this argument could only work if people accepted the crimes of the Malayan Communist Party. However, since most followers of alternative history choose to whitewash Communist history, this argument might get us nowhere).
So let us move to the second and most important question of mine. Is independence by diplomacy really that bad? Did the Malayan delegates to London really went there for a nice trip, to have independence given tothem while they all sip wine and eat steak? Of course, it didn't happen that way. The forefathers did have to prove to the British that the races can work together, and this resulted in the election of 1955 (the multi-racial coalition of the Alliance of UMNO-MCA-MIC, with other equally multi-racial parties, such as Parti Negara and the Labour Party. Only PAS was mono-racial in nature). But diplomacy was not thrown out of the window, as some today would like our independence to have happened: a la trigger-happy rednecks.
If one looks at our neighbour Indonesia, who is so proud that they achieved independence through a bloody revolution, they never outrule diplomacy too. As the bloody revolution rages on, Haji Agus Salim, the Grand Old Man of Indonesia, went on a mission to Western countries as well as Asian countries to recognise Indonesian independence and sovereignty. This worked quite well to convince the US and Britain to change their stance of recognising Dutch rule over the islands. You can;t be independent without recognition from another sovereign state. Indonesia got it through diplomacy, and Malaysia got it through diplomacy.
So if Malaysia could gain independence through peace and diplomacy, and the ability to receive global recognition, then it's all good to me. Ok, I am done with my views here. I do not seek for people to agree with me.
There's a part 2: my views on on the annoying clarion call of 'Are we really independent?' that always comes out of the mouths of the religious folks.
Happy Independence Day, people.
Aku hargai pandangan kamu pasal sejarah perjuangan kemerdekaan negara kita, tapi tak berapa adil untuk kamu menilai perspektif sejarah yang aku ketengahkan hanya sebagai "hatred for UMNO-BN".
ReplyDeleteSebagai student sejarah, aku pasti kamu bisa mengerti bahawa tiada satu versi sejarah yang absolute dan objektif. Sejarah itu subjektif yang tidak statik. Yang wujud hanyalah perspektif. Kita berdua bisa melihat fakta sejarah yang sama tetapi capai conclusion yang berlainan, bergantung kepada perspektif yang kita masing2 ambil.
10 Tahun Sebelum Merdeka mengetengahkan perspektif mereka yang berada di aliran kiri politik pada zaman itu, in their own words. Satu bentuk oral history naratif perjuangan kemerdekaan yang mereka lalui. Satu perspektif yang tercicir dari naratif "rasmi" perjuangan kemerdekaan negara kita.
Sudah dijangka pertembungan dua perspektif berbeza ini akan mencetus satu dialektika yang bisa menyebabkan sesetengah individu untuk memilih satu conclusion yang nampak "bias" terhadap sesuatu pihak. Ini tidak bisa dielakkan kerana masalah kebanyakan individu yang masih melihat dunia sebagai "black-and-white", hanya melihat ada SATU versi "truth".
The point is, each individual is entitled to his/her own opinions and conclusions pasal sejarah. Hanya bila kita diketengahkan dengan pelbagai sudut perspektif baru kita bisa menjadi lebih kritis untuk membuat penilaian yang lebih baik. And i'm glad you put in your two-cents on the matter supaya sejarah tidak statik, sentiasa dinamik dan bisa terus "hidup" dengan dialog yang lebih segar dari generasi muda!
I think it's unfair to lump RPK together with Fahmi Reza and Farish Noor. First, I think few M'sians would consider RPK a historian, more like a blogger/activist. Secondly, Fahmi Reza and Farish Noor declared their sources in their research, unlike RPK who likes to rely on anonymous sources in his articles. So personally, I think it's an intellectual insult to lump both of them together with RPK.
ReplyDeleteAnd this brings me to my second point, what Farish and Fahmi have been consistently trying to do is to present another perspective of history that the people in power (not necessary just BN/Umno but any other authorities) have tried to ignore/erase. That the history of the left-wing movement in Malaysia is more complicated and diverse that what is currently being taught in "official" history. They're like the Howard Zinn of Malaysia (personal opinion).
Yes, they might be critical of BN, but I don't think that naturally or logically equate hatred. It's important to make the distinction between both.
I'm posting this obviously because I hold Fahmi and Farish in higher regard than RPK. =P
cheers
Dear Pei Ling,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response and opinion. Now I am going to post mine.
On the idea that few Malaysians would consider RPK an historian: yes, few do think of him as a historian. I would prefer the term God. Because that is what people consider him to be. Considering the current political climate in Malaysia (with the rise of Pakatan Rakyat), any view aired by Raja Petra would have been considered the gospel truth, regardless of whatever nonsense he posts on his blog. He has made some comments regarding history, in his amateurish role, belittling other historians (people who have taken history as a serious discipline, having their PhDs scrutinised thoroughly by other experts), which I think is quite disrespectful towards history as a proper discipline.
Refer: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/15392/84
The 127 comments there were definitely anti-UMNO, even anti-Malay in some instances, so I do not consider myself mistaken when I conclude his historical views (pro-Left Wing and Communist) to be political in nature, and people would swallow them, hook, line and sinker, beucae of RPK's status as a 'god'. This is what I am trying to highlight. If Farish Noor, in his book, What Your Teachers Didn't Tell You, would accuse the government of manipulating history for their own interests, then the same accusation could be levelled at Raja Petra as well.
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteI do not consider it a mistake on my part to 'lump' them together. I never compared them based on their works, but on their standing as 'neo-left amateur historians'. None of them, it must be stated, have degrees in history, or even attended any classes studying the discipline, so they cannot in any way be considered historians in a professional sense.
This in itself would not disqualify them of talking about history (true, Farish Noor's adherence to scientific methods of studying history, as Fahmi Reza, should be lauded, I will give them that), but they should, in any case, allow their works to be scrutinised by history students and historians, who might not agree with them. The fact that people actually consider their works to be more authoritative than the professional and certified PhDs of historians from UM, UKM, USM, and accusations levelled at our historians as being barua UMNO etc., is most disturbing, in my mind.
It is not an intellectual insult, but a statement of fact.
Second, while I admit Farish Noor and Fahmi Reza's role in highlighting the struggle of the left-wing movements, it is unfair to accuse the government of purposely ignoring/erasing the role of left-wing movements. Such an accusation is unwarranted in any sense. The government is political in nature, so it is natural that they highlight their own role in fighting for the independence of this country. Why would any party admit a rival's role in any struggle? That would be politically stupid, and I would not blame the government for doing something that is natural.
The role of highlighting the struggle for independence in an honest manner (whether it comes from left-wing or right-wing) does not belong with the government, but with the historians. And the people themselves. And the reason why people are talking about left-wing movements today is because there are more material today. Simple as that. The government has no need to 'erase/hide' history when historians themselves are not researching on the left-wing movements, thus contributing less material for school textbooks (our "official" history). If people post-Reformasi would now research on the diversity of the left-wing movement, fine and dandy, but it should not automatically cancel out the researches of older historians, and deny credit where it is due: the left-wing faltered in 1948; UMNO continued the struggle and got the job done in 1957. I have yet to see any left-wing supporter admit to this fact--which justifies my conclusion that the history of left-wing movement has been hijacked for political, anti-UMNO-BN purposes.
On a personal note, I respect Farish Noor for his works, From Majapahit to Putrajaya and Teh Other Malaysia. However, it has diminished considerably with What Your Teacher Didn't Tell You. I find that work to be a most disservice to history that people would most likely be turned off by it. I could not help but feel a certain air of arrogance and pretentiousness in this book, with its pretense of bringing history to the masses while using bombastic words, not much of a teacher but a show-off, I feel. Such is the bane of postmodernism in the social sciences, where they use vague terms, big words and a sprinkle of French to project a false intellectual air and elevate knowledge to an above-human level (refer to this succint critique of postmodernism--Postmodernism Disrobed, by Richard Dawkins, in A Devil's Chaplain).
Again, I appreciate your views. If my arguments do not convince you, then it is fine. I respect your views, and I expect respect for my views in return.
Hi Ruzaini
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't argue with you about RPK, because obviously we're on the same page about him. =D
But on having a professional degree to be considered credible, I'll have to dispute that. Look at Khoo Kay Kim, he may have all the degrees and academic prestige, but did he not choose to ignore the student movement's history in his book about UM history? Was he objective? No (at least personally I don't think so). Was he professional? Maybe according to people from your "professional" discipline.
But from my rakyat/student point of view, by excluding that part/perspective of history, it actually dis-empowered our current students. Fortunately Fahmi Reza did what he could to reclaim that part of our history. (Personal opinion again) History should served to inform the public (not just people in power) to make informed decisions about their present and future. Otherwise, it's useless, just a bunch of facts. It maybe disturbing that many consider Fahmi & Farish to be more credible than "professional" historians, then the question would be, why? Was it not because our "professional" historians have failed to present history in a more comprehensive way in the first place? Why weren't they bother with the left-wing movement before these two and others came along? (Btw, I do think they're open to others challenging their work)
As for the argument that it's "natural" for the govt or ruling politicians to behave that way. I must dispute that lah. It's almost similar to expecting politicians to be corrupt. What's stopping the Alliance/BN politicians from being fair to their losers (albeit also rivals) in history? It's not natural, in fact I would consider it a choice they consciously make, and I think the rakyat, not just the historians, have the right to hold them accountable and evaluate them based on these choices they consciously make. They should be helping to shape honest, constructive debate/discourse about our history instead of just trying to shape it in their favour. Because it's crucial to nation-building too. I expect those (in power or opposition) who claim to serve and represent the people's interest to be fair and ethical even to their opponents, and to put the people's interests ahead of theirs. Call me idealistic, but I absolutely refused to budge on this point. In fact, I would even argue that in the long-term, this would serve the people in power's own interest because people would respect them for their ethical and fair conduct, no?
So if we go along that line, it's BN/Umno's own doing, not Farish or Fahmi's, that people are criticising them for picking and perpetuating a version of history to their liking?
On other points, if I didn't refute, then I probably agree with you (esp on the point that people shouldn't engage on BN/Umno-bashing blindly). =D Haven't read Farish's What Your Teacher didn't Tell You even though I've bought it, but if what you say is true, then it would have been a waste of my money it seems. I hate big words =(
Anyway, agree with you that it's perfectly fine to agree to disagree, just love the exchange of ideas. And great to find someone else who's critical of RPK too.
cheers